Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution and intelligent design Life is a cup of tea
Economist ^ | 10/6/05 | Economist

Posted on 10/07/2005 4:59:16 AM PDT by shuckmaster

How should evolution be taught in schools? This being America, judges will decide

HALF of all Americans either don't know or don't believe that living creatures evolved. And now a Pennsylvania school board is trying to keep its pupils ignorant. It is the kind of story about America that makes secular Europeans chortle smugly before turning to the horoscope page. Yet it is more complex than it appears.

In Harrisburg a trial began last week that many are comparing to the Scopes “monkey” trial of 1925, when a Tennessee teacher was prosecuted for teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Now the gag is on the other mouth. In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public-school science classes was an unconstitutional blurring of church and state. But those who think Darwinism unGodly have fought back.

Last year, the school board in Dover, a small rural school district near Harrisburg, mandated a brief disclaimer before pupils are taught about evolution. They are to be told that “The theory [of evolution] is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence.” And that if they wish to investigate the alternative theory of “intelligent design”, they should consult a book called “Of Pandas and People” in the school library.

Eleven parents, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, two lobby groups, are suing to have the disclaimer dropped. Intelligent design, they say, is merely a clever repackaging of creationism, and as such belongs in a sermon, not a science class.

The school board's defence is that intelligent design is science, not religion. It is a new theory, which holds that present-day organisms are too complex to have evolved by the accumulation of random mutations, and must have been shaped by some intelligent entity. Unlike old-style creationism, it does not explicitly mention God. It also accepts that the earth is billions of years old and uses more sophisticated arguments to poke holes in Darwinism.

Almost all biologists, however, think it is bunk. Kenneth Miller, the author of a popular biology textbook and the plaintiffs' first witness, said that, to his knowledge, every major American scientific organisation with a view on the subject supported the theory of evolution and dismissed the notion of intelligent design. As for “Of Pandas and People”, he pronounced that the book was “inaccurate and downright false in every section”.

The plaintiffs have carefully called expert witnesses who believe not only in the separation of church and state but also in God. Mr Miller is a practising Roman Catholic. So is John Haught, a theology professor who testified on September 30th that life is like a cup of tea.

To illustrate the difference between scientific and religious “levels of understanding”, Mr Haught asked a simple question. What causes a kettle to boil? One could answer, he said, that it is the rapid vibration of water molecules. Or that it is because one has asked one's spouse to switch on the stove. Or that it is “because I want a cup of tea.” None of these explanations conflicts with the others. In the same way, belief in evolution is compatible with religious faith: an omnipotent God could have created a universe in which life subsequently evolved.

It makes no sense, argued the professor, to confuse the study of molecular movements by bringing in the “I want tea” explanation. That, he argued, is what the proponents of intelligent design are trying to do when they seek to air their theory—which he called “appalling theology”—in science classes.

Darwinism has enemies mostly because it is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Intelligent designers deny that this is why they attack it, but this week the court was told by one critic that the authors of “Of Pandas and People” had culled explicitly creationist language from early drafts after the Supreme Court barred creationism from science classes.

In the Dover case, intelligent design appears to have found unusually clueless champions. If the plaintiffs' testimony is accurate, members of the school board made no effort until recently to hide their religious agenda. For years, they expressed pious horror at the idea of apes evolving into men and tried to make science teachers teach old-fashioned creationism. (The board members in question deny, or claim not to remember, having made remarks along these lines at public meetings.)

Intelligent design's more sophisticated proponents, such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, are too polite to say they hate to see their ideas championed by such clods. They should not be surprised, however. America's schools are far more democratic than those in most other countries. School districts are tiny—there are 501 in Pennsylvania alone—and school boards are directly elected. In a country where 65% of people think that creationism and evolution should be taught side by side, some boards inevitably agree, and seize upon intelligent design as the closest approximation they think they can get away with. But they may not be able to get away with it for long. If the case is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, intelligent design could be labelled religious and barred from biology classes nationwide.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creoslavery; crevolist; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800801-837 next last
To: jennyp

It is as if you have never heard the terms, "tradition", "culture" or "practice". Leave the Dark Ages, come out into the light. It is a real eyeopener.


751 posted on 10/12/2005 11:29:20 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
It is as if you have never heard the terms, "tradition", "culture" or "practice".

OK, so different cultures have different traditions, and so they consider different practices as morally acceptable or unacceptable. Fine.

But we're all human beings, regardless of the culture we live in. You don't consider slavery to be wrong. Is it only not-wrong in the US, or are there other cultures in which slavery is also not wrong in your view?

752 posted on 10/12/2005 11:43:41 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 751 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
But we're all human beings, regardless of the culture we live in. You don't consider slavery to be wrong. Is it only not-wrong in the US, or are there other cultures in which slavery is also not wrong in your view?

I believe that I have sufficiently explained myself. You will not be satisfied until you can say, "ah ha" you said.." So forget it. You are not luring me into your liberal trap. By the way, answer my question. Is slavery a moral issue? If you say it is where do you derive what is moral and what isn't?

753 posted on 10/12/2005 11:59:22 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 752 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
"I believe that I have sufficiently explained myself."

Yes, you are a pro-slavery, pro-government statist. You are also a moral relativist who doesn't believe there are moral absolutes.

"Is slavery a moral issue? If you say it is where do you derive what is moral and what isn't?"

My nature as a rational, human being.
754 posted on 10/13/2005 7:42:27 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

"my all-sufficient answers"


Thank you for clarifying your view of yourself. Now I understand why you might think slavery is not wrong.

I'm more of a Luke 6:31 person myself.


755 posted on 10/13/2005 7:45:48 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 747 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Moral relativism too.

The creationists really are the pale riders of postmoderndeconstructionism.

756 posted on 10/13/2005 7:46:38 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever; jennyp

You are correct that you have "sufficiently explained" yourself, but not to your credit.


757 posted on 10/13/2005 7:49:38 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

Somehow the phrase "total management principles" seems out of place in their description of outlawing slavery.


758 posted on 10/13/2005 7:50:03 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 748 | View Replies]

Matthew 25:40 placemark


759 posted on 10/13/2005 8:50:30 AM PDT by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 755 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
I believe that I have sufficiently explained myself. You will not be satisfied until you can say, "ah ha" you said.."

There's no "ah-ha" moment in the offing. You've already "sufficiently explained" yourself. See, for example, post 611. I'm just eager to understand why a supposed conservative would hold such a reprehensible view.

So forget it. You are not luring me into your liberal trap.

So opposition to slavery is now liberalism??? LOL!

By the way, answer my question. Is slavery a moral issue? If you say it is where do you derive what is moral and what isn't?

Of course slavery is a moral issue. Slavery is immoral because a human being cannot be owned. Humans have individual rights because it's a necessity for survival as humans. All humans have such rights, because if you apply rights to only some people and not others, then it's no longer a principle but instead just an ad-hoc, self-serving rationalization.

Let me ask you something: How would you feel if someone kidnapped you & sold you into slavery? Would you chalk it up to a stroke of bad luck, like getting hit by a hurricane, or would you recognize it as a crime - a violation of your inherent rights as a human being?

760 posted on 10/13/2005 10:45:01 AM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
"Is slavery a moral issue? If you say it is where do you derive what is moral and what isn't?" My nature as a rational, human being.

Just as I thought. Your basis for morals is you. That means that every single person in the world can have their own idea of what is moral. Who is to say their idea is wrong? Are you saying that your idea is superior to theirs? If so, why?

761 posted on 10/13/2005 11:36:44 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 754 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Read Post# 761.


762 posted on 10/13/2005 11:48:28 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 760 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

I trust in John 3:16 (Gospel). Belief in this will get you to heaven. How does Luke 6:31 (Law)give a promise of salvation?


763 posted on 10/13/2005 11:53:04 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 755 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
"Just as I thought. Your basis for morals is you. "

Exactly not what I said. I said my morality is based on my nature as a human being and the nature of my existence, which is what it is no matter what I may wish or hope it to be. You base your *morality* on whatever the government says is ok. You say that you consider abortion to be wrong, why? Why abortion but not slavery? Your moral code has left you impotent to make any stands.

"Who is to say their idea is wrong? Are you saying that your idea is superior to theirs? If so, why?"

I don't need a lecture on morality from a dedicated moral relativist who thinks there's nothing wrong with slavery.
Go push your pro-slavery BS on a site where it would be better suited, like the DU or maybe a Christian Re-constructionist site.
764 posted on 10/13/2005 12:28:43 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 761 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Read Post# 761.

Read post 760: All humans have such rights, because if you apply rights to only some people and not others, then it's no longer a principle but instead just an ad-hoc, self-serving rationalization.

It's true in one sense that my basis for morals is myself. But as I said, morality is a principle - a system or framework of judging behavior. You can't have a principle without applying it consistently in all similar contexts. This means that it must apply to everyone in a similar situation.

Is it moral to kidnap someone? Well, it's clearly wrong to kidnap me, except if I was judged guilty of a crime by a legitimate court. In that case they'd have the right to put me in jail. But to kidnap me "just because", or because I owe somebody some money, would be wrong.

You see? Your problem isn't really against a self-interested basis for morality. It's against self-serving morality. But a self-serving morality (where you don't apply the moral principles consistently) is a contradiction in terms. You're really arguing against "rationalization".

765 posted on 10/13/2005 12:45:43 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 762 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
You base your *morality* on whatever the government says is ok.

No I don't. My basis for morality is the Bible. Yours, contrary to your opinion, is based on what you think.

766 posted on 10/13/2005 12:53:23 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 764 | View Replies]

Sort of like blowing up one pixel of an image and claiming it is the whole image.


767 posted on 10/13/2005 12:56:03 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
You're really arguing against "rationalization".

Exactly. I do not think that I am capable of making rational decisions on my own. I need a basis for making them and that basis is the Bible.

768 posted on 10/13/2005 12:56:06 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
I do not think that I am capable of making rational decisions on my own.

Hmmmmm... Well, maybe you would appreciate the long-term security and certainty that comes from a guaranteed, non-rescindable, lifetime employment situation.

769 posted on 10/13/2005 1:03:03 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
I think we have a keeper for the THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM section of The List-O-Links.
770 posted on 10/13/2005 1:10:10 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 769 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

"No I don't. My basis for morality is the Bible."

You have no moral code, why are you pretending you do? You have said repeatedly you think that there is nothing wrong with slavery. That if the government makes something legal, it's ok. That if other cultures allow different things, who are we to say that would they do is wrong? You have said,

"Like I said, the Bible doesn't support it nor does it condemn it, so who am I to say it is immoral."

"Why is it not wrong in other countries? If there laws allow it, that is what makes it right."

This means you base your *morality* not on any rational base but whatever a government happens to say. When they come to drag you and your family away to be chattel slaves, you will have nothing to argue with then about. What will you say? You can't say it's WRONG, because you don't believe anything a government does CAN be wrong. I repeat your own statement:

"Why is it not wrong in other countries? If there laws allow it, that is what makes it right."




"Yours, contrary to your opinion, is based on what you think."

Your disgust for rational thought is palpable. My morality comes from the nature of existence, and what it takes for a human being to survive in this world: the Mind. My opinion won't change that fact, any more than you can pretend to be anything other than a pro-slavery, anti-Mind, collectivist.


771 posted on 10/13/2005 1:12:24 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

"I do not think that I am capable of making rational decisions on my own."

Finally, something we can all agree on! :)


772 posted on 10/13/2005 1:13:33 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies]

To: All
Just added to The List-O-Links, in THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM:

NEW post 768 by taxesareforever on 13 Oct 2005. I do not think that I am capable of making rational decisions on my own.

773 posted on 10/13/2005 1:23:31 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
"I do not think that I am capable of making rational decisions on my own. I need a basis for making them and that basis is the Bible."

If you can't make rational decisions on your own, how did you choose to have the Bible as your authority? Did it have a pretty cover? Did you blindfold yourself and throw darts at a dartboard covered with the names of sacred texts?
Was there someone whispering into your head telling you what to do? (If so, don't listen to the German Shepard)

Do your family and neighbors know you can't make rational decisions on your own? Should we contact your boss? Most people who can't make rational decisions for themselves are put into mental institutions as a protection for them and others. If the government decided to check you into one on the basis of your admission that you can't make rational decisions, would you have a moral argument against them?

So many questions, so little time.
774 posted on 10/13/2005 1:36:32 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

Try following it.


775 posted on 10/13/2005 2:23:21 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 763 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
So many questions, so little time.

John 3:16. You are right time is short. However eternity is eternity.

776 posted on 10/13/2005 2:44:08 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Aw, fame. How can this feeble mind handle it?


777 posted on 10/13/2005 2:46:15 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
My morality comes from the nature of existence,

My, that certainly is a profound statement. How could anyone argue with that? They can't. Because everyone exists therefore everyone has an opinion and all opinions are of the same value. Who can argue otherwise? Since we all exist we all have valid opinions.

778 posted on 10/13/2005 2:49:57 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 771 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

There you go assuming again. I just told you what I believe and you say I don't. I guess since you are rational you have superior knowledge of everyone.


779 posted on 10/13/2005 2:52:15 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 775 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
"Because everyone exists therefore everyone has an opinion and all opinions are of the same value. Who can argue otherwise? Since we all exist we all have valid opinions."

That isn't what I said. That's your philosophy, not mine. You're the moral relativist. You're the one who thinks that anything a government does is not wrong, because,well, the government is THE LAW. Not that that matters, you have already stated you are incapable of making rational decisions. You know of no rational basis to choose what is moral or not moral. There are other people too in society who also can't make rational choices. They're called children. Do your parents know you are using their computer?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " (John 3:16)

Why do you believe the Bible? If you can't make rational decisions, how did you happen to believe this? I am serious.

If the Government outlaws Christianity (including all appropriate amending to the Constitution), would you obey?, because, as you have said earlier,

"If there(sic) laws allow it, that is what makes it right."

Would it be right? How could you know without the ability to make rational decisions?
780 posted on 10/13/2005 3:05:06 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

How does one reinterpret my statement "Try following it" into your response of "I just told you what I believe and you say I don't."

What is your problem with following what is commonly called the Golden Rule?


781 posted on 10/13/2005 3:37:28 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
[taf:] I do not think that I am capable of making rational decisions on my own.

I would hesitate to attack this. There's no evidence that the statement is really wrong. Furthermore, if he wasn't using the Bible to guide his life he might have settled upon an outdated copy of some state's motor vehicle code or even who-knows-what?

782 posted on 10/13/2005 4:08:24 PM PDT by VadeRetro (I'll have a few sleepless nights after I send you over, sure! But it'll pass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I would hesitate to attack this. There's no evidence that the statement is really wrong.

I don't attack it. I celebrate it. It's rare to see such honesty. Well worth preserving in The List-O-Links where others can see it.

783 posted on 10/13/2005 4:15:55 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 782 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
This entire thread is classic!

Wouldn't have believed it if I wasn't there at the time.

784 posted on 10/13/2005 7:57:06 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

The Golden Rule is no different from the Ten Commandments. They are all law and obeying the law does not get a person into heaven. Believing the Gospel gets people to heaven. You can do as much good as you want but unless it is done out of love for Christ it is not considered good in His eyes.


785 posted on 10/13/2005 8:46:17 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Why do you believe the Bible? If you can't make rational decisions, how did you happen to believe this? I am serious. Okay, I'll be serious. I believe that when I was baptized the Holy Spirit worked faith in my heart. It had nothing to do with me, it was all His work. So many have an opportunity to believe, especially those who have been baptized. However, God does not make us robots and therefore we still have the ability to deny the validity of God and His Holy Word. It is only by His grace and mercy that a person continues to believe. All the credit goes to God. I am not capable of believing without Him working faith in me. Rational? No. True? Yes. That is the reason that people who think rationally usually reject God because the thought of a God who could accomplish so much is just not rational and therefore unbelievable.
786 posted on 10/13/2005 8:56:05 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
You can do as much good as you want but unless it is done out of love for Christ it is not considered good in His eyes.

So that is why God kills all those innocent children?

787 posted on 10/13/2005 8:58:19 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
You are not luring me into your liberal trap.

Ah, when caught in the trap, start with insinuating the other guy is "odd man out" in the group (this board). Documented communist tactic used in the US.

788 posted on 10/13/2005 9:00:23 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Furthermore, if he wasn't using the Bible to guide his life he might have settled upon an outdated copy of some state's motor vehicle code or even who-knows-what?

Or the Sears Catalog....... oh, the horror, the horror!

789 posted on 10/13/2005 9:01:20 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 782 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever; jennyp
I do not think that I am capable of making rational decisions on my own.

Finding common ground?

790 posted on 10/13/2005 9:30:12 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
You can do as much good as you want but unless it is done out of love for Christ it is not considered good in His eyes. So that is why God kills all those innocent children?

Since you are so insightful let me know when God's trial begins.

791 posted on 10/13/2005 11:18:30 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

Oh wise guru, who put you in touch with this thread? Did they think your wisdom was better than theirs? I really doubt that it is.


792 posted on 10/13/2005 11:22:21 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

"I am not capable of believing without Him working faith in me. Rational? No. True? Yes."

Or maybe not, how do YOU know? Did the Holy Spirit tell you that slavery was OK and that anything a government enacts into law is OK? How does the Golden Rule mesh with your belief that slavery isn't a moral issue?

"That is the reason that people who think rationally usually reject God because the thought of a God who could accomplish so much is just not rational and therefore unbelievable."

So know you are saying that on rational grounds atheism makes a lot of sense, therefore, it is wrong! Embrace the Mystical! (I am not saying your above example is necessarily rational or logical, and you wouldn't know because you have already admitted you can't make rational decisions by yourself.)

"However, God does not make us robots and therefore we still have the ability to deny the validity of God and His Holy Word."

In other words, using your above logic, if a person uses his God given ability to reason, he will come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. By doing so he will have sinned and be damned to Hell. The only way to Heaven is to forsake the gifts God gave you. Embrace the Stupidity!

You are really providing some hilarious posts for us; don't stop now!


793 posted on 10/14/2005 4:58:01 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

First, and most important, I do not, ever, challenge a person's faith. So, when I ask the question in post 780:

"How does one reinterpret my statement "Try following it" into your response of "I just told you what I believe and you say I don't.""

....this was not a challenge to your faith but a question as to how a suggestion to try following the Golden Rule could possibly be interpreted as any kind of challenge.

I'm sorry that you seem not to be able to understand that.


794 posted on 10/14/2005 5:01:54 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever; CarolinaGuitarman
And here we have the answer to the frustrating aspect these threads.

Note again that no Creationist has come out opposing taxesareforever's statement that slavery is not wrong.

Now we have the following statement:

"That is the reason that people who think rationally usually reject God because the thought of a God who could accomplish so much is just not rational and therefore unbelievable."

paired with:

"The Golden Rule is no different from the Ten Commandments. They are all law and obeying the law does not get a person into heaven. Believing the Gospel gets people to heaven. You can do as much good as you want but unless it is done out of love for Christ it is not considered good in His eyes."

Thus a simple formula that explains the nature of these threads:

1. Believe that you love Christ.

2. Believe that loving Christ is all that will get you into heaven.(thus any behavior that shows you love Christ is ok.)

3. Believe that rational behavior is a indicator that the person doing it does not believe in God and therefor does not love Christ.

There goes science, because practiioners of science do not by definition believe in God and love Christ, and (inferential jump here) there also goes the need for honesty in debate with them because they are bad non Christ lovers.

Worse yet, rational behavior is, in and of itself, an indicator that the person doing it does not believe in God and is probably, therefor, a bad guy

795 posted on 10/14/2005 5:31:58 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
There goes science, because practiioners of science do not by definition believe in God and love Christ,

That is your opinion because you have already disclaimed any and all opinions from those scientists who support the Institute for Creation Research.

796 posted on 10/14/2005 10:13:34 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Okay, I'll take this as a misinterpretation on my part. However, the phrase "Try following it" is all I can do. I am a sinner and no matter how hard I try I go against the Golden Rule every day. Matter of fact, everyone does since we are all sinners.


797 posted on 10/14/2005 10:16:46 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 794 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
The only way to Heaven is to forsake the gifts God gave you. Embrace the Stupidity!

I don't consider rational thinking as a gift. It might be thought of as the Devil's play book.

798 posted on 10/14/2005 10:19:40 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 793 | View Replies]

Wow placemark


799 posted on 10/14/2005 10:21:59 AM PDT by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

Mine!


800 posted on 10/14/2005 10:22:41 AM PDT by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800801-837 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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