Article: Religion and Science

This post is off-topic. Please do not reply. --AdminAnd thank YOU jar for providing yet another example of your crude personal attacks and incivility to an opponent:

quote:

---

... willful ignorance.

​

... a literal christian viewpoint is incompatible with science, reality or the world we live in.

---

Heck I thought it was sort of creative myself. I'm not even sure I read it anywhere, so I'm not even representing creationism for all I know. It just follows from certain Biblical observations and hangs together logically and sure seems to fit the reality I've observed -- which evolution doesn't.It's just not possible to expect any of you dogmatic evos to treat another human being with respect of course. That's OK. Blessed are the persecuted-for-righteousness'-sake, Amen.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-24-2005 08:14 AMThis message has been edited by Admin, 06-24-2005 09:43 AM

This post is off-topic. Please do not reply. --AdminThere you are again with your snarky remarks, aren't you, froggie? I'm still waiting for an apology.This message has been edited by Admin, 06-24-2005 09:44 AM

You are insisting on the equation between evolution and 2+2=4, remember, and I don't accept it, remember, but for the sake of discussion I go along with you and allow that I'm an ignoramus and totally wrong and am somehow in thrall to 2+2=5, simply because I know you are an immovable object and I'd like to move the discussion along. Wrong or not, I'm a human being and it's human beings who deserve respect, not just the ones you agree with.Your post is nothing but personal ridicule and were I Admin you'd be gone for 24 hours, but I'm not so I merely point it out that you are being a cad and a cur, sir.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-24-2005 08:38 AM

This post is off-topic. Please do not reply. --AdminYou treat them with respect, sir, something utterly foreign to your churlish self. You misrepresent me in a most abusive way and do not deserve an answer.This message has been edited by Admin, 06-24-2005 09:45 AM

This post is off-topic. Please do not reply. --AdminYour posts are nothing but rude bullying. I'm sorry you haven't the common decency to recognize it and apologize.This message has been edited by Admin, 06-24-2005 09:45 AM

This post is off-topic. Please do not reply. --AdminIt's an irrelevant abusive barbarian bullying query.This message has been edited by Admin, 06-24-2005 09:45 AM

This post is off-topic. Please do not reply. --AdminYou too have no human decency. What is the matter with you people? This is nothing but a personal attack. You do not treat people this way in a civilized society.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-24-2005 09:29 AMThis message has been edited by Admin, 06-24-2005 09:47 AM

Getting way OT. Please do not respond to this side-thread.You could conceivably be right that some early Buddhists at least might be attracted to Christ if presented with Him, but doctrinally there are many reasons why Buddhism would never be completed by Christ, and in my experience with serious practicing Buddhists they have NO interest whatever in the gospel of Christ -- which seems very odd if they are in fact "serving" Him without knowing it.Christ is the fulfillment of prophecy in the Old Testament, not just the explainer or completer of doctrine, a Savior who is far more than a teacher or an example but a sacrifice made to atone for sin, what the OT sacrifices represented but could not actually accomplish. I don't see how any of this relates to the teachings of Buddha.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-25-2005 11:09 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 06-25-2005 11:11 AMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 06-25-2005 10:20 AM

I don't disagree with this. Both are essential. But you appear to throw out the hearing and believing part as if it were possible to live it without that. No way. You hear it and believe it and that makes it possible to live it. Otherwise you're living something else, not the truths of Christ. Ditto what I said above. There is no contradiction between these. The condition of our heart depends on our right theology. A wrong theology leads to errors of heart. You keep wanting to throw out the theology as if the heart could find its own way without it. If that were the case Jesus wouldn't have needed to come or teach anything at all.

To answer first your Message 127:You may be right that jar is not advocating a legal crackdown on the rights of creationists and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially since I wish the creationists would back off myself.I don't agree that the literalists' "agenda is anti-American" however, as they are simply using the democratic means available to all citizens in a free society. I simply think that they need a bigger overview of the whole situation because the way they are dealing with the problem is hopelessly doomed and misses the whole point of living the Christian life in a pluralistic world. Alas, I guess even I can't be PERfectly unreasonable.On to Message 133Well I had to learn the hard way that I wasn't going to get anywhere in the science discussions and have backed off, though I did leave two or three hanging that I meant to get back to and never did. My goal is to help the creationists make their case but I've had to put that on a back burner for now. When I came into this site I didn't have much sense of the creationists approach to the arguments here, and now overall I do believe that the accusations of their methods are not completely deserved. I answered one such accusation of creationist lying myself only to have the person I was disagreeing with nominated for a POTM and my own argument dismissed. I continue to disagree of course but that's just one of the many ways I find evo bias running the show here. It's understandable and I'm trying to adapt. Whether I will ever find a way to make any points for my side within this system I don't know yet. Actually this is not really about what I meant. When I said it's not considered that my side might be right I wasn't thinking of the whole evo-creo argument but the points on this thread about the politics of education and the rights of parents and the like. (I may have to come back and edit this because I've forgotten the exact context.) But I also haven't personally had the sense that the creo side overall gets any real consideration either. But as you go on to say I suppose that can be because of having already encountered so much of it. Well, forgive me for being a dumb creo but IS it at all possible that these things COULD have been "repeatedly rejected" and yet wrongly? That there is a glitch in the form of a hidden assumption that bends thinking in a certain direction that needs to be exposed? That's true. It's too bad if all that ever happens here is a repeat of the same-old-same-old. Seems like a creative solution is needed to keep creos from blundering into this armed camp with the same old arguments. But at the same time I don't find the evo arguments to be all that compelling either, and the bias pretty hidebound.

Without going into detail analyzing what you have written so far, I just want to comment that many of the concerns that you are attributing to Fundamentalist or any-kind-of-Christian views, are in fact more generally conservative rather than specifically religious, and are held by many others of different religions and of no religion at all. The objection to the deterioration of morality in society is not just a Bible-believer's concern for instance. I join with conservatives of many beliefs and anti-beliefs on these points. There is every degree and shade of sharing of these positions. My Bible-based beliefs go only so far with them however. Most of them do not oppose evolutionism.Interesting what you seem to be trying to do here. I wonder where it's going to go.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-26-2005 01:05 AM

Why, Jar, isn't it obvious? You put them through Consciousness-Raising classes. You hospitalize them against their will as emotionally disturbed. Perhaps in extreme cases you must lobotomize them. They might make good subjects for experimentation, and when you are finished with that, their skin could make interesting lampshades.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-28-2005 12:09 AM

Well, let's see, am I misrepresenting you? You characterize a certain class of people as so irrational that you just don't know what to do with them. They are people who will not give in to your certainty that your views are as solid as 2+2=4. You've tried everything but they won't budge, the nasty heretics. (Perhaps thumb screws or the Rack would be appropriate, but I digress).You beg the question and pre-empt all discussion by defining their beliefs as 2+2=5 no matter how strenuously they would disagree with you. Their disagreement simply confirms their mental derangement. And worse than that, they insist on committing the heinous crime of teaching their children their false beliefs. This is a Crime against Society.CERTAINLY you are right, you will not brook discussion of that point. You DEMAND that they answer you. You DEMAND that they submit to your definition of the problem.But they are a stubborn determined folk and they will not submit. They'd rather die than submit. Therefore you are left with the problem of what to do with these people who refuse to acknowledge the truth.Considering your dilemma, considering that you simply have no solution to this problem, considering that these horrible criminal heretical mindless stubborn irritating people will simply NOT give in and yet they MUST give in...Considering in other words that you appear not to be willing to live and let live, but MUST have an answer that bends them to your will, my suggestion seems to me to be the most efficient.If the point has not been made, I'm sorry, I'm just a poor dumb creo who stumbled into this bastion of Higher Intellect and got a bit distracted looking for the exit. Don't mind me.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-28-2005 12:44 AM

Ooo, that was GOOD, Tim. It's fun watching you deal with these issues.HOWEVER, at some point I'm really going to need to know where you are getting this idea that "fundamentalists" are trying to dismantle Separation of Church from State. I will give you that there is plenty of argument about what this MEANS, but my understanding is that it is there to protect RELIGION, not the state.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-29-2005 09:00 AM

Tim Chase! I think I have to nominate you, Tim, for Moderator/Referee at EvC. You are the ONLY one I've seen here who could possibly do an objective, fair, unbiased job of it. I wouldn't want to see your diplomatic talents wasted on suspending or warning people of infractions of the rules, however. I think you should be a judge of the CONTENT of posts, how well they argue their points whether they succeed in convincing anyone or not. Seems to me that although you are an atheist /evolutionist, you could see the logic and reasonableness of some religious /creationist points. I may be wrong, but it's a sorely needed function here IMHO.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-30-2005 05:59 AM