Church of England apologises to Charles Darwin

[MHz]

Actually it is only God who can remove the scales from their eyes, the tricky part is they have to ask. God can also harden a heart, should a bible reading Christian attempt to mess with something like that. I'm quite sure the Bible has been offered to everybody on this forum, that is as far as the Apostles were even to go, if it was rejected they dusted off their boots and moved on. The rest is in Christ's hands.
Did you get that from some TV show?

 

[MHz]

Fiesty militant christians will be pa troll ing the streets and red light districts of heaven where Darwin lives now, with his monkey family.:smile:

LOL, if you don't make your living using combinations of words, you should really look at a change in professions.

 

[lone wolf]

Actually it is only God who can remove the scales from their eyes, the tricky part is they have to ask. God can also harden a heart, should a bible reading Christian attempt to mess with something like that. I'm quite sure the Bible has been offered to everybody on this forum, that is as far as the Apostles were even to go, if it was rejected they dusted off their boots and moved on. The rest is in Christ's hands.
Did you get that from some TV show?

No ... came from a Priest who said it was every good Christian's duty to spread the word. See ... they don't even act in concert or interpret the Word in the same manner. In minds conditioned for symmetry, can you see why the Church is getting dumped?

 

[MHz]

I've never promoted the Church (administration apart from the bench sitters) as being very intelligent about understanding Scripture. They are more of a business than a help-group.
Don't get me wrong the Apostles and the Disciples were sent out to do just what you were saying but they never charged the ones they talked to to do the very same thing. The administration should provide a place for people to gather to study the Bible. That doesn't mean they are the teachers who should never be challenged.

 

[darkbeaver]

I've never promoted the Church (administration apart from the bench sitters) as being very intelligent about understanding Scripture. They are more of a business than a help-group.
Don't get me wrong the Apostles and the Disciples were sent out to do just what you were saying but they never charged the ones they talked to to do the very same thing. The administration should provide a place for people to gather to study the Bible. That doesn't mean they are the teachers who should never be challenged.

MHZ you seem to me to follow very very old christian ways, in the beginning what I know of the followers is mostly very wholesome inclusive stuff especially with respect to women and rotating lay teachers.

 

[MHz]

Well I tend to lean towards a Christian should be seen and not heard. Quietly going about doing what you can to assist who you can (without making your own life so low that survival is a hardship). If somebody wants to talk about God and the Bible then go for it, if they don't then don't push it but still do what you can without the great speeches. That is likely to gain respect for Christianity a lot more than fire and brimstone style preaching.

That doesn't mean when on a God subject thread I can't be a bit of a prick, but I do try to stop short of saying somebody is pretty much damned.

 

[darkbeaver]

Well I tend to lean towards a Christian should be seen and not heard. Quietly going about doing what you can to assist who you can (without making your own life so low that survival is a hardship). If somebody wants to talk about God and the Bible then go for it, if they don't then don't push it but still do what you can without the great speeches. That is likely to gain respect for Christianity a lot more than fire and brimstone style preaching.

That doesn't mean when on a God subject thread I can't be a bit of a prick, but I do try to stop short of saying somebody is pretty much damned.

I enjoy reading you.Your understanding is outstanding.

 

[In Between Man]

Don't bother, it's crap. Actually, it's not really much different, it's just creationism tarted up with scientific-sounding jargon, and omits explicitly religious language in an attempt to get around the U.S. Constitution's establishment clause. It's still scientifically bankrupt.

Wrong. ID looks at the same evidence as darwinists, the interpretation is just different. Therefore its not scientifically bankrupt!
How it's going, BTW, ....myself....I'm currently enjoying a glass of scotch for the first time in awhile! Cheers Dex! :cheers:

 

[In Between Man]

(of course, he wouldn’t revert to Judaism on his deathbed, that is unthinkable, he has to convert to Fundamentalism).

It's an interesting point that all these apparent deathbed conversions are only towards christianity. First, without mentioning a specific case, I can see it plausible why these apparent deathbed conversions are to christianity, as opposed to islam, judaism, or buddism.

It's because christianity offers grace through faith. You don't need good acts to get to the afterlife. It seems that when one is actually facing death, Christ would be your perfect hail-mary pass. Its too late to start living like a priest, so accepting christ's death as salvation probably seems pretty good to one unsure of what awaits him.....

 

[gerryh]

athiests are SURE that NOTHING awaits them except the cold ground and decomp.

 

[In Between Man]

athiests are SURE that NOTHING awaits them except the cold ground and decomp.

But that would imply that this life is meaningless:roll: ....and every time that is brought up, they assert "NO! NO! NO! That's not true!!!! I find my own meaning....."

-sigh-

 

[gerryh]

But that would imply that this life is meaningless:roll: ....and every time that is brought up, they assert "NO! NO! NO! That's not true!!!! I find my own meaning....."

-sigh-

Sorry....can't help ya there.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Wrong. ID looks at the same evidence as darwinists, the interpretation is just different. Therefore its not scientifically bankrupt!

Sorry, alleywayzalwayz, ID is just Book of Genesis repackaged. Fundamentalists tried desperately to force teaching of book of Genesis in public schools, they passed laws in several Bible Belt states in USA. The courts struck down each and every one of the.

Finally it went to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court ruled by 7 to 2 vote that creationism is religion and therefore, cannot be taught in sconce classes.

Fundamentalists were at a dead end, so they came up with this trick. They basically kept the same theory, just deleted the reference to Biblical God, and left out the part about the world being created 5000 years ago in six days, repackaged it under different name, Intelligent Design and hoped to sneak it through under the radar.

It didn’t work, ID has been recognized by the scientific community for what it is, Book of Genesis repackaged. The implicit assumption is that when ID refers to intelligent creator; it is referring to Biblical God. Fundamentalists themselves claim that ID is the first step towards introducing creationism in public schools.

Not surprisingly, it has been opposed wherever Fundamentalists tried to introduce it. Dexter is quite right, it is crap.

I remember a while ago, Fundamentalist school board in Kansas introduced teaching of ID and Kansas became the laughing stock of the world, the story was reported in Europe, Asia, just about everywhere. Eventually Fundamentalists were defeated and the new school board rescinded the policy.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But that would imply that this life is meaningless:roll: ....and every time that is brought up, they assert "NO! NO! NO! That's not true!!!! I find my own meaning....."

-sigh-

And just what is the problem with saying that life is meaningless? That is what I think anyway, that life is meaningless. We are the product of random evolution; there can’t possibly be any meaning behind life. So yes, life is meaningless.

As to finding one’s own meaning, that depends upon the individual. Some will try to find a meaning, others won’t bother. Of those who try to give meaning to their lives, some will succeed, others won’t.

But even those who succeed, they themselves are responsible for giving meaning to their lives, that doesn’t mean that life inherently has any meaning, it doesn’t.

 

[In Between Man]

Sorry, alleywayzalwayz, ID is just Book of Genesis repackaged. Fundamentalists tried desperately to force teaching of book of Genesis in public schools, they passed laws in several Bible Belt states in USA. The courts struck down each and every one of the.

Finally it went to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court ruled by 7 to 2 vote that creationism is religion and therefore, cannot be taught in sconce classes.

Fundamentalists were at a dead end, so they came up with this trick. They basically kept the same theory, just deleted the reference to Biblical God, and left out the part about the world being created 5000 years ago in six days, repackaged it under different name, Intelligent Design and hoped to sneak it through under the radar.

It didn’t work, ID has been recognized by the scientific community for what it is, Book of Genesis repackaged. The implicit assumption is that when ID refers to intelligent creator; it is referring to Biblical God. Fundamentalists themselves claim that ID is the first step towards introducing creationism in public schools.

Not surprisingly, it has been opposed wherever Fundamentalists tried to introduce it. Dexter is quite right, it is crap.

I remember a while ago, Fundamentalist school board in Kansas introduced teaching of ID and Kansas became the laughing stock of the world, the story was reported in Europe, Asia, just about everywhere. Eventually Fundamentalists were defeated and the new school board rescinded the policy.

Whatev SJP!!!! If one starts at the point of skepticism, and views the same evidence that we all have access to, then one can very easily come the rational conclusion that an intelligent cause is behind all time/space/matter.....

Besides, how could you know anything at all on this subject? To you its all relative!!!

:lol::angryfire::lol::angryfire:

 

[Poquas]

athiests are SURE that NOTHING awaits them except the cold ground and decomp.

That's exactly the kind of statement you would expect from a weak minded boob who believes in a group hysteria to find a purpose in life.

I'm an atheist. I also believe in an existence beyond physical death. I'm just not stupid enough to follow any church's power play that say's it can only happen if you believe what they tell you to.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

then one can very easily come the rational conclusion that an intelligent cause is behind all time/space/matter.....

Sorry, alleywayzalwayz, but starting from science, one can never come to the conclusion of an intelligent cause.

And that is because of the way science operates. Science demands that for every phenomenon, a natural and a rational explanation must be offered, any hypothesis involving an intelligent creator is not natural, but supernatural in nature and hence can never be accepted by science. Anything involving a supernatural creator is not a valid scientific theory, it is superstition.

Besides, how could you know anything at all on this subject? To you its all relative!!!

Ah, I see you are beginning to catch on, if somewhat belatedly. Sure it is all relative. Is evolution right? We don’t know, any scientific theory can be disproved by just one exception.

Thus, let somebody produce an elephant or a moose out of dust and evolution is disproved. A scientific theory can never be proved, it can only be disproved.

So is evolution right? We don’t know. However, it does a great job of explaining how life evolved on earth, there is no competing theory (ID is not a valid scientific theory), it is accepted by most biologists, evolution is the only game in town. While we can never be sure, there is an high probability that theory of evolution is somewhere in the right region.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Wrong. ID looks at the same evidence as darwinists, the interpretation is just different. Therefore its not scientifically bankrupt!

No my friend, SJP has it right, so I won't repeat what he said in response to you, he said pretty much what I'd have said. ID is very selective with the evidence it looks at, routinely misinterprets and distorts it, and isn't even internally consistent. There is no evidence for which an intelligent designer is the only possible explanation, and all the attempts by people like Behe and Dembski to prove otherwise have been either discredited, like the mathematics of complex specified information, or explained naturalistically. You may be right to argue that ID isn't scientifically bankrupt, but only in the sense that it isn't scientific at all, it's metaphysics at best, and pseudoscience at worst. Intelligent design is perhaps a possible conclusion, but not a necessary one or the only possible one, and science rejects it as neither necessary nor useful. It doesn't explain anything, it's just a claim that we don't know and cannot even in principle ever know how certain things in nature came about. Science will never buy that, it's the end of the research program and a surrender to ignorance.

 

[In Between Man]

And just what is the problem with saying that life is meaningless? That is what I think anyway, that life is meaningless. We are the product of random evolution; there can’t possibly be any meaning behind life. So yes, life is meaningless.

I haven't meant too many atheists who would admit that.

 

[In Between Man]

No my friend, SJP has it right, so I won't repeat what he said in response to you, he said pretty much what I'd have said. ID is very selective with the evidence it looks at, routinely misinterprets and distorts it, and isn't even internally consistent.

Again, I have to disagree. Before the brave day I attempt to argue macro-evolution, I choose to talk about the beginning again.

Both sides are looking at overwhelming evidence that the universe exploded out of nothing. Naturally, we all look at each other as we try to determine a cause. And therein lies the trap for all of us: We all know, by our own logic, that a FINITE god is nonsense. Who made god? And who made him? And so on...So when we discover the the universe is not eternal, a priori knowledge tells us that something MUST be eternal. Namely, the cause of said big bang.

It absurd to think anything, God or the flying-spaghetti monster, or some unseen, unimaginable natural force that we can't even fathom, would also have a beginning. That is was finite. Our logic tells us it doesn't add up. Something must be eternal. And that's a false trap that ID falls into(when I'm not around;-)) when its asserted that ID can't assume an eternal god.

WE ALL KNOW something is eternal, but its not the universe.

"We don't know yet"

Atheists are good people, who believe in right and wrong, just like me. They have the exact same sense of absolute morals as me also. Atheists are also fallible, like the rest of us, and I believe are suppressing a priori knowledge. Thats why ID gets the wrap, its less about looking at the same science we all have access to, but more about trying keep God out of the picture. Suppressing that knowledge that's written inside us.

To explain the big cause with natural laws, blind, impersonal natural laws at that.

Later Dex....