Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: allmendream
You give the impression that your materialism entitles you to claim objectiveness for anything you opine, and that opposition to your view can not be objective. We share no common assumptions so, while speaking to one another is possible, discussion is not. Discussion with a propagandist, as with any Liberal, is never possible.

Apparently, you would have us believe, as a matter of objective fact, that 2 billion people around the world crack open their bibles to adore “special” little busses that will take them to a land of “fairy tales.” Further, you would have us believe that such a claim must be accepted as a common assumption, because . . . well, you are, after all, you.

What you are is a child of Darwinian Materialism. It is your ultimate religion. It is your position that anything a Materialist asserts must be admitted as objective. But you dare not preach the doctrine, so you must indulge in propaganda practices so blatant they amuse the whole Forum.

What you practice is known as the fallacy of the Hijacked Concept. It is the practice of appropriating a concept while denying the validity of the generic root upon which the concept logically depends. It is closely related to the The Stolen Concept. The slogan “all property is theft” is it’s most frequent example.

You go so far as to hijack The Pope into your calumnious propagandizing schemes. You quote The Pope as saying that evolution is a “truth which enriches our understanding of life and being and such”; and use this to assert your opinion“ and as such is NOT a creationist..”

You think your quote of Pope Benedict is your open sesame to slander any Christian who disagrees with you (on anything)? What you can’t stand . . . what you gag on – what you flee in terror from . . . is that Pope Benedict went on to observe (according to the same MSNBC report you cited) that evolution does not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’” That’s as quintessentially Creationist as is philosophically and religiously possible, whether or not the Pope calls himself a Creationist. Pope Benedict’s question, “Where does everything come from?” is a question that Darwinian thought cannot answer, but it is a question that goes to the very core of Creationism, and it is an endless nightmare for you.

So, cling to your little intellectually dishonest out-of-context quote (a characteristic your superheroes The Darwinian Mullahs claim to particularly hold in contempt), just as you have refused to hold up your end of the conversation in every thread involving any of the issues provoked by your categorical declarations.

Now we come to your feeble offering of a “definition”:
creationism
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

Re my message#167 “If you’ll check the definitions of “Creationism” you will find that they cover quite a wide range of philosophical ideas involved in the Judeo-Christian tradition.” You will see that I reference definitions - plural – indicating the truth, which you dare not recognize, that Creationism is a complex religious tenet of the Judeo-Christian tradition. You even lack the honesty to quote the full definition in the reference you cite:
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

Actually, there is a considerable variety of definitions of Creationism to be found, many apropos to Judeo-Christianity, and exhibiting a wide spectrum of views and understandings:
(beginning with a selection from my own collection of dictionaries:

Creationism noun 1 the belief that the universe and living creatures were created by God in accordance with the account given in the Old Testament.
. . . . . Compact Oxford English Dictionary, revised edition 2003

Creationism n 1 In philosophy, the doctrine that matter and each new form was created by a direct exercise of the Divine power; opposed to evolution.
. . . . . Webster’s Universal Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged, 1937

The original 1828 Webster’s Dictionary doesn’t show the word ‘creationism’ or ‘creationist’ but simply defines the word ‘Creation’ as “The act of creating; the act of causing to exist; and especially, the act of bringing this world into existence (emphasis mine). I include this last because it most closely reflects the understandings of the men who were key in the creation of The Constitution and The Bill Of Rights – hence the First Amendment – and was authored by a man who was a correspondent with many of these men and was himself an authority on The Constitution as well as the English language.)

And, following, see a selection of other ordinary and modern definitions:

n the belief that God created the universe
. . . . . Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition

n a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.
. . . . . Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, 11th Edition - no change since 1880

n 1. the doctrine that God creates a new soul for every human being born. n 2. the doctrine that ascribes the origin of matter, species, etc. to an act of creation by God, specif. to God's creation of the world as described in the Bible.
. . . . . Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed. 2005

n 1. the doctrine that the world, life, and matter were created out of nothing by an omnipotent god, rather than that they evolved from other forms. n 2. the theological doctrine that each human soul is created out of nothing for each individual born.
. . . . . The Wordsmyth English Dictionary

n Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
. . . . . The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

n 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. n 2. (sometimes cap.) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis. n 3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born. Cf. traducianism.
. . . . . Infoplease Dictionary - Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.

n The literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis: “creationism denies the theory of evolution of species.”
. . . . . UltraLingua English Dictionary

n. The doctrine that a soul is specially created for each human being as soon as it is formed in the womb; -- opposed to traducianism.
. . . . . Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition

Creationism (Latin creatio)
(1) In the widest sense, the doctrine that the material of the universe was created by God out of no pre-existing subject. It is thus opposed to all forms of Pantheism.
(2) Less widely, the doctrine that the various species of living beings were immediately and directly created or produced by God, and are not therefore the product of an evolutionary process. It is thus opposed to Transformism.
(3) In a restricted but more usual sense, the doctrine that the individual human soul is the immediate effect of God's creative act. It is thus opposed to Traducianism.
. . . . . CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

It is more than a little presumptuous to reserve for yourself exclusivity in commanding the lexicon. You wish your meaning of ‘Creationist’ to prevail, and for the ordinary complex meanings to disappear into the night. You know those who can dictate the meaning of terms in a discussion can attain political domination. For that reason alone you must be contested.

There are a number of ‘special’ terms for some Creationist ideas: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Day-Age Creationism, Gap Creationism, ‘Evolution’ Creationism (whatever that is), Intelligent Design, Modern Geocentrism Creationists, Omphalos Hypothesis Creationists, Creation Science Creationists, Gap Creationists, Progressive Creationists, Neo Creationists, Intelligent Design Creationists, Creation literalists, Evolution Theist Creationists, Micro-Evolutionary Creationism, Progressive Creationists, Flat Earther Creationists, “hard core” Creationists, and, your very favorite, “Special” Creationists (I do not represent the above as an exhaustive list).

Most any one of them, or others (or a combination), might suit your purpose in describing the philosophy you oppose, but you refuse to follow the norm. You wish to pillory all Creationists by attempting to associate them with heinous, traits and with snide references to their intelligence. When you stigmatize the generic term with your array of vile implications, you are seeking to destroy the norms and conventions of meaning for the purpose of calumny, malicious aspersions, and political domination.

You rate a huge FAIL.

182 posted on 01/18/2013 6:30:26 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies ]


To: YHAOS

ouch....

burned....


183 posted on 01/18/2013 6:44:13 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies ]

To: YHAOS

I read what you write but all I hear is the crying of a spoiled brat who thinks he owns the language. You don’t. Creationism as defined is USELESS. Crying about it to me doesn’t change that.

I will readily admit that evolution and the theory of natural selection does nothing to answer the origins of life or the meaning of life or what God values in us all or any number of questions. But it is the only useful scientific model that explains how species change and have changed.

The Pope is not a creationist as defined. Neither am I. Neither are many millions of Christians. Crying about it and trying to use non standard definitions will not change it. Creationism as defined is useless. Science is useful. Creationism and Christianity are not synonymous.


184 posted on 01/18/2013 8:30:04 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies ]

To: YHAOS

+1


193 posted on 01/19/2013 5:25:21 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson