Posted on 08/22/2009 10:05:09 AM PDT by nickcarraway
The author of The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene, whose new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, is serialised in The Times next week, has topped bestseller lists all over the world but never in a predominantly Muslim country.
None of Professor Dawkins’ books, on evolution as well as religion, has ever been translated into Arabic, and his work has been heavily censored in Turkey. In an interview with The Times, he said that popularising evolution in the Islamic world, where creationist beliefs are strong, was a challenge he is keen to take up. “To be a bestseller in a Muslim country would be a personal triumph,” he said.
“I would like to see my books translated into Arabic. They haven’t been. They are all translated into Hebrew. Persian, I’m not sure. My books are translated into Turkish and they regularly get censored and suppressed.
“The experience of my Turkish publisher of The God Delusion was that he was threatened with arrest for blasphemy. He may even have been arrested, and my website has been banned in Turkey. I feel amused really. There’s something to be said for being suppressed, it makes people want to read you.”
While most non-fundamentalist Christian traditions have largely accepted evolution, Islam was still much more hostile, he said. “It’s the fact that Islam teaches the Koran is the literal word of God, unlike most Christian sects, which say the Bible is largely symbolic. That could well be the cause.”
Professor Dawkins added that Islamic influence is the likely explanation for the growing popularity of creationist beliefs in Britain, where a recent poll found that 30 per cent of teenagers accept the rebranded idea of “intelligent design”.
(Excerpt) Read more at entertainment.timesonline.co.uk ...
Something else for you to ponder:
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/church/chur17.htm
That more easily explains the body of Christ.
While you try your best to denigrate me, in particular, you also denigrate other Christians because we are part of the body of Christ and you grieve other members as well.
I assumed that since you ignored what I said that doing the same to you would be acceptable. For you to even hint that I have problems with all of Christianity borders on Obama level dishonesty and ACORN type manipulation.
My main concern was those indirectly wishing death upon those they don’t disagree with which is what telling him to go to the ME and talk would do.
As for what I do - I do not feel the need to what I do to help people because I do it to help not as a PR move to make myself look better.
But you denigrating someone, without knowing their religious beliefs is OK?
how about just convertin’ ‘em to being mellow? Ya know, kinda like a 70s Ben Murphy kinda mellow.
If evidence counts for anything, then yes, actually.
I personally know that to be a false statement.
Actually, thousands of Muslims convert to Christianity each year in Africa. And why do you think there are "Protestant" churches in Pakistan for the Muslims to burn down, in the first place?
C'mon now, that's an ugly thing to say about evolutionists.
Creation and Genesis
Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.
The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact “that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same “day” as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).
Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator” (CCC 283). .
cute
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
funny I found the same thing separately and posted it. see #70
How would you know? You've never even met me!
Ha, Ha.... sure whatever....I meant a pretty cute repartee for a luddite.
If you can manage to make this wholly, Biblically acceptable interpretation into hundreds of millions or even trillions of years, your embrace, of the theory of evolution as it stands currently, as compatible with Christian belief, is Biblically acceptable.
But, you can't. Do the math. It's just simple addition. 6,000 years and 1,000 years of rest.
Funny, that 6,000 year thing. Going back to time and faith, I honestly don't know, either, if the Earth and all that is in it, is 6,000 years old, but honest, believing Christians have made a good faith effort to put together the generations, and this is what they've come up with. I see no reason to argue against it. Arguing for it, is a matter of interpretation.
But, again, there is no way, whatsoever, to extend the Biblical timeline into even hundreds of thousands of years, in order to make it compatible with an evolutionary timeline.
Is the approval of the world so important to you? Because, that's what you're seeking, when you defer to man's knowledge over God.
When can we send him?
Is there a website to register for donations for the airline ticket?
Personally, I think this takes things a little too far in trying to prove the survival of the fittest.
He may want to discuss it with a good psychotherapist or psychiatrist before going on with this.
I do believe in the new testiment...and the teachings of Christ...but find much of the old testiment to be more mens explanations of the unexplanable than Gods written words, especially the older books of the Bible.
Jesus Christ spoke about and taught upon, the books of the now-Old Testament. You have the old covenant and the new, the Alpha and the Omega, the first Adam and the second Adam, Jesus. It’s inseparable. 6,000 years to create creation, a millenium of rest. 6,000 years of man in that creation, the millenium to come.
I don’t see how you can reject the foundation. It’s an intricate whole. I could go on, the fall of man introducing sin and death into the world, the restoration of the world removing that sin and death.
You’ll believe as you will, but I hope you’ll consider what I’ve written.
"We are survival machines--robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth that fills me with astonishment" [Dawkins, The Selfish Gene]Imagine that. A robot writing evolution books for other robots to read.
That's a good point. Even if we take seriously what Vaquero's high school priest had to say about it (and I don't, btw), you have creation stretched out over a mere 6,000 years. STILL not going to satisfy the materialistic evolutionists that the Catholic religion is hoping to appease.
Let's face it - this compromise stuff is pure nonsense. The only two realistic options are to believe in biblical special creation or in materialistic evolution. Consistency demands you hold to either one or the other. You can't stretch the Bible to make it include evolution, nor can you stretch evolution to make it consistent with creation.
As for me, being a luddite and all (though probably knowing much more about science that Vaquero), I'll simply go with the assumption that when God wanted to tell us something, He would just come right out and tell us. I see no reason to believe that if God had meant eras that were "billions of years", that He wouldn't have just come right out and said so, finding some way, given the limitations of the language, to express that concept. As it stands, He said "days", and specifically indicated that He meant that literally, through the use of the "evening and morning" motif. I see no reason to believe God lied to us about what He meant, as "theistic evolutionists" would have us to believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.