I guess I did overstep my bounds. I'm not referring to people who just have certain views. I was more meaning to point out the highly political elements of the Evangelical movement in the united states who are trying to enforce their religious views on the whole nation. I would say the same thing for any fundamentalist for that matter. Also I believe that a person can hold dual and contradicting world-views. I know many fundamentalist Muslims who are also distinguished doctors, even surgeons, along with some who are multiple Phd holding researchers at my local university. These same folks also happen to believe Muhammad rode a donkey straight to heaven in one night and that Adam and Eve are real people. And despite their education I think at least a part of them is definitely mentally retarded.
Thanks for your clarification, Haramzadeh - and I will choose to ignore your final 'dig'. Truth be told, I suspect that the word 'evangelical' now reflects such a broad semantic field that it no longer adequately defines my position. I am not a 'Fundamentalist' in the normal sense, although Fundamentalist Christians would be considered 'evangelical'; I am not 'Charismatic', although that particular form of religious expression would fall within 'evangelical'. Maybe I need a new badge - at least I would no longer be a cretin!
religious people != retards ( != is not equal ), religious people are people i consider normal.... until you challenge their beliefs... what i do next is say that they are correct, i am wrong and that i will burn in hell and they will go to heaven, they are happy, i am happy, ignorance is bliss... edit: all you religious guys out there, you are right!!! your religion is the correct one!!! by the way, what will you do next since there are lots of people that are not from your religion?
I wouldn't say Evangelicals are morons, I would say creationist (7 day variety) are probably closer to that description. Are you a creationist Kennethsross?
There are at least three approaches to understanding the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 that would fall within the bounds of 'evangelical' interpretation. It has to be said that the most literal reading of those opening chapters would support the 7 literal day (ie., 7 consecutive 24 hour periods). However, other Hebrew scholars, equally comitted to an evangelical understanding of the Bible (ie., that it is the inspired, authoritative and inerrant word of God), would not interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in that way. Each one can set forward a carefully reasoned argument for their own particular view. None of us acquire a world view in isolation from certain pre-suppositions. One of my pre-suppositions is that the Bible, whilst written by men, is divine revelation from God. I therefore approach my interpretation of it from that perspective. However, that does not mean that I understand everything about it, and I am willing to humbly acknowledge that I may not have all the answers. I trust this has been apparent from the tone of my other posts in areas such as this. Would I call myself a 'creationist'? Yes, I guess I would. Would I call someone who held a different view a heretic (or a moron / cretin)? No, I certainly would not.
good, so lets live in peace, i wont shove my religion down your throat, and avoid doing the same to me, and judge me on my values as a human and not on my values as a religious or non-religious person. when this happens with every religion and lack of religion, the world will be at peace.
religion has no place on this forum, in order to maintain a balanced vibe. We should except what other people belief no matter how retarded it sounds to us, as no one here is forcing anyone to belief in others peoples crap.
Actually, I never intended for this to be a theological discussion. I was looking at it from the perspective of the election here in the states. I should have realized that religion would creep into it. McCain was due to lose because he had weak support from the religious right. By choosing Palin to be his VP running mate, he has been able to reinvigorate them, and he now he has a chance to win.* It amazes me that something so prominently represented in the election cycle would be beyond so many people's slightest understanding. *That is, if Palin comes out clean on her "abuse of office" prob that was instigated by a GOP state senate. It was originally due to come out in Nov, but there has been an effort to speed it up so she can look clean as a whistle from "Trooper Gate."
False argument. If each were a practising paedophile, would their academic talents mean they did not have a mental kink? Your sneer at Dawkins is also unfounded. I cannot be accused of being a bigot if I insist fairies don't exist.I can be accused of being a fool if I insist they do. Because the government has so decreed. But as H L Mencken puts it, "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart". There are plenty of exceptions. Anyone claiming God talks to him had better be prepared to be a laughing stock from just about everybody, as David Icke found.
My point is that generally this interwebz ridicule is about the worst you'll get from atheists. They don't go door-to-door trying to persuade you of their views. They don't hold protest marches like some recent Muslim Fundies have been doing. They don't proselytise "join us or be damned" in their temples or on their TV channels. Rev. Phelps is a religious man. We have no secular equivalent. There is persecution of the religious in Communist dictatorships, but frankly everyone gets it in the neck there. Even the atheists. Religion the other hand has a whole different reputation on such matters. It is one acquired for a reason. Oh, yes. We have them in spades. On the contrary: religion has the same place on this forum as any other belief or opinion. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" --Voltaire
..cretin,... retard, ......mentally demented? I don't know what you mean by a 'mental kink', but cretin, retard and 'mentally demented' (the words used in an earlier post) are derogatory terms, unless they are used in their clinical sense. And I ask you not to place religious faith and sexual deviation in the same category of 'mental kinks'. Furthermore, I do not recall 'sneering' at Richard Dawkins. It would not, however, be too difficult to find clear evidence to support Prof. Flew's comment that Dawkins is a 'secular bigot'. I find it strange that I come on to this forum, as an evangelical Christian (and modder), and find my intelligence questioned by a number of other forum members. I do not respond in kind, although 'my kind' are supposed to be the bigots. People of faith may be in a very small minority on this forum, but not in society at large. Increasingly, I feel respect is only running one way on this forum. (with perhaps the balanced responses of Nexxo as one notable exception)
That's not what cpemma means. He argues that someone's demonstrable logical insight and intelligence in one respect does not preclude him from some irrational beliefs and behaviours in another. I'm a living example: despite my multitude of psychological insights and obviously staggering intelligence p) I hold some pretty irrational beliefs (e.g. that no matter where I am, and where I need to be next, it will take me no more than about 15 minutes to get there, regardless of traffic conditions, making me late for meetings every ****ing time) and engage in some pretty dumb, emotional behaviour at times. It's called being human. The paedophilia thing was just an extreme example of the principle (not a dig at religion) to bring the point in sharp relief. I could also point to Harold Shipman: a very capable, well-mannered GP and kind husband who also happened to kill grannies for kicks. The principle is: people can be both rational and irrational; they can hold contradictory beliefs quite comfortably at the same time; they can be doctors and believe in faeries. Dawins is a nice example of the above. He is a scientist, but not a psychologist, and it shows in his argument. He falls in the same trap he accuses religious people of doing. If it runs much further in that direction, I will be dusting off the banhammer. I have been more than lenient with this thread. Let's keep the debate civil, everybody.
I can (and do) respect certain self-professed Christians for their actions towards their fellow men, but they certainly don't deserve or get respect for their take on the bible. That would be illogical. Or as Randolph Churchill said after reading the bible for the first time, "God, isn't God a sh*t". Thomas Jefferson described God as "a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust". Or as Dawkins wrote; "Arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction - jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." If two people each passionately believe opposing views, the truth does not necessarily lie somewhere in the middle. One can be totally wrong.
Who's your daddy? That being the fantasised ideal attachment figure for people, it says something about how messed up we are.
