AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2005 > April > 22 > Entry
Should the new pope reconsider church decrees that are out of sync with societal changes?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The Roman Empire has fallen, the Inquisition failed and the dark ages are over. And lo and behold — women use birth control. Let’s go to the belfry and ring the bells. It’s time for the Catholic Church to wake up and smell the 21st century.
I don’t think moral decisions are flexible, but there is a difference between a moral dilemma and a discriminatory practice. It is discriminatory to prohibit women priests and disallow birth control based on Old World ideas. And it is short-sighted to not listen to the changing, educated values of its parishioners. Holding fast to antiquated ideas about gender doesn’t speak to women parishioners. And today, women speak for themselves. In a recent Gallup Poll, 55 percent of U.S. Catholics thought there should be female priests.
The widespread pedophilia scandal showed us what’s not working for Catholicism. In the same Gallup Poll, 63 percent of U.S. Catholics thought priests should have the right to marry. Marriage can’t cure pedophilia. But including men (and women) who are in adult intimate relationships could alleviate potential risk.
And you would think that a theology so venerating of the Virgin Mary would have more respect for women. What can explain, in this day and age, the refusal of the Catholic church to recognize female priests? Or the church’s insistence on turning a blind eye to the necessity of birth control. Women are no longer relegated to childrearing. Seventy-three percent of U.S. Catholics thought the next pope should allow birth control.
And I didn’t even mention that the world’s resources are in grave danger. OK, so I just did, but this is important for theologians, who study the unknown, to hear about the very real planet on which we live. Unchecked population will result in water shortages, famine and disease. That doesn’t promote a culture of life; it reflects the dangers of irrational opinions in need of a serious overhaul.
There is a place for the Catholic Church but no room for such dated dogma.
Rebuttal
There’s a reason some papal decrees seem out of touch with societal changes: some changes are not for the better and need to be challenged. And I am very grateful that the leader of 1 billion Catholics will take a public stand on the critical issues of our day.
I may not agree with every papal decree or point of church doctrine, but I respected the late John Paul II’s efforts to prevent the slide of moral beliefs that has decimated other church denominations. As with any faith, of course some Catholics will not follow every point of church teaching. But church leadership is neither a democratic exercise nor a popularity contest. After all, the founder of Christianity gave us the prime example of committed love and leadership despite lethal public opposition. Church leaders by definition should not be swayed by society — the influence should be the other way around.
Perhaps one of the best signs that even staunch “progressives” secretly yearn for consistency, is that even those who differed with the late pope respected him — and some eventually came to agreement. In a 1987 Gallup poll, 27 percent of U.S. Catholics said John Paul II was too conservative, and less than half said he was about right. But after 17 years of consistent stands on the issues, more than 60 percent said he was about right.
As Benedict XVI himself said hours before his election, “Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism… . Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and ‘swept along by every wind of teaching,’ looks like the only attitude acceptable to today’s standards. We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which … has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.”
In this relativist era, I’m grateful for a resolute voice continuing to proclaim that some things are and will always be true.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By James
April 25, 2005 07:38 AM | Link to this
I just don’t get it Shaunti. You respect the man and like his ultra conservative veiws, but you do not agree with all of them? Is this a hint of liberialism coming out in you? Say it ain’t so!
Diane makes the perfect point. Many of the Catholic Church’s doctrines are seriously outdated, and never really worked so well to begin with. Monks of every generation rarely were without sexual pleasure. (And this is still ture today. I know this first hand from a monk living in Milan.) Birth control could have saved so many more lives than fighting abortion if allowed in Africa. However, it was more important to follow this rule than to prevent the ravages of AIDS. And, as Jesus communicated with, worked with, and treated women completely equally, why can the Catholic Church not do the same?
Many 1000’s of years ago, keeping the number of Jews multiplying was very important. Death rates amoungst children was very high. This is no longer the case. These ‘modern’ socail ideas are pratical and not just popular. Reality just needs to set in rather than be denyed by the Catholic Church. But, denying the truth is nothing new to this church. Just look at the history.
By Randy
April 25, 2005 07:48 AM | Link to this
I’m a Christian(not catholic)and I want to know where in the bible it says, women can’t be the leader of the church and that the leaders of the church(pastors etc) can’t get married. The Catholic church does many great things and we will see most of them in heaven. However, there is no need for these policies.
By Brian Curtis
April 25, 2005 08:33 AM | Link to this
Randy actually makes a valid point. There’s doctrine, and then there’s custom. The Catholic Church has plenty of customs that are reinforced simply because “We’ve always done it this way,” not because the Bible specifically requires it.
Just because the church says it, doesn’t make it “God’s will.” Use the brains God gave you and take a closer look.
By Chet Thomas
April 25, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this
I don’t agree with a lot of Catholic doctrine, but I don’t think that the Vatican should shift its stance on the issues just to make me (or anyone else) happy. If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
Diane supports her position by refering to polls taken here in the U.S. Even if you could determine truth via an opinion poll, what about the thoughts and opinions of Catholics world-wide? Most Catholics in America and Western Europe (and possibly Australia) may hold liberal views on certain issues, but I seriously doubt that this hold true for those in Latin America, Asia, Africa, or Eastern Europe.
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this
Here we go. People are already spouting off about the Catholic Church as if they have any clue as to what they are talking about. What should be one’s attitude toward practical decisions of the Pope, decisions that seem ill-advised or dangerous in their consequences? Such questions increasingly preoccupy Catholics striving to defend the true doctrine of the Church against the onslaught of today’s innumerable heresies. In order to answer them, in order to understand the nature of the authority of the Church, we must, from the beginning, clearly distinguish between theoretical and practical authority. Theoretical authority is a guarantee of the truth of a statement. In the natural, human realm we find only relative theoretical authorities. We accept the truth of a generally admitted scientific discovery–the existence of cosmic rays, for instance–although we ourselves are not able to verify it and still less capable of grasping it as we grasp an evident fact. What is learned in a school or university, and is not intelligible in itself (as is, for instance, the fact that two plus two is four) is learned only through acceptance of the teacher’s theoretical authority. But, obviously, this authority is only a relative one: many scientific “truthsâ€? once universally accepted have subsequently been discredited. It would be unreasonable not to accept what such a theoretical authority teaches–it would even be foolish–but we know, nevertheless, that this authority is not infallible, and thus is relative. There is but one absolute theoretical authority: the Church in matters of faith and morals. It is a basis of our Catholic faith that Christ has entrusted His divine revelation to the Holy Church and that the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is infallible in matters of faith and morals–that she is an absolute theoretical authority in these matters. It is because of this absoluteness that we are obliged–even morally obliged–to accept the Church’s word as true, to believe in it; whereas to accept the word of human, natural–relative–theoretical authority is never obligatory. Not to accept it may be unreasonable, but it is not morally evil. And obviously belief in the teachings of the Church has the character of faith–that is, an unconditional, solemn clinging to her teaching; whereas all belief in natural theoretical authorities is a mere natural conviction and differs radically from an act of religious faith. Practical authority, on the other hand, appeals not to belief–to the acceptance of a truth–but to obedience. We are obliged to obey an authentic practical authority and to submit to its commandments. Whereas no natural theoretical authority is obligatory, there are true and binding practical authorities in the natural realm. Such is the authority of the parents over the child; such is the authority of the state. The Church is a practical authority of a higher order, because here the partial representation of God has a sacred character. It is a sacred authority and, in all matters which belong to her realm and competence, her commandments and administrative measures have a solemn and morally binding character. Thus we can see that the theoretical authority of the Church appeals to our belief, while the practical authority of the Church appeals to our obedience. Clearly, then, the infallibility of the Church applies only to the Church as a theoretical authority. Now, obviously, the essence of infallibility implies that there are never any contradictions between a formerly defined dogma an a new authoritative declaration de fide( from which no Catholic may dissent without incurring automatic Excommunication.). At the moment such a contradiction comes to pass, the infallibility of the Church would explode, would have been proved a mere illusion on our part. Other possibilities do not exist. New dogmas may differentiate and explain former dogmas, they may complement them, they may refer to something which has never been defined before but was implicit in the faith or its logical consequences, or in any case does not contradict a former dogma. But no dogma, once authoritatively taught, can ever be authoritatively denied. For instance, the rejection of Luther’s sola fides theory could never be superseded by an affirmation of Luther’s theory. The consequence would be a collapse of the Church’s infallibility. Our belief in the teachings of the Church de fide must be an absolute and unconditional one, but we should not imagine that our fidelity to the Church’s theoretical authority is satisfied merely by acceptance of ex cathedra pronouncements. the Latin phrase ex cathedra, literally meaning “from the throne [of St Peter]” is applied in Catholic theology to statements made by the pope in his capacity as infallible guide and teacher of the faithful. We also must adhere wholeheartedly to teachings of the Church in matters of morality, even if they are not defined ex cathedra. The teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, for example, is binding because its content has always been part of the teachings of the Church; in it we are confronted with the theoretical authority of the Church embodied in the tradition of the ordinary magisterium. It is not a mere practical commandment of the Church, like the commandment to go to church on Sunday. It is a statement about a moral fact; that is, it states a truth: that birth control is sinful. It is forbidden not because of the Pope’s policy, but because the theoretical authority of the Church declares its sinfulness. Here, as in all cases of the teaching of the theoretical authority,women Priests, married Priests ect. Ect. the old maxim applies: Roma locuta: causa finita. (Rome has spoken, the case is finished).
By suzan
April 25, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this
It seems that many are now tring to change to basic precepts of the Christian church. I believe that if you are going to embrace the Christian faith you need to embrace it as it has been for 2000 years. This is not a pick and choose religon this is a faith that is based on the teaching of Jesus Christ with both the new and old testaments of the bible. To change it would be to undermine the very words of Christ. Just because someone does not like what the bible says means perhaps they need to look within and see where the real problem lay. I say of yoy are uncomfortable with the doctrin of the church then the change needs to come from you not the church.
By John Dobbins
April 25, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this
(Not for the Humor Impaired)
An Editorial published in the Liberal Roman Times 1800 years ago
The selection of a reactionary Pope has been a great disapointment to Catholics who hopped to see the Church loosen up on it’s dated ideas. The new Pope shows no sign of realizing that he’s living in the III Century as he clings to outdated ideas that have little support in the modern empire. The new Pope has allways been a strong supporter of the ban against worshiping the emperor, and he shows every sign that he will continue to hang on to it regardless of the suffering it causes among Catholics. In other areas that are part of modern Roman life ranging from the gladitorial games to attending orgies the new Pope continues to live in the past, pushing outmoded ideas of morality from the first century, blind to everything that has happened over the past 200 years. In the long term this can only have one outcome, modern young Romans reared in the III century will find the Church less and less appealing resulting a decline in Church membership until it fades out of existance as older Catholics die off.
By ERIC
April 25, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this
James: Shaunti can speak for herself but I do believe that she was referring to theological differences with the Catholic church.
For example: Catholics believe in the doctrine of purgatory as a finishing place for salvations from sins. Evangelicals affirm the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross a the sole redemptive act through the believer’s faith.
Hence, some social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage are shared common grounds for Evangelicals and Catholics. Some theological issues like salvation and the papacy are where the two groups diverge.
Randy & Brian: 1 Timothy 2:9-15 addresses women leadership in the church.
1 Timothy 3: 1-16 addresses church leaders and their marital status.
<<< please read both passages in context >>>
If the Bible says it, that makes it God’s will without regard to what man’s brain tell him.
By Archie
April 25, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this
In the King James’ version of the Bible it does say that women should not be in charge of men. That’s a paraphrase of a verse in the book of Timothy. Paul does say it is better that a man not be married. The Bible also says a slave should be good to his master. The thing with the Bible and why you have so many denominations is that people aren’t satisfied and frankly some things don’t make sense. The new pope should consider the attitudes and morals of today but if he doesn’t people will do what they want to in this country. Dianne makes a deal about gender but heck people will just worship a different way if they want to. Women can lead in church’s that allow for women leadership and there are plenty church’s that allow for female leadership. I am not against a woman leading a congregation I just wish we wouldn’t always have to fit everything to our personal opinions,fundamental or progressive.
By smithy
April 25, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this
The Catholic Church has been wondering why their membership has steadily declined and why there is a shortage of new priests joining the church, when there is absolutely no question that their lack of ability to be flexible is the clear reason for it. Yes, there are many teachings and traditions that have always been as they are, but isn’t it more important that you get people in to the church to learn about Jesus than it is to refuse to let women use birth control or become priests, thereby alienating a huge portion of the people who might otherwise explore the church and possibly become members?
By Tim
April 25, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this
ERIC… I am confused… were you using 1 Timothy 3 to show why priests should not marry? becasue I just read those passages and 1 Timothy 3:2 says “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate,…” and verse 11 says “Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers…”
if you were showing that priests should not marry then how does that prove they should not marry? (not attacking… just asking… I am not Catholic and things like this have always intrigued me)
By James
April 25, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this
Suzan, The faith/religon/church created by Jesus Chirst 2000 years ago was VERY different from the one we see today. The bible was designed and written for a different people in a different age. We have accepted that Slavery is wrong (even though the bible condones it). We have accepted that women are not property of their husbands (even though the bible says it is to be so). We recognize that selling of one’s daughter is wrong (even though the bible says it is OK). Thoughts and ideas of the principles of the bible have changed over the years. Even the Catholic Church has admitted to doing wrong in the name of God. We are all sinners, and the bible was written by a sinner with guideance.
I believe, and I know this will not be the popular opinion, but all religons are basically the same. Their books & leaders were sent by God to communicate the same basic message to all peoples. The Middle Eastern view of life is VERY different from an American Indian, Asian, etc. Therefore, taking the bible literally is a mistake. when studying the other religons, you will find the basic underlying principles. The Catholic Church relies on the Middle Eastern version & is notorious for using it to control the masses. Stop dealing in the details and start living the basics.
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this
Smithy, what’s the point of getting people into Church and “teaching” about Jesus if you’re not teaching correctly. It’s not the Church alienating people, its people alienating themselves from the Church. James’ comments about the sex lives of monks is without foundation and is spoken on hearsay, no matter how many monks he knows.
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this
All religion IS NOT the same James. If you did indeed study it you would see that fact very plainly.
By Jack
April 25, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this
Wow! Norman hasn’t made a post yet? This subject is good fodder for him. He must be preparing a novel for us.
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this
NO Michael a MONK not a MONKEY!
By smithy
April 25, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this
Well Boscoe - regardless of what is keeping people from joining the Catholic Church, I would still think it is more important to get a large number of people through being flexible rather than drawing no people because they are INflexible. I don’t think it flies in the face of Jesus if a woman takes a birth control pill or a man wears a condom. I can understand abortion, and opposition to murdering defenseless unborn children simply because the mother and father were too irrisponsible to protect themselves, but why hold it against people who ARE responsible and use appropriate methods to keep from making a baby? I never did understand that about the Catholic Church, nor do I understand their inability to let priests marry. There would probably be thousands of little boys who could have gone unmolested if priests had only had a sexual outlet of some kind. They are human, after all.
By James
April 25, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this
Boscoe, you are so blind to the world around you! Monks through out the ages have often been obvious about their sexual appietites. It is plainly shown in many tapestries & stories written throughout the centuries. And yes, Boscoe, I have first hand knowledge of many monk’s sex lives. Boscoe, in a previous blog, you told me not to look through ‘Rose Colored Glasses.’ Well, take them off yourself.
Also, Boscoe, yes, most religions are the same. The basic principles are the same. I know you like to believe you are better than the rest of us because you are ‘Bible Dude’ or ‘The Catholic Avenger.’ However, do you really believe God would only start 1 religon/faith/church in one desert? You, sir, are the appitamy of elitism. You do not speak the truth, but regurgitate what you has been forced down your throat all your life. You are not God’s lamb, but a pawn of the Catholic Chruch. Life (and God) is much larger and complex than the Vatican.
By Tony
April 25, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this
First of all, if your not a practicing Catholic what matter is it too you? Secondly, too many people today say their Christian, but never attend church. It is my opinion, going to church validates your Christianity. For Catholic’s, NOT going to church is a Mortal Sin. If I where to ask my brother what denomination he was, he’d say Catholic, but he does not go to Church, therefore, his views are different from mine. He is out of touch, because he is in sin. Too many Catholic’s today say their Catholic, but don’t practice. No doubt the Gallop Poll can obtain the desired outcome. If you we’re to poll Catholic’s and affirm they attend church (every week) I seriously doubt the outcome would be the same. I believe going to church and daily prayer gets you closer to God. No Christian can live with sin day in and day out, year in and year out, without the slightest change or attempt to stop and remain Christian! Christianity without any change in behavior over the long haul is synthetic Christianity. Either we go to God in repentance and turn away from our sin, or we give over to sin.
For Catholic’s SEX prior to marriage is a sin. How can anyone not understand that promoting safe sex is against Catholic teaching. What point are you trying to make? Either you are saying Sex is a sin outside of marriage, or you saying turn over to sin. The truth of the matter is you need to be afraid of sin. You need to treat it as more deadly than a rattlesnake. That means you never dally with it.
You play with fire, you get burned. You miss with a snake, you get bit. You dabble in sin, you slide down the slippery slope that separates from God. There is nothing more dangerous than accepting and excusing sin-sin that has the power to cast into hell. How do you stay away from sin? It’s simple. Stay as close to Christ as you possibly can. Stay in God’s Word. Read it. Digest it. Memorize it. You’d probably heard the cliché: Either the Bible will keep you from sin or sin will keep you from the Bible. It’s True.
By lozen
April 25, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this
Chet Thomas says, I don’t agree with a lot of Catholic doctrine, but I don’t think that the Vatican should shift its stance on the issues just to make me (or anyone else) happy. If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. If the RCC believes a foolish thing, it’s still a foolish thing.
By chuck
April 25, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this
Randy, One of the passages cited by Eric is pretty clear about the idea of women Elders, Pastors, and Deacons in the Church.
1 Timothy 3 Overseers and Deacons 1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, selfcontrolled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap. 8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
11In the same way, their wives[b] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
12A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
Before others jump in, this also precludes homosexuals from serving in these capacities in the church as well.
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this
James if you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517. If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry. If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560. If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century. If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582. If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744. If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774. If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829. If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605. If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628. If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865. If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder. If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as ‘Church of the Nazarene,” “Pentecostal Gospel.” “Holiness Church,” “Pilgrim Holiness Church,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century. If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church. Yes James, God created ONE TRUE CHURCH. The rest are creations of man.
By Tim
April 25, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this
Tony… I am just curious why married couples cannot practice safe sex though?
also let me say that if don’t want to allow birth control… I really don’t care… I just don’t understand why they don’t want to allow it
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this
Smithy, James the attitude of the Catholic Church to such practices is so well known that it need hardly be mentioned that she condemns them altogether. The Church has never encouraged indiscriminate and immoderate “breeding.â€? She constantly teaches moderation and self-control. Where there is need, married couples may regulate their sexual life in natural ways through the practice of periodic abstinence, confining their relations to times when conception will not occur. But she cannot tolerate any unnatural interference with the marriage act. And because, as is the case with many of her teachings, she is bitterly opposed for this stand, it is well to present, in a brief way, the unchanging principles that make her position inevitable. The Catholic Church is opposed to birth prevention because birth prevention is immoral in itself. It is an evil thing, contrary to the laws of morality, wrong just as lying, stealing and murder are wrong. Because birth prevention is altogether immoral, there is no possible argument that can justify it. If a thing is evil in itself, then it simply cannot be done, no matter for what reason. An evil means cannot be justified by a good purpose, real or supposed. Birth prevention uses much propaganda to get itself accepted. If birth control is not employed, it says, there will be over-population … an antiquated argument that has been proved false. It proposes birth prevention as a cure for the economic problem of housing and food … which it is not. It maintains that mothers’ health demands that births be spaced by several years … an unscientific fable exploded by Dr. Nicholas Eastman of Johns Hopkins University. Gerry O’Connell, the Vatican correspondent of the Roman Catholic journal The Universe, says that some of the pope’s chief advisers have analysed the American cases and concluded that the problem is not paedophilia, but homosexuality. When they analysed these cases, they discovered that the vast majority involved not priests and little children, that is, children under the age of 11 or 12, but rather priests and teenagers, mostly males. So it had more a homosexual dimension to it. What will allowing priests to marry alleviatethis problem of a homosexual nature?
By lozen
April 25, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this
“The height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image. God must be greater than the greatest of human weaknesses and, indeed, the greatest of human skill. God must even transcend our most remarkable nature in its absolute splendor. How can any man or woman sin against such greatness of mind? How can one little carbon unit on Earth-in the backwaters of the Milky Way, the boondocks-betray God almighty? That is impossible.”
By lozen
April 25, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this
Sorry Boscoe, men created the RCC just as they created all the other branches mentioned except for Christian Science started by a woman.
“On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.” Thomas Jefferson quotes (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826)
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this
Lozen, your post was in quotation marks so I don’t know who said it but to answer the Church simply states that Sin is Insanity. You/we/I must have a certain amount of insanity to willfully sin against God. With this insanity, peoples of the world have formed a feeling, that sin may be condoned and promoted. Thus the Catholic Church directs you, it tells you what those sins are and will not change to suit society no matter how much it changes.
By Sandy
April 25, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this
Regarding truth, if people believe something as true, then it is true in its consequences. This gives polling some value, if only as meausurement to see the trends. As far as finding absolute truth, I guess you’d have to believe it exists to find it.
My personal view is that a relationship with the creator does not require an intermediate; the creator is going to understand me as an individual, a woman, a mother, etc, far better than any priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope, who are, after all, only human.
As a FARC (fallen away Roman Catholic) I learned many prejudices as a young Catholic, and thank my creator every day that that I had the strength to look for something different, something inclusive, something relevant.
I anticipate the criticisms that my feelings are egotistical and arrogant, but I really approach spirituality with a sense of humility and a “there but for the grace of God go I.” This has made my life sweeter, but more importantly made me a better human being, more capable of alleviating others’ suffering, which I believe is our real purpose. I ask for guidance and often receive it, though I am sure there are times I don’t recognize it as such.
I don’t feel punished by God, but I do feel battered by those who would inflict their faith on others or on me, especially when lines between religion and government are blurred.
The Catholics, awash in their successes and failures, still believe in free will. My will is not to belong to an organized religion, since my spiritual journey is impeded by it. I recognize this is not true of others who need this reinforcement of their faith or doctrine; people often pray for me, assumably to change my spiritual ways, and I pray that they will not be led astray from the simplicity that we are here to simply love and be loved.
By E. Lewis
April 25, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this
The Pope should be aware of societal changes, but the more foundation of the Church should not change accordingly.
By lozen
April 25, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this
Boscoe, we all can pretty much see and agree on what insanity is but there is not and never has been agreement on what sin is or even if “sin” exists. For example Tony believes sex before marriage is a sin. I do not believe that. It may be a mistake, but it’s not a sin. I don’t believe the catholic church is “the one true church” as you do. As you know I’m not a christian because I cannot accept a tale about a jewish rabbi embellished centuries later with stories about Greek and Roman gods who were part god and part human. And if Chuck had been there during the fight for the vote, he would have been quoting the bible to show how women shouldn’t have the equal right in this country to vote!
By chuck
April 25, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this
While I do disagree with the stance of the Catholic Church on the issue of Priests being forbidden to marry, the Apostle Paul does have this to say in I Cor.7:8-9
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
It does not forbid marriage, but it does say that it may be better for service to the church if you choose to not marry.
That said, since I am not Catholic, it is not my place to tell them what they can and cannot do in their church. All Christian denominations have things that they do differently than others. I don’t think the “Priest marriage” issue will make ANY difference in eternity. There are doctrinal issues that do matter in eternity. They are:
1)The role of faith Jesus Christ as SAVIOR AND LORD as the ONLY means by which we can be saved. Churches who believe in Faith PLUS anything else have serious doctrinal problems.
2) The attitude of the Church toward sin. If a church does not condemn sin and hold its members accountable, that church is Christian in NAME ONLY. This includes churches that glorify or fail to condemn the sins of homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc. That does not mean that churches should hate sinners. It does however require that churches who know of members actively living a lifestyle of sin, whatever that (those) sin(s) may be, must bring chuch discipline to that believer and if he/she fails to repent and turn from that sin then they must be asked to leave the church.
3)The Church’s position on Holy scripture. Churches that deny the inerrancy of scripture in its original form are not in line with God or His word.
4)Abortion is WRONG. It is the murder of the innocent.
I can agree to disagree with my Christian brothers and sisters over some of the minor areas of disagreement, but I personally have to draw the line at these 4 things, and would have a hard time respecting or fellowshipping with any church in which these doctrinal issues are not adhered to.
By James
April 25, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this
Boscoe, so you are saying to me that pedophilia between a man and a girl is OK? Once again, you are simply spewing the hate that Homosexuality is the root of all evil. You don’t even know why you say it, you just do. And, as for your study, it was rather obvious, as usual, the Catholic Church was looking for a good scape goat. F* are that scape goat, as we are the last acceptable form of bigotry. Also, was it not you whom said in the Catholic Church Homosexuality is not evil, just the paractice of it outside of wed-lock? Ie: you can be gay, but don’t you dare enjoy it!
Also Boscoe, you speak of all Christian churches. However, you believe that all Budishts & Muslims & Jews, etc. will all go to Hell? How arrogant can you be? And, for the record, Jesus Christ did not start the ‘Catholic Church.’ Roman Emporers began the Catholic Church. You are again requrgitating what you have been told.
Boscoe, you are a controlled pawn for the Vatican. You do as your told, and you are afraid to think for yourself, as the Bible comands you to. No birth control means more Catholics. More Catholics means more $$ for the Vatican to spend. More Catholics mean more people to do their bidding. You, I am sure, believe the Cruisades & the Inquisition were a good thing. You would probably like to see women barefoot and in the kitchen having multiple babies and nothing more. Face it Boscoe, you are a stooge for them.
By lozen
April 25, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this
“Religions are all alike — founded upon fables and mythologies.” Thomas Jefferson, (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826)
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this
Michael D—“But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.” - St. Matthew 18:6 An invisible war is being fought for the life of the Catholic Church – and it is a fight to the death. The war is more than a century old now, and this is a key engagement. The war is not about pedophilia or homosexuality, as repugnant as those two symptoms are. It is about an attempted coup d’état within the Catholic Church – one of only two global institutions on this planet. Whoever gets the Keys of St. Peter walks off with the power to change the world. I’ll tell you why. At the turn of the 20th century the popes had spoken out forcefully against socialism and communism. Pope Leo XIII issued Rerum novarum (1891) that acknowledged workers’ rights but upheld the right to private property, a foundation of freedom. The Christian worldview was under attack. A new worldview, Rationalism, was menacing all of Western Civilization. Rationalism had cut deep gorges in Christendom. Many no longer believed in Christian Revelation, that is, the scripture. If man could not prove a premise, man need not be bound by any given premise. The created order as given in the Bible could be re-ordered according to man’s design; communism, utopia – fill in the blank. With the aid of science and technology, man did not need God or His musty old laws. A new order was coming of age. In 1968 that Pope Paul VI announced his long-awaited decision about Catholic teaching on contraception, and surprised many by giving many reasons against the popular practice. Immediately, a host of theologians, clergy, and lay people publicly dissented. Then, more afraid of being called “conservative” than of being faithful to Catholic teaching, the bishops looked the other way. They refused to exercise their teaching authority. They allowed dissent (more exactly, rebellion) to grow unchecked. Rebellion spread from one aspect of the Church’s sexual teaching to others. It grew and grew. Soon enough, homosexual rings were operating freely in several important seminaries. Over the years, scores of young, idealistic seminarians were seduced and corrupted. Those who resisted were forced to leave the seminary for being “too rigid” to be acceptable in the “new” priesthood. This is where the habit of “cover up” grew, and the bishops were thus made complicit with the seminary rectors they had appointed. Some favorite protégés among the diocesan clergy seem also to have been involved.
By lozen
April 25, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this
You can’t use a book of folktales written 2000 years ago as a basis for your life now! You can prove anything using that book. You can prove slavery is fine, and people did. You could prove that selling your daughter is fine. You can prove women shouldn’t be equal to men, and plenty of people have. You can prove it’s okay to torture and burn witches at the stake! You can prove anything you want. That’s why it is of no use to us anymore. We live in the 21st century!
By smithy
April 25, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this
Boscoe - you still haven’t explained WHY birth control is bad. You just said it’s “evil”. Well why is that? And why is it any business of some old guy in Italy who hasn’t ever even HAD sex whether or not my spouse and I use birth control to make sure we don’t have more children than we want to? The pope is no more holy or special than every single pastor or preacher in any church in any country in the world. He’s just a guy in a funny hat who feels within his right to dictate to everyone else what is right and what is wrong.
By Jack
April 25, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this
Lozen - You’re starting to sound like Norm.
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this
Lozen, Roman history has documents that show the Roman government attempting to destroy the “Christain Sect”. This is part of history. After Christ left this world, His Church did spring into action, fully prepared to carry on His work. This Church was not something vague in character. Christ said precisely what He wanted it to be. His Church was to be built upon the Apostles. It would continue down to the end of time in the same way, ruled by the successors of the Apostles. That is perhaps the clearest thing of all. That is why the Catholic Church is the theoretical authority. If they tell you it’s a sin, IT IS, whether you believe it or not. Christ also intended it to be one Church, not a number of churches. The Church He had in mind was to be for all men. It would work for their sanctification and salvation. These qualities were so clearly built into the Church that they were marks setting off the true Church of Christ from all other institutions claiming the name. Catholics say that these marks are unity, catholicity, holiness and apostolicity. When we examine the early Church as it appears in the time of the Apostles, we find that it had all these qualities. One Church and only one is in existence today which clearly shows the same four marks. This is the Catholic Church.
By Randy
April 25, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this
Iozen, We need facts here not what you want to believe, Jesus said slavery is OK, that it’s fine to sell your daughter. Where? Jesus didn’t burn anyone at the stake. Let’s just believe whatever we want, make stuff up etc. That’s not the way to get to the truth. You need to get into reality and not be such a bigot and closed minded.
By Brian Curtis
April 25, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this
quote from Texas Tony: “Secondly, too many people today say their Christian, but never attend church. It is my opinion, going to church validates your Christianity.”
That’s one of the oddest comments I’ve ever heard about religion. Wasn’t it Jesus who had a few comments about Sunday Christians who like to be SEEN going to church—and how it’s better to go into your room privately and shut the door before you pray?
You’re about to replay the whole Protestand Reformation here…. You don’t need a priestly middleman to hold a true faith. You don’t have to go into a special building to talk to your god. And many of those who DO apparently don’t pay much attention to what’s discussed there.
By James
April 25, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this
HOMOSEXUAL RINGS?!?! Give me a break Boscoe. Spew more of that hate. Homosexuals have always been encouraged to join the Catholic Church as priets & monks to ‘control’ their ‘sinful urges.’ Well, guess what-Homosexuality is the way God made us. It says in the bible his diversity is infinate. Why can you not believe that? Once again, homosexual couples can not make more Catholics to give the church more $$ & power.
But we were sure good enough to paint/decorate your chaples & carve your statues!
This is the way of the powerful-use the people and give them a vilian to rally them around you. Just like the Slaves-Cook my dinner-Clean my house-Farm my land-But you are not nearly as good as me! Same with the homosexuals-“decorate my house, design my landscapes, make me a fabulous dress & meal, then go away! You disgust me” only after we have done your bidding. The Catholic Church is the prototype of this phylosophy-use the people and keep our power over them.
By chuck
April 25, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this
Boscoe, I have to disagree with you about ONE THING. Jesus founded the Christian Church not the Catholic Church. Martin Luther was quite right about the reforms needed in the Church. His movement succeded in bringing the Church back to its rightful grounding in Christ and not in ritual…to a personal FAITH and not a religion.
By Brian Curtis
April 25, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
Now that’s funny. Calling anyone who doesn’t blindly accept whatever the church says, without question, “close-minded and bigoted.”
You started off on stronger ground, Randy. Don’t start railing about the stupidity and evil of anyone who disagrees with you now.
By JohnR
April 25, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this
I’m not a catholic, so whomever they choose as their “spiritual” father means nothing to me. I’m surprisied that this is really a topic for discussion particularly amongst non-catholics (which apparently means non-believers, sorry Randy) John Paul II certainly meant nothing to me.
It appears that Mr Boscoe has gotten the Pope he deserves, as I suspect anyone who remains a catholic has to be happy.
If you don’t believe in the superstitious dogma, surrounded by pagentry, cloaked in ignorance, and sheilded by its own arrogance, then the guy in the funny hat is just that: a guy in a funny hat.
The “Church” has never been a beacon of enlightenment, why would anybody expect it to change.
By lozen
April 25, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this
“We ought therefore to suspect that a great mass of information respecting the Bible, and the introduction of it into the world, has been suppressed by the united tyranny of Church and State, for the purpose of keeping people in ignorance, and which ought to be known.” Thomas Paine
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this
James, don’t hold back tell me what you really think. The fact that over 91% of the victims were males indicates a homosexual nature. BTW, I never said pedophilia is OK, let’s make that perfectly clear. I also never said Homosexuality is not evil, just the practice of it outside of wed-lock? Ie: you can be gay, but don’t you dare enjoy it! Homosexuality is against the teaching of the Catholic Church because it is a sin against God, a sin against nature, and those who engage subject themselves to a slavery of lust rather than the discipline and self control the Church advocates. It is that very discipline and self control that makes birth control a sin Smithy. Birth prevention is immoral in itself. It is an evil thing, contrary to the laws of morality, wrong just as lying, stealing and murder are wrong. I’ve already said this very thing once already. James, non-Catholics who are acquainted with this age-old teaching of the Catholic Church are invariably disturbed and annoyed by it. It is, perhaps, the one complaint against the Church in which all non-Catholic Christians are united. Some call it “unreasonable nonsenseâ€? … others brand it as un-Christian arrogance and intolerance, or a doctrine utterly unfitting a merciful God and the generous-hearted Christ. Catholics, however, point out that it is the Christian teaching of Christ Himself … the only complete and consistent interpretation of His work as the Savior of mankind. The whole question is unfortunately confused by the fact that so many people have an extremely vague understanding of the Catholic claim to be the One, True Church outside of which salvation is unattainable. In brief, “outside the Churchâ€â€?no salvationâ€? must be understood as applying to those adults who remain outside the Catholic Church in deliberately sinful opposition to the known truth that the Church was established by Christ as a necessary means of their salvation. This obviously involves on their part opposition to Christ and to the will of God. It most certainly does not mean that Catholics believe mere membership in the Catholic Church is positive and unfailing assurance that all Catholics will be saved. Nor does it mean that all non-Catholics, merely because they are not Catholics, are headed for Hell.
By James
April 25, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this
Well said JohnR.
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
You can prove slavery is fine, and people did. You could prove that selling your daughter is fine. You can prove women shouldn’t be equal to men, and plenty of people have. You can prove it’s okay to torture and burn witches at the stake! Lozen, it was NOT the Catholic Church that did any of these things. The Catholic Church actually spoke against the practice of slavery in the early days of this country.
By Randy
April 25, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this
Most everybody believes in God, it just a question on how we view him. I believe that Jesus was the Messiah, to much evidence that he was(empty tomb, all the remaining disciples not renouncing their faith before a horrible death(except John), Jesus fulfilling all the bibles discriptions on what the messiah would do etc,). I believe the bible is the sacred word of God,what I don’t like is anything added. I’m a Baptist, I remember something as a child as to us not “dancing”. I think dancing is a good exercise, I don’t think Jesus would say anything about us doing a dancing exercise. He probably would see evil in dancing for money or in a sexual way. No one is above the law of God, so no one has the right to add or subtract anything.
By smithy
April 25, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this
Race-Baiting Shakedown Jackson and Riot-Inciting Greasy-head Sharpton have as much place preaching the word of God as a whore does reaching about the virtues of saving your virginity for the man you marry.
By lozen
April 25, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this
“By religion I mean a set of beliefs held as dogmas, dominating the conduct of life, going beyond or contrary to evidence, and inculcated by methods which are emotional or authoritarian, not intellectual”
Bertrand Russell
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this
Chuck my point is, Christ taught the Apostles. These Apostles did form a church - the Catholic Church. Luther, may have been correct in certain aspects, but he created his own church. He separated from the church Christ created. Does Luther know more about the salvation of men’s souls than the Christ Himself?
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this
JohnR, the Church has lasted over 2000 years. That’s longer than any organization in history. If it is not a “beacon of enlightenment” why hasn’t it failed with the ignorance you claim?
By Tim
April 25, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this
Boscoe… why is birth-control immoral? is it just because the catholic church says so or did they use scripture to come to this conclusion?
By JohnR
April 25, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this
Hey what can I say? Guilt sells, particularly for the ignorant, superstitious lot, which make up most of people in the world. Doesn’t make them right though.
By lozen
April 25, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this
How can intelligent people believe such a fantastic story for over 2,000 years is a good question. What need, conscious or unconscious, does the christian myth appeal to? Fear of running amok and being out of control without some authority to set the rules for you? Fear of dying and ceasing to exist? Fear of having fun? Fear of anybody else having fun? Hell, there is not one shred of evidence such a place exists. The bible says so just doesn’t convince me. I guess I have too scientific a bent to believe anything without proof.
“Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.” Joseph Campbell
By Brian Curtis
April 25, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this
Boscoe: You yourself just pointed out that Jesus didn’t create the church—his apostles did. So why shouldn’t we accept that maybe Luther knew more than they did?
By Brian Curtis
April 25, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this
The longevity of a mistake does not contribute to its correctness.
By Gil Gibson
April 25, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this
To those Roman Catholics who think that their conscience and polls should be the judge of Roman Catholic doctrine… congratulations! You are Protestants. By the time their are through with the confirmation process, Catholics are well acquainted with Church doctrine. If they don’t like it, there are other denominations they can join. What they can’t do is demand changes in Roman Catholic polity to suit them.
By chuck
April 25, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
Luther’s crime was FOLLOWING THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST, when the Catholic Church had strayed from them. One history of the reformation put it this way:
The explosion finally came around the matter of the financing of the lavish building program of Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome. As an untended spokesman for this critical mindset, in 1517 Martin Luther posted his 95 theses on the door of the Wittenburg castle church protesting, for theological reasons, the sale of indulgences to finance the pope’s schemes. Behind this defiant action was a long personal pilgrimage of Luther, one based on an deep desire to unburden himself of a profound sense of guilt and personal condemnation before God’s judgment. For Luther, a personal breakthrough occurred as the message sank into the head of this Augustinian professor concerning Paul’s teaching (Galatians and Romans) about divine Grace and forgiveness received through the simple faith of the believer—and not through the demands of any religious law or requirements of a religious system. So “liberated” was he that he felt that his discovery had to be brought to the world. The occasion of the sale of indulgences brought this desire to the fore. With this action of challenging papal authority, Luther, unaware of where this would eventually take him, uncorked an explosive force among fiercely faithful Christians. It also excited the political interests of the German princes who saw in this theological revolution an economic/political opportunity they could not pass up. For Luther the reform movement was related to the matter of a sinner’s personal justification before God. Luther showed little interest in making broader changes within Christianity beyond the throwing off of Roman spiritual authority—with its traditions of works-righteousness. Substantial changes in worship, for instance, were of lesser interest to Luther. Also the episcopal form of church government (rule by bishops) was kept by Luther—though with the understanding that the bishops were answerable to the local princes—not to Rome.
The Bible teaches:
Ephesians 2:7-9 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) Public Domain
7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
The Catholic Church was teaching a “works-based rightousness” completely foreign to the teachings of Christ. To Christ, works spring FROM rightousness or a right relationship with Him, they are not a substitute FOR rigthousness.
By lozen
April 25, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this
Using birth control to prevent bringing too many children into this world is not a sin. Having an abortion when you know you cannot take care of a child is not a sin. Loving someone of the same sex is not a sin. Having sex without the piece of paper is not a sin. Thinking for yourself is not a sin. Questioning everything is not a sin. All these things are signs of being a grown up and taking adult responsibility for yourself rather than remaining a child who looks to a parent figure to tell you what you must do.
By AllaboutME
April 25, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this
Boscoe for Pope!
By Chris
April 25, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this
If you want the church to adapt to modern culture, you have to ask yourself - which culture should the church adapt? Should it become an American-type institution? We all know how popular American culture is in the more conservative parts of the world.
In my opinion, the church should be very slow to change and not whipped about by cultural dictates. The church is a global organization; what may be culturally sound in the U.S. might be repudiated in other cultures. Can you imagine if Melekite Catholics in Iraq had women priests? We would, indeed have a culture war on our hands. A media reporter came out last week that said that 90 percent of condoms sold in India are used to make saris - not for birth control! Cultures can be very different, and the church needs to serve them all.
I also believe we should give Pope Benedict the benefit of the doubt. The man has been Pope for about a week. Let’s give him time to actually do something before we judge his performance.
By norman
April 25, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
My dear friends: I see you miss me, (Thanks Jack et al.) but I decided just to sit back and allow all these Christians to tear one another to bits. Over the weekend I heard a good one: here in the South religion is so important that even people who don’t go to church know which church they don’t go to!
That Southern Baptist Alfred Moller or something, a pal of Bill Frist and the other Christian Fascists, just remarked that the papal office is not in the bible. Of course it isn’t, but despite this unholy alliance between conservative Catholics and evangelicans, their basic hatred of one another can only be concealed for a time — it eventually surfaces and reveals itself. As it does here, with bible-quoters who think that will silence Boscoe who doesn’t need a bible quote to know what is true.
Boscoe is right in believing that before there was a New Testament there was a Catholic church which selected what books should be in the New Testament and what should be rejected. So the bible thumpers have no case. On the other hand, the Church which put together the New Testament was so far removed from Jesus and his earliest disciples that what they put together bears little resemblance to what Jesus did and said and intended. Thus both Protestants and Catholics (and eatern Orthodox) don’t really have any reliable contact with Jesus. Their Christian faith is a delusion.
But keep on truckin’ Keep on denouncing one another. There is much joy in the heaven of the free-thinkers, the agnostics, and the atheists — the only people worth the salt of truth.
By AllaboutME
April 25, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this
Norman for Pope!
By lozen
April 25, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this
“Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” Napoleon Bonaparte
By Thomas
April 25, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this
Yea, so that means that I only get to have sex with my wife a few times a month. Using the rhythm method, I have to monitor when she is ovulating, menstrating, etc., and keep it on a calendar. The only times that we can be intimate is the other times of the month.
So what we decided to do is sleep in separate parts of the house. We meditate (we cannot relieve ourselves with the secret sin), pray, fast, and try to make it without being intimate. Yeah, we love the rhythm method. It makes our marriage so complete.
By chuck
April 25, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
Lozen, you prove with every post, the advantage to women “keeping silent”…at least women who don’t know what they are talking about.
As for your statement: And if Chuck had been there during the fight for the vote, he would have been quoting the bible to show how women shouldn’t have the equal right in this country to vote!
It shows how little you pay attention. I have never advocated any such thing. My wife is one of the strongest women that I know, and I love her for that. As far as women in the church, the fact that I believe that the Bible teaches that women cannot be pastors, elders, or deacons does not mean that I believe women have NO role in the church. Women are equal to men in the eyes of Christ AND the church. They have a different ROLE in the church from men just like in the home. It is not any less important than that of men…just different.
By AllaboutME
April 25, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this
…martin luther…martini to his friends…was REMOVED from the catholic monestary he was in for excessive masturbation…this too is fact…he was married and evidence in documents shows he was a wife-beater…remarkably…luther rallied against selling of indulgences and gift shops that sell stuff to get you to heaven faster…like parts of the true cross, jesus finger nails, the shroud jesus wore, and sponges used to clean the body (I know it sounds like Elvis but the King wasnt born yet)…of italian popes begating children who became pope…urban legends…and other stuff that is history…remarkable how this very site is advertising a book called: catholicism for dummies…and cameos of jp2… …the problem with the catholic church is experiencing is downsizing…most of europes cathedreals and americas cathederals dont have a priest to putter in…of course, just remember, the college of cardinals who elected Beficace pope dont expect him to live too long…hes the between-popes-pope…a git in a hat…the stand in before the real comic comes on stage…
By chuck
April 25, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this
I also have to agree with Gibson. How could you go through the teachings of the Church that you have grown up in, agree in principle with those teachings in order to join the church, then fight the church on those very teachings? It does not make any sense. If you don’t agree, there is a church on every corner…go join one.
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this
Lozen, you said you’re not a Catholic, so why are you so worried when I say I beleive what the Catholic Church says? You want evidence of something to prove it exists. It’s still faith lozen. Let me try to illustrate it this way. Sorry but this is long but good reading. If I were to take ten coins (let us say silver dollars) and an ink marker, and place the numbers one through ten sequentially on the coins so that each bore a different number, what do you think the chance would be that I could put those ten coins in my pocket, shake them up, and pull out accidentally the coin with the number one on It first? The chance is one out of ten. If I returned that coin to my pocket, and shook all ten around again, what chance do you think I would have of pulling out the coin with the numÂÂber two on it second? The chance now would be one out of one hundred! To return that coin to my pocket and accidentally pull the coin with the number three on it has now changed to one out of a thousand. The number four coin fourth is one chance out of ten thousand. The number five coin fifth is one out of one hundred thousand chances. The number six coin sixth is one out of one million; number seven one out of ten million; number eight one out of one hundred million; number nine one out of one billion; and number ten one out of ten billion chances! The chance of my pulling ten coins out of my pocket in perfect sequence by sheer accident would be one out of ten billion! Do you really understand how remote that chance is? Well ten billion is such a staggering number that most of us cannot comprehend it. Let me try to put it in every day terminology. If you could start today spending one hundred thouÂÂsand dollars a day, every day, without a single day off, do you know how long it would take you to spend just one billion dollars? Twenty-seven and one half years. Twenty seven and a half years for just one billion and I’m talking about one chance in ten billion to pull out ten coins in a row. The chances of accidentally puling ten coins out of my pocket in perfect sequence is what one dollar would be to 275 years of $100,000 a day!
If I were to start pulling those coins out in such perfect order, would your mind really let you believe that I was doing it accidentally, by mere chance, or wouldn’t your mind tell you? I was doing it by design? How many coins would I have to pull out of my pocket before you stopped believing that I was doing it by accident and started believing I was using a system? Until the third or fourth coin? I wouldn’t believe you beyond the third! My mind would rebel against a gullibility or credulity of just accepting your word that you were doing it by chance. I would find it far more intelligent and sensible to believe that you had devised a system whereby you could detect a particular coin while in your pocket. Wouldn’t your mind demand the same of you? Wouldn’t you find it much more sensible to believe that I had filed one notch on the number one coin, two notches on the number two coin, three notches like a triangle on the number three coin, a notch in the number four coin, something sticky on the number five coin, etc., etc., etc.? Wouldn’t you really find it much more satisfying intellectually to explain the pulling out of those coins by design or intent than by accident? Wouldn’t you really find it virtually impossible to simply believe that I had pulled them out by chance rather than by choice? Would your mind permit you to accept the belief in one chance out of ten billion when you know how easy it is for an intelligent person to devise a system and pull them out easily by choice?
With the subject of things happening by chance or choice before us, now let us turn again to the world, to Its beginning and to the beginning of life on it. I know that analogies do not prove; they can only illustrate. But I believe illustrations can be very thought� provoking. Therefore I want to turn to the field of science and set before you ten very interesting things about the earth and conditions that have made life possible on it. I will use information drawn from competent scientists but the arguments and deductions are mine.
The first thing concerns the angle of the earth in relationship to the sun. We might assume that it is “straight up and down� or parallel to the sun, but it is not. It is not sitting perpendicular; it is tilted � tilted at about a twenty�three degree angle. Perhaps you have noticed globes in libraries sitting at an angle. One eminent scientist said this is very important because it makes it possible for life to exist, as we know it. Were it too straight up and down human life probably would not exist. The tilt affects the amount of heat absorbed by our earth and we’ll say more of this later. This is like the first coin. It does not require much faith to believe that this could happen by accident. After all, the universe is extremely large. For one planet to happen to be tilted just about right is not a big matter to believe. But let us go on to a second thing.
While tilted at about a twenty�three-degree angle, our world is rotating on its axis at the rate of about a thousand miles an hour. This rate of speed one scientist said is just about right for you and me to exist. Por, said he, if our world turned at only 100 miles an hour instead of 1,000 miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long. What do you think would happen to you and other living things on June or July or August days ten times as long as they now are? The heat would build up so great that it would wither, wilt, scorch and kill virtually everything above the surface of the ground. And whatever survived the incredibly hot days would soon freeze in the ten�times�as�long nights when the earth radiates its heat into the atmosphere. Temperatures would plummet to something like 240 degrees below zero. Therefore, he said our world was rotating just about the right speed so as to alternate between heating and cooling. Thus our earth is tilted just right and turning just right. These two are interesting maybe, but let’s turn to a third.
This world of ours wobbles of f of that twenty-three degree tilt. The prominent scientist said our world wobbles upward off that tilt about three degrees. It comes back to the twenty-•three degree angle then tilts downward about three degrees and starts back upward to the twentyâ€â€?three degree average tilt. It follows this tilting procedure with amazing regularity while spinning at a thousand miles an hour. Our seasons and our climates are affected by it. Do you remember from your college or high school geometry how many would be 90 degrees, or 45? Three degrees is a relatively small angle, but said he, if our world straightened more than three degrees off the twentyâ€â€?three degree tilt, life might perish from the earth! The sun would strike our earth so directly (instead of at a glance) with such a tremendous force and heat at the center, that without the tilt. To deflect the light and heat, the earth would absorb too much heat! It would evapoÂÂrate the oceans so rapidly that moisture would be pulled to the North and South Poles and build up in tremendous ice caps. Between these incredibly deep ice caps would be barren deserts or molten pools of lava created by the impact of the sun’s heat. Lives as we now know it would probably perish from off the earth.
On the other hand, if the world were to tilt more than three degrees downward from the normal twentyâ€â€?three degree stance, the sun would strike our northern Arctic region with such a tremendous heat that it would probably melt those huge ice caps. The melting ice might cause enough additional water to flow into our oceans and cause us to die. For the oceans are about the right depth-and just a few feet more water in the oceans (without more air coming into existence) would give enough addiÂÂtional liquid that it might absorb or dissolve all the carbon dioxide and the oxygen out of the air. Without carbon dioxide, the plants could not manufacture food. Without the oxygen, you and I and all other land animals would die! Here are four things, then, about the world working together in such a wonderful way: tilted just right; spinning just right; wobbling up just right; wobbling down just right. And the chance of my pulling four coins out of my pocket in perfect sequence by accident is one out of ten thousand chances!
We have already implied a fifth thing - the depth of the earth’s oceans. A former president of the American Academy of Science wrote a book many years ago in which he said that if the earth’s oceans had been just a little deeper when the earth originally began, that that much more water would have absorbed or would have dissolved the carbon dioxide and oxygen out of the air to start with and life could not have begun unless more air had been in the atmosphere originally. Thus, the earth’s oceans are just about the right depth in relation to the amount of air in our atmosphere.
A sixth thing is the earth’s crust. Not only are the earth’s oceans about the right depth but also the earth’s crust is just the right thickness. For if the earth were only ten feet thicker on the outside than it is, that much additional matter would have oxidized all the free oxygen out of the air when the world began, and life�forms could not have begun. This, like the depth of the oceans, is true unless more atmospheres had come into existence when the world began. Ten feet more solid matter on the outside of the earth’s crust! Think about it for a moment! That’s not very much more is it? The earth is approximately 4,000 miles in radius, so ten feet to 4,000 miles or twenty feet to 8,000 miles (the approximate diameter) is a very narrow margin indeed! Here are six things, then, working together just so well: tilted just right, spinning just right, wobbling up just right; wobbling down just right; earth’s oceans just right, and the earth’s crust just right � six things just about right! And the chance of my pulling six coins out of my pocket just right by accident is one chance in one million!
While all of this is working just right, there is a seventh thing. We are moving around the sun in an elliptical orbit at just about the right speed. The orbit is not in a perfect circle as we might suppose, but more like a round-ended football. We are speeding through space, while we are rotating and wobbling up and down, at the rate of 18 miles a second, or 1,080 miles a minute, or if you prefer, 64,800 miles an hour. The astronauts can orbit the earth if they get about 17,000 miles per hour, and they only hit about 24,000-25,000 miles per hour coming back from the moon, but we’re racing around the sun at nearly 65,000 miles per hour! But this is just about the right speed! If our world slowed down and went only one-third that speed around the sun, 6 miles a second or about 21,600 miles per hour, it would be pulled so close into the sun at the shallow or narrow part of that football� like orbit, that we would be burned to a crisp as we passed by. Or the slowing of the earth’s speed would cause us to be pulled back into the sun much as our orbiting astronauts come down when the retro�rockets break their speed and the earth’s gravity pulls them down out of earth� orbit. And so we would be pulled into the sun and burned up if we moved around the sun too slowly.
But if our world, wobbling and spinning, were to slightly more than double its speed so that it would travel forty miles a second, that much additional speed would throw us so fast into space at the long point of the orbit that we would freeze to death in the far reaches of incredibly cold space before we were to come back close enough to the sun. Thus our speed around the sun is just about right!
If those things were not enough, there is an eighth thing just about right â€â€? our earth is about the right number of miles from the sun for us to be able to live: about 93 million miles. At this disÂÂtance our earth receives neither too much nor too little heat from the sun for us to live. The surface of the sun is between 11,000â€â€?12,000 degrees Fahrenheit on the average. If this does not seem so hot, let me remind you that asbestos melts around 4,000-5000 degrees! Some sunspots that erupt on the sun’s surface interrupt even radio communiÂÂcation on earth and produce up to a million and a half to two million degrees Fahrenheit. And the interior of the sun is said by scientists to be approximately 40â€â€?50 million degrees! Across those 93 million miles, we get enough of the sun’s heat, but not too mach, to live. And 100 degrees seems very hot weather to us, but did you know this, that if only fifty degrees more or fifty degrees less out of those 11,000â€â€? 12,000 reached our planet on the average f or a year, that we could not live? Fifty degrees more or fifty degrees less for a year! You and I are so fragile that we would perish if our earth’s temperature averaged that much more or less for the period of a year. But fifty degrees is less than oneâ€â€?half of one percent of the average surface temperature of our sun! That’s an awfully close margin in my opinion! Eight things so wonderfully and closely related! But there is a ninth thing.
While the earth is tilted, spinning, wobbling and racing around the sun, the moon is moving around the earth at just about the right distance! All of us, I’m sure, have looked up and wished that great big beautiful moon would come in closer. This sounds like a romantic thing, but we had better let it stay just the distance that it is. Averaging about 240,000 miles from the earth, the moon is just about right for our wellâ€â€?being. Prom that distance the moon exerts such a pull of gravity that it literally lifts the oceans of the earth and dashes them against the continents with such force that in some parts of the world the tides rise between sixty and seventy feet. The earth’s crust literally bends and stretches outward several inches from the sheer pull of our moon. Scientists say that if our moon were to come in from 240,000 to only 50,000 miles, the gravitational pull would be so fantastically increased that every lower region of the earth would be inundated with water from the higher tides! The AtlanÂÂtic Ocean, for example, would have tides that would move through the Gulf of Mexico and sweep across Texas to break against the Rocky Mountains with such force that they would create hurricanes in the air as they came in and went out! But you wouldn’t be worried about the hurricanes since those colossal tides would wash every bit of soil, every tree and everything else into the oceans as they daily pounded the Rocky Mountains. In due time the impact would be so great the tides would shatter every mountain range of this earth and wash them into the ocean bottoms. And if you could take a giant or cosmic shovel of some kind and scoop the continents into the ocean beds, our ocean beds are so large when compared to our continents that you could put every continent into the bottoms of our oceans and have an earth covered by one and a half miles deep in water without a single foot of ground on which to stand! Thus the distance of the moon is just about right and a ninth thing is working so wonderfully well for our exisÂÂtence. And the chance of my pulling nine coins out of my pocket by mere chance in perfect sequence is one chance out of one billion!
For the tenth thing I want to draw from biology. I sat amazed as a biology teacher told us that in every green leaf on every piece of grass or weed, bush or tree, there were tiny cells called chloroÂÂplasts which contained a substance called chlorophyll that performs a function so basic to our existence that we are absolutely dependent upon it. The little cells, activated or energized by the power of the sun, take carbon dioxide from the air and moisture from the soil and break down their molecular structure so as to Torni a molecule of starch and in the process free atoms of oxygen back into our air. On this process, called photosynthesis, the entire animal kingdom completely depends! For if it stopped, one of two things would happen: either we would starve to death for lack of food (since this is the basic foodâ€â€?producing process) or we would die from asphyxiation (since this is the basic way nature replenishes our oxygen supply). Without the regular release of oxygen back into our atmosphere we would die in due time due to its constant use by such th2ngs as our lungs, our car motors, our factories, etc. Our very lives depend upon the regular functioning of this basic process.
Here, then, are ten things all working together so wonderfully well. And the chance of my pulling ten coins out of my pocket in perfect sequence by sheer accident is one chance in ten billion! Could these have all happened by accident? Could life have begun by accident when it seems that so many things had to be necessary in order for it to begin? Some people believe that it did, but I for one cannot. If I saw you pulling coins out at your pocket in an amazÂÂing sequence, my mind would demand that I believe you were doing it by design or purpose and not by random accident. When an eminent scientist says that for life to begin there must be protein, and that the chances of the 2,000 atoms in a protein molecule coming together by accident is one out of 10321, then I find it much easier and more reasonable to believe that factors for life are the result of choice rather than chance.
Others may believe this orderly universe and its intricate life forms are the product of chance or accident, but I cannot. I could not believe that you “Just accidentally� pulled those ten coins out in perfect sequence and neither can I believe all these things “just accidentally� happened. There are signs of choice, and I call choice by the word “God.� Both answers - chance and choice � are faith answers, but in the light of scientific data, is it so gullible, so naive, so credulous to choose the faith answer called “choice�? Does it really take more faith? Is it really more gullible than the other faith answer called “chance�?
.
By St. Anthony
April 25, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
Lozen, you said you’re not a Catholic, so why are you so worried when I say I beleive what the Catholic Church says? You want evidence of something to prove it exists. It’s still faith lozen. Let me try to illustrate it this way. Sorry but this is long but good reading. If I were to take ten coins (let us say silver dollars) and an ink marker, and place the numbers one through ten sequentially on the coins so that each bore a different number, what do you think the chance would be that I could put those ten coins in my pocket, shake them up, and pull out accidentally the coin with the number one on It first? The chance is one out of ten. If I returned that coin to my pocket, and shook all ten around again, what chance do you think I would have of pulling out the coin with the numÂÂber two on it second? The chance now would be one out of one hundred! To return that coin to my pocket and accidentally pull the coin with the number three on it has now changed to one out of a thousand. The number four coin fourth is one chance out of ten thousand. The number five coin fifth is one out of one hundred thousand chances. The number six coin sixth is one out of one million; number seven one out of ten million; number eight one out of one hundred million; number nine one out of one billion; and number ten one out of ten billion chances! The chance of my pulling ten coins out of my pocket in perfect sequence by sheer accident would be one out of ten billion! Do you really understand how remote that chance is? Well ten billion is such a staggering number that most of us cannot comprehend it. Let me try to put it in every day terminology. If you could start today spending one hundred thouÂÂsand dollars a day, every day, without a single day off, do you know how long it would take you to spend just one billion dollars? Twenty-seven and one half years. Twenty seven and a half years for just one billion and I’m talking about one chance in ten billion to pull out ten coins in a row. The chances of accidentally puling ten coins out of my pocket in perfect sequence is what one dollar would be to 275 years of $100,000 a day!
If I were to start pulling those coins out in such perfect order, would your mind really let you believe that I was doing it accidentally, by mere chance, or wouldn’t your mind tell you? I was doing it by design? How many coins would I have to pull out of my pocket before you stopped believing that I was doing it by accident and started believing I was using a system? Until the third or fourth coin? I wouldn’t believe you beyond the third! My mind would rebel against a gullibility or credulity of just accepting your word that you were doing it by chance. I would find it far more intelligent and sensible to believe that you had devised a system whereby you could detect a particular coin while in your pocket. Wouldn’t your mind demand the same of you? Wouldn’t you find it much more sensible to believe that I had filed one notch on the number one coin, two notches on the number two coin, three notches like a triangle on the number three coin, a notch in the number four coin, something sticky on the number five coin, etc., etc., etc.? Wouldn’t you really find it much more satisfying intellectually to explain the pulling out of those coins by design or intent than by accident? Wouldn’t you really find it virtually impossible to simply believe that I had pulled them out by chance rather than by choice? Would your mind permit you to accept the belief in one chance out of ten billion when you know how easy it is for an intelligent person to devise a system and pull them out easily by choice?
With the subject of things happening by chance or choice before us, now let us turn again to the world, to Its beginning and to the beginning of life on it. I know that analogies do not prove; they can only illustrate. But I believe illustrations can be very thought� provoking. Therefore I want to turn to the field of science and set before you ten very interesting things about the earth and conditions that have made life possible on it. I will use information drawn from competent scientists but the arguments and deductions are mine.
The first thing concerns the angle of the earth in relationship to the sun. We might assume that it is “straight up and down� or parallel to the sun, but it is not. It is not sitting perpendicular; it is tilted � tilted at about a twenty�three degree angle. Perhaps you have noticed globes in libraries sitting at an angle. One eminent scientist said this is very important because it makes it possible for life to exist, as we know it. Were it too straight up and down human life probably would not exist. The tilt affects the amount of heat absorbed by our earth and we’ll say more of this later. This is like the first coin. It does not require much faith to believe that this could happen by accident. After all, the universe is extremely large. For one planet to happen to be tilted just about right is not a big matter to believe. But let us go on to a second thing.
While tilted at about a twenty�three-degree angle, our world is rotating on its axis at the rate of about a thousand miles an hour. This rate of speed one scientist said is just about right for you and me to exist. Por, said he, if our world turned at only 100 miles an hour instead of 1,000 miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long. What do you think would happen to you and other living things on June or July or August days ten times as long as they now are? The heat would build up so great that it would wither, wilt, scorch and kill virtually everything above the surface of the ground. And whatever survived the incredibly hot days would soon freeze in the ten�times�as�long nights when the earth radiates its heat into the atmosphere. Temperatures would plummet to something like 240 degrees below zero. Therefore, he said our world was rotating just about the right speed so as to alternate between heating and cooling. Thus our earth is tilted just right and turning just right. These two are interesting maybe, but let’s turn to a third.
This world of ours wobbles of f of that twenty-three degree tilt. The prominent scientist said our world wobbles upward off that tilt about three degrees. It comes back to the twenty-•three degree angle then tilts downward about three degrees and starts back upward to the twentyâ€â€?three degree average tilt. It follows this tilting procedure with amazing regularity while spinning at a thousand miles an hour. Our seasons and our climates are affected by it. Do you remember from your college or high school geometry how many would be 90 degrees, or 45? Three degrees is a relatively small angle, but said he, if our world straightened more than three degrees off the twentyâ€â€?three degree tilt, life might perish from the earth! The sun would strike our earth so directly (instead of at a glance) with such a tremendous force and heat at the center, that without the tilt. To deflect the light and heat, the earth would absorb too much heat! It would evapoÂÂrate the oceans so rapidly that moisture would be pulled to the North and South Poles and build up in tremendous ice caps. Between these incredibly deep ice caps would be barren deserts or molten pools of lava created by the impact of the sun’s heat. Lives as we now know it would probably perish from off the earth.
On the other hand, if the world were to tilt more than three degrees downward from the normal twentyâ€â€?three degree stance, the sun would strike our northern Arctic region with such a tremendous heat that it would probably melt those huge ice caps. The melting ice might cause enough additional water to flow into our oceans and cause us to die. For the oceans are about the right depth-and just a few feet more water in the oceans (without more air coming into existence) would give enough addiÂÂtional liquid that it might absorb or dissolve all the carbon dioxide and the oxygen out of the air. Without carbon dioxide, the plants could not manufacture food. Without the oxygen, you and I and all other land animals would die! Here are four things, then, about the world working together in such a wonderful way: tilted just right; spinning just right; wobbling up just right; wobbling down just right. And the chance of my pulling four coins out of my pocket in perfect sequence by accident is one out of ten thousand chances!
We have already implied a fifth thing - the depth of the earth’s oceans. A former president of the American Academy of Science wrote a book many years ago in which he said that if the earth’s oceans had been just a little deeper when the earth originally began, that that much more water would have absorbed or would have dissolved the carbon dioxide and oxygen out of the air to start with and life could not have begun unless more air had been in the atmosphere originally. Thus, the earth’s oceans are just about the right depth in relation to the amount of air in our atmosphere.
A sixth thing is the earth’s crust. Not only are the earth’s oceans about the right depth but also the earth’s crust is just the right thickness. For if the earth were only ten feet thicker on the outside than it is, that much additional matter would have oxidized all the free oxygen out of the air when the world began, and life�forms could not have begun. This, like the depth of the oceans, is true unless more atmospheres had come into existence when the world began. Ten feet more solid matter on the outside of the earth’s crust! Think about it for a moment! That’s not very much more is it? The earth is approximately 4,000 miles in radius, so ten feet to 4,000 miles or twenty feet to 8,000 miles (the approximate diameter) is a very narrow margin indeed! Here are six things, then, working together just so well: tilted just right, spinning just right, wobbling up just right; wobbling down just right; earth’s oceans just right, and the earth’s crust just right � six things just about right! And the chance of my pulling six coins out of my pocket just right by accident is one chance in one million!
While all of this is working just right, there is a seventh thing. We are moving around the sun in an elliptical orbit at just about the right speed. The orbit is not in a perfect circle as we might suppose, but more like a round-ended football. We are speeding through space, while we are rotating and wobbling up and down, at the rate of 18 miles a second, or 1,080 miles a minute, or if you prefer, 64,800 miles an hour. The astronauts can orbit the earth if they get about 17,000 miles per hour, and they only hit about 24,000-25,000 miles per hour coming back from the moon, but we’re racing around the sun at nearly 65,000 miles per hour! But this is just about the right speed! If our world slowed down and went only one-third that speed around the sun, 6 miles a second or about 21,600 miles per hour, it would be pulled so close into the sun at the shallow or narrow part of that football� like orbit, that we would be burned to a crisp as we passed by. Or the slowing of the earth’s speed would cause us to be pulled back into the sun much as our orbiting astronauts come down when the retro�rockets break their speed and the earth’s gravity pulls them down out of earth� orbit. And so we would be pulled into the sun and burned up if we moved around the sun too slowly.
But if our world, wobbling and spinning, were to slightly more than double its speed so that it would travel forty miles a second, that much additional speed would throw us so fast into space at the long point of the orbit that we would freeze to death in the far reaches of incredibly cold space before we were to come back close enough to the sun. Thus our speed around the sun is just about right!
If those things were not enough, there is an eighth thing just about right â€â€? our earth is about the right number of miles from the sun for us to be able to live: about 93 million miles. At this disÂÂtance our earth receives neither too much nor too little heat from the sun for us to live. The surface of the sun is between 11,000â€â€?12,000 degrees Fahrenheit on the average. If this does not seem so hot, let me remind you that asbestos melts around 4,000-5000 degrees! Some sunspots that erupt on the sun’s surface interrupt even radio communiÂÂcation on earth and produce up to a million and a half to two million degrees Fahrenheit. And the interior of the sun is said by scientists to be approximately 40â€â€?50 million degrees! Across those 93 million miles, we get enough of the sun’s heat, but not too mach, to live. And 100 degrees seems very hot weather to us, but did you know this, that if only fifty degrees more or fifty degrees less out of those 11,000â€â€? 12,000 reached our planet on the average f or a year, that we could not live? Fifty degrees more or fifty degrees less for a year! You and I are so fragile that we would perish if our earth’s temperature averaged that much more or less for the period of a year. But fifty degrees is less than oneâ€â€?half of one percent of the average surface temperature of our sun! That’s an awfully close margin in my opinion! Eight things so wonderfully and closely related! But there is a ninth thing.
While the earth is tilted, spinning, wobbling and racing around the sun, the moon is moving around the earth at just about the right distance! All of us, I’m sure, have looked up and wished that great big beautiful moon would come in closer. This sounds like a romantic thing, but we had better let it stay just the distance that it is. Averaging about 240,000 miles from the earth, the moon is just about right for our wellâ€â€?being. Prom that distance the moon exerts such a pull of gravity that it literally lifts the oceans of the earth and dashes them against the continents with such force that in some parts of the world the tides rise between sixty and seventy feet. The earth’s crust literally bends and stretches outward several inches from the sheer pull of our moon. Scientists say that if our moon were to come in from 240,000 to only 50,000 miles, the gravitational pull would be so fantastically increased that every lower region of the earth would be inundated with water from the higher tides! The AtlanÂÂtic Ocean, for example, would have tides that would move through the Gulf of Mexico and sweep across Texas to break against the Rocky Mountains with such force that they would create hurricanes in the air as they came in and went out! But you wouldn’t be worried about the hurricanes since those colossal tides would wash every bit of soil, every tree and everything else into the oceans as they daily pounded the Rocky Mountains. In due time the impact would be so great the tides would shatter every mountain range of this earth and wash them into the ocean bottoms. And if you could take a giant or cosmic shovel of some kind and scoop the continents into the ocean beds, our ocean beds are so large when compared to our continents that you could put every continent into the bottoms of our oceans and have an earth covered by one and a half miles deep in water without a single foot of ground on which to stand! Thus the distance of the moon is just about right and a ninth thing is working so wonderfully well for our exisÂÂtence. And the chance of my pulling nine coins out of my pocket by mere chance in perfect sequence is one chance out of one billion!
For the tenth thing I want to draw from biology. I sat amazed as a biology teacher told us that in every green leaf on every piece of grass or weed, bush or tree, there were tiny cells called chloroÂÂplasts which contained a substance called chlorophyll that performs a function so basic to our existence that we are absolutely dependent upon it. The little cells, activated or energized by the power of the sun, take carbon dioxide from the air and moisture from the soil and break down their molecular structure so as to Torni a molecule of starch and in the process free atoms of oxygen back into our air. On this process, called photosynthesis, the entire animal kingdom completely depends! For if it stopped, one of two things would happen: either we would starve to death for lack of food (since this is the basic foodâ€â€?producing process) or we would die from asphyxiation (since this is the basic way nature replenishes our oxygen supply). Without the regular release of oxygen back into our atmosphere we would die in due time due to its constant use by such th2ngs as our lungs, our car motors, our factories, etc. Our very lives depend upon the regular functioning of this basic process.
Here, then, are ten things all working together so wonderfully well. And the chance of my pulling ten coins out of my pocket in perfect sequence by sheer accident is one chance in ten billion! Could these have all happened by accident? Could life have begun by accident when it seems that so many things had to be necessary in order for it to begin? Some people believe that it did, but I for one cannot. If I saw you pulling coins out at your pocket in an amazÂÂing sequence, my mind would demand that I believe you were doing it by design or purpose and not by random accident. When an eminent scientist says that for life to begin there must be protein, and that the chances of the 2,000 atoms in a protein molecule coming together by accident is one out of 10321, then I find it much easier and more reasonable to believe that factors for life are the result of choice rather than chance.
Others may believe this orderly universe and its intricate life forms are the product of chance or accident, but I cannot. I could not believe that you “Just accidentally� pulled those ten coins out in perfect sequence and neither can I believe all these things “just accidentally� happened. There are signs of choice, and I call choice by the word “God.� Both answers - chance and choice � are faith answers, but in the light of scientific data, is it so gullible, so naive, so credulous to choose the faith answer called “choice�? Does it really take more faith? Is it really more gullible than the other faith answer called “chance�?
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
OH man! Sorry something went really bad.
By Jodi
April 25, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
Holy word limit, Batman!
By MatthewMarkLukeJohn
April 25, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this
In Jesus’ day, there were men that knew every in and out of the Old testament. They were called Pharisees. at every opportunity, Jesus pointed out to them that they were missing the forest for the trees. They were so wrapped up in their own interpretation of what should be or should not be holy, should or shouldn’t be forbidden, thjat they were missing the point of who God is and what he wants His people to act like. But the Jewish people were given 1000’s of laws (not included in the original law from God that Moses was given) that were nearly impossible to follow. In the old system, Rabbi’s were the only ones who could absolve people of their sins and were the only ones who could “speak” directly to God once a year.
Christ came to show the people that they were missing it, not to admonish them but to be a “lampo unto their feet” so that they might see the forest, not just trees.
the Catholic Church does the same thing the Pharisees did, but in an almost worse way because they have the benefit of Christ’s teachings, which the Pharisees did not until he arrived
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this
Chuck. Let me refer to an incident I recently witnessed. A Lutheran minister, introduced by the Catholic parish priest, preached from the pulpit, saying that the Catholic Church and the Lutheran church have been in dialogue for the past 40 years. During this time, a “concensus” had been made on some points, while there still remained “extraneous things” that prevented full union. Excuse me? “Extraneous things”? In the mind of the Lutheran minister, these “extraneous things” include: 1. Rejection of the Pope as the visible head of the only true Church established by Christ; 2.Rejection of the doctrine of transubstantiation; 3.Rejection of the sacrificial nature of the Mass; 4.The nullity of Anglican Orders (see the Apostolic Letter issued by Pope Leo XIII on September 13, 1896 in which he pronounces that “ordinations performed according to the Anglican Rite have been and are completely null and void.”) Plainly stated, Luther was a heretic. He rejected many of the saving truths of the Catholic Faith and have chosen to accept heresies (spiritual poison) in place of these saving truths.
By kimberly
April 25, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this
Saint Anthony.. Oh dear. You make a compelling argument for intelligent design — a buzzword that describes a concept with which i generally concur. But um. Where did you learn MATH?
If you have ten coins in your pocket, each time you reach in, the odds of pulling out any specific coin are ONE IN TEN. Odds of pulling number 1 first: one in ten. Odds of pulling number two second: one in ten. (Assuming you put the coin back in the pocket each time, and they are shaken up completely — lottery style — each time.) Odds of pulling number three the next time: one in ten. Odds of pulling number four the fourth time: one in ten.
Just like lotto: the odds of a winning combo 1-2-3-4-5-6 are exactly the same as any other six-number combination. Am I wrong? Math anyone?
By Michael D
April 25, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this
and another thing…
Lozen, you said you’re not a Catholic, so why are you so worried when I say I beleive what the Catholic Church says? You want evidence of something to prove it exists. It’s still faith lozen. Let me try to illustrate it this way. Sorry but this is long but good reading. If I were to take ten coins (let us say silver dollars) and an ink marker, and place the numbers one through ten sequentially on the coins so that each bore a different number, what do you think the chance would be that I could put those ten coins in my pocket, shake them up, and pull out accidentally the coin with the number one on It first? The chance is one out of ten. If I returned that coin to my pocket, and shook all ten around again, what chance do you think I would have of pulling out the coin with the numÂÂber two on it second? The chance now would be one out of one hundred! To return that coin to my pocket and accidentally pull the coin with the number three on it has now changed to one out of a thousand. The number four coin fourth is one chance out of ten thousand. The number five coin fifth is one out of one hundred thousand chances. The number six coin sixth is one out of one million; number seven one out of ten million; number eight one out of one hundred million; number nine one out of one billion; and number ten one out of ten billion chances! The chance of my pulling ten coins out of my pocket in perfect sequence by sheer accident would be one out of ten billion! Do you really understand how remote that chance is? Well ten billion is such a staggering number that most of us cannot comprehend it. Let me try to put it in every day terminology. If you could start today spending one hundred thouÂÂsand dollars a day, every day, without a single day off, do you know how long it would take you to spend just one billion dollars? Twenty-seven and one half years. Twenty seven and a half years for just one billion and I’m talking about one chance in ten billion to pull out ten coins in a row. The chances of accidentally puling ten coins out of my pocket in perfect sequence is what one dollar would be to 275 years of $100,000 a day!
If I were to start pulling those coins out in such perfect order, would your mind really let you believe that I was doing it accidentally, by mere chance, or wouldn’t your mind tell you? I was doing it by design? How many coins would I have to pull out of my pocket before you stopped believing that I was doing it by accident and started believing I was using a system? Until the third or fourth coin? I wouldn’t believe you beyond the third! My mind would rebel against a gullibility or credulity of just accepting your word that you were doing it by chance. I would find it far more intelligent and sensible to believe that you had devised a system whereby you could detect a particular coin while in your pocket. Wouldn’t your mind demand the same of you? Wouldn’t you find it much more sensible to believe that I had filed one notch on the number one coin, two notches on the number two coin, three notches like a triangle on the number three coin, a notch in the number four coin, something sticky on the number five coin, etc., etc., etc.? Wouldn’t you really find it much more satisfying intellectually to explain the pulling out of those coins by design or intent than by accident? Wouldn’t you really find it virtually impossible to simply believe that I had pulled them out by chance rather than by choice? Would your mind permit you to accept the belief in one chance out of ten billion when you know how easy it is for an intelligent person to devise a system and pull them out easily by choice?
With the subject of things happening by chance or choice before us, now let us turn again to the world, to Its beginning and to the beginning of life on it. I know that analogies do not prove; they can only illustrate. But I believe illustrations can be very thought� provoking. Therefore I want to turn to the field of science and set before you ten very interesting things about the earth and conditions that have made life possible on it. I will use information drawn from competent scientists but the arguments and deductions are mine.
The first thing concerns the angle of the earth in relationship to the sun. We might assume that it is “straight up and down� or parallel to the sun, but it is not. It is not sitting perpendicular; it is tilted � tilted at about a twenty�three degree angle. Perhaps you have noticed globes in libraries sitting at an angle. One eminent scientist said this is very important because it makes it possible for life to exist, as we know it. Were it too straight up and down human life probably would not exist. The tilt affects the amount of heat absorbed by our earth and we’ll say more of this later. This is like the first coin. It does not require much faith to believe that this could happen by accident. After all, the universe is extremely large. For one planet to happen to be tilted just about right is not a big matter to believe. But let us go on to a second thing.
While tilted at about a twenty�three-degree angle, our world is rotating on its axis at the rate of about a thousand miles an hour. This rate of speed one scientist said is just about right for you and me to exist. Por, said he, if our world turned at only 100 miles an hour instead of 1,000 miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long. What do you think would happen to you and other living things on June or July or August days ten times as long as they now are? The heat would build up so great that it would wither, wilt, scorch and kill virtually everything above the surface of the ground. And whatever survived the incredibly hot days would soon freeze in the ten�times�as�long nights when the earth radiates its heat into the atmosphere. Temperatures would plummet to something like 240 degrees below zero. Therefore, he said our world was rotating just about the right speed so as to alternate between heating and cooling. Thus our earth is tilted just right and turning just right. These two are interesting maybe, but let’s turn to a third.
This world of ours wobbles of f of that twenty-three degree tilt. The prominent scientist said our world wobbles upward off that tilt about three degrees. It comes back to the twenty-•three degree angle then tilts downward about three degrees and starts back upward to the twentyâ€â€?three degree average tilt. It follows this tilting procedure with amazing regularity while spinning at a thousand miles an hour. Our seasons and our climates are affected by it. Do you remember from your college or high school geometry how many would be 90 degrees, or 45? Three degrees is a relatively small angle, but said he, if our world straightened more than three degrees off the twentyâ€â€?three degree tilt, life might perish from the earth! The sun would strike our earth so directly (instead of at a glance) with such a tremendous force and heat at the center, that without the tilt. To deflect the light and heat, the earth would absorb too much heat! It would evapoÂÂrate the oceans so rapidly that moisture would be pulled to the North and South Poles and build up in tremendous ice caps. Between these incredibly deep ice caps would be barren deserts or molten pools of lava created by the impact of the sun’s heat. Lives as we now know it would probably perish from off the earth.
On the other hand, if the world were to tilt more than three degrees downward from the normal twentyâ€â€?three degree stance, the sun would strike our northern Arctic region with such a tremendous heat that it would probably melt those huge ice caps. The melting ice might cause enough additional water to flow into our oceans and cause us to die. For the oceans are about the right depth-and just a few feet more water in the oceans (without more air coming into existence) would give enough addiÂÂtional liquid that it might absorb or dissolve all the carbon dioxide and the oxygen out of the air. Without carbon dioxide, the plants could not manufacture food. Without the oxygen, you and I and all other land animals would die! Here are four things, then, about the world working together in such a wonderful way: tilted just right; spinning just right; wobbling up just right; wobbling down just right. And the chance of my pulling four coins out of my pocket in perfect sequence by accident is one out of ten thousand chances!
We have already implied a fifth thing - the depth of the earth’s oceans. A former president of the American Academy of Science wrote a book many years ago in which he said that if the earth’s oceans had been just a little deeper when the earth originally began, that that much more water would have absorbed or would have dissolved the carbon dioxide and oxygen out of the air to start with and life could not have begun unless more air had been in the atmosphere originally. Thus, the earth’s oceans are just about the right depth in relation to the amount of air in our atmosphere.
A sixth thing is the earth’s crust. Not only are the earth’s oceans about the right depth but also the earth’s crust is just the right thickness. For if the earth were only ten feet thicker on the outside than it is, that much additional matter would have oxidized all the free oxygen out of the air when the world began, and life�forms could not have begun. This, like the depth of the oceans, is true unless more atmospheres had come into existence when the world began. Ten feet more solid matter on the outside of the earth’s crust! Think about it for a moment! That’s not very much more is it? The earth is approximately 4,000 miles in radius, so ten feet to 4,000 miles or twenty feet to 8,000 miles (the approximate diameter) is a very narrow margin indeed! Here are six things, then, working together just so well: tilted just right, spinning just right, wobbling up just right; wobbling down just right; earth’s oceans just right, and the earth’s crust just right � six things just about right! And the chance of my pulling six coins out of my pocket just right by accident is one chance in one million!
While all of this is working just right, there is a seventh thing. We are moving around the sun in an elliptical orbit at just about the right speed. The orbit is not in a perfect circle as we might suppose, but more like a round-ended football. We are speeding through space, while we are rotating and wobbling up and down, at the rate of 18 miles a second, or 1,080 miles a minute, or if you prefer, 64,800 miles an hour. The astronauts can orbit the earth if they get about 17,000 miles per hour, and they only hit about 24,000-25,000 miles per hour coming back from the moon, but we’re racing around the sun at nearly 65,000 miles per hour! But this is just about the right speed! If our world slowed down and went only one-third that speed around the sun, 6 miles a second or about 21,600 miles per hour, it would be pulled so close into the sun at the shallow or narrow part of that football� like orbit, that we would be burned to a crisp as we passed by. Or the slowing of the earth’s speed would cause us to be pulled back into the sun much as our orbiting astronauts come down when the retro�rockets break their speed and the earth’s gravity pulls them down out of earth� orbit. And so we would be pulled into the sun and burned up if we moved around the sun too slowly.
But if our world, wobbling and spinning, were to slightly more than double its speed so that it would travel forty miles a second, that much additional speed would throw us so fast into space at the long point of the orbit that we would freeze to death in the far reaches of incredibly cold space before we were to come back close enough to the sun. Thus our speed around the sun is just about right!
If those things were not enough, there is an eighth thing just about right â€â€? our earth is about the right number of miles from the sun for us to be able to live: about 93 million miles. At this disÂÂtance our earth receives neither too much nor too little heat from the sun for us to live. The surface of the sun is between 11,000â€â€?12,000 degrees Fahrenheit on the average. If this does not seem so hot, let me remind you that asbestos melts around 4,000-5000 degrees! Some sunspots that erupt on the sun’s surface interrupt even radio communiÂÂcation on earth and produce up to a million and a half to two million degrees Fahrenheit. And the interior of the sun is said by scientists to be approximately 40â€â€?50 million degrees! Across those 93 million miles, we get enough of the sun’s heat, but not too mach, to live. And 100 degrees seems very hot weather to us, but did you know this, that if only fifty degrees more or fifty degrees less out of those 11,000â€â€? 12,000 reached our planet on the average f or a year, that we could not live? Fifty degrees more or fifty degrees less for a year! You and I are so fragile that we would perish if our earth’s temperature averaged that much more or less for the period of a year. But fifty degrees is less than oneâ€â€?half of one percent of the average surface temperature of our sun! That’s an awfully close margin in my opinion! Eight things so wonderfully and closely related! But there is a ninth thing.
While the earth is tilted, spinning, wobbling and racing around the sun, the moon is moving around the earth at just about the right distance! All of us, I’m sure, have looked up and wished that great big beautiful moon would come in closer. This sounds like a romantic thing, but we had better let it stay just the distance that it is. Averaging about 240,000 miles from the earth, the moon is just about right for our wellâ€â€?being. Prom that distance the moon exerts such a pull of gravity that it literally lifts the oceans of the earth and dashes them against the continents with such force that in some parts of the world the tides rise between sixty and seventy feet. The earth’s crust literally bends and stretches outward several inches from the sheer pull of our moon. Scientists say that if our moon were to come in from 240,000 to only 50,000 miles, the gravitational pull would be so fantastically increased that every lower region of the earth would be inundated with water from the higher tides! The AtlanÂÂtic Ocean, for example, would have tides that would move through the Gulf of Mexico and sweep across Texas to break against the Rocky Mountains with such force that they would create hurricanes in the air as they came in and went out! But you wouldn’t be worried about the hurricanes since those colossal tides would wash every bit of soil, every tree and everything else into the oceans as they daily pounded the Rocky Mountains. In due time the impact would be so great the tides would shatter every mountain range of this earth and wash them into the ocean bottoms. And if you could take a giant or cosmic shovel of some kind and scoop the continents into the ocean beds, our ocean beds are so large when compared to our continents that you could put every continent into the bottoms of our oceans and have an earth covered by one and a half miles deep in water without a single foot of ground on which to stand! Thus the distance of the moon is just about right and a ninth thing is working so wonderfully well for our exisÂÂtence. And the chance of my pulling nine coins out of my pocket by mere chance in perfect sequence is one chance out of one billion!
For the tenth thing I want to draw from biology. I sat amazed as a biology teacher told us that in every green leaf on every piece of grass or weed, bush or tree, there were tiny cells called chloroÂÂplasts which contained a substance called chlorophyll that performs a function so basic to our existence that we are absolutely dependent upon it. The little cells, activated or energized by the power of the sun, take carbon dioxide from the air and moisture from the soil and break down their molecular structure so as to Torni a molecule of starch and in the process free atoms of oxygen back into our air. On this process, called photosynthesis, the entire animal kingdom completely depends! For if it stopped, one of two things would happen: either we would starve to death for lack of food (since this is the basic foodâ€â€?producing process) or we would die from asphyxiation (since this is the basic way nature replenishes our oxygen supply). Without the regular release of oxygen back into our atmosphere we would die in due time due to its constant use by such th2ngs as our lungs, our car motors, our factories, etc. Our very lives depend upon the regular functioning of this basic process.
Here, then, are ten things all working together so wonderfully well. And the chance of my pulling ten coins out of my pocket in perfect sequence by sheer accident is one chance in ten billion! Could these have all happened by accident? Could life have begun by accident when it seems that so many things had to be necessary in order for it to begin? Some people believe that it did, but I for one cannot. If I saw you pulling coins out at your pocket in an amazÂÂing sequence, my mind would demand that I believe you were doing it by design or purpose and not by random accident. When an eminent scientist says that for life to begin there must be protein, and that the chances of the 2,000 atoms in a protein molecule coming together by accident is one out of 10321, then I find it much easier and more reasonable to believe that factors for life are the result of choice rather than chance.
Others may believe this orderly universe and its intricate life forms are the product of chance or accident, but I cannot. I could not believe that you “Just accidentally� pulled those ten coins out in perfect sequence and neither can I believe all these things “just accidentally� happened. There are signs of choice, and I call choice by the word “God.� Both answers - chance and choice � are faith answers, but in the light of scientific data, is it so gullible, so naive, so credulous to choose the faith answer called “choice�? Does it really take more faith? Is it really more gullible than the other faith answer called “chance
By lozen
April 25, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this
Sorry Boscoe or St. Anthony or whatever your real name is: don’t have time to go through all that. Chuck, equal but different means just one thing: not equal.
By SUZAN
April 25, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this
James, Thank you for you opinions and critique on my post. I am a baptist, so that should give you some in-sight to my beliefs. I know that cultures change but the word of God is constant. I do not believe that one can say oh i dont like this commadment so lets just knock it off the list. The basic precepts of the bilbe and very clear and apply to all fundimental challenges in this life to help prepar us for the next. I do live a very full exciting and happy life; I am not perfect but I do try to incorporate the Holy Word of God into my brain and life on a daily basis. When something in theh bibles lesson makes me uncomfortable it is normally because it is an area of my life that I seek to hold onto and normally at odds with what I want.
I am aware of the cultural changes but the basics in human behavior remain the same. Unless we look deep with in and try to open up to the Holy Spirit we will never change. Changing the churches to suit ones wants is not a correct way to go. There are many churches out in the world that may accommodate your wishes and beliefs, but trying to change the fundimental teaching of the bible only causes splits and divisions in many churches and this is one area that Christ spoke of. Perhaps this is area that others would choose to reasearch themselves. Being Baptist, I look to the Bible as my only true guide to worship. All things should be tested against Scripture. I only offer this as my veiw point I can’t speak to other’s beliefs. The two greastest commandments Christ spoke of was to Love God with all of our heart, soul and mind, and to love our neighbors as outselves. This then are the two Greatest Commandments.
By MatthewMarkLukeJohn
April 25, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this
In Jesus’ day, there were men that knew every in and out of the Old testament. They were called Pharisees. at every opportunity, Jesus pointed out to them that they were missing the forest for the trees. They were so wrapped up in their own interpretation of what should be or should not be holy, should or shouldn’t be forbidden, thjat they were missing the point of who God is and what he wants His people to act like. But the Jewish people were given 1000’s of laws (not included in the original law from God that Moses was given) that were nearly impossible to follow. In the old system, Rabbi’s were the only ones who could absolve people of their sins and were the only ones who could “speak� directly to God once a year.
Christ came to show the people that they were missing it, not to admonish them but to be a “lampo unto their feet� so that they might see the forest, not just trees.
the Catholic Church does the same thing the Pharisees did, but in an almost worse way because they have the benefit of Christ’s teachings, which the Pharisees did not until he arrived
By MatthewMarkLukeJohn
April 25, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
In Jesus’ day, there were men that knew every in and out of the Old testament. They were called Pharisees. at every opportunity, Jesus pointed out to them that they were missing the forest for the trees. They were so wrapped up in their own interpretation of what should be or should not be holy, should or shouldn’t be forbidden, thjat they were missing the point of who God is and what he wants His people to act like. But the Jewish people were given 1000’s of laws (not included in the original law from God that Moses was given) that were nearly impossible to follow. In the old system, Rabbi’s were the only ones who could absolve people of their sins and were the only ones who could “speak� directly to God once a year.
Christ came to show the people that they were missing it, not to admonish them but to be a “lamp unto their feet� so that they might see the forest, not just trees.
the Catholic Church does the same thing the Pharisees did, but in an almost worse way because they have the benefit of Christ’s teachings, which the Pharisees did not until he arrived
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this
Lozen I did the first post, but as you can see we have a child among us. Kimberly, you make a good point. The second time I pull a coin out of my pocket is just as you say 1 chance in 10. What I was trying to point out was the odds of pulling the 1 coin out the in sequence the number 2 coin which is 1 chance in 100. Thanks for pointing that out.
By chuck
April 25, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
That’s the whole point Boscoe. The only saving truth of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH Is FAITH in CHRIST as Lord and Savior. Cathoicism teaches a “Faith plus” doctrine that does not square with scripture.
Whosever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL BE SAVED.
THE VERSE DOESN’T GIVE SAVING POWER TO THE POPE. THAT POWER RESTS IN CHRIST ALONE.
By Michael
April 25, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this
St. Antony,
You might ask if this “intelligent design� cosmology is so obviously true then why don’t more physicists and philosophers subscribe to it? Instead, these views are held by a small minority of people whose arguments do not persuade many others and their reputations largely range from eccentric to crackpot. This modern version is almost as vulnerable to the arguments of David Hume in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion as William Paley’s old watch analogy, which was refuted by Hume before was even written by Paley. You might also read Richard Dawkins’ “The Blind Watch Maker,� for a more convincing explanation.
Even if one provisionally accepted these claims they hardly point to the kind of God who leads people to Sunday school and church or to mosques and synagogues. Deism would be a more acceptable conclusion, especially given the presence of so much evil in the intelligent designer’s universe.
One can find numerical patterns everywhere (a virtual industry exists to find them in the Bible.) Several mathematicians decided to have a bit of fun with these kinds of claims. For example, Martin Gardner selected the Washington Monument, and “discovered� the property of fiveness to it: “Its height is 55 feet square, and the windows are set at 500 feet 5 inches. If the base is multiplied by sixty or five times the number of months in a year it gives 3,300 which is the exact weight of the capstone in pounds. Also, the word ‘Washington’ has exactly ten letters (two times five.) And if the weight of the capstone is multiplied by the base, the result is 181,500–a fairly close approximation of the speed of light in miles per second. There are several of these in Michael Shermer’s interesting book “Why People Believe Weird Things.�
On a different note if a more bloody minded, hate-filled dogmatist than Boscoe exists, I surely wouldn’t want to meet him or her. I doubt that one could scare up a Shiite fundamentalist who is more close minded. An utterly contemptuous individual who personally manifests the worst of religious belief. I don’t believe that there is an afterlife, but if there is I am fairly certain that it is filled with the Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwels, and Boscoes of our world. And probably some of the popes who saw fit to burn Bruno and other “heretics,” at the stake, institute the Spanish Inquistion, threaten Galileo with torture, and make war on Muslims during the Crusades will be there as well. So, much for the infallibility of the pope’s wisdom. What nonsense.
By dave
April 25, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this
Is there anything that can be done about this?
By RS
April 25, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this
Is it just me, or has anyone else just about had it with Michael D??
By SUZAN
April 25, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this
I am begining to believe that our fellow poster michael has a wee bit of a problem with Christianity perhaps zen would be more to his taste
By lozen
April 25, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this
Dave, Contact customer service; if enough of us do maybe they’ll do something.
By Scott
April 25, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
Definitely with you on that one RS
By lozen
April 25, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
MichaelD’s problem is he’s 12- no 10 years old - and we’ve ignored the poor little thing.
By lozen
April 25, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
“A thorough reading and understanding of the Bible is the surest path to atheism” Donald Morgan
By Jack
April 25, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this
They need to block the S.O.B. or else the blog is history. Can’t believe they allow this and we can’t even say a**. (which is what he is)
By Boscoe
April 25, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this
Chuck,Cathoicism teaches a “Faith plusâ€? doctrine that does not square with scripture.In a wide sense Tradition embraces the whole teaching of the Church, including the Bible, since it is only from the Church that we have the Bible. In a stricter sense Tradition includes only what was handed down orally from the Apostles. The Apostles themselves say that there is much that they have delivered to the faithful by word of mouth (2 John 12; 1 Cor. 11:2). Among many examples of truths in Tradition, not clearly manifested in Holy scriptures, are: the exact number of sacraments, the time of institution of some sacraments, the books that make up the Bible, the Baptism of infants, and Sunday observance.Several years passed before the Gospels were written down. In the meantime, Christians had to depend on Tradition solely: Tradition is older than the New Testament. When the books composing the New Testament were written, the various writers had some definite and immediate purpose in mind. For example, St. Paul wrote his Epistles to the various churches of Gentiles that he had converted, to remind them of his teachings in his absence. St. Luke wrote his Gospel for the citizen of Rome, Theophilus, to instruct him in the new religion. St. John’s Gospel was to combat heresies denying the divinity of Christ. Luther rejected the Epistle of St. James, because the Apostle said that faith without works is dead. Luther and followers omitted the Apocalypse, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Epistle of St. Jude. Luther was a heretic. Michael, I’m hate filled? Why because I can provide reasonable arguements to claims such as yours? The origin of the world is a perfect example you have no more physical evidence of such an origin than I have that God created the world. You cannot prove the method of creation any more than I can: Thus, dare I say, you have a “faith” as well. A scientific faith but no proof.
By Sandy
April 25, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this
Suzan-No, please. Zen is my turf…I don’t need the fertilizer.
By Zack
April 25, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
Lozen—I just read your most previous post, and yes, I’m convinced: You indeed have reached a level of bigotry unmatched by even that of Norman, which is saying something—nothing good—but something.
I regret the fact that I’ve spent as much time on here as I have. I’ve come on here and typed wise statements and have been attacked, which is just how it is out there in the real world if you’re someone who dares go against the liberal agenda.
I’m tired of the bigotry on here. You all can live on this un-monitored, apparently, forum and throw your lives away, but don’t count on seeing me very often. This week’s question typifies this stupid blog, as it contains the premise that societal changes should be given the nod over the belief in absolute truth. Of course, what else could be expected from the Diane Glasses of the world, as they apparently seek their entertainment from making excuses for Martha Stewart and watching “Desperate Housewives”, a show that has no place being on the air.
People have called ME <—-names on here? Sure. All this open-minded hogwash goes out the window when someone speaks the truth.
Shaunti Feldhahn gets paid to deal with the overt bigotry on here. I do not. I’m sick of volunteering. By the way, why doesn’t the monitor of this forum delete some of the language on here, some of the graphic posts by “RS” and others, and some of the crossing-the-line name-calling before someone files a suit? This place is so unprofessional that it really is ridiculous.
By Scott
April 25, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this
Jack - well apparently you could get away with saying it since they don’t seem to be monitoring that juvenile garbage MD is posting
By lozen
April 25, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this
But Boscoe, you do not provide reasonable arguements (sic) to what Michael says. Your arguments are far from reasonable. There is scientific proof for evolution which is why it is accepted by anyone with an open mind. There is no proof for your claims because your beliefs are based on fables and mythologies just as Thomas Jefferson said.
By lozen
April 25, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this
Any criticism from you Zack I take as a huge compliment.
By Lola
April 25, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
Wow. I was gone for a week and I come back and there’s now some little kid posting on here? I would certainly hope it’s a kid. If that’s an adult, they need some serious mental help. I’m writing to the AJC as well to complain…
By Lola
April 25, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
Oh Zack. I’m sorry to see you go. I wish you wouldn’t let the name callers and bigots get to you. Your voice is just as valuable here as anyone else’s and if you leave that is our loss more than yours. If you do indeed decide to go, just know that there are some on this blog who don’t stoop to the levels of others and who really did enjoy the intelligent banter you offered here. I don’t blame you for wanting to go. Sometimes it can become almost too much to bear. We lost Seaborn two weeks ago and now you. It’s really a shame it comes to that. Please take care.
By chuck
April 25, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this
I hate to argue with you Boscoe since we agree about most things, but we have a Bible because God preserved His own word. I could go into some of the discrepancies concerning the Catholic Church and Biblical Doctrine, but I think that is counter-productive. Let’s just say that we should agree on the things that we agree on and leave the others for the non-believers. I’m not going to become a Catholic and you aren’t likely to become a Baptist, so let’s concentrate on the things upon which we can agree and present a united front on those.
By RS
April 25, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this
NOW it’s getting downright inconvenient to post or even read this blog due to MD (Moronic Dimwit) & his mile-long blocks of nonsensical ravings. I don’t understand what he gets out of being so stupid & juvenile. Maybe he can’t get anyone in “real life” to pay attention to him? Maybe he isn’t potty-trained yet? Whatver the reason, what a sad, sad, sorry-a$& excuse for a human being.
By Lola
April 25, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
Michael D - in the interest of being a decent human being and taking the feelings of others into consideration, please stop posting, or at least, if you must post, go back to posting interesting and funny things. These bolded juvenile words do nothing but deter intelligent exchange. You have posted some very humorous things in the past, but these are nothing but childish and nobody enjoys them but you. I really enjoy this blog. Please don’t kill it. Please?
By lozen
April 25, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
And I want to get back to Chuck and his misogynist views before the little kid took over the blog:
*By chuck
April 25, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
Lozen, you prove with every post, the advantage to women “keeping silent�…at least women who don’t know what they are talking about.*
I’m sure you would silence me if you could Chuck. I do know what I’m talking about. I know the bible is one big misogynist document. I have worked in the church, a couple of churches, and I saw how the church was run and what place the women had there. Meek little brainwashed ladies of the church came in several times a week and laid out the “Father’s” robes, and all his implements. Then he ran in, dressed, went out, gave his little sermons, and got all the praise and handshaking from the congregation. Then he went back and took it all off and dropped it whereever and she returned and put it all away! It was like watching a mother take care of a two year old! I saw the women there run the yearly thrift sale that made most of the money that supported so much of what the church did. I saw one young minister who got so upset about women being allowed to become Episcopal ministers that he left and joined some weird catholic sect that would not allow female clergy. People throughout history have used the bible to prove whatever they wanted. Ministers used words from the bible to prove women should not have the vote. Ministers used words from the bible to prove blacks and whites should not mix or marry or live in the same neighborhoods or attend the same schools. Ministers in the south used the bible to prove slavery was fine. Ministers use the bible to prove gay people are sinners (leaving out other parts that make just about anything you can think of a sin, of course). I look at the Hubble pictures the AJC has today and I wonder how anyone can be so blind as to think they have all the answers. “It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion”
By Michael D
April 25, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
Ok Lola…truce for now. I think one more “crazy” post is yet to show butt JUST FOR YOU I will allow the craziness to subside for a season.
Have a nice evening… d: )
By Eirik
April 25, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
I may be wrong but I believe Michael D is making some commentary concerning the people on this blog and the quality of their opinions. Perhaps he’s saying that while we think we are all informed and intelligent, the content of this blog over the last several months has been partially digested, regurgitated, digested again and seems to have the consistency of Michael D’s colorful verbs.
By RS
April 25, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
Awwww, Widdle Pwecious didn’t get his Ritalin today, did he???
By lozen
April 25, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this
Oh well, I contacted customer service on Friday, again today by email and then by phone. I guess there’s nothing to be done to stop little kids from taking over a blog here. They send a generic message saying someone will contact you in a few hours but nobody has contacted me from Friday! They throw asterisks in on words like dam (dam the ocean) and t** (feeding from the public t**) but farts and poots seem to be okay.
By Randy
April 25, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this
In reading earlier posts by Boscoe, where he tells us when and by who our religion was started. I’m going to take this serious, eternity is a long time. Boscoe I am a Baptist and have accepted Jesus as my lord and savior. Do I need to do anything else in order to go to heaven? I don’t want to take any chances.
By norman
April 26, 2005 07:28 AM | Link to this
It looks like Boscoe is going to get an opportunity to try to evangelize Chuck and Randy. I thought I would pre-empt him by revealing why he is wrong. Boscoe’s Catholic position rests accurately on the fact that the Church came before the New Testament. But the problem is that both Catholics and Protestants think that orthodoxy came first and heresy afterwards. So they look for the original orthodoxy and then compete about whether the Catholics or Protestants have better preserved orthodoxy. But many scholars (see Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity) believe that in the beginning was a large variety of versions of belief about Jesus and only with time did a particular version win out and become orthodoxy. The winning version depended on many factors, none of which was the inherent truth or accuracy of the viewpoint. Politics, war, social factors — all contributed. So Boscoe can argue that the Catholic Church came first, but Coptic Gnostics, Jewish Christians, even Muslims can argue that they and/or their versions came first. So let Boscoe try to make Catholics out of Randy and Chuck. He will fail. Let them try to pry Boscoe away from Rome. They will fail. The winner is Reason, Common Sense, History, and Virtue: namely me!
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 07:39 AM | Link to this
lozen…some one will be in contact with you regarding your remarks.
Keep in mind I did infact state to Lola, the kind person that she is, that the craziness would subside for a season. The length of the season is of course to be determined by those using this board. Negative and defamatory remarks could shorten the season.
For Lola’s sake lets be respectful AND all of you owe to her a debt of gratitude. I feel a few words of THANKS sent Lola’s way would be a kind gesture.
PS… Eirik’s remarks as of Eirik April 25, 2005 04:11 PM are RIGHT ON THE MARK. I suggest ALL of you give them a read.
By James
April 26, 2005 07:48 AM | Link to this
Suzan, I respect your beliefs, and you for your intelligent response. However, I believe we must follow the basic 10 Commandments, as many of the other rules contradict one another. There is no difference between man & woman in heavan. We are all one. Gender is only on earth. I was raised Southern Baptist, and have seen the hypocracy. Not saying that you are one. However, many places in the bible tell us things that we know are not true. I like the ‘selling your daughter’ and ‘slavery’ one. But, also men are not to sleep in beds where a woman in menstration has laid. What about an ‘eye for an eye’ vs. Thou Shalt Not Kill. The bible also dictates that we shall not wear mixed fabrics. Does a cotton/polyester sweater count? Suzan, your final statement made believe you to be a true Christian-follow the golden rule.
Zack: I find your response to this forum confusing. 75% of us, liberal & conservative, use this forum to openly discuss our opinions & learn from each other. Because I am a liberal, does not mean I am bigoted against you. Shaunti takes some licks from me, but she sure does dish them out at me too. That is the purpose of this forum. I am sorry to see you go. As an educated adult, I enjoyed hearing & digesting your conservative views.
Boscoe: I agree with you! I am not Catholic, so why do I care who leads you. However, as I should not interfere in your church’s teachings & your choice to follow, you should not attempt to interfere in my life. If you hate homosexual marriage so much, don’t marry one! The Catholic Church has lasted almost 2,000 years. Congrats on that. However, insititutions make mistakes. The Catholic Church has made ALLOT of them.
I agree 100% with the statement about the forest & the trees. Jesus showed us the way. But, too many try to hard to complicate & use against other his lessons. Just love one another & treat everyone with respect. That is the basic message.
By Boscoe
April 26, 2005 07:51 AM | Link to this
Chuck, I agree, despite what Norman thinks. If Reason, Common Sense, History, and Virtue can prove us wrong I hope norman will provide the details so we may be corrected from our wayward path. Of course I hope he realizes that for every book he quotes from we have another so he should think of other reasons why we are wrong. Lozen, I hope you will provide the “Evidence” of the Big Bang “THEORY” that you say “proves” it is true. I should also like to know where Thomas Jefferson said such a thing regarding religion when He authorized the use of Congress as a Church during his presidency. There must be some documentation or EVIDENCE” right?
By Boscoe
April 26, 2005 07:56 AM | Link to this
Erik then maybe Michael D could provide some reasonable content to add to this blog rather then his childish antics. If he wants to act the fool I will keep complaining until the managers of this blog either do something or shut it down.
By James
April 26, 2005 08:04 AM | Link to this
You all do realize the reason Micheal D posts these ridiculous blogs is for the attention and responses.
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 08:07 AM | Link to this
Along with Boscoe’s big bang theory I was myself was wondering something in relation. Could someone please provide evidence of the BIG GANG-BANG THEORY?
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 08:08 AM | Link to this
Ok Girls…(boscoe/james)lets keep it on topic.
By James
April 26, 2005 08:15 AM | Link to this
Micheal D: I may be gay-but I ain’t no girl. I can, and will kick A**. I am sure Boscoe don’t like that one either. But, here I am responding to your post!
By Tony
April 26, 2005 08:33 AM | Link to this
Speaking in his native tongue, Benedict told the audience that at one point during the conclave, when it became clear he was garnering many votes, a fellow cardinal slipped him a note reminding him what he had preached before the conclave about Christ calling Peter to follow him even where he did not want to go.
“As the trend in the ballots slowly made me realize that â€â€? in a manner of speaking the guillotine would fall on me â€â€? I started to feel quite dizzy,” a smiling Benedict said, clearly joking. “I thought that I had done my life’s work and could now hope to live out my days in peace. I told the Lord with deep conviction, ‘Don’t do this to me.’” He recalled saying to God in his prayers: “You have younger, better, more enthusiastic and energetic candidates.” “Evidently, this time He didn’t listen to me,” Benedict said.
“It’s not true that young people only look at consumerism and materialism,” he said. “Young people want great things.” He told them the church is not a place for people seeking a comfortable life, noting that it is difficult to choose to follow Christ. “He who is looking to be comfortable has come to the wrong address,” he said. He asked for their support, no matter what. “I ask you for your trust when I make errors or when I say things that aren’t easily understood, because the pope has to say these things. If we stick together, then we will find the way.”
By Steven
April 26, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this
One quick comment: Boscoe: The Catholic Church was founded by Peter not Jesus. Peter is considered the “first Pope” and is held in such esteem that his name is not allowed to be used again as Pope. Who do you worship, Peter or Jesus? I’ve been to so many Catholic churches with statues and seen people walk up to a statue of one of their “saints” and pray to it and then kiss it! Show me where Jesus would condone such a thing. And the faith in Christ in a Catholic church is choked to death on the traditions man has created that I wonder if many Catholics know Jesus or do they just know a priest? Jesus teaches to pray but didn’t say get out your necklace first. Jesus teaches forgiveness but teaches “ask and you shall receive” not tell everything to this man and that man will forgive you. Jesus tells a man who wants to know how to get into the Kingdom of God to sell all of his possessions and follow Him, He didn’t say pay me money and I’ll forgive your sins based on the amount you provide like the Catholic church did for so long (indulgencies).
I don’t think the Catholic church should change on my behalf but proclaiming it as the “one true church” when it has a history of slaughtering people, priests living in the most amazing of luxury while the people they are “saving” are dying in their lack of wealth, and conducting services that are filled more with tradition not defendable by scripture than anything else is a bit arrogant. Which falls right in line with the Catholic mentality and falls right out of line with the ideals Jesus displayed.
Live your faith how you want, but please quit passing up the passages that talk about your requirement to being humble. That is if your Catholic church actually encourages you to read the Bible, which I’ve yet to see as a practice of Catholics I know.
By norman
April 26, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this
Steven: the Catholic Church now encourages bible reading, but you are right that it did not for most of its history. It was right then because reading the Bible is very dangerous.
By Randy
April 26, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this
So the BIG BANG THEORY is being discussed. That’s what I like Norman talks about having common sense, reason. There is no common sense or reason about the big bang. Things don’t appear out of thin air without help. Having a creator create the universe in the beginning is COMMON SENSE AND REASON. Think it through!
By chuck
April 26, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this
LOZEN,LOZEN,LOZEN,
You had to know that that was a joke. Do people have to have their senses of humor surgically removed to become liberals?
I too have seen some churches that treat women like 2nd class citizens. I don’t agree with that at all. I DO think it is clear that the Bible prohibits women from being Pastors, Elders, and Deacons (though their may be some gray area on deacons since the Bible talks about two “deaconesses”. The original language does seem to leave some leeway there.). It also teaches that women cannot teach men. Other than that, women can hold any position in the church. I have seen women who are ministers of music, youth directors and church administrators. We have a woman as head of our personnel committee that calls new ministers and staff people. We have women who teach ladies Sunday School classes and children’s classes. We have a woman who heads our Orchestra ministry and we have had a woman as youth director. We have had a woman as chair of our finance committee. The plain truth of the matter is that most churches would fall apart without women taking leadership roles.
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this
James, or is it Jamie depending on which dress you chose to wear…tee hee…ya girly-man! You cant kick anything except yourself out of the moral fabric of society.
YA TWISTED FREAK
By James
April 26, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this
Wow-Steven, you hit the nail on the head!
By Randy
April 26, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this
Do you Big Bangers really believe the universe in the beginning just appeared out of thin air without help? How does that make sense? Y’All live in la-la land.
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this
I bet james daddy used to make him dress in a little girls swimsuit and “take a bath with Daddy”…LMAO…
Ya TWISTED FREAK
By Randy
April 26, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this
Let’s face it there are alot of good devout Christians in all the different Christian religions. The key to me is having a relationship with the creator, bonding with him. If you do that your fine, at the time of death. If not I would worry. As far as women in the ministry, I say anyone who leads people to Christ is a godsend. It’s our job as Christians to let others know of God’s love as we are all going to need God at some point. To me the loneliness place in the world is on my death bed not knowing if I were right with God and wondering what is next. Scary.
By James
April 26, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this
Randy, I agree. I believe I am right with God, and whatever his dictations are for me, then so be it. I often wonder if I took the right path, but always feel comfort from above when I question myself. I do the best I can, and the rest will have to take care of itself.
Micheal D-enough! My father left at 2 years old. Please don’t open up old wounds for your own personal enjoyment. It is neither entertaining nor acceptable behavior.
By Bruce
April 26, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this
Boscoe,
You have said the Pope is the head of the True Church several times so I had to ask a question. What Bible are you reading this from? Every Bible I have read tells me that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.
By Tony
April 26, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this
(C) 13When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” 14So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven."By Tony
April 26, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this
I don’t know what happened to the last part so here it is again.
(C) 13When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” 14So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven." 20Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.By Randy
April 26, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this
On the question of priests not getting married. Reading Timothy it says the priests are to have one wife and be good with their family(good family men). It doesn’t say anything about being not allowed to marry.
By Tony
April 26, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this
I don’t know why? When I posted the last part was there, but when it appeared on the forum, the last part was missing. I will try one last time. Sorry for the triple post. Hopefully only the last part will be shown.
17Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven.”
By lozen
April 26, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this
Sorry Chuck I can’t go back through all the idiocy to find what you’re talking about. What was the joke?
By RS
April 26, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this
Chuck, I really liked your giving props to women & their role in the church; thank you! And yes, thank YOU, Lola, for getting through to Michael D, at least temporarily. And Michael D, we’ve seen you DO have a brain but it’s a shame you rarely choose to make use of it If you acted like a mature human being instead of a potty-mouthed toddler, you’d get POSITIVE attention. By the way, your homophobic comments really offended me; I hope you’re happy
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this
So then Jamie…you didnt get to bathe with Daddy? Is that your point?
By Lola
April 26, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this
Thank you, MichaelD. I hope this season is a long one. I do enjoy your witty posts, because you obviously have a very unique sense of humor, but you do yourself a disservice by resorting to the big and bold word posts. I just happen to think you’re better than that.
On the topic, it seems to be more of the the non-Catholics who feel strongly that the Catholic church should change along with the societal changes. Personally, most of the people I know who grew up in a strict Catholic environment or went to Catholic school, are now adamantly anti-church and have had terrible experiences at the hands of priests and/or nuns. I even know of one male friend who experienced molestation at the hands of a priest, and I can’t say there is a single person I know who grew up Catholic and still embraces those religious standards today. Perhaps being too ridgid isn’t a good thing, but then again, tradition is based on the continuation of things as they have always been done. Can there be a happy medium found?
By lozen
April 26, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this
No Randy you’re the one living in la la land. You believe a fantastic tale about a man half god and half human whose mother was a jewish teenager impregnated by a god (like Zeus impregnated Leta and many other women). You believe this man/god was sacrificed by Yahweh/himself/his father and then rose from death (like Osiris the Egyptian god and many other gods) back in the day when science and medicine and space travel did not exist and people were full of fear and superstition. You believe all you have to do is believe in this man/god and you are guaranteed heaven when you die because he died to save you 2,000 years later for your sins. Now that is living in la la land!
By Randy
April 26, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this
Lola, You must remember any problems you have with the Catholic church wasn’t done by Jesus.
By Sandy
April 26, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this
Randy, regarding the end of this life and whether we are “right with God” or as some put it, closing the gap between ourselves and God, we don’t play for all or nothing, we play for all and nothing. Be aware of paradox. The dichotomies of earth cease, and we reach the infinite of being everywhere and nowhere at once, or in biblical parlance, the Alpha and the Omega. I don’t find this scary, I find it enlightening and exhilarating.
On a personal note, my stepmother was afraid for her salvation as well. She had been Catholic, divorced, and remarried and loved my father very much. Because she remarried, she was not allowed to receive the sacraments in the Catholic church without the formality of an annulment of her first marriage. Unable or unwilling to go through with this, she spoke to a priest in a very liberal church (in Rochester, NY, formerly Corpus Christi, later dissolved by the Catholic Powers that Be, for ordaining a woman as a priest, but that’s another story). This priest told her that if she loved Jesus that she was always welcome at his table and should receive communion as He intended.
Unfortunately, doubting this, she went to another conservative parish where a priest told her that under no circumstances should she receive communion as she was living in a state of sin. She died a few years later from lymphoma, never having received communion, but receiving ing last rites or extreme unction at the time of her death.
My stepmother and I did not get along well at all, and I no longer consider myself Catholic, but it still hurts me to think that she died without the comfort of holy communion; I cannot imagine that Jesus would have turned her away in her hour of need, and yet a priest did. And sadly and paradoxically, it was her drive to follow doctrin and her own doubt and fear that led her to the second priest. How was humanity served? What suffering was alleviated?
Thus my mantra and prayer for humanity: “Truth has many faces, and when you see a new one, your level of consciousness raises. Everyone is doing the best they can from their own level of awareness, and reality keeps changing as your consciousness changes.”
Personally, I’d much rather “meet my maker” in a state of joy and grace that begins while still living this life, rather than in fear or doubt anticipating the next.
James, for the record, I think your path is is most appropriate; follow your bliss, and may your troubles translate into compassion to serve us all.
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this
TY Lola…somehow I knew you would understand. d; )
RS…please keep in mind that just because YOU classify comments as “homophobic” simply doesnt mean they are. You see this “phobia” suffix is tacked-on in a feeble attempt, by the liberals, media etc, to place those in disagreement with the homo lifestyle, on the defensive.
Fortunately for me I see thru all this politically correct nonsense/disinformation/mumbo-jumbo/double-talk, etc. Perhaps one day you will too…doubtful, butt perhaps.
PS…I didnt offend you…you CHOSE to take offense. Think about it.
By Bruce
April 26, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this
It doesn’t matter if you believe in Jesus Christ or not. It doesn’t matter which denomination you follow. The only thing that matters is that one day EVERY knee shall bow and every tounge confeess that Jesus Chirst is Lord. The choice is yours to make. Live enternally in peace and harmony or live enternally in torment and sepreation. No Pope, Preacher, Deacon, or other Church leader has a say in that.
By Lola
April 26, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this
James - I’m truly sorry to hear about your father. I know things like that can really impact a little boy and I can only imagine how difficult it must have been. For what it’s worth, it seems to me that you turned out to be an incredibly sensitive and honest man with a very good heart and a warm soul. Don’t let the trivial comments of others here cause you pain. As much as is possible to “know” someone on this blog, you’re one of my favorites and for every hateful blogger, you have many fans here. I know RS and I are BIG ones! :)
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this
I’m sorry for the way that I have been acting. I hope that everybody will forgive me, and help me get through this awkward time. I just broke up with my boyfriend, and I don’t know what to do. So I act out.
Thanks for listening.
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this
I’m sorry everyone…it’s been a hard week. I just turned 30, I lost my busboy job at Dennys and my mom is kicking me out of the house. And I was just getting ready to videotape the Star Trek marathon. My girl friend would probably leave me if I had one…oh well, at least I still have ole “righty” to keep me company.
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this
The 10:31 post is a fake.
By Jack
April 26, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this
Sandy, Your story and ones like it are the reason I am no longer a practicing Catholic. Your mom is in Heaven.
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this
The imposter strikes…LMAO…thats hilarious!! Wait a minute…what am I laughing about…I lost my boyfriend, my LUCRATIVE Dennys busboy job…woe is me.
BUTT wait…I still have “ole Righty…” so things are lookin UP!!!….
PS…Jamie…no wonder you went silent for a moment. ; )
By Lola
April 26, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
Randy - I agree completely. It was human beings in the Catholic church that did those horrible things to the people I know, not Jesus. And I personally grew up as a Lutheran and now belong to a Presbyterian church, so I have absolutely no experience with Catholicism. I’ve only been to one Catholic wedding (holy mackrel it was a LONG one!) but I’ve never been to a mass or confession or anything like that. My relationship with God is a very secure and comfortable one, and the terms of it are between Him and me. I’ve always been a very live-and-let-live kind of person, and I think that has kept an enormous amount of stress out of my life. I simply don’t worry about what others believe or don’t believe, that leaves me plenty of time to concentrate on myself.
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this
But the second 10:31 post is me.
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this
L vs I works wonders…LOL…
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this
Yes, my Dennys job was lucrative…I was saving up for hair replacement surgery…shoot. But I just couldn’t handle certain foods there and kept passing gas around the customers. Hmmm..maybe that’s why I’m fascinated with farts.
By James
April 26, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this
Thank you Lola. I am beyond the hurt and pain. The wounds do get opened, but when seeing the bigger picutre (and not the details that so obsses some of our fellow bloggers) it is ‘All Good.’
Another point of view (of which I share) is to look at the movie “What Dreams May Come.” After reading ‘Converstations with God,’ forgive me as the author’s name escapes me. The theory/concept/belief was that man is here to experience life. Those who ‘sin’ are actually helping the rest of us experience pain/injustice, etc. There is no right without wrong. There is no pleasure without pain. There is no up without down. All things in balance. We, through our state of mind/soul, put ourselves in our own Hell. Dante said: “the mind can make a Heaven out of Hell & a Hell out of Heaven.” I think many religons (Christian, Muslim, Budist, etc.) are avenues to help clear your conciousness & open you up to joy. If it works for you as a Catholic (as it obviously does for Boscoe) then it should be so. If Suzan finds Baptistism to be her avenue, then so be it. I take a larger view of the world & universe. Under this, we (not a supreme judge) all put ourselves into Heaven or Hell. As has been said many times: “Life is not black & white, just 1000’s of shades of gray.” Even the bible would support this theory through it’s contradictions in many areas. The concept of the death bed confession or weekly confessional. Many believe that the person on this earth causing you the most pain is actually your best friend in the life beyond doing this to you so that you may experience forgiveness or pain or anger.
This may not be the dominating opinion, but it is mine. Peace be with you.
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this
Therefore we might conclude the second post is Jamie who just broke up with his boyfriend? : /
By Lola
April 26, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
MichaelD - “righty” sounds downright rosey. :) hee hee!
Come on, folks. It’s not right to impersonate another poster. We do go by the honor system here!
Why do I suddenly feel like I sound like my mother? :)
By lozen
April 26, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
I live in peace and harmony now as much as any human can except perhaps people who meditate every day, which I have a hard time with. I have no fear about what will happen to me when I die. The same thing that happens to everyone when they die I imagine. I don’t know exactly what that is (and neither do you) but I suspect I will cease to exist and it’ll be like before I was born. I enjoy my life now and I don’t worry about where I was before I was born or where I’ll be after I die. Do you believe there’s a dog heaven? Do you worry about what happens to an ant’s soul when you step on it? We’re all just part of a huge mystery and no one has a monopoly on truth.
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this
Oh, my mom kicked me out because I still wet the bed.
By RS
April 26, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this
You’re right, Lola. I AM a big James-admirer. Michael D, I am neither a liberal or a conservative, I’m an indie. I, too, have problems with the whole P.C. issue; to me it’s just another excuse to take away our freedon but your baiting of James is just plain cruel & immature. Gee, sorry about your career disappointment. Oh well, Dennys’ loss. At least you still have ild “Righty”. Hope the 2 of you live happily ever after.
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this
Dont worry…I bet Dennys will rehire you albeit at a salary decrease. Be not discouraged…a little make-up, a wig,a new dress and you will be feelin as good as new.
The New Jamie will emerge and take Dennys BY Storm!!
By lozen
April 26, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this
Michael D, obviously you had a hard time with potty training (that explains your obsession with bodily functions) and didn’t get to get in the tub with your daddy or your mommy in your little swimsuit (that’s why you are so desperate for attention).
By norman
April 26, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this
lozen: your brief desccription of Christianity is priceless!
By Sandy
April 26, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this
Thanks, Jack. James, I think Conversations With God author’s name was Walsh; I read his books, too, and found them full of wisdom, though not artfully done, much in the line of Celestine Prophecy and Da Vinci Code. Conversations made it clear that the harsh judgments come from ourselves, not from God. Peace back atcha, and all the way around.
By Tim
April 26, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this
lozen… I asked my Sunday school teacher if dogs get to go to heaven when I was like 6 or 7… she said ‘NO dogs don’t have souls!’ (in a very stern voice)… then I proceeded to ask ‘well if He lets you in then why wouldn’t he let my dog in she is a lot nicer than you’… after that I learned to no longer ask questions in church! (my nana did not find my questions very amusing once she found out what I had asked)
By Lola
April 26, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this
Very profoundly stated, lozen. Absolutely. Nobody has a monopoly on truth. Which is why it just seems logical to me that everyone would be happy with their own interpretation of what they believe and their moral and value system, and not always be inclined to promote that system as the ONLY correct one for everyone else. And for the record, I do happen to believe there’s a heaven for dogs, as well as ants and any other living creature who dies. I expect to see all of their souls when I die and go there as well.
MichaelD - you’re making me want Denny’s. Could really go for a Southern Slam.
By Michael D imposter
April 26, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this
to Michael D,
Nope, not Jaime or James. I’m just a former poster now lurking. It’s been fun goofing on you though…but it gets kind of old quickly…I admire you for your tenacity…but I’m afraid you are a loser dude.
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this
Ok…thanks for the compliment imposter…Now GET BACK IN THAT TOILET!
True Lozen…I didnt get into the tub with mommy or daddy butt I find myself wondering…you seem to identify with this behavior therefore might we conclude you did infact get into the tub with mommy, daddy, sister, brother or perhaps it was just a family affair in which you were caught.
By RS
April 26, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this
Tim, you seem to have been a handful when you were little; feisty kids rule! I sure do believe animals have souls & go to Heaven & I feel we will be reunited with our beloved pets when the time comes.
By Michael D
April 26, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this
Oh Lola…nice play…tell me more about this preference you have for the Southern Slam… d; p
By lozen
April 26, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this
Tim, I guess that’s how most people learn it’s not okay to ask questions in church. Too bad.
By lozen
April 26, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this
Sandy, your story about your stepmother reminded me of my confusion when my grandfather died. He was terrified that he would go to hell because he had taken the lord’s name in vain! I loved him very much and he was always kind to me. I remember how soft his touch was when he held me. Maybe that’s one of the things that started my questioning religion. I didn’t understand how such a kind man could be afraid of going to hell for such an unimportant thing.
By Tim
April 26, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this
RS… yes I was… my nana’s biggest fear about me was my mouth… I would say anything I got ready to say (I still have that problem hahaha)
lozen… mine was more of a light hearted story (I have hear A LOT worse)… but yes getting punished is what makes people stop asking questions… fortunately for me I eventually just decided to find answers for myself… and now am quite happy with the answers I got… some may not agree with them but who cares… as long as my answers work for me and your answers work for you and anyone who doesn’t like that can go suck on a rottem egg :)
By Lola
April 26, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this
Well MichaelD, let me see. If my Southern Slam is going to be done right, it has to be steaming hot with extra gravy on everything. Especially on my biscuits.
I’m with you, RS. I can’t wait to see all my kitty cats and dogs from my lifetime when I get to heaven!
Here’s a great irony - the most religious person I know is the person most afraid of dying. That I do not understand.
By Lyrazel
April 26, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this
Having only studied medieval catholicism/history I fail to meet criteria for judging which direction their doctrine should go. I could parlay with some concerning Catholicism in the 1200s and influences of art—but modern church theory and policies is their world not mine. To really understand catholicism you must read Aristotle and other greek/roman/hebrew philosophers, know latin, read Augustine and study your Italian history (its a wild wild world of Italian papal wars, crusades and romances). As far as factions of theologians bantering modern sects against traditional sects there have been many schisms in the catholic church—one more wont make a difference. I love Gregorian Chant. The Vatican museum has some amazing art. Faith/belief/god has been part of human behavior since cave dwellers discovered fire and worshiped it. Someday we may discover religion/faith/belief is a function of the brain stem wrapped around the area that controls agression/self-protection. Perhaps thats why more wars are started in the name of god/to justify god/to spread gods word/to kill infidels than for any other cause—It helps explain why its so easy to manipulate fanatics into angry justified-to-kill believers and why wealth/wealthy is worshiped like a god in the good old usa.
By Randy
April 26, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
My lack of knowledge on the Catholic religion will come into play here. Why is child abuse a problem, in the Catholic church, I would and will not let my children be alone with any adult unsupervised. I don’t care who they are. Don’t leave your children with any adult, under any circumstances, who knows who the weird o’s are!
By Randy
April 26, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this
Do dogs go to heaven, only if the person who is there wants the dog. It wouldn’t be heaven, if you couldn’t get the dog you love. Just an opinion.
By Lyrazel
April 26, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this
Randy, I think, if you looked into every church across the globe the problems of child-abuse is there and yes, you are quick to point out children should not be unsupervised, but there are many a good teacher, priest, rabbi, monk and sunday school teacher whose faces never grace the sordid headlines. Dont put parinoia into a blossoming mind—but my dads steady lessons of caution worked for me.
By The Real Michael D
April 26, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this
Yea, my boyfriend called. Everything is back on track. Now, if only I could get my Denny’s job back. Maybe if they would not have caught me, righty, and lefty (I’m ambidextrous) in the back with the food, maybe I would still have my job.
And no, this is not James. This is the real Michael D, not the impostor, or the other one.
My fascination with gas, etc. comes from my obsession with the fanny.
By norman
April 26, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this
For Randy: 1. Your reason for thinking there will be dogs in heaven is heretical. St. Augustine wouldn’t even allow unbaptized infants in heaven, let alone dogs. 2. Why is there child molestation in the Catholic Church? Easy. Celibacy encourages the wrong attitudes towards sex and the wrong people to seek ordination. In Protestant churches there is also molestation but it stems more from a dreadful fear of sex and from repression rather than from the recruitment of unmarried men. But anyone attracted to the clergy has ipso facto to be weird in the first place. Normal people do not imagine God is calling them to preach a religon in which nonsense reign supreme and fantasy is king.
By RS
April 26, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
Tim, that’s what makes you so much fun! You never lost your feistiness, bless your heart! Lola, while being reunited with all your beloved pets is certainly a comforting thought, we all hope it won’t happen for a very long time & what you said indicates some of the negative effects of organized religion-fear & control. Rnady; what you said about dogs/Heaven makes perfect sense, really!
By AllaboutME
April 26, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this
…..rs…if you were to…read…the scripture of the bible…you find…time in heaven is spent praying…worshiping jehova and nothing else…no frizbee playing…just praying and worship and praying and worship……little timmy never finds lassie…just worship and more worship….and prayer…sad isnt it…but thats what it says…
By Michael
April 26, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
I vaguely remember that quotation from Russell. But it is a great example of a “persuasive or rhetorical definition,” from the other side. Here are some more quotations on religion, quite a variety, just for the fun of it.
Albert Einstein ”A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” [New York Times Magazine, 09/11/1930, showing the influence of Hume)
”I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.” [Albert Einstein, from his essay, “The World As I See It”]
’Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: ‘My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly.’ The stranger is a theologian.” [Addition aux pensees philosophiques] There is a great difference between historical facts and speculative opinions; nor is the knowledge of the one propagated in the same manner with that of the other. An historical fact, while it passes by oral tradition form eyewitnesses and contemporaries, is disguised in every successive narration, and may at last retain but very small, if any, resemblance of the original truth, on which it was founded. The frail memories of men, their love of exaggeration, their supine carelessness; these principles, if not corrected by books and writing, soon pervert the account of historical events; where argument or reasoning has little or no place, nor can ever recall the truth, which has once escaped those narrations. (David Hume, A Natural History of Religion, p. 137)
..the Gospels themselves, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, whose texts were composed in Greek between 70 C.E. and 100 C.E., differ significantly on matters of fact. In Mark, Jesus’s last meal is a Passover seder; in John, Jesus is dead before the seder begins. Mark and Matthew feature two night “trialsâ€? before a full Jewish court, and a dramatic charge of “blasphemyâ€? from the high priest. Luke has only a single trial, early in the morning, and no high priest. John lacks this Jewish trial scene entirely. The release of Barabbas is a “Roman custonâ€? in Mark, a “Jewish customâ€? in John. Between the four evangelists, Jesus speaks three different last lines from the cross. And the resurrection stories vary even more. The evangelists wrote some forty to seventy years after Jesus’s execution. Their literary problems are compounded by historical ones: it is difficult to reconstruct, from their stories, why Jesus was crucified at all. ( Paula Fredriksen, Professor of Scripture at Boston University and the author of “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, a Historical Study of the Last Twelve Hours of Jesus’s Life.” Quoted from the New Republic, “The Gospel According to Mel” [Gibson] July 28 & August 4. P.26, 2003)
Thomas Jefferson told the Virginia House of Delegates in 1776: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” (The Boscoes and Chucks of the world might think about that one, I think he had you in mind.)
John Locke, “every church is orthodox to itself; to others, erroneous or heretical, it was best for governments to let religion be.” (Similarly here.)
Heaven and hell suppose two distinct species of men, the good and the bad; but the greatest part of mankind float betwixt vice and virtue. (David Hume, On the Immortality of the Soul)
Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike. Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face, the Christians that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all. Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
This one reminds me of the family quarrel now taking place among the Christians here:
”Opposing one species of superstition to another, set them a-quarreling; while we ourselves, during their fury and contention, happily make our escape into the calm, though obscure, regions of philosophy.” (David Hume, The Natural History of Religion]
By norman
April 26, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
God bless you Michael!
By chuck
April 26, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
As long as we are quoting “philosophers”, I thought Norman would appreciate this one. Michael, you might want to pay attention as well.
Montesquieu, Persian Letters #13 Consequently, even if there were no God, we should nonetheless still love justice, that is to say, make an effort to resemble this being of whom we have so exalted a conception, and who if he existed would be just necessarily. Even if we were free of the constraints of religion, we ought not to be free of those imposed by equity.As an atheist, I have no problem arguing the atheist point of view or pointing out the flaws of religion and faith. However, I loathe “militant atheists”. The world would not be better without religion. Religion is a historical necessity which has created our modern conception of justice and has a hand in virtually every worthwhile social value judgment we have. Religion, over time, has been more efficient in establishing just norms than reason ever could have.
By chuck
April 26, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this
Here is another Einstein quote for you Michael.
What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. ·Albert Einstein
By chuck
April 26, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
If one wishes to form a true estimate of the full grandeur of religion, one must keep in mind what it undertakes to do for men. It gives them information about the source and origin of the universe, it assures them of protection and final happiness ·, and it guides ·by · precepts · backed by the full force of its authority. ·Sigmund Freud
By chuck
April 26, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
Cicero: There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it.
By chuck
April 26, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
H. L. Mencken: Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
By lozen
April 26, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
“The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.” — Thomas Jefferson
By chuck
April 26, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck.
By chuck
April 26, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this
John W. Gardner: The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because philosophy is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.
By chuck
April 26, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this
I especially liked this one Michael:
William James: If a man’s good for nothing else, he can at least teach philosophy.
By lozen
April 26, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this
But these people, Einstein and Montesquieu, were all talking about a different religious understanding than yours. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. He did believe in a higher power, spirit, ground of being. He did not believe the bible was literal truth or that the christian god was this higher power which is obvious from the things he says!
By Whiley
April 26, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
By lozen
April 26, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this
I am surprised Chuck that you, as a teacher, would disparage teachers. I’ve heard many people say, “People who can’t do anything else, teach.” I personally admire teachers and think they should be paid more than actors, athletes, lawyers, or just about any profession. Except for you, of course :-).
By JohnR
April 26, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this
“Hell is other people” Jean paul sartre
By lozen
April 26, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this
Wake up Whiley! Whaddaya wanta talk about?
By JohnR
April 26, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
“hell is other people” John Paul Sartre
By chuck
April 26, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this
I believe you quoted Alexis deTocquevillelast week Michael. Here is what he said about the importance of Christianity:
Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts - the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.
And for those of you who think Benjamin Franklin was a Deist:
Benjamin Franklin: The moral and religious system which Jesus Christ transmitted to us is the best the world has ever seen, or can see.
C. S. Lewis: If you examined a hundred people who had lost their faith in Christianity, I wonder how many of them would turn out to have reasoned out of it by honest argument? Do not most people simply drift away?
Christianity simply does not make sense until you have faced the sort of facts I have been describing. Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing (as far as I know) to say to people who do not know they have done anything to repent of and who do not feel that they need forgiveness.
G. K. Chesterton: The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge: Christianity is not a theory or speculation, but a life; not a philosophy of life, but a life and a living process
By lozen
April 26, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
C. S. Lewis: If you examined a hundred people who had lost their faith in Christianity, I wonder how many of them would turn out to have reasoned out of it by honest argument? Do not most people simply drift away?
That’s probably true, most people drift away. But then when something bad happens to them, they turn back to the simple-minded religion of their childhood instead of seeking real answers to their questions. I did not simply drift away. My spiritual life is important to me. I looked for answers that made sense to me. I have reasoned out of it by honest argument. The answers that satisfy you don’t make sense to me. But I would never say such patronizing things as: “Before it’s all over you will see that I’m right and you’re wrong.” I would never try to tell you that unless you believe as I do you will burn in hell. I would never try to tell you how to live your life or what your morals have to be, based on the answers I found for me. But you, Bruce, Randy, and the fundamentalists I grew up surrounded by, have said those things on this blog. That’s why I don’t like your religion, because it is totalitarianism of the mind and the spirit. You believe you have the one true answer and you don’t.
By RS
April 26, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
AllAboutMe: Well I like to think that Heaven is what each of us want it to be. For instance, if my idea of Heaven is being reunited with my deceased kitties, then that’s what will happen. If yours is a never-ending football game, for instance, then that’s what will happen, as well.
By Boscoe
April 26, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this
CHUCK, YOU DA MAN! Steven, that’s quite a list but here it goes. Peter was a student of Jesus.The Church Peter “Foundedâ€? was based upon instruction from Christ. Somebody else quoted the Biblical verse for this so I won’t repeat it. Actually, any Pope can use Peter’s name. They don’t out of respect. The saints are there to be seen as an example of a life dedicated to Christ. They lived piously, they sacrificed a great deal ( St. Francis, as well as others, gave away their personal fortune to the poor), and many died for the sake of Christianity. We know the saints in heaven are aware of what occurs to us (Heb. 12:1, Luke 15:7) and that they offer prayers (Rev. 5:8-10, 8:3), including praying for God’s intervention on the earth (Rev. 6:9-10). Hebrews 12:22-24 tells us we approach not only Jesus, “the mediator of the new covenant,” but the heavenly Jerusalem and the “assembly of the first-born enrolled in heaven” and “the spirits of the just made perfect.” We don’t hesitate to ask them for their prayers because the prayers of the righteous “availeth much” (Jas. 5:16b). The Blessed Mother is our “Mother,” and when we go to her for help she intercedes for us. Many of the apparitions from Fatima, to Lourdes to Our Lady of Guadalupe are perfect “true” examples of how our Blessed Mother comes to her children and helps us. Like Mother Teresa of Calcutta said, if their was no Blessed Mother, there would be no Jesus. The Blessed Mother was the first tabernacle, who held in her womb-Jesus! The Catholic Church is responsible for the composition of the Bible around 350 A.D. Before this time, Tradition guided the Church and Tradition comes from the presence and action of the Holy Spirit alive and active within the Church. From the beginning, the apostles carried on the power and authority of our Lord to heal and forgive sins, which continues in the life of the Church to this very day. And while we are not always guaranteed a miraculous healing, we are assured that by the power of the sacrament of Penance, the repentant sinner is forgiven of sins and spiritually healed. St.John records these words of Jesus to the apostles following His resurrection: 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20:20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” * This text is explicit support for the power to forgive sins or hold them bound given to the apostles. With the laying on of hands in the sacrament of Holy Orders, this power was passed from the apostles to their successors, the bishops. Any priest, by reason of his ordination, shares in this power as well. Randy, Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades. *”The true, profound reason for dedicated celibacy is, as We have said, the choice of a closer and more complete relationship with the mystery of Christ and the Church for the good of all mankind: in this choice there is no doubt that those highest human values are able to find their fullest expression. The young candidates for the priesthood should convince themselves that they are not able to follow their difficult way without a special type of asceticism which is more demanding than that which is asked of all the other faithful and which is proper to themselves as candidates for the priesthood. We are speaking of an asceticism which is demanding but not suffocating, which consists in the deliberate and assiduous practice of those virtues which distinguish a priest from other men: self-denial in the highest degree-an essential for following Christ.” - Pope Paul VI, On Priestly Celibacy, (Sacerdotalis Coelibatus), 1967,. Michael Paragraph 19 of The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), promulgated by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on November 18th, 1965, states: “Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven â€?.
By lozen
April 26, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
By James
April 26, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
My Lord! I feel kind of dumb compared to all these religous quotes. I am a simpleton. I knows what I knows.
Here is one for MichealD: “Laugh and the world laughs with you, fart just once and you stand alone.”
By Jack
April 26, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
WHILEY We missed you. I agree with ZZZZZZZZ!
By James
April 26, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
More regurgitation from Boscoe!
By Whiley
April 26, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
lol hi everybody ! Just can’t get into this conversation for some reason. I just don’t relate to organized religion & the silly rules set up for the after life that everyone seems to know for a fact what the deal is. Seems like a pointless argument to me. Strict rules & regulations, especially guilt ridden & fearful, are created to control large masses of people. Fact is, if you are dumb enough to believe some of the garbage out there, that’s your decision.
Nothing is going to change the fact Catholics put some old guy in charge that has never had sex, can’t get pregnant, isn’t female, has never been married & really has no idea what life is like for normal people, but stands by rules that make no logical sense for the average person ! How nutty is that? I am enjoying most of the posts, so continue on folks ! :)
By lozen
April 26, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
See Whiley, I knew you had some great insights into this religion discussion. You got it going on!
By Boscoe
April 26, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
Lozen, do you wanna quote Jefferson? Here’s some for you! “We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.” —Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Virginia Baptists, 1808. ME
“The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights.” —Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. “Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that… of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support.” —Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. “In our early struggles for liberty, religious freedom could not fail to become a primary object.” —Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808.THIS ONE IS MY FAVORITE! “Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted.” —Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. “The rights to religious freedom are of the natural rights of mankind, and… if any act shall be… passed to repeal an act granting those rights or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.” —Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. “The Christian religion,is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.” —Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801.
By Lola
April 26, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
I’m with Whiley. This is a one-day topic and the other four can be better used talking about something else.
What I’d like to know is where was the mother of those two toddlers who “wandered” into the sewage pond a little ways from their property, when they had already wondered away that same day, and brought back by a neighbor! WHY is this woman not being charged with neglegence or something?? And also, the MARTA bus accident that killed the little 10 year old girl who WASN’T WEARING A SEATBELT! What is WRONG with these parents??? Shouldn’t they be held responsible at least in PART for the death of these children?
By lozen
April 26, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
“The authors of the gospels were unlettered and ignorant men and the teachings of Jesus have come to us mutilated, misstated and unintelligible” Thomas Jefferson
By Brian Curtis
April 26, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
Chuck, you’re taking Franklin out of context (and not doing a very effective job of it) when you pretend that Franklin was not a deist. Yes, he said that the teachings of Jesus were “the best the world ever saw or is likely to see;” but that didn’t mean he believed Jesus was a divine being.
Franklin supported religion in a vague way for its practical, moral effects on society. He believed that a creator (probably) existed, but had no opinion on the divinity of Jesus, and didn’t much care about the question one way or the other. A fuller quote:
“As for Jesus of Nazareth… I think his system of morals and his religion the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes. And I have (along with most of the present dissenters in England) some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with now…. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence.”
Hardly the words of a Christian. And there’s NO doubt that Jefferson was a deist (as opposed to a Christian). He even took the trouble to produce a revised New Testament with all the miracles and revelations removed! He once noted, “”The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus… in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
I know it’s a fervently held belief among some posters here, but the Founding Fathers really weren’t Christians and really didn’t want to establish a nation based on Christianity.
By AllaboutME
April 26, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one’s need to think. Adolf Eichmann
By chuck
April 26, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
John Adams: “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.â€? “We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!â€? [April 18, 1775, on the eve of the Revolutionary War after a British major ordered John Adams, John Hancock, and those with them to disperse in “the name of George the Sovereign King of England.” ]
John Quincy Adams:John Quincy Adams: • “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?” “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity”? —1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.
Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin “ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel� –Constitutional Convention of 1787
In Benjamin Franklin’s 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.”
Patrick Henry: | Portrait of Patrick Henry “Orator of the Revolution.” • This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.â€? â€â€?The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.� [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]
“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.�
Thomas Jefferson: “ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.�
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.�
“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.� (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]
Lozen, your quotes from Jefferson are taken out of context. He was talking about the misuse of religion. All of us are against that. He was NOT denouncing Christianity and he was not a deist. (Take note of Patrick Henry’s comments above)
By AlasButME
April 26, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this
These people remain here because I have thoroughly opened to them the seven seals. David Koresh
By Randy
April 26, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this
Brian, Thinking this country’s Founding Fathers weren’t Christian is posting what you want to believe. There are thousands of documnents that prove otherwise. As far as establishing a nation based on Christianity, they were smart as is Jesus, giving us free will is the only way God can truly know we love him. Or he could have created a bunch of robots.
By lozen
April 26, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
Lola, Where was the father of the two toddlers? Why is the mother quilty? Because she was there with the children? We who are mothers all know we are always guilty first, last and in-between, don’t we? Where was the father of the little girl killed by the bus? Maybe leaving all responsibility for the child to the mother?
By AlaisIsME
April 26, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
…I can quote christians all day…golly gee whiz…
By Michael
April 26, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
The quotations were not intended to prove anything, just for humor and reflection.
And actually, I am not a militant atheist and I have pointed out on numerous occasions that I respect good religion, certain religious leaders, and my closest friends whom I have known for decades are religious. I just despise the dogmatic, reactionary forms of religion that are increasingly prevalent in the American social and political landscape with harmful results. And I don’t think that the religious views of anyone, such as the benighted George Bush, that are wholly unreflected upon, unargued for, and yet serve as the basis for ethical argument and policy proposals that may affect me deserve any respect. (Such as the nonsense I saw on television by accident last night comparing stem cell research with the Holocaust.) And if Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are decent human beings I would hate to see a bad one. This is a simple distinction which I explicitly made many times before, some religion is good and some is bad, and if you don’t or won’t get it, that is your failing not mine. I had credited you with more rationality than the hopeless Boscoe who is completely in the grip of a religious ideology without knowing jack about anything else.
And how would you know if reason can provide an alternative? You certainly didn’t give an argument and there are plenty of arguments on the other side of your view. But I doubt you have read anyone who has argued against your view, anymore than Boscoe ever read a word of Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant or Mill. I didn’t have to run to the Internet to hunt up those quotations. I read the original sources in their entirety, and I have read Montesquieu as well. If you read the whole of what Einstein says in his essays and understand his use of the concepts of “Godâ€? “natureâ€? and “religionâ€? you will find he is no theist and that he separates ethics from religion, and that was my point.
Brian was correct in every claim he made in his recent post, and I challenge you to prove him wrong, with an argument not mere counterassertion and without conflating the important distinctions he made.
Here’s another one from Jefferson, from a letter to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: “Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”
Jefferson was not a Christian but a deist and similarly the case with Franklin. They thought that the wisdom embodied in the life and sayings of Jesus constituted the outline of a good morality, but neither believed in the divinity of Christ. Much of what they said was for social reasons and to avoid conflict with the orthodoxly religious. I hardly think they would look favorably upon today’s religious right and the reactionary element of American Catholicism either. If you think otherwise review the above quotation.
By Jack
April 26, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this
Lozen, If Dad was at work, the mother is responsible. Period.
By Lola
April 26, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
lozen - I only singled out the mother because SHE was the one who was watching the children (supposedly) when they wandered away. And it was the mother of the 10 year old little girl who was driving the car in which she was riding with no seatbelt. If it had been the father in either of those circumstances who had been responsible for watching out for them, I would be coming down on the fathers just as hard. I have an 11 month old daughter. I know how fast they move and how quickly things can happen. But when I hear that earlier that SAME DAY these children had wandered away and a neighbor had to return them, it makes me furious that they didn’t take the appropriate measures to make sure they locked doors or did whatever they had to do to ensure these kids didn’t get out again.
By norman
April 26, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this
Go ahead, Chuck, and quote H.L. Mencken. He loathed Christianity.
By chuck
April 26, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this
Thomas Paine: “ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.â€? “ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.â€? “The Existence of God—1810â€?
Benjamin Rush: • “I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism.� “By withholding the knowledge of [the Scriptures] from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds.� [Letter written (1790’s) in Defense of the Bible in all schools in America] • “Christianity is the only true and perfect religion.� • “If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into our world would have been unnecessary.�
“Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of educationâ€? Letters of Benjamin Rush, “To the citizens of Philadelphia: A Plan for Free Schools”, March 28, 1787
Justice Joseph Story: “ I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law… There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.â€? [Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593] “ Infidels and pagans were banished from the halls of justice as unworthy of credit.â€? [Life and letters of Joseph Story, Vol. II 1851, pp. 8-9.] “ At the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration [i.e., the First Amendment], the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.â€? [Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593]
George Washington: President of the Constitutional Convention:
Farewell Address: The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion” …and later: “…reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…” | photo of Farewell address original manuscript
“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.�
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.� [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]
“To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian” [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]
During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!� to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.
Nelly Custis-Lewis (Washington’s adopted daughter): Is it necessary that any one should [ask], “Did General Washington avow himself to be a believer in Christianity?” As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic devotion to his country. His mottos were, “Deeds, not Words”; and, “For God and my Country.”
By chuck
April 26, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
“Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples, captivating and noble. In no book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant; and by teaching all the same book, they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.� Fisher Ames: Author of the First Amendment
By lozen
April 26, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
Jack, Jack, Jack don’t play with me. You know I have the one true answer about this. Oh, you of little faith! Is this my buddy Jack who likes plays or some other Jack?
By Jack
April 26, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
I heard the mother locked the door then got into the shower. The little girl knew how to unlock it. Mom should have known.
By norman
April 26, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
We have not stuck to the topic at hand — about the Catholic church and modernity — even when the topic was about religion. I conclude that what most of y’all are concerned about is whether Christianity in general is true or not. Fair! That is an important question. Like the problem of capitalism, either Christianity has been tried and has failed, or it has never been tried. I think both are valid. It has obviously failed in 2000 to bridle the selfishness and violence of mankind. But on the other hand it has not really been tried because it is not valid for any society except one which is about to be destroyed by God. Christianity, as Rousseau wrote, is for the next world not for this one.
As for the Catholic Church — I have already opined that it is finished and will decline among the educated, the affluent, and the rational and be relegated, as with evangelicalism, to savages, peasants, and frauds.
As for capitalism, it has never really been tried because no one wants to be responsible for the awful results.
By Jack
April 26, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this
It’s me Lozen. Just messin with you.
By lozen
April 26, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this
When I was three, my little friend and I decided to go see the river near my house. My mother realized we were missing and came running to find us. I remember how frightened she was. She should have known and never let us out of her sight. Never mind the fact that she alone was taking care of another sick child while my father was at work six days a week from early morning to late evening. How many people who are so quick to blame, have ever been totally responsible for caring for two children under five 24/7? I agree parents should be more careful and childcare should be more affordable so that mothers can get a break and get some help. Everybody makes mistakes; bad things happen. It takes one quick second for a tragedy like that to happen as every parent knows. We don’t always have to immediately start looking for a mother to blame. Those poor woman will suffer enough guilt. The bus driver was to blame for the accident that killed the little girl in the car, not the mother.
By Michael
April 26, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
No, I didn’t quote deTocqueville, that must have been someone else. These tendentiously selected and isolated quotations prove nothing, except the ability to go to web sites and pick whatever suits the religious view.
Jefferson was indeed a deist (just as Kant was a Christian)and like the other founders of the United States he was influenced by many sources, more so influenced by the intellectual currents of the Enlightenment than Christianity. If anyone doubts it, then read some of their work and the work of professional historians who specialize in the area instead of just religious web sites. But then again, why should a religious person read anything BUT what they already believe, it might challenge their belief and identity. Heaven forbid!
A Christian friend of mine, who has both an M.D. and a PhD in philosophy humorously called this kind of religious reasoning the Ann Landers school of logic. Get your conclusion first and then look for the arguments after the fact. And he could have added, then accuse your opponent of doing the same, rather than addressing his or her arguments.
Well, off to class, where we will address the arguments on all sides of that terrible hedonist John Stuart Mill, or as the Catholic philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre described him in After Virtue, “a human exemplar of the virtues.”
By lozen
April 26, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
“To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.” -Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, during the trial of Galileo
By lozen
April 26, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
If I were running for a political office I’d have to become a christian real fast myself! Just like GW did.
By lozen
April 26, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
Okay, I just read the story about the two children; it sounds suspicious since the parents have already had problems with DFACS and neighbors are saying they left them alone all the time. Plus, she was a messy housekeeper and that is unforgiveable!
By Lola
April 26, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
I agree with you, lozen. Taking care of two small children is very difficult, and if this had been the first time they were able to wander away I would probably have a lot more sympathy for her. But the fact that is had happened previously that same day tells me that she didn’t take whatever steps were necessary to prevent it from happening again. And now there are reports that she habitually left them alone there, which if true, only proves my point that she should be charged with something. As for the MARTA accident, you are correct. The driver of the bus was to blame for the accident. The mother of the little girl was to blame for her not being buckled in. There is no excuse for neglegent parenting. A child relies on his or her parents 100% for safety and responsible parenting. They don’t know better. Parents do. I know both these mothers will live the rest of their lives with regret, but both circumstances could have been avoided simply with more diligence and, in the case of the mother driving the car, a five second effort to strap her in.
By Brian Curtis
April 26, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
Randy, you regularly pop up to assert that “tons of evidence” supports your claim… and then vanish as soon as someone asks you to present this alleged evidence.
Will you be true to form this week, or will you actually provide this “irrefutable, inarguably true” evidence you always claim to have?
By Bruce
April 26, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this
In an attempt to find a topic Whiley would like. Has anyone seen or read about the 5 year old in St. Petersburg that was handcuffed because she was out of control at school and her Mom woudl not come calm her down? Now she wants to sue the school and teh police.
By Jack
April 26, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this
That girl needed the belt. (and the mother should get fined for a frivolous lawsuit)
By norman
April 26, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
Jack: are you saying that black children very early on demonstrate the violent anti-social behavior common among blacks from the teenage years onward?
By lozen
April 26, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this
I contend that we all are atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
By Tony
April 26, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this
Not to answer for Randy but here ya go Brian. Randy always sez this:
Do you know that it takes more facial muscles to frown than it does to smile? Scientists have also found that it is more draining on the body to be depressed than it is to be happy. Anger and hatred too have been found to use up more energy and vitality than the body can replace while joy and love have actually been found to replenish your energy and vitality. Worry and mistrust are among the greatest destroyers of our zest for living that there are as well. Faith and oneness with God on the other hand tend to produce a calmness that keeps our strength and zest for living high. Pessimism, despair, complaining, and self-pity all make us feel like we are dead inside, but optimism, enthusiasm, cheerfulness, and merriment all make us feel like we could live forever.
When all this is taken together then it becomes clear that God designed us to live in love, joy, goodness, and oneness with Him. When we live in and choose these things we come alive with energy and vitality. When we don’t we grow closer to death with each passing day.
The rewards for choosing love, joy, and oneness with God are immediate and glorious too. Everything inside of us becomes better and everything in our lives becomes better. We become blessed rather than stressed. We smile and feel good in the many wonderful choices we make each day. We grow more and more delighted and enlightened while becoming a shining light to all the souls around us. We make the whole world more beautiful just by being in it.
God loves us all so much. He designed us for joy. He designed us for love. He designed us for unending delight and eternal life. He designed us to live in oneness with Him always. Let us always live by our perfect design then. Let us always choose love, joy, life, delight, energy, vitality, and oneness with God. Let us rejoice in these things today, tomorrow, and forever and always share them with everyone everywhere.
By norman
April 26, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
iozen: you have told me I am harsh, but today these pious buffoons are really getting to you.
By Brian Curtis
April 27, 2005 07:39 AM | Link to this
Texas Tony: That was very pretty, but what does it have to do with proving the existence of a deity? Positive emotions are healthier for us than negative ones; that’s great!
But this latest cut-and-paste of yours carries some unfounded assumptions: namely, that faith = happiness and that lack of faith makes people depressed. This, of course, is untrue.
Yes, we should all focus on the good things in life and avoid stress and negativity—for our own health. But that doesn’t require anyone to believe in supernatural beings of ANY stripe, or to attend a particular church (or any church at all). So what are you getting at?
By Randy
April 27, 2005 08:01 AM | Link to this
BRIAN, Sorry, I have real estate to tend to, if I seem to pop in and out. The question is proof of a deity, I was born and raised in a Christian home. I never questioned the existance of God until I was in my early forties. Being a logical thinking person, I thought it through. The universe came into existance at some point, no matter how far back you go in time(billions of years). That means that there was a void and planets, the sun, life all appeared in that void. So now I have 2 choices on how that happened, one choice is that things appear out of thin air without help and I don’t see how that could be possible(doesn’t make sense) or that a deity exist. A deity existing is the only possible conclusion. There are no scientific explanations for this, the big bang if you think about it, really doesn’t make sense. In this situation before I have said that if things appear out of thin air without help, I need several million dollars to appear in my wallet, I won’t say that here is I am trying to answer sincerely. Have a great day.
By Boscoe
April 27, 2005 08:29 AM | Link to this
Michael, Jefferson was indeed a deist (just as Kant was a Christian) Jefferson was no more a deist than Kant was Christian. It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Worship services in the House—a practice that continued until after the Civil War. Catholic priests began officiating in 1826. Jefferson’s actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist “a wall of separation between church and state.” In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a “national” religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government. Though Kant thought of himself as a Christian, he explicitly denied that we could know that there really exists (1) God, (2) free will, and (3) immorality. He said we must live as if these three ideas were true because if we believe them we will take morality seriously, and if we don’t we will not. It is this justification of belief by purely practical reasons that is a terrible mistake. Kant believes in God not because it is true but because it is helpful. Why not believe in Santa Claus then? If I were God, I would favor an honest atheist over a dishonest theist, and Kant is to my mind a dishonest theist, because there is only one honest reason for believing anything: because it is true. If the moral law came from God rather than from man, Kant argues, then man would not be free in the sense of being autonomous. This is true, Kant then proceeds to argue that man must be autonomous, therefore the moral law does not come from God but from man. The Church argues from the same premise that the moral law does in fact come from God, therefore man is not autonomous. He is free to choose to obey or disobey the moral law, but he is not free to create the law itself. Kant gave up the battle, in effect, by retreating from the battlefield of fact. He believed the great myth of the 18th-century “Enlightenmentâ€? (ironic name!): that Newtonian science was here to stay and that Christianity, to survive, had to find a new place in the new mental landscape sketched by the new science. The only place left was subjectivity. That meant ignoring or interpreting as myth the supernatural and miraculous claims of traditional Christianity. Kant’s strategy was essentially the same as that of Rudolf Bultmann, the father of “demythologizingâ€? and the man who may be responsible for more Catholic college students losing their faith than anyone else. Many theology professors follow his theories of criticism which reduce biblical claims of eyewitness description of miracles to mere myth, “valuesâ€? and “pious interpretations.â€? I expect This is what I would find if I attended one of your classes Michael.
The independence of philosophy in regard to theology, as in regard to any other science whatsoever, is only an interpretation of this undeniable principle of scientific progress, as applicable in the twentieth century as it was in the thirteenth, that a rightly constituted science derives its formal object, its principles, and its constructive method from its own resources, and that, this being so, it cannot borrow from any other science without compromising its own right to exist. This means that, while the two sciences keep their formal independence (the independence of the principles by which their investigations are guided), there are certain matters where philosophy cannot contradict the solutions afforded by theology. The Scholastics of the Middle Ages justified this subordination, being profoundly convinced that Catholic dogma contains the infallible word of God, the expression of truth. Once a proposition, e.g. that two and two make four, has been accepted as certain, logic forbids any other science to form any conclusion subversive of that proposition. The material mutual subordination of the sciences is one of those laws out of which logic makes the indispensable guarantee of the unity of knowledge. The truth duly demonstrated by one science serves as a beacon in another science. The certainty of a theory in chemistry imposes its acceptance on physics, and the physicist who should go contrary to it would be out of his course. Similarly, the philosopher cannot contradict the certain data of theology, any more than he can contradict the certain conclusions of the individual sciences. To deny this would be to deny the conformity of truth with truth, to contest the principle of contradiction, to surrender to a relativism which is destructive of all certitude. It being supposed that nothing but what is true is included in this science (sc. theology)it being supposed that whatever is true by the decision and authority of this science can nowise be false by the decision of right reason: these things, I say, being supposed, as it is manifest from them that the authority of this science and reason alike rest upon truth, and one verity cannot be contrary to another, it must be said absolutely that reason can in no way be contrary to the authority of this Scripture, all right reason is in accord with it.
By Archie
April 27, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this
Jack: are you saying that black children very early on demonstrate the violent anti-social behavior common among blacks from the teenage years onward?
This racist comment was made by Norman and it is sickening since the forum is about the new pope. This norman person can’t possibly know enough people to make a general statement. The young girl did need the belt but she was calm at the time the police came to handcuff her. I think the police were a bit late and the teacher did a good job of handling the situation. The mother could not get there which would not be unusual since people do work. I have worked at places where it would be difficult to leave work. Some white-collar jobs are more family-friendly.
By norman
April 27, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this
Archie: what is racist about my comment? I wanted to know why Jack was so sure the girl needed handcuffing.
By Ken Boord
April 27, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this
In a rare case, I do agree with Diane that for practical measures the Catholic church may need to make changes for it’s very survival. Female priests. Married priests. Birth control. All excellent ideas. However, I think there are a few things that Diane should consider:
The bottom line is that the issues being squabbled about are not issues of morality, they are issues of tradition. Female priest are not immoral, they are not traditional.
The church cannot and should not EVER budge on issues of morality. Tradition may change but morals never do. As Benedict XVI said prior to is ascension, the world is coming under a dictaatorship of relativism.
The world cannot survive under those circumstance and I applaude the Pope, and the Catholic church, for being one organization that does not crumble under societal pressures and stands for something solid amidst the whipping winds of change.
By Archie
April 27, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this
Norman I don’t buy your naivete. Jack said the young lady needed the belt which made some sense given that she acted out for 28 minutes. There was no need to mention race at all and by mentioning it showed a propensity to take a swipe at a people. You make comments that demonstrate some intelligence so I can’t give you the benefit of doubt because you know exactly what you’re doing. That statement was along the lines of a John Graham Altman comment and you definitely don’t want to be associated with him or do you?
By norman
April 27, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this
Ken Boord: That solid something you think the Catholic Church stands on consists of: outmoded Aristotelian science, outmoded primitive social relations, superstitious belief, and scriptural fraud. How solid is that?
This appears solid to those who cannot think for themselves.
By Brian Curtis
April 27, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this
Boscoe, I think you’ve hit on the point of divergence between your worldview and the rationalist’s: You begin by assuming that theology’s conclusions MUST be true, simply because they come from theology. From that, you extrapolate that no knowledge from any other source—including science—can possibly contradict what “must be true.”
That’s why theology is not a science.
Randy: So your entire basis for conjuring up a supernatural, eternal being and believing whoever claims to speak for him/her/it is… “the universe must have a cause”? That’s IT???
Study a little physics, Randy; uncaused events do indeed occur, and quite frequently. The notion that an origin implies a creator is a philosophical prejudice, not a scientific truth. Charged-pair production, radioactive decay, operations of the weak nuclear force—these all happen with no cause whatsoever. And recognizing that takes no “faith in nothing” whatsoever.
Beyond that, you have a philosophical problem yet to resolve: If “everything” must have an origin, where did God come from? If you claim he’s exempt from your rule, then your rule is invalid, and everything DOESN’T have to have an origin. In which case, why conjure up a god at all?
You’ve referred to “moutains” of evidence; I guess I was expecting a bit more than this.
By chuck
April 27, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this
Brian Curtis, The Bible answers your question.
Job 12:7-11
7 "But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; 8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you. 9 Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? 10 In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.Now before, you say “That’s not proof!” Let me ask you where YOUR proof comes from? Science textbooks? The Bible was written by inspiration of God, by men who WALKED with God. Science books were written by men who started out with unbelief and set out to prove that unbelief. I love how you always talk about the superiority of science over FAITH…as if science has proved evolution OR the non-existence of God. They have done neither.
Let’s say for example that you look at the fossil record of the horse that purports to show its evolution through millions of years. That information is in the latest biology books. There is only one problem with it. The man who drew it, MADE IT UP. It does not exist. The same thing is true of the drawings of human babies with “gills” in the mother’s womb. Again, this was fabricated to show that man came from fish.
NOW, many of you have made statements about “contradictions” in the Bible. Now even though each of these so-called contradictions are easily explained, and exist only in the mind of non-believers, let’s say for the sake of argument that they exist. Those of you who point to those contradictions say that that proves that the Bible is not true. NOW let’s apply that same form of logic to the aforementioned science textbooks. Do you see the intellectual corner that you have painted yourselves into?
Let’s take it a step further. The Bible was written over a couple of thousand years by over 50 authors. The fact that there are no contradictions, that literally thousands of prophesies in the Bible have come true, and the example of MILLIONS of changed lives all lend credence to the idea that it was inspired by God. These men wrote what they knew to be true because God directed their writing.
What about the so-called scientific evidence? No scientist has ever OBSERVED Evolution of one species to another, and there is not a fossil record to show it either. We know for a fact that two of the key items used to “educate” children about evolution in science classes across the country are in fact, hoaxes promulgated by dishonest charlatans trying to prove what they already “knew” to be true. We also know that even though these items are TOTALLY PROVEN TO BE FALSE that the scientists writing these books are still using them as of our last textbook adoption in 1999. You have to ask the question, “Why is that?” The only logical explanation is that they have nothing better, and most people don’t know that the drawings were fabricated. I thought scientists were supposed to be these pristinely objective seekers of the truth. That is obviously not the case. So who do you trust. The writers of science textbooks who lied on purpose to make themselves rich and famous, OR the writers of the New Testament, most of whom died as martyrs. Would you die for something you KNEW to be a lie? I think I’ll keep my Faith in Christ. Your trust in science will only lead you to one place…and it isn’t heaven.
By chuck
April 27, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this
HERE HERE Boscoe. Great answer.
By Michael
April 27, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this
Chuck,
A bit more on your inept use of quotations.
You should read the full text of Einstein’s writings from religion even though I gave enough to clearly illustrate his recognition of the separation of religion and morality and his denial of the existence of a personal God. One needs to take care in understanding his pantheism and his use of the word “religion,� which he hardly uses in an orthodox sense any more than he uses the word “god� in a theistic sense. Here is another, more complete quotation which illuminates his attitude but I invite you to go and read the whole of Einstein’s essays on these subject, as I have.
“By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason, incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life. (The Goals of Science and Religion and our understanding of Life, Albert Einstein)
I’ve never cared much for Freud’s work, though of course some of it is valuable, but I can see from the quotation you most likely found from an Internet site that you have never read any of his work on religion in an effort to get the full picture. If you had, you wouldn’t have used him to try to shore up religion, because he had little use for it, to say the least. Try reading Totem and Taboo and the Future of an Illusion. I have read them and I don’t care for Freud’s analysis of religion and it is hardly flattering.
But what is your point in these quotations? They do not constitute an argument. It seems that you intend some of them to support the tired claim that the United States was “founded” as a Christian nation. That is patently false. The founding document of the nation is the Constitution, (not the Declaration of Independence, which, in any event, contains deist code language, not theistic language) and the Constitution does not even contain the words “god,” “Christ” or “Christianity.” It founds no Church and we are not formally a Christian nation. The Supreme Court, the relevant authority here, has never upheld such an interpretation either. I notice that the Bozos and religious fundamentalists of America always manage to completely ignore those two facts, and they are more relevant than anything else in this context. Of course, Washington and others behaved as if they were religious in public, it was expected, just as the religious element of American society today requires these gestures from our contemporary politicians. That is a very thin reed to support any claims about “founding.” You will have to do much much better than all this.
I see that Boscoe the human parrot can be depended on to repeat the party line by cutting and pasting from his irrelevant Catholic sources as if they constitute an argument for anyone who isn’t already in the circle. I don’t even bother to read them. Too bad his religion doesn’t permit him to think for himself. It reminds me of the meaning of the word “Islamâ€? as “submissionâ€? or “surrenderâ€? to God. Grovel before him, quote the Koran, the traditions, and commit intellectual suicide as a result. Remarkable similarities to Bozo’s mindless Catholicism.
Fortunately, not all Christianity requires such an intellectually servile attitude, and some people manage to retain their critical thinking faculties and their intellectual and human dignity while remaining religious. Others are beyond hope, their minds shed arguments the way a duck’s feathers shed water. Impervious. I think I see the same attitude in Chuck as Boscoe, and there seems little point in wasting any time with this pair of ignoramuses.
By Jack
April 27, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this
Norman I didn’t say or mean what you asked in the post of yesterday at 4:49. What I did mean was the little girl should have her a* spanked by her mother when she acts like that and if the mother tries to sue the school, the judge should fine her for frivolous lawsuit. The girl did not need handcuffing. When I was in school they gave kids like her the paddle. Race has nothing to do with my opinion. We really don’t need to interject race on the blog this week. Save that for later.
By rocky
April 27, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this
I agree with Jack. That little girl should have had the tar spanked out of her for acting like that. Did you see the video? She completely destroyed an entire office and kicked, hit, and tried to bite the teacher. And her mother is obviously partially to blame for her behavior, since she certainly didn’t see what all the fuss was about. I’ll go out on a limb here and say it probably wasn’t the first time she’s acted like that. This child in ten years is going to have a baby of her own and end up in prison.
By Jack
April 27, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this
Nice try at stirring the pot Norm. Hopefully the other folks on this blog are familiar enough with my views to know you are full of it.
By Bruce
April 27, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this
Archie,
If you looked at the tape, (there are two) one from the classroom and one from the Principles office, you would see that the little girl did not sit down and start behaving until she saw the police outside. If you listen to the voices you will here the adults say that she had been acting out in the classroom for more than 45 minutes. That was before she was taken to the principles office. Also, this was not the first time the school had problems with that child. The parents of the other kids in that class should be pretty upset about that. Their children were in danger on more than one occassion becuase this mother would not see about the disipline of her child.
I agree with Jack the little girl needs a belt and the mother should be the one in handcuffs.
By chuck
April 27, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this
Michael, Let’s look at their OWN WORDS.
Thomas Jefferson:
“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.�
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story: “I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.� [Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593] “ Infidels and pagans were banished from the halls of justice as unworthy of credit.� [Life and letters of Joseph Story, Vol. II 1851, pp. 8-9.] “ At the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration [i.e., the First Amendment], the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.� [Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593]
“Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples, captivating and noble. In no book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant; and by teaching all the same book, they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.� Fisher Ames: Author of the First Amendment
And how do you answer the word of the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
John Jay: | Portrait of John Jay “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.� Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.
“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab [“Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?” 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.â€? [The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.365]
Another Chief Justice, John Marshall said:
John Marshall
“The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.” John Marshall, in a letter to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833, JSAC, p. 139. Marshall was Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1801-1835.
This was written WHILE HE WAS CHIEF JUSTICE.
His statements are a pretty good indicator of the thinking of the founders. THEY PRESUPPOSED CHRISTIANITY.
No my friend, they were not Diests they were Christians and never meant this country to be anything else than a country that HONORS Christ.
By Brian Curtis
April 27, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this
Chuck, your confusion continues from one topic to the next. I’ll try to correct some of your more blatant misunderstandings, but only if you promise to listen this time.
quote: “Science books were written by men who started out with unbelief and set out to prove that unbelief.”
This, you should already know, is a lie. Most of the early scientific text were written by men of devout faith—for the obvious reason that “science” is not the opposite of “faith,” no matter which faith you happen to hold. Newton was a devout Christian, and remains one of the most respected figures in science. Darwin and Einstein both believe in a creator. True, a religious faith is not necessary to be a good scientist—but it doesn’t prevent it either.
quote: “I love how you always talk about the superiority of science over FAITH…as if science has proved evolution OR the non-existence of God. They have done neither.”
Science doesn’t have to prove facts; it only needs to explain them. And evolution is a known fact, currently best explained by the theory of natural selection.
Science has made no attempt to prove OR disprove the existence of any gods; why should it? Supernatural questions are not in the province of science, and proving a negative (except in very specific cases) is neither possible nor necessary. If you understood science or logic a bit better, you’d know that it’s the job of the person making a POSITIVE claim—i.e., “God exists”—who has the burden of proving it.
quote: (horses and gill drawings) Yes, errors have been made along the way as we learn how evolution operates. And how did these errors come to light? Through more science. That’s right; science is the self-correcting enterprise that can admit doubt and error, neither of which can be tolerated in religion.
Moreoever, evolutionary theory doesn’t depend wholly on one man’s drawing of gill slits in embryos. It has literally thousands of pieces of evidence to substantiate it. You could learn a lot from a quick visit to http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html.
quote: “[Contradictions in the Bible] are easily explained and exist only in the mind of non-believers.”
Neat trick! They don’t exist, yet they’re easily explained? We could devote several weeks to pinning down the disparate and contradictory statements within the Bible (not to mention the statements that are odds with reality)… but again, this is missing the point. The Bible is not a science textbook. There’s no way every word of it could be literally true—nor does it matter, since it’s a guidebook for morality, not history and biology.
quote: “Do you see the intellectual corner that you have painted yourselves into?”
Yes. We insist on logic and evidence, and the Bible literalists can’t provide any. We, on the other hand, can acknowledge and correct mistakes—giving us a substantial advantage in arriving at the truth.
quote: “No scientist has ever OBSERVED Evolution of one species to another, and there is not a fossil record to show it either.”
Again, you’re speaking from ignorance and belief rather than knowledge. Refer to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
for a good layman’s introduction to how evolution HAs been observed, and how the fossil record substantiates it.
quote: “Would you die for something you KNEW to be a lie?”
Funny that any one would still use that “would you die for a lie” argument after 9/11. Religious fanaticism is independent of truth and reason, as has been depressingly demonstrated.
quote: “I think I’ll keep my Faith in Christ.”
No one’s stopping you… least of all the many scientists who are deeply religious (and often Christian) themselves. You’re the one insisting that people have to choose between faith and science. But that’s only a problem if you suffer from the fundamentalist delusion that your religion can take the place of science.
quote: “Your trust in science will only lead you to one place.”
Yep: the truth. I hope to see you there someday.
By chuck
April 27, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this
As for the Supreme Court not upholding the ideas that I have expressed here and truly, the ideas that the founders expressed, there is a simple explanation for that.
There were no cases brought before the court that impacted the relationship between the government and the church until the 1940’s or so. Every other case concerning religious liberty had concerned minor points. It was not until the FDR appointments to the court that this issue was even addressed.
I think you can see by their statements how those cases would have gone if they had been brought early in our country’s history.
Why else would the founders have thought it perfectly NORMAL to attend church services in the Capitol? Why would they pay with federal dollars, a Christian Chaplain for the Congress? Why would they inscribe so many federal buildings with scripture? Surely if they thought the way you say that they thought, they would be appalled by such things and would have NEVER done them, yet they did.
I thought “philosophers” were supposed to be logical thinkers. But, just like the other LIBERALS on this board, you assume that because you read it in some Godless book, it must be true. What happened to the philosopher’s creed, “think for yourself.” I assure you that I have done that over many years of research and asking questions. I think all that you have done in that regard is to accept the words of Godless professors as YOUR Gospel.
It takes way more faith to be you than to be me.
By Richard
April 27, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this
Please tell me how you can refute evolution, Chuck. If evolution doesn’t exist, why do we keep having to have flu shots every flu seasons? The flu should be the same ole virus with no changes. Why are people taller today than they were one hundred, two hundred years ago? Why do roaches still survive after being exposed to all kinds of chemicals from pesticides, and go ahead and reproduce? What about the different species of finches that Darwin observed?
I am a Christian, but have often wondered why people are so different? If we are all from Adam and Eve, wouldn’t we all look alike? My brother and I look alike. My Mom and her sister look alike. And who did Cain and Abel marry and have kids with? Were their wives their sisters, too?
By Boscoe
April 27, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this
Michael, you have defended your view point as I expected. With insults and name calling. Evidently, you’re the only person capable of deep thought. Try rebuffing my arguments with quotes from your own texts to defend your point. You’d have much more credibility. Brian neither is philosophy!
By Archie
April 27, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this
Bruce,first of all I gave the teacher credit for how she handled the situation. I did not see the entire video. I read about the incident in a Florida newspaper before it was national news. Secondly, I agreed with Jack that the child should have been disciplined. She was sitting down when the police handcuffed her. I have a problem with the racial inferences made by some of on this blog. The girl is five years old. Most adults I know don’t appreciate handcuffs too well. I did not have a major problem with Jack’s response. It is very important to read and comprehend before responding. Some people have religious bias’ and other bias’ and they respond before reading the entire post. Jack was very clear as to what he meant and I did not have a problem with that.
By Randy
April 27, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this
Brian, Go out in your yard and grab some dirt and ask yourself, when this was created, who created this or how was this created. There are a million examples of this. Who created the first seed? Boscoe and Chuck have given you other great examples, open up.
By norman
April 27, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this
Archie: I interjected race in the matter of the five-year old girl only because if she had been white there would have been no threats of lawsuits.
Like the Voting Rights Act, which presupposes white Southerners would try to deprive blacks of the right to vote.
By norman
April 27, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this
Which by the way is why the Voting Rights Act should not be extended. There is no evidence that Southern whites discriminate against black voters any more than Ohio whites do, or more than Florida discriminates against Jewish voters by making them vote for Nazi Pat Buchanan.
By Brian Curtis
April 27, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this
Randy: I see you’ve chosen to ignore all comments and questions, as usual. But repetition does not improve an argument.
Just saying “There HAS to be a creator, there just HAS to!” is not an argument that will impress or sway anyone. Why should it?
By chuck
April 27, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this
Brian Curtis, YOU could learn a lot from going to http://www.talkorigins.org/ where they tell you what their agenda is. NOT SCIENCE, mind you, which is a SEARCH for the truth, but rather, they have started out with the conclusion and then try to present evidence to validate their already deeply held beliefs. HMMMM. This quote from their website makes them sound like an advocacy group NOT a SCIENCE group. Isn’t that what you accused ME of?
The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive’s existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.
Here is another quote from your wonderful website: “materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review” HMMMM, how scientific is that?
As for the horse/gill hoaxes…Those were proven to be false over 30 years ago. If science is so capable of correcting its mistakes, why do these drawings continue to persist in science textbooks? It is nothing more than a poorly veiled attempt to hoodwink the public into believing in evolution.
As for your assertion of the prevalence of Christianity among scientists, I think you would find that less than 10% of scientists have any belief in God. I have not seen any national data on this, but I would probaly be willing to bet on that eventuality. In any event, it is extremely doubtful that a believer in Christ could possibly be a believer in evolution. The Bible teaches that Christ Himself was the author of Creation. In your world that would make Him a LIAR not a LORD.
By Alex
April 27, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this
I believe it was lozen who said,”That’s why I don’t like your religion, because it is totalitarianism of the mind and the spirit. You believe you have the one true answer and you don’t.”
You must be like Oprah who believes all religions are the same and everyone just uses a different name for God…buddha, krishna, allah,etc.
There was and is only ONE God with a son named Jesus. He is the only way to salvation and eternal life (i.e. “heaven”).
If I said that your belief as an atheist was acceptable or understandable or “ok” then it would show that I truly did not have much faith in what I believe.
You could wake up on Monday morning and say to yourself that it’s Saturday and go back to bed. But it doesn’t change the fact you’re in serious trouble for not going to work or that it IS in fact MONDAY morning. You can tell yourself anything and believe it but fact still remains fact.
It’s hard to explain how a Christian is so sure that Jesus is very REAL and how we can be SURE God is real and that what we believe as Christians is the only truth compared to the other things people call religions. It’s something you have to experience first-hand-when the Lord makes himself known to you. It’s purely “spiritual”…not something you can physically touch but something you feel in your spirit. Because we are not just flesh and blood but we also have a spirit.
If you open yourself up to the Lord and invite Him into your life as well as ask forgiveness of your sins He WILL come into your life and make His presence known. Christians are not wishy-washy. God makes His presence known to you when you ask him into your life. I KNOW He is as real as the sun shining in the sky.
It’s all of the people who have not experienced anything spiritual that do not know God or believe in Him. You accuse Christians of not having an “open-mind” when it comes to various things. But the only way to find God IS to be open-minded as well as opening your heart to Him. It’s the people who are NOT open-minded that deny God and have never felt His presence in their lives.
My 2 cents for the morning…
By chuck
April 27, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this
Richard, there is a difference between MICRO evolution and MACRO evolution. Species adapt THEY DO NOT BECOME NEW SPECIES.
By Archie
April 27, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this
Norman, why didn’t you say that in the first place. You have no way of knowing whether a lawsuit would be filed because perhaps the white young lady would not have been in handcuffs. If she were there’s a strong probability that a lawsuit would have been filed. As Jack said you’re full of it. Jack addressed the issue. No parent wants to see their 5-year old in ‘cuffs. It might be necessary but most parents do as suggested— spank their behinds. Norman we know you’re a bigot but let’s talk about church and this religious issue that you feel so passionate about.
By Richard
April 27, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this
So you do believe in evolution? Uh-huh. So micro will never lead to macro? Still waiting on the answers from Boscoe and Randy on why all humans don’t look the same. If we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, we should all look alike. And who were the wives of Abel and Cain? Were they their sisters? Still confusing.
By Jack
April 27, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the support Rock & Arch. Don’t know how Norm read that into my post.
By Whiley
April 27, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this
I find it unbelievable that, even on the current news about the handcuffed kid, that NOBODY mentions the most important detail:
The MOTHER was called & she could not come to get her child for at least another hour or so. The MOTHER said SPECIFICALLY & VERY STERNLY: DO NOT LAY ONE HAND ON MY CHILD ! Do not touch my child for any reason !
I love how the news leaves THAT detail out.
By Bruce
April 27, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this
Archie,
My point was that the girl calmed down ONLY because she knew the cops were outside the door. If the school were to call me about one of mine, not once but twice, I would have certainly taken the time to go see about her. Especially since this was not the first time. My job would just have to understand. I agree with you on the race issue. That should have no bearing on this at all.
P.S. I only injected this topic because Whiley wanted something else to talk about. I gave it a try so back to the Pope.
By norman
April 27, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this
Archie: I an not a bigot. I didn’t say that black children are unruly because their parents are usually drug crazed. That before the drug culture blacks were characterized by amiable fecklessness rather than violent confrontation. I know that it is the result of racism and slavery that blacks are unable to control themselves and that it is the fault of evil whites that they are as they are. Give me a break. I have been taught what is politically correct just like you.
While on subject of victimization, let us have compassion especially for Christians. They have been taught to believe that the creator God hates them until they believe he sent a poor itinerant Jewish apocalyptic down here to die violently so that they could say they believe and be saved. That they will be washed clean in the blood of the lamb. That they should pluck out their eyes and cut of their hands rather than have normal sexual interests and desires. That he has told them all they need to know in a book called the Bible which no one really understands but which everyone pretends to read.
Christians have been the most victimized of all.
Burn the Bible, Save America!
By chuck
April 27, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this
Whiley, Who cares what the Mother said? She wasn’t there to control her child. In that instance, the school is authorized to act as the child’s parent. It is a legal principle called “in loco parentis” or “in the place of the parents”. It is a well known doctrine with tons of Supreme Court precedents. Because of the special nature of the schools, parents have to leave their children in the charge of school officials. Those officials, under state law have not only the right, but the responsibility to control the behavior of the students in their charge as if they were the parents of those children. Failure to do so, puts the lives of all of the children in jeopardy.
By Ken Boord
April 27, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this
Norman…
Are you a coffee drinker? I think you may be going though some kind of withdrawal to be so hostile at such an early hour of the morning.
Perhaps you are simply so arrogant and self-indulgant to think you could possibly answers all of life’s questions on your own. Or…
Perhaps you know that you can’t answer all of those questions and rather than admit to your infallibility you criticize others who are more humble than yourself. Or…
Perhaps you have put your faith in something that has turned out to be a ruse and rather than admit your mistakes, you wallow in your own despair and lash out at others who have found peace in this deperate world.
I will be sure to pray for you. God loves you even if you don’t love him.
By Archie
April 27, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this
Norman you are a bigot. Those statements have nothing to do with being politically correct. The statements you made at 10:36 are racist and it proves that even some liberal people can be racist. No one mentioned victimization and christians don’t consider themselves victims but believers. As much as I agree with some of the liberal points of view the fact is there is no absolute proof that God does not exist. I have no problem with people believing in God but the practice of that belief needs work. As a church-goer there are plenty of things I could do better and there’s no victimization to acknowledge that. America won’t be saved by burning the Bible. Mankind does not know everything as unscientific as that sounds it is the truth. Bruce I get your point and I read more about the incident more than I saw. Whiley you make an interesting point so please provide so more thoughts.
By norman
April 27, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this
Sticks and stones, Archibald, stick and stones…..
By Alex
April 27, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this
Nobody sit near norman…I think lightening may strike at any moment!
I would like to ask lozen and the others what they think happened to their loved ones that have died. How sad to think that’s the end.
It would be hard to deal with problems in this world without the Lord’s help and guidance.
By lozen
April 27, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
Brian Curtis, your 9:55 post is brilliant! Thanks for having the patience to perservere with the logically challenged. I will look at the recommended website.
By Brian Curtis
April 27, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this
Chuck: I’m afraid you’re wrong again, and that’s what comes of making assumptions.
Roughly half of scientists believe in a deity who answers prayers (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018041018sciencereligion.html), and most Christian factions have already accepted evolution as a valid scientific theory (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1028statementsfromreligiousorg12192002.asp).
In fact, the acceptance of evolution as a valid, tested, and proven scientific concept is virtually 100% everywhere outside the U.S.—the only nation infested with a particular breed of fundamentalist propaganda that hysterically claims “science is the enemy of God.”
Talk-Origins is up-front about their purpose, as you noted: it’s to explain the mainstream, accepted scientific view of evolution and answer the idiocies of fundies, creationists, and their ilk. It may take a layman’s tone, but how is this not scientific?
Moreover, you’re continuing to confuse (as many creationists do) the fact of evolution with “the origins of the world/universe.” Evolution describes how life has changed on Earth since it appeared; it has nothing to do with biogenesis (the origin of life) or cosmology (the workings and origin of the universe). Evolutionary theory doesn’t address the origins of the universe any more than the Pythagorean theorem does… and it makes about as much comment about gods, too.
Again, only in hysterical fundamentalist ravings is evolution turned into some all-encompassing, We Hate God club. Instead of the tested and proven science that it is.
By Randy
April 27, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this
Talking about Evolution, I don’t believe in Macro-evolution. But it would be irrevelant if I did, a creator still had to create the creature that both man and monkey came from. No offence, but this is a case where non-believers have AGAIN not thought the entire scenerio through. As far as Iozen thinking death is the end, SO WE ARE NO MORE IMPORTANT THAT A DEAD BUG? There is really no purpose or real meaning to life? Doesn’t make sense. Why do y’all fight so hard against something that doesn’t exist?
By Brian Curtis
April 27, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
Maybe because the people who DO believe in it keep trying to run our lives and tell us what to think?
By Brian Curtis
April 27, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this
Randy:
As for purpose and meaning: The fact that we have no inherent purpose “built-in” or handed to us only means that we have to find our own. No biggie.
Our lives have exactly as much meaning and purpose as we choose to invest in them. Now, why should that scare anyone?
As for your “someone had to create it” line… I’ve already addressed that, and you have failed to reply (big surprise). So I’ll present it again for you.
If, as you claim, everything has to have a creator, who created God? If he’s an exception to the rule, then your rule is invalid. And if he DOES have a creator, why should we bother worshipping a middleman?
By Randy
April 27, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this
The problem with these posts is they are dealing with science and logic. Does science and logic prove that God exists, ABSOLUTELY, however those that don’t know God can’t find a relationship with him there. God is found in the spiritual realm. Why wouldn’t someone want to believe that death is not the end, that there is something much better beyond. No death, sickness etc. Why would anyone hold onto such a weak case as is presented by non-believers. Because they haven’t found God in the spiritual realm and they can’t find him here. No matter how many times we prove that a creator is logical.
By Randy
April 27, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this
God is eternal, the universe is not. He has always existed. No one created him, he created everything.
By rocky
April 27, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this
Whiley - who CARES if the mother said not to lay a hand on her child. Her child certainly didn’t mind laying a hand on the teacher! And seemed fine with destroying an entire office and throwing things. That mother is laughable. I hope the judge forces her to pay for the lawyers fees of the school for filing a ridiculous lawsuit.
By Bruce
April 27, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this
Randy,
I believe in the BIG BANG Theory. God clapped His hands together, there was a BIG BANG and here we are.
By norman
April 27, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this
A sign on a Savannah redneck church: if you don’t believe in miracles you will never see one. Exactly, unless you are taught nonsense first you will not believe nonsense.
By Jack
April 27, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this
I thought our purpose in life was to go forth and multiply like everthing else living does.(No offense to those that choose not to)
By chuck
April 27, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this
http://junior.apk.net/~qc/mind/sci/science.html
Science is the intentional collection and interpretation of data in order to make sense of the world. A field is only a science to the extent that it has intellectual integrity and is convergent, constrained by testability. Science on the small scale is focused on the construction and testing of theories - individually testable proposed ideas/understandings of the nature of things. On the large scale, science is focused on the construction and maintenance of frameworks of thought. The distinction between a theory and a framework is a matter of scale and is not strict. An example of theory would the the Theory of Gravity, and an example of a framework would be Newtonian Physics. The difference between a perspective and a fact is to some degree blurred in the construction of scientific frameworks - it is impossible to verify with certainty any given theory, and similarly impossible to validate a framework without the adoption of unprovable assumptions. Reasonable assumptions must and are made in science, and these basic assumptions, so long as recognized, challengable, and done rarely, do not pose a critical threat to the scientific perspective.
You are right Brian C. Science CANNOT prove evolution. Neither can it EXPLAIN the origin of the species. The website above gives agreat explanation of the purpose of science. Look at the first bold statement (My emphasis)If this statement is correct, then evolutionary theory has some serious problems. First, intellectual integrity. As you have noted from my earlier posts, there are some problems there that damage the intellectual integrity of the field. Second, A science must be “constrained by testability.” Here is the next problem with evolution as a science. It is not observable OR testable. The observations relied upon by scientists did not occur in the presence of the scientists and are NOT CONSISTENT with the conclusions drawn from them. In evolutionary theory, it is supposed that certain fossils lie in certain strata of the earth. The older the dinosaur, the older then the strata in which it is found. There have been literally thousands of instances where dinosaurs were found in the “wrong” layers or strata. These finds if they only occurred rarely would not tend to disprove evolution, but since they occurred for thousands of known cases and occurred world-wide, they bring into serious doubt the theory that relies upon them.
In the second bold statement (my emphasis), it shows that science HAD TO MAKE UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTIONS in order to establish the theory of evolution. After Darwin, they decided that that was the only assumption that made sense, THEN they established the framework within those assumptions.
BTW, if you read seriously about Darwin, you will learn that he only became a Christian AFTER his book was published. He later renounced HIS OWN THEORY and spoke in favor of CREATION.
By Sandy
April 27, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this
Alex, speaking as an “other,” how about reincarnation? Scientifically it works pretty well in terms of conservation of energy. We are, after all, souls with bodies, not bodies with souls. It’s all energy.
God can and does speak to each of us. I would prefer to receive my communications directly from the source, without the interference and distortion of folks who presume to know more than they think they do, and who presume to interpret the creator’s wishes. The message is pure, the filter is impure.
Ultimately it’s a good thing that your Christianity is so important to you; go and pray to your heart’s content, and leave my salvation to God. It’s not a contest. Many of us “others” don’t reject Christianity because of Christ, but because of the intolerance of many Christians.
That I am not exclusively Christian does not make me anti-Christian (nor the anti-Christ…) In fact, I believe that “love one another” is precisely Christ’s lesson, though not his exclusively. Follow that, and most of what is argued about here is moot.
Maybe a non-Christian can be a better Christian by loving thy neighbor as opposed to trying to change their neighbor’s nature. Paradox at work again.
And on Springsteen’s new CD: “For remember the soul of the universe willed a world and it appeared.”—from Jesus Was An Only Son
By norman
April 27, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this
Sandy: why are so many Christians intolerant? Must be something wrong with the belief system.
Let me know if you want the answer. I know it, of course.
By Michael
April 27, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this
Boscoe and Chuck,
Brian and I have walked circles around you two idiots over and over again. Brian has more patience than I do but I have no interest in responding any more. Meither of you are able to interpret evidence or the meaning of a text or follow an argument or respond to an objection or an argument, nor construct an argument, nor even listen to anything you don’t agree with. You show that every time you place a posting here.
Boscoe, I refuted line by line, claim by claim, misinterpretation by misinterpretation, fallacy by fallacy, your posts again and again and again to no avail. I don’t even read them anymore. I invite any one else here to go back to the beginning of our exchanges, read, and decide for themselves. One can bring the horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. You wouldn’t have a prayer of passing my logic course.
Chuck, take time to actually READ the Supreme Court decisions which have in fact addressed these issues-they are the authority on deciding constitutional interpretation—and read the entire texts to see that you have no case at all, your claims are nothing but self-serving ideology. Well, it’s a waste of time so I will stop.
I am afraid that the Chucks, Boscoes, (one a protestant fundamentalist and the other a Catholic dogmatist) the religious right in general, who have virtually elected this empty suit of a president are going to turn the United States into the social, political, cultural and educational backwater of the Western world. In no other Western society and in no universities of any standing do people seriously debate the legitimacy of evolutionary theory. Certainly the evisceration of our high school science curriculum, the anti-science policies, and funding cuts by this administration are eroding our edge in science and the contributions that this scientific community have long made to the world.
And one can see with Boscoe as a high school history teacher why those of us teaching at the tertiary level have to remediate students that have learned so little history, so little science, and above all so little in the way of thinking critically. Thank you both for your efforts.
By Boscoe
April 27, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
Sandy, I see your confusion. You’re relying upon people like Springsteen to provide you with spiritual guidance. Springsteen is only a musician, not a prophet. Christ’s lesson was “love your neighbor”, but that doesn’t mean to do so at all costs, no matter what your nieghbor does. There are rules. If your nieghbor were to come to your house and take something that was of value to you, would you still love them as directed? No, you would probably tell him that stealing is wrong, to give your property back and then not allow them to come around your house. The point is, what you call intolerance could be somebody else telling there neighbor to follow the rules. How much more could I “love” my neighbor than to lead them away from error and to Christ, which is man’s greatest goal?
By Sandy
April 27, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this
Norman, I suspect, as with most undesireable traits, the reason is fear. Fear is certainly not exclusive to intolerant Christians, of course, but I think it is the source of much suffering, both given and received. Of course you can’t really know someone until you stop fearing them. To really understand evil, we have to accept that we’re all capable of it, that it is not exclusive to the “other.” Saints and sinners are on the same road.
By lozen
April 27, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this
A bug, Randy, is so very important. Without bugs to pollinate we would have no food and we would not exist. I’m not saying bugs aren’t important.
By RS
April 27, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this
Rocky is 100% right as to how that little monster should be dealt with. She needs her fanny beaten to a pulp. This is not, in my opinion, a race issue, it’s a “sign-of-the-times” issue. We’re living in an age where there’s not enough discipline but too much “self-esteem” (translation: Teaching kids it’s all about them & they should be allowed to EXPRESS themselves by doing whatever they darn please & the heck with everyone else). This seems to be almost exclusively an American phenomenon. I regularly dine at Indian & Oriental restaurants & those children are so polite & well-behaved. It’s all about home training. But in this culture, child-raising has become so touchy-feely & P.C. that a kid can be criminally violent but the parents cannot lift a finger for fear of being arrested for child abuse!!!!! I think teachers & other school officials SHOULD be allowed to spank children if the situation calls for it. But it is strictly forbidden to as much as touch a child. If a child comes to school in tears over, say, the death of a family member, did you know a teacher cannot even pat the child’s shoulder in sympathy because that’s (get THIS!) “inappropriate touching”! No wonder we have incidents like these in our schools. I place the blame squarely on her mother’s shoulders. “Oh my little angel can do no wrong”. Whatever..and the resulting frivolous lawsuits convey an extremely disempowering message. My brothers, friends & I grew up at a time where parents still administered well-needed discipline & guess what? My brothers, peers & I are not drug-addicted criminals milking the system. We live decently & have jobs. Coincidence? I think not!
By lozen
April 27, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this
“Christianity exceeds all other faiths in its power to deform and finally invert the mental process” Ida White
Does this sound like anybody we know?
By Randy
April 27, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this
Bees pollinate, bugs bug. I think Norman is at a point where we will need to get out a straight jacket soon.
By lozen
April 27, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this
Randy, the universe is eternal, Yahweh is not. Yahweh is a fig newton of the superstitious human mind of 2,000 years ago. The universe has always existed. No one created it, the energy of the universe created everything. I find so much peace and joy in that, but you will never understand because you fight it so much! Someday Randy you will see the truth.
By norman
April 27, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this
Sandy: Good choice! You are right. It is fear that makes Christians intolerant. Fear that their unbelievable beliefs may indeed be nonsense. The Church persecuted the Jews from the 4th century on because Jewish refusal to accept Christianity threatened it, the threat of being wrong. The Jews seemed a group who should know what God intended and the fact that they refused to accept Christianity was frightening. The same with other dissidents who were Christians, the differences in belief were a threat. That is why Christians like “fellowship<” which is having people around who share their faith. They need the strength of numbers because their faith rests on little proof or likelihood. They need other Christians to give them the high five, saying in effect, don’t worry, your beliefs are not crazy because I believe them also.
By norman
April 27, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
Randy: you had better live in a Jain community where they won’t even kill a bug, because anyone encountering you would immediately crush you under their heal.
By lozen
April 27, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
A bee is a bug Randy. I see I have to explain the simplest science to you and somehow I’m not even surprised.
“Among all mental diseases that have been systematically inoculated into the human cranium, the religious pest is the most abominable.” Johann Most
By Randy
April 27, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this
You see on this forum there are people who have had a spiritual experience with Jesus and those that haven’t. The ones who have had a life changing experience view the universe in a spiritual/logical way and we defend that position, because that’s what is in our hearts. The ones who have not had that spiritual experience, defend the position that is in their hearts, because that is all they know. The fact that the latter position as a lose/lose scenerio. It doesn’t add up and is not real or logical. However, that’s what the non-believer thinks, because Jesus is not in his/her heart(until they have had a spiritual experience, that view is not going to change). Also, the non-believer is probably not going to find God on this forum. It would be like finding true love in a whore house. Probably ain’t going to happen.
By Bruce
April 27, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Right on RS. When I was in the 7th grade one of my friends and I went around the playground with rolled up newspaper hitting other friends of ours. When the teacher saw us he sent us to the prinicple. When the principle was going to spank us I told him he had better call my Dad. He did and when my Dad got to the school and found out what I had done he told the principle I was all his and left the school. My butt was still hurting when I got home and my Dad had a few extra licks for me just to make sure I got the point. I am still afraid to read the newpaper today. Thank God for the internet.
I had a social worker tell me one time that “as long as you whip a child with an appropriate object, for an appropriate reason, on an appropriate part of their body, there is really nothing they can do.” But that pretained to the parrents, not schools.
By norman
April 27, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this
Randy: some of us have had a personal relationship with the Blue Fairy but we don’t push it on others.
By Randy
April 27, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this
Norman views himself as if he were Voltaire. Norman, Voltaire isn’t a happy camper today, he looks back at his life from where he is now and says “Why did I reject something that just wanted to love me” God. I have no 2nd change now and everything is hopeless, miserable, even torture, don’t make the same mistake he did. If you believe in Jesus you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. If you don’t believe in Jesus you have everything to lose and nothing to gain, at the time of death. Everyone has this thought that they are going to live to be 80-90 years old, I know several people who were alive one day talking to me and the next day dead, standing in front of the creator. He gives us instructions on what to do to have a great life here and how to have a relationship with him. Listen to your heart.
By Sandy
April 27, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, with all due respect, you only think you see my confusion. I do not look to Springsteen for spiritual guidance…but I do respect his reflection in terms of what it means to be human.
Those rules of which you speak are your interpretation of something, but not what Christ taught. Remember turn the other cheek? You describe a normal human reaction to being hurt. I say we need to look beyond the reaction to see what sparked the need to steal in the first place. Is this action in response to some other hurt? If so, then perhaps compassion goes further than my judging this person harshly. In fact, harsh judgment might drive one to commit more heinous acts.
I think it is human nature to judge ourselves more harshly than anyone else. If my supposition is true, you must be carrying one heavy burden.
You could love your neighbor in any number of ways, but in your theory above, you wrote the script. You do not describe “leading” but driving or forcing. Instead of worrying about another’s soul,why not work to alleviate suffering first; if you succeed, you may get them to follow you by their own volition.
My version of intolerance is being told by someone that I do not live up to their expectations, despite doing the best with what my creator gave me. This is a very ego-driven thing to do, as you aptly demonstrate, since you presume to “know” me and others like me, or rather others who are unlike you. You get to serve as victim, judge, and jury. If I used this closed system, I should think it would make it difficult for me to know myself, let alone anyone else, and I doubt I would learn very much.
Paradox in action again: One’s egotistical need to save other sinners is sinful, too, and risks putting more distance between us and God. Worry about your own soul first, even if you think it’s better to worry about mine. And don’t judge yourself too harshly if my soul is beyond your reach.
By Randy
April 27, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this
Norman, thanks alot, I really did want a relationship with the Blue Fairy, I just didn’t know it.
By lozen
April 27, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this
Dear Alex, I don’t know what happens to people when they die, except for what happens to the body after burial, and that isn’t a pleasant thought. No one else knows what happens either. Perhaps someday, through scientific study and research, we will know. We humans, after all, are in our infancy; we haven’t been on this planet very long when you consider the age of the earth and the universe. We are very limited. I do believe the pain of losing our loved ones is the very reason for religion, along with the fear of our own death. It is nice to believe we will continue to exist and be with loved ones again. But there is not one shred of evidence that this is what happens. Houdini told his wife he would contact her after he died if there were any way to do so; she never heard from him. I studied reincarnation when I was in high school and the idea appealed to me. My teacher was a minister’s wife and she did everything she could to talk me out of that subject. My paper was great and she had to give me an A! And the A’s read their papers to the class. When I finished my reading, she said, “You don’t really believe that do you?” My answer was it makes more sense and is fairer to judge people after they’ve had several lifetimes and chances than on one short lifetime. But, there’s no real proof for reincarnation either and I no longer believe we will be judged after death by anyone except boscoe and chuck!
By norman
April 27, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this
For God so loved the world and his own power that he created billions of miserable humans terrified of their own shadow. He told them they were sinners but there was a saviour who could save them, he had been sent to die after a miserable experience of torture. His blood could save them. But they were so terrified at their guilt that they could not welcome this saviour into their hearts until God told them they could blame the Jews. Whenever they maltreated or killed a Jew they would be forgiven their sacrifice of the saviour and their sin. This made them happy. Ever since what has saved them is this belief that the sacrificed saviour’s merits could be applied to them. Killing a Jew was a way of repaying the saviour for his pain and suffering. One Passion leads to another.
The Gospel According to St. Mel Gibson, III, 2-4.
By RS
April 27, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this
Wish I could say otherwise, Bruce, but I think that social worker is sadly mistaken; I hear stories about parents giving their misbehaving kids a light disciplinary tap & the next thing you know, the brats call HRS with an allegation of “child abuse” & guess who gets hauled away like a common criminal? It’s not the child..
By Randy
April 27, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
Iozen, I hope someday you will learn the truth. Give the truth a chance, open up your heart to Jesus.
By lozen
April 27, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this
As I’ve stated before, my spiritual life is very important to me. I understand and appreciate mystical experiences, ecstacy, utter and complete happiness, deep peace and calm. And that’s how I know better than to believe some simple minded, superstitious, shallow idea about what god is. There are religious people who think deeply and intelligently and prayerfully about their religion. I admire some of those people. It is the utterly shallow christian who uses his religion as a battering ram to try to control others (who are probably better people than he) that I despise.
By Randy
April 27, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this
Iozen, If I were in a accident and one of my legs had to be amputated. I would still be me(my essence and spirit). When someone playing sports here’s from the coach, show us some spirit, that’s you, your essence, your being. That’s what spirit is. If your whole body were somehow amputated, the only thing remaining would be, your essence and spirit/the real you. Your spirit is eternal. It has to go somewhere after there is no body to hold it here on earth. That’s what Jesus provides, a place(heaven) for the spirit/essence/the real you to go.
By Bruce
April 27, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this
That was several years ago and I wasn’t sure if things had changed that much but I guess it has. Thanks for the info but I guess you will hear a story like that about me if one of mine acts like that 5 years old.
By lozen
April 27, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this
Randy, open up your heart to Mithras. Please, for your soul’s sake, realize you have chosen the wrong god! You’re on the wrong path Randy; the devil has tricked you into believing the wrong thing. Where is the most clever place for the devil to hide? Why in the church of course, disguised as your minister. Just be careful Randy. The devil is so clever. Have you looked at a woman with lust in your heart recently? See that proves I’m right.
By Boscoe
April 27, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
Michael, the only thing you have done is to write a lot of words without saying anything as always. You have never shown me from Hume, or Mills, or any other texts how I am wrong with what I say. Time, and time again all you do is call me ignorant. Norman at least provides some counterpoint to the discussion. If you can’t do the same then keep the tantrums to yourself. Sandy, Christ did teach that very thing with regard to “Love of neighbor”. You’re correct compassion goes along way, but when someone does wrong and refuses to see the wrong they do, a timely rebuke can give pause for reflection. Maybe you should consider this when someone better, more respected, and knowledgeable then me or yourself, tells you that you don’t measure up. It would be wise to reflect before you decide you don’t need that correction, don’t you think? Nobody has a direct line to God that prevents the need to follow the instructions given by God to wiser men. lozen you are free to pursue any path you want. You reap what you sow.
By Boscoe
April 27, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this
Lozen, if there is no God where did the devil come from?
By Boscoe
April 27, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this
Lozen apparently you despise anybody who defends religion. If nobody stood up for their beliefs would that make religion ok for you?
By Crystal
April 27, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this
Amazing, isn’t it? I am a Christian who seldom sees other Christians like those described on this blog. We worship together, help others as needed and send money to help in world emergencies. Everyone is invited to join us but none are coerced.
The bitterest people here seem to protest Christianity the most. “Methinks thou doth protest too much!”
You go your way. I go mine. We are given free choice.
By norman
April 27, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this
Another black child has had to be restrained in Wheeling, West Virginia, with handcuffs. Many black kids suffer from ADD, ADHD, and other maladies because of massive drug addiction by black parents. Black culture has been focused on promiscuous sex and illegal drugs for so long — just watch MTV and listen to rap music — that it is not surprising that black kids are maimed, often for life. They are not beyond hope but any teacher will tell you it ain’t easy to save them. And it’s not slavery which has brought them to this impasse.
By chuck
April 27, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this
Lozen, You would be extremely fortunate to have me judge you because I know what it is like to struggle with sin in my own life. I believe I would probably be a lot more lenient than God who is Holy and Just. He has ONE standard: “Are you washed in the blood?”.
His mercy is available in this life, but not in the next.
By rocky
April 27, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this
norman - Where did you see the story about the kid in West Virginia? I’d like to read it.
Bruce - I’m with you. My kids will NEVER act the way that little brat did in school, or they will be standing up in class for three days afterwards, until their butts stop hurting. That mother is pathetic and is doing no favors to her daughter. It’s already evident what she’s teaching her - no respect for authority and absolutely no personal responsibility. But then again, the mother probably has also never been married and doesn’t know who her baby’s daddy is.
By Sandy
April 27, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, I gave my polite post, now I’ll put into terms that you understand. If someone tries to steal my spirituality, that which is very valuable to me, and tries to hijack it for his own gratification and/or presumed salvation and insists that this is his way of loving me, what am I going to do? There are rules. This is my soul, my responsibility. First, I give God enough credit to talk to me in way that I understand, with peace and clarity; if information comes from someone wiser, so be it, but that wiser person is not you nor anyone who treats those who do not share their values as lesser human beings. I should tell that person and am telling you that my relationship with the creator is personal, and tell you not to come around any more.
Good theory, but I still wonder why you are so driven to put caveats on Love thy neighbor, because frankly, I think Jesus meant it as he said it. Timely forgiveness goes a long way too. For the record, the only rebuking I’ve gotten recently is from singleminded folks when I voice my thoughts on this blog…Again, you assume to know me, and my habits of reflection, but you need to remove the beam from your own eye first. Contrary to you what you claim to know, we do all have a direct line to the creator: Love one another; and the greatest of these is love. It’s a pity you don’t use your direct line enough; it might suspend your judgment for a while and bring you a little peace.
In reflection, it’s kind of sad that I have to use Bible verse in self-defense from those who claim to know and live the word of the Bible, and even sadder that they still don’t get it.
By norman
April 27, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
Rocky: it was on Linda Vester, FoxNews .
Fair and Imbalanced, of course.
By chuck
April 27, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this
Excellent point about Michael, Boscoe. I love how these guys scream about how they are so intellectually superior, then, when confronted with the irrefutable truth, resort to schoolyard name-calling. Brian Curtis is the case in point. He knows that Science is limited to the material world, yet he purports it to be able to answer questions about creation and evolution. He does not want to see the sizeable holes that any thinking person can poke through the evolution argument. He doesn’t want to know that science itself is in denial, having already proven evolution to be false.
By Jack
April 27, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this
May God help us when the “Gimme” generation is old enough to run things. it won’t be pretty.
By lozen
April 27, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this
Lucky you Crystal that you don’t know any people like the ones on this board! I get very impatient at times with ignorance. No matter what any reasonable person says to these authoritarian, egotistical people it doesn’t make any difference so why not just get as ridiculous as they are. Boscoe, read my lips! No I don’t despise anyone who stands up for their religion. I told you exactly what I despise - simple-minded, superstitious, shallow people who use their illogical interpretation of religion to try to tell everyone else what they should do. Do you get it now? And surely you can understand satire Boscoe. Well, maybe not. Anyway, the devil was invented by men to frighten others into obeying the king/lord/god. I really don’t believe there is a devil Boscoe, except for you of course ;-)
By rocky
April 27, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this
norman - on their website? I wasn’t able to find it. If it was on TV then they probably haven’t posted it yet. But I’m surprised it’s not on every headline considering how much publicity the first case got.
By Michael
April 27, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
Brian,
I will leave it to you to respond to the forces of reactionary religion, you are certainly more than equal to the task. Good luck getting them to grant a point or listen to you. It is rather obvious that Chuck refuses to read a 20th century Supreme Court decision, though they are the ones that matter, and he has never read nor heard of the cosmological argument. And he thinks that putting the word “liberal� in all capitals is an argument. Jesus Christ, like arguing with children.
Boscoe wouldn’t recognize a refutation if it slapped him in the face and he flatly stated his dogmatism, without realizing it, and then quickly backtracked ever since. I find them to be frighteningly stupid people, and that is an evaluation, not an ad hominem fallacy. The sad fact is that there are tens of millions more like them in America.
I think you might be interested in the Princeton philosopher Peter Singer’s book on this phenomenon. It’s called the President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George Bush. It is a good analysis of the “mindsâ€? of the Chucks and Boscoes of American. Lord help us, I wish I had remained in Australia. (Pun intended.)
By Archie
April 27, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
I am amazed at the racist diatribe they allow on this board. Norman does not provide a webpage just a name and more racist talk. It is suspect that it took this long to bring up the story if it exists. You are not alone Norman. You’re obviously not as smart as you would have us believe because if such a story existed it would be available on the net. I did find Ms Vester.
By lozen
April 27, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
Hey Rocky, I bet that little girl’s daddy isn’t married and doesn’t even know where she is, let alone take care of her every day like her mother does. At least she’s there, no matter how misled we may think she is. But do you think maybe that mother should have had an abortion which would have prevented all this trouble? NO! NO! NO! Sin. Sin. Meanwhile, if any of ya have had to fill a prescription lately, how much did the pharmaceutical company make off you? Had any expensive dental work (supposedly paid by your insurance company) only to find they only covered 20 percent and the excuse is “pre-existing conditon.” I thought the pre-existing condition thing ended some time back. How about the price of gasoline? And even though you’d never think it, you don’t hear much about it anymore, we’re still at war and spending billions a day on that. In the scheme of things I do not care about the child raising hell at her school. Weapons of mass distraction working great!
By Jack
April 27, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
Oh Norman, you’re not being politically correct….shouldn’t go there. Not on this blog, in this city.
By Ben
April 27, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
It’s amazing how when a child or teenager of color commits a crime or some violent, malicious or unacceptable act of violence, the black race as a whole is dragged through the dirt. When this happens, people like Norman and the the others who don’t see their racism for what is is, come with the babies mommas, rap music, black people are just bad in general. BUT when white children or teens commit equal(and YES even more)violent acts, something is wrong mentally or somehow no one saw that person’s pain. Let’s use Columbine for example. I think at least one of those boys had a two parent, “normal” home environment. So in keeping with Norman and the other “non” racists. White people are evil, money hungry, rapist, child molestering serial killers. Spare me your black people bull.
By Bruce
April 27, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this
Rocky,
I think I found it here: http://news-register.net/edit/story/0427202005_edtiedit1.asp
Details are lacking but it does talk about a 7 year old being handcuffed.
By Jack
April 27, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
Lozen - Things are tough all over :)
By Archie
April 27, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this
Many black kids suffer from ADD, ADHD, and other maladies because of massive drug addiction by black parents. Black culture has been focused on promiscuous sex and illegal drugs for so long � just watch MTV and listen to rap music � that it is not surprising that black kids are maimed, often for life.
That paragraph is partially true but you could same thing about other races that use drugs and watch MTV and listen to rap music. Again it is form of ignorance to paint everyone with the same brush. An intelligent person knows this because obviously most people that watch MTV or listen to rap music aren’t maimed for life. If you are a racist filled with hatred then you look for the worst and you can always find it because human beings do sin. Every generation doesn’t use drugs therefore it would have to nothing more than racist diatribe to mention such as if it’s true to everyone.
By Ben
April 27, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this
Partially true.. MAINLY BS
By Anonomous
April 27, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
Ben you would do well to listen to what Bill Cosby has to say about the African-American community.
By Archie
April 27, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
Thanks Bruce but the article makes no mention of race.
Ben, the racist nature of some is truly awesome. There’s no need to mention Columbine because there are many drug-related incidents that occur daily that aren’t reported for whatever reason. Heck we don’t know what the family situation of the 5-year old is but you know you’re going to get some stupid a** insults. The internet is the perfect place for folk like Norman. You can anonymously hurl racial epithets without consequence. In other words you can be happily racist.
By Ben
April 27, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this
Why I don’t give a rat’s behind about the Pope or the Catholic Church! Hearing a lady tell my white mother she doesn’t shake hands with nig—- lovers while everyone else was saying “peace be with you!” Me and MY god have our own thing goin on. You can keep yours to yourself.
By Ben
April 27, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
I only listen to Bill Cosby when it comes to the Cosby Show and Fat Albert. I have a great deal of respect for him, but missed his latest on the black community.
By Anonomous
April 27, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
An idea! We should equipt each and every school with a padded cell. (or maybe two) then if a child is unruly to the point of hurting themselves or others they should be put in the cell until mommy or daddy can come get them. If they have to be put in the cell more than twice, they should not be allowed to return to school. Problem solved.
By rocky
April 27, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
Ah yes. The new come-back to talking about black gang violence is to talk about Columbine. Yep, two white kids shot a lot of innocent people and then did society a big favor and killed themselves too. My heart does not bleed for them or any of the “problems” they had that led them to do these things. They were animals and deserved to die as animals, which they did. So good riddance. Their parents should be ashamed of themselves for not being more involved in their kids’ lives and for not knowing that this kind of thing was brewing. However, these boys were the exception and not the rule in terms of the average teenage white boys and their lifestyles.
But you can’t argue that there is a definite culture of violence, under-achievement and promiscuity that a LARGE PART of the black community not only promotes but embraces. I’m not going to paint all black people with one brush because all people are individuals and should be judged as so. But look in our prisons - what color are most of the inmates? Look at the gangs around Atlanta - most of them are black and hispanic. Look at the girls who have the most illigitmate children - they’re black. Every community has its problems and I’m not saying that they don’t. But there seems to be an epidemic of passing the buck within the black community that has done nothing but bring them down and keep them down. Unemployed? Must be “the man’s” fault. Nevermind that you dropped out of school and never learned proper English or how to write correct sentences. Impoverished or Poor? it’s “the man’s” fault. Nevermind that you’ve made horrible choices in the past, never saved any money and maxed out every credit card you could get your hands one, resulting in bankruptcy. And poverty gets back to the lack of education as well. Girls who have babies before they are in their 20’s are many, many times more likely to live in poverty, yet, they just keep on birthin those babies. When does personal responsibility enter into the picture? Does it? Can’t those in the black community who ARE achievers and DO make good decisions and DO take personal responsibility speak out to those who don’t and tell them how bad they are making things for themselves? Well, I guess Bill Cosby tried to do that and he got all kinds of crap for speaking the truth. It’s people like “Reverands” Sharpton and Jackson who flourish from preaching victimization rather than responsibility, and unfortunately, it’s just much easier for some people to use these excuses to never amount to anything.
You can try to call me racist for what I’ve written, but I am not labeling all black people with these scenarios. I’m simply saying there is a HUGE portion of the black community who glorifies materialism above all else, as can be seen in the spinning wheels, the gold jewelry (even on teeth for heaven’s sake), the brand name clothes, and yet, they don’t glorify the hard work it takes to get these things legally. It’s all about the “bling” and getting what you want the easy way - even if it means killing someone for their sneakers. I don’t understand that kind of mentality at all.
By Bruce
April 27, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
Archie,
I don’t know if I understand or not but I never said anything about race. Rocky wanted to read the article so I found it. Why did you add your comment about race not being mentioned?
By Archie
April 27, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
Rocky the way you expressed yourself at 3:32 is fine with me because you clearly don’t label all black people. You are right about personal responsibility. What you expressed in your statements is good. I don’t understand everything about black people or white people which is why an intelligent person does not make general statements. That portion of the community that is irresponsible is bringing down the community. The prison population is the way it is because the law is enforced differently. The Miami Herald did publish a pretty detailed article or articles about that years ago. Hey Rocky we may not always agree but you make some points.
By kimberly
April 27, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this
Rocky, as a teenager, I was raped twice by nice, middle-class WHITE boys — class leader and quarterback, and then in college, a nice frat boy. As an adult, I had my child after my divorce to a brutal, drunken white man. When I chose to ACCEPT responsiblity and raise my child myself, since I had an education and a job (until they found out I was pregnant and fired me), I took the “high road” and took personal responsibility. Nice WHITE, Christian, middle-class people said the most awful things to me — rude, meddlesome, pointless, ugly things. I was right there with Murphy Brown, and applauded every episode, since it was EXACTLY what I was going through as well.
Your statistics are skewed, since you haven’t included the darker side of white folks like us.
By norman
April 27, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Archie: no need to call names. Linda Vester on Dayside had the story and she had a phonecall from a school official at the Bethlehem School in West Virginia (in or near Wheeling). I did not make it up.
By Archie
April 27, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
Bruce you are fine as I was addressing Norman. I was thanking you for the information. Like I said to the Rock, I may not always agree but I don’t insult just for the sake of insulting.
By Jack
April 27, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
Well said Rock. The 70% illegitimate birth rate and the fact that black males 9% of the population commit 80% of the violent crimes probably has something to do with it. Doesn’t it Ben?
By Bruce
April 27, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
Apparently the mother of the little girl is not always there. She refused to go to the school to calm her down. That shows me her mother don’t care. And does she really think that moving that girl from the school/state will change her behavior? I bet we have not heard the last from this 5 year old or her mother. I pity the next school/state.
By lozen
April 27, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
Michael and Brian each has more brains in his little toe than Boscoe, Chuck and Randy have in all one-and-a- half of their brains. Going around and around in circles and repeating yourselves provides no irrefutable proof. Believe it or not! No chuck I am not washed in any blood, human, animal or imaginary. How gross!
By norman
April 27, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this
Bush and White House people fled today into a bomb shelter as news of the violation of DC airspace circulated. It must have been Zack trying to drop bibles from an airplane.
Zack: Bush doesn’t read books, not even bibles. He knows the Christer message already by word of mouth.
By lozen
April 27, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
Ben, I agree with your 2:54pm post 100 percent.
By lozen
April 27, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
Jack, you better stop playin’ with me sweetie. Is anybody else as happy as I am MichaelD disappeared?
By Jack
April 27, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
Kimberly those that raped you should be castrated with a rusty hacksaw. Murphy Brown had her child out of wedlock on purpose. Not good for the child. A child needs a father as well as a mother.
By Jack
April 27, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this
I noticed they took his mature (LOL) posts off the blog to make room for us racists.
By Crystal
April 27, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this
Please, Ben and Archie, there are misguided people everywhere, even in the church. I haven’t been through your demoralizing experiences. Maybe I am just fortunate but our medium sized church has members from all parts of America plus members who grew up in Liberia, Cambodia, Eritrea, France and Puerto Rico. We come together as Christians do. We are not perfect. But to hurt or harm one another would be terrible—even with words. Do not give up on the human race. There is more love than hate. The hate just hurts so badly.
By Bruce
April 27, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this
Kimberly,
I agree with Jack except make them an example and do it in the public square with no pain killers.
By kimberly
April 27, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
I had mine on purpose too. That’s what happens when you choose not to abort. I believe in, and exercised choice — just not the most obvious one. Darned if you do; darned if you don’t. Either way, I’m labeled as bad. As for date-rape white boys: Heh…. The Frats teach ‘em new techniques they didn’t learn from the football coaches in high school. Surely, I must have MEANT “yes!” In my next life, if I get one, I’m going to be a MAN with great big muscles!
By Tim
April 27, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this
may I date you in the next life Kimberly?
By kimberly
April 27, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
Tim, i’ll be so disappointed if you don’t! {;->
By lozen
April 27, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this
Kimberly I think I’d like to date you in our next life too! Tim you are a hoot!
By chuck
April 27, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
Michael, If you would take your head out of that place where the sun don’t shine, and read my posts you might actually learn something about this country.
First: You said this country was NOT founded on Judeo Christian principles. I showed you through the words of the founders that indeed it was.
Second: When you could not refute that argument, you switched topics and tactics (a common LIBERAL ploy)and began talking about Supreme Court decisions. I showed you that the earliest Supreme Court justices believed this to be a nation based on Christian Principles, again through their own words. I further pointed out THAT THERE WERE NO SUPREME COURT CASES DECIDED USING YOUR WAY OF THINKING UNTIL THE LIBERAL APPOINTEES OF FDR CAME ON TO THE COURT.
Since you obviously know very little about the system of jurisprudence in this country, I should inform you that FDR’s courts broke the rule of precedence in deciding those cases in the 1940’s and 50’s. That was the whole point, but I’m not surprised that a man with your limited intellectual capacity missed it. Since when do 20th century cases carry more weight than older cases? If today’s court follows decisions of previous courts as they are supposed to, the age of the court decision should not matter. I guess you only believe in judicial precedence when the cases followed are ones in which the decisions agrre with YOUR line of reasoning.
Finally, when you could not win the argument on merit, you stooped to name-calling. Surprise, Surprise. I’m not a bit surprised that you teach philosophy. Your field is now, nothing more than a group of pompous windbags standing around claiming superiority while contributing almost nothing to the furtherance of knowledge. You are the college Nazis demanding that everyone believe what you believe even though you can’t formulate a coherent argument to convince them. Good luck with that my friend. I wish you well. Come back any time you need to be spanked.
By Jack
April 27, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
My woman wife was raped when she was a teen. I begged her to tell me who did it eventhough it was years before. She wouldn’t tell me. Its been 20+ years but if she told me today, I would hunt him down and castrate him myself.
By Tim
April 27, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this
woooohooooo… already got a date lined up for my next life… this is lookin good :)
By lozen
April 27, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this
Oh, Chuck. You are so silly and pompous and …what’s the best word? Christian? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! (A common EGOMANIACAL ploy). I’m sure you’d just be able to tell all those philosophy professors a few (simple-minded) things - over and over and over and over. That’s why you’re teaching in high school and they’re teaching in the university, right? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! So LIBERALS with their ploys go all the way back to FDR? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! I take it back; I don’t think you even have half a brain. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
By Tim
April 27, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
Thanks lozen :) you’re not so bad yourself!! :)
By lozen
April 27, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this
Tim, you’re an absolute comedian. I don’t want to sound prejudiced or lump all gay men into one group but gay men have made me laugh more than anybody in the world. I love people who can laugh at themselves (and everybody else!) One of my neighbors asked a woman who had just moved into our building if she had things arranged yet. She said no, she hadn’t had time in the four days since she moved in. He said, “Well, of course you aren’t a gay man, honey. If you were, everything would be arranged, the track lights would be installed, and the walls would be painted the latest color already!
By Whiley
April 27, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this
I am curious as to why a 78 year old man was made Pope??!! The guy could pass away any day now. Then the crazy Catholics will have to start the entire process over AGAIN.
By Tim
April 27, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this
lozen… honey you hit the nail on the head with that one!! my partner(I hate that word but have not thought of anything I like better) and I are moving at the end of May… and believe me… everything will be in its place by the second night… and yes we do already have all the wall colors picked out and last night bought the new light going over the breakfast table and the light going over the dining room table… one gay guy moving is bad enough… two moving, lord help you better get out of the way :)
p.s. I thought the FDR thing was pretty amusing too… oh and he doesn’t teach high school… he teaches middle school… those poor children
By lozen
April 27, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this
“One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh.” — Robert A. Heinlein
By norman
April 27, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this
Whiley: perhaps those shifty cardinals wanted to be back electing another pope fairly soon. Choosing Ratzi now was the easy temporary measure. They will pick a more pernament pope later on — with the help of the Holy Spook of course.
By Michael
April 27, 2005 05:08 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
They matter when they overturn previous decisions. And I took jurisprudence at Emory law school with Professor Tim Terrill, earned an A and was recommended for employment at prestigious law schools throughout Atlanta. Did you take any courses in a law school? God, but you are an ignorant person. Beyond belief.
Spanked? You are such an idiot that you can’t recognize when someone kicked your butt all over these ostings…But others can and Brian can continue to do so, I’m not wasting my time.
By Ben
April 28, 2005 07:31 AM | Link to this
Let me just clarify a few things for a few of you. Rocky, you make sense to me as I said a couple of days ago, but we don’t alwasys see eye to eye. My issue was particularly with Norman because of his blatant generalization of black people being what’s wrong with society. Let’s just put it like this, yes the numbers are there, you really can’t argue with them. But from MY POINT OF VIEW it’s really not a race issue.
I guess I can attribute that to the fact that when I stand in a crowded room I don’t see 150 white people, 75 black people, 20 Mexicans and 30 Arabs — I see 275 people. That’s the beauty of my view of the world. When there is a problem with murder, poverty or homelessness I see it as a people problem.
I consider you prejudice because you see it a black, hispanic or whatever problem, and fail to realize that it is a problem that affects everyone. Why can’t all of the “Achievers” and “Do gooders” do their part to make a difference in society.
You are absolutely right! Us black folk who did have the proper guidance and motivation should give back and a lot of us do. I despise Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, however comma comma, they make their points every now and then. For most of us with some sense, that point is often skewed by the other hatred and igonorance they spew.
By James
April 28, 2005 07:49 AM | Link to this
Boy, I left the site early yesterday, and what a convsersation! I want to date Kimberly in her next life too! And yes, everytime my partner and I move, we have everything up on the walls, painted & put away in 48 hours. I have never seen someone demand the right shade of blue so hard! LOL!
As for this racist conversation: Black, white, hispanic, etc. there are problems in all groups. Black & Hispanic crime is more obvious and the justice system (Police) see it more often. White crime is more sinister & backdoor. Rape, white-collar crimes, etc. Just as bad if not really much worse, but just not as obvious. That is why more Hispanics & blacks are in jail, not because they committ more crimes. They just get caught more often. White folks have the means to hide it better.
And this Pope. He is there, ain’t nothing anyone in the blog can do about it. With the number of Ultra Conservative Africans represented in the College of Cardinals, he is no suprise. But, it all comes down to what I said days ago. There are 1000+ shades of gray & God seems them all. Just be good to one another.
Finally: To Kimberly-Peace be with you & your mother. I would shake your lovely hand anyday.
By James
April 28, 2005 07:53 AM | Link to this
BTY: Can anyone tell me why there are so many damn str8 men trying so dang hard to look gay? I am tired of coming onto a bald/goateed or short haired/goateed man and he has a wife & kids. Can’t you people get your own styles?!?
Oh yeah, If forgot: Decorate my chaple, make me fashionalbe, design my landscape-THEN GET OUT! Poor Elton, did anyone read the vent this morning?
By Ben
April 28, 2005 08:01 AM | Link to this
Crystal, Thanks for the kind words and I know that there are misguided people everywhere. But that’s the good thing about being who I am, I choose not to involve those people in my life. Their ignorance is funny to me – therefore I laugh. I consider myself a Christian, I just choose not to involve the Catholic Church in my spirituality, because that lady was not the only person I’ve come across with that attitude. My church is my wife, my daughter and I. After all, Church is not the building, it’s the people.
I guess another major contributor to my lack of faith in the Catholic Church is that my mother’s uncle was a Catholic priest who also served as a chaplain in WWII. He actually denied the last rites to black people dying on the same battlefield as he. Not to mention he told my mother he would marry her, as long as there wasn’t a nig—- standing next to her.
But, Crystal, you are right. There is hate, stupidity and prejudice (I guess that’s redundant) in the world. But I learned how to deal with that from my parents. When they would go out to dinner or somewhere in public and people would stare and make their ignorant comments, my father didn’t get mad or return their insults, he just smiled, grabbed my mother and kissed her. Kind of like the pie in your face. After all, the hate and prejudice people have or feel truly only affects THEM – unless you let it affect you.
I only speak here occasionally, but I read the posts everyday. I just like to jump in every now and then when people’s blinders are on too tight.
By chuck
April 28, 2005 08:14 AM | Link to this
James, Best reason I’ve heard for shaving. Thanks a lot James.
By Brian Curtis
April 28, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this
Well Chuck, at least you’re consistent in your confusion. And I’m glad you’ve taken the trouble to at least consult SOME reference to improve your understanding of science, even if it is a grade-school level intro for kids.
quote: “Science CANNOT prove evolution. Neither can it EXPLAIN the origin of the species.�
But I see your misunderstanding persists. Science doesn’t need to “prove� evolution, because evolution is a fact. What you’re trying to get at is called the theory of natural selection, which is what EXPLAINS how evolution occurs. And that HAS been substantiated repeatedly, throughout the world. thousands of times. I daresay it’s the single most well-supported and substantiated theory in modern science, as a matter of fact�thanks mainly to the fervent, irrational attacks made against it by clueless fundies who somehow think “evolution is the enemy of God!� So thanks for the help!
quote: “…the next problem with evolution as a science. It is not observable OR testable.�
Wrong again. Have you considered looking up some of the HUNDREDS of cited references in the Talk-Origins articles? They’re all from reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals (the references, not the summarizing articles themselves, silly), and they show numerous examples of observed speciation.
Some of your objections are among the more tired creationist lies that have been used for decades by people who fear and hate science�the notion that geological strata are a solitary “last resort� for dating fossils, etc. Look through the FAQ and try a little learning. (PLEASE tell me you’re not a aprent or schoolteacher; this level of opposition to basic research and factual inquiry can’t be good for children….)
quote: “if you read seriously about Darwin, you will learn that he only became a Christian AFTER his book was published. He later renounced HIS OWN THEORY and spoke in favor of CREATION.�
Another lie�and one so thoroughly refuted (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html), you’d think creationists would be embarrassed to offer it any more. Oh, wait! They ARE. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp)
quote: “[I know] that Science is limited to the material world, yet he purports it to be able to answer questions about creation and evolution.�
Of course it can! Just as the theory of gravitation can answer questions about planetary orbits. Why shouldn’t it? And I’ve already told you that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life OR the universe; those are different branches of knowledge that have nothing to do with evolutionary biology.
It’s the paranoid fundie who lumps all seemingly anti-God theories together under the blanket term “evoultion� and declares it Evil Incarnate.
quote: “He does not want to see the sizeable holes that any thinking person can poke through the evolution argument.�
I’d be delighted to see them; that’s how science works, after all; by admitting error and improving models to better fit the facts. Can you provide any? We haven’t seen them so far….
RANDY: You and I have gone around and around, with you continually refusing to answer any questions and returning later to continue your argument-by-assertion: “We Christians have it all, you non-Christians are idiot losers.� Then you wonder why people find you arrogant and offensive! Think it through, guy.
It’s funny, but chanting “Nonbelief is illogical� STILL doesn’t actually support your argument. Even if you say it a hundred times! Funny, isn’t it? The only “evidence� you’ve provided to support your house of cards consists of yet another argument-by-repetition: “There HAS to be a creator, there just HAS to!�
I’m reminded of the Cowardly Lion: “I DO believe in spooks, I DO believe in spooks… I do, I do, I do!�
Oh, wait�you DO provide a rationale of sorts: “If you believe in Jesus you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. If you don’t believe in Jesus you have everything to lose and nothing to gain.�
Ah, this is the classic Pascal’s Wager argument (do you even know who Pascal was?). But it’s erroneous for several reasons that we’ve discussed in earlier forums�none of which you ever bothered to respond to. For the curious onlookers, I’ll summarize:
Devoting your life to a false god would indeed be “something to lose��namely, your life of time, energy, and effort.
Moreover, there’s more than two possibilities. What if the ancient Greeks or the modern Buddhists are right, and you’ve been worshipping the WRONG god? Then you’ll be punished for heresy when you die.
“Nothing to gain,� in Pascal’s mind, discounted the value of free will and independent thought, a life devoted to the wonders and works of THIS world instead of wasted on an imaginary one, etc.
And to close, a quick quote from Ydnar, the Anti-Randy from a Parallel Universe!
“Dozen, I hope someday you will learn basic logic. Give the truth a chance, open up your mind to reason.�
By Archie
April 28, 2005 08:42 AM | Link to this
Ben, numbers don’t matter to people because they believe what they want. I don’t have a problem with Sharpton or Jesse Jackson because I don’t make any decisions based on what they say. They are entitled to their opinion which is mostly liberal. With the millions of people in the country and the world I don’t see how you can generalize. The internet is ripe with slurs and generalizations but no one sees it for what is. Anyway like a lot of people I do wonder why a 78-year old guy was chosen to be the pope but since I’m not Catholic I just don’t understand.
By Jack
April 28, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this
The fact is no one knows what happens after you die. Nobody as of yet has been able to come back and give us the facts. If someone did, they would be labels as crazy as a loon. We should just try to be good people during our lives and hopefully we will be rewarded afterward. If not …oh well.
By Lyrazel
April 28, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this
I am far less concerned about peoples spiritual beliefs than most of you passionate responders. Preaching I leave to others—I find the lost and lonely are where most self-ordained preachers fear to go, like food banks, abused women shelters, streets. I try to help people appreciate and live to the best of their abilities and to share actual facts about life in the good old USA. Heres one:
The nation’s prisons and jails held 2.1 million people in mid-2004. The inmate population increased by about 900 inmates each week, according to the latest figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world, followed by Britain, China, France, Japan and Nigeria. In 2004, one in every 138 residents was in prison or jail; the previous year it was one in every 140. In 2004, nearly 60 percent of prison and jail inmates were racial or ethnic minorities, the report said. An estimated 12.6 percent of all black men age 25 to 29 were in jails compared with 3.6 percent of Hispanic men and 1.7 percent of white men in that age group.
We are such a violent nation—for being so god-seeking.
By norman
April 28, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this
Better to fill the jails than to fill the morgues.
By Archie
April 28, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel there was a story about a woman being locked up for not having her kids in seat belts. That story was in this newspaper so you can be locked up for any breakage of the law. A policeman told me anytime you break the law you can be locked up,but the thing is most people don’t consider speeding as breaking the law but it is. The enforcement just from the numbers you posted is skewed. When numbers are given about drug users they don’t match the numbers you just gave. It does not take a degreed statistician to understand some of those numbers.
By Jennifer
April 28, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this
Archie,
Define skewed for me, please. As a degreed statistician I can tell you that it has a very specific meaning. I believe you are using the term incorrectly, in fact using it to mean you think Lyrazel’s distribution is incorrect.
However, as her source is the Bureau of Justice Statistics I would be inclined to trust those numbers unless it can be shown that only a portion of the distribution is being represented.
By chuck
April 28, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this
Brian, There is none so blind as HE WHO WILL NOT SEE. Natural selection IS NOT the issue here. I think everyone on this blog believes that MICROevolution occurs and has occurred. What we deny is the assumption that MACROevolution occurs, though I’m not surprised that you don’t know the difference. If you do know the difference, then you should have known that MACRO was the topic of my last post, not MICRO. Are you syaing that unexplainable anomalies do NOT exist in the fossil record? If you are, then I believe the one who is not reading is YOU. The information is there FROM UNIVERSITY SOURCES, EVEN SOME OF THOSE ON YOUR PRECIOUS LITTLE WEBSITE.
I’m also wondering how you can separate CREATION from the study of MACROEVOLUTION. Even the least informed among us understand that in order for a creature to have evolved, it had to evolve FROM SOMETHING ELSE. The entire argument, if you have EVER actually read a newspaper is CREATION vs. EVOLUTION. You apparently continue in your confusion between micro and macro evolution. Again, I’m not surprised.
Oh, and LOZEN, the reason he’s teaching in a University is because they have to have a Philosophy Department to make the Science Department look intelligent.
By Archie
April 28, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this
Jennifer, you are right as I did use the term incorrectly. I was not disputing the numbers but I was trying to say that they are like that because the enforcement of the law is different for groups that she listed. I have no problem with what Lyrazel said. Thanks for the correction.
By Lyrazel
April 28, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this
Sorry Archie, but the numbers are from the census bureau, not my head. Georgia law enforces seat belt restraints and law says all kids have to be in safety seats while the vehicle is in motion. Its the law. People are getting driver licenses but obviously drivers fail to understand the laws concerning vehicle operations. I pity the parent loss—but the drivers negligence that resulted in death needs to be procecuted. Does she need to go to prision? I cant say. She broke the law—and death resulted. Stupidity does not make a driver any less a criminal does it? What if they were not her kid but a neighbors? Is she being judged by folks as less guilty because they were her kids?
By Boscoe
April 28, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this
Chuck, “Science CANNOT prove evolution. Neither can it EXPLAIN the origin of the species.â€? But I see your misunderstanding persists. Science doesn’t need to “proveâ€? evolution, because evolution is a fact. Can you see the humor when Brian, Lozen, and Michael call us idiots? Evolution is a “fact” but cannot prove it. You and I believe God is fact, but cannot prove it with physical evidence. Sounds like they’ve had FAITH all along. Maybe in the wrong thing but definitely nothing more than FAITH.
By Archie
April 28, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel in the story I was referring to no death resulted. The point is that many are locked up for minor offenses versus being given a citation. I did not have a problem with your numbers I just used the wrong term. I am glad Jennifer caught it. That goodness for degreed statisticians. I don’t live in Atlanta but man the people drive fast down there when I am in town and I mean all the people. I saw people driving fast in the emergency lane.
By Whiley
April 28, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this
“We are such a violent nationâ€â€?for being so god-seeking.”
Actually MEN in this nation are so violent. NOT WE. And that ain’t male bashing, that’s a fact !
By Brian Curtis
April 28, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this
Boscoe, we were trying educate Chuck here. I don’t want to have to start all over with you. If you want a primer on the difference between facts (observed phenomena for which the concept of “proof” is irrelevant) and theories (scientific explanations requiring supporting evidence), let me know and I’ll give you a Level One intro as time permits.
If a quick analogy will help you, here’s one: Does gravity exist? Can you “prove” it? Scientists have to think in terms of facts vs. theories, which is why we have the distinction between evolution over time (an observed fact) and the theory of natural selection (the theory that explains the facts).
Chuck: I’m familiar with the creationist attempts to divide evolution into “macro” and “micro” levels. I’m also aware that this is a false distinction; add up small changes and you get big ones. (Duh.)
And no matter how religious fanatics rail against it, evolution still has nothing to do with the origin of life or the universe. Neither do the special theory of relativity, the laws of planetary motion, etc. It’s a different arena.
Your notion that every living thing must have evolved from something else—therefore requiring “special creation” for life to arise—was known as the “law” of biogenesis, and it’s been discredited. Quite a few decades ago, in fact.
But hey—keep trying! It’s fun to watch.
By chuck
April 28, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this
Exactly Boscoe, They are so insecure that they are unable to express that all they have is a different faith that depends on the frailties of man rather than the awesome power of almighty God.
By Michael
April 28, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this
Crystal used to post attempts at condescending judgments of the “liberals� who actually, unlike their conservative counterparts, argued for their claims here. Arguments invariably ignored by those living in an ideologically hermetically sealed universe. So, as a parting shot, this is what she should have written if she were evaluating the conservatives who inflict their profound ignorance on the others who write here. The posts of Boscoe and Chuck use technical terms without knowing what they mean, refer to theories and views that they do not understand in the slightest, and invoke modern physics and theology in support of psychological, sociological, political, and historical claims to which they have no relevance. It is not always easy to tell how much is due to invincible stupidity and how much to the desire to cow their audience with fraudulent displays of theological sophistication. Tony and Rocky come across as complete charlatans, Randy as an idiot, Zack and Jack as a mixture of the two. But these are delicate judgments.
I don’t suffer fools very well (even when they have given me a lot of material for informal logic class.) Hawthorne said that the Puritans suffered from a “persecuting spirit.� I think he would say the same today about religious conservatives. I will leave you to wallow in your ignorance while I return to making a contribution to the world.
By Jack
April 28, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this
Whiley, It’s dog eat dog out here and only the strong survive. BUT they say the meek will inherit the earth. LOL!
By Tim
April 28, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this
James… getting that perfect shade of blue is tough! I am still making sure that we picked the perfect one… oh man the color wheel that we got from the paint store… that is like a gay man’s Bible ;)
sorry folks… just trying to keep it lite… my birthday is tomorrow and I am doing my best to keep it positive!! :)
HAPPY EARLY BIRTHDAY TO ME!! hahaha
By Tony
April 28, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this
Michael, a few forums ago you asked for proof of liberal bias in the news.
WASHINGTON Apr 27, 2005 â€â€? Most Americans believe news coverage is biased and negative, but they also say they respect journalists and trust what they hear and read. A national survey conducted by the Missouri School of Journalism’s Center for Advanced Social Research found 62 percent consider journalism credible and more than half rated newspapers and television news as trustworthy. At the same time, 85 percent said they detect a bias in news reporting. Of those, 48 percent identified it as liberal, 30 percent as conservative, 12 percent as both, and 3 percent as other bias. Source:http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=707810
By Stan
April 28, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this
Ben, well said. That is truly the way to look at the world.
I don’t think that you have to worry about anybody hitting on you Chuck. James was talking about fashionable guys. You probably are one of the teachers that wears the brown custodian pants, black sneakers, plain white dress shirt with pocket protector, tacky tie, black rimmed glasses, and a Mr. Rogers sweater.
By Alex
April 28, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this
lozen stated, “It is the utterly shallow christian who uses his religion as a battering ram to try to control others (who are probably better people than he) that I despise.”
Since when is trying to explain what you believe considered using said religion as a “battering ram” or trying to control others?
It seems that alot of people on this forum think it’s okay to discuss what you believe as long as it’s NOT Christianity! Because if I discuss Jesus then I’m trying to force YOU into becomming a Christian.
If I’m in a building and I see a bomb that’s set to explode in 30 minutes I’m going to try and get everyone out of the building ASAP not leave everyone else to die in the explosion. As Christians we are told by the prophets what the future holds and I do not want anyone to suffer the fate of the non-believer.
No one knows how much time they have left on this earth. It would be cruel and uncaring for Christians to keep their faith to themselves and not try to lead non-believers to salvation. (Which, by the way this forum is not intended to do. We are discussing our beliefs in a hostile environment. We are not trying to get you to come to our church this Sunday.)
By the way, the devil is real. (Probably not the pitch fork and red suit thing you have in mind though.) And there are evil spirits as well that lead people down the wrong path and cause people to commit horrible acts of violence. How many times have you heard a convict say they heard voices telling them to commit the act. It may sound crazy but it’s probably true. There are evil spirits that lie and deceive. That’s why the bible tells us to test the spirits to see if they are from God or from the devil.
I’m sure non-believers can have a “spiritual” experience…but exactly which spirit was making contact with them? If the spirit denies God’s son Jesus Christ it is not from God.
Now, how is explaining my beliefs as a Christian as I just did using a battering ram or forcing YOU to do anything??? Hmmmmmmmmm…………….. Christians have every right to explain our beliefs and this forum is no exception.
By chuck
April 28, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this
NO BRIAN, I don’t think that ANYTHING evolved from anything else. That is the theory of evolution to which I do not subscribe…but, in order for evolution to exist, each species HAD to evolve FROM something. If YOU don’t believe that, then you don’t believe EVOLUTION.
What Creationists believe is that GOD CREATED EVERY SPECIES. WE BELIEVE THAT NO MACROEVOLUTION (defined as evolving from one species to another, i.e. a dinosaur to a bird)HAS EVER OCCURRED. If you don’t understand the issue how can you make an intelligent argument. Oh, that’s right, YOU CAN’T.
I love that you keep using gravity as your example. Is that the only scientific principle that you understand? It is not relevant to this discussion. Gravity is a fact precisely for the reason that evolution is NOT. It can be tested and observed…the tests can be replicated over and over and over again and the same result will acrue. That is NOT true of MACROevolution. It has NEVER been observed. It does not exist in the fossil record. It is MERELY a figment of the scientific imagination.
By Whiley
April 28, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
“Whiley, It’s dog eat dog out here and only the strong survive. BUT they say the meek will inherit the earth.”
Fantastic ! When can I do my take over?
By Boscoe
April 28, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
As usual Michael you respond saying I don’t understand what I write. In other words, I am still ignorant. If this is true challange me with arguements I won’t understand. Should be easy considering I don’t even know what I’m saying. At least challenge what I wrote in my last post before you start ranting.
By Jack
April 28, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
Whiley, the way things are going, it won’t be long.
By Jack
April 28, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this
People are either taking a reat or creating some long posts.
By Brian Curtis
April 28, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this
We’re getting there… now Chuck is trying to ARGUE by using ALL CAPS, as though that SUPPORTS his ARGUMENTS.
As I already explained, the distinction between “micro-” and “macro-” evolution is a false one invented by desperate creationists who cling to the pretense that small numbers don’t add up to large ones. It’s such self-evident silliness that it scarcely bears refuting.
But (sigh), if you insist… Here are some observed instances of species developing into other species.
Evening primrose, hemp nettle, maize, drosophila (fruit flies), maggot fly, flour beetle, Faeroe Island mouse, cichlid fish (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html)
All of these have been tested and observed. One species changes into another. Check the references and deny it if you can.
Of course, the typical creationist response to these irrefutable facts is to concede what they magically call “micro-evolution” and start insisting that there’s no evidence for the equally-invented category of “macro-evolution.” Most typically, they demand eyewitness proof of some absurd transformation that exposes their utter ignorance of how evolution operates—such as “show me a dinosaur turning into a bird.”
(Actually, archaeopteryx is usually a good illustration fo that very thing, but never mind that for now.)
Now, if you insist that none of these fit your pet definition of “macro-evolution, i.e., a dinosaur turning into a bird”… then it’s you who don’t understand the evolutionary principles you’re attempting to criticize. What’s next, invoking Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind?
Sadly, Chuck, science and religion—particulary fundamentalist religion, which is fundamentally irrational—aren’t equivalent paths to knowledge about the world around us. Science operates on facts, logic, and evidence, and is self-correcting (i.e., can admit and fix mistakes); fundamentalist dogma simply declares what “must be true” and ignores all evidence to the contrary.
It’s true that one requires faith and the other doesn’t… but I think you have them mixed up.
By Whiley
April 28, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this
I would love to take over ! First, execute all people in prison for anything sicko. Birth control would be free & it wouldn’t make you fat. There would be little to no need for abortion because birth control would be everywhere, & all rapists will be shot on the spot. Childcare would be free. Every property owner would be required to make their building/business/home a non-eye sore. All organized religion would be banished, unless they agree to pay their fair share of the taxes. Professional sports players can’t make more than $300,000 per year. (All arena employees get a huge raise instead) Shall I continue? There is much to be done ! lol
By chuck
April 28, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this
Sounds like projection to me Stan.
By chuck
April 28, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this
But you are right …I am definitely not fashionable. Nothing but Khakis and golf shirts for me.
By Brett
April 28, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
I would like someone who is a Catholic to explain to me why they believe in purgatory when there is NO MENTION OF IT IN THE BIBLE? Isn’t it true that Catholics believe that when you die you go to a place called purgatory to finish paying for your sins. I am a Christian and I know that when Christ died on the cross at calvary he washed away ALL sin for those that believe in Him. There is no need for me or anyone else who believes in Jesus to go to purgatory to finish paying for sins!!! If you take away the importance and the act of Christ’s crucifiction then you basically take away Christianity.
Other problems with Catholicism:
Praying to Mary and worshipping her. (YES, she IS worshipped.) Chanting the hail Mary’s, praying for dead loved ones that SHE will take them from purgatory ASAP to heaven. (She’s the one Catholics believe who takes you to heaven and gets you out of purgatory after YOU finish paying for your sins.) Praying to statues (idols). Calling her the “mother of God” no less! Don’t get me wrong Mary was blessed among women but nowhere in the bible does it give her the ability to answer prayer or take people to heaven,etc,etc,etc….How many times in the bible is her name mentioned by the way? But with Catholics it’s ALL about MARY!!! It seams to me that she is put in the place of Jesus. I’ve never heard of a Catholic praying to Jesus…always to Mary. (You’re going to the wrong source for help my friend!)
Confession to a priest. The bible tells us to confess our sins to God and seek His forgiveness. Only God can forgive sin. No man or woman on earth has the ability or authority to forgive another person’s sins. But, why go to God directly when you can go to a priest. And what do you have to do to make up for your sin? Yeah, say 10 “hail Mary’s” and pay money to the church. (Remember, Jesus paid for 100% of your sins on the cross. Saying “hail Mary” til your blue in the face won’t get you anywhere. And money should NEVER play a role in being forgiven!!!
The papacy and authority of the pope. The Catholic church claims Peter was the first pope. But I have not seen the word pope anywhere in my bible nor have I seen most of the things Catholics believe in the bible. They call it “tradition”. My bible says that no man shall add or take away anything from the bible (Catholics have their own version of the bible by the way) and that even if one of the disciples came to you preaching a different word from God not to believe it because it was NOT from God.
Any Catholic want to try and explain? Honestly, I have yet to meet someone who claims to be Catholic who actually knew much about the religion. The standard answer was ALWAYS that they were a Catholic because their parents were Catholics and that they did not know anything about it really but they were SURE that they were one!!!
Just looking to converse with someone of that religion. Anyone care to answer my questions/concerns??? thanks!
By Johnson
April 28, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this
Brian Curtis,
(I had technical difficulties so this post may appear twice, and as I mentioned in that one, you may be familiar with this.). Anyway, you may find it useful
Below is an example of one species evolving into another species, i.e, Macroevolution for the medieval person you are arguining with. I agree with you about that term, it is not well understood. This study is an example of Species Rings, a well documented evolutionary strategy found in many birds especially warblers.
Basically, a single species that had become geographically isolated changes it’s behavior over time..in this case it is the song of the male birds…the mating call. This change is subtle but enough to keep these isolated birds from interbreeding, even if they are re-introduced. Over time this reproductive isolation does produce morphological and GENETIC changes that clearly show one species diverging into another. This has not been theorized, it has been actually observed. The following abstract is provided to show the observance of DNA change.
EVOLUTIONARY DIFFERENTIATION IN THREE ENDEMIC WEST INDIAN WARBLERS IRBY J. LOVETTE,1,2,5 ELDREDGE BERMINGHAM,1 GILLES SEUTIN,1,3 AND ROBERT E. RICKLEFS1,4
We explored the evolution of geographic distributions in archipelagos by comparing mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and morphometric characters within and among conspecific populations of Adelaide’s Warbler (Dendroica adelaidae), Plumbeous Warbler (D. plumbea), and Olive-capped Warbler (D. pityophila). Phylogenetic reconstructions were based upon 1,455 nucleotides of protein-coding mtDNA sequence from 53 individual warblers; morphological analyses employed three external measurements from a larger number of museum specimens. Of the three taxa studied, Adelaide’s Warbler occupied the broadest and most fragmented geographical distribution and exhibited the greatest inter-population differentiation in both mtDNA and morphology. Phylogenetic analyses demonstrated that the three Adelaide’s Warbler populations are each reciprocally monophyletic with the Puerto Rican lineage basal to sister clades on Barbuda and St. Lucia. Genetic distances among these populations were comparable with those between some continental species. In contrast to the mtDNA pattern, the Puerto Rican and Barbudan Adelaide’s Warbler populations were most similar in morphometry. We observed considerably less mtDNA and morphometric differentiation among populations of the two species with more restricted and less fragmented distributions, the Plumbeous Warbler of Dominica and Guadeloupe and the Olive-capped Warbler of the Bahamas and Cuba. High levels of molecular and morphological differentiation among the geographically disjunct Adelaide’s Warbler populations and low differentiation in the two species with less fragmented ranges suggest that range disjunc tions indicate the long-term evolutionary independence of geographically isolated island populations. Received 21 August 1997, accepted 18 February 1998.
By lozen
April 28, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this
Alex, okay you explained your beliefs. Fine. I disagree with your beliefs and you don’t have to ever worry about saving me from sin; that’s really not your responsibility no matter what your pastor tells you. I have nothing against you expressing your beliefs. As a matter of fact, I would fight for your right to express your beliefs and your right to believe anything that seems right for you. I’m sure you would do the same for me! I expect, since there was a program on tv last night about exorcising demons, there’ll be a lot more demon possession popping up in the next months. The man who was filled with demons needed a good psychiatrist or to stay on his medication for depression that he admitted he would quit taking after only four months. That’s all. The devil and evil spirits and demons are our projections. Each of us is both good and bad and every day we choose which of those to express in our lives. People who deny the dark side of themselves have to project it onto someone or something else but it will pop up in one way or another. Then you can call it a demon or evil spirit if you want. I will believe it’s just a part of you and every human being.
By Whiley
April 28, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this
“But with Catholics it’s ALL about MARY!!! “
I thought it was “SOMETHING about MARY” ?!!!!!
By Jack
April 28, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
Watch how you zip up guys!
By lozen
April 28, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this
One of the things I do like about the catholic church is the inclusion of female energy in Mary, even though she must remain forever virginal, of course. Mothers are just usually more loving and forgiving than fathers. I love cathedrals, statues, incense, candles and ritual.
By Whiley
April 28, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this
“even though she must remain forever virginal, of course”
Well hell that leaves ME out !
Guess I can’t be Catholic then.
BooHoo
By Brett
April 28, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this
Lozen-sounds like you would fit right in with goddess worship…which basically is Catholicism.
By norman
April 28, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this
Brett: your questions about Catholicis betray a fundamental Protestant bias. I could answer your questions but why should I when Boscoe has every quotation from every obscure theologian quite ready. I’m sure he will get in touch soon. I’ll just say that having something in or not in the Bible does not settle anything.
By Sandy
April 28, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this
Alex, how do you know what the fate of the non-believer is? Why concern yourself about that unknown but presumed suffering if you are so convinced it is not yours? Isn’t that cruel and uncaring? I think that’s perhaps the cause of the animosity when folks start talking about religion; you may be presuming that some of us are destined for hellfire because we do not share your beliefs. That infers a disconnection between us, that some of us are more chosen than others. It also presumes that your sources of this information are irrefutable. Some of us have more questioning minds, after reading the texts handed down through history, endowed to us by our creator. If I use my mind and soul as such, how am I lesser? I don’t necessarily believe that Jesus was devine, but I believe he taught us all we need to know. Where does that put me, in the hellfires? That’s one scenario, but not the only one.
Consider the Following:
Most people believe in God. They just don’t believe in a God that believes in them. God does believe in them, more than they know.
The idea that God is angry with the human race and kicked it out of paradise is false. The idea that God has set himself up as judge and jury (and my own addition, victim) and will be deciding whether members of the human race go to heaven or hell is false.
God loves every human who has ever lived, lives now, or will ever live. God’s desire is for every soul to return to God and God, being God, cannot fail in having his desires fulfilled.
GOD IS SEPARATE FROM NOTHING, NOTHING IS SEPARATE FROM GOD.
There is nothing that God needs, because God is everything there is.
This is the good news. Everything else is an illusion. As humans, we have forgotten this.
These spiritual ideas are found in a variety of writings throughout the world, at different times, some religious, some not. They ring true to me. You can reject them if you wish, but I think they encompass some of the the ideals that Christians claim to hold dear.
If I’m looking at a bigger picture than Christianity that includes salvation for us all, where is the harm in that? Or do Christians secretly wish this to be an exclusive club? That they somehow delight in excluding others? That’s what some of us “non-believers” find reprehensible.
That’s where you’ll find true evil, in driving a wedge between yourself and mankind, and between yourself and the creator. That’s why we have so-called holy wars.
Nobody is too far gone for God to save; we are part of God, God is part of us.
By lozen
April 28, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this
Michael, I appreciate your posts and I learn from them. Unfortunately, we will always be surrounded by ignorance; with our current political situation, it will be worse instead of better in the future. The south has never been known for great education. I’m sure being the “bible belt” has something to do with that. Can’t remember who said “Christianity is the enemy of liberty and civilization.” But reading posts on this blog shows the truth. We have here people who don’t even know the difference between mythology and science. We must have educated people to create civilization. We have people who think they can prove creationism. We have people here who truly believe they are qualified to tell all others what they should believe and how they should live. Yet they see no correlation between them and the Taliban who believes they are qualified to tell others what they should believe and how they should live. We must have freedom of thought and religion to have liberty. It’s very sad and frightening to think of where we might be in a few years if we continue down this path of fundamentalist conservatism.
By Jack
April 28, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this
Hail mary was my favorite prayer. I had more sucess with that one than the Lord’s prayer. Don’t know why, it just worked.
By norman
April 28, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
Brett: one point Boscoe won’t mention. Christianity in its Protestant form is just as much based on myth as Catholicism. Those who cannot abide myth — the Pseudomorphosis mentioned by Oswald Splenger, opted for monophysite or Nestorian Christianity or finally Islam. Islam broke with the Pseudomorphosis of Christianity and was the Semitic Revenge for Greek Christianity. But Protestantism is as much a part of Greek Christianity as Catholicism. If you want real Christianity, go to Islam.
By Jack
April 28, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this
Bret - Mary is not considered a goddess by Catholics. She is the mother of Jesus.
By Sandy
April 28, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this
Doh. Please amend my prior post to read that our questioning minds are endowed to us by our creator, not the religious texts. Thanks.
By lozen
April 28, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
Hey Brett, Yeah, there’s quite a similarity between goddess worship/old pagan religions and catholicism isn’t there? And that’s always been very interesting to me.
By Matt
April 28, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
Brett, if you are truly interested in learning about the practices of the Catholic faith (which I doubt), feel free to go to a Catholic CCD class. Everyone is welcome and they’ll have all of your answers there.
By norman
April 28, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
A CCD class, Matt, won’t tell Brett about how the priests have babies with nuns and then eat them at Lent. Or how the bishops circumcize goats and then have sodomite intercourse with them at Advent. CCD only tells you what they want you to know. It’s the really cool stuff Brett wants to hear about.
By Matt
April 28, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this
Scratch that. I meant OCIA classes, unless you’re in grades 1-8!
By lozen
April 28, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this
Matt, what does CCD stand for?
By Jack
April 28, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this
Norm you have a sick mind.
By chuck
April 28, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this
Here are some quotes that I think someone with an open mind could learn from. Brian, of course, that does not include you. You used a website to say that my assertion about Darwin was not true. You were of course telling a half-truth again. The exact quote was …there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him, even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. The idea that there was no corroboration does not necessarily make the assertion false. There is no one here who has corroborated that your name is Brian Curtis. That does not mean you are NOT Brian Curtis. Unfortunately we can’t ask any of those who were contemporaries of Darwin if the story is true or not. At best, what you have shown is that there are competing versions. Darwin did say the following and you are welcome to go directly to the source if you like.
“Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in his later days, gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his evolutionary speciation and wrote: `As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”
“We recognize the great powers of observation possessed by Darwin, but we are amazed that he did not observe the limits of variation. Variation, he should have recognized, can produce new varieties only within kinds already in existenceâ€â€?a situation which could never produce evolution. While tracing migration paths of plants and animals [from South America to the Galapagos], Darwin never grasped the fact that he was able to trace those routes because the migrants were still bona fide members of the same basic kinds to which their ancestors belong.”â€â€?Frank L. Marsh, Variation and Fixity in Nature (1976), p. [italics his].
“If a line of organisms can steadily modify its structure in various directions, why are there any lines stable enough and distinct enough to be called species at all? Why is the world not full of intermediate forms of every conceivable kind?”â€â€?*G.R. Taylor
“According to Professor W.H. Thorpe, Director of the Sub-department of Animal Behavior at Cambridge and a world authority, this is the problem in evolution. He said in 1968: `What is it that holds so many groups of animals to an astonishingly constant form over millions of years? This seems to me the problem [in evolution] nowâ€â€?the problem of constancy rather than that of change.
“Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.”â€â€?*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.
“Johannsen’s work stimulated many others to conduct similar experiments. One of the earliest was Herbert Spencer Jennings (1868-1947) of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, the world authority on the behavior of microscopic organisms. He selected for body size in Paramecium and found that after a few generations selection had no effect. One simply cannot breed a paramecium the size of a baseball. Even after hundreds of generations, his pure lines remained constrained within fixed limits, `as unyielding as iron.’
“A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether man could have evolved from ape-like animals, `. . the transformist concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.’ The reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the whole process of evolution from animal to man . . would have to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . . man [should possess] a smaller gene potential than his animal ancestors! [!] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence, it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved from the animal kingdom!”â€â€?*D.S. Falconer, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics (1960), pp. 129-130 [italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), pp. 56, 57].
Science will acknowledge that it does not possess a definitive, linear, fossil record whereby one species of animal is witnessed over time becoming an entirely new species. Instead, many species suddenly disappeared in the fossil record (due to extinction), and fossils of an entirely new species abruptly appeared. While science is convinced that many of these new species are descendants of the extinct species, what is often missing is the intermediate species’ fossils that can prove the line of descent. Scientists attribute these gaps to a paucity of fossils from that time-period (in some cases this is probably true), and are convinced that many of these intermediate species’ fossils will be found in the future.
Archaeopteryx was a true bird, not a ‘missing link’.
Finally, I did look up ALL of the examples you gave and found something extremely interesting that pretty much ends the argument in MY favor. EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE YOU GAVE was an example of MICROevolution or change within the SAME kind. Again, there is NO example of change to another kind. A mouse is a mouse whether it can breed with a different kind of mouse or not. A fly is a fly, and Maize is corn. There is NO EVIDENCE in those articles that a dinosaur became a bird or that an ape-like creature became a man, or that a fish became a mammal. That record still does not exist.
By the way, USING ALL CAPS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT, IT IS A MEANS OF EMPHASIS. YOUR STATEMENT WAS JUST ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO MAKE DISPARAGING PERSONAL REMARKS RATHER THAN FACE THE REAL ARGUMENTS CONTAINED IN MY POSTS.
By chuck
April 28, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this
Johnson, In the example you gave, the bird was still a bird and remarkably LIKE the bird it “came from”. While it was genetically different, NO NEW genetic material was introduced.
By chuck
April 28, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
BTW Lozen, I don’t think Michael’s position at Clayton State qualifies him as a “UNIVERSITY” professor. In fact, it is very similar to teaching at a high school.
By lozen
April 28, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this
A standing ovation for Sandy! GOD IS SEPARATE FROM NOTHING, NOTHING IS SEPARATE FROM GOD. There is nothing that God needs, because God is everything there is. This is the good news. Everything else is an illusion. Yes, Sandy you do have the bigger picture; bravo for you. That’s where you’ll find true evil, in driving a wedge between yourself and mankind, and between yourself and the creator. The attitude of “I’m better than you because I believe the right thing and you believe the wrong thing,” just doesn’t encourage people to be their best self.
By chuck
April 28, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this
No offense to Clayton State…it’s a pretty good school for what it is, but it ain’t exactly Harvard.
By Boscoe
April 28, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this
I’m a Catholic Bruce, I’ll make an attempt to help you understand why these things are the way they are. Are all the truths revealed for us by God found in the Bible? The Bible doesn’t say all truths must be contained therein. The Bible does state that it does not contain all that God revealed. “There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these should be written, not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written” (John 21:25). The truths of Divine Revelation which have not been written down in Holy Scripture have come to us by the Tradition of the Church. St. Paul bade the Thessalonians: “Hold the teachings that you have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours” (2 Thess. 2:15). what is meant by “Divine Tradition” is the revealed truths taught by Christ and His Apostles, which were given to the Church only by word of mouth and not through the Bible, though they were put in writing principally by the Fathers of the Church. In a wide sense Tradition embraces the whole teaching of the Church, including the Bible, since it is only from the Church that we have the Bible. In a stricter sense Tradition includes only what was handed down orally from the Apostles. The Bible was not written til about 350 AD. The Bible does give an indication of the existence of purgatory. “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” - 2 Machabees 12:46. Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ and consequently Mother of God. There is no higher dignity to which a creature can be raised. During his reign, Pope Pius XII stated: “In the first place, the foundation of this doctrine [the Immaculate Conception] is to be found in Sacred Scripture, where we are taught that God, Creator of all things, after the sad fall of Adam, addressed the serpent, the tempter and corrupter, in these words, which not a few Fathers, Doctors of the Church and many approved interpreters applied to the Virgin Mother of God: ‘I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed’ (Gen. III, 15) Now, if at any time the Blessed Virgin Mary were destitute of Divine grace even for the briefest moment, because of contamination in her conception by the hereditary stain of sin, there would not have come between her and the serpent that perpetual enmity spoken of from earliest tradition down to the time of the solemn definition of the Immaculate Conception, but rather a certain subjection.” Significantly, the great Pope Pius IX, when he defined the Immaculate Conception, used this passage Genesis 3:15 along with Luke 1:28, “Hail, full of grace,” as seen in the light of tradition, to support his declaration of Mary the Immaculate Conception on December 8th, 1954, saying indeed she will crush his head. Furthermore, Pope Leo XIII in his prayer of St. Michael, prayed, “The glorious Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, commands you; she who by her humility and from the first moment of her Immaculate Conception, crushed your proud head.” And to conclude our journey through the various papal pronouncements, let us end with the words of Pope John Paul II, speaking in a January 24, 1996 General Audience: “In the light of the New Testament and the Church’s tradition, we know that the new woman announced by the Protogospel (Genesis 3:15) is Mary, and in ‘her seed’ we recognize her Son, Jesus” Therefore we can confidently say, “What is said of ‘the woman’ in Gen. 3:15 finds its fulfillment only in Mary. If people knew the real value of Confession, they would be fighting to get into the Confessional.This Sacrament of Reconciliation does much more that “just” rid us of our sins; it gives us a tremendous increase in sanctifying grace. It wins for us a higher place in Heaven, with increased union with God.Each time we go to Confession, we are preserved from many dangers and misfortunes which might otherwise have befallen us.Confession is reconciliation with God—we admit our faults, we confess our pride, we want to be again in union with Him—and from all this honest and sincere reformation of life will come God’s added grace. The power of satan over us is diminished. We are helped to resist sin. God is so great and we are so small, that to show our humble submission to God we confess our faults to a man consecrated to God. Sandy you have a false security that all is forgiven. But is this not sheer insanity in sin to believe that you may offend God and break His rules and enter? What manner of life would there be in Heaven? As directed all will enter by merit!
By norman
April 28, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this
Boscoe is a pretty awful spokesman for the Roman Church. I could do much better. But if I did Jack would call me names.
By lozen
April 28, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this
Sandy, you obviously have given a great deal of thought to your spirituality and you believe in a big, loving, forgiving, just god. But Boscoe ain’t havin’ none of that stuff! Poor Boscoe presumes to tell you how wrong you are. Boscoe knows. You don’t. Boscoe wants a judgmental, punishing, divisive god. I feel sorry for him when I think about what his life must be like.
By Boscoe
April 28, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this
Norman, The anti-christ can’t speak for the Church. Thanks anyway.
By Lyrazel
April 28, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
Mary did not remain a virgin. She went on to have other kids that were not caused by divine intervention….as far as I understood.
I would be very very curious reading any responses concerning appearences of The Virgin on objects, lawns, etc…do the faithful posting here feel its exploitation of belief or that they are true signs? One of my childhood memories was attending a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Guadalupe. I notice in other countries the appearences of other saints/not Mary/are more common. Second, as catholics in a baptist state do you ever find yourself ridiculed/attempted-converted by passionate christians? Does it irritate people that christians have such animosity toward christians, like, say a gay christian? Curious. Just curious.
By lozen
April 28, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
“I cannot follow you Christians; for you try to crawl through your life upon your knees, while I stride through mine on my feet” Charles Bradlaugh
How can we humans be so small Boscoe? jesus told us the kingdom of heaven is within us.
By Randy
April 28, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this
Sandy’s version of God is closer to fact.
By Whiley
April 28, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ IT’S really too bad so may people are so obsessed about what was going on thousands of years ago. Sure wish they’d use that energy for now.
Did I mention I saw the virgin Mary today? There was an oil spill at the BP station.
By Matt
April 28, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
Lozen: CCD - Confranternity of Christian Doctrine. But that’s for grade schoolers.
Adults can go to RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) classes, sometimes referred to as OCIA (Order of Christian Initiation for Adults).
Enough acronyms for ya??
By Boscoe
April 28, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
I do know lozen. It’s not as if I make the decision about what kind of God we have, I’m just telling you the way it is. Sandy is so hung up on loving her neighbor that she puts that in place of the 1st Commandment which is Love of God - i.e. thou shall not have any strange Gods before me. This means nieghbors, moms, dads, husbands, wives…get the picture? Nobody gets off scott free lozen. Everybody has to anti up and pay their dues. Whether you anti up or not is not my choice, but I won’t stand idly by while others confuse people.
By Johnson
April 28, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
You continue to show your absolute ignorance of zoology and taxonomy and prove that you really do not have any clue to what evolution really means. There are many different species of birds. Evolution, especially macroevolution, is defined as inter-species changes in allele frequency. Inter species evolution must proceed any evolution at a higher level such as genus or family. The domestic house mouse is not the same animal as the common deer mouse, phenotypically or genetically, so a mouse is not still just a mouse. Your concept of no new genetic information is not a biological concept relevant to evolution…this is something you pulled from your creationist web site. You obviously know nothing of genetics, and I doubt if you can even quote the actual biology definition of evolution, much less explain it. Here and in the past I have given you examples which actually have some scientific holes in them and each and every time you completely miss that because you don’t know the science. Stick to showing 13 year olds popular movies.
By Jack
April 28, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this
Norman, I didn’t call you a name. I just said you had a sick mind. I could handle the comment about priests & nuns doing it, but not eating the offspring for lent. Gotta admit that’s pretty bad. ( I like mine with salsa)
By norman
April 28, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this
Protestants hate the most attractive features of Catholicism, the pagan aspects, with statues, paintings, icons, incense, the virgin mother and all that. What is left? Ranting sermons and saccharine hymns. Without the paganism Christianity is reduced to Islamic-like fanaticism and boredom. How’s that Boscoe? Do you like it?
How about you, Brett? Too sexy? Too human? Not puritanical enough for your cramped soul?
Jack, I know the priests only pretended to each the babies, like they pretend to eat Jesus.
By Johnson
April 28, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this
And futher, the Creationiist “downhill” thery of genetic adaption has no scientific value. This is a creationist view that a creator created all of the vast array of DNA variations at a single time, and any changes from this through time must be only a subset of the original gene pool. This view has no validity outside of creationism
By Richard
April 28, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this
I’m with Sandy, Boscoe. You don’t seem to express enough love like God wants. For years, I lived with the perpetual fear that I would go to hell for this, say this and if I didn’t repent and died that night, I would surely go to hell. God put us here on Earth to enjoy it, and not live in perpetual fear and self-torment. Yes, a time of fasting and prayer is good to clean the body and soul and become closer with God. If God is a living God and willing to forgive someone, why feel that God isn’t capable of love and having a sense of humor? Some of the situations that I have found myself in, God must get a kick out of them. Life doesn’t have to be about suffering.
By norman
April 28, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this
That missing young woman in Duluth, GA — she was probably kidnapped by white slavers and shipped to Saudia Arabia, in exchange for raising oil production. Bush arranged it all, telling us “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
The RNC will deny this. As they denied that there are brains inside the skulls of John Bolton and George W. Bush.
By chuck
April 28, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this
Johnson…hmmmmminteresting name.
By Boscoe
April 28, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this
Given the nature of Her role with regards to salvation of the human race, Lyrazel, Mary must have remained a virgin. Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ and consequently Mother of God. There is no higher dignity to which a creature can be raised. Why would God allow her the lessen that role? To take a humorous look at how that might be played out, do you think Mary would have told her “Other children” they should be more like Jesus? As far as miracles sightings, actually the Catholic Church takes a very skeptical stance on apparitions of the Blessed Mother and any saints. The shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe is an approved site although. I hope you enjoyed it. One of Our Lady’s other titles is Mary Help of Mothers. Who would know more about mothers than her? I always like to recommend prayers to her for mothers who get overwhelmed at times.Lyrazel, the are people who are extreme for almost every cause and take it to far, I think basically because they turn it into a competition over who’s right and wrong. Kind of like we do here but going way over the line about it. Although, I myself am against the act of homosexuality, under no circumstances would I advocate physical violence against them. There are those who do. I don’t agree with that. Lozen It’s not that we are small ourselves, but compared to God who is without fault and all men fall short of the glory of God. We are small compared to Him.
By chuck
April 28, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
Evolution ASSUMES the addition of NEW genetic material. The fact is that the genetic material of these “new” species is actually less than the material of the original. How can this be? According to “natural selection” should not the amount and variation of genetic material and increase?
I know that you have this big important job as a lab technician, thus making you the NUMBER 1 expert in the country, but you still did not answer the question. Where is the fossil evidence of dinosaur to bird, ape to man, fish to mammal evolution? It is still a figment of the imagination.
By Brian Curtis
April 28, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
Chuck: I was going to respond, but I see Johnson has already taken care of the points I was going to make.
Your insistence on a dinosaur-to-bird transformation in front of eyewitnesses is a classic creationist dodge. Why? Because evolution does not claim that any such thing occurs! In rhetoric, this is called a “straw man” argument, I believe—“Prove to me something you never claimed, or else I win!”
Unfortunately, the people you’re dealing with here aren’t likely to fall for it. Back to the drawing board for your creationist argument #112!
“New genetic information” is not a biological concept, but rather another creationist invention. Taken literally, any creationist who’s taken Biology 101 should know that new genetic information appears all the time through mutation—perfect or imperfect duplication of existing DNA. But this is irrelevant to the mechanics of evolution anyway.
“Different kinds“—another creationist-invented term, and one with remarkable flexibility. It dovetails nicely with their invented distinction between micro- and macro-levelf of genetic change. This argument boils down to “I don’t care if you can show me one rock sitting on top of another; that doesn’t prove mountains can exist!”
You really need to work more on your Bible-thumping references, Chuck. Or you could, perhaps, actually consider the evidence (including dozens of complete lines of fossils establishing evolutionary transitions—http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html have a nice summary of some of them.
And while you’re at it, ask yourself: Why is it so important to you that evolution not be allowed to be true, anyway? It has nothing to do with religion one way or the other, any more than Maxwell’s equations do—so why do you continually treat it as the Enemy of God? (Even as you mis-define, misunderstand, and misinterpret everything about it.)
Darwin’s alleged “recanting:” So now you’re claiming that every claim should be believed even if there’s no substantiation (Darwin’s supposed “rejection” of evolution)? That would certainly make for an exciting worldview—imagine! Everything you hear is presumed true, simply because it’s claimed. UFOs abduct people every day; the Trilateral Commission is in charge of Hollywood; leprechauns live in my basement. My WORD, what a fun world that would be!
Too bad logic won’t support it. Lady Hope’s story is one woman’s word—and has been disproven anyway, since she wasn’t even there when Darwin died, as her daughter pointed out (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/ladyhope.html).
So I must confess to a mild degree of curiosity—is your zeal to discredit evolution solely a burning desire for scientific truth (although you’ve consistently ignored, dismissed, and misinterpreted the evidence)? Or is it simply your “target of choice” because you’ve been somehow convinced that Evolution—apparently including biogenesis and cosmology, even though it doesn’t—is an Enemy of God and All That’s Decent?
By Jack
April 28, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
Probably should be L’ll Johnson. LOL
By Brian Curtis
April 28, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this
Anything can be declared a figment of the imagination if you keep your eyes shut tight enough, Chuck.
And I can’t help but notice that you’re the one who’s been indulging in cheap shots and insults throughout this discussion. What a fine moral high ground your faith gives you!
By Brett
April 28, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, thanks for the reply. I did not mean to sound harsh before in my questions about Catholicism. I just don’t understand alot of the things that are taught. The quote from maccabees is not in my bible by the way.
Could you answer a couple of questions? First, why the need for purgatory since Jesus paid for ALL of our sins? Second, why not confess your sins to God or Jesus versus a priest? The priest is just a man, albeit holy, but still a man. Third, why the preoccupation with Mary? Seems that SHE is mentioned by Catholics 1,000 more times than the name of Jesus. Why does she need to be an intercessor when we can straight to Jesus? If we are to pray to her and put her up on the high pedestal that Catholics do then why isn’t her name mentioned more than a handful of times in my bible? Forth, do you believe Mary goes to purgatory to take you to heaven? It just seems that she has been put in Jesus’ place and He’s been put over in the corner somewhere.
Thanks for responding. I’m very curious at what your answers will be. Any Christians want to comment???
P.S. As to the sightings of Mary I find it odd that God would place Mary images everywhere instead of Jesus-(the way,the truth & the life-no one comes to the Father except by Me). Makes me wonder if an evil spirit is behind the sightings and if so that would say alot as to the truth behind Catholicism. Back in Chalean & Babylonian times they say statues cried tears and dripped blood and there were images. These false religions mentioned in the bible also were religions of goddess worship. The goddess with the infant son by the way. What better way for the devil to deceive the most people-by making a false religion so deceptive that it includes the same people in Christianity (God, Jesus, Mary) but it takes their roles and switches them so that Jesus’ name is rarely mentioned and everyone prays to someone that does not have the ability to answer prayer (Mary). I might just as well pray to Joseph or Noah. I would get the same response. I’m afraid all these prayers to Mary are falling on deaf ears. That’s where the devil has done his job and deceived everyone.
By Crystal
April 28, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
Uh, oh, Michael has decided to tell me what I should have said.
Norman started to tell Brett what Boscoe would say about faith, but Norman doesn’t have any faith.
Just about everybody has a “quotation”. Makes you wonder who knows what and why it takes so long to tell us.
Did I get all that straight? As to the new pope (the topic), I understand that he is a learned man. The former pope created much good will. I hope this one will do the same.
By Sandy
April 28, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, my false sense of security is no more insane than your presupposition to know what heaven will be like and who will be there. I think it’s worth the effort to see God throughout creation, in each person. You state that this is a sin in one breath, but say it it is not your decision about what kind of God there is, all along assuming to know God’s mind and how he will judge each of us. Yours is indeed a heavy burden; misguided to. Perhaps it’s an illusionary Satan steering you through a bastardization of what Jesus taught.
Before the commandments in your Bible was the statement in creation that we are all made in God’s image. It’s not really a big stretch to say that we are part of God and God is part of us.
I offer my opinions and truth humbly, without intent to convert anyone from or to anything. Why are you so scared of somebody else’s truth? You have yours, God will reward you for it. I’m willing to take the risk to think outside of organized religion because I feel my energy is better spent in realms outside of judgment. Perhaps this is my God-given calling, at any rate, it’s not your call. You seem to have found yours, and ultimately, we’re headed for the same direction anyway.
You can’t end problems with the same energy that created them; Killing to stop killing, violence to end violence, anger to end anger, and judgment to end judgment.
By Jack
April 28, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
It is quite entertaining to read the religous debates on this blog but it is getting kind of old. No one will win or lose except maybe Norman. He may be sick but he is pretty sharp.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz
By Eliseo Rios
April 28, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
Letters to the editor -
The new Pope won’t give up to inconformists
By Eliseo RÃÂÂos
For the millions of Catholics around the world, who want progress and changes in the position of the Roman Catholic Church concerning women ordained as priests, permission for priests to marry, the use of preservatives as a mean of birth control by couples, respect of homosexuality and reckoning the option to abort, what they are asking for is another church, another religion. With the new Pope (Benedict XVI – Joseph Ratzinger) is not going to happen. They are not going to get what they want. Eventhough, the new Pope might convey tenderness and love for his fellow parishioners, and even when he wants to have an integrationist church, the truth is that the Catholic religion does not have to be practical to accommodate the desires of certain groups of people. It does not have to be different of what it has been. The Roman Catholic Faith has its strong foundations on people who received commandments directly from Jesus. And since Jesus is also One with God He knew what He was doing when he sent his apostles into the world to spread the Good News and build his church. Just remember, in one of the passages of the Bible, Jesus said to Peter: �Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell should not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon Earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven; and whatsoever shall be loose on Earth, shall be loose in Heaven.� This passage is used as the basis for Catholic belief and that Peter was appointed by Jesus Christ to be the first visible Head of His Church. This is heavy dogma my friends and can not be changed just because of some mortals want to change it. Therefore I would say that the problem is not the new Pope, nor the Vatican, the problem is that God has become too small for the expectations of a few inconformists. And, as long as they are not able to recognize the God of this religion they will continue bumping their heads against the ancient marmol of the Vatican Basilica of Saint Peter. The new Pope wants a stronger faith church and one that the membership will look up to not only as leader but as a builder of more spiritual relationships and values. He is an indisputable theologian and has a iron will power, however he is a good listener. This Pope has many attributes in his favor. He is very well educated, speaks 10 languages fluently, he has been an ex-soldier, an ex-prisoner of war, a fanatic reader, has a good disposition, he is a good listener, he loves classical music especially of Mozart, and does not have any trouble eating anything. He has kept in touch with all kinds of people before and during his work with the former Pope. In a way, Benedict has been honing himself to be a faithful and another great representative of Jesus Christ’s Church, (the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.). But, before anything, he will keep his loyalty to God.
Eliseo RÃÂÂos 2912 Shipley Road Cookeville, Tennessee 38501 931-528-6146 Eliseo_r@yahoo.com Eliseor@hotmail.com
By Jennifer
April 28, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
While Boscoe isn’t technically wrong in his description of Catholicism he’s doing a terrible job of conveying the most basic tenant difference between Catholic and most all other Protestant Faiths. It’s in his loooooooooooooooong post, but it’s hard to pick out.
Essentially, Catholics do not hold the Bible as the final and unequivocal Word of God. Catholics consider the Bible to be inspired by God, yes, but not definitive. In other words, God is still speaking to us. So, just because it’s not in the Bible doesn’t make it invalid. This is what’s different about Catholics. It also makes Catholicism one of the more liberal Christian religions. I still left the Faith, though.
I’m a lot more like Sandy in my Faith. I don’t see believing Jesus is the son of God and that he died for my sins as necessary. I still think Jesus’ life is worth paying attention to, just as I do Martin Luther King, or Mother Therese….or President Lincoln…or even Hitler, from who we can learn a lot about the depths of human depravity, enought to hopefully touch our souls and work to keep such things from happening again…
The problem with arguing this religious topic is that no one is right and no one is wrong. It’s all Faith. But you need to believe you’re believing the correct thing so badly that you become extremely defensive when others believe differently. It was quite liberating for me to understand that it didn’t really matter. So, you’re understandable concern about my indifference is appreciated but will be ineffectual.
By Johnson
April 28, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Evolution ASSUMES the addition of NEW genetic material. The fact is that the genetic material of these “new� species is actually less than the material of the original. How can this be? According to “natural selection� should not the amount and variation of genetic material and increase?
The above statement is absolutely false. The process of evolution does not make that assumption. Further, the study I posted earlier mentioned nothing about the amount of DNA or numbers of genes, only the changes in gene sequences.
And as I posted before the concept of NEW genetic material (Chuck please define this in genetic terms…alleles, chromosomes, heterozygous pairs…anything scientific?) is not a valid concept in biology..it is a creationist abstraction.
Making snide comments about my name or job doesn’t really hurt my feelings and it certainly hasn’t convinced me of your point of view.
If you cannot argue a scientific concept in scientific terms then stop trying…and posting quotes taken out of context proves nothing either.
Concerning the fossil record, as I’ve said before it is becoming less and less necessary or relevant. I think you will see a number of interesting studies soon. A recent find of actual dinosaur tissue…not a mere fossil..is now being studied at the DNA level and the similarities to bird DNA have already been shown. Science goes forward even when you work to stifle it.
By Boscoe
April 28, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
Richard,God is the Creator. Man, the creature, is the work of His hands, His possession. It is the duty of man to consider the Creator as his supreme Lord and Master, to prostrate in reverence and admiration before Him; to adore and praise Him. To adore the Divinity, to pay homage to God—what an honor for a poor creature! To acknowledge in God all good, all truth, all that is worthy of affection; to submit one’s understanding and will to God’s greatness; to offer Him one’s soul and body; yea, even to wish to consume oneself in order to procure Him honor and glory—can there be a nobler aim in life? God not only called the universe into being but He also preserves it continually. This constant preservation is no less a miracle than the creation itself. Were the Creator to withdraw His hand for but one instant from His work of creation, the great universe would return to nothingness; likewise would every individual creature. Hence, God thinks of us, His creatures, at every moment; He provides for us from day to day and preserves us with infinite love. He holds in store for us everything good, everything lovely and beautiful, for He would not enjoy His happiness alone; He wishes us to participate in it. He has made our earthly life like unto one of paradise; His whole creation He places at our feet. If we find thorns and thistles, it is not God’s fault. Sin, wilful sin, has spoiled everything. The malice of original sin and of the many personal sins of mankind is the sole cause of our sufferings and trials here below. However, God in His infinite mercy and goodness has destined that these very sufferings and trials should become a source of merit and future happiness for us through His beloved Son. Jesus has ennobled and sanctified suffering through His Cross. Is it not just, then, that we should prove ourselves grateful for His Divine Providence, for the preservation of our life, for the many benefits He bestows upon us? The Sacrifice of the Cross was the greatest act which the Divine and human love of Jesus Christ accomplished for us. Through the death of Christ on the Cross we were redeemed. Through His immolation on the Cross, the Lamb of God took away the sins of the world and reconciled mankind with the heavenly Father. No further sacrifice of redemption was necessary. However, the Sacrifice of our Savior on the Cross did not do away with the personal duty of His creatures to pay unto their God and Creator the highest form of outward worship possible to man—sacrifice.
By Randy
April 28, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
Chuck, You are absolutely right about Macro-Evolution. The discovery of DNA eliminated any possibility of one species changing into another species. The fact that there is less evidence of macro-evolution now than when Darwin came up with that theory in 1859. Maybe Brian, Norman, etc will later in life repent just like Darwin did before he died. Or maybe they could turn their companies or jobs over to a talking, reasoning donkey(jackass).
By lozen
April 28, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
Leave it to Chuck who hates homosexuality!!!??? to make a crack about the name Johnson.
By Johnson
April 28, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis,
Chuck’s zeal to discredit evolution is due entirely to his fundamentalizm which maintains the absolute infallibility of the bible including Genesis. If the process of evolution explains the diversity of life than Genesis is wrong, the bible is wrong, and Leviticus is wrong. If all of that is wrong then the bible cannot be used to justify the many persecutions that it inspires. Because Chuck is so rigid in his beliefs any fracture in them would damage the whole. He has his sense of self so wrapped up in these beliefs that any challenge to them is an assault on himself. A cornered animal is a dangerous thing indeed.
By Randy
April 28, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this
Well the current animal’s reasoning power is questionable.
By Jennifer
April 28, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
Sandy, are you a UU?
By Tim
April 28, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
lozen… I noticed that too… but are you surprised… he is so pre-occupied with gay men… always has made me wonder about him… you know those studies that were done on men… those who where the most adamantly opposed to homosexuality were the ones with the most homosexual attractions… as the great and wise Gomer Pile would say ‘sahprize sahprize sahprize!’… I am sure that Chuck pretends his right hand is another ‘Johnson’ during those ‘special times’
By lozen
April 28, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
Jennifer! Jennifer! Jennifer!
By Tom Diekmann
April 28, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
We have lived aboard our sailboat on the outskirts of Rome for almost a year now. We never expected to experience the change of Popes. Nevertheless, we have had the opportunity to observe the changes from John Paul II to Benedict XVI first hand. We walk around the Vatican, we walk through St. Peter’s and visit the neighborhoods of Rome which is the church home to all of the Cardinals. One must be a prelate of a church in Rome to vote for a Pope.
I can report the following. In general, the Italian residents are completely ambivalent to what is going on in the Roman Catholic Church. On the other hand, Rome has been inundated by worshipers from around the world. We see many Asians, Africans, South Americans, South Pacific Islanders, Indian Hindus and Muslims from around the world visiting St. Peters. There are the requisite number of North Americans and now Germans. Just before the funeral of Pope John Paul II, the city and outskirts were absolutely populated with pilgrims from Poland.
So what do we observe? Clearly, the pilgrims - Catholic and non-Catholic alike - seem to be expecting and looking for a revelation to recharge their faith. Some, maybe many seem bo be finding renewed faith; others, not so.
If you have not been to the small City State of the Vatican in the middle of Rome, you can not imagine the climate here. The Vatican is partially a walled city, partially a welcoming reach into St. Peter’s square and the Basilica itself. For the public, there are two important entrances on almost opposite sides.
St. Peter’s square is open to the public. After clearing through security checks, one can climb to the top of the dome or cupula and look out over the Tiber and the city of Rome above the statues of the Saints. Another route is free access to the basilica itself where Michael Angelo’s piata draws all close. One can enter the vaults below the basilica to the toumb of St. Peter and the popes. For a price, a distance away, one can pay a small fee and visit the Vatican museum and the Sistine Chapel.
For better or not, for richness or poverty, for the arts and the sciences, the Vatican remains the focus of the Roman Catholic Church.
Is it powerful? No one knows the answer to that. Except to see the U.S Pesident, the Crown Prince of Saudia Arabia, the Presidents and Prime Ministers of nations around the world, pilgrims in the millions from every place on earth; one might think not.
Be in the middle of it all, listen, see, smell, observe and absorb. You will probably form an opinion that there is something alive and thriving in the Vatican. Where it leads to is beyond me, but it will not lay down and sleep.
Tom
By Jennifer
April 28, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this
uh oh….was that a cheer or a jeer?
By Johnson
April 28, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this
Randy,
Broccoli don’t run toward the moon at 3:21 on mondays!
Does that statement make any sense? Have I provided any explanation of what that means, if it’s true, or why I even wrote it?
Do you explain anything or just throw out idiotic statements that are below a seven year old?
Don’t you feel foolish just saying stuff with nothing to support it? I mean you don’t think anyone really takes you seriously do you?
Your just doing this for fun aren’t you?…yes that must be it..just playing around…no one can be that much of a moron.
By lozen
April 28, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, get thee back to Medieval times where you can find a lord and a king to bow down and grovel before. You’ve had a lot of practice! Take that cat of nine tails and whip thyself to a bloody pulp! Put on thy hair shirt! Feel guilty whenever you have a sexual thought. Crawl on your knees until they bleed! You would be such a happy man there.
By lozen
April 28, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
Randy, so you’re saying you are available to take over Norman and Brian’s companies or jobs?
By lozen
April 28, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
Oops, you said talking and “reasoning” jackass Randy and that lets you out.
By Alex
April 28, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this
I guess I can see why some people choose not to believe in God. If you don’t believe He’s real or that there’s a hell or heaven then you don’t have to answer for what you do. Anything goes!!!
Or there’s the ‘we’re all going to heaven’ mindset that also allows for living any way you want to with no repurcussions later. Some people don’t want to admit they’ve sinned or done anything wrong.
Then you have the ‘we’re all godlike and therefore I don’t need God’ people. They don’t want to give anyone that kind of power over themselves so they must be the one who is god-like an in need of no other gods.
P.S. Anyone on here a Scientologist? I hear those are some strange folks!!!
By Boscoe
April 28, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this
Eliseo RÃÂÂos, that was great! Jennifer, sorry that’s wrong. Catholics DO hold the Bible as the final and unequivocal Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God made Flesh. Do you remember that part before you left? Brett,From early times Christians have believed, and not without reason, that she of whom was born the Son of the Most High received privileges of grace above all other beings created by God. He “will reign in the house of Jacob forever,” “the Prince of Peace,” the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” And when Christians reflected upon the intimate connection that obtains between a mother and a son, they readily acknowledged the supreme royal dignity of the Mother of God. Hence it is not surprising that the early writers of the Church called Mary “the Mother of the King” and “the Mother of the Lord,” basing their stand on the words of St. Gabriel the archangel, who foretold that the Son of Mary would reign forever, and on the words of Elizabeth who greeted her with reverence and called her “the Mother of my Lord.” Thereby they clearly signified that she derived a certain eminence and exalted station from the royal dignity of her Son. So it is that St. Ephrem, burning with poetic inspiration, represents her as speaking in this way: “Let Heaven sustain me in its embrace, because I am honored above it. For heaven was not Thy mother, but Thou hast made it Thy throne. How much more honorable and venerable than the throne of a king is her mother.” And in another place he thus prays to her: “…Majestic and Heavenly Maid, Lady, Queen, protect and keep me under your wing lest Satan the sower of destruction glory over me, lest my wicked foe be victorious against me.”From these considerations, the proof develops on these lines: if Mary, in taking an active part in the work of salvation, was, by God’s design, associated with Jesus Christ, the source of salvation itself, in a manner comparable to that in which Eve was associated with Adam, the source of death, so that it may be stated that the work of our salvation was accomplished by a kind of “recapitulation,” in which a virgin was instrumental in the salvation of the human race, just as a virgin had been closely associated with its death; if, moreover, it can likewise be stated that this glorious Lady had been chosen Mother of Christ “in order that she might become a partner in the redemption of the human race”; and if, in truth, “it was she who, free of the stain of actual and original sin, and ever most closely bound to her Son, on Golgotha offered that Son to the Eternal Father together with the complete sacrifice of her maternal rights and maternal love, like a new Eve, for all the sons of Adam, stained as they were by his lamentable fall,” then it may be legitimately concluded that as Christ, the new Adam, must be called a King not merely because He is Son of God, but also because He is our Redeemer, so, analogously, the Most Blessed Virgin is queen not only because she is Mother of God, but also because, as the new Eve, she was associated with the new Adam.
By Jennifer
April 28, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this
Boscoe,
Sorry, I’ve got it on pretty good authority that I was correct. Before I left I held lots of counsel with a Priest who is a close friend of mine. If the Catholics believed that the Bible is the final and unequivocal word of God then the Catholics would be just like the Protestants. You yourself said that Catholics believe that the Bible does not contain all of Gods word. That means it’s not final or complete, if you will.
If there’s any Christian Faith I know, it’s Catholicism. I was raised in a Marist Parish, so I know a thing or two about Mary, too.
But, you know, you can believe what you want…
By Boscoe
April 28, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
Lozen, if I did that for you I’m sure it would be OK. Isn’t that what every woman wants from a man? LOL
By Boscoe
April 28, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
Jennifer,I don’t discount your knowledge of Catholicism. Nevertheless, I have the same Catholic background as you. The Catholic faith believes in the Bible and tradition. This doesn’t mean the Bible is not God’s word or is incomplete. The Protestants beleive one may only draw on what is in the Bible. In other words Tradition doesn’t count.
By lozen
April 28, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer was a cheer and not a jeer!
By norman
April 28, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that theology is bunkum.
The more you say Boscoe the more ridiculous your beliefs are shown to be.
By Jennifer
April 28, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
Well, then Boscoe, we were saying the same thing.
Thank you lozen, I can use all the cheer I can get.
Off to baseball practice….!
By Mary
April 28, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this
God the Father, or God the Mother? What’s the difference? Well, when you think that God is a formless, genderless spirit, it doesn’t really make any difference at all. Until you begin to realize the astounding ramifications of choosing one or the other. These connotations influence every aspect of Western Society. Culturally, Father evokes authority, judgment and control, while Mother connotes nurturing and growth.
Granted, we use the title, Holy Mother Church, but to me this seems more nominal than functional. For example, our prayers begin with, “In the name of the Father…â€?, our creed, “I believe in God, the Father almighty…â€?, the Lord’s prayer, “Our Father, who art in heaven.â€? Although Christ, a man, referred to his parent as Father, I would find it difficult, indeed, to believe that God intended to present a one-gender image of the Church. Where is the balance? Where is our Mother image? In Mary, the mother of God — the “Hail Mary?” In practical terms, what role does the feminine image of Mary play in Church machinations? God is a formless spirit with, of course all the characteristics the Spirit has bestowed on mothers and fathers and much more – so, why has the Church not balanced their projection of images, unless to firmly establish patriarchy alone, thereby negating matriarchy? The nurturing image of women was prevalent in early years of the Church, with Church leaders gradually changing women’s imagery from nurturing to seducing — with sexual power abhorrent to Church leaders. In other religions also, the sexuality of women is projected as unclean. That seems to be why, in Hinduism, Islam and Judaism, women who are menstruating cannot take part in religious practices, and after giving birth they must undergo a cleansing ritual. Although the Roman Catholic Church has no such rules, neither do we have Roman Catholic women who have the authority to consecrate the Host – to transform it to the body and blood of Christ. Women are the traditional life-givers and nurturers of society, albeit without authority and status of men, so if Christ gave the Holy Eucharist to us as our physical image of his nurturing, nowhere saying this power would be limited to men, wouldn’t it seem logical for women as well as men to transubstantiate the host?
For more than 2,000 years, the Church has been a single-parent entity. Wouldn’t it be appropriate, finally, with so many dysfunctional single-parent families in our society, to integrate the mother-father aspects so as to project balanced imagery?
By lozen
April 28, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
Boscoe, sounds to me like you’re having carnal thoughts. Better get thyself to confession right away! I can’t remember, was it you who said Mary had to remain a virgin forever? Where did her other children come from? And did she have to remain a virgin forever to keep from being lowered and stained from the sex act?
By Jack
April 28, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
Mr. Johnson, I was just kidding in my post. Don’t let it bother you. Remember “sticks & stones”
By Julie
April 28, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
I could not agree with you more. Allowing same sex marriages and homosexuality in the church, seems to me, should be a mortal sin.
What do the clerics do when they get to the part of the Bible that says a man shall not ly with another man? Do they just jump over that part??? If the Bible is the “book of directions” for Christianity then it should be followed completely. What’s next, through out, “thou shall not kill” for — It is ok to kill if you have a good reason.
We are in a serious moral decline in this world and it scares me to pieces. No, the Pope should follow the Bible — even though it was written by men who lived hundreds of years after Christ — it is still a remarkable guide book.
By Brian Curtis
April 28, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this
quote: “I guess I can see why some people choose not to believe in God. If you don’t believe He’s real or that there’s a hell or heaven then you don’t have to answer for what you do. Anything goes!!!”
Alex, that’s a pretty simplistic (not to say simpleminded, mind you) viewpoint. A nontheist could just as easily ask,
“Why do you want credit for your virtuous behavior when you’re only doing it to get a reward from God, or because he’ll punish you if you don’t? How is that ‘being a good person’?”
See what I mean? Virtue depends on your frame of reference. As for having “no consequences” and “do what you want”… umm, are you familiar with our justice system? Jail? Fines? Execution, even? There are PLENTY of consequences for our actions, whether we believe in ‘eternal’ ones or not.
In fact, it could be argued that nontheists are MORE likely to behave in a moral and ethical manner because they know/believe that this life, this world, is all we get. That means life is precious, and relying on some deity to sort it all out afterwards is erroneous. Better to make things better in THIS world, right now.
By Whiley
April 28, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this
Hey Jack have you seen that new show “office”? It is VERY funny ! Come to think of it TV has improved so much. There are a lot of good shows on. Lost, DH, what is that comical hospital show? That end of the world, Revelations or something series is excellent to. It was on last night.
By chuck
April 28, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this
Nice try Brian, but it just won’t wash. Again, you used a favorite old trick of taking partial information you got from a website and using it to “prove” your point. Then when called on that, you say the following:
Darwin’s alleged “recanting:� So now you’re claiming that every claim should be believed even if there’s no substantiation (Darwin’s supposed “rejection� of evolution)? That would certainly make for an exciting worldview�imagine! Everything you hear is presumed true, simply because it’s claimed. UFOs abduct people every day; the Trilateral Commission is in charge of Hollywood; leprechauns live in my basement. My WORD, what a fun world that would be!
First, you know good and well that I did not say that it could be believed because it was claimed. What I said was that it couldn’t be refuted based on the website that YOU cited. If you know anything about rhetoric, then you know that what you did with that statement was AN ACTUAL USE OF A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT DEFINED AS:
The Straw Man fallacy is a rhetorical technique that caricatures the opponent’s position to make it easier to attack. The metaphor is of someone who builds a straw man or scarecrow and then knocks it down and gloats over his accomplishment. This is not much of an accomplishment, though, because the idea attacked is not the idea the opponent held in the first place. The one using the straw man ploy attacks his own understanding of his opponent’s opinion — not his opponent’s actual position.
You also threw in a little “slippery slope tactic” that I found amusing. For those not familiar with rhetoric it is defined as:
With the reductio ad absurdum approach, one carries the opponent’s position to its logical end, without mentioning that this is not the inevitable result of the opponent’s viewpoint. Of course, if the consequences of an argument are inevitably absurd, the argument is flawed.The slippery slope fallacy often constructs a scenario leading to an end so extreme that one should never take the first step. “Eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream will cause you to put on weight. Putting on weight will make you overweight. Soon you will weigh 350 pounds and die of heart disease. Eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream leads to death. Don’t even try it.” So much for your UFO’s theory.
Finally, you are guilty of the Red Herring rhetorical fallacy, which is defined as:
The “red herring” fallacy draws its image from the English fox hunt. Reportedly, certain unethical people competing in such fox hunts would place a smelly herring in the track of their opponent’s dogs, thus getting the rival hunters off the track. The “red herring” fallacy is an argument that is not really related to the question at issue, but which is thrown into the debate in an attempt to move the discussion away from the point of stasis.
The question at issue was that of macroevolution, which as I defined it, is one kind changing to another kind. For this to occur there has to be a fossil record showing that change, but that is not the case. In the fossil record, species disappear suddenly, not over time. There are no transitional fossils.
Your first paragraph is nothing more than attempt to throw people off the trail with a false statement. You know good and well that evolution HAS and DOES claim such a thing. You did it yourself when you brought up the archaeopteryx.
By norman
April 28, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Of course poor Mary had about six children, the males are mentioned in the Gospels; there were a few girls as well.
By Jack
April 28, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
The hospital one is “Grey’s Anatomy” It’s pretty good. Boy didn’t Julie just open a BIG can of worms. Now we can sit back and enjoy. LOL! (You’re a cutie aren’t you Whiley?)
By lozen
April 28, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
Oh Mary, you make my heart sing with your perspicacious insight! I am serious!
By lozen
April 28, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
Julie, Julie, Julie, what do the clerics do when they get to the part of the bible that says it’s an abomination to handle the skin of a pig? Jump right over it while they cheer on the football team!
By Tim
April 28, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
Whiley… I really like DH… so entertaining… and speaking of new shows… after American Idol last night I watched that new Pamela Anderson show ‘Stacked’ (I was desperate for something to watch)… it was surprisingly very funny and entertaining… I believe I will even watch it again… you are right… there are some good shows that have come out… which is a very good thing because I have finally gotten to the point where I can recite almost every line of all the Golden Girls re-runs (still one of the best shows ever!) :)
By lozen
April 28, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
Julie, we already threw out “Thou shalt not kill.” It has changed to “Thou shalt not kill unless G.W. says we need the oil.”
By Brian Curtis
April 28, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this
Keep reading, Chuck; you’re making progress!
Now, as to your repeated requests for evidence of one “kind” changing to another “kind;” did you read far enough to see why your question is meaningless? “Kinds” is a term creationists have invented because they don’t like specific terms you can nail down, like “species” and “genus.”
This allows them to continually demand ever-higher levels of evidence for transitions between orders, classes, and even higher. Naturally, evolutionary theory makes no such claim—but creationists insist that it does!
Read the source materials, Chuck; read Nature and Science. Page through the translated-for-laymen examples of the fossil record and its transitions that I pointed you to. And then come back here and claim—if you can—that there are STILL no “transitions” in the fossil record, and that it’s all in the imaginations of damn near every biologist, taxonomist, anatomist, and genetic researcher on the planet.
I would like to hear your answer to the later question, though; why exactly have you conjured up this image of “evolution” (a mass theory of Anti-Godliness, it seems) as something that requires you to bitterly fight against it? Somehow I doubt you view Newton’s Laws of Motion that way, even though they don’t mention a creator either.
By Jack
April 28, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
Seinfeld is getting old too. Haven’t watched Lost yet. Missed too much of it to catch up. Were there dinosaurs on the island?
By lozen
April 28, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
Tim, The Golden Girls! I loved that show. “Menopause is when you get to stop buying maxi pads and then… you grow a mustache!
By Jack
April 28, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
There really is no “missing link” evolution is a slow gradual process. Look at humans. Every generation is getting taller and our eyes are getting closer together. I’m no expert by any means, just some thoughts.
By Tim
April 28, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this
ahhhh lozen… a woman after my own heart!! :) (I watch it every night on Lifetime from 6-7… have I ever mentioned that I am gay? I sure wouldn’t have to now lol)
I just read an article with Betty White and she was giving her opinion on the gay penguins in Germany (or where ever they are) and she said ‘well when they are dressed that nice you would expect some of em to be gay’
well said! hahaha ;)
By Brett
April 28, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this
Boscoe- You stated several things I diagree with: From early times Christians have believed, and not without reason, that she of whom was born the Son of the Most High received privileges of grace above all other beings created by God. I again see no reference to that in my bible. Mary is not responsible for our salvation. That was the finished work of JESUS. He alone was on that cross.
“…in which a virgin was instrumental in the salvation of the human race…” She was as instrumental to it as was Joseph and the disciples.
…”it can likewise be stated that this glorious Lady had been chosen Mother of Christ “in order that she might become a partner in the redemption of the human race…” She was blessed by God to have given birth to Him but she had/has no supernatural powers and did not die on the cross or make a sacrifice so that we can be saved.
“…and if, in truth, “it was she who, free of the stain of actual and original sin…” Whoa, another false statement from the Catholic church. Mary was not free of original sin. The bible says we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. Mary was just like you or me except she was blessed with birthing Jesus.
“… the Most Blessed Virgin is queen not only because she is Mother of God, but also because, as the new Eve, she was associated with the new Adam…” Comparing Jesus and Mary to Adam and Eve???? Come on Boscoe. I can’t believe the extend that Catholics have changed Mary’s role in life. She now has super powers and can save you as well as having made a sacrifice along with Jesus on the cross??? Everything I’ve been taught as a Christian and read in the bible goes against this and the other Catholic teachings. But I appreciate your sharing your information and views on this as well as the other issues I had. Almost time to head home…see you folks tomorrow. Hope all of you have a great evening!:)
By Jack
April 28, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this
I’m going to go home and put a lime in the coconut and drink um all up. Have a good one folks!
By lozen
April 28, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
I was going to respond to Alex, Brian but you did it so well. The one other thing I would like to say is, obviously we reap what we sow as proclaimed by yeshua, and many other philosophers. For example, if you accuse others of having no concience because they don’t believe what you believe, you can expect to reap disgust and dislike.
By Johnson
April 28, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
Jack,
No worries about my name…I hear it all the time.
Brian Curtis,
Nice to read a voice of reason concerning the field of evolutionary research. I’m going to be a full time graduate student in this field in the fall…fortunately not in Georgia. I just hope by the time I’m done, the Chuck’s and James Dobsons of the world haven’t infiltrated the university system. I’m sure they would like to totally eliminate certain curriculums if they could.
By Randy
April 28, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this
Johnson, where I come from people who call themselves Johnson are the morons. You are a clown.
By Tim
April 28, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this
Randy… very loving spirit you have… that will definitely win him to Christ… good for you… another jewel on your crown when you get to heaven
By Johnson
April 28, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this
Randy,
Ow…you got me there….guess I was wrong about you.
By Alex
April 28, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this
FYI: Christians get angry too. Christians make mistakes too. Christians are not PERFECT folks. You want to keep telling us that we are not perfect so we can’t be true Christians. Wise up…no one on this earth was ever perfect except Jesus. We, on nthe other hand, are a work in progress. Stop the “you’re not perfect so you don’t believe/follow Jesus” stuff folks.
By Johnson
April 28, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
Alex,
Glass houses…
gotta go..
By Randy
April 29, 2005 07:13 AM | Link to this
You know what I like is the non-believers can say anything to us Christians and we are suppose to be nice and sweet. I am a Christian but I am not a saint, you attack me, I fight back. As far a winning someone to Christ, that’s not in my power. A casual friend of mine died this week, he was on his death bed for a few weeks, if the non-Christians when they get to that stage want to face eternity without Jesus, knock yourself out. We Christians on this forum have tried to show you the light and you don’t want to see it. We have tried to help, but y’all don’t want help. If someone was drowning and I tried to pull them out of the water, if they continued to fight, I’d have no choice but to back off. As Forest Gump would say STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES.
By Paul Drwiega
April 29, 2005 08:04 AM | Link to this
Jesus never addressed the issues of birth control, whether to allow female priests, or whether to prohibit priests from marrying. All these rules were developed by the Church, i.e. they are man-made… and can be adapted to the times. The Church hierarchy is just so resistant to change it’s ridiculous. Remember how long it took the Church to recognize the world was round!
By norman
April 29, 2005 08:19 AM | Link to this
Paul: you are right that Jesus did not mention birth control or female priests. It is a perverse interpretation of Aristotle, part of the Hellenization of semitic Christianity which began with Paul, that gives the Roman Church its views on birth control. As for female priests, the fact that Jesus’ disciples were male (at least in the canonical gospels; in the others there were female disciples) is interpreted as prohibiting female priests. The Catholic Church is based on a combination of primitive semitic belief plus Greek philosphizing and Roman governance — an unholy mixture. Protestantism is slightly less Hellenistic slightly more semitic — but not really much, since the real Christianity of the Jewish Christians was entirely semitic, did not believe Jesus was divine, did not believe in any Trinity, and saw Jesus as a messianic liberator from the Romans. The closest thing to the original — like it or not — is Islam, particularly Shiite Islam. So, you Christers. Get on your knees, stick your butts in the air and say: There is no God but God and Mohammed is his Prophet! Ha! I’d like to see Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson on a prayer rug with their butts in the air. And you too Randy.
By Jack
April 29, 2005 08:19 AM | Link to this
We used to not eat meat on Fridays. If the chuch doesn’t do a little changing, they will continue to lose members. This ain’t the middle ages. God is in your heart not just in church.
By Marc
April 29, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this
There are a lot of misguided people out there. God’s law is not that of “relativism” and “progressivism”. One post said that “Jesus treated women as equals”? While they are equal, it is quite clear that the male of the species (throughout history this is true) has been the spiritual and physical leader.
Men and women ARE different and they each have different gifts that God blessed them with. Men have traditionally been the strong leaders and women have been the nurturing, loving caregivers. Like it or not, this is the way it was intended to be.
God has given man free will to do whatever he pleases. Man has blurred all of the boundaries into what we have today…broken homes, juvenile crime, etc. I applaud Pope Benedict for not being swayed by the “progressivism” of the day.
While Man’s law may shift with the winds of change, God’s law NEVER changes…
By norman
April 29, 2005 08:29 AM | Link to this
The law of God which doesn’t change includes: Gravity, Conservation of Matter, and the other laws of physics. There is no evidence of any law of God about the things you are talking about. You are confused, as should be expected of Christians.
Jack: eating meat on Fridays is not a good thing. Seafood is healthier and better tasting. The church does not always change for the better. Capital punishment, for instance, is a good way of emptying the jails. It should be extended not abolished.
By Lyrazel
April 29, 2005 08:29 AM | Link to this
I always wondered why if God is God why is God jealous of other gods? Happy birthday Tim. Long may you shine. Happy Friday.
By Heywood
April 29, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this
You people just don’t get it. The Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ through St. Peter. This is a 2000 year institution with a direct lineage to Christ. If you don’t agree with the doctrine of the faith then convert to one of the churches with a doctrine of convenience. Those of you who view Catholics and our faith as masogonistic and too conservative for “today’s society”, ask yourself one thing after you’ve exhausted yourself by spewing the popular rhetoric - “am I really right?”. Can you afford to gamble by taking an adverse position to the Church. When it comes right down to it, popular or not, if I have to choose between your more liberal views of the modified Christian religion of convenience and the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church and the Holy Father have my vote now and always.
By Jack
April 29, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this
Yes seafood is better for you but I don’t have the luxury of living on the coast as you. We went to the Palm on our aniversary and I had a 5 lb. lobster. It was very good. So was the bill.
By Sandy
April 29, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this
So many posts, so little time.
Lozen: Thanks for the standing ovation; an honor coming from you. I should give credit where credit is due, though; I started re-reading Communion With God by Neale Walsch, as someone mentioned earlier this week; that which you quoted was a combination his work and mine… and God, too.
Jennifer: Nope, not UU (not even sure of what that is; I assume it a Universalist church?) I read stuff like Deepak Chopra, which is a mingling of science, biology, and comparative religion. It rings true to me.
Alex: It is a common misconception that people who do not belong to an organized/hierarchical religion, or are not Christian, are somehow immoral or amoral, and therefore have no ethics. I would never presume to speak for anybody else, but I can assure you that my conscience is, if anything, hypersensitive; I do not abide by “anything goes” because I think that one sows what one reaps during this lifetime. If you put out negativity, intolerance, superiority, or indifference, that is what you attract. This is precisely why I prefer to pursue my spiritual quest solo; it takes concentration to shut out the noise of another’s disapproval. I don’t have the energy to follow Boscoe’s Confucianistic tax-code religion. (Anyone admit to being converted after reading it?) It takes a huge amount of self-control and thoughtfulness to find compassion when I feel hurt by another’s misguided religious rant, but I still think we’re on the same path; perhaps in the afterlife we can discuss it over a beer or something.
I know when I’ve been touched by God; I don’t need anyone else’s doctrine to confirm it. It’s a process using reason, instinct, intuition, and biology touched by divinity. This is more real to me as any sacrament I every received because it comes from within.
As far as giving power over to anyone, on some level you’re right. Why should I give my spiritual power away to anyone but God? Why should I waste energy on religions that are too busy arguing about one truth, when we are in fact surrounded by many truths? There’s lots of squabbling amongst Christians themselves; I grew up Catholic (and fortunately outgrew parts of it) and I have heard the accusations from Baptists and other fundamentalists that Catholics are not real Christians. The latest fascination with the pope across denominations is intriguing, but division remains. Brett insists in this very blog that his Bible is different…and that Catholics believe something vastly different by recognizing Mary… What about the conflicting creation stories? Which is true? Did Eve come from Adam’s rib, or was she created out of clay like he was? Given the choice, I’ll focus on compassion, thanks. It’s where my attention is needed.
This religious power grab is precisely why we need separation of church and state, otherwise political and social chaos will ensue as battles rage over whose religion is the most correct.
You are certainly correct in your assessment that we all sin. We certainly do. Christians, non-Christians, everyone. Some think that Christ’s moment of doubt and pain in the Gethsemene and on the cross were sinful, to have doubted God. (I find this human weakness a spiritual touchstone for the average person, that it’s okay to have doubt, to ask why we’re forsaken. It shows that Jesus, too, bought into the “illusion” of mortal reality, if only for a moment.
Brian Curtis: Your careful explanations about evolution win you the prize for Most Patient Man on the planet, (except for my husband who tried to teach me how to drive a manual transmission in his new car many years ago…)
Mary, I loved the single-parent analogy of Christianity.
Do you ever wonder if God carried through with his deal? Since the BVM (Blessed Virgin Mary) was born without original sin (that’s the real Immaculate Conception) do you think she had pain with childbirth? If so, I hope she didn’t have a 37-hour labor like I did… I didn’t have to ride the donkey, but in retrospect it might have moved things along.
Randy-So sorry about your friend.
Namaste, all.
By Jack
April 29, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this
“Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now. Right now, right now!”
By Tim
April 29, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel… THANK YOU THANK YOU… that means a lot coming from someone with such wonderful character and intelligence :)
The BIG 2 3… officially in my ‘early to mid twenties’ (I know how to make every bday seem special hahaha)… time to ‘live it up!’ ;)
By Tim
April 29, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this
Sandy… WOW… you are sooooo cool (I know I sound like a dork haha)… you sound like such an interesting person… when is your first book coming out?? :)
By RS
April 29, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this
Tim: HAPPY BIRTHDAY, SWEETIE!!!! XOXOXOXOX!!! How about a “Golden Girls” (LOVE that show! “Back in St. Olaf..” “Shut up, Rose!”) marathon, lots of good eatin’, & a slew of hot Chippendale dancers to administer birthday spankings?? (Oooh, I’m getting nasty but I think you can handle it!) Anyway, how are you celebrating?
By Sandy
April 29, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this
Tim-Very nice of you to say. No book yet…but I’ll send you one as a belated birthday present.
By chuck
April 29, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this
Marc, Good post. I said essentially the same thing back on Monday. We are wired differently and that makes a difference in our roles.
Heywood, Christ founded the Church on Peter’s STATEMENT OF FAITH, not on PETER. The idea of a POPE I think was about the furthest thing FROM the mind of Christ when He established it. If you look at the way the early churches operated, you will see that no ONE person was in charge of anything. They each operated independently and selected men from among their own members as elders to see to the day to day ministry of the Church.
The purpose of the COMFORTER (the Holy Spirit)that Christ promised to send when He ascended to heaven was so that we could have direct access to the Father. Christianity is a personal relationship with God through Christ. We don’t need to ask a Priest for forgiveness, though the Bible clearly teaches that we should confess our sins one to another…not for forgiveness, but for accountability, to help us to stay on the right path.
By Jack
April 29, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this
23? I’ve got socks older than you! LOL! Happy Birthday. May the bluebird of happiness not poop on you.
By chuck
April 29, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this
Happy Birthday Tim, Now go find yourself a good woman and settle down.
By Randy
April 29, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this
Tim, HAPPY BIRTHDAY. GOD BLESS.
By Tim
April 29, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this
oh I am starting to feel the love!! :)
RS… that sounds like a FABULOUS way to celebrate… the Golden Girls ROCK… when my nana starts sounding like she is drunk I just ‘Shady Pines nana, Shady Pines’… that usually leads to a nice little glare from her hahahaha… my mom and grandparents are actually coming into town this evening… so this will probably be a nice quiet ‘family’ birthday… have to wait until next weekend for anything of the ‘homosexual’ nature hahaha… but I do have my birthday button on… it says ‘it’th my birthday… wanna spank me?’… I got to work this morning and asked all the ladies ‘ok who is first?’… they enjoyed that :)
Sandy… sounds good… I will look for it in the mail :)
Jack… dang what detergent do you use on your socks… I would love to keep mine that long… that’s a great way to save money… thanks for the birthday wishes as well :) I will look out for those dang blue birds!
chuck… hahahaha… thanks… I would but unfortunately I haven’t found a woman that will have me and still let me have a boyfriend on the side… oh wait… does a drag queen count??? (I kid I kid)… well I hope 50% is good enough… I have the ‘settled down’ part down cold… guess I will have to work on that whole good woman thing :)
Randy… thank you
By lozen
April 29, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this
Marc, the male of the species has been the spiritual and physical leader throughout recorded history because we’ve lived under patriarchy throughout recorded history. Before that a lot of people believe women and the goddess ruled. There is some archeaological evidence for that. And haven’t all these male leaders led us into a peaceful, loving, beautiful world?
By Jack
April 29, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this
Women should be cherished as they give us the miracle of childbirth. Physically men are superior but haven’t seen one have a baby yet.
By lozen
April 29, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this
Marc, you say, “God has given man free will to do whatever he pleases.” But NOT to women who want to be priests, right? What’s wrong with a priest who is a nurturing, loving, caregiver? It is an RCC male power trip that keeps women from being priests, and that’s all.
By RS
April 29, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this
Tim: OK, are you able to sit down yet, PUSSYCAT??? (LOL) Enjoy celebrating with your family! Well, I volunteer for the position & yes, you can keep your fine fella as long as I can keep mine! And Tim? “Thank you for being a friend”
By Tim
April 29, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this
RS… well I can still sit down but I did have a co-worker glady volunteered to be the first with the birthday ritual lol
somehow I knew you would be the first to volunteer to be the ‘good woman’ in my life ;)
“we’ll travel down the road and back again… your heart is true… you’re a pal and a confidant… thank you for bein a friend… and if you threw a party and invited everyone you knew-ew-ew you would see the biggest gift would be from me and the card attached would say ‘thank you for bein a friend’” ;) haha… that just made my day
By lozen
April 29, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this
Sandy, you are a beautiful spirit. I want your book too. The Unitarian Universalist church is what Jennifer asked about. The thing I like about UU is that it believes in the dignity of each person and allows each person to seek the spiritual path they feel is right for them. Buddhists go there, christians go there, theist go there and atheists and agnostics are welcome also. It has a very good adult education program. I loved this, “I know when I’ve been touched by God; I don’t need anyone else’s doctrine to confirm it.” I prefer not to use the word god because it means something different to everyone and people like Boscoe, et al, think I mean what they mean when they say god but I understand exactly what you mean. Ditto. And what Mary wrote was great.
By kimberly
April 29, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Tim! Hope you enjoy your birthday spanking… {;->
By Tim
April 29, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this
hahaha Kimberyly… THANKS!! you know I will!!! ;)
By RS
April 29, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this
Tim: A hard-cover book down the seat of your pants will shield you from your office of over-eager spankers. See what a holy terror I was as a child??? Well, I dunno about GOOD woman; right now I’m having visions of a hot, unclad male dancer jumping out of your birthday cake. Somehow I just knew “Thank You For Being A Friend” would be a viable alternative to plain old “Happy Birthday” but plain, old “Happy Birthday” to you too!
By RS
April 29, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
Sandy, I’m no stranger at all to the UU Church & the writings of Deepak Chopra & am greatly looking forward to owning your book (personally autographed, of course!) when it comes out. I know you’ll be a divine inspiration to many & I’m sure you already are!
By kimberly
April 29, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this
Ooooo, oooo, oooooo! Can I watch?
By Jack
April 29, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this
Lozen, did you read the DaVinchi Code? Lots of food for thought. The church of course calls it blasphemy. Most of the really religious folks I know are afraid to read it. I tell them that if a book can affect their faith, then they didn’t have good faith to begin with.
By Tim
April 29, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this
RS… that book thing is a really good idea… but my butt looks really good in my jeans today LOL… I don’t wanna mess that up… I will just hafta tough it out ;) someone else jumping out of the cake would be a nice change of pace… usually I am the one doing the jumpin and the dancin (I kid I kid) hahahaha
By Tim
April 29, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this
you are definitely invited kimberly ;)
Jack… excellent point about someone worried about a book altering
By Jack
April 29, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this
Tim, try angel soft toilet paper. Works for the little one on the commercial when she gets spanked.
By Tim
April 29, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
Jack… hahaha… thanks for the tip :)
By vince
April 29, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this
If the male gender were truly the dominant sex, we’d never have fist fights, wars, the quest for “World Domination” (Cue the echo effect), and so on.
Whenever a person stops thinking in a debate, that person starts hurling insults, or fists. Men fool themselves into thinking they are the rulers of the world, well… because they’re too stupid to realize they aren’t.
Let’s take a look at some of the wonderful things Bush’s Budget Busters have been up too…. Still a big fat no on the abortion issue, but a big fat yes on allowing breast implants. The message is… big breasts are hot, but it ain’t are fault if you get knocked up. Am I the only person who finds this vile? Approving artifical devices, which have proven to be toxic and/or fatal, for guys to gawk over, and yet, no on abortion. Why aren’t women getting 100 percent say on their bodies?
I’m not Catholic, although, I gotta tell you this story. I feel very close to you- I was dating a devout Catholic when I lived up north. Being raised Baptist, I had no clue about any other religion. One day, my partner comes home from work, and I thought there was a newspaper smudge on the forehead, and I was rapidly corrected. Ash Wednesday.
So, not being Catholic, I don’t follow the Pope. I know Michael Moore says the same things, but Bush doesn’t talk back to the Pope.
Should the Pope get with it? With priorities so far off course in this world, does it really matter that much? Pope John Paul II, may he rest in peace, probably had more than one spasm regarding the priests/alter boy affairs, but really, what impact did it really have?
And, since we’re arrogant and will do anything we want anyway, do we really even regard other people,in far off lands, that don’t have a nightly show on 700 Club?
By Sandy
April 29, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this
Lozen, thank you for the kind words. The philosophy is simple, really. I used to be a judgmental a*****, so I know how they think; that’s the kind of treatment I received from others in return. When I aim for mercy, compassion, and kindness, it comes back to me as such. For all our pain, suffering, sin, and redemption, (and who hasn’t had their share), I think Garp’s mother (in World According to Garp) had it right: There is much healing to be done here. It acknowledges the pain, but does not get lost in it. Every situation is opportunity to leave the world just a little bit better in whatever capacity you can.
I have a very self-deprecating personality and sense of humor, which I think gets lost with my posts at times, and my life is messy; I have to temper my sarcasm, which my husband says is my “superpower.” But if I am sure of anything in my life, it’s what I have humbly reiterated here.
I do put thought and time into how I express this stuff, (when I should be working…) and it’s good to know someone sees it in the spirit in which it is meant.
I do understand your ambivalence about using the word “God”; creator, spirit, higher power, etc., get cumbersome, especially when trying to convey an unconventional idea. The anthropomorphic patriarchical image just can’t cover the expanse of the ideas, thoughts, emotions, and energy that surround us. It could be a failure of language, too. “God” is just easier to type, too…
Anyway, I’m blushing, enough about me…
By lozen
April 29, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
Yes Jack I read DaVinci Code and found it very interesting although not the best writing around. I didn’t think the ending was very well thought out either. I would not be surprised if Yeshua were married since it was strange for a jewish man his age not to be married. But I haven’t read enough to know how much of the book was based on research and how much was pure fiction. I read a book entitled “The Jesus No One Knows” or something like that. The author believed Jesus and John the Baptist were members of an Essene group that did not marry. He said the spot where Jesus was baptised is near an old monastery at Quamran (?) and the place where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. There are many other books coming out about Mary Magdalene - wish I had more time to read. In one gospel story it was she and other women who saw the angels at the tomb and discovered Yeshua was gone. The women were the only ones who stuck with him through the crucifixion - the other disciples fled in fear. That’s part of what I don’t understand about women not being able to be priests, etc. You would think those women would be the ones to carry on his teachings and I believe they probably did. But then centuries later prejudice against women came into play again and they were written out of the hole-filled-book. That is, if any of that story is true. Some believe it was all invented at a later time, having found no historical evidence for Yeshua. It’s an interesting story but all religions have interesting stories, and we don’t even wonder if the story about Osiris being put back together and then impregnating Isis was true. That image of mother and child (Mary and Jesus) is exactly like the image of Isis and Horus from Egyptian religion!
By Jack
April 29, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this
Sandy, Reading your posts I doubt you were ever an a*e.
By Sandy
April 29, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this
Jack, really, I was. A big one. I have documentation and witnessess…
By lozen
April 29, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this
This quote kinda blew my mind. Think about it!
“Her parthenogenetic birth from Adam’s body makes Eve his daughter so that the Judeo-Christian tradition rests on a primal father-daughter incest motif”
By David
April 29, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this
Lozen - why do you hate men so much?
By RS
April 29, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
Tim, did the Angel Soft work?? I’d jump out of the cake myself but I’m afraid I’d EAT my way through? Hey, did you her about the bulimic bachelor party? The CAKE came out of the GIRL!
By RS
April 29, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
I never got the impression that lozen hates men
By David
April 29, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this
RS - She left me with that impression
By Jack
April 29, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
I don’t think Lozen hates men. She just doesn’t like when women are given an inferior role. Like in the Catholic church. Correct me if I’m wrong Lozen.
By norman
April 29, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this
There are historians who believe the Qumran Community was made up of the followers of Jesus. They were wiped out in the war with Rome 70-76AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls which speak of an evil adversary of the Teacher of Righteousness (Jesus?) may be references to Paul of Tarsus.
It is interesting that “people of faith” generally have no faith in history or historical evidence.
By norman
April 29, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
Jack: you are wrong about religious people not reading the Davinci Code book. It is very popular among Catholics who are suspicious and have always been suspicious about their church’s real history, not the history taught them.
By Tim
April 29, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this
RS… hahahaha
lozen doesn’t hate men… she just does not like dumb people… since a lot of men are dumb it just seems like she hates men :)
By norman
April 29, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
Well, the crowds of the pious and the curious have left St. Peter’s Piazza. The Princes of the Church, their red skirts flowing in the Spring breezes, have left their dinners of Saltimbocca alla Romana and Montepulciano wine to return to their palaces in Chicago and Krakow and Lagos where dinners of Kielbasa or Missionary Stew await them. The new Pontifex Maximus (the title of the Roman Emperors who led the Roman religion before Christianity) hasn’t said or done anything public. We can forget all the hoopla until some poor theologian is next disciplined for using his own mind instead of the insights of Holy MotherF….ing Church. It was a blast, this return to 1100AD nostalgia, but the Roman Church will continue to be more and more irrelevent as overpopulation destroyes Latin America and Africa and underpopulation destroys “Christian Europe” as it increasingly becomes Islamic Europe.
As the Romans said: Ave atque vale!
By Jack
April 29, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
Norman, many of the ones I know won’t. The priests in the church encourage their members not to read it. Did you read it?
By DAvid
April 29, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this
Jack - I’m not trying to be flippant or anythiing…I just have quietly read the posts for a while and that was the impression I got
By Crystal
April 29, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
Well, I’m a “people of faith”. I haven’t read the DaVinci Code. It is a current novel in which I have no interest in its fictional suppositions. To what evidence are you referring, Norman, when you say “people of faith” have “no faith in history of historical evidence”?
By RS
April 29, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
David: maybe it’s just YOU she doesn’t like. OK, just kidding, it’s Friday! Tim, there are plenty of dumn women around too. Of course I am not one of those, hee!
By lozen
April 29, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this
Tim, you de man! David, darling, whatever did I say that made you think I hate men? I don’t hate “men.” I have a son I love very much. I work with several men I dearly love, I have male friends I love, I was married to a man I loved. I have, as a matter of fact, fallen in love many, many times with men. I love male energy; I have a lot of what’s considered male energy myself! I could just stand by Tim’s very correct statement that I “just hate dumb people and …” but please, what did I say that hurt your feelings?
By RS
April 29, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Oops! “DumB”, not “dumN”. Sorry; my bad! Guess I AM one of those “dumn women”.> I need to read “Spelling For DumNies!”
By norman
April 29, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
Jack: yes, I already mentioned what junk the Da Vinci Code is, but I still think the fact is most important that so many Catholics are reading it. They are hungry for information they feel they have been deprived of. Unfortunately they will learn nothing true in this novel. They need to read biblical scholarship but that requires attention and application and Catholic minds are not especially devoted to hard thought and work.
Most Catholics, even if they have never been on a farm, are still peasants at heart.
By Tim
April 29, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
thanks lozen… I figured I would be somewhat accurate ;)
RS… you are seriuosly making me ‘lol’… when you find that spelling book please let me know where it is… I have the same problem… God bless spell check :)
By David
April 29, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
Lozen - Perhaps it is a case of misinterpreting you when you get your blood up. I won’t waste your (or anyone else’s time) by trying to go back and pull quotes from previous entries. It just seems that you lay the entire landscape of the wolrd’s woes at the doorstep of the male gender
By norman
April 29, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
Crystal: if you tell a “person of faith” that scholarship undermines a belief of his, he will prefer to believe what is untrue rather than face the challenge.
By Jack
April 29, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
Norman, you like to paint with a broad brush.
Spell check is for “wusses”
By lozen
April 29, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this
Tim, RS, Jack,thanks for your support. Ahhhhhhh, I feel the love too and it’s not even my birthday!
By Bruce
April 29, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this
Happy Birthday Tim, may you have many more and 10 times the happiness.
By Crystal
April 29, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
That’s not evidence, Norman. That is just an opinion.
By norman
April 29, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
What’s an opinion., Crystal? Every person of faith on this site refuses to consider the evidence of scholarship and science. It’s not an opinion. Believers refuse rational evidence, that is what a believer is. Faith not reason.
Just try: ask a question and you will get a biblical quote, even though reason tells us the bible is nothing more than the opinion of those that wrote it — and it wasn’t the Holy Spook that wrote it, believe it or not.
By Bruce
April 29, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
Words of encourgment for who ever wants them.
Please remember the fight we fight is not of this world. It is of the spritual world of which we have no control. Offer everything up in prayer and allow God to use the words you have written this week to touch the hearts and lives of those that have read them.
Prayer does not need PROOF, it needs PRACTICE!
Have a good weekend all! See ya next week:-)
By Jack
April 29, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this
“Holy Spook”? Jimminy Cricket….
By lozen
April 29, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this
Vince I wanted to say something earlier about your post today but lunch came along …I understand what you’re saying and agree. I remember the first time I saw someone with ashes on their forehead in the Episcopal Church in the SW. I didn’t know what it was either. We got off work on Good Friday at noon there and people walked for 30, 40, 50 and more miles carrying crosses in some cases, to a little church in the mountains which was known for miraculous cures (room full of crutches and wheelchairs left by the cured). The population was mostly Catholic, hispanic and native american and Ash Wed, Good Friday, and Easter seemed much more important in that culture than it is here. A move of just 1500 miles opened up a whole new culture and awareness of a different religion to me. “Travel is the enemy of prejudice,” as Mark Twain said.
By Jack
April 29, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this
Well I’ve never been to Heaven, but I’ve been to Oklahoma and they tell me I was born there, but I really don’t remember. In Oklahoma not Arizona….what does it matter.
Have a good weekend folks. (Maybe this song will get stuck in your head like mine all day!) LOL!!!
By norman
April 29, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
lozen: leaving New Mexico or Arizona for Georgia is not benefiting from travel, it is going from a marginally Catholic area to the bible belt: some trip!
By lozen
April 29, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
Jack, we do not know how long Norman may have tried patiently to open the minds of some people on this blog about religion before he realized it can’t be done. Maybe after months of patiently explaining, much as Brian and Michael tried to do this week, he realized nothing he could say would work. Maybe at that point he just threw up his hands and said, “Sheeeet, I’m just going to blurt out anything that will get a reaction from them!” I can understand that; I’ve been at that place myself, haven’t you?
By Tim
April 29, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this
Jack… I must be a wuss then cus I gotsta have my spell check lol
Bruce… thanks for the birthday wishes
lozen… you always have the love :)
By kimberly
April 29, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Has anyone noticed the blog master doesn’t want us to post about Jane Fonda? I was TRYING to get into it over there, but posts didn’t show up until HOURS later, and now, not at all. Blog mater must REALLY hate Jane.
By Crystal
April 29, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
Once again, Norman/PhD, you give a biased opinion based on misinformation. As to the people who post on this blog, I for one, have a BS degree in biology and work in a clinical laboratory. Most people who post on this blog are not as stupid as you infer nor do they ignore science and scholarship.
The Bible is considered one of the greatest books of literature in the world. Why not study it? You are not anymore sure who wrote the Bible than the people who quote it. Your biased opinion offers no evidence to verify anything. Writing “Holy Spook” may appease your bitterness but it is truly childish.
By RS
April 29, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Believe it or not, Tim, I really can spell, it’s just that sometimes my fingers move faster than my brain, which CAN get a girl in a LOT of trouble! Back at ya, lozen! (Why do some “think”(?!?) that if you’re an advocate of women being treated fairly, then you’re a tobacco-chewing, buzz-cut, army-boot wearing man-hater?)
By Bruce
April 29, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
OK RS we can bicker all you want about religion but you leave tobacco-chewing out of this:-)
By lozen
April 29, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this
Norman, I moved from Georgia, where I was born, to the SW when I was in my 40’s. I lived there almost 10 years. I would never have moved back here if not for family issues. You’re right, some trip! When I retire, I’ll spend most of the year out there and a few weeks here to see family. You’re also correct that it’s marginally catholic out there; nobody tries to convince you that you’re going to hell because you’re not catholic and the indians practice a mixture of catholicism and paganism that I found amazing considering that the catholicism was forced on them so violently by spanish priests. The first time I walked into an indian home and saw the saints on the altar I lost my breath! And even there I got a job working in an episcopal church which had a contingent of fanatics who surely were not as open minded as I’d always thought episcopalians were. So that also was a learning experience! Hearing the “father” of that church exclaiming, “People are wrong when they think Henry created the anglican church just so he could divorce his wife! What people don’t understand is that god worked through Henry to bring the anglican church into existence” was a trip. Catholicism is fascinating in many ways. What are those prayers worn on a cord around your neck called?
By Brett
April 29, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this
lozen stated, “That image of mother and child (Mary and Jesus) is exactly like the image of Isis and Horus from Egyptian religion!”
YES! You are exactly right! One of the many things I was getting at concerning Catholicism and it’s real roots!!!
I absolutely agree with chuck about whether Jesus would have the papacy in mind or not as He was about to return to heaven. He sent the Holy Spirit (NOT spook…those would come from the DEVIL norman, not from God) to guide us and be with us after He ascended to heaven. There’s no way I believe Jesus intended for one person to be the head of the church/followers. Jesus is the ONLY head of the church. The pope has been given power by men-not by God. In my opinion the pope has no authority to speak on what God would want, no authority to make doctrines or laws. Catholics place the pope on a pedestal so high that he is treated by them the way Christians would treat Christ. In my opinion Jesus would not want any person to be placed on so high a pedestal and to be deemed to have sole spiritual authority over His followers.
Catholicism and Christianity don’t agree. Christ paid for my sins on the cross…the idea of having to go to purgatory to FINISH paying for my sins makes a mockery of the cross!!!
The Catholic Church has used idols which God hates, and has tried it’s best to keep the people from reading the word of God as well as trying everything to keep their followers from going to God or Jesus directly in prayer or confession. Instead, they are told the church can interpret the bible FOR THEM. Instead, they are told to confess to a priest to be forgiven of sin. Instead, they are told to pray to Mary who has the same ability to take you to heaven and save you as does Abraham or Isaac or Noah. We are told that it is forbidden to try and communicate with the dead.
By lozen
April 29, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this
Brett are you saying you believe catholicism was based on the egyptian religion? In my opinion, Brett, Jesus himself would not want to be placed on so high a pedestal and to be deemed to have sole spiritual authority over his followers. But of course that’s just my opinion based on a lack of true fact just the same as yours.
By lozen
April 29, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
We do not know which christian was the first to write a book, but the earliest surviving works are by the Apostle Paul, who began to write letters to the churches he founded some twenty years after Jesus’ death. Soon thereafter, a flood of literature appeared, letters urging certain beliefs and lifestyles on christians, accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus; apocalyptic portrayals of the end time. These writings were produced by at least 17 different authors living in different countries.
By Brett
April 29, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this
Must be why Jesus said, “I Am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by Me.” (Jesus did NOT say “except by Me or Mary”!!!!!)
Where are the other Christians….anyone else disagree with Catholicism being the Christian authority???
By norman
April 29, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this
lozen:> the rosary is not supposed to be worn, it is supposed to be used to keep track of the various prayers of the rosary.
brett: like all Protestants you think the Catholics are superstitious and the Protestants are rational. Not at all. If you must be a damned Christian, better a Catholic with good music, good liturgy, good historical references, than a bare Protestant church with fat preachers and ranting and raving.
By David
April 29, 2005 05:22 PM | Link to this
RS - if that was directed at meet then I think you missed the point of an honest question I asked of Lozen and she partly answered