Why Darwin Matters by misbehaven

This is nicely written. But I still don't see why someone can't be a scientist AND believe in God AND endorse evolution at the same time. In my view, it is utterly silly to compare God with astrology.

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/index1.html
Do you think the impulse to believe in God is the same as believing in astrology?

Yes, it's a similar foundation of magical superstitious thinking. And our need to be spiritual takes all forms. Given that traits vary in populations, it's natural that some people will gravitate toward New Age spiritualism and others toward conservative Christianity. Even secularists believe in all kinds of transcendent things, such as "mind." This is the Deepak Chopra school. He says, I don't believe that Christian conservative stuff, but the universe is intelligent, it's alive, it knows we're here. What? You're goofier than the Christians!

Here's a relatively new book called "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief " by Francis Collins, one of the guys who headed the Human Genome Project.

Quote:

... the book argues that belief in a transcendent, personal God—and even the possibility of an occasional miracle—can and should coexist with a scientific picture of the world that includes evolution. Addressing in turn fellow scientists and fellow believers, Collins insists that "science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced" and "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible." Collins's credibility as a scientist and his sincerity as a believer make for an engaging combination, especially for those who, like him, resist being forced to choose between science and God.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743286391/002-5597673-5717640?v=glan
ce&n=283155

I know many well respected and well published scientists who have a very deep faith in God. Hell, I'm married to one. Whoever says God and science are mutually exclusive is ignoring evidence to the contrary.

I'm a scientist, if not by trade, then by training. I LOVE science. I love the method. But it has its limits--it is better for investigating some things than others. It makes no sense to assume, that if a subject cannot be investigated by science, it cannot exist.

It is my observation that many good scientists understand that science has its limits, and are open to other avenues of knowledge. Maybe it boils down to whether one believes science is omniscient and omnipotent, or if it can be supplemented by other branches of epistemology.

(Edited to add:
Just found this on a FAQ on evolution at PBS.org. It says it better than I can, so I am copying and pasting.

Quote:
Does evolution prove there is no God?

No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
This is nicely written. But I still don't see why someone can't be a scientist AND believe in God AND endorse evolution at the same time.

Because science is based on evidence, and religion is based on lack of evidence (faith)? Because once you go back to the a priori assumptions of each system you find that they are incompatible? Because scientists who think they can straddle both systems have a deep schism in their underlying philosophies?

It's not that science can prove or disprove god, or god(s) or whatever. It's just that the stuff outside of science is UNKNOWABLE. And being unknowable, it doesn't make sense when people claim to know it.

Anyway, I have two VERY GOOD REASONS why Darwin matters!

FIRST- Without Darwin there would be no capitalism. And especially there would be no underlying philosophy for all those right-wing pro-business lunatics: SOCIAL DARWINISM!

Think of it. Doesn't the irony just blow you away?

The pro-business, pro-greed, right-wing religious conservatives base their social agenda on the dog-eat-dog model that they THINK Darwin postulated, and they use psuedo-science (but science nonetheless, not religion) as the basis for all of their economic evil-mongering.

SECOND- There would be no SURVIVOR. I mean, how could we have all those reality shows if someone didn't secretly think that Darwin had a good model of nature, society, and human behavior?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Because scientists who think they can straddle both systems have a deep schism in their underlying philosophies?

Do you think carpenters who use BOTH a hammer AND a saw straddle 2 systems and have a deep schism in their underlying philosophies?

Science is a tool. Faith is a tool. They are used for different functions. Some people want science to be the ONLY tool, but many professional scientists disagree. Why must they be forced to accept science as the ONLY right tool or face accusations of "schisms"? See, many scientists just aren't that dogmatic about the tool of their trade.

Quote:
The pro-business, pro-greed, right-wing religious conservatives base their social agenda on the dog-eat-dog model that they THINK Darwin postulated, and they use psuedo-science (but science nonetheless, not religion) as the basis for all of their economic evil-mongering.

Actually, they claim that Darwin was heavily influenced by Adam Smith, and simply transposed the economic model onto the biological sytem. (Not saying I agree with them, I didn't look into it. It's just what they say.)

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:18 AM

Ah, I never got the Science versus Faith thing (other than the Buffy versus Faith thing, but that's another TV-Series

).

Can I prove, that my boyfriend loves me? - NO
Is it then better to presume, he doesn't? - NO
Would it help my relationship to him, if I asked him to prove his love? - Not really

It all boils down to one question:
Is god a "thing", that we can prove or disprove, or is he a "someone" we can relate to.

And about Darvin: I love God, but I have no problem with Darvin - although some secular biologists I know say, that he's disproven already (there are new theories now - constructions morphology by example). But I still think, his basic thoughts were rather ingenious at the time and covered the basic systematic behind how life came to pass on earth.

However, he only talked about the "how", never about the "why" (since that's the question of religion and philosophy, not of biology). I think, Christians make a big mistake by mixing thee two questions up.

That's my two (Euro) cents.
Esther

Love my captain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Science is a tool. Faith is a tool. They are used for different functions. Some people want science to be the ONLY tool, but many professional scientists disagree. Why must they be forced to accept science as the ONLY right tool?

CTS: Science is a tool for understanding the physical nature of the universe. Religion is a tool for... for... for.... Not sure what it's a tool for, altho it HAS been used as a tool by the ruling classes for societal control. Anyway, you tell me what religion is used for because I'm not sure.

Also, my point was not that god doesn't exist. My point is that whatever is outside of science is by definition untestable, and that therefore anyone who claims to "know" whether god exists or his/her/their nature has no way of demonstrating it. That doesn't seem to stop many of the faithful from insisting that others believe along with them.

As I recall, from a previous thread you said that religion was not "just" a belief in a supernatural deity but also included ethics and philosophy. (Maybe that wasn't you. If so, I apologize.) Although there are a lot of concepts that have no correlates in science, concepts like "right and "wrong", beauty and ugliness, that doesn't automatically mean that they are a religion. IMHO most religions generally have three aspects. While they are often used to support each other, only ONE aspect makes it a religion:

a system of ethics
an explanation of the nature of the universe
a belief in the supernatural

Atheists have proved for years that one can have ethics w/o religion, and scientists have been busy developing alternate explanations for how the universe works. That leaves the aspect of the supernatural, which is unknowable.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anyway, you tell me what religion is used for because I'm not sure.

Religion or spirituality is a tool for understanding non-physical issues. Many people find atheistic philosophy sufficient for addressing these issues, and others prefer theistic philosophy. I don't see why the people who like vanilla have to put down people who like chocolate, and vice versa.

Quote:
Also, my point was not that god doesn't exist.

Nobody said it was, Sig. I think your point was that scientists have some sort of "schism" if they believe in both God and science at the same time.

Quote:
That doesn't seem to stop many of the faithful from insisting that others believe along with them.

Proselytizing, whether using science or not, is a different matter altogether. My objection with the author of the Salon article is his insistence that scientists have some sort of philosophical flaw if they also believe in God. Your "schism" comment appear to be in support of this author. That was what I was arguing.

Quote:
As I recall, from a previous thread you said that religion was not "just" a belief in a supernatural deity but also included ethics and philosophy.

Yes, that was me. And I gave the examples of Buddhism, Taoism, and some types of Hinduism.

Quote:
Atheists have proved for years that one can have ethics w/o religion, and scientists have been busy developing alternate explanations for how the universe works. That leaves the aspect of the supernatural, which is unknowable.

Yep. No argument here.

We digress a lot, don't we?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:05 AM

Hi SignyM

Saying Religion is a tool for (whatever) for me sounds like love is a tool for having a cleaning woman without paying her (or having your rent paid without going to work yourself).

True, religion can (as everything) be used and misused, but does that mean, it IS a tool? Do you know, that the Nazis used Darwin to argue, that some people (mainly disabled) need to be killed, to cleanse the genetic pool (it's called euthanasia)? Darwinism is a good way to explain evolution and biology, but I don't want to live in a society, which lives by Darwins survival-of-the-fittest-rules (ever heared the expression "social darwinism?) Then I rather go back to my old bible (do onto others, as you want them to do onto you).

Quote:
only ONE aspect makes it a religion:

a system of ethics
an explanation of the nature of the universe
a belief in the supernatural

I think, there are two things, that can define a religion:

God (astrology is in a way also "supernatural", but you wouldn't call it a religion. Buddism has no "God", only principles, and they ceonsequently don't call themselfs "religion" but "philosopy")

A different use of the word is, if you just say a religion is, what you put your whole life on (Marxism could be a religion for someone, although there is nothing supernatural about it). In this definition, "Firefly" could be a religion (hey, are we the congregation of the Browncoats or what?)

Esther

Love my captain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS,

Quote:
Darwin was heavily influenced by Adam Smith

Having read several editions of Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and Adam Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", all I can say is ... hunhhhh ????

What is the evidence for that statement?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Having read several editions of Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and Adam Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", all I can say is ... hunhhhh ????

Whow! You really READ that stuff? Respect!

I think, the idea is: Smith worked (as one of the first in this field) with empirical conclusions in his area of tought (economics). Further he concluded, that wjhile every individuum seeks for its own good, the overal good of society is maximized. Just as every individual animal strives for its own, but at the end, its the "species", that evolves. It's just that both look at a thing (economy or biology) from the two levels (individuial and group) and draw their conclusions from it, that when we look at a system, we need to get down to the individuum, being part of it. That's how I understood it anyways.

Esther

Love my captain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Hi SignyM

Hi Esther!

Quote:
Saying Religion is a tool for (whatever) for me sounds like love is a tool for having a cleaning woman without paying her (or having your rent paid without going to work yourself).

Actually, I didn't say that relgion was a tool, it was Canttakesky.

Quote:
True, religion can (as everything) be used and misused, but does that mean, it IS a tool?

I don't know. If religion ISN'T a tool then what is it?

Quote:
Do you know, that the Nazis used Darwin to argue, that some people (mainly disabled) need to be killed, to cleanse the genetic pool (it's called euthanasia)? Darwinism is a good way to explain evolution and biology, but I don't want to live in a society, which lives by Darwins survival-of-the-fittest-rules (ever heared the expression "social darwinism?)

Yes, I mentioned social darwinism in my first post. It's a terrible misuse of Darwin's theory. However, people do insist on using science to bolster their various views of ethics... sociobiology, for example.

Quote:
Then I rather go back to my old bible (do onto others, as you want them to do onto you).

I'm sure those aren't the only two choices.

Quote:
I think, there are two things, that can define a religion:

God (astrology is in a way also "supernatural", but you wouldn't call it a religion. Buddism has no "God", only principles, and they ceonsequently don't call themselfs "religion" but "philosopy")

A different use of the word is, if you just say a religion is, what you put your whole life on (Marxism could be a religion for someone, although there is nothing supernatural about it). In this definition, "Firefly" could be a religion (hey, are we the congregation of the Browncoats or what?)

Needs thought
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What is the evidence for that statement?

I've heard this from various different sources, but here is a link that might shed a clue.

Quote:

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Darwin.htm

It was likely Darwin's reading of Adam Smith which led Darwin to his decisive breakthrough.3 ("Adam Smith was the last of the moralists and the first of the economists, so Darwin was the last of the economists and the first of the biologists.") Darwin read not only about those "laws" that govern the accumulation of wealth, but also those "laws" which lead to being poor. In regards to these poor "laws," Darwin read Malthus' Essay on Population:
"In October 1838, that is fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus' Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence [a phrase used by Malthus] which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be a new species. Here then I had at last got hold of a theory by which to work."4

Quote:
A more serious claim to have influenced Darwin can be made for the Scottish economist Adam Smith, in his work The Wealth of Nations of 1776. There is a clear analogy between the survival of the corporation through successful trading and the survival of a hereditary lineage through advantageous traits. It is known that Darwin read Smith and those political and social commentators that followed him, and it would be surprising if these ideas did not lodge in his thoughts.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precursnatsel.html

Quote:
I’ve always liked Stephen Jay Gould’s revision of Malthus’s role in affecting Darwin’s thought. Consider these passages from one of Gould’s finest essays, “Darwin’s Middle Road,” appearing in Gould’s 1980 collection, The Panda’s Thumb. . .

Gould goes on:
The theory of natural selection is a creative transfer to biology of Adam Smith’s basic argument for a rational economy: the balance and order of nature does not arise from a higher, external (divine) control, or from the existence of laws operating directly upon the whole, but from struggle among individuals for their own benefits. http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2004/10/smith_and_darwi.html

Anyway, you get the idea. I've seen this sort of talk on other boards and websites, some stated more vehemently than others. Again, I'm not saying I agree--I honestly haven't looked into it.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:42 AM

NANITE1018

I love the quote from the episode of "House" with the faith healer:

"Faith... that's just another word for ignorance, isn't it?"

not to mention

"It's fine when people want to say there are holes in our knowledge *[paraphrasing i think in that part]*. The problem is most people want to live in the holes, and get angry win you try to put dirt in their holes. COME OUT OF YOUR HOLES PEOPLE!"

Anyway, Darwin is of course correct and very important. At least from a way of viewing how life evolves. Now humans probably less so in the near future because we will have the ability to control our own evolution through genetic engineering and such.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:56 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Esther

Quote:
Whow! You really READ that stuff? Respect!

Yeah, well, it was decades ago. :sheepish:

Thanks for the reply! They do seem to be broadly analogous, but I was curious if Smith had a direct influence on Darwin.

Darwin, I think, had a wide vision of the resources of survival. He recognized that using vacant niches of food and shelter, due either to physical selection or unique behaviors, was a first step to species survival. Without sufficient resources neither the parent nor offspring survive.

But the parallel to economics is, to me, too broad to be useful. I read it as 'it either works, or it doesn't'.

Anyway, I have to get back to work.

TTUL

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:01 AM

Quote:
I don't know. If religion ISN'T a tool then what is it?

Point I wanted to make is, you can use everything as a tool (Religion as well as Darwinism).

I wouldn't say darwinism is a "tool", although you can "use" it as such (as explained before). But I think, it's a way of explaining the world, and for some people, it's just plain "the truth". (for others, it isn't). And so is religion.

So I guess, everybody has to decide for himself, what religion is (for him). For someone, it might be a tool (e.g. for the guy who tries to make all-believing, willing slaves out of his fellow men), for others, it might be "a lie".

For me, I guess, it's a relationship and a way of living. And like in a relationship, it's not the formalities or the name of it, that counts, but the guy I relate to.

Esther

Love my captain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:04 AM

Rue and SignyM,

One more link. Check this out.

http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/

Hehe.

As far as a direct influence of Smith, it appears there are published scholars who argue this was the case. The evidence is Smith heavily influenced Malthus, whom Darwin himself credits with influencing his thoughts on evolution. People think if Darwin admittedly credits Malthus, he must have read Smith as well.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:13 AM

Im a member of the natural museum in my town, and they have evolved more on the theory of "Konstruktionsmorphologie" (don't force me to put that in correct English, please). Main point is: an organism cannot be "closed for renovation". If the environment changes, the organisms cannot change to adopt, they need to have changed BEFORE, otherwise, they just die. So fish needed to have lungs BEFORE they left the sea.

Oh, comming to fish, there's an interesting thought by this theory: Fish move sideways, when they swim. Then, they became reptiles (still moving sideways - look at a lizard). Side-movement, however, is not very sensible on land (squeezes the lungs), so that gradually changed and the spine of mamals rather moves up and down. When the mamals returned to the sea, they kept this kind of spine-movement. Thats why fish move left-to-right when they swin, and wales and dolphines move up and down.

Is that cool or what?
Esther

Love my captain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:17 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS,

I did take a quick look at the links. If Darwin says Malthus was his biggest influence, I'll take it at face value. The evidence for Smith's influence is only by historical inference.

From the quotes, the biggest breakthrough seems to be in accepting natural explanations for what had previously been a religious topic.

TTUL

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS- last comments for today. I'm not a philosopher, so I may not be saying this in a philosophically elegant way, but it seems that when scientists use various physical observations and create hypotheses to explain and predict them around them, they HAVE to assume several things:

There is a physical world that we share. In other words, this is not some sort of fantasy or dream state.

Our senses, and the various extensions of our senses, bear some sort of relationship to the real world.

The real world operates by consistent and testable principles.

That means that there are many areas outside of science- for example, "good" and "bad". But the one area that science cannot allow is a supernatural being mucking about in an arbitrary manner. If that were the case, may as well take all predictions and chuck them out the window. Now, since I restrict MY notion of religion to the concept of a supernatural beng mucking about in an arbitrary manner, in MY system of definitions science and religion don't mix.

If you look at right-wing xtians and their resistance to evolution, that is exactly their sticking point as well. They can't stand the thought that another system might successfully explain the nature of the universe, because in THEIR mind that's what religion is supposed to do. God done it all.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The evidence for Smith's influence is only by historical inference.

And this parallel:

"The theory of natural selection is a creative transfer to biology of Adam Smith’s basic argument for a rational economy: the balance and order of nature does not arise from a higher, external (divine) control, or from the existence of laws operating directly upon the whole, but from struggle among individuals for their own benefits." -- Stephen Jay Gould

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
Anyway, Darwin is of course correct and very important. At least from a way of viewing how life evolves. Now humans probably less so in the near future because we will have the ability to control our own evolution through genetic engineering and such.

Exactly. Darwin could tell you how, but not why. Science sais, "we can control our own evolution", but questions like "should we?" cannot be answered by science. It's just a totally different area - the area of philosophy ethics and - well - religion. And that's why I don't see them bugging eachother. Darwinism and Religion for me are just on different plains. And actually, I blame the church for mixing them up, making everything blurry.

Esther

Love my captain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, since I restrict MY notion of religion to the concept of a supernatural being mucking about in an arbitrary manner, in MY system of definitions science and religion don't mix.

Now you might not be too far appart from religious people. The concept of a supernatural being mucking about in an arbitrary manner (cutely said, by the way

) presumes, that there IS something "natural". Te "mocking about" is the definition of a wonder. If religious people believed, that everything was arbitrary, there would be no "wonder".

e.g. If the Jews had no concept of how water normally behaves, they would not have been so astonished (calling it a wonder), when Moses parted the red sea. I don't want to go into the discussion, whether this story is true or not. All I want to say, that also religious people have the notion, that there is a "normal" and "scientific" way the wold works. And if they belive, that God CAN "override" these laws, they admit, that in 99,9% of the cases, he doesn't (why should he - after all he created them

)

Quote:
If that were the case, may as well take all predictions and chuck them out the window.

Actually, I heard that newer physics, acknowedging that everything is energy, and that electrons are constantly moving, now say, that it's not totally impossible, that a stone will fall up, instead of down. It's just very, very, VERY unlikely.

So there you go

Uff, can you belive that? It's 22:35 over here, and I'm still at my office, catting away with you shiney people! Gotta go home now!

Esther

Love my captain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:43 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Esther:
Main point is: an organism cannot be "closed for renovation". If the environment changes, the organisms cannot change to adopt, they need to have changed BEFORE, otherwise, they just die. So fish needed to have lungs BEFORE they left the sea.

They did...lungs (or air bladders) have uses beyond breathing (bouancy for instance). So some fish developed air bladders, maybe some had weaker walls surrounding the air bladders than others or something, the fish were given a reason to move over small bits of land, the fish with the weakest walls around the bladder had the most oxygen seep into their bloodstream and survived the most. Or maybe one of a few dozen other reasons that air bladders would be advantageous.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:00 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I could have said - by people making historical inferences, in this case, S J Gould.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The evidence for Smith's influence is only by historical inference.
And this parallel:

"The theory of natural selection is a creative transfer to biology of Adam Smith’s basic argument for a rational economy: the balance and order of nature does not arise from a higher, external (divine) control, or from the existence of laws operating directly upon the whole, but from struggle among individuals for their own benefits." -- Stephen Jay Gould

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, since I restrict MY notion of religion to the concept of a supernatural beng mucking about in an arbitrary manner, in MY system of definitions science and religion don't mix.

I see. I get it.

My supernatural being doesn't muck.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS - I was going to ask Signy, but I'll ask you.

There are many contradictions in the definition of god, so I was wondering how you specifically think of god.

And are these questions (below) pertinent? If yes could answer them? If no, why are they irrelevant?

Is your supernatural being all powerful?

If yes, is your supernatural being not capable of contradicting their nature of being non-interfering?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Is your supernatural being all powerful?
If yes, is your supernatural being not capable of contradicting their nature of being non-interfering?

Is he all powerful? Yeah sorta. He's not powerful enough to change the nature of the system he created. (Or you can say he chooses not to change the system he created.) Yes, he is capable of interfering sorta, but he chooses not to.

My idea of God is like a superhero coach in a football game. He is on the sidelines, watching, giving advice, inspiring, motivating. But he doesn't play the game. Can he help play the game? Well, I suppose physically, he can, but it would be against the entire raison d'etre of the game for him to jump in. In that sense, he can't play the game--it wouldn't count, it would defeat the purpose of the game if the coach jumped in and played.

So is the coach all powerful? Well, yeah, sort of. But he isn't powerful enough to change the nature of the game. He CAN jump in the game and win it. But he chooses not to.

Or you can imagine a parent helping his child with homework. He CAN do the homework for the kid, but that would defeat the purpose of the homework He chooses not to do the homework for the kid and simply teaches and advises.

Hope that makes some sense.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:55 AM

USBROWNCOAT

I don't think, that acknowledging the truth that is evolution, necessarily means that someone can't have faith in a god. Intelligent design followed by evolution seems like a order that theist should be able to reason out in their heads, and still go to sleep at night believing god has got their backs.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:10 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS

Regrettably, it did not make too much sense to me. It's like thinking of a god who enjoys watching the soaps - except real children suffer then die for no reason except wrong place, wrong time.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Regrettably, it did not make too much sense to me. It's like thinking of a god who enjoys watching the soaps - except real children suffer then die for no reason except wrong place, wrong time.

Sorry. I tried.
My view is actually not too much different from an atheist's view. We're on our own. If we want the children to stop dying, WE have to do it. God provides the inspiration for us to do it, if I listen. But he can't do it for us.

For me God is like Music. I am the dancer. My dances can save the children, or not. The Music can inspire me to dance a saving dance, but he can't do the saving dance himself. Cause ya know, he's just the music.

If you prefer, I can answer that he chooses not to be omnipotent.

Ah well, if you don't get it, it's ok.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:25 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

So, CTS, you're equating life to a game, or homework? Interesting...

---

I'm a trouble-maker; Kaneman said so!

::points to 'I'm a trouble-maker' sticker on shirt and makes a platypus noise::

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
So, CTS, you're equating life to a game, or homework? Interesting...

Noo... I am trying to find examples in which a more powerful person would choose not to complete a task for someone who has a hard time completing the same task--because interfering would change the nature of the task. If a coach played in the game he's coaching, it wouldn't be the same kind of game anymore. If parents did their kids homework for them, it would defeat the purpose of homework.

Apparently I am not doing a good job explaining this.

I will try one more time from a different perspective. Why do I believe in God. Because when I close my eyes, I can hear a sort of "music." An inspiration. I call this music "God." I believe that the entity that is this inspiration has the power to shapeshift if you will, and take another form other than "music" but that would change everything else as well. It would change who WE are and what the world is around us. So in that sense, for us to live this reality, God is not all powerful--he is limited to being simply the "music" in our lives. In this reality, WE are the only things with physical abilities to change our physical world.

Or maybe I just made things worse.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:44 PM

America loves a winner!

FINALLY! Shermer's book ' Why Do People Belive Weird Things ' is one of the two great books that I consider must reading.

Well, 3, if you count Robert Bakker's Dinosaur Heresies

( I think Wash might have had a copy of that one )

I can't lie and say that how I view evolution hasn't altered or affected the way I see God / Religion. But where ever the truth is, there's magic of some sort involved. That much I do know.

Signym -

Quote:
FIRST- Without Darwin there would be no capitalism. And especially there would be no underlying philosophy for all those right-wing pro-business lunatics: SOCIAL DARWINISM!

What you're referring to is a misapplication to what Darwin was talking about in regards to BIO-evolution. Darwin detested the idea that others would distort his findings, as we saw Hitler do some 80 yrs later. Darwin was speaking of BIOLOGY,and nothing else.

Those 'greedy, right wing capitalist' you speak of have no need for the views of some 18th century naturalist to justify their business practices. Most likely have no idea who Darwin even is.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS,

I think we've each come to unique places of personal meaning.

For you it's the harmonies you hear. (If you ever watch 'Good Will Hunting' there is a scene near the end with a couple seconds of music played with bells and chimes that sounds like the music of the spheres ...)

HK has direct experience with the larger reality.

For me it's the feeling of 'just enough' and light-hearted freedom.

If only we could experience that much of each others' realities we would be enlarged

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think we've each come to unique places of personal meaning.

Yes, that's it. Religion to me is that place of personal meaning. I think many of us know that same place, we just call it different things.

Quote:
For you it's the harmonies you hear. ...

Just to clarify, the "music" I'm am talking about is metaphorical, not literal. I am talking about, for lack of a better word, inspiration. I use the word music because when I hear a amazing symphony I get a very similar sense of inspiration. Or when I see a breathtaking view of scenery. Or am touched by some extraordinary kindness from a fellow human being. It's an awareness of a universal grandness so much bigger than ourselves--I call that grandness "God."

Quote:
For me it's the feeling of 'just enough' and light-hearted freedom.

Cool. See, freedom is very grand and inspirational.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
My idea of God is like a superhero coach in a football game. He is on the sidelines, watching, giving advice, inspiring, motivating. But he doesn't play the game. Can he help play the game? Well, I suppose physically, he can, but it would be against the entire raison d'etre of the game for him to jump in. In that sense, he can't play the game--it wouldn't count, it would defeat the purpose of the game if the coach jumped in and played.

Hi CTS
for me, that's a very ingenious explanation.

Quote:
RUE: Regrettably, it did not make too much sense to me. It's like thinking of a god who enjoys watching the soaps - except real children suffer then die for no reason except wrong place, wrong time.

People do not want, that God interferes with their life, and then, wen he doesn't, they get angry at him.

Freedom of choice doesn't make much sense, if you can't choose to harm somebody. So all God could do is to limit the harm we can do to eachother to a ceratin extent. And he did. Death is the border (well, not for Niska, I asume). Now that border seems pretty high to us, but only, because it's the highest we have ever known. We just cannot imagine something beyond that.

Sometimes, I imagine God to be something like a novellist - we are his novel. If you ever have written a fiction, you realize, how the figures can get a life of their own. With this special novel, however, if somebody dies (in the novel), he becomes part of the world of the novelist -that means he is taken out into reality. He becomes real. In this case, dying would not be such a horrible thing after all.

Strange thought, I know. Just appeals to me.

Esther

Love my captain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 1:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:

so what's the real agenda of I.D.?

They want the Judeo-Christian worldview accepted into American public life as policy. But the First Amendment says you're not supposed to do that. America is based on a diversity of beliefs and was founded on the principle of religious freedom. The conservatives want to blend public life with private life. But religion is private. It's nobody's business. Politicians have to announce they believe in God, and God bless America. But religion as public policy leads to a reduction of liberty and freedom for those who don't believe. It makes it harder for us to express our own beliefs without fear of condemnation.

Let's say that we passed legislation that requires the teaching of one dominant religion in public schools, which right now is Judeo-Christian. Hooray! Everybody's happy. Now let's say that Islam is the dominant religion 500 years from now. It most likely will be Europe. You still want that law on the books? Girls in public schools will have to wear burqas and, in fact, there will be no education for them after sixth grade. You still want the dominant religion legalized in America? No way!

first of all, God has almost no influence in America..when you read the Bible, this becomes obvious. when the Federal Reserve prints "in God we trust", the all seeing eye of Lucifer makes it obvious who theyre talking about; and a politician could say he believes in bigfoot or mothman, but it is his actions which are the true test, and this is where they constitantly fail

i wish people would understand that in reality Gods message is antithetical to authoritarian oppressive control, and stands in the way of the true globalists agenda. if the goal is to dehumanize people to the extent that we are mindless serfs, then they taught the wrong message. how does "love your neighbor as yourself" equate to degenerate suppressive overlords? if God forbids the love of money, or the love of anything before him, which is idolatry, then it contradicts this consumer driven nightmare world that we live in today. and Jesus' message of peace is an obsticle for an agenda to propogate citizens into wars of greed or conquest. time and again you will find these contradictions, as a general rule, it helps to study something in its entirety before settling on unsubstantiated conclusions like that

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 1:53 PM

Quote:
first of all, God has almost no influence in America.

Maybe not, but that's the idea. It's a pretty good one too actually.

Extreme rightwing fundementalist christians, they do have sway, and they're influence is growing, and thats really very worrying, not just for American citizens but for others as well, because the fire and brimestone from these fruitcakes will be falling on all our heads.

Viva la American Inquisition.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 5:55 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
first of all, God has almost no influence in America.
Maybe not, but that's the idea. It's a pretty good one too actually.

Extreme rightwing fundementalist christians, they do have sway, and they're influence is growing, and thats really very worrying, not just for American citizens but for others as well, because the fire and brimestone from these fruitcakes will be falling on all our heads.

Viva la American Inquisition.

You're just still bent out of shape that your former colonies stuck it to you some 230 yrs ago, and haven't looked back since!

Granted, the whole ' Manifest Destiny ' con of telling land hungry newcomers that " God WANTED you to settle out west.. " worked like a charm. But your " Inquisition" remark smacks more of jealousy than anything. First of all, it was the SPANIARDS who pulled off the transfiguration of the American SW and the spreading of Catholocism to Central/South America. Not so much w/ the US Gov't.

And while you seem to be taking for granite the threat of Islam in not only Europe, but across the globe, you take a jab at some nonsenical 'Inquistion', which occured 100's of yrs ago in a country far,far away.

Priorities, mate. Time to put them in order.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 27, 2006 12:47 AM

AU, you really are delusional, you've got more to be afraid of from Christian fundamentalists influencing your government than from Islamic fundamentalists planning to blow up planes with hand cream.

I realise terrorism is a new and scary thing for you that makes you wet your pants on a daily basis, so it seems like a big scary thing, but I've been facing it my entire life. I've realised that treating a bunch of ineffectual psychotic morons as the bogey man and keeping the night light on in case they jump out of the cupboard is pointless, maybe you'll stop listening to our f

ded up sensationalist media sometime and realise this rather simple fact too, but probably you won't. You have, after all, shown yourself to be incapable of independent thought.

Where as Islamic terrorists can't do anything more than kill a couple of people, that's if they get really, really, really lucky, Right-wing Christian fundamentalists are gaining influence in US government, it is their stated purpose to infiltrate government and their stated purpose to tear down the barrier between church and state. They want to turn the US into a theocracy, and you trying to paint me as jealous because of that obviously means you want a Christian theocracy, enjoy your inquisition, they're a fixture of theocracies. I hope you're Christian enough for them, or maybe you'll be one of the inquisitors, I could believe that, you do support torture after all.

That's the problem with people like you, you’re so arrogant and ignorant of anything outside your home town you think everyone must be jealous of you. Yes AU, everyone wants to be you, now take today’s medication, there's a good boy.

And just so you know, from someone who actually lives in Europe, Islamic fundamentalists have less sway with governments over here than they do in America. Every time a Muslim fanatic says they hate America people like you soil themselves and demand all freedoms be curtailed in the name of 'safety'. Over here not so much.

I, like most people, am not jealous of you. Most of your post is nonsense, and like a sniper suffering from Alzheimer’s you continually miss the mark. If you can't understand what I'm saying please keep your 'opinions' to yourself and get back to your duplo bricks.

Perspective mate, get some.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 27, 2006 6:29 AM

Citizen- the Christian faith is extorted, manipulated, coerced, mislead and deceived at all levels of American society; to say that our doctrines are responsible for our governments behavior is a misappropriation of blame. thats like saying christians are responsible for all the worlds diceptions. now ill admit that christians have become a tool for political gain, but that is more because they fail to fully realize the herecies being propogated by those who seek control. our establishment is lying to everybody to achieve their agenda, it is not solely christians being worked over by Bush and the NWO fearmongers. if the goal IS to eliminate the boundary between church and state, understand then that the bibles message makes clear that this attempt is in anticipation for the rise of mystery babylon, and the system of the beast; a lifestyle antithetical to Gods original purpose for man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 27, 2006 7:34 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
citizen wrote:
Sunday, August 27, 2006 00:47
AU, you really are delusional, you've got more to be afraid of from Christian fundamentalists influencing your government than from Islamic fundamentalists planning to blow up planes with hand cream.

terrorism commited by christians -( eric rudolph ) olympic park bombing. deaths - 1

terrorism comitted by muslims - 1993 WTC attacks, 9/11/01 WTC attacks, E.Africa Embassy attacks, USS Cole attack, Kobar Towers,Bali , ... you get the picture.

Christian fundies do pose a threat, but I'll deal w/ not being able to buy beer on Sunday here in GA ( except at a bar, after 12noon ). What I won't stand for is subways being ripped open by the next generation of jihadist who don't like how YOU live your life.

Quote:
I realise terrorism is a new and scary thing for you that makes you wet your pants on a daily basis, so it seems like a big scary thing, but I've been facing it my entire life. I've realised that treating a bunch of ineffectual psychotic morons as the bogey man and keeping the night light on in case they jump out of the cupboard is pointless, maybe you'll stop listening to our fded up sensationalist media sometime and realise this rather simple fact too, but probably you won't. You have, after all, shown yourself to be incapable of independent thought.

Yes, because it's oh so more important to hurl ad hominems toward me than attempt anything remotely close to having a coherent, intelligent conversation. I need not add anthing to your diatribe. It is what it is. I'll move on.

Quote:
Where as Islamic terrorists can't do anything more than kill a couple of people, that's if they get really, really, really lucky, Right-wing Christian fundamentalists are gaining influence in US government, it is their stated purpose to infiltrate government and their stated purpose to tear down the barrier between church and state. They want to turn the US into a theocracy, and you trying to paint me as jealous because of that obviously means you want a Christian theocracy, enjoy your inquisition, they're a fixture of theocracies. I hope you're Christian enough for them, or maybe you'll be one of the inquisitors, I could believe that, you do support torture after all.

Ahh, something of substance!

Oh, the Fundies ARE gainining influence ? WOw, I must have missed that, LVING HERE AS I HAPPEN TO DO , AND ALL. So, when Judge Roy Moore ( Captain 10 Commandments ) gets tossed off the Alabama State Supreme Court, and then pummelled at the ballot box, that's YOUR definition of fundies gaining influence? ( walks off stage, laughs hysterically, walks politely back ) The fundie movement has been a tug of war w/ the rest of the country for decades now. It comes and goes, but never really gains that much momentum w/ the rest of the country. My Christianity isn't an issue, but I do support 'torture' , as you put it, of Islamo nutcase fascists terrorist when getting info from them could save lives. I'm completely for that, yep! And religion has nothing to do w/ that, only being pragmatic.

Quote:
That's the problem with people like you, you’re so arrogant and ignorant of anything outside your home town you think everyone must be jealous of you. Yes AU, everyone wants to be you, now take today’s medication, there's a good boy.

Hee, hee. You're so funny. People like you... *sigh*

Quote:
And just so you know, from someone who actually lives in Europe, Islamic fundamentalists have less sway with governments over here than they do in America. Every time a Muslim fanatic says they hate America people like you soil themselves and demand all freedoms be curtailed in the name of 'safety'. Over here not so much.

Oh yah, you're being overrun by the Islamo fascist so convincingly, you don't even know it. Spain rolls over like a $ 10 whore after just 1 attack on its trains. France had riots all over by who? Muslims. Theo Van Gogh gets shot and stabbed to death by who ? An unapologetic Muslim. But since I'm a know-nothing , budweiser drinkin', red neck bubba from the South, ( oh,did i forget bigotted, racist and homophobic ? ) my words mean nothing.

Quote:
I, like most people, am not jealous of you. Most of your post is nonsense, and like a sniper suffering from Alzheimer’s you continually miss the mark. If you can't understand what I'm saying please keep your 'opinions' to yourself and get back to your duplo bricks.

Does Alzheimers make folks shoot funny? Hmm, never knew that one. Now, Parkinson's Disease, I could understsand..,,w/ all the jittering and such.

See citizen, it's not at all that I fail to understand your views on this matter. I get it, I really do. It's just that I think you're wrong.

Now where ya gonna go ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:40 AM

im not incredibly knowledgable about Islam..but i do find some basic contradictions with the overall message of God in scripture. among others, the Judeo/Christian ethic of "thou shalt not kill", appears to leave little room for murder and conquest over idealogical principles. also, atleast in Christianity, Martyrdom is when you die sumbissively, refusing to sumbit and compromise your ideals; im not so sure that suicide bombers or kamakazee missions qualify.

now, because Jesus' warns of false teachers and their destructive philosophies, it could be argued that such Islamic beliefs are antiChristian, or essentially false doctrines heretical to the messages of Jesus.

i like to think that Jesus teaches the Martin Luther King Jr. approach, which is "non-violance", tolerance and love; as opposed to that Malcolm X doctrine, which is "by any means neccessary".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:28 AM

Where am I gonna go:
Not heard of the IRA, the Lords Resistance Army or half a dozen other Christian terrorists around the world? What if it's not against the US it doesn't count? Only American lives are worth anything? In fact I'm sure if I went looking I could dig up a few more Christian terrorists in the US, and certainly Christian motivated murders. How about we start, off the top of my head, with the KKK?

If you’re happy about a Christian Theocracy in America, or if you think Islamic terrorists on the other side of the world are more to worry about, you don't understand the dangers.

All you have to do is look to see the growing Christian fundamentalist influence on your government. Stop looking under your bed for the Islamic bogeyman and look about you for what’s really going on.

AU you are colossally uniformed, that's where I'm going to go.

You accuse me of starting a diatribe, when you started down that road. You don't get that you foster the reactions people have towards you.

Frankly it's a popular American attitude I see a lot (and the one YOU started out with), people don't like us because they are jealous of us. Get a clue, learn about the rest of the world before you start talking about it.

Which leads to the last question. If you understood what I was saying what was all the "you're jealous" bullshit about?

EDIT:
And no, I meant Alzheimer's, Alzheimer's effects skilled movements. But if you'd prefer your attempts at insults and barbs to be likened to Parkinsons, thats okay by me.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 27, 2006 3:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Where am I gonna go:
Not heard of the IRA, the Lords Resistance Army or half a dozen other Christian terrorists around the world? What if it's not against the US it doesn't count? Only American lives are worth anything? In fact I'm sure if I went looking I could dig up a few more Christian terrorists in the US, and certainly Christian motivated murders. How about we start, off the top of my head, with the KKK?

If you’re happy about a Christian Theocracy in America, or if you think Islamic terrorists on the other side of the world are more to worry about, you don't understand the dangers.

All you have to do is look to see the growing Christian fundamentalist influence on your government. Stop looking under your bed for the Islamic bogeyman and look about you for what’s really going on.

AU you are colossally uniformed, that's where I'm going to go.

You accuse me of starting a diatribe, when you started down that road. You don't get that you foster the reactions people have towards you.

Frankly it's a popular American attitude I see a lot (and the one YOU started out with), people don't like us because they are jealous of us. Get a clue, learn about the rest of the world before you start talking about it.

Which leads to the last question. If you understood what I was saying what was all the "you're jealous" bullshit about?

EDIT:
And no, I meant Alzheimer's, Alzheimer's effects skilled movements. But if you'd prefer your attempts at insults and barbs to be likened to Parkinsons, thats okay by me.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Citizen-- havent we been over this before? i want you to show me quotes of Jesus' permitting the behavior described? i am not arguing that insidious things are taking place, but they are not a result of the bibles doctrines; if anything, they are proof of the evil at work in the world. ive shown you before that Bush is a known occultist, and his actions and diceptive doctrines reflect that.

the KKK, or any other group with DIVISIVE motives is NOT christian, but occultic. once a group crosses that threshold of tolerance and love into aggressive preemption, they no longer represent christian ideals, but a perversion; period.

Jude 1 " for certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. they are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only sovereign Lord."

John 2 "Do not love the world, or anything in the world. if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. for evertyhing in the world- the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes, and the boasting of what he has and does- comes not from the Father but form the world. the world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever. Dear children this is the last hour, and as you ahve heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. this is how we know it is the last hour. they went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. for if they did, they would have remained with us"

2 Peter "but there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. they will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought you- bringing swift destruction on themselves. many will follow their shamefull ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. in their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping."

Jesus' among other things says "woe to you, teachers of the Law and pharisees, you hypocrites! you shut the kingdom of heaven in mens faces. you yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
woe to you, teachers of the Law and pharisees, you hypocrites! you travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are"

the bible makes it perfectly clear when it says "a man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and pyhsical. no, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and cirumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code."

so clearly, greed, impure selfish lusts and ambitions, are opposed to the message of God. such people are not truly of the faith, or they are worshipping a false christ(antiChrist). what you are describing is people who are being decieved by false doctrines.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 27, 2006 3:40 PM

America loves a winner!

What's funny is an English bloke telling a boy from the Deep South about the KKK.

Here we both are telling each other what we don't know about our own side of the pond. Guess that makes us both guilty, huh?

All I'll say is that were the Islamo movement kept over in the Mid East, it would be far less of a threat. Still a threat, but far less of one.

And as cracked as the likes of Kent Hovind, Jerry Falwell et al over here, they've still yet to pick up arms or call for a holy crusade against the rest of us. They know better. We all have our own guns.

But for the Fundie theorcacy you speak of is , while not to be dismissed casualy, still a fair amount of amusement for most Americans. Fundie snake handlers remain , hidden up in the Appalachian hills, annoying snakes who occasionally get their bite on. The U.S.A. allows for such fringe kook and nutcase religious folks, knowing full well they'll never gain wide spread acceptance.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
What's funny is an English bloke telling a boy from the Deep South about the KKK. Here we both are telling each other what we don't know about our own side of the pond. Guess that makes us both guilty, huh?

Well hold on a minute, you did say something that was untrue in both circumstances and I did correct you. Plainly Christian Terrorists have killed more than one person, not only in the rest of the world but also in the US. So either I do know more about events in the country in which you live, or you are willfully ignoring information that doesn't support your supposition.

Quote:
Fundie snake handlers remain , hidden up in the Appalachian hills, annoying snakes who occasionally get their bite on. The U.S.A. allows for such fringe kook and nutcase religious folks, knowing full well they'll never gain wide spread acceptance.

If thats what you think that's what you think. I think different, and not, as you said earlier, because I'm jealous of you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Antimason:
Citizen-- havent we been over this before? i want you to show me quotes of Jesus' permitting the behavior described?

Yes we have, but your argument remain falacious.

Quote:
but they are not a result of the bibles doctrines;

The bible is very contradictory, in one place it will say "Thou Shalt not Kill" (Exodus 20:13) and in another it will say "The anger of God rose against them, and he killed their strongest men; he struck down the finest of Israel's young men. But in spite of this, the people kept on sinning. They refused to believe in his miracles. So he ended their lives in failure and gave them years of terror. When God killed some of them, the rest finally sought him. They repented and turned to God." (Psalms 78:31-34), legitimising the killing of people to gain followers.

The stated purpose of the Lords Resistance Army, for instance, is to create a Christian Theocracy with the law based strictly off of the Ten Commandments. You can go on and on about how this is really the occult if you like, but they ARE Christians, whether they break your reading of the Bible is irrelevant because its clear they believe they are doing the Christian gods work.

In fact from a historical perspective their reading is more 'traditional'.

Quote:
the KKK, or any other group with DIVISIVE motives is NOT christian, but occultic. once a group crosses that threshold of tolerance and love into aggressive preemption, they no longer represent christian ideals, but a perversion; period.

That doesn't mean they aren't Christian. I saw you're words against Islam earlier, in Islam one can only fight if they are attacked, and a martyr is someone who dies in battle with those who have attacked you. In other words Islamic terrorism is NOT supported by the Qur'an, you have to selectively read the doctrines, just like you do with the Bible. But this doesn't make it any less Islamic terrorism, any more than it makes Christian Terrorism any less Christian Terrorism.

Quote:
so clearly, greed, impure selfish lusts and ambitions, are opposed to the message of God. such people are not truly of the faith, or they are worshipping a false christ(antiChrist). what you are describing is people who are being decieved by false doctrines.

Maybe you should look in to the one true Scotsman fallacy.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 28, 2006 8:53 AM