Posted on 12/20/2011 9:15:48 AM PST by Paladins Prayer
In writing this piece, I’m reminded of a little exchange between the late William F. Buckley and friend and fellow National Review writer Florence King. Buckley had just penned some less-than-flattering words about a recently deceased person of prominence whose name escapes me, and King chided him, saying something to the effect that he had broken ground in journalism: the “attack-obit.” Buckley’s response was, “Wait till you see the obituary I have planned for you!”
And in writing this critical article about bon vivant Christopher Hitchens in the wake of his death this past Thursday, I expect some ridicule as well. Yet I don’t think Hitchens would demand to be spared the acidic ink he used to eviscerate others — or that he would have any credibility doing so. Remember that this was the man who, before the gentle Jerry Falwell’s body was even cold, said things such as “If he [Falwell] had been given an enema, he could have been buried in a matchbox” and “I wish there was a Hell for Falwell.”
For my part, I wouldn’t wish eternal damnation on Hitchens; I truly hope he rests in peace. But I can’t say the same for his legacy. And when I see the obligatory exaltation of his life’s work — with secular icons, the deader they get, the better they were — I think that legacy needs a little damnation.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
I do get it. You believe what you believe, it’s the truth and that’s that.
:)
Seriously, thanks for your replies.
I suspect that “A Perfect Lady’s” husband finds that his ball and chain is “always right” and that he specializes in saying “Yes, dear.”
What religion or denomination were u born to from your folks?
their folks?
Atheists seem to spring from some groups more than others....
But be my guest....i support your lack of religion
But much like homosexuality I dont think it should hold the majority hostage
And likely neither do you...or u would not be here
My father as far as I know was a lifelong atheist (much more aggressively than I am BTW), my mom was brought up Church of England (a war bride) but drifted out of it in her teens.
Both of them are gone now for almost twenty years so I can't ask them about their parents.
And by the way, if orthodox Christianity is true, both of my loving parents are now in eternal torment, aren't they?
And likely neither do you...or u would not be here
I like the way Bill Buckley put it. "Can one be a conservative and not believe in God? Of course. Can one be a conservative and despise God and those who believe in him? Of course not."
I have no beef with any conservative Christian or Jew, and have no problem with religion having a place in the public square.
It's only when someone starts telling me that as a (polite and civil) atheist I can't be a conservative, or that my atheism is harmful to America, that I draw the line and fight back.
What a shame, then, that he created so many billions that he didn't want added to his kingdom. Do you think that they get a break from the eternal hellfire? Say an hour or so every ten thousand years??
I think it's a relatively short jump from the idea that "the universe is random" to "the universe is not random". Some of the evidence for the latter is interesting although I am not yet quite convinced.
However it is an enormous jump from "the universe is not random" to "the universe was created by a Being specifically for the sake of the inhabitants of one single planet, orbiting one single star, in one single galaxy. Furthermore, that Being craves the personal affection and worship of the inhabitants of that one planet."
I do not see any scientific evidence which would substantiate that second jump.
In other words, you’ve proven that morality ultimately derives from human reason, which may, and indeed must, reject “God Says So” claims if the content of the claim is illogical.
That's a rather dim hope. You might do better by presenting an argument with fewer holes than a colander.
Whatever - how exactly do you perceive me massaging my ego?
I’m not sure how I got pinged to the discussion between the two of you.
Don’t see how anyone can make this statement without a smirk...
‘a relatively short jump from the idea that “the universe is random” to “the universe is not random”.’ Please elaborate.
Re: “created by a Being specifically for the sake of the inhabitants of one single planet, orbiting one single star, in one single galaxy.”
There is much scientific evidence supporting the Earth being the ‘center of it all’ Not arguing for geocentrism unless one counts the universe too.
Consider a National Geographic presentation for a 3D computer mock-up that shows the Earth in a very much central position of the all that we can see.
Or another recent DVD, “The Privileged Planet” by Illustra Media where they exclaim near the end how we appear to be uniquely positioned in the Universe to observe the entire visible spectrum.
Or how about the book “Just 6 Numbers”? It details how altering any 1 of these cosmological constants would not allow for life at all.
If you’re OK with all these being mere coincidences, then fine, but from my perspective I continue to find an overwhelming amount of evidence [see my links] in support of a relatively young Earth and Universe and the unique claims made by God in the Holy Bible.
Do you think, were it not for fear of eternal damnation, you would be a homosexual murderer?
Apparently James C. Bennett was trying to bring you into our discussion. He did this on another response to [which I did not notice at first] and I’d guess only Mr. Bennett knows why he does what he does...
I see no reason whatsoever for a creator not to have created millions of intelligences throughout the trillions of worlds that the universe contains.
Sorry, you don’t get to argue modern physics and declare young-earthism, any more than you get to argue modern medicine and declare that disease can be cured by bloodletting.
Maybe you’ve not heard this fairly recent perspective on Einstein’s relativity and the big bang theory?
from wikipedia re: Russell Humphrey...
“Humphreys’ book, Starlight and Time, presents an alternative cosmological model to the currently accepted Big bang theory, that attempts to solve the Distant Starlight Problem.
Its thesis is that the Earth is about six thousand years old, and the outer edge of an expanding and rotating 3-dimensional universe is billions of years old (when measured from earth).
It proposes using the principles of relativity to postulate that time ticked at different rates during the universe’s origin.
In other words, according to his theory, clocks on earth registered the six days of creation while those at the edge of the universe counted the approximately 15 billion years needed for light from the most distant galaxies to reach earth. The model places the Milky Way galaxy relatively near the center of the cosmos.”
Now if you assign 7-8 billion years for the 1st creation day and add half again for each subsequent day, the result is 13.75 - 15.75 billion years of apparent age for 6 days of creation w/ 24 literal hours transpired each day.
Some folks are just too close-minded to be considered scientific these days.
They are like the global warming alarmists who tell us the science is settled, end of discussion...
Oh I am certainly willing to consider the evidence.
The evidence is that the gravity between the Sun and the Earth is both necessary and sufficient to explain the orbital acceleration of the Earth around the Sun - while there is no known force that could move the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless.
Besides you have already stated that your criteria is what you believe the Bible says - not where the evidence will lead you - so much for your scientific outlook - it is pure apologetics.
Kindly go back and read post 71 of this thread.
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.