|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 16, 2004 16:27:39 GMT -5
Same-sex marriage is legal in Nova Scotia, Québec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon and British Columbia. Why should homosexuals have to live in sin when they can be married in sin? Compared to the problems in Iraq, Afganistan, Global warming and the NHL, same sex marriage is about as important to me as who the next Minister of Defense for The Falklin Islands will be. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 17, 2004 5:46:17 GMT -5
The next step could be much worse with simultaneous coordinated neuclear bombs going off in containers in the ports of NY, Washington, Miami, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. Perhaps... Airport Staff Loses Fake Explosives in TestThu Dec 16, 2004 10:03 AM ET By Jon Hurdle PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Security screeners at Newark Liberty International Airport lost a bag containing fake explosives used to test the airport's bomb-detection system, federal officials said on Wednesday. The bag was mistakenly loaded on a Continental Airlines flight to Amsterdam, where it was retrieved on arrival, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration said. The airport near New York City was one of three used by the Sept. 11 hijackers. The bag should have been removed by TSA staff after a security exercise on Tuesday the agency periodically conducts at airports across the country, said Ann Davis, a spokeswoman for the TSA's north-eastern region. As part of the exercise, the bag was placed in one of the airport's bomb-detection machines, where it was detected, the TSA said, before it was mistakenly loaded on the plane. The bag posed no danger to passengers or airline employees because the material inside was a fake explosive, she said. Davis declined to comment on a report in the Newark Star-Ledger that screeners at the airport missed one in four test explosives and weapons in undercover tests during the summer. The newspaper reported earlier this month that screeners at New Jersey's busiest airport missed an average of six workweeks during the first nine months of 2004 in addition to their paid vacation and holiday time. "Security at Newark Airport is of the highest caliber," Davis said. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Dec 17, 2004 13:31:53 GMT -5
I'm pretty much an athiest or an agnostic, depending on how I feel about the universe that day.
That being said, I've always held two personal truths about that:
-My belief is as valid as anyone else's belief system.
and
-I fully respect everyone else's belief system, as long as they respect mine.
Just as it pisses me off when people attack my type of faith, it pisses me off when people attack other people's faith.
Live and let live, people.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 17, 2004 14:56:08 GMT -5
-My belief is as valid as anyone else's belief system. -I fully respect everyone else's belief system, as long as they respect mine. Just as it pisses me off when people attack my type of faith, it pisses me off when people attack other people's faith. Live and let live, people. I’m with you there. There is a difference, though, between attack and discussion. Nothing wrong with presenting POV, and there being give-and-take, talk-and-listen-and-reply. My problem: being told that I am an idiot for holding the views I have; responding with why I hold them, and being told again you are an idiot for holding such views (though I am not suggesting that this has happened in this thread). |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 17, 2004 15:03:57 GMT -5
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). Hard to leave the Bible out of a theological debate when theology is based on it! No reason at all. from a (forgive me) theological Christian Biblical POV, there is nothing to prove nor to disprove ETs / other worlds. And since it is Christmas . . . A spaceman came traveling on his ship from afar
'Twas light years of time since his mission did start
And over a village he halted his craft
And it hung in the sky like a star
Just like a star -----
He followed a light and came down to a shed
Where a mother and child were lying there on a bed
A bright light of silver shone round his head
And he had the face of an angel
And they were afraid -----
Then the stranger spoke
He said" Do not fear
I come from a planet a long way from here
And I bring a message for mankind to hear"
And suddenly the sweetest music filled the air ----
And it went la la ------
Peace and goodwill to all men
And love for the child ------
This lovely music went trembling through the ground
And many were wakened on hearing that sound
And travelers on the road
The village they found by the light of that ship in the sky
Which shone all around -----
And just before dawn
At the paling of the sky
The stranger returned and said " Now I must fly
When two thousand years of your time has gone by
This song will begin once again, to a baby's cry --"
And it went la la ------
This song will begin once again
To a baby's cry ----
And it goes la la ----
Peace and goodwill to all men
And love for the child ----
Oh the whole world is waiting
Waiting to hear the song again
There are thousands standing on the edge of the world
And a star is moving somewhere
The time is nearly here
This song will begin once again
To a baby's cry ---- ** Not that I necessarily agree with this theology. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 17, 2004 16:24:28 GMT -5
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. Actually, they have felt for years that they have been given a mandate. All they give is a sour taste in the mouths of those who disagree with them, and a bad impression of Christianity in general, including those of us who find their desire for theocracy repugnant. And some of them are good people who only want to help others. Organized religion definitely has its problems . . . as soon as it becomes institutional it becomes laden with them! The problem is the people that become part of the church -- kick out the sinners and the people that fall and it will become perfect. Of course, let only perfect people into the church and it becomes empty -- not even you or I could enter the doors (at least I couldn't). Theocracy fails miserably, but only because I am the only person to hear the voice of God properly and so many people disagree with my insights  |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 17, 2004 16:31:36 GMT -5
Theocracy fails miserably, but only because I am the only person to hear the voice of God properly and so many people disagree with my insights So, a new world order is emerging. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 17, 2004 17:06:35 GMT -5
So, a new world order is emerging. Frankism: straightforward and to the point. Freaky Franko's Assembly of the Nearly Redeemed : Join my church . . . send me all your money . . . I guarantee heaven * * for me, anyway |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 17, 2004 19:03:05 GMT -5
Actually, they have felt for years that they have been given a mandate. All they give is a sour taste in the mouths of those who disagree with them, and a bad impression of Christianity in general, including those of us who find their desire for theocracy repugnant. And some of them are good people who only want to help others. Organized religion definitely has its problems . . . as soon as it becomes institutional it becomes laden with them! The problem is the people that become part of the church -- kick out the sinners and the people that fall and it will become perfect. Of course, let only perfect people into the church and it becomes empty -- not even you or I could enter the doors (at least I couldn't). Theocracy fails miserably, but only because I am the only person to hear the voice of God properly and so many people disagree with my insights Did you miss the word errant? The good aren't the errant. I was differentiating between those whose morsel of choice is a prepubescent boy and those who go for girls whose breasts are just budding. I have taken graduate courses with priests who are not errant and not destined for defrocking. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 17, 2004 19:57:57 GMT -5
Did you miss the word errant? The good aren't the errant. I was differentiating between those whose morsel of choice is a prepubescent boy and those who go for girls whose breasts are just budding. I have taken graduate courses with priests who are not errant and not destined for defrocking. Actually, I didn't miss the word. . . but obviously I read you wrong. Semantics? Perhaps. Word placement confused me. Implication: those priests who are not pedophiles or homosexual rape pubescent girls; all are errant in some form. I should have read you to say not all priests are errant homosexuals etc. My apologies. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 17, 2004 22:36:00 GMT -5
I wasn't offended, but thank you for the apology anyway. Only a fraction of priests are sexual predators. As you said, most are well intentioned, do good deeds, and do not take advantage of their congregations. The same might be said of ministers and rabbis.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 18, 2004 17:46:41 GMT -5
People vs. EmpireOnly global resistance from below can counter repressive statesBy Arundhati Roy December 7, 2004 In India, the word public is now a Hindi word. It means people. In Hindi, we have sarkar and public, the government and the people. Inherent in this use is the underlying assumption that the government is quite separate from “the people.” However, as you make your way up India’s complex social ladder, the distinction between sarkar and public gets blurred. The Indian elite, like the elite anywhere in the world, finds it hard to separate itself from the state. In the United States, on the other hand, the blurring of this distinction between sarkar and public has penetrated far deeper into society. This could be a sign of robust democracy, but unfortunately it’s a little more complicated and less pretty than that. Among other things, it has to do with the elaborate web of paranoia generated by the U.S. sarkar and spun out by the corporate media and Hollywood. Ordinary people in the United States have been manipulated into imagining they are a people under siege whose sole refuge and protector is their government. If it isn’t the Communists, it’s al Qaeda. If it isn’t Cuba, it’s Nicaragua. As a result, the most powerful nation in the world is peopled by a terrified citizenry jumping at shadows. A people bonded to the state not by social services, or public health care, or employment guarantees, but by fear. This synthetically manufactured fear is used to gain public sanction for further acts of aggression. And so it goes, building into a spiral of self-fulfilling hysteria, now formally calibrated by the U.S government’s Amazing Technicolored Terror Alerts: fuchsia, turquoise, salmon pink. To outside observers, this merging of sarkar and public in the United States sometimes makes it hard to separate the actions of the government from the people. Such confusion fuels anti-Americanism in the world—anti-Americanism that is seized upon and amplified by the U.S. government and its faithful media outlets. You know the routine: “Why do they hate us? They hate our freedoms,” et cetera. This enhances the U.S. people’s sense of isolation, making the embrace between sarkar and public even more intimate. - www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/print/1740/
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 18, 2004 18:00:26 GMT -5
Frankism: straightforward and to the point. Freaky Franko's Assembly of the Nearly Redeemed : Join my church . . . send me all your money . . . I guarantee heaven * * for me, anyway To paraphrase some dialogue I remember from the L'il Abner comic strip in the early '60s (I believe Fearless Fosdick was involved in this escapade): "Frankly I'm with Frank(o)." But I regress... How much is a Nearly Redeemed coupon worth, anyhoo? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 19, 2004 17:56:02 GMT -5
Hard to leave the Bible out of a theological debate when theology is based on it! I guess it is the agnostic in me. BUt I don't find it hard to differentiate. To me the Bible is not the "word of God". It is a book written by men, for men, in a parable (Aesopian?) fashion. God is suppose to be infallable, but yet the book has errors in it. One such error is the great flood that Noah supposedly saved the human race again with his ark. Science can not account for such an flood, now that isnot to mean it did not happen. But if it did then how did the world repopulate? I mean you aren't allowed to covet thy neighbours wife, and all that was on the ark was Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives. It is just to ambiguous (to me) to be considered the "creation of an infallable being". Now each an every day I am moving closer to believing, but I give credit to that to my 1 yr old daughter. She is too perfect to be made by chance.  |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 19, 2004 21:54:15 GMT -5
Now each an every day I am moving closer to believing, but I give credit to that to my 1 yr old daughter. She is too perfect to be made by chance. It's not Chance, it's the Milkman :-P |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 20, 2004 11:24:54 GMT -5
It's not Chance, it's the Milkman :-P Reminds me of the father who overheard his five-year-old praying one night: "God bless Mommy, God bless Daddy, bye-bye- Grandma" The next morning the family heard the news that Grandma had passed away through the night. The next night the father listened in to the prayer again: "God bless Mommy, God bless Daddy, bye-bye- Grandpa" The next morning the family heard the news that Grandpa had passed away through the night. For a third night the father listened in: "God bless Mommy, bye-bye Daddy" Understandably the father was concerned. He ran to the doctor and faced a bettery of tests. He was pronounced fit as fit could be. Still, he paced the floor all evening. The next morning the family heard the news that the milkman had passed away through the night. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 20, 2004 11:41:57 GMT -5
May I give a Christian apologetic (that's not apologizing for being Christian!)? I realize that some find these thoughts mere excuses. I also realize that some find these thoughts heretical. Shoot me for being MOR in some things! To me the Bible is not the "word of God". It is a book written by men, for men, in a parable (Aesopian?) fashion. Within the corpus of the Christian Old Testament/Hebrew Canon, you will find history (the Jewish nation), poetry and wisdom literature (Psalms, Proverbs), and prophecy. Within the corpus of the Christian New Testament you will find history (the accepted canonical Gospels, ie the understood life of Jesus [ The DaVinci Code notwithstanding] and Acts/the history of the formative years of the church), teaching letters to the young church, and prophecy (Revelation). Within the Christian church it is understood to be written by men under the inspiration of God. Some say word-by-word dictation; others say the principles were inspired and the writers used their own styles and personalities to write. While there is parable and story, it is not all parable and story. God is infallable; man isn't. Scribal error in transposition has caused problems. As you say, science has not found evidence . . . yet. It may do so in the days and years ahead. The search for knowledge has led us far and will continue to do so in this and in other areas as well. A question for the ages . . . as is the Adam and Eve discussion (where did the women come from so the sons could marry?). I guess they bred like rabbits! And I find it equally difficult to see this intricate world coming about by random chance. Remember her perfection when she hits 2 ;D |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 20, 2004 11:50:56 GMT -5
To paraphrase some dialogue I remember from the L'il Abner comic strip in the early '60s (I believe Fearless Fosdick was involved in this escapade): "Frankly I'm with Frank(o)." My favourite (and I wonder if either the NHLPA or owners think this) is Pogo's We has seen the enemy and he is us! Boy, I could go two ways on this one . . . the caricature: Send me all of your money and we'll see how far it gets you, or the belief I hold to: No charge . . . the gift is free . . . MERRY CHRISTMAS |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 20, 2004 12:25:29 GMT -5
May I give a Christian apologetic (that's not apologizing for being Christian!)? I realize that some find these thoughts mere excuses. I also realize that some find these thoughts heretical. Shoot me for being MOR in some things! Within the corpus of the Christian Old Testament/Hebrew Canon, you will find history (the Jewish nation), poetry and wisdom literature (Psalms, Proverbs), and prophecy. Within the corpus of the Christian New Testament you will find history (the accepted canonical Gospels, ie the understood life of Jesus [ The DaVinci Code notwithstanding] and Acts/the history of the formative years of the church), teaching letters to the young church, and prophecy (Revelation). Within the Christian church it is understood to be written by men under the inspiration of God. Some say word-by-word dictation; others say the principles were inspired and the writers used their own styles and personalities to write. While there is parable and story, it is not all parable and story. God is infallable; man isn't. Scribal error in transposition has caused problems. As you say, science has not found evidence . . . yet. It may do so in the days and years ahead. The search for knowledge has led us far and will continue to do so in this and in other areas as well. A question for the ages . . . as is the Adam and Eve discussion (where did the women come from so the sons could marry?). I guess they bred like rabbits! And I find it equally difficult to see this intricate world coming about by random chance. Remember her perfection when she hits 2 ;D Hasn't found the ark or traces of the flood and so forth but they may exist? Reminds me of the circumlocutory reasoning of the Bush administration about the existence of weapons of mass destruction? God is infallible? That is not subject to verification. Neither is god. The biblical accounts of miracles could be mendacious or the product of misinterpretation of sensory input or else of mass hallucination. Yet countless thousands were burned at the stake or otherwise massacred in their name on every continent of this planet save perhaps Antarctica. (These acts are comparable to the perhaps ten thousand crucifixions of dissenters ordered by Pontius Pilate or other hegemons in the name of the Roman emperor. Of course, we could add every other example of messianic or nationalistic or ethnic slaughter to this sorry catalog.) How many wars have been waged in the name of the Prince of Peace? I concluded long ago that those who say civilization is only a veneer are right. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 20, 2004 19:16:11 GMT -5
I'm pretty much an athiest or an agnostic, depending on how I feel about the universe that day. That being said, I've always held two personal truths about that: -My belief is as valid as anyone else's belief system. and -I fully respect everyone else's belief system, as long as they respect mine. Just as it pisses me off when people attack my type of faith, it pisses me off when people attack other people's faith. Live and let live, people. Would that what you advocate were applied here in the "free" West, but many appear to disagree... Fear factor: 44 percent of Americans queried in Cornell national poll favor curtailing some liberties for Muslim Americans
ITHACA, N.Y. -- In a study to determine how much the public fears terrorism, almost half of respondents polled nationally said they believe the U.S. government should -- in some way -- curtail civil liberties for Muslim Americans, according to a new survey released today (Dec. 17) by Cornell University.
About 27 percent of respondents said that all Muslim Americans should be required to register their location with the federal government, and 26 percent said they think that mosques should be closely monitored by U.S. law enforcement agencies. Twenty-nine percent agreed that undercover law enforcement agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations, in order to keep tabs on their activities and fund raising. About 22 percent said the federal government should profile citizens as potential threats based on the fact that they are Muslim or have Middle Eastern heritage. In all, about 44 percent said they believe that some curtailment of civil liberties is necessary for Muslim Americans.
Conversely, 48 percent of respondents nationally said they do not believe that civil liberties for Muslim Americans should be restricted.- full article |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 20, 2004 19:27:46 GMT -5
God is infallible? That is not subject to verification. Neither is god. (c) 1992 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust In a recent book review in Scientific American, Harvard evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould points out that many scientists see no contradiction between traditional religious beliefs and the world view of modern science. Noting that many evolutionists have been devout Christians, he concludes, "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs - and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap."[1] The question of whether or not science and religion are compatible frequently comes up, and Gould himself points out that he is dealing with it for the "umpteenth millionth time." It is a question to which people are prone to give muddled answers. Definitions of God and God's modes of action in the world seem highly elastic, and the desire to combine scientific theories with religious doctrines has impelled many sophisticated people to stretch both to the limit. In the end, something has to give. To help us locate the snapping point, let's look at what a few scientists have said about God. - full article |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 20, 2004 19:31:24 GMT -5
The biblical accounts of miracles could be mendacious or the product of misinterpretation of sensory input or else of mass hallucination. Or they could be revelatory experiences transcending the planes of philosophical and scientific thought. People exercise their free will as they choose. That they choose unwisely is no reflection on God. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 20, 2004 19:34:43 GMT -5
Then They Came for Me by Stephen F. Rohde, Esq. First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Muslim. Then they came to detain immigrants indefinitely solely upon the certification of the Attorney General, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an immigrant. Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their attorneys, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a suspect. Then they came to prosecute non-citizens before secret military commissions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a non-citizen. Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced "sneak and peek" searches, and I didn't speak up because I had nothing to hide. Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups, and I didn't speak up because I had stopped participating in any groups. Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because it aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies, and I didn't speak up because...... I didn't speak up. Then they came for me....... and by that time no one was left to speak up. source |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 20, 2004 19:56:33 GMT -5
It all comes down to this:
The government believes that in perilous times like these it is necessary to curtail the civil liberties of potential terrorists in the interests of national security. Do you go along with this?
Yes, sir, I'm a patriotic citizen.
Are you willing to give up your civil liberties in the interests of national security?
Certainly not. What is this, a police state?
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 20, 2004 21:23:18 GMT -5
It all comes down to this: The government believes that in perilous times like these it is necessary to curtail the civil liberties of potential terrorists in the interests of national security. Do you go along with this? Yes, sir, I'm a patriotic citizen.Are you willing to give up your civil liberties in the interests of national security? Certainly not. What is this, a police state?But for those who believe that a curtailment of civil liberties is necessary, there is still another important question: is it acceptable to use state-sponsored racism if it may potentially save lives? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 20, 2004 22:28:51 GMT -5
But for those who believe that a curtailment of civil liberties is necessary, there is still another important question: is it acceptable to use state-sponsored racism if it may potentially save lives? A very difficult moral question indeed. First, not all speakers of Semitic languages are Muslim, and not all Muslims are speakers of Semitic languages (though a passing knowledge of Arabic is helpful in reading the Koran in its mother tongue). Don't tell the American public this, or the witch-hunt, if it begins, will include a much broader segment of the population than just those who "look like A-rabs". Second, the breadth and depth of pre-emptive "cleansing" is dependent on the accountabilty level of the government, and the popular view of the action. Popular consent in a "democratic" nation must be arranged by the government. A campaign of subtle demonization of the intended target group is essential groundwork. The public must be made to believe that they are supporting a necessary action. Of course history is rife with examples of "cleansing" as a synonym in its mildest form for ostracization and in its worst form, genocide. Human beings have a tendency to let their emotions get out control on a group level. Especially when that emotion is fear. Real or imagined. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Dec 21, 2004 0:49:16 GMT -5
To this I would add that not all Muslims are Arabs or Pakistanis or Bengalis or Indonesians or Filipinos or Somalis or Sudanese or Nigerians. There are also American converts, black or white or Mexican-American, who could slip through any dumb-ass racial screening. There are blonde, blue-eyed Bosnians and Australians and Britons who worship Allah. The US borders are sievelike. So much for detention akin to what was done with the Nisei in WW II. Save lives? Bah! (Actually, with Christmas approaching, I should say bah humbug.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 21, 2004 12:13:45 GMT -5
And I find it equally difficult to see this intricate world coming about by random chance. We aren't talking choas theory here. Science can be explained through symmetry, mathematically formulae, patterns, etc. There is nothing random about that which can be explained. The fail-safe will always be; God made science in order for man to feel comfortable in his environs. Humans usually don't like what we can't explain. Hence science. Hence free will. Now the question I pose: Is it logical to believe in God and not Santa Claus? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 21, 2004 13:08:32 GMT -5
Reminds me of much scientific discovery, which all started out with conjecture and challenged a search. There must be something smaller . . . atoms are discovered. There must be something smaller . . . quarks are discovered. There must be something smaller . . . what’s next?. Do we quit searching for building blocks just because they may exist? Do we disavow anything that is not known (then of course inquiry ends). Quarks and leptons and bosons and photons and gluons . . . simple building blocks that have been discovered because people kept searching. In fact, as you yourself must be aware, the Higgs boson is just conjecture – it may or may not exist but is just suggested (guessed?) as “there”, invented (great for scientific discovery) merely to give particles mass.
How many scientists posited a theory and died without having it proven? Others continued the search; eventually some was proven, other discarded, but nothing was discounted “just because”, which you seem to be doing with the existence of God (my bias shines through), I know. The existence of God is, of course, a faith proposition. Empirical evidence tomorrow? I admit, not likely. Yet still I believe – and did even before I heard of Pascal’s Wager (which I find lame).
As above.
Or actual happenings, rejected/excused by some, accepted by others.
Far too many – one is too many! Much wrong has been done throughout history in the name of religion, or in the name of God, or in the name of gods. It seems to me that the invocation of a deity’s name was often a pretext to rationalize an action that would be taken; most often power or land based at its core.
But must we ignore that good has also come about in this world because of religious institutions and practises? I shall not begin a catalogue, but it has indeed happened. Sometimes to correct a wrong perpetrated by religious fervour or excuse, sometimes (hopefully more often than not) to correct a societal injustice.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 21, 2004 13:58:18 GMT -5
We aren't talking choas theory here. Science can be explained through symmetry, mathematically formulae, patterns, etc. There is nothing random about that which can be explained. The fail-safe will always be; God made science in order for man to feel comfortable in his environs. Humans usually don't like what we can't explain. Hence science. Hence free will. I didn’t mention chaos theory . . . unless Darwinism at its core is based upon it. But perhaps it is. Darwin’s evolution was random, purposeless, and planless, was it not? So I find Darwin inadequate. I argue for design because of the complexity of the universe – because of the symmetry and patterns. My design happens to have an initiator. Good question. Logical? Probably not, though I see Santa Claus and a supreme deity who we call God as two different beings. Santa Claus is based on a legendary identifiable person, and his legend has been supported through many the generations encouraged by a consumer mentality. God as Supreme Being is non-identifiable although postulated as mythical, based only on faith (some might suggest blind irrational belief). But you might also ask if it is logical to believe in romantic love. Sometimes logic has nothing to do with what we believe or how we act. |
|
