 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Church joins real world
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 31 Aug 14 - 12:57 AM *peeking in.................slipping away back to the new thread* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 30 Aug 14 - 06:22 PM Brendan. You ask me not to mock you, but when a person with the benefit of education and books, a few hundred years of scientific discovery and shared experience prefaces such debate with "I believe in God," we are not having the same debate. Hey Joe! You describe me to a T! I don't see it as negative though. Religion fucks up vulnerable people. Not everyone has your intellect and ability to use faith rather than be captured by it. Worse still, those in control of organised religion prefer the petes of this world rather than the Joes. At the end of the day, I can do more than smile and patronise when people say they believe in magic and expect me to respect it in the same way I may respect a differing political view. Fundamentally, that's it. Not faith as a comfort blanket or moral compass, not even a sense of belonging and comradeship. But an elephant in the room based on magic and supernatural beings. Asking rational people to respect such nonsense at any intellectual level is far more insulting than any god botherer, imaginary friend or other derogatory term I might use. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:39 PM Pete, I can't see how you think Jesus regarded Jonah as "real." Where do you get that impression? And then, of course, what do you define as "real"? In this day and age, we have a vastly different standard of "historicity" than that of ancient times. Philosophies are different, languages are different, methods of collecting information are different, everything is different. Does this mean that ancient writings are unreliable, and of no value to us because they do not meet modern standards? Are Homer and Virgil, the Greek and Roman and Egyptian and Celtic mythologies, the Histories of Josephus and Tacitus, all false and misleading? Certainly not. These ancient writings are what they are. If they are read in the spirit the authors intended, they are of infinite value. And, though they maybe in part fictional, they are of extraordinary historical value. I think, my friends, that the line between fact and fiction may not be as clearly defined as we think it to be. Oftentimes, fiction may be a better conveyor of truth, than can be done by what we consider to be "fact." Now, the absolutists on both ends of the discussion, will never understand this. The religious absolutists, or fundamentalists, will tell you that their scriptures (and only their scriptures) are incontrovertibly true from all perspectives, and therefore must be binding for all the world according to their most simplistic interpretation (although these fundamentalists may deny even the possibility of "interpretation"). And the atheistic absolutists will argue that these documents (particularly the ancient documents of their target groups) and incontrovertibly false and intended to deceive and control people - and thus they must be suppressed so they can do no further damage. I don't think there's much value on either extreme of the discussion, but I do think there is great value in learning to study ancient documents, especially ancient sacred documents with a critical eye. We need to understand historical context, literary forms, the philosophies of the times, and the original intent of the authors. And in our critical study of ancient documents, we must always keep in mind that our interpretation may be wrong or only partially correct; so we must be open to alternate interpretations and perhaps a wide spectrum of interpretations in some circumstances. But there are no absolutes in the study of ancient writings. If you think your understanding is absolutely correct, then I can tell you with certainty that you are absolutely wrong. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: MGM·Lion Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:33 PM Interesting extract, Jim. I cannot make out what Ms Riches & her co-objectors meant by this:- 'The morning-after pill was also, in their eyes, a special horror because it changed "the definition of the moment when human life starts from fertilisation to implantation"' Can anyone explain, please, what they meant by this? In what sense do they use "implantation". ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:58 PM Don't really want to be part of this for fear of being struck down by divine lightning, but there's a bit of a to-ing and fro-ing going on in Ireland concerning pregnancy termination, following a sixteen year old having been raped, made pregnant, becoming suicidal, going on hunger strike, forcibly hydrated and finally having a caesarean section forced on her. The grossly misnamed 'Pro-Lifers' are out in force demanding that that the meagre rights recently been grudgingly given to women following the death of Savita Halappanavar in 1912 after having been refused a life-saving operation because "Ireland is a catholic country, be removed frm the statute books. This fascinating article by Fintan O'Toole explains the history of how refusal to allow pregnancy termination first became part of the Irish Constitution. O'Toole is one of ireland's leading and most respected journalists and political commentators. Jim Carroll WHY IRELAND NEVER FACED UP TO THE ISSUE OF ABORTION Fintan O'Toole, Irish Times, 26.8.14 The most successful single issue movement in the history of the State, the Pro-Life Amendment Campaign (PLAC), was established in January 1981 by 13 organisations: the Congress of Catholic Secondary School Parents'Associations; the Irish Catholic Doctors' Guild; the Guild of Catholic Nurses; the Guild of Catholic Pharmacists: the Catholic Young Man's Society; The Thomas More Society; The Irish Pro-Life Movement; the National Association of the Ovulation Method ("natural" contraception endorsed by the Catholic Church); the Council of Social Concern (COSC); the Irish Responsible Society; the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children; the St Joseph's Young Priests Society (young Catholic priests, that is); and the Christian Brothers Schools Parent's Federation: The initial meeting was chaired by the head of the 14th organisation that was immensely influential on the campaign behind the scenes, the secretive, all-male brotherhood the Order of the Knights of Columbanus. These are the bodies that made Ireland unique in the democratic world in having a ban on abortion in its Constitution. In spite of a great deal of revisionism, their sectarian character is obvious: 10 of these bodies were explicitly and exclusively Catholic. The other four were almost entirely made up of conservative Catholic activists. (By contrast, all Irish Protestant churches opposed the amendment.) For all of these groups, abortion was just one front in a wider religious war. AMENDMENT The meeting that established PLAC was called by John O'Reilly, described in Tom Hesketh's fine history of the amendment (written from a pro-amendment point of view), The Second Partitioning of Ireland, as "perhaps the main instigator of PLAC". He was vice-chairman of COSC and secretary arid co-founder of the Irish Responsible Society. He seems to have been the person who first conceived the idea of an anti-abortion constitutional amendment, as far back as 1974. O'Reilly generally kept a low profile but he broke the surface in an extraordinary court case. In 1973, he got his daughters, aged 10 and 9, to write to the Irish family Planning Association in Dublin, posing as adults, enclosing money and asking for condoms and spermicide. He then succeeded in having criminal charges brought against the IFPA. John O'Reilly explicitly regarded a successful anti-abortion amendment as a prelude to action against contraception and "illegitimacy": "The campaign for a pro-life amendment would enjoy widespread support now and the success of the campaign would serve to halt the permis¬sive tide in other areas." For O'Reilly "pro-life" was the opposite of "anti-life", a term which incorporated the availability of contraception and (weirdly) the rising number of babies born out of wedlock. But COSC's agenda was wide: its first attack was on the formation of a multi-denominational primary school in Dalkey in 1976. Its member organisations, such as the League of Decency, cut their teeth in campaigns against "dirty" TV shows, family planning clinics and the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. The Irish Responsible Society, of which five key PLAC leaders were members, was the Irish branch of the group led by the English right-wing Catholic activist Valerie Riches (now a papal dame). For Riches, the degeneration of society through sexual permissiveness was a conspiracy driven by International Planned Parenthood. She and her Irish followers were especially obsessed with the dangers of sex education, especially that which "emphasises that homosexual activity is normal and natural". The morning-after pill was also, in their eyes, a special horror because it changed "the definition of the moment when human life starts from fertilisation to implantation". All of this conjured an apocalyptic vision: "the issue at stake concerns the very fabric of society, the very future of the human race." HEADQUARTERS Riches warned a meeting at the Knights of Columbanus headquarters in Dublin in 1980 of an ascending scale of moral depravity from contraception to abortion to homosexuality. The first action of her Irish followers was to campaign against a small state grant to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. Its next campaign was against the removal of the stigma of illegitimacy from children born out of wedlock. This is the ideology - sectarian, paranoid, apocalyptic - that gave us the Eighth Amendment. It was utterly dismissive of any qualifications to its absolutist views and saw all "sob stories" as liberal conspiracies. Bernadette Bonar, a leading PLAC and Responsible Society figure, warned of pro-abortion conspirators turning up at a TD's clinics: "seemingly respectable little women giving him sob stories about 12-year-olds being raped." Loretto Browne, also a prominent PLAC and Responsible Society leader, told me in 1982 that rape very seldom results in pregnancy because "men that go in for rape are usually not fertile, they tend a be impotent". She pointed, moreover, to the rising cambers of alleged homosexuals in Ireland as further evidence of conspiracy: "By natural law we couldn't have that many misfits... there couldn't be that any physically deformed people in society." These were the people who created the Irish abortion regime. Most of them are long gone from the public stage - COSC and the Irish Responsible Society no longer exist. Their world view is marginal. But their legacy abides for women not born when it was in its pomp. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: BrendanB Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:17 PM No Musket, I am not confusing verbal violence with exasperation. All you have on a forum such as this is words. You favour the aggressive and the scatological. When I read some of your posts I am alienated even though I may agree with your premise. Some of your posts read like naked hatred of people who have a religious faith. I suspect that you will deny that but your words undermine any such disclaimer. I have a profound distrust of fundamentalism, if for no other reason than it denies the exercise of intellect. And yet I believe in God. This is not a choice, it just is. I struggle to align what I cannot help but believe with what my intellect leads me to know to be true. The Bible is an inspiration but not inerrant. It is not history. It is more a challenge which demands that one engages with it without accepting it as incontrovertible. My spiritual life is essentially a struggle; certainty must be nice but I don't have it. I don't claim to know how others should live their lives, I just wish them well. Nor do I seek to impose my beliefs on anyone else. You sit in judgement on others. You may take exception to that statement but some of your posts read very much like that. No one has all the answers, not even you. So mock away Musket, mock away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:09 PM it is hardly worth replying to assertions and suchlike, and as bill is trying to consolidate on to new thread that may be just as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:01 AM Methinks Brendan confuses "verbally violent" with exasperation. In reality, pete is perhaps the most insulting poster on such threads. He treats the whole genre of discovery and the benefits to society it gives with contempt. Mind you, he does agree with me over the hypocrisy of boutique Christians, although he hasn't worked out that I see no problem with pick n mix. After all, if intelligent people had to believe in magic as part of their faith, that'd be a few thousand potential bingo halls in the UK alone.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:07 PM By the way, that radio station is still going. But now it carries Rush Limbaugh! (Where did I put that wastebasket. . . ?) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 29 Aug 14 - 03:01 PM One of the radio stations I worked in in the 1970s was a classical music station. Great job! Announce classical music records, read a little blurb about the music or composer, then sit back with my feet propped up with a cuppa coffee in my hand and listen to music I really like. Long cuts between records. And I got paid well for this! Then, the owner sold the station and a couple of yahoos bought it. They decided to broadcast canned religion. Then, my job was to tape these self-appointed preachers who would come in, tape a six minute sermon, then spend the rest of the half-hour begging for money to keep their good works going, and/or support their missionary work in Africa. But these clowns were failed used car salesmen who decided to make themselves a prophet! They didn't do any good works, nor did their church have missionaries in Africa. In fact, they didn't even have a church!! After about two weeks of this, I got tired of up-chucking in the wastebasket and I quit! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: BrendanB Date: 29 Aug 14 - 02:15 PM Yes Don, you are - and heaven knows you have tried hard. This forum is a refuge for fundamentalists, Christian and otherwise. There is nothing you or anyone can say to which they will listen. If they say you are a bigot then that cannot be gainsaid. If they say they are right then anyone who disagrees does not know what they are talking about. The obvious response is to kick the whole Mudcat thing into touch, but I find myself drawn back by a morbid curiosity and the desire to see how much intolerance, intemperance and vituperation can be poured out by those who see themselves as models of reasonableness and empathy. Much as Pete's intransigent refusal to answer uncomfortable questions may be infuriating he is probably harmless, he is certainly a lot less aggressive and verbally violent than some of our rational apostles of logic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 29 Aug 14 - 01:56 PM Your last comment Don. You realise that is usually the point where pete and his mates give a self satisfied smirk and say they have won? I just love the idea he reckons Saint Joe isn't a true Christian. Whilst feeling a sense of empathic hurt for Joe and every other rational person who enjoys the belonging and comfort of their faith, it serves to demonstrate the irrelevance of those within churches, mosques and temples who wish to impose their superstition on others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 29 Aug 14 - 01:48 PM Pete, I'm not asking you not to believe in God. I am not an atheist, I would qualify as an agnostic. I believe that it's possible that there is a Supreme Being, but I don't know for sure. Nor does anybody else. I do go to church because there are a lot of nice people in that church and they don't "Jesus-talk" you until you want to run screaming. They do a lot of good work in the community (believing that actions speak louder than words), which is one of the reasons I go there. But the Creation story as told in the Bible is a myth. No rational person can seriously believe that all of this could possibly have happened in 6,000 years. Specifically, since October 23, 4004 B.C., which is what some Creationist given to adding up the life-spans of people like Methuselah (!!) came up with. Pure speculation based on mythology! Anyone who understands the nature of the Cosmos as it really exists—and the development of life as it really happened—can take Creationists with anything other than either disgust or humor. The Bible has some very good passages in it, well worth heeding. But the idea that it is "the inerrant Word of God" is simply ludicrous. I know too much about the Bible to believe that it could possibly be the "inerrant Word of God." (What's the use? I'm wasting my time.) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 29 Aug 14 - 10:37 AM Perhaps Jesus didn't have the advantage of an enquiring cynical mind. There again, he didn't have advantage of existing. Sure, someone questioned the comfortable local leaders under occupation and got executed for his sins. He or they may even have a few conjuring tricks up their sleeve but they were born like you and me , after their parents got fruity one night. They had no powers other than which could be described by physics. There again pete, you don't have to believe to be a Christian, though it helps to be a Christian to believe. I didn't say I don't like your posts. I merely said your delusion is dangerous to disturbed and vulnerable people. Your arrogant dismissal of reality at a level you cannot comprehend is fascinating. The frustration of some other contributors is their problem. I just remain astounded that someone can walk, talk, use an iPad and take fairy stories at face value all at the same time. If you have to believe fantasy, at least Tolkien wrote a consistent story with no contradictions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:46 AM joe, if Jesus seemed to regard Jonah as real, I see no reason to mistrust its historicity. I would suppose, you believe the bible, but with lots of qualifications. I tend to agree with muskets opinion on pick and choose , though I guess its between you and your maker, rather than mine or muskets opinion. don firth...I don't see that happening ,but just supposing your arguments did persuade me, I guess I would still believe in some kind of god, as I cant imagine having enough faith to be a genuine complete atheist. I doubt it would make a better person of me though. musket....don't like my posts ?..simples...don't read em then ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 29 Aug 14 - 09:24 AM "Be careful then... Proverbs 13:3 will get ya!" Thanks Bill! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Aug 14 - 04:43 AM Pete, I see the Book of Jonah as a fable that teaches many wonderful lessons, and I think it's one of the most powerful books in the Bible. But I think it is a fable, a fictional story meant to teach a lesson. Same with the Book of Esther. Same with Genesis. So, do I "believe the Bible," or not? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 29 Aug 14 - 12:44 AM pete, you try to laugh off what I said. But you avoid answer it. Afraid to face the implications? Let's put it this way: if you had to chose between your faith in God and your faith in the Bible--what would you chose? (Ladies and gentlemen, we are now about to see some tap dancing that will make Fred Astaire look downright clumsy!) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:09 PM "I have lost a much longer post." Thank your wife for us eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 28 Aug 14 - 01:06 PM No musket, I was cut off by wife using I pad to photo ice bucket thingy. I then continued and I have lost a much longer post. But to finish that sentence ....funny old world!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:24 PM Want me to finish to for you pete? You weren't saying "fuck you" perchance? I'm sure Don won't be offended. It'd a bit like blasphemy being a victimless crime. After all pete, you offend at the most base level whenever you scoff at reality. Nice to know even delusion has it's human side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars Date: 28 Aug 14 - 12:16 PM Brendan's post seems to contain little of any substance to answer, and I don't intend to stoop to accusations and insults, though of course the mere fact of my disagreement is counted as offensive by the avid evolutionists here. Don firth thinks I,m blasphemous because I believe the bible.........fu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 28 Aug 14 - 10:32 AM Be careful then... Proverbs 13:3 will get ya! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 28 Aug 14 - 10:12 AM "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean." Romans 14:14." Lordy, I've never heard that one. Difficult to know exactly where to start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 28 Aug 14 - 09:38 AM Eyup Rookery. This is me. I think, though the bugger would deny it, above is Martin. Fair comment all the same. (Musket moves in mysterious ways.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 28 Aug 14 - 03:41 AM You know Bill, it's about time the religion PR and marketing department removed that Romans sentence from the verse. It's proof if ever you need it that those who claim to have read the bible and still claim to be impressed to the point of believing it missed the April Fool bit hidden in the text.... The other night at a folk club, someone sang Les Barker's excellent "Jehovah's Witness at the door" and I quote two brilliant lines of the song; "Jehovah's Witness on the step, Jesus wants you for a rep" and "Mathew Mark Luke and John, On and on and on and on" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 26 Aug 14 - 01:44 PM "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean." Romans 14:14 Now THAT can open some interesting discussions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: BrendanB Date: 26 Aug 14 - 07:07 AM Stu, you are right to take me to task for expressing myself in a lazy way. The point I was trying to make is that pfssl sees unprovable belief as fact and suggests that science functions in the same way. Obviously facts as you determine them are your business but so too (one hopes) is interpretation, a willingness to learn and an open minded approach - essentially the drive to understand and explain. Your facts are those supported by rigorous examination, observation and testing. The opposite to those espoused by YECs. I think if you re-read my previous post that meaning and intention can be discerned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 26 Aug 14 - 04:28 AM " But Peter said: "Not at all, Lord, because never have I eaten anything defiled and unclean." He's never stopped by our local kebab shop then. "Scientists do not talk about facts" To the tune of "O Jesus I have promised": Here's another pile of utter bollocks from someone who knows nowt either that or he's trolling and mucking us about. Quantification, measurements, observations and testing, These are what we work with when science is being done. O yes facts are our business, so try to get yours right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 26 Aug 14 - 02:35 AM On that basis, how about a third testament that says "Behold! The Hubble Telescope and the book "How to teach quantum mechanics to your dog." Everybody of every faith, gender, colour, origin and sexual orientation has, by my name, the right to the exact same fruits of their labour and equality of access to my house and all that stuff. Believing I am anything more than a comfort blanket for those who have issues with reality is optional. Oh, and stop mutilating your children's genitals whilst you are at it. And you know all those priceless works of arts in that church in Rome? Think what you could be doing for people with all that money instead. And when Musket wants to buy a washer for a leaking tap after 4,00pm on a Sunday, make sure the bleeding shops are open. People want work and you are stopping them in my name, yet you get snotty when Ishmael wants an hour off for prayers on a Friday." I'd write it myself for a fee, but my prose couldn't match the historically interesting King James text. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: MGM·Lion Date: 26 Aug 14 - 01:36 AM "As a matter of interest, do you adhere to the dietary laws as detailed in the Old Testament?" asks Brendan of Pete 7*. In fact, these teachings and rules were superseded on more than one occasion in the New Testament by God or Jesus declaring that those creatures had been cleansed after all; e.g. -- (Acts 10:9-16) . . .The next day as they were pursuing their journey and were approaching the city, Peter went up to the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 But he became very hungry and wanted to eat. While they were preparing, he fell into a trance 11 and beheld heaven opened and some sort of vessel descending like a great linen sheet being let down by its four extremities upon the earth; 12 and in it there were all sorts of four-footed creatures and creeping things of the earth and birds of heaven. 13 And a voice came to him: "Rise, Peter, slaughter and eat!" 14 But Peter said: "Not at all, Lord, because never have I eaten anything defiled and unclean." 15 And the voice [spoke] again to him, the second time: "You stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed." 16 This occurred a third time, and immediately the vessel was taken up into heaven. ... so not really a fair & applicable question. I am of Brendan's opinion re the rest of his post, mind! ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 25 Aug 14 - 04:35 PM In religion in general, there are 'many' in almost every possible conceptual variation. I personally know..or have known .. those whose Christian stance is rock-hard fundamentalist, or some formal version of Ethical Humanist... and everything in between. I know Baptists, Catholics, Jews, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Quakers, Unitarians, Methodists (I used to BE one as a child)... and several other denominations less frequently. (I'm not sure if I know any Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses personally, but they have come to my door and we have had interesting discussions). I am not personally acquainted with all the strata in every denomination, but I have attended services in all those named except Jewish. It is culturally and historically fascinating to share in the emotion of those who have religious beliefs, if not in the actual details & belief itself. I find that I can generally respect their beliefs while not accepting the theology of their basic system.... as long as they 'try' to refrain from direct proselytizing and inserting aspects of doctrine into the educational system & political arena. (I say 'try' because many religious groups include 'witnessing' and missions and exhortations to join as fundamental precepts. IF one believes that a God ordered us to "become fishers of men", then it's hard to avoid.) This creates a real conflict in the US, where the Constitution "Prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, (or) impeding the free exercise of religion," If "free exercise" means exactly what it says, some feel that attempting to further & install that religion is allowed. If 'not establishing' means what it says, then those attempts are illegal... and away we go! In the US, those parts of the 1st Amendment are scrupulously obeyed or cheerfully avoided, depending on demographics, politics and $$$$$. I am perfectly willing to turn the management of everything over to "philosopher kings",,, as long as *I* get to choose the philosophic theories.... *wry smile* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Ed T Date: 25 Aug 14 - 03:40 PM ""many people are too sophisticated these days to believe in nonsense, however historically acceptable."" "Many" in that statement in no way negates reality that a significant number still believe in a god, of one type or another. This should not be confused with those attending church of an organized religion on a regular basis.In addition, western Europe and North America is only a fragment of the worlds population. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 25 Aug 14 - 03:38 PM If one believes in God, it is not at all inconsistent to regard the Bible as exactly what it is: a book of myth and metaphor written, not by God, but by men living in tribal societies, speculating on how they thought it might have all come about. The Bible is NOT a scientific treatise. This view of the Creation account in the Bible in no way denigrates God. In fact, if one looks at the mind-boggling pictures of the Universe taken with the Hubble and other orbiting telescopes, the magnitude of the Cosmos makes the idea the ALL THIS was created in a mere six days simply silly! And a Being who could have created this at all (the work of some 13.5 billion years at least) must be Powerful indeed! Through these photographs, one can get a hint of the actual power of an Entity who could create all this! BEHOLD! It denigrates the concept of God to persist in the six day, 6,000 year ago myth. And this strikes me as something very close to blasphemy. I would warn Creationists to have a care. Rather than an omniscient, omnipotent Deity, their concept attempts to reduce God to the status of a mere wand-waving wizard! As I say--have a care! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 25 Aug 14 - 02:19 PM My original draft referred to the Humpty Dumpty quote.... What is interesting is that I have said time and time again that pete is a true Christian because he truly believes and doesn't let intelligence get in the way, or ignore the more ludicrous embarrassing bits. Come to think of it, it is usually the vulnerable, gullible and low intelligence poor buggers who are captured and brain washed by irresponsible people for whom perpetuating superstition is in their more material interest. It pisses off church leaders that many people are too sophisticated these days to believe in nonsense, however historically acceptable. You know, thats how superstition is perpetuated. My comments above, which I happily stand by, do sound a bit pompous, reading them. Too many people would feel ashamed if society dropped indulging fairy stories. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:42 PM Musket asks if it isn't hypocrisy.. of course it is for many.... but for others it is simply not bothering to look directly at the things that Don Firth refers to. If you skim past awkward passages and allow your 'expert' theologians to 'interpret' them and assure you they are not important, *shrug* "'When I |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:14 PM gee..I'm late... BrendanB said a lot of what I would. "when discussing the truth or otherwise of a position, i am assuming that the specifics of the arguments need to be addressed." Indeed.. but not having all possible specifics does not invalidate the basic argument! "you, yourself, refuse the claims of experts...because they are creationist." I do not do any such thing. In so far as anyone who has the **credentials** of 'expert', that is, has gone to school, received a degree, read the literature and done extended field work... and then interprets all that experience and 'expertise' thru the filter of 'creationism', he is not acting AS a scientist and as an expert. I have no problems with someone believing that a God created everything... but I certainly have problems with him denying enormous quantities of interlocking data from multiple sciences which have shown undeniable evidence of HOW that god did it... or how He intended it to proceed. "evolutionists themselves have a bottom line, non negotiables." Am I saying something here I swore I would not repeat? Here goes... The only "bottom line" science has is to go where the evidence leads! If some details are overlooked, and some theories must be reevaluated because of new data, that is part of the game. If new discoveries in paleontology indicate that specimen X is more closely related to specimen Y than as previously thought, to specimen Z, then that is plugged in and investigated. Nothing about that necessarily contradicts the basic evidence of general age and composition of any of the specimens. Any 'expert' who begins with a rule that "the Earth is only X years old and humans have a direct linage from Adam & Eve exemplifies the paradigm of non negotiable! and..ummm... "widespread acceptance of biblical creation seems unlikely." Why would you suppose that is? If you find a statue of an elf in your garden, and your neighbor tells you that his grandfather told him that such things happen because real elves make them in secret workshops and sneak them in in dark of night......yet, a store in town sells elf statues and several other people in town have elf statues that they bought.... who do you believe? Real elves favoring you with a statue is in many ways a more interesting story...but.... ☺ Add in a book your neighbor has telling of elf statues going back for thousands of years and of some of them coming to life and performing miracles, and the story becomes even more interesting. (Yes, Pete, I know you will dismiss my metaphor as irrelevant... but there may be 'experts' who will believe such a story and assert that carbon dating of YOUR statue is flawed, and those in the store are just bad imitations of REAL elf-produced items.... and so forth...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:13 PM Without purposely upsetting our more boutique Christians, isn't pick n mix a fundamental requirement of the hypocrisy surrounding a "Christian" stance? (I did try to word that less provocatively, but bugger it, say it as it is Musket...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Don Firth Date: 25 Aug 14 - 01:07 PM pete, you took issue with my post at 18 Aug 14 - 05:36 PM above, complaining that I was mocking you. Those are quotes from the Bible. And I'm asking you if you believe they are the inerrant word of God, as you have indicated you believe the Bible truly is. If you DO NOT believe these admonitions apply in a modern word, but DO believe in the creation myth as set forth in Genesis, then you ARE being carefully selective and need to justify WHY the Creation myth is the Word of God and the matter, for example, of selling a disobedient daughter into slavery (Exodus 12:7) is not. I'm still waiting for your answer. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: BrendanB Date: 25 Aug 14 - 12:23 PM Pfssl: 'Evolutionists themselves have a bottom line, non negotiables'. That is a lie. 'Consensus is the enemy of science, otherwise progress would not have been made'. That is gobbledegook. Scientists do not talk about facts, they do not have a faith position in their professional lives. They deal in hypotheses, theories, observation and evidence. Creationists are not experts in anything but an unprovable belief. They are not scientists, they do not go where the evidence takes them; they stay glued blindly to their belief, fingers in ears and effectively going 'na, na, na, I can't hear you', to anyone who asks them to look dispassionately at the evidence. Your own posts are overwhelming evidence of this. I have a religious faith, albeit one which you have sneered at in the past, and I have no difficulty in accepting evolution as part of God's plan. I have learnt from history that fundamentalism in religion is the enemy of humanity. Whether it is so-called Christians murdering medical staff who work in the field of abortion or so-called Muslims jihadists slaughtering those who do not accept their fascist, death loving belief. What do you think of Westboro baptist church? I don't know if you have a blind faith in the Bible and believe and live by every word in it, but if you do then you believe in treating others with appalling cruelty. If that is not the case how do you choose what to accept and what not to? It is disturbing to find someone who believes that humanity is incapable of progress and that morality can only be determined by a society that existed more than two thousand years ago. There are many people who are able to relate Christian teaching to today's world and are wise enough to recognise that the Bible is an inspirational work without seeing it as an inflexible, immovable template for living. As a matter of interest, do you adhere to the dietary laws as detailed in the Old Testament? I know some of this is thread drift but I am afraid I find a great deal of what you say insulting, offensive and obnoxious (and frequently ludicrous). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link. Date: 25 Aug 14 - 08:53 AM i did post yesterday, but the internet failed. bill. maybe my understanding of logical fallacies is not textbook, so i will explain....probably again....what i mean by it. when discussing the truth or otherwise of a position, i am assuming that the specifics of the arguments need to be addressed. it seems to me that you, and most of the skeptics here prefer to major on what most of the experts believe/say is fact. when the specifics are bypassed and the argument is experts and consensus, i see that as appeal to authority,and appeal to numbers. observations = you, yourself, refuse the claims of experts...because they are creationist. evolutionists themselves have a bottom line, non negotiables. consensus is the enemy of science. otherwise progress would not have been made. the consensus of most of history, in most of the world was creation. for all we know, the growing weight of evidence may yet turn the consensus away from darwinism....though widespread acceptance of biblical creation seems unlikely. so, we can discuss specifics ,.....or you might be telling me once again that this is the last time you are going to say this.....-grinning- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Ed T Date: 25 Aug 14 - 08:52 AM An odd story where a student was expelled from a school for what seems to be saying "bless you" after another student sneezed. Bless you |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Ed T Date: 25 Aug 14 - 05:49 AM An interesting article on science from tge Republic: science is not about certainity |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 25 Aug 14 - 02:56 AM Good luck You realise you will burn in hell? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 24 Aug 14 - 03:43 PM LOL... wow! Now I will work on Pete! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 24 Aug 14 - 03:40 PM You pointed out the error of my ways Bill, and I have taken note :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 24 Aug 14 - 11:56 AM I know, Stu. I am upset when MY knowledge about the basic forms of logic are disputed, misunderstood and distorted. Our basic difference seems to be about how we judge the intent and mindset of others. *shrug*... I just do not assume their error to be malicious or that my honesty is being questioned. It baffles me how so many can deny the basic obvious data... but there are reasons in culture & psychology that are really hard to sort out. As I just said to Pete, I am a bit fascinated by the debate. I have never had this degree of detailed discussion with a genuine follower of creationism before. Usually, Christian fundamentalists I speak to briefly get angry or bored or petulant and refuse to even talk to me. (I must reread Eric Hoffer's famous book "The True Believer" for some insight) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Stu Date: 24 Aug 14 - 11:26 AM "Slanted implies willful distortion." As I have said before Bill, to someone like me who is involved in paleontological research, this is insulting. Basically, my colleagues and I are being called liars. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Musket Date: 24 Aug 14 - 02:56 AM My faith isn't shoved down the throats of anyone pete. Although after the away win at Middlesborough yesterday, I am happily ramming it down the throats of any and all fans of the false prophet teams in The Championship. You don't need faith to observe and understand what is around you. Just eyes, ears, a modicum of understanding how to process and test your observations; And an open mind. Attended any book burnings lately? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Church joins real world From: Bill D Date: 23 Aug 14 - 11:20 PM Pete.."I fail to see why I am wrong to say that you were appealing to authority/numbers." and "...,having read some of the link, I find no reason to trust evolutionary readings of radio carbon data. " It is really hard to know where to go when you "fail to see" and "find no reason to trust", as the points you disagree with are crucial to my training and understanding of science. "..apart from the definition and example being slanted in favour of evolutionism " Slanted implies willful distortion. The link states "It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus." That is not 'slanted'.. it is a clear warning. It says nothing about the science itself, but about YOUR assertion that *I* am appealing to authority. I am not. The claims of experts are just that... the best conclusions that **experts** can come to, given the data. The experts are willing to alter their conclusions given better data... but creationists have decided ahead of time that any proposed data that conflicts with *their interpretation" of scripture must be wrong. THAT is appeal to authority... and the more so when the very source of the authority is itself in doubt! Keep on? It is educational for me to search the literature and follow your reasoning about these things and think very hard about how to answer & phrase my answers. IF we keep on, I think we ought to leave this thread and use it for reference and make one thread with a simple heading about our mutual concerns. (I know.. it is hard to keep the topic going when others decide to put their 2 cents in) Have you considered becoming a member? It is not a big deal, and it makes some things much easier. |
