|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 10, 2012 8:37:30 GMT
Why don't you just open an America-bashing thread, visitor? You're very good at opening threads to bash people you claim are homophobes (wrong) and anti-science (wrong) and a supporter of Anders Breivik (wrong). Why not put a whole nation in your sights? You could entitle it "The Great Satan". Wow! Go for it! Be bold!
The things that "scare" you should actually cheer you. They are examples of life's rich tapestry and variety and the crazy things people claim and are allowed to believe. It's your totalitarian ideological blinkers that bother me.
And you have still not yet explained how you are going to stop people who do not share YOUR views getting into office. Come on, lady, let's have some practical advice on how to keep the world safe for political correctness!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 10, 2012 8:49:48 GMT
If it's America-bashing to worry about people like this, what doesn that say about the many Americvans who are also worried?
Planet Earth is "about 9,000 years old," and the study of evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang Theory is based on "lies straight from the pit of hell," according to a Congressman responsible for crafting US government policy on science and technology.
Paul Broun, a fundamentalist Christian who occupies a safe Republican seat in Georgia, found his grasp of modern science being subjected to unwelcome scrutiny yesterday, after video of him espousing Creationism during an after-dinner speech was uploaded to YouTube.
“God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell,” he told guests at a fieldsports-themed fundraiser for a local Baptist Church.
“It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a saviour. There’s a lot of scientific data that I found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I believe that the Earth is about 9,000 years old. I believe that it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”
Broun...sits on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology...(FTR I'd worry just as much if he was a fundamentalist Muslim with similar views.)
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 10, 2012 9:35:57 GMT
Can't "visitor" think up an answer herself, jean?
She's very good at starting threads, isn't she? But not very good at finishing them. It's almost as if the Rapid Response Team she belongs to packed up and went home before putting the fire out.
|
|
|
Post by baby blues on Oct 10, 2012 9:45:40 GMT
Can't "visitor" think up an answer herself, jean? She's very good at starting threads, isn't she? But not very good at finishing them. Like Pippa.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 10, 2012 11:09:38 GMT
Well, at least pippa is not "scared" of opinions she does not share.
Are YOU, pippop? Why are you here, BTW?
Why not have a go at explaining these Islamic concepts for us.
Silent consents, silent assertions, tacit consent.
Go on, exercise your brain cell and give us a laugh at the same time!
|
|
Joe K
WH Member
Posts: 608
|
Post by Joe K on Oct 10, 2012 16:32:26 GMT
Well, at least pippa is not "scared" of opinions she does not share. Are you? Why are you here, BTW? You think this is the real Quaid..? It isn't
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 25, 2012 16:11:20 GMT
After maintaining that "fundamentalists" are impervious to "science" , Visitor has confessed elsewhere that she was confirmed in the C of E aged 21 and believes the Nicene Creed which mentions Jesus's miraculous birth to a virgin, his being the son of God and his resurrection to the life everlasting. Here is her confession: I am a Christian, confirmed in the CoE at age 21 (a few years back).
Christians regularly recite the Nicene Creed that states exactly what they believe in. Although there are several different versions in use, they have very similar meainings and in our Church, we use the following form:
I BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man, And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord and giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets. And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the world to come. Amen. reply#180 thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=725&page=13Visitor, people who live in glasshouses should not throw stones! Now, if you had stated you were an atheist who did not believe in God and miracles etc I might have taken your objections to a Christian fundamentalist a little more seriously. It turns out that you are one of them all along, just partisan towards the C of E's doctrines of the supernatural! I suggest you remove the beam from your own eye before the mote in others'. Not only is visitor a Christian, folks, she is also an avowed CREATIONIST - the most stupid and irrational of all, if you believe her previous statements on this thread! Can it be that there is more than one person posting as "Visitor" and that they do not communicate with each other?
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Oct 25, 2012 17:42:21 GMT
After maintaining that "fundamentalists" are impervious to "science" , Visitor has confessed elsewhere that she was confirmed in the C of E aged 21 and believes the Nicene Creed which mentions Jesus's miraculous birth to a virgin, his being the son of God and his resurrection to the life everlasting. Here is her confession: I am a Christian, confirmed in the CoE at age 21 (a few years back).
Christians regularly recite the Nicene Creed that states exactly what they believe in. Although there are several different versions in use, they have very similar meainings and in our Church, we use the following form:
I BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man, And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord and giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets. And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the world to come. Amen. reply#180 thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=725&page=13Visitor, people who live in glasshouses should not throw stones! Now, if you had stated you were an atheist who did not believe in God and miracles etc I might have taken your objections to a Christian fundamentalist a little more seriously. It turns out that you are one of them all along, just partisan towards the C of E's doctrines of the supernatural! I suggest you remove the beam from your own eye before the mote in others'. Not only is visitor a Christian, folks, she is also an avowed CREATIONIST - the most stupid and irrational of all, if you believe her previous statements on this thread! Can it be that there is more than one person posting as "Visitor" and that they do not communicate with each other? This is all a bit personal, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 25, 2012 18:25:48 GMT
Wasn't Visitor's attack on the Cornwall Alliance and Congressman Paul Broun "a bit personal", too, pippop?
Perhaps Visitor should have thought a little more deeply before embarking on two somewhat contradictory threads, one to ridicule the possibility that "believers" can be "scientists" and the other demonstrating her own religious "beliefs" to be somewhat less than "scientific".
But that's what happens when you post merely to attack an another board member rather than post in good faith in the furtherance of a discussion.
Visitor has shown herself unduly keen to attack me in various ways (starting three threads aimed directly at discrediting me as a "person" and hence rather "personal" in your terms, pippop) but sadly found herself arguing somewhat contradictory positions on this thread and on the "Silent consents" thread. That's what can happen when you always go for the messenger rather than the message.
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Oct 25, 2012 18:29:23 GMT
Wasn't Visitor's attack on the Cornwall Alliance and Congressman Paul Broun "a bit personal", too, pippop? Perhaps Visitor should have thought a little more deeply before embarking on two somewhat contradictory threads, one to prove "believers" cannot be "scientists" and the other proving her own religious "beliefs" are somewhat less than "scientific". But that's what happens when you post merely to attack an another board member rather than post in good faith in the furtherance of a discussion. Visitor has shown herself unduly keen to attack me in various ways (starting three threads aimed directly at discrediting me as a "person" and hence rather "personal" in your terms, pippop) but sadly found herself arguing somewhat contradictory positions on this thread and on the Silent consents thread. That's what can happen when you go for the messenger rather than the message. So you are doing exactly the same thing? Isn't that a wee bit hypocritical?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 25, 2012 18:36:22 GMT
No, you are wrong, pippop. I always debate the topic. It was in the course of debating the two topics here and on the Silent consent thread that I noticed Visitor was contradicting herself.
Or perhaps she was being paradoxically consistent in revealing that her own religious "faith" was just as irrational as that of the scientists and the congressman she was holding up to ridicule for theirs.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 25, 2012 22:01:38 GMT
Visitor hasn't contradicted herself. It is possible to use the term creationist in a broad or, as is more usual these days, a much narrower sense. It is clear from what she has said that it is the latter that she rejects. At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. Such a deity is generally thought to be constantly involved ('immanent') in the creation, ready to intervene as necessary, and without whose constant concern the creation would cease or disappear. Christians*, Jews, and Muslims are all Creationists in this sense. Generally they are known as 'theists,' distinguishing them from 'deists,' that is people who believe that there is a designer who might or might not have created the material on which he (or she or it) is working and who does not interfere once the designing act is finishing. The focus of this discussion is on a narrower sense of Creationism, the sense that one usually finds in popular writings (especially in America today). Here, Creationism means the taking of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, as literally true guides to the history of the universe and to the history of life, including us humans, down here on earth .
Creationism in this more restricted sense entails a number of beliefs. These include a short time since the beginning of everything - ('Young Earth Creationists' think that Archbishop Ussher's sixteenth-century calculation of about 6000 years is a good estimate); that there are six days of creation - there is debate on the meaning of 'day' in this context, with some insisting on a literal twenty-four hours, and others more flexible); that there was a miraculous creation of all life including Homo sapiens — with scope for debate about whether Adam and Eve came together or if Eve came afterwards to keep Adam company; that there was a world-wide flood some time after the initial creation, through which only a limited number of humans and animals survived; and other events such as the Tower of Babel and the turning of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. Creationists (in this narrow sense) have variously been known as Fundamentalists or biblical literalists, and sometimes — especially when they are pushing the scientific grounds for their beliefs — as Scientific Creationists. Today's Creationists are often marked by enthusiasm for something that is known as Intelligent Design. Because the relationship between Creationism in the sense of literalism and Intelligent Design is somewhat complex, examination of this relationship will be left until later and, until stated otherwise, the following discussion focusses on literalists.
With signficant provisos to be noted below, Creationists are strongly opposed to to a world brought on by evolution, particularly to a world as described by Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species. Creationists (certainly traditional Creationists) oppose the fact of evolution, namely that all organisms living and dead are the end products of a natural process of development from a few forms, perhaps ultimately from inorganic materials ("common descent"). Creationists also oppose claims about the total adequacy of the Darwinian theory of evolution, namely that population pressures lead to a struggle for existence; that organisms differ in random ways brought on by errors in the material of heredity (‘mutations’ in the ‘genes’); that the struggle and variation leads to a natural form of selection, with some surviving and reproducing and others failing; and that the end consequence of all of this is evolution, in the direction of well-adapted organisms. * Except the atheist ones, of course. Creationists of this sort believe in what they call Creation science:Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution. It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide. The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo"; the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth. As a result, creation science also challenges the geologic and astrophysical evidence for the age and origins of Earth and Universe, which creation scientists acknowledge are irreconcilable to the account in the Book of Genesis. Creation science proponents often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" or as "Darwinian evolution".
The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[7][8] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 25, 2012 22:06:08 GMT
How are the discussions about Anglican Catholicism coming along?
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Oct 26, 2012 10:17:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 26, 2012 11:38:28 GMT
It's unlikely the sceintific revolution would have developed as it did without the widespread adoption of one form or another of deism in this country, and North America... I'm well aware of that, Nick. You have made the point before and I have never denied it. (I am not so sure about your asssertion of the inevitability of Muslim inflexibility here, but I'd rather not get into that as i don't know enough to counter the overconfident and unsupported statements you'll almost certainly make.) I know about 'theists' and 'deists' too, but they'll have to wait.
|
|