Posted on 08/24/2009 1:41:52 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Imagine that you are a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, anxious to impart your enthusiasm for the ancient world — for the elegiacs of Ovid and the odes of Horace, the sinewy economy of Latin grammar as exhibited in the oratory of Cicero, the strategic niceties of the Punic Wars, the generalship of Julius Caesar and the voluptuous excesses of the later emperors. That’s a big undertaking and it takes time, concentration, dedication. Yet you find your precious time continually preyed upon, and your class’s attention distracted, by a baying pack of ignoramuses (as a Latin scholar you would know better than to say ignorami) who, with strong political and especially financial support, scurry about tirelessly attempting to persuade your unfortunate pupils that the Romans never existed. There never was a Roman Empire. The entire world came into existence only just beyond living memory. Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, Romansh: all these languages and their constituent dialects sprang spontaneously and separately into being, and owe nothing to any predecessor such as Latin.
Instead of devoting your full attention to the noble vocation of classical scholar and teacher, you are forced to divert your time and energy to a rearguard defence of the proposition that the Romans existed at all: a defence against an exhibition of ignorant prejudice that would make you weep if you weren’t too busy fighting it.
If my fantasy of the Latin teacher seems too wayward, here’s a more realistic example. Imagine you are a teacher of more recent history, and your lessons on 20th-century Europe are boycotted, heckled or otherwise disrupted by well-organised, well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers.
(Excerpt) Read more at entertainment.timesonline.co.uk ...
for the past 20 years I have been hearing various reasons Galileo was tried ranging from philosophical/theological beliefs about interpreting Aristotelian logic to political intrigue intertwined with the Church, but supposedly not on theological grounds. Maybe, but the Church still used their power to try him. For all the charity they professed in the name of Christ, they had little for Galileo.
Thanks for the ping!
Thus, Evolutionist rhetoric, juxtaposed against the facts of science and history demonstrates that they are totally incompetent, in addition to being angry and dangerous. In a truly sane society, e.g., the one to be run by God, evolutionists, at a minimum, would not be allowed to vote.”
Clearly then, “evolutionists should not be allowed to roam free in the land.” All that remains for us to discuss is “What should be done with evolutionists?” For the purposes of this essay, I will ignore the minor issue of Western-style jurisprudenceand merely mention possible solutions to the
“evolutionism problem,” leaving the legal details to others:
· Labor camps. Their fellow believers were high on these. But, my position would be that most of them have lived their lives at, or near the public trough. So, after their own beliefs, their life should continue only as long as they can support themselves in the camps.
· Require them to wear placards around their neck, or perhaps large medallions which prominently announce “Warning: Evolutionist! Mentally Incompetent – Potentially Dangerous.” I consider this option too dangerous.
· Since evolutionists are liars and most do not really believe evolution we could employ truth serum or water-boarding to obtain confessions of evolution rejection. But, this should, at most, result in parole, because, like Muslims, evolutionist religion permits them to lie if there is any benefit to them.
· An Evolutionist Colony in Antarctica could be a promising option. Of course inspections would be required to prevent too much progress. They might invent gunpowder.
· A colony on Mars would prevent gunpowder from harming anyone but their own kind, in the unlikely event they turned out to be intelligent enough to invent it.
· All options should include 24-hour sound system playing Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, or the preservation of Favored Races by Means of Natural Selection. Of course some will consider this cruel & unusual, especially since they will undoubtedly have that treatment for eternity. ~ Tom Willis, Creation Science for Mid America.
Matthew 7:3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
CSA meets monthly at the Westbrooke Church, 9898 West 95th, Overland Park, KS.
As a Christian why have you not called out these outrageous comments made on behalf of all creationist?
By your silence I can only assume that you agree with his position.
If you wish to slap wrists, at least go to the right wrists. So have you written or called or faxed them to protest their outrageous statements? If not, doesn't that mean you agree?
And my neighbor does hard drugs, but I haven't protested to him so will you also assume I agree with his practices? And then there's a butcher I know who says he's communist......
You see my point, I trust.
Richard Dawkins is man speaking well out his level of his expertise. He is not a trained physicist nor is he trained in any serious form of hard biology.
You are mistaken my friend…………
Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, author and outspoken atheist. He has established himself as a biological guru with the publication of books detailing and expanding upon Darwinian theory……… University of California, Berkeley, assistant professor of zoology, 1967-69; Oxford University, Oxford, England, lecturer in zoology and fellow of New College, 1970-90, reader in zoology, 1990-95; Evolutionary biologist and the Charles Simonyi Professor For The Understanding Of Science at Oxford University; Elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in May, 2001
http://www.richarddawkins.com/
So you do not agree with Mr. Willis comments?
You are now aware or Mr. Willis and his outrageous comments is it not your duty as a Christian to rebuke your brother in Christ, or do you just have a problem with hate speech when it is directed at you?
I am aware of Dawkins. I am not a big fan of people taking a few classes in soft sciences calling themselves a “scientist.”
I am assuming that you are referring to Micheal Behe, Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind
Dawkins can’t help it. His genes made him do it. (They’re selfish, you know.)
There are all sorts of ridiculers of the Bible but I don't waste my time with them either any more than I would continue to do so here and don't after a certain point.
I don’t know who those people are.
Dawkins’ analogy would have been closer to the truth if he had started thus, “Imagine you are teaching your literature students the Klingon language and some nuts persuade them that Klingons don’t exist.”
So you do not subscribe to these beliefs:
CSA Beliefs
The Bible is the divinely inspired written Word of God. It is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture. Human “scientific pursuits” have shed precious little light on the meaning, intent, or content of the Revelation of God. Whether those pursuits were in the so-called “historical sciences” or in the “testable, repeatable, and falsifiable sciences”, in virtually all cases of claimed “improved knowledge” over revelation, the “improvement” was either already available to the believing and discerning reader of Scripture, or the “improvement” was illusory. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple, but factual, presentation of actual events, and, therefore, it provides a reliable framework for scientific research both in the historical sciences and in the operational sciences. The fact of Creation and the fact of its Creator are an integral part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The scientific implications of Creation are important, but they are SECONDARY to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
http://www.csama.org/CSA-INFO.HTM
They are some charlatans who have taken a few classes in soft sciences calling themselves a “scientist.”
If there was no God what possible difference could it make to an atheist if someone thought there was one? I think most atheist believe in God somewhere within themselves but they hate Him.
As Dawkins gets closer to death I would guess he is getting more and more uncomfortable. He is fighting a losing battle with himself.
Galileo isn’t a very good example anyhow.
Why do you ask? Sure, I can agree with some of what they say they believe. So what does that mean?
And I believe what the Bible says, That it is the inspired word of God, His Word.
But Jesus said at Mark 3:35 that ‘whoever did (DID!) the will of his father was his (Jesus’) brother, sister, mother,
and James wrote at James 2:19, ‘you believe there is one God do you? You are doing quite well and yet even the demons believe and shudder’.
So a statement of beliefs is fine but it means nothing if the actions don't agree.
So what does the CSA do? What are it's priorities? Are these the priorities Jesus set?
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.