Well at least talking about religion here means each member cant stab each other or set off a road side bomb, just because someone disagree's with what was said. And if things get a little heated there is always the ban hammer. Because the term 'death the west' is used so widely by certain groups, i think we should unite meet somewhere in the middle like france and get rid of it, i might solve a few problems! lol!
Lame. You can do better. I'm not sure what a 'mental kink' is supposed to mean. At a guess, I reckon we can all wear this badge. Words like cretin, moron and retard used to have specific meanings, though they were warped through misuse, such that the terms aren't used any more -except as insults. Nevertheless, they suggest a lack of, or limitation of, mental capacity - and Kenneth's argument was that you may disagree with him and his friends but to suggest they hold their views because they are *stoopid* is foolish. Also bringing paedophilia, a psychological/sexual disorder, into the equation is at best lazy and at worst inflammatory. If you hold evangelical Christian views you are on a par with a paedophile? Of course, that's not what you meant... but it was a cretinous, moronic or perhaps retarded analogy. I'll judge him by what he says, not by how you mitigate it. For the record, I guess I'm bordering on Christian, having flirted with agnosticism... so I'm firmly in the middle. I'm an Engineer (that's like a scientist who does something useful [joke!]) so I'm quite convinced that the earth is more than 6k yrs old and wasn't created in a week. And I have no problems with people believing whatever the hell they like, providing that they don't impose said beliefs on everyone else - That goes for evangelical Christians and fundamentalist Muslims alike. However, I never understood fundamentalist Christian doctrine that things the bible is literal. The bible is full of self-labelled parables - that is, fictitious stories that are designed to demonstrate a point. Why is it that the Parable of the Talents is a story, yet earth being created in a day is literal. Most Christians that I speak are much more reasonable; some might suggest that the earth was created in 7 *stages*, and others simply state that the account is a demonstration of God's power, position and will. Many Christians manage to maintain the belief that God did create the earth yet Darwin was also spot on: Earth was god's experimental sandbox, and indeed, he created evolution!
Oh FFS people, I don't come on here to get involved in a serious religious (or political) debate. These are subjects best to steer well clear of as they are very close to people's hearts and you're not going to change anyone's beliefs by posting any of this on a tech forum! Personally I think that anyone who will blindly follow any faith without questioning it has some issues, but I'm sure that they think the same about me. Really though, debating this on the internet has about as much meaning to it as a fully able person winning an event in the para-olympics and celebrating their victory...
It's close to people's hearts is a reason not to discuss something? if you honestly don't want to discuss it, why did you make the effort to read the entire thread and then make a post?
We all do. That's the point. I agree, but to challenge science with faith is also. I'm not debunking faith --I have faith in the NHS for instance (all contrary evidence notwithstanding ) and because some of us do, we are by and large able to give people the health care they need. Faith is good. Science cures disease, but faith makes us care to do so. However we should take faith as faith, not science. And vice-versa. Well, perhaps my example above may work better.
Interwebz style ridicule is about the worst that happens because we live in countries with legal restrictions against going further. I'll agree that religious types proselytise much more overtly and loudly than non-religious (although they do it as well - try standing up in a college class and telling the professor that you're a Christian - you'll get the best sermon you ever heard, complete with hellfire and brimstone and failing grades!), but the current situation in China shows that athiests are quite capable of being nasty to religious people. The stated reasons may be different, but since when have those meant anything? This kind of behavior is basically human, not basically religious. Yeah, that one irritates me to no end. The Bible is not a science textbook, or a history textbook. It's (mostly) ancient Hebrew literature. Which is really Eastern, not Western. There's a difference between 'true' and 'literal'. There's even a difference between 'true' and 'factual'. The sooner that we can get over our collective scientific-rational-enlightenment mindset and start figuring that out, the better. Oh dear. The fundie in me is protesting vehemently 'but they've got it wrong, we weren't created with original sin, we were created perfect, but with choices, and we chose...' The rest of me is just laughing, because it makes way too much sense. Convoluted little religion, isn't it?
Here's my 2 cents. taglines like "american's don't know what evangelical means" mean very little. In fact, if I didn't know better i would have said that headline came from the Sun, ie, ignore it because it has no greater bearing than to show up certain types of people (Mostly American's, Christians and Atheists) . I reckon most brits wouldn't know what evangelical really means apart from "it has something to do with a religion". And you're all reading far far too deeply into
"The bold move is certain to dismay sections of the Church that believe in creationism and regard Darwin's views as directly opposed to traditional Christian teaching." Maybe the "religious right" should have a re-think. I mean, even the Pope now relies on bullet-proof glass rather than on his boss for protection. Ms Palin as President will please anyone who wants official permission (from both God and the Government) to waste energy and screw the environment, but it won't help the rest of the world save something for our grandchildren.
The Chinese atheist government is nasty to religious people (but only if they are too obvious about it) because it doesn't like the competition. Atheist citizens do not go around trying to convert or persecute the religious. They're too busy keeping their own heads down.
C-. Firstly, KennethRoss said his friends considered themselves evangelical. He didn't indicate whether they believed in Creationism or not; he just indicated that they like to 'spread the word'. Secondly, a quote from the Chief Medical Officer? Perhaps from an eminent child psychologist? No... you quoted the the head of the *Secular* *Society*, who thinks teaching minority religious beliefs is child abuse. You don't say! [Actually, I have sympathy with his stance, but nevertheless I reckon many religious groups would accuse him of something similar] Thirdly, you are equating foolish/unsubstantiated/erroneous/fictitious/etc (*) educational doctrine with kiddie-fiddling. I think you need some perspective. (* - choose your own superlative) Isn't there some sort of Godwinian law to be applied when someone gratuitously uses the subject of paedophilia in unrelated arguments on t'interweb? If not, there ought to be.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"? I'm surprised you subscribe to that belief. Don't you know, religious fundamentalism is dangerous? As for KR's personal beliefs, irrelevant, we're not discussing him. A central tenet of Evangelicalism is that the bible is er, gospel, and that's the topic.
Gospels are in the New Testament. Evangelicals consider the entire bible to be the authoritative word of God. Hence, the story of creativity found in Genesis, which is the very first book of the bible, is found in the Old Testament. At least, they have some kind of chronology in place.
I don't recall suggesting that I did? Fundamentalism? I thought we were on about Evangelicalism ? Oh, so we *are* on about Evangelicalism? All Christians consider the bible to be the word of God. But different groups interpret differently... Hang on a minute... another guy linking Evangelicalism with Creationism? Let's just be clear: Evangelicalism != Creationism Evangelicalism != Fundamentalism Broadly speaking, in modern parlance, Evangelicalism is the middle ground between fundamentalism and modern liberalism. But in more accurate terms: Source No mention of the world being created in 7 days....
No, you are putting words in my mouth. I was going by the original quote that started this topic. Nothing hard to figure out here. The story of creation is, in fact, found within the first book of the Old Testament. That would be the book of Genesis. The Old Testament is found in the bible before the New Testament. The New Testament follows the Old Testament. Hence, a certain pattern of chronology is taking place for the Testaments. Old ---> New If that is too difficult try; first ---> last The last one (the New Testament) is where you find the four gospels. My whole comment (that you are diverting the original meaning away from) was just about these facts.
Next time use a dictionary to look up the meaning of words you don't know, else it makes you look like a ... well, you've already said what.
I stopped visiting Tom's forums (and the main site shortly afterwards) because off the childish and rude insults dished out so frequently by the forum members (and that implies a lack of competent moderating). It's a pity that some of the moderators at Bit-tech seems to be on the same level.
