|
|
Post by franko on Dec 14, 2004 8:15:45 GMT -5
Thank you for your heartfelt reply. I hope you are not among those who insist that the world is 6,000 years old, that the universe was created in 6 days, and that evolution is an unproven theory. I consider myself to be a scientist and feel that the groups I mentioned are trying to impose their primitive beliefs. I am not pro-abortion. It is always regrettable but in some cases necessary. What infuriates me are "pro-lifers" who do nothing to relieve the misery of children and adults but are fixated on embryos. Yes, I should have included the Catholic church in my litany. Sorry for the omission. However, many if not most lay Catholics seem to be less rigid than the groups I have named. Ah, the typical liberal sentiment: my beliefs are so much better/more enlightened than yours. I have beliefs – period. You may disagree with them. I accept that. But please do not call me primitive for holding them, and do not impose your dogma on me just because you believe that you are right and I am wrong. I’m open to dialogue, not diatribe. A least you don’t come across with the I’m more tolerant than you are, you backwoods hick attitude that “we” evangelicals so often have to put up with. You might be amazed to know that some of us actually finished grade 8 and don’t just use our fingers to help us count. Within my small church you will find janitors and PhD’s; teachers, university professors, and day care workers; those on welfare and those who have money to share (and do). The caricature of evangelical Christianity is so much easier to accept than the truth. Get to know us! As to Bishop Ussher and the earth created in 4004 BC with all fossils intact? No. Classical Darwinism? No. Intelligent Design? Yes. Fixated on embryos is also a little harsh. I hold that life begins at conception; therefore an embryo is a life to be protected. What infuriates me is abortion being used as an after-thought means of contraception. Necessary in some cases? Yes. As often as it is used? No. But a fact of life, as much as I dislike it. I know there are all sorts of “what-if” scenarios that we can discuss . . . I’m just looking at the principle. Abstinence would prevent the need for so many abortions. Adoption is a better alternative. And we Christians have indeed let young pregnant women down with a lack of support. Yet come to our church and you will find that although we believe in chastity and suggest (strongly!) that people wait until they are married to have sex, there are single moms who attend and are supported by our congregation. You ask how can that be in a conservative-evangelical church filled with born-agains? WARNING: SERMONETTE COMING We born-agains believe in God’s love for everyone, saint and sinner alike. Hold it – the caricature is coming through again – there aren’t saints, just sinners who have found peace with God. As for George W. Bush, he was a wastrel who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth but educated himself too little while carousing too much and discovered religion at the age of 40. Without religion as a crutch he would relapse. [/b] Better that he go back to being a wastrel? If he were a Christian like Jimmy Carter who has done so much for the world I would respect him but he isn't.. Even Jimmy isn’t perfect (and for the record neither am I). And Jimmy didn’t do much for the world until after he left the presidency – it opened all sorts of doors for him. He's really for his rich supporters and is cynically using the conservative religious vote to get elected Ah, he’s a politician. John Kerry, Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, et al are different? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 14, 2004 9:38:47 GMT -5
Since we seem to have a "point to the web site" contest going on here . . . aldaily.com |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 14, 2004 11:58:18 GMT -5
Since we seem to have a "point to the web site" contest going on here . . . aldaily.comNice. Bookmarked. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 14, 2004 12:22:08 GMT -5
Nice. Bookmarked. Thanks. Ditto. Thanks Franco. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 14, 2004 13:38:13 GMT -5
In the natural order of things not every conception results in birth. Nature aborts the unviable. I do not condone planned abortion as an alternative to contraception. I see it as a difficult decision. Sometimes fetal development proceeds along a path that permits gestation of horribly impaired neonates. (I know this all to well and included it in a book I wrote on conception and birth.) Why should parents be saddled with this fate? It's not good for their souls because no one can prove there is a soul. There are other compelling reasons for abortion that I won't go into here.
So far as I can tell, most Canadians along with most Europeans and the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world detest George W. Bush. I can say anything I damn well please about him and about the crony capitalists who funded him and the benighted true believers who voted for him at the expense of their own economic and health interests. Oh yes, I am definitely in the ranks of scientifically trained people who regard intelligent design as mere creationist sophistry. It is a mental quirk peculiar to a faction among the religious minded in North America but not accepted by >95% of the 6 billion plus humans who inhabit this planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 14, 2004 17:28:04 GMT -5
In the natural order of things not every conception results in birth. Nature aborts the unviable. I do not condone planned abortion as an alternative to contraception. I see it as a difficult decision. Sometimes fetal development proceeds along a path that permits gestation of horribly impaired neonates. (I know this all to well and included it in a book I wrote on conception and birth.) Why should parents be saddled with this fate? It's not good for their souls because no one can prove there is a soul. There are other compelling reasons for abortion that I won't go into here. So far as I can tell, most Canadians along with most Europeans and the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world detest George W. Bush. I can say anything I damn well please about him and about the crony capitalists who funded him and the benighted true believers who voted for him at the expense of their own economic and health interests. Oh yes, I am definitely in the ranks of scientifically trained people who regard intelligent design as mere creationist sophistry. It is a mental quirk peculiar to a faction among the religious minded in North America but not accepted by >95% of the 6 billion plus humans who inhabit this planet. President Bush was not elected by Canadians, Europeans or Muslims. He has no debt or responsibility to them. He was elected by Americans and he is going to protect his constituency. In his own words, he has amassed capital in the election and he is going to spend it. John Ferguson did not care if he was liked in Toronto by the Toronto fans or the Toronto players. He was a Hab and his alegence was to his team and his players. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 14, 2004 20:38:09 GMT -5
Please don't compare a democratic government to a sports team. A coach may get away with "My way or the highway" but not an elected president. According to any legitimate constitution the rights of the minority must be respected. The losing candidate in the last election got more than 56 million votes, most of which were motivated by detestation of Bush and his policies. If Bush behaves like a tyrant he might get his comeuppance either while he is still in office or afterwards. I predict that in less than two years his approval rating will be pulverized by widespread disillusionment with the war in Iraq and discontent with the economy. I further predict that the Republican majority in both houses of Congress will shrink after the election of 2006.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 14, 2004 21:34:49 GMT -5
Some quotes from a man who saw the order of the world and beyond more clearly than most:
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one
I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice
God is subtle but he is not malicious
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind
Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind
Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones
Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 14, 2004 22:10:06 GMT -5
God, physics and Darwin Why scientists aren’t scepticalONE OF THE OBSTACLES which stands in the way of the Darwinian or neo-Darwinian programme to construct an adequate theory of human nature is science itself. For modern science was, as Bacon conceived it, and as it has subsequently developed, ‘a legitimate, chaste and severe form of inquiry.’[1] In these words we can see the influence of Puritanism on scientific thought at its most direct. An attitude of chastity is certainly fitting for the scientist probing into the secrets of mother nature. It is, however, in no way appropriate to the study of carnal humanity. When we confuse the pursuit of knowledge with the pursuit of virtue it is usually at the expense of truth. Truly scientific empiricism cannot be chaste. Although Freud challenged the chastity of science in a more interesting manner than any other thinker who has claimed, and sometimes been accorded, the title of ‘scientist’, his challenge was broken in its very conception both by his mentalism and by his parallel compulsion to subject emotional and erotic behaviour to a process of purificatory rationalisation. When he insisted on basing his theory of human motives on an essentially transcendental conception of ‘mind’ Freud was not only succumbing to the orthodoxies of nineteenth century psychology, he was also allowing himself to fall victim to the profound religiosity of Western science. This religiosity is by no means entirely confined to history. We have already encountered Stephen Hawking’s meditation on physics and cosmology as methods of exploring ‘the mind of God’. We might set this idea alongside the words of the physicist Paul Davies: It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion … science has actually advanced to the point where what were formerly religious questions can be seriously tackled.- www.richardwebster.net/godphysicsanddarwin.html
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 14, 2004 23:14:28 GMT -5
Euclidean geometry is neat and tidy but its theorems are "true" only on paper or other flat surface. Make that sheet of paper infinite and its intersection with the more or less spheroidal planet Earth, with its roughly 25,000-mile circumference, would be relatively infinitesimal. Einstein, for all his colossal intellect, was only consoling himself when he said that god doesn't play dice with the universe. There are many interesting alternatives to the belief that God is keeping an eye on His creation and mindfully causing perturbations in the system. One that I find attractive is that God started the ball rolling with the Big Bang and then stepped aside after imbuing the universe with many possible routes of development. In other words, the universe didn't have to turn out exactly the way it is today. This, of course, conflicts with "intelligent design." The question I would ask proponents of intelligent design is why have design? Why should there be a universe? Why should one planet in a remote corner of a small galaxy far from the center be the chosen theater for an implausible drama? Why produce wholesale extinctions? Why create imperfect organisms that slaughter themselves and other species? Why intervene at a particular point in time 2,000 years ago? Why deliver most people to Satan at the end of their lives? This smacks of anthropomorphism. And of course Hell would become overpopulated while Heaven would be so boring that it seems like Hell? If I were God and I wanted to act as the supreme puppeteer I would create perfect organisms instead of playing mind games with sinners and saints.  |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 14, 2004 23:35:29 GMT -5
Clever... there's now a banner at the top of this page about how to "save the unborn."
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 15, 2004 6:47:44 GMT -5
Einstein, for all his colossal intellect, was only consoling himself when he said that god doesn't play dice with the universe. So, Albert told you this when? Or are you consoling yourself by atrributing consolation to Einstein's remarks? Theories abound. One truth is the answer. Sounds like a supremely intelligent design to me. Sounds analogous to the freedom of choice granted to man once he left the Garden of Eden according to Jewish scripture. Also sounds like the the quality that is most fervently cherished by true believers who are working on developing forms of artificial intelligence. Too bad the schematics are not readily available. All these questions are best asked of God Himself (or whatever name you choose to give to the driving force of creation). All except the last one. People deliver themselves to Satan. Freedom of choice does not come bundled with wisdom. Besides, the illusory "reality" we experience here on God's blue golf ball was the domain granted to the Fallen One. Only if you believe that man is the ex-ape of evolution. I don't believe Heaven was modeled after Las Vegas. Iraq right now would afford one a Hell of a vacation. Yes, and you would also erase any trace of French assistance in the American War of Independence. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 15, 2004 6:50:58 GMT -5
Clever... there's now a banner at the top of this page about how to "save the unborn." I noticed that as well. However, with my last post I have induced a religious conversion in the ads. Hmmm, is there truth in false advertising? |
|
|
|
Post by Tattac on Dec 15, 2004 8:24:54 GMT -5
he said that god doesn't play dice with the universe. I heard this expression just a couple of days ago in the Life is a Miracle (movie of Emir Kusturica). I wonder what kind of advertising we will see if I start talking about the Noosphere theory  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 15, 2004 10:29:49 GMT -5
Theories abound. One truth is the answer. Sounds like a supremely intelligent design to me. People deliver themselves to Satan. Freedom of choice does not come bundled with wisdom. Reverend Father M. Beaux-Eaus to the rescue ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 15, 2004 12:09:20 GMT -5
Some quotes from a man who saw the order of the world and beyond more clearly than most: "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one
I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice
God is subtle but he is not malicious
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind
Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind
Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones
Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)The reason for Science is to explain the way the world/universe/atoms/gravity works and to enable us to predict cause/effect what will happen in the future. We now know that science is inexact and it is impossible to know minute details with certainty. Religeon helps us overcome this frustration and feeling of being powerless. The bigger the universe and more complex it becomes, the smaller and more powerless we become. In the recently discovered papers of Einstein at Princeton, his Nostradamus like prediction of the future: "In the next century, two small and weak men will attempt to negotiate a settlement. It is impossible to acurately know all the details or agree upon the variables that impact the overall scope of the settlement. Sports will cease for an indetermined period while the two pompus men take intransigent positions. Like King Canut, they will order their followers to stop thinking and talking; to no avail. A settlement will be reached, satisfactory to no one. Delay and inaction helps neither party." |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 15, 2004 12:24:44 GMT -5
"In the next century, two small and weak men will attempt to negotiate a settlement. It is impossible to acurately know all the details or agree upon the variables that impact the overall scope of the settlement. Sports will cease for an indetermined period while the two pompus men take intransigent positions. Like King Canut, they will order their followers to stop thinking and talking; to no avail. A settlement will be reached, satisfactory to no one. Delay and inaction helps neither party." SALON, FRANCE - Michel Nostradamus, celebrated clairvoyant of 16th century France has long been known for his eerily accurate predictions. He is credited with foretelling the rise of Nazi Germany, even getting as close as referring to the evil "Hister", only a mere letter away from the actual name of Roger Clemens. He also saw a lot of stuff about French kings that people say have come very close to being extremely vaguely true! Nostradamus wrote his predictions in "quatrains", simple, four line poems not too dissimilar to the lyric structure of a Destiny’s Child song, the exception being that Nostradamus used the word "mommas" much less frequently. Until now, everyone thought that all of his quatrains had been discovered, exploited, and analyzed. But this is not so! In an exciting announcement, the Nostradamus Society, located in Salon, France has revealed three never-before-seen quatrains, quatrains that are oddly specific. The original French texts are first, then the English translation is immediately following: La musique qui vient par l'ordinateur pour libre
suffoqué par la vis foursome métallique
ceux qui balding hors des idiots de contact
leur bassist tourne en colère dans son graveThe music that comes through the computer for free stifled by the Metallic foursome screw those balding out of touch idiots their bassist spins angrily in his grave Par année du millenium, en mois qui ryhmes avec " Floflember "
un film crappe avec que le gosse du Sixième Sens
traînera en bas des fortunes du studio malheureux de film des frères.
Beaucoup de larmes dans Macchiatos. Hommes tristes se tenant dans des chaussures de fantaisie.In the year of the millenium, in the month that ryhmes with "Fleeflember" A crappy movie starring that kid from The Sixth Sense will drag down the fortunes of the star crossed movie studio of the Brothers. Many tears in Macchiatos. Sad men standing in fancy shoes. Tandis que le nouveau siècle est de quatre jours
de les sénateurs d'Ottawa battent le garçon de Tampa Bay 8-3
ce Radek Bonk est bon
Tampa ne devraient pas avoir une équipe d'hockey de toute façonWhile the new century is four days old the Ottawa Senators beat Tampa Bay 8-3 Boy, that Radek Bonk is good Tampa shouldn't have a hockey team anyway - source de prophésie |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 15, 2004 12:28:46 GMT -5
Gotta work on my quatrains and cut down on my diatribes.  |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 15, 2004 12:30:52 GMT -5
Please don't compare a democratic government to a sports team. A coach may get away with "My way or the highway" but not an elected president. According to any legitimate constitution the rights of the minority must be respected. The losing candidate in the last election got more than 56 million votes, most of which were motivated by detestation of Bush and his policies. If Bush behaves like a tyrant he might get his comeuppance either while he is still in office or afterwards. I predict that in less than two years his approval rating will be pulverized by widespread disillusionment with the war in Iraq and discontent with the economy. I further predict that the Republican majority in both houses of Congress will shrink after the election of 2006. That prediction is similar to the ones Liberals made this year. Just when it seemed all was lost and Bush reached the bottom of his popularity..... |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 15, 2004 12:33:06 GMT -5
"I am convinced, God does not play with dice!" Einstein or overheard at the Las Vegas Blackjack tables?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 15, 2004 14:08:04 GMT -5
In the natural order of things not every conception results in birth. Nature aborts the unviable. True. But we are talking here about human intervention in viable births. Yet that is its primary purpose, is it not? Not that someone says “I’m going to get pregnant and have an abortion”, but there’s always the “if”. Agreed. Sometimes. But that is exceptional, not normative. You are right – you can – but your continuing superiority complex is grating, that’s all. The vocabulary you use in discussing anyone who voted for Mr. Bush (for whatever reason) points to an intolerance of anyone who disagrees with you and implies that anyone who differs with you is inferior, unthinking, or unworthy (or maybe all three and more!) 95%? And that number came from . . .? As religion plays a large part in the lives of many in the non-Western world (non-traditional religions included) that is quite a declaration! In point of fact, 83% of respondents in a 1999 Gallop poll in the US said that they believe in God’s intervention in creation (with differing views of the type and degree of the intervention). Interestingly enough, people who hold to ID face opposition and derision from both Darwinists (for being too religious) and Creationists (for being too secular). |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 15, 2004 14:12:55 GMT -5
Einstein, for all his colossal intellect, was only consoling himself when he said that god doesn't play dice with the universe. There are many interesting alternatives to the belief that God is keeping an eye on His creation and mindfully causing perturbations in the system. One that I find attractive is that God started the ball rolling with the Big Bang and then stepped aside after imbuing the universe with many possible routes of development. In other words, the universe didn't have to turn out exactly the way it is today. This, of course, conflicts with "intelligent design." True. Seems you lean toward remote chance and random happenstance. OTOH, ID speaks to a Big Bang with God giving initial direction knowing the route that would be taken. Why indeed? The easy answer, we don’t know, does not suffice, but it is all we have. As a theist (a monotheist at that!) my faith proposition is simple: God is, and God does. A non-theist’s faith proposition is It is (or life is) and it (life) does. It is a philosophical discussion predicated (for the most part) by previous world-view and training. The origin of life in the universe, set in motion at a single point in time, works for me (although the Big Bang theory was initially repudiated for sounding too religious . . . how far we have come!). An expanding universe . . . seems right. That the world is evolving . . . yup. Luck of the draw for one planet in a remote corner of a small galaxy far from the center be the chosen theater for an implausible drama . . . after God started the ball rolling with the Big Bang and then stepped aside? That’s where I draw the line. Why intervene 2,000 years ago? Because it was the right time . . . the fullness of time according to the Bible. Are we going to talk theology or cosmology? You jump around, my friend. Theologically I am fully in line with free will: people aren’t delivered to Satan as much as they choose to ignore God. That’s why I am in the camp of free will and not predestination. God is not supreme puppeteer – we are able to choose how we respond to Him (sorry, those who prefer a neutered deity). Perfection would be so boring, though sometimes I think I am just *this* far (holding thumb and index finger a ch apart) from it  Ah, but honesty makes me admit that I am far from sainthood – hey, I’m normal and I’m human . . . what else can I say? |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 15, 2004 21:17:06 GMT -5
You are right – you can – but your continuing superiority complex is grating, that’s all. The vocabulary you use in discussing anyone who voted for Mr. Bush (for whatever reason) points to an intolerance of anyone who disagrees with you and implies that anyone who differs with you is inferior, unthinking, or unworthy (or maybe all three and more!) 95%? And that number came from . . .? As religion plays a large part in the lives of many in the non-Western world (non-traditional religions included) that is quite a declaration! The 95% guesstimate is for those who do not accept the biblical account of creation. It's easy to come up with a number like that because Christianity is a minority religion in the world and most Christians globally do not take the bible literally. Christians in the US take religion more seriously than in any other precinct of Christendom, yet not even all American Christians take the bible literally. As for Europe, church attendance is much lower than in the US and people don't give a flying f... about Adam and Eve and the Flood and the angel Gabriel and Pontius Pilate. Taking all this into consideration, I really doubt whether 300 million people (roughly 5% of the world population) believe in creationism or think they should believe in it. Anyway, you are diverting the issue away from my real complaint: George W. Bush is an incompetent, shortsighted president. I need go no further than the Iraq invasion, the disturbing budget imbalance, global warming, the potential increase in pollution, the watering of the dollar, and the unbelievable national debt. Ergo, I conclude that the people who voted for him (except for the crony capitalists who benefit from his administration) voted against their own economic and health interests. They were duped by lies about terrorism and manipulated via their paranoid concern about selected "values" to accept a diminution of civil liberties. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 15, 2004 22:23:26 GMT -5
Anyway, you are diverting the issue away from my real complaint: George W. Bush is an incompetent, shortsighted president. I need go no further than the Iraq invasion, the disturbing budget imbalance, global warming, the potential increase in pollution, the watering of the dollar, and the unbelievable national debt. Ergo, I conclude that the people who voted for him (except for the crony capitalists who benefit from his administration) voted against their own economic and health interests. If you had merely said that Bush is an incompetent, shortsighted president and left it at that I would have agreed and this thread would not be as involved as it is. However, you went much further: OK, George W. Bush is by far the worst American president in my lifetime. He is unloved by other nations and by the "Arab Street." So what else is new? Unfortunately, he is beloved by the evangelicals, pentecostals, fundamentalists, born-agains, fetus-worshipers, homophobes, and the military in the US. There were 59M+ of the benighted, and they prevailed.  is where I take offense -- slamming a large (actually, small) group of people as the ones at fault for Bush's election. In Canada, approximately 7% of the population would fall under the banner of evangelical born-agains; that number would include pentecostals and fundamentalists. Double the number for the United States (give liberty). Still not enough to win the election for Bush, even if every one of them had voted for him (which they didn't). It's like the media's astonishment at Mike Harris' second win a number of years back -- it wasn't suppsoed to happen, especially given his battles with the teacher's unions. However, some teachers and some members of the CAW (horror of horrors!) voted for him. The Toronto Star in particular was sure that he would lose . . . our compassionate populace hated the idea of tax cuts for the rich. However, those tax cuts affected teachers and auto workers and many others who now make $60-70,000 plus a year. Not everyone who voted for Bush is an unenlightened fundamentalist -- some left-leaners chose to vote for him as a better leader. They may regret it now, or they may not. But they believe(d) he will protect US interests better than the Democrats. I suggest you read The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity by Philip Jenkins. This review highlights some of what is said, but if you read the book you will discover (as many of us "churched" people in Canada have) that there is a renewed emphasis of Christian spirituality in the (unenlightened, I would expect some to say) Third World and an increase in spirituality in general in North America. Not only that, Christianity is in no way a minority religion in this world. Its influence is waning, for sure, because it is seen as hand-in-glove with capitalism (too bad, because social justice is fundamental to the teachings of Jesus), and Islam's influence is on the rise. As we've discussed, the Biblical account of creation can be taken different ways, with the one that makes the most sense to me being ID: God said "Let there be," and there was. How the world came to be is not central to my faith: that God is is. I'd be gald for a thread on what I see as the basics of Christianity and how that plays out in life (or should) but I am sure that there are enough sites already discussing that. You are right about European Christianity having fallen by the wayside. Whether that's good or not is another matter. As to creationism, depends on your definition. If God is viewed as micro-manager, you are probably right (though again, those southern Christians may raise the percentage). If you simply ask "Did God create (or have a hand in the creation) of the world, the number would be much higher. Manipulated? Paranoid? They have a faith/belief structure. We live in a quasi-democratic culture, where we are allowed to think for ourselves, and to make judgement calls about what we believe/feel/think is right or wrong. And we are allowed to talk about it! And every four years in the States, and whenever our Prime Minister gets the urge, we get to vote. And the people of the States chose a man that you don't like to lead them and you shake your head about it, considering his record, much the same way many people in Canada shake their heads that the Liberal Party was re-elected, considering the record of the past x number of years. Now . . . is there going to be NHL hockey this year or shall I continue to spend my Saturday evenings being nice to my family |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 15, 2004 22:54:18 GMT -5
The American religious conservatives were inflamed by the Republicans over the issue of gay marriage, which is on the verge of being adopted in Canada. I myself haven't come to terms with it (maybe because I belong to a somewhat older generation that would do a double take if I saw such a marriage service). However, upon reflection I realize that it doesn't affect me or my family in any way and I don't consider it to infringe upon my rights. It would be hard for me to forgive someone who voted for Bush on that issue alone because in so doing that person is harming the US. Hence my diatribe about imbeciles.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 16, 2004 13:13:57 GMT -5
The American religious conservatives were inflamed by the Republicans over the issue of gay marriage, which is on the verge of being adopted in Canada. Same-sex marriage is legal in Nova Scotia, Québec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon and British Columbia. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 16, 2004 13:19:29 GMT -5
Not really sure I want to get involved in this arguement being agnostic and all. But there were some points that caught my eye.
1) The Theory of Evolution is just a theory. It has not been proven beyond doubt. All signs on earth point to such an evolutionary path, but the starting point is in doubt.
2) The theory of Creationism is a fine theory as well (especially if the Bible was left out of the way. (just my opinion)) Something caused the gases to form such a great pressure to explode ....... God is as good a theory as any. Afterall, they are just theories.
3) Belief in God is not synonomous with going to church, or believing the Bible.
4) Scientists have combed the earth for centuries looking for evidence of a "great flood". There is no evidence it ever occured (which is why the Bible to me should be left out of any theological debate ... it is ambiguous and scientifically in error). It can be proven, through rather simple hydrological calculations, that a rain of 40 days and 40 nights would not raise the water level of the earth in any significant amount. A flood that was described in the Bible would leave a mark on the earth (striations, sedimentary evidence, etc) dated back to Biblical times ..... but there are none to be found. Also, there is the water cycle to consider. Where did the water go?
5) On the Discovery Network, I watched a program where they found a body mass that is, astronomically speaking, the same distance from a star (sounded by other masses) as the earth is from the sun. We could have neighbours and I don't think we are alone. Believers in both theories could not argue that. Why wouldn't God create more than one habitable place? Why couldn't other worlds evolve?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 16, 2004 13:21:20 GMT -5
Same-sex marriage is legal in Nova Scotia, Québec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon and British Columbia. And very soon Newfoundland will be added to that list. It doesn't mean it is right. Why does Ottawa have to legalize it if the provinces seem to have jurisdiction over it? |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 16, 2004 13:41:55 GMT -5
Same-sex marriage is legal in Nova Scotia, Québec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon and British Columbia. Eleven of the 50 US states passed a referendum forbidding same sex marriage. A number of voters in these states voted for Bush precisely because he had proposed a constitutional amendment to bar it (it got nowhere in the Senate). The presidential election (in terms of electoral votes) was close. If Kerry had carried just Ohio (one of the 11 states holding the referendum), Bush would not have won. I feel rancor toward the religious conservatives who placed this issue ahead of the war in Iraq, the runaway budget deficit, the ballooning national debt, the heavy borrowing from the Social Security trust fund to compensate for a tax cut that favors the wealthiest, and the compromises in clean air and water regulations. As a result of the election the televangelists such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the Rev. Sheldon think they have a mandate to impose their religious beliefs on the country. I also hold a severe grudge against the Roman Catholic bishops who stated that Catholics should not vote for John Kerry (a churchgoing Catholic) because he did not sufficiently oppose abortion. Let these ordained pedophiles and homosexuals face their own sins. Of course not all errant priests are homosexuals. Some of them rape pubescent girls. I also denounce the ultraorthodox Jews for supporting Bush. Organized religion stinks, theocracy is tyranny. I say a pox on all of them. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 16, 2004 13:52:23 GMT -5
Eleven of the 50 US states passed a referendum forbidding same sex marriage. A number of voters in these states voted for Bush precisely because he had proposed a constitutional amendment to bar it (it got nowhere in the Senate). The presidential election (in terms of electoral votes) was close. If Kerry had carried just Ohio (one of the 11 states holding the referendum), Bush would not have won. I feel rancor toward the religious conservatives who placed this issue ahead of the war in Iraq, the runaway budget deficit, the ballooning national debt, the heavy borrowing from the Social Security trust fund to compensate for a tax cut that favors the wealthiest, and the compromises in clean air and water regulations. As a result of the election the televangelists such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the Rev. Sheldon think they have a mandate to impose their religious beliefs on the country. I also hold a severe grudge against the Roman Catholic bishops who stated that Catholics should not vote for John Kerry (a churchgoing Catholic) because he did not sufficiently oppose abortion. Let these ordained pedophiles and homosexuals face their own sins. Of course not all errant priests are homosexuals. Some of them rape pubescent girls. I also denounce the ultraorthodox Jews for supporting Bush. Organized religion stinks, theocracy is tyranny. I say a pox on all of them. Could you rephrase your opinion of organized religion? I'm not sure where you stand in regards to it. One thing is certain: You can thank the French for your being allowed to rant like that. It's a strange world. |
|
Ah, but honesty makes me admit that I am far from sainthood – hey, I’m normal and I’m human . . . what else can I say? 
