Saw this thread on another website and thought it worth repeating here.

For 35 years of my life now, I've been trying not to offend the Christian conservative and born again members of my own family. My mom and dad are born again fundamentalists, but they are also life long Democrats. My brother is a Christian conservative who voted for bush TWICE.

Oh how hard I've tried to be diplomatic, parsing words, avoiding certain subjects, attempts at meeting them halfway, I've tried valiantly to be objective, I've tried quoting the bible, I've tried the beatitudes, logic, and I've run out of ways to avoid offending them, in fact, I've resigned myself to the fact that it is quite impossible to refrain from offending them, there is always something I say or do that they find offensive.

My family is a tiny microcosm of the huge population of radical born agains and Christian conservatives, I know how they think, I know how they reason, and what motivates them to vote, I know how they see the world and I know what their eventual agenda is. I have tolerated them all the way. Yet they have absolutely no tolerance for me and my kind, the secular humanists.

As their population increases, and they gain more political power in our society, and they gain a foothold in our government as actual elected officials, our nation doesn't even see the danger. And I mean real danger.

If you even mention the word evolution, you can get into ridiculous arguments with fundamentalists, so one is inclined not to even mention it, which is a way of giving in to them. Some would rather just drop certain subjects, or avoid them altogether so as not to get into heated arguments with fundamentalists, who don't appreciate anyone daring to confront them on their beliefs.

"Bashing" is the word used to describe critics of religion. Say anything negative about someone's religion, Mormon, Baptist, Wiccan or Catholic, say anything at all critical about the pope or Billy Graham and you're bashing someone's religion. Bashing describes a physical assault with a blunt instrument, which is way too dramatic a description to apply to anyone who ridicules the people who flock to a stain on a wall under an overpass that resembles a saint to pray and lay flowers. If I ridicule someone who does this, I am supposedly bashing their religion.

Personally, I am constantly offended by the religious, but I keep it to myself for the most part. I don't set out to offend the religious, I'm not confrontational to the extreme, but I invariably do offend certain zealots when the subjects of religion or politics come up, I just can't help it sometimes.

We have to do it here at DU too, we have to be careful how we discuss religion, we have to be careful not to offend, which is very tricky sometimes. Can an atheist and a Baptist have a decent conversation without descending into hurt personal feelings and slights and name calling? I'll bet it happens all the time, but I have grown weary of tip toeing around certain words and subjects with certain people in an effort not to offend them, and I've grown weary of holding my tongue, because I see radical fundamentalism as a threat to the whole human population, the world over.

One of the things that offends me about fundamentalists is the way they push their agenda. Everything is about God. GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD. They don't respect my beliefs. After all this nation was founded on religious freedom, which includes the right to NO religion. But no, they want GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD.

See how it sounds when replacing the other "G" word?. All we are asking for is simple respect and equality, just like the fundamentalists.

ABC

Actually most of what you have said is a myth... but you are certainly entitled to walk around in the dark.

What myth? About fundamentalism?

Very good Richard, you get my point exactly!

I think there is actually more tolerance of agnostic and atheist viewpoints now than at anytime in our history. Consider the following from US vs Reynolds:

"Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining [98 U.S. 145, 163] heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia. In 1784, the House of Delegates of that State having under consideration 'a bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion,' postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested 'to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly.'

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a 'Memorial and Remonstrance,' which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated 'that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,' was not within the cognizance of civil government. Semple's Virginia Baptists, Appendix. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, 'for establishing religious freedom,' drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. 1 Jeff. Works, 45; 2 Howison, Hist. of Va. 298. In the preamble of this act (12 Hening's Stat. 84) religious freedom is defined; and after a recital 'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,' it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States.' Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff. Works, 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. [98 U.S. 145, 164] 1 Jeff. Works, 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three-New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia-included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."

It is pretty clear that at our national origin is rooted in a very fundamentalist point of view. The original colonies were settled along denominational boundaries of the Christian faith. It wasn't that long ago that there were blue laws prohibiting stores being open on Sunday.

Clearly, there is more tolerance of the agnostic and atheist viewpoint now than at anytime in our nations history. And it has come about because Christianity has lost much of its influence on society. And if the post-modern evangelicals have their way, it will continue to have less influence in the future. You all have more freedom from religion than at any point in American history. There is no reason to whine.

It seems to me that it's neither fundamentalism nor any other religious, philosophical, or cosmological belief system that's causing the harm. The harm is caused by people who cannot tolerate differences in their fellow citizens. This seems equally true of those who do and those who don't claim a religious justification for their intolerance. Fear, hatred, distrust and all that they spawn are some if the most powerful forces on this planet. It's little wonder than these forces sometimes pervert what is good and sometimes manifest themselves in religious, philosophic and, of course, political guises.

The key isn't to combat intolerance with intolerance . . . the key has to be to try and find common ground with those who are willing to accept that we all have our differences. I firmly believe that majority of people will work to find common ground - I think it is that very willingness to find common ground is the true genius of the American Republic and of the American People. Maybe that's making it out to be more complicated than it is. Perhaps it's even simpler than that . . . perhaps it's more a matter than most people don't care what others do so long as they are left alone to get on with the business of life.

But that all of that having been said, I also believe that we must be willing to stand up to those who refuse to seek common ground . . . there is too much at stake to turn the other cheek to some who see themselves as holy warriors and/or whatever the secular equivalent of a holy warrior might be. As I've said before in other threads, I'll try hard to meet people halfway, but if pushed too far, I'll surely push back.

Totally agree with you Hal. Intolerance of any kind is not tolerable. To try to make this constitution somehow intertwined with religion isnt too tolerable for me. The separation of church and state is a must for our survival.

It's like any other civilization. As we develop and grow generally more educated as a group of people we will move further and further away from things like deitism and religion and more towards science and logic. Eventually we will reach an equilibrium of the two.

Up to this point in the history of our world something cataclysmic or societal brought prior civilizations to a halt before they could reach that equilibrium.

What would Scooby Do?

What about a world with out any religion be it christian, judism, muslim, pageanism or what have you. How about a world where everyone lives by the golden rule.
Men have used their own warped interpretation of religion to justifiy many of the worst wars, ethic cleansing and atrocitties in history: the crusades,the spanish destroying the aztec civilization, the salem witch trials, spanish inqusition, the turkish armenian incident after WW1, our own misguided missionaries in late 1800s removing American Indian children from their "unfit" famlies to raise them in a Christian boarding school, Hilter's extermination of Jews dictated by his pagaeen religious beliefs, the 9/11 attack in New York and Bushes " War on Terror " to name a few..

At the end of the day, (hopefully not today) when civilization ceases to exist as we now know it, it will be the direct result of a religious war. One can do anything to anybody (with a smile on there face) if they believe that their GOD told them to do it.
I saw a bumper sticker recently that tells the whole story.
A picture of Bush on the left, a picture of Bin Laden on the right, and in the middle it said "With God on your side, your always right"
That's frightening as hell to me. No pun intended.

I agree very scary but what is more scary is how many Americans are going along with it with no questions asked like sheep.

Hal has it right. It's not religion, it's people.

The golden rule? Every religion teaches it. Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...eciprocity

If people hadn't been using "their own warped interpretation of religion" to justify wars and attrocities all these years, they would have found some other excuse.

I have noticed that most of the Religious Right politicians ignore the teachings of Jesus himself because he was opposed to remarriage after divorce, big on peace and forgiveness and said nothing about gay marriage or abortion.

Yes, they seem to have a warped interpretation of Christianity. Just like the fundamentalists in the Muslim religion have a warped sense of their religion. They make it up to fit their agendas. Scary stuff.

I give up. (I am talking to myself out loud here: How do I break the cycle of misinformation without it escalating into a "you call it jogging I call it running around" discussion? Why do I feel the need to correct the record when people mis-quote what Jesus actually said or when they want to argue from silence?) I just give up.

Thank you Richard, for giving up. It is much appreciated.

AH, For the days when athiest's just hated God, and not those who believe in God.

I have no idea what that last idea about hating God means.

Amazing
http://www.cbsnews.com/st...9322.shtml

Sounds like you have a story to tell Richard. Tell us all "what Jesus actually said" What did he actually look like? Was he really wearing sandals? You seem to have the inside story, so maybe you could share it with us less fortunate ones?
"What Jesus actually said" That may be the dumbest thing I have ever read on this or any other website. The Bible is other peoples interpretations of "what Jesus actually said", but your intrepretation trumps all? Wow! You're going to straighten us all out about what other people say someone "actually" said over 2000 years ago? I can only hope to be so enlightened. Please respond quickly Richard. I may not be able to sleep tonight. The anticipation of finally having all the answers is just killing me. Sounds like Richard has a Pulitzer Prize coming his way, and we can all say we knew him when. I for one am just giddy with anticipation.

Richard,
You sound positively condescending toward others when it comes to belief and faith and Christianity. You, however, only possess what you BELIEVE to be true. Please do yourself and others a favor and stop coming across as the "expert" on Christianity because you are not and never will be. There are many "interpretations" of the Bible.

You are so tolerant.

And you are so condescending. However, I doubt you know the meaning of tolerant.

Levi Forman wrote:
>>Hal has it right.

Levi, your wisdom and good judgment speaks well for you. Others here could certainly benefit from following the example of your keen insight.

Wow, I am really confused. In all seriousness and sincerity, please explain how am I "condescending"? I certainly don't intend to be that way?

Yes, I am very sure of what I believe (from a theological perspective) and I understand that my certainty may be unsettling to others. I also believe that "as iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another". In the friction of dealing with points of view that are different than my own there is room for change and growth. So help me understand how I am "condescending".

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 12/14/2007).]

"You are assuming that I eat lobster... never tasted it and I don't eat shrimp either. And there is no such thing as one Christian being better than another."

--- Richard Bonine

Wow, this is a really great thread.

Hal wrote:>>It seems to me that it's neither fundamentalism nor any other religious, philosophical, or cosmological belief system that's causing the harm. The harm is caused by people who cannot tolerate differences in their fellow citizens.

I don't think you are correct on this. It certainly is a persons belief that causes them to sense a difference between themselves and others. Otherwise we are no different. No belief- no difference.

It is our perception of the world and our ideas that we base our beliefs upon. Where did those beliefs come from? Outside of ourselves, often from religious and philosophical teachings. What makes one belief right and another one wrong? Nothing. All beliefs are correct because that is all they are...beliefs. Nothing more.

So people's intolerance of each other is based upon something that really doesn't exist, but has been fed to them as something they should believe. Not the truth. The truth is that nobody really knows the truth or can explain it to any of us. All these ideas are just in peoples heads. The sooner the dogma stops the sooner we can start seeing the truth, and maybe all the crap that is keeping humans from excelling at what they have the potential for will stop as well. It's worth a try since what has been happening certainly isn't working.

Wow, extremely well said, Steve!!!!!

Steve, I gotta go with Levi on this one . . . I'm sure he's on to something when he says that I'm right ;-)

Levi knows best. I even have his 3rd grade picture to prove it. :-) No really I do.

""You are assuming that I eat lobster... never tasted it and I don't eat shrimp either. And there is no such thing as one Christian being better than another."

--- Richard Bonine"

Bob: I am flatter that you quoted me but I fail to see how this makes me "condescending". I really have never eaten lobster. As a kid I ate shrimp a few times but it has been at least 25 years ago. And I believe that none of us is better than any other. So how does that make me condescending?

Steve: My understanding of what you are saying is that the belief I have in things I can't see is the source of much of the strife in the world. If people like myself would simply eliminate these "notions" all would be right with the world, and the sooner the better.

The problem I have with your statement is that there is too much physical and historical evidence to the contrary. I think that evidence justifies my belief. If I were the only guy on the plant that held the beliefs I hold then you would have a point. But there are millions of people who believe what I believe.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 12/14/2007).]

At least one principle must be understood and kept in mind when trying to understand certain of God's incomprehensible attributes: the finite is always confounded by its inability to fully comprehend the infinite.

God is the infinite God. Nothing or no one created Him and He has no father or mother. He is without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. He is the almighty God, and since He is so, there can be no one greater than Him. No one brought Him into existence.

It is impossible for finite minds to understand how God can exist without having a beginning. When atheists and other non believers try to consider God, they try to make the facts about Him fit within their limited capacity to comprehend and understand. They do not want to believe that there is more of God than their minds can contain and comprehend. The endeavor to fully understand God is like trying to place the infinite One into a finite space; that is impossible.

In order to try to make sense of the infinite things about God, they relate God to things they think they understand, and so, they tend to view God according to finite things or as if He were a man or some creature. But since the nature of finitness doesn't fit infinite attributes, or since that which fit creatures doesn't fit the Creator, they mistakenly take what applies to creatures and their inability to comprehend God as proof that He doesn't exist.

In no other area do heathens do this except with God. They are willing to believe there are aliens in the universe somewhere without proof. But with as much proof as humans can comprehend about God, which is quite overwhelming, they nevertheless deny the reality of God's existence.

The fact that finite minds cannot fully comprehend how God exists without having a beginning does not nullify His existence. The reality of the existence of God is not contingent upon our understanding of it. When finite minds find themselves puzzled, confused or confounded about any part of God's existence that's beyond their ability to comprehend, that is proof of God's surpassing greatness. Therefore the inability and the confusion are only normal effects of the finite trying to comprehend He who is eternally greater. Finite minds would have to be infinite to fully understand God. Or to say it better: we would have to be God ourselves in order to fully understand Him. But no one has the capacity to fully understand God but God alone.

Let it also be pointed out that the infinity of God proves His existence and that He is not a god created by the imagination of creatures. Since the minds of creatures are finite, they are only capable of devising a god of the imagination that fit within the confines of their finite imagination. The finite mind cannot create a god of the imagination that's beyond its own capacity to comprehend. It would not create a god it is confused, puzzled and confounded about. Since God is beyond the ability of finite minds to comprehend, He cannot be the product of finite minds.


don't worry I am no scholar, just a cutnpaster

Richard:

No worries, I just threw that quote in because it still makes me laugh.

To summarize:

You quoted Old Testament scriptures stating that homosexuality was an "abomination."

I subsequently quoted Old Testament scriptures stating that eating anything from the sea w/o fins was an "abomination."

You felt the need to state that you don't eat lobster or shrimp.

I thought it was hilarious, shoot me.

And, IMHO, you can definitely be condescending at times. And your posture as a "Biblical expert" is spurious at best. Just sayin'.

Okay, but what religion has the claim on the real " god ". Is it christians, the jews, the muslims, buddahists, pageans? Or does the honor go to the side with the best PR? Or biggest army.

Sadly I think the biggest army. They all speak of the "True God".

Richard, here's an example from the same thread.

3. One of the sources of misunderstanding is that most non-Christians who post on MC.com have a "Ned Flanders" stereotypical view of Christianity. They believe that Ned represents true Christianity. The truth is that true orthodox ("orthodox" as in genuine) Christianity is a far cry from the Ned Flanders caricature. A non-christian telling a Christian how they should behave is like someone giving you direction on how to get back from a place that they have never been. You are probably going to end up lost.


Condescending, no?

This post gives one the impression that you believe that everyone who disagrees with your views (like me) is a non-Christian, and we heathens have no place telling "Christians" like you how to behave. OK...

Richard, I've read me some New Testament (I bet more than you), and I don't think Jesus would say anything like that. Just sayin'

"Okay, but what religion has the claim on the real " god ". Is it christians, the jews, the muslims, buddahists, pageans? Or does the honor go to the side with the best PR? Or biggest army."

Clearly the answer is the Buddhists - since they don't "believe" in any god...

"The problem I have with your statement is that there is too much physical and historical evidence to the contrary. I think that evidence justifies my belief."

Too much evidence? Here's where I have a problem - there is WAY more evidence that A) the earth is 5 billions years old. B) that evolution IS, and that C) Religion clearly evolved at several levels and morphisms over the past 10000 years.

There is NO evidence to support Adam and Eve.

There is NO evidence that Jesus was anything other than a man.

There is NO evidence that the Jews were chosen by God.

There is NO evidence that the Bible is the word of God.

None, Zip, Zilch, Zippo. Period.

Theological anthropology yields more evidence to the contrary than can possibly be supported by the Bible. If one is to use the Bible as the basis for their belief structure or their code of ethics, then the warning I would give them is to leave it a BELIEF and stop making yourself look foolish by bringing in "Evidence" - because it's NOT there.

The fact of the matter is that there are so many different religions and denominitions within religions and none of them interpret their faiths the same way. So how can any religion or person presenting their individual interpretation have a claim on what is right and not right or judge anothers faith (or lack of)?

Really, it is cut and paste. Cut out a piece, butter up it real good and slap right where you need it.

Glen,
You make a very good point which I think amplifies my statement. Taking the time to study the history of religion really boiled it down for me.

It's fascinating study. I think more people should take that time. There is no doubt it would change the way people think.

"If I were the only guy on the plant that held the beliefs I hold then you would have a point. But there are millions of people who believe what I believe."

And BILLIONS who do not...

--------------------------------

This was interesting...
http://www.mapsofwar.com/...igion.html

glen french said:

> Okay, but what religion has the claim on the real " god ". Is it christians, the jews, the muslims, buddahists, pageans?

If you watched South Park, then you should know it is the Mormons.

There was an episode which re-aired recently, where in the orientation area of Hell, some of the new arrivals are upset and pleading... and one says something like, "Why am I in Hell? I was a good Christian my entire life" ... to which the devil's helper says something like, "Uhh, the correct religion was Mormon, everyone else is going to Hell."

Excellent response exalted webmaster! South Park has all the answers.

I just needed to clear the air with that one.

In religious beliefs, there are no absolutes. Only faith. Nothing wrong with faith, as long as you don't pronounce to the world that it is the truth discarding everyone elses beliefs. I think Richard folded his tent and went home. Oh well was fun while it lasted.

You are not THAT lucky.

howdy - "In religious beliefs, there are no absolutes."

Are you absolutely sure of that?

Oxymoron?

No, not an oxymoron... It's more like the fallibility of moral relativism. You say there are no absolutes and yet you cannot hold to that absolutely. On one hand, the moral relativist says there are no absolute truths, while on the other hand, the relativist holds relativism as absolutely true. Moral absolutes are unavoidable. Those who deny them use them. It is impossible to deny the existence of absolutes without appealing to an absolute.

If moral relativists were truly inclusive, nonjudgmental and tolerant wouldn't they be accepting of those who believe morals are objective?

"If one is to use the Bible as the basis for their belief structure or their code of ethics, then the warning I would give them is to leave it a BELIEF and stop making yourself look foolish by bringing in "Evidence" - because it's NOT there."


In reality, the evidence IS there. It's all the same evidence as you claim supports evolution. We all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars-the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the presuppositions (things we assume or accept as being true without being able to prove them) that we use to interpret the evidence. Presuppositions become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions.

Evolution is as much a belief system as is Creationism.

Come on Richard! I am still waiting for your (spew) diatribe on what Jesus actually said. Spill the beans my friend. You can't tease us like that, and then run away. And when you are done with that, please fill me in on all the physical and historical evidence regarding anything in the bible?
I can, without fail, destroy every story in the bible with science. You, in fact, cannot prove any "story" in the bible with anything but a guess, or perhaps a blind faith in a STORY written about 2000 years ago.
If you are going to open this door, and you surely did, then you have no choice but to play the game to the end. Where is that end? Lets talk about all the supposed miracles in your Bible. I would like to hear a scientific explanation for, with physical and historical evidence referenced of course, your choice of biblical stories. You stepped up to the plate. Now hit the ball.
In no way am I attempting to denigrate your faith Richard. I grew up in your Catholic church. But the facts, and your faith need some alignment here. And other than absolutely blind faith, you, and any other reader that might like to step up to the plate, have nothing to swing at that ball.
Again, if you or any other reader find comfort in your faith, I am happy for you. Just don't pretend to the rest of us that it may be anything other than a myth. Nothing about the Bible is based on physical evidence or history. Blind faith, is just that. Blind.

Thanks Wayne. I appreciate knowing that I, as a non-believer, have such a limited capacity to comprehend and understand. That pretty much explains the problem with the entire conversation. I am so wrong, and you and yours are so right. I just can't understand something as complex as a story written 2000 years ago. My little mind just won't let it happen. My 15 or so years deeply buried in the Catholic Church gives me no right to run the other way as fast as I possibly can. The things that I saw and experienced give me no perspective at all. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was wondering about my entire base of knowledge, and thinking that it may have no factual base at all. Oh wait! My knowledge base is pretty much factual. Your's, on this subject at least, is based completely on conjecture and inuendo. I stand corrected.

Matt: Not only did you grow up in the Catholic church but my mom and dad taught you in 8th grade CCD. I guess you should have paid more attention.

You are knowingly quoting me out of context. I clearly stated that I was talking to myself out loud. In deference to others who post here (and are likely tired of the war of words since Thanksgiving) I was trying to avoid starting another contentious thread. But when someone, who has previously stated that they are an atheist or agnostic, decides to promote the notion that because Jesus supposedly said nothing about homo-sexual relationships or abortion that it must be okay, I get a little frustrated. (Maybe I have Bible Anxiety Disorder. ) Those comments created a dilemma for me. I believe the record ought to be corrected, but I also want to see the tone of the rhetoric change here at MC.com. I recognize that I can be part of the problem or part of the solution. I would like to be part of the latter.

I see no point in "playing ball" because you and several others who would engage in this type of discussion have no REAL interest in arriving at any conclusion other than what you currently believe. I am not going to waste the time I have been given here on earth on such a fruitless pursuit.

you are welcome schmitz, my post was mostly for fun. I myself personally believe that we will not ever be able to prove God's existance. If we where what would the point of faith be?

If atheists were human, and weren't descendants of the apes, they might be able to perceive the beauty of the existence of God, and might have a chance at receiving God's grace. But alas, animals don't have that ability and God has no intention on saving animals.

My question, Wayne, would be:

"Why does God need (want) to save me?"

"From what am I being saved?"

Duncan:
No, there is NO evidence that Jesus was the son of God. Or anything else on that list.

Yes, there is TONS of evidence to support evolution, and none to support creation.

But when someone, who has previously stated that they are an atheist or agnostic, decides to promote the notion that because Jesus supposedly said nothing about homo-sexual relationships or abortion that it must be okay, I get a little frustrated.

-------------

Yup, kinda like when someone says that AIDS is carried by mosquitos.

If there are no animals in Heaven, then I wouldn't want to be there anyway. I love my dogs too much. They are much more understanding and empathetic than humans.

ABC

So is fundamentalism hurting America? Ya, it's hurting everything.

There is absolutely no way to prove any one's beliefs are right or wrong. They are just beliefs. Nothing more than some electrical impulses in a brain. Man invented all this religious stuff to try and make sense out of something when in reality the truth is something entirely different. If a fundamentalist's view was the correct one then it would be a universal constant - unquestionable and everyone could see it. Yet there are an infinite number of differing views none of which can be proven to be "right."

So for a fundamentalist to impose a belief upon anybody is indeed hurtful.
And I know there is an Easter Bunny because of the history and all the evidence.

and I know there is a Santa Claus cause I heard the raindeer hooves hitting the roof as a child.

"God has no intention on saving animals"

Then why did God have Noah build an ark?

food

What I'm wondering is... if Noah took two of every animal on his ark, then what did the lions eat?

don't know but wish they had eaten the mosquitos and flies.

Hmmm, perhaps they ate the dinosaurs...

http://www.christiananswe...-ark1.html

Did the ages of the dinosaurs coincide with the ages of the ark, etc? Thought the earth was zillions of years old compared to what the bible said. What about prehistoric man etc. Isn't that a bit of a contradiction age wise?

This whole diatribe is proof that fundamentalism is hurting this country....

Really? How has your "nuclear family" been hurt or negatively impacted by fundamentalism?

Wow, that article was something else.

Richard Bonine, Jr.....address Miles City.com....are you as freaky lunatic nuts as those fundamentalists who maintain that website of which our webmaster provided the link?

I am really curious...if you say, "yes", than please explain to the rest of us how all that coal got deposited from which you make your livelihood.

Just two questions....thanks in advance for responding.

I have never laughed so hard in all my life. Thanks for that link webby.

The trees that belt the Northern hemisphere of Earth were 1,000 years old at the birth of Christ. If they were under water they would have died. Has anyone ever lived in the belly of an animal? Stomach acid kills. Has there ever been a person created without the union of a sperm and egg-Historically speaking?

What will be hurting this country is that lie is being taught in tons of homes that are home schooling kids across this nation right now. Thereby creating zillions of ill informed Americans that believe that stuff. I think that is a major problem for our country.

howdy, perhaps you (or others) could explain in factual detail (something besides Eric's "tons of evidence") how evolution is somehow less of a lie.

"Factual detail". Wow. No I am not a scientist, but I studied evolution in school and it sure made sense to me. Why didn't you answer Gunnar's questions but instead asked for "factual detail" of evolution? Is this your way to avoid answering? To call evolution a lie is a huge statement in the face of all that scientific evidence.

"perhaps you could explain in factual detail (something besides Eric's "tons of evidence") how evolution is somehow less of a lie."

Evolution is far from being a lie. The "Theory" of evolution and the "Fact" of evolution are two separate aspects of the same topic. Theory does in no way imply incomplete or imperfect. Merely that it is not as compact as a law.

One would not discount the "theory" of gravity for lack of more concrete evidence than has already been demonstrated. The question does not remain "Does Gravity Exist?" Rather the questions become more defined regarding gravity into things like "What is the contra-force to gravity?" or "By what mechanism are particles gravitationally attracted?"

Evolution is no different. Speciation has been observed both in Nature and in the Lab. Inheritable traits have most assuredly been observed. You did get your "Flu Shot" this year I trust...

There is no reasonable question that evolution exists. No reputable scientist would deny the existence, or "FACT", of evolution. The only questions that exists serve to further refine evolutionary science as a tool for prediction. Questions which serve to further refine the details and mechanisms of evolution.

There are several differences between evolution and the story of creation. First of all, the story of creation does not demonstrate matching evidence. While I can dig up a skeleton millions of years old to support evolution, creationist fail to dig up any evidence which is 7000-4000 years old. Hmmm. Interesting. In addition to lack of evidence, creation lacks the ability to be used as a viable predictive tool. Those times which creation has been used to make predictions have resulted in disappointment.

Of course, the topic at hand is not "Is evolutionism hurting this country?" It is "Is fundamentalism hurting this country?" It is my position then, that this discussion belongs in another thread. Besides, it is not for the evolutionist to bear the burden of proof. They've already done their part. The creationists refusal to accept the truth in lieu of a badly written story should not be my problem, but as per the title of this thread - clearly it has become so.

Well since Richard hasn't chosen to answer the questions about the link and about coal, I will take that to mean he thinks creationism is the way to go and evolution isn't. Too bad he didn't present his "evidence" to us heathens so we could better understand where he is coming from.

What? There really is evidence? I never knew that.;-)

The strongest argument to prove evolution exists is simply this: Pomeranians.

My mom has two of them, and I know from experience, they are one of the animals least capable of taking care of themselves ever created.

I have a hard time believing that Noah had two Pomeranians on board, which weren't swiftly used as food, and they somehow left the ark and procreated. Can you imagine the sight of a herd of Pomeranians taking down a gazelle (or even a squirrel for that matter)? Now that would have been something to see.

Also, it should be noted, that my poking at fundamentalism should not be taken as poking at faith... we should all have faith. There is obviously something greater than us. We didn't decide to be here. We showed up. And from whence we came, we shall return.

I agree about faith, as I also believe in a higher power, however, that is a far cry from taking every word in the bible as literal.

What would a logical person accept as proof of God? Would he require God Almighty to appear before him in order to acknowledge His existence? Would he apply this same criterion to everything else in life?

For example, do you believe in the President of the United States? Have you ever seen him in the flesh? He might counter that you have seen his photograph, but this does not meet the original criterion. Such photos are evidence based upon other evidence. That is, you have confidence in the news media and photography.

And what of George Washington of whom we have no original photographs? To believe in him requires that we depend on other evidence, primarily written documents by other men.

In all practicality and fairness then, let us apply the same criterion to the proofs of God that we would to anything else in life.namely evidence that demands our belief and places upon us a responsibility.

CREATION VS EVOLUTION

Either man was created by GOD with a purpose and a destiny, as the Bible declares, or he is a multifaceted complex organism accidentally and with no reason or purpose formed from non-living nothing.

If the latter be true, my innermost being is revolted at the loss. In addition, self-gratification is the only value to physical life so "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!" On the other hand, if creation is our origin, how our being rejoices with hope and life takes on real meaning beyond the animal senses. We now have a purpose for living that gives our very existence real value. Let's examine the FACTS.

ENTROPY

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system entropy increases, which is to say that disorder increases or things become more disorganized. The ultimate closed system is the universe. According to many astronomers, the universe came into existence about 15 billion years ago2 out of nothing - the "Big Bang." Since then the universe has been running down, that is, it is becoming more disordered, or to say it another way, its entropy is increasing, and its energy is being irretrievably scattered, never to recover. Who wound it up? Who caused the universe to appear suddenly out of nothing? Who decreed that its constituent particles must behave in a certain fashion - so that there is such a thing as nuclear energy, atoms made of assemblages of subatomic particles, unions of atoms (chemistry), and all that?

FOSSIL RECORD

If evolution (the slow process of natural selection and the transmutation of one plant or animal species into another) were true, many, many forms of transitional life should be easily found in the fossil record, but they are not. In the fossil record we find the absence of gradual evolutionary transformations, too few of "transitional" intermediates, and sudden appearances of fully formed organisms. Evolutionary biologists excuse themselves on this, and point to a claimed "incompleteness" of the fossil record. Paleontologists now regard the fossil record as adequate and complete. And, the missing links are still missing.

LIFE FROM LIFE

All observable evidence tells us that only life begets life. Life has never been observed to come from inorganic or lifeless materials, either in nature or in the laboratory. Those who put their faith in abiogenesis (life arising from lifeless chemicals by chance) have never advanced a credible scenario to explain how this might have happened. They make a number of implicit assumptions, none of which is supported by evidence. One of these is that life in its minimal form is simple (i.e., a self-replicating molecule). But without the protections of the cell, the lifetimes of these molecules are very, very short.
Second, they presume that there was a "prebiotic soup" on the early earth. Evidence should exist in the geologic record if this were so, but none exists. While there are organic chemicals in the oldest rocks, they are all remnants of living things. There are also theoretical objections to the "prebiotic soup." Amino acids, the building blocks of life, cannot form if there is oxygen in the atmosphere. And if there is no oxygen, there is no ozone, which filters out almost all the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation. With no ozone the lethal dose of ultraviolet is acquired by contemporary organisms in about 0.3 second; for the organic compounds required in the abiogenesis theory it would be comparable. Another assumption is that life emerged gradually over a long period of time. Paleontologists tell us that the fossils from the Cambrian epoch - the earliest epoch in which fossils are found - came into being very rapidly ("the Cambrian explosion"), representing at least 70 phyla, including all of the 30 or so counted today.. This is evidence that all life, including you and me, came from the hand of the ONE Who is life.

PROBABILITY

The probability of the origin of life by accident is beyond all reason. To illustrate probability, we may line up two objects, "A" and "B" in two orders, AB or BA. Three objects may be lined up in six different orders. (The formula for calculating the number of ways n objects can be arranged is 1x2x3x4 . xn, called n factorial or n!.) For four objects, the number of ways is thus 24, for 5 objects it is 120 ways, for 10 it is 3,628,800, and for 15 it is a little over one trillion (1 followed by 12 zeroes, or 1012), for 20 it is a little more than 1018. Now, what is the point? A cellular enzyme molecule in a modern cell consists of a chain of some 100 to 500 amino acids, of which there are 20 or so kinds in living systems. Calculating the probability of a functional enzyme happening by chance out of the supposed "prebiotic soup" of randomly-occurring organic chemicals is more complicated than the n! used in the examples above (which assumes n kinds of items arranged n at a time), because in an enzyme there can be repeated amino acids and there are more than 20 places in the chain to put the 20 amino acids. Molecular biologist, Michael Denton, generously estimates that there is one chance in 1020 for amino acids to just happen to join up in the right order to form a simple enzyme molecule. Even if this did happen, we still would not have life, only a tiny part of a complete set of enzymes and DNA for a living cell.

Now calculate the chances of this one enzyme molecule somehow coming together with some 100 other required different but similarly improbable enzymes at the same time and somehow being enclosed by a membrane in order to hold them all together to form a living cell: the probability is less than one in (1020)100, or one in 102000. Compare this number (102000) with the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe. Now this must be a really a mind-boggling number! It is "only" 1080, cosmologists estimate. So one chance in 102000 is too infinitesimally small to be imagined!

Critics say "but there are billions and billions of planets out there!" Scientists are now finding that the universe is not as habitable as once thought, and that a life-friendly planet like the earth is rare indeed. But let us suppose for the sake of comparison that every atom in the universe is a life-friendly planet. Then the probability of life arising by chance on at least one of them is 1080 times as large, or one chance in 101920 (that is, 1 in 102000/1080). Is one chance in 101920 any more imaginable?

But the critics say, "You don't calculate the probability right!" They suppose that there would be billions of simultaneous trials going on all the time, and in their theory you only have to get one molecule that self-replicates (self-replicators do exist). You must not base your calculation on sequential trials, they say. However, because these long-chain protein molecules do not last long unprotected, abiogenesis requires the occurrence by accident of all 100 or so enzymes, plus matching DNA or RNA (the "blueprint" molecules which contain the code for assembling the necessary enzymes), all

Okay, but still, how do you explain Pomeranians?

It's those darned Pomeranians that are the whole fundamental problem. And yes they are destroying the country...socks and yards and couches and rugs and...

Darn those little ankle biters, they just destroy the entire fundamental argument. Has to be evolution.

http://www.personal.u-net...y/hist.htm

In spite of Eric's shameless attempts to pass it off as such, speciation is not evolution. Two Pomeranians will never produce a canary!

So, since speciation exists... then does not selection, natural selection, and perhaps even evolution exist too?

I shall quote the first sentence of the speciation article at Wikipedia:

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.

Speciation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Selection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection

Natural Selection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w..._selection

Evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Speciation is known to exist within it's kind. It has never been observed to form an organism of a different kind - hence, two Pomeranians will never produce a canary!

Evolution would require natural selection and speciation to give rise to new kinds from a former kind. Speciation however leads to a loss of (genetic) information...(Pomeranian), not the gain of information required by evolution.

Thus, speciation as a possible outcome of natural selection cannot be used as a mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution.

Natural selection is a God ordained process that allows organisms to survive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds.

The changes that are observed today ( or have ever been observed through the fossil record) show variation within the created kind - a horizontal change.

For a molecules-to-man evolutionary model, there must be a change from one kind into another - a vertical change. This is not observed. We never see H. pylori give rise to a Pomeranian. Instead we simply observe variations within each created kind.

Really? So why do you have a tailbone?

There actually ARE transitional fossils... Let's "discount" the incomplete fossil record, since obviously there's more ark-parts floating around... Not to mention the sheer volume of organisms that decay or get scattered before meeting the prerequisites of fossilization. I liked your little quote though - it matched perfectly several websites I visited the other day. It's the "in" phrase this week.

I can measure and repeat nuclear and chemical experiments. I can repeat billions of scientific tests that yield stable evidence. Our understanding and complexity of tests increases each year.

I could go to Washington and see the President myself - if I really wanted to.

While we have no choice but to trust the information given to use by certain groups for certain things, we do build upon that trust and knowledge by acceptable repeatability. We use scientific journals and peer reviews to help validate our findings. We CAN, if necessary, repeat the experiment ourselves.

I trust that the rubber companies know how to make tires, and that they have studied physics and chemistry and materials enough to make a tire that I can trust. I don't have to take the tire apart to validate it. I do not need to scrutinize the tire to use it as a predictive tool. I predict that it will support my vehicle and allow me to safely and comfortably travel from point a to point b at a reasonable speed. And it USUALLY does. Always? Nope - had a whopper of a flat a few weeks ago as a matter of fact (had to drive 20 miles on it). But USUALLY and REPEATABLY.

In short - I trust the evidence because I can observe it, trust it, and repeat it.

Do I always have to repeat a test myself to trust it? No. I have never slammed my car into a brick wall at 90 mph. My lack of having observed this phenomenon does in no way diminish my clear understanding of the physics involved - or the ability to predict what will happen to my vehicle and body should I attempt to experience it. I think we can safely trust that one... No doubt at all that my kinetic energy will be converted into heat, sound and deformation.

I cannot repeat anything in the creation story. Not one bit of it. While the "evolutionists" are attacked for incomplete records, the creationists conveniently ignore the fact that they have NONE. Not one iota of evidence.

If we use the mere incalculable probability of evolution as Proof of Creation, then doesn't the same incalculability of Creation, in turn, PROVE EVOLUTION?

What are the odds, for example, that some spawned-from-nothing supreme-being would just happen to haphazardly snap-to and create a universe of our seemingly infinite complexity. Nothing begat - something? The non-living nothing, begat the living god?

And then, what are the odds that she would chose some remote arm of some remote galaxy to plop down some overbearing, over-consumptive, self-righteous, egotistical - let's call them [/b]baboons[/b] - to rule some rock for a brief 7,000 year history only to be whisked away into an eternity of praise for the immense gratitude for having lived at all?

I assert to you that the whole idea of "the big bang" and evolution are as equally preposterous as the spontaneous existence of god.

So when given the choice between two totally preposterous claims, I will err on the side of evidence. Oh, and I'm not holding out falsely "Just In Case", as though god were some kind of life insurance broker, either...

As for life with or without purpose. What does having "divine purpose" do for you? Does the flower need divine purpose in order to exist? Do the Pomeranians need purpose? Does having or not having purpose change in anyway the existence of a person? I assure you it does - in the minds of millions of people.

Don't get me wrong, I think religion serves an important role in society. MOST people are not capable of governing their own morals without a "higher power" to assert them. MOST people are not truly capable of accepting the concept of "termination" without psychotic collapse. As a whole, we have not yet "evolved" intellectually to successfully process that kind of existence. Our Ego cannot tolerate the concept that it will cease to exist.

So, man's little 10,000 year old invention of "god" continues to serve it's designed purpose. It keeps people happy and productive and able to live in larger groups. Our complete ascension to an existence beyond the limits of the Ego will not happen in my lifetime, and so therefore, we must accept god as a fact of modern life.

In short, god will continue to exist for as long as we decide we need her. And when we finally decide that she is no longer serving her intended purpose, we will discard her. No sooner, and certainly no later.

For the same reason I have tonsils and an appendix... That's how God created me (and you).

"...not the gain of information required by evolution."

Does Evolution necessarily require a GAIN in information? I can easily theorize situations where the organism with the reduced information might have won out in a particular scenario.

"Natural selection is a God ordained process that allows organisms to survive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."

Really? God Ordained? Indeed... I naturally remember reading that in the Bible.
Thank you, that was quite possibly the most concrete example of how fundamentalists are hurting this country; Preposterous, unsupported claims like that one. Just like it's our God Ordained right to plunder our resources? To wage war on Iran (strike) Axis of Evil?

"The changes that are observed today ( or have ever been observed through the fossil record) show variation within the created kind - a horizontal change."

We have been able to observe minor - yet predictable changes in just a 50-year span of time. That's roughly 1x10^-07% of the time the complete living history of the earth has had to make those changes. Just because we cannot see massive molecule-to-man changes in 0.000000001 of the time it took mother nature to exhibit the experiment does not mean that it's not happening.

"We never see H. pylori give rise to a Pomeranian. Instead we simply observe variations within each created kind."

I don't think a reasonable scientist would claim that H. pylori will one day wake up and decide to be an elephant. I think most reasonable people agree that today, a few little h. pylori decide to stretch out a little, and then they get separated from their buddies, and in a few hundred generations, they show an extra gene their buddies didn't have, and then a few million years more of that, voila - these little stumps are sure handy for swimming... We never see h. pylori giving rise to pomeranians because we haven't had enough time to see it happen. The Earth has...

> For the same reason I have tonsils and an appendix... That's how God created me (and you).

So God created everything, essentially to appear as if there may have been an evolution, but in all actuality, it was a big joke. I guess he's laughing it up as we converse. Where's South Park when I need it?

So is fundamentalism hurting our country?

Sure. When people believe what they are told and NEVER seek the truth for themselves and then try to force their limited perspective upon the rest of the population it does plenty of harm.

Eric, you're awfully quick to "discount" you're incomplete fossil record, especially if it contains transitional fossils.

I cannot repeat anything in the creation story. Not one bit of it. While the "evolutionists" are attacked for incomplete records, the creationists conveniently ignore the fact that they have NONE. Not one iota of evidence.

On the contrary, Creation has lots of evidence, including a very complete fossil record. You have stated repeatedly that there is no evidence for Creation. Surely someone of your intellect and background can recognize that we are talking about the same evidence: The earth, it's living organisms, the fossil record, etc, etc.. This difference, of course, is the manner in which we interpret the same evidence.


I can measure and repeat nuclear and chemical experiments. I can repeat billions of scientific tests that yield stable evidence. Our understanding and complexity of tests increases each year.

I could go to Washington and see the President myself - if I really wanted to.

While we have no choice but to trust the information given to use by certain groups for certain things, we do build upon that trust and knowledge by acceptable repeatability. We use scientific journals and peer reviews to help validate our findings. We CAN, if necessary, repeat the experiment ourselves.

I trust that the rubber companies know how to make tires, and that they have studied physics and chemistry and materials enough to make a tire that I can trust. I don't have to take the tire apart to validate it. I do not need to scrutinize the tire to use it as a predictive tool. I predict that it will support my vehicle and allow me to safely and comfortably travel from point a to point b at a reasonable speed. And it USUALLY does. Always? Nope - had a whopper of a flat a few weeks ago as a matter of fact (had to drive 20 miles on it). But USUALLY and REPEATABLY.

In short - I trust the evidence because I can observe it, trust it, and repeat it.

Eric, this dissertation is rather unclear. I am quite sure that you are capable of performing an experiment, however, are you implying that evolution is some how akin to the observable research that goes into building tires. Maybe you have research and experiments that observe evolution?

I think, perhaps, that all of your statements about experiments (and how we have no choice but to trust them)refer to radiometric (radioisotope) dating.

Yes, I am sure that you can count isotopes and I am sure that you can repeat the same experiment on the same rock sample and get the same answer. But the ability to observe and repeat an experiment doesn't make the interpreted answer correct.

Radioisotope dating is based on three assumptions:

1) That the initials conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2) The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by any process other than radioactive decay.
3) The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.

In 1996, Steve Austin, PhD had a rock from the 1986 lava dome of Mt Saint Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.

Eleven samples from Mount Hgauruhoe, New Zealand weretaken and dated at Geochron Laboratory, Cambridge, MA. The samples were from rocks known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954 and 1975. The age of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.

When radiometric dating fails on rocks of a known age, why should it be trusted on rocks of an unknown age.



Carbon-14

The half life of Carbon -14 is known to be 5730 years +/- 40 years. That would mean that there would be no traceable amount of Carbon-14 present in a rock older than about 50000 years. And yet there has never been a coal discovery that doesn't contain Carbon-14.

> In 1996, Steve Austin, ...

Garbage in. Garbage out. Steve Austin is a nut.

You can start here, and learn more by searching further if you actually want to.

http://www.talkorigins.or...elens.html

Steve also has a "Who's Who?" page on ChristianAnswers.Net, which is the site that explains how the dinosaurs were on Noah's ark, and only lived for a few hundred years after the flood.

> The half life of Carbon -14 is known to be 5730 years +/- 40 years. That would mean that there would be no traceable amount of Carbon-14 present in a rock older than about 50000 years.

Why entertain an argument of anything ever becoming that old, when we all know the Earth has existed for no more than 6,000-10,000 years?

And how do you know that Carbon 14 has a half life of 5,730 years? Did a creationist discover that truth? Or a scientist?

If it was a scientist, are you telling me that you are basing a portion of your creationism argument upon the work of a scientist, but then drawing further conclusions to something that most scientists would not agree with?

That's kind of a paradox. It seems to me a stronger argument would be to avoid the scientists all together. They've caused nothing but trouble.

Are you implying that the mere existence of the earth and it's contents PROVE creationist theory?

Are you suggesting a creation story that is somehow different from that depicted in Genesis? I will admit that I'm still a little hung-up on the whole "God Ordained" bit.

I am questioning the story that god created Adam and Eve, in a perfect garden, and so on and so forth. It has nothing to do with "how we interpret" the existence of the earth and it's fossils. It has everything to do with the earnest insistence that Genesis is scientifically supported.

"I think, perhaps, that all of your statements about experiments (and how we have no choice but to trust them)refer to radiometric (radioisotope) dating."

Well, actually no, I was not overgeneralizing all my statements into radiometrics. I was generalizing that observation and research have demonstrated very reliably that the earth is more than 10,000 years old, that organisms have changed significantly with changing environmental conditions, and that religion itself has evolved significantly in only several thousand years. Further that religion is a very new kid on the block.

Based on the sources you cite, I can only conclude that you don't really understand science. There are probabilities, unique conditions and variables that are yet discovered that play into any result. One failed test does not invalidate all of them. It simply means something was different with the test.

If someone survives a fall without a parachute, should this immediately disclaim the dangers of skydiving without a proper parachute? While surely Joey survived his fall, this doesn't all of a sudden disprove my theory that your results would likely vary. (try it for kicks, I'll film...)

It is interesting to note that Dr. Austin's science does not appear to be a) repeated on a larger scale, or b) peer reviewed. It would seem reasonable to me that the multi-million dollar radiometrics industry would be VERY interested in identifying the variables that contributed to his disharmonious results. One variable that does strike me is that K-Ar dating is KNOWN to be unreliable with young samples. Another striking observation is that these samples were NOT dated using other methods such as Cs-Rb for example. YASE is that radiometrics does involve a requisite concentration of detectable substance. There is a reason why DIFFERENT detection schemes are used for DIFFERENT ages. NO ONE is using K-Ar to date recent samples, because the results not reliable enough to consider. (BTW - that's where repeatability comes into play...)

I'm going to side with MILLIONS of peer-reviewed scientists before I rely on one or two crackpots with bad understandings of observation and conclusion.

Now, what is the probability that Adam and Steve popped out of Eden one day and spawned the entire human race? Here's a good one - You bad bad lizard - I shall zap away your legs as eternal punishment! - right...

Here's another good one:
God created Man with Free Will, but somehow Man fell... ? From what? Did he not exercise his Free Will?

Duncan, look back at my previous statement:

"I assert to you that the whole idea of "the big bang" and evolution are as equally preposterous as the spontaneous existence of god."

If it is so hard to imagine that the whole universe popped into existence, how is it any easier to imagine that God popped into existence to create it?

It is scary to me, that anyone would believe creationism and if plenty of children are being taught this in home schooling, how much of a problem will we all have in the future of our country.

Pomeranians:

A form of contraception chosen by some women, intended to keep any qualified male a safe distance away. Unfortunately not always sucessful... An unfortunate route for sub prime males to reproduce, propagating the likelihood that Pomerianians will continue to survive in an otherwise unlikely evolutionary environment.

Duncan Bonine said:

>> The half life of Carbon -14 is known to be 5730 years +/- 40 years. That would mean that there would be no traceable amount of Carbon-14 present in a rock older than about 50000 years.

MilesCity.com Webmaster said:

> Why entertain an argument of anything ever becoming that old, when we all know the Earth has existed for no more than 6,000-10,000 years?

To put it another way, since you admit the half life of Carbon 14 is known to be 5,730 years, and I assume you believe the Earth is not older than about 6,000-10,000 years... then a second full decay could not have even occurred yet, so there should be nothing more than roughly (I don't feel like getting out my calculator) a 50-75% decay of Carbon 14 anywhere on the face of the planet.

Weighing the two sides of the argument: (1) a 5,730 year Carbon 14 half life decay rate, vs. (2) the Earth not being older than 6,000-10,000 years... which one is correct?

The concepts are mutually exclusive.

MilesCity.com Webmaster -
Why entertain an argument of anything ever becoming that old, when we all know the Earth has existed for no more than 6,000-10,000 years?

50000 years does not equal millions of years. The theory of evolution says that man and dinosaur did not coincide together. The beds of coal that we now uncover are presumed to be from deposits of plants and or animals. If those deposits are dinosaur and less than 50000 years old, that is not enough time for evolution of man.

And how do you know that Carbon 14 has a half life of 5,730 years? Did a creationist discover that truth? Or a scientist?

If it was a scientist, are you telling me that you are basing a portion of your creationism argument upon the work of a scientist, but then drawing further conclusions to something that most scientists would not agree with?

Quick... Someone tell Newton that you can't be a scientist AND a Creationist.

Why can't science be used to support the Bible?

Evolution is not science (neither is Creationism). Evolution is a theory used to explain the origin of life that is based in part on research and in part on assumption. The truth is that the assumptions have never been proven yet they are now presented as fact.

As thoeries, evolution, not Creationism, is the new kid on the block. The Bible as a historical record, far predates any evolution theory.
To that end, I do not base Creationism on the work of scientists. Creationism is based on God's word through Genesis as a real, first hand account of a literal six-day Creation that took place about 6000 years ago.

We do find that what we see (through observation and science) in God's world agrees with what we read in God's Word.

You believe the earth was created in a literal 6 day event? Like 144 hours of Gods work? Or do you evaluate each day as being unmeasurable by us of indeterminable length?

Duncan Bonine said:

> Quick... Someone tell Newton that you can't be a scientist AND a Creationist.

> Why can't science be used to support the Bible?

A. Newton was not correct in his theories. While a great scientist of his time and in the advancement of science overall, he was essentially nothing more than a stepping stone to more refined knowledge and ideas.

B. Why can't one believe in God and in science? Why is a literal interpretation of the Bible required?

Albert Einstein also believed in God while proposing theories completely in the face of the Bible. Of course, he was incorrect with some of his ideas too. For example, he didn't believe in Quantum Mechanics. And I quote his argument, that "God does not play dice with the universe." But he was wrong.

The fact that Newton and Einstein were not entirely correct, however, does not discount their contributions, as they were the most accurate at the time, and revolutionary towards later efforts. Each generation of scientific exploration builds upon the last, by correcting errors, refining theories, and bringing us closer and closer to a true model of the Universe.

It really surprises me that anyone today actually believes a literal interpretation of the Bible, at all. Every culture has tried to figure out the reason for its existence, and each one has come up with their own justification, but it was all created by Man.

We don't believe in what the ancient Greeks or Romans came up with anymore, or a lot of other things. With increased knowledge, the earlier concepts that don't make sense simply become implausible.

Literal Interpretation?

It depends on whether or not you are trying to ban Gay Marriage.

If you do not take the bible literally, then you are safe - since you are therefore not a fundamentalist.

Does God exist? I doubt it - but I can't prove it.
Does Evolution Exist? Yes, and no, the 50,000 year old coal deposits do not have dinos in them. They died 300,000,000 years ago.

Could God and Evolution co-exist? Sure they could. Why couldn't they? As I said, either postulate of Big Bang and God are equally preposterous.

Could Creation, as depicted in the Bible, or Noah's Arc exist? Not a chance. Does not stand up to any scrutiny.

Eric Brandt said:

> the 50,000 year old coal deposits do not have dinos in them

But Eric, you're missing the point. Since the Earth is only 6,000 years old (or 10,000 if you prefer), there can be no 50,000 or 300,000,000 year old coal deposits.

So is fundamentalism hurting us? You bet it is. Why you ask? Well tell me the difference between the thousands of homeschoolers being taught around this nation right now in this belief and the thousands of muslims being taught in their religious schools. Well it has been pointed out that those muslim children are being taught a "twisted version of their faith" and have dangerous interpretations of it. What about fundamentalists in our country? I submit it is close to the same problem as it also is a "twisted version" of Christianity. Before all you "fundies" get mad at my opinion, remember it is just my opinion.

"But Eric, you're missing the point. Since the Earth is only 6,000 years old (or 10,000 if you prefer), there can be no 50,000 or 300,000,000 year old coal deposits."

Larry - You're close: Because there is Carbon-14, there can be no 50,000 or 300,000,000 year old coal deposits.

Duncan Bonine said:

> Larry - You're close: Because there is Carbon-14, there can be no 50,000 or 300,000,000 year old coal deposits.

So I guess if we squish some dinosaurs, and other good stuff, then we can come up with oil and coal after about 57 hundred years?

I'll bring the dinosaurs if you bring the squisher.

Duncan,
You're not understanding the Carbon-14 process.

Perhaps you could explain what I'm not understanding.

For example, It is well understood that Carbon-14 is very easy to make even under very light radiation flux. Not all the C-14 in your body in 50,000 years will be the result of C-14 you ingested while living. Some C-14 will have been CREATED after your death by other sources of radiation.

C-14 is only useful on relatively young samples. It is also prone to many "contaminating" factors that make precise calibration nearly impossible for most samples. Carbon Dating is only one of MANY collaborated tools used to determine the age of an object. And even with that, there are degrees of accuracy, or ranges of acceptable ages.

Again, discrediting a tool because it doesn't work for a particular purpose does not mean it cannot work for it's intended purpose.

If my multi-meter cannot accurately read 10,000 volts, shall I assume that it's 20 volt scale must also be discarded? What of my High-Voltage Probe? Throw it away because I cannot read 20 volts with it?

Creation rests on a very limited number of out-of-context tools to disprove evolution. Evolution harnesses thousands of tools and million of evaluators to support educated claims. And while there might be a large difference in the dating of a single item, that difference is usually within the band of the tool used, and if not - is usually discovered to have contaminating factors.

A sign in my office:
WHERE YOU NOW STAND I ONCE STOOD,
WHERE I LAY NOW YOU WILL SOON BE.
taken from a tombstone.

When I read this I started to think,
most of the time coming up blank.

Then I read in Genesis, that man was formed from the dust, then that God breathed "Spiritual Life" into Adams nostrils, and man became alive. Then Adam sinned and separated himself from God.

He learned about GOOD and EVIL and his future, which included his death and separation from God and about the future of all human beings. They are all born to die. There is nothing about creation that changes that.

There isn't anything said about the Spirit in this thread. The Truth is man is born of the Spirit, lives by the Spirit, and dies by removal of the Spirit. He becomes a cadaver, and returns to dust. There is much more to life than creation. Bible reading is personal.
It is foolishness to those who do not understand. "God the Father" is a Spirit. "Jesus Christ" is a Spirit. The "Holy Spirit" is a Spirit. Yet there is only one God. Take note the only unforgivable sin is the lack of belief in the HOLY SPIRIT.

another sign in my office:
SOME PEOPLE LOOK FOR DIVINE GUIDANCE IN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS,
WHILE OTHERS SEEM TO BE LOOKING FOR LOOPHOLES.

editted by Jim Davis

AJS said:

> Take note the only unforgivable sin is the lack of belief in the HOLY SPIRIT.

Well, I assume that if my words here converted one believer into a non-believer, then that would pretty much seal my fate towards meeting Chris and Saddam in Hell.

Also, I assume if I were to commit suicide, then that's a quicker way to reach the same destination.

FWIW, I believe in God, but in a different way than you do, and it has become apparent there is no reason for me to proceed further into the "Bible Bubble". It is a pointless exercise that is an enormous waste of time. Believe what you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone else in the process.

1. One of the problems with carbon dating is that you cannot date sedimentary rock. Only ingenuous rock can be dated with this method. So you then have to make some pretty big assumptions about the sedimentary layers, which is where most of the fossils are located.

Here is some addition nfo on carbon dating and how it works. http://www.answersingenes...-the-bible


2. Darwin is known as the father of evolution theory. It would be interesting to know what children prior to Darwin were taught. Just a thought.

3. My issue here is not attempting to prove the age of the earth, but Biblical Authority. The real issue is that there was no death prior to Adam. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible's genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man's ideas about the age of the universe.

And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either.

Why would any Christian want to take man's fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man's word is infallible, but God's Word is fallible!

This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man's fallible dating methods to interpret God's Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can't be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God's Word. Once this `door' has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible.

If Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world's teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret God's Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality.

Yes, one can be a conservative Christian and preach authoritatively from God's Word from Genesis 12 onwards. But once you have told people to accept man's dating methods, and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bible's authority! This attitude is destroying the church in America.
So, the issue is not `young Earth' versus `old Earth,' but this: Can fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God?

A `young-Earth' view admittedly receives the scoffing from a majority of the scientists. But Paul warned us in 1 Corinthians 8:2, `And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.' Compared to what God knows, we know `next door to nothing!' This is why we should be so careful to let God speak to us through His Word, and not try to impose our ideas on God's Word. It's also interesting to note that this verse is found in the same passage where Paul warns that `knowledge puffeth up.' Academic pride is found throughout our culture. Therefore, many Christian leaders would rather believe the world's fallible academics, than the simple clear words of the Bible.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 12/19/2007).]

and "hurting others" should include, IMO, not expecting others to live by your standards and not making laws that we all have to live by to satisfy your beliefs. That is wrong and hurts this country which is why separation of church and state is so important.

[This message has been edited by howdy (edited 12/19/2007).]

"1. One of the problems with carbon dating is that you cannot date sedimentary rock. Only ingenuous rock can be dated with this method."

What? Do you actually understand the method you are discounting, or did you just make a HUGE typing error?

This is what really bothers me. That is a GROSS CONCEPTUAL ERROR. Purported as fact, yet nothing of the sort. It makes it extremely difficult to accept any information from that source with that kind of error.

Put very plainly:
1. YOU CANNOT DATE IGNEOUS ROCK BY C-14 DECAY.
2. YOU CAN DATE SEDIMENTARY ROCK BY C-14 DECAY.

The assumption made in statement 1 is that there are no "mosquitoes" in igneous rock.

The assumption made in statement 2, of course, is that the rock contains formerly living things.


" Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require"

Really?

My issue here is that people will claim the "scriptures" are infallible and then say things like those above. The Scriptures are not only illogical, but even poorly written.

Based on the responses here, Howdy, I will conclude that the answer to your thread is a qualified "YES"

"When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man's ... ... they have agreed with the world that the Bible can't be trusted. ... Once this `door' has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible."

From before:
"So, man's little 10,000 year old invention of "god" continues to serve it's designed purpose. It keeps people happy and productive and able to live in larger groups. Our complete ascension to an existence beyond the limits of the Ego will not happen in my lifetime, and so therefore, we must accept god as a fact of modern life.

In short, god will continue to exist for as long as we decide we need her. And when we finally decide that she is no longer serving her intended purpose, we will discard her. No sooner, and certainly no later.
"

And the world will [finally] be a better place...

Which version of creation in the Bible is correct? There are two, just as there are two "Ark" stories, and they are not identical. Which one is right? Two by two or seven by seven for clean animals? Eve created at the same time as Adam or Eve created after Adam? I know one version is more popular but they are both there, one after the other. So. . .oh, infallible ones, which is correct? A or B?

This fellow has put out some rather ingenious rock over the past 45 years...

I am fairly certain that Carbon-14 dating would place him back at the time of the dinosaurs....wait, that's only 50,000 years ago...

Nevermind.

I suppose if we are supposed to accept the Bible literally as the infallible word of God, Richard, that means we have to accept the Book of Mormon that way, also. Afterall, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a Christian religion, too....no?

If you put Keith in your dino-smasher I bet it would only take half as long to make coal.

And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions.

--------------

The earth is flat.

And the sun revolves around it.

The bible is a tool of man, created by man, and therefore corrupt in nature.

[This message has been edited by J. Dyba (edited 12/19/2007).]

Can the fundamentalists answer a question for me? What is God?

And none of this really matters at all. Knowing the " real answers" doesn't change a thing. What matters is how we treat one another and if we make decisions based on making this earth a little bit better for someone each day. You can spend the rest of your sleepless nights trying to figure out all of this stuff. If it REALLY mattered to God Himself, he would have made the answers to these things so crystal clear that there would be no doubt. Clearly that was not his agenda. If what you believe makes you a better person, makes you treat others more kindly and more compassionately then you are on the road of truth. If not, it doesn't matter what your scriptures or denomination or belief system is called because it is not of the light. At the end of the day if you can truly say you made this world better in some small way, then you will be just fine when it is all over.

That is what the fundamentalists think but they are trying to make the rest of us, who are on that path as well, follow their lead and that isn't what it's really all about. I don't need any fundamentalist's view or agenda to prescribe my life or path to enlightenment. Yet the tendency in fundamentalism is to say that any way but their way is wrong. Which to put it bluntly is bull****.

America in the beginning pushed for freedom to believe as we wish. Fundamentalism is taking us right back toward merry old England or worse. What about Salem? All those innocent people killed because the religious right said they were witches and it was only caused by eating rye bread made from grain infected by fungus causing hallucinations. Another impression of belief gone wrong.

We are only on this blue ball in space for a short while. Please don't tell me I have to believe in your beliefs.

I absolutely agree Steve, and if people don't start standing up, we will, all of a sudden, find ourselves with judges etc that have one agenda only, to enable the religious fundamentalists which should be very scary to all of the rest of us. Every interview I have seen lately of these people is that they are determined to "take over" our judicial system and school systems etc. Also the "abstinance only" system that they have been promoting with OUR TAX DOLLARS isn't working and more and more states are refusing the federal funding if they have to teach just that program.

[This message has been edited by howdy (edited 12/20/2007).]

Here is a perfect example of a leading candidate in the republican primary who thinks that the war on terror is a religious war between Islam and Christianity. Kinda like the crusades.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...DfOX03LcHU

8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.

9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,

11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

12 You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.

13 Instead of the thornbush will grow the pine tree,
and instead of briers the myrtle will grow.
This will be for the LORD's renown,
for an everlasting sign,
which will not be destroyed.

Isaiah 55:8-13

Well put. I get the gun after you are done with it.

Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.

Amen.

I may not fulfill all or any of these things some days, but it's sure better to strive for this moral than the one of the vengeful god of the fundamentalists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...nt_Francis

[This message has been edited by howdy (edited 12/20/2007).]

So here is the bottom line... no one has convinced anyone of a different view that they are wrong. I believe what I believe and you all feel the same about what you believe. I have not changed your mind. None of you has changed my mind.

So if in the big picture I am wrong and the whole concept of God and moral law (such as honor your mom & dad, don't sleep with your neighbors wife or husband or your tennis partner, don't steal, don't tell bear false witness), is all of my own making and then I die and that is "the end" how is anyone harmed? I simply attempted to live in what I believe to be a respectful manner toward others. Such a lifestyle may have been unnecessary, but if die and thats it no one has really been harmed.

On the other hand, if I am right and there is a God and what I believe about Him does matter ( i.e. there is a heaven and a hell) and affects where I spend eternity, then there is risk of being eternally separated from the Creator in torment.

I have concluded that I am going to live my life in a manner that is pleasing to God. The associated risk of doing anything else is unacceptable high.

Don't forget the following:

(1) Don't wear poly/cotton blend shirts
(2) Don't eat shrimp or lobster
(3) Don't sleep in the same bed as a menstruating woman
(4) Treat your slaves well

It isn't what you believe or disbelieve that is the problem, it is the fact that you are trying to push your beliefs with other people and actually change laws in this country to please your beliefs. That is hurting this country and is totally unacceptable.

How is anyone harmed?

Have you read the Gay Marriage thread?

The fundamentalists urge to legislate their religious viewpoints on a secular government IS HURTING AMERICA.

The fundamentalists pressure in our country creates an environment where (and I know several people in his condition) people "go through the motions" for FEAR of being labeled a non-christian. Why? Because christians WILL harm non-christians by their actions and words. THAT IS HURTING AMERICA.

The fundamentalists urge to condemn "Radical Islam" is the pot calling the kettle black. We are heading for a fascist religious state faster than you think. THAT IS HURTING AMERICA.

Regarding risk: There are sure a lot of "Christians" using jesus as an insurance policy. And it would be interesting to know how many of them actually "believe" vs how many use it with "Risk Analysis" as Richard apparently does.


If you want to believe what you believe, and don't want me to change your beliefs, then you have a responsibility to leave your faith out of my house.

And that means out of my schools and out of my laws.

When Fascism comes, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.

Evolution IS taught in school, sexual promiscuousness and experimentation are common practice and will soon be the law of the land. Gays will be married and mainstream. The Ten Commandments HAVE been removed from public view. Shortly, your side WIll be able to euthanize people like me so you don't have to hear my point of view. The concept of God will be gone form this country and you can enjoy the Marxist way of life. You are winning the cultural battle. You have nothing to complain about. Fundamentalism is dying and will be shortly dead. You have plenty in which to rejoice.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 12/21/2007).]

Don't forget about the prayer mats, Richard.


I think that we have more to worry about from you and others of your ilk.

Your world is very scary to me Richard.

Worry is the price you pay for something that may not happen.

The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, and pride and arrogance.

"Worry is the price you pay for something that may not happen."

Like Hell and an "eternity separated from the creator..."

I would not be in favor of euthenising you because I don't like your beliefs, but I am whole heartedly in favor of euthanasia for the terminally suffering.

As for fundamentalists losing the battle? Our own president said he "talks with God", and you people will likely produce either a mormon or a minister for a candidate. I'm not sure your quite the underdog here. After all, your still squashing gay's right marriage.

Evolution IS taught in school, sexual promiscuousness and experimentation are common practice and will soon be the law of the land. Gays will be married and mainstream. The Ten Commandments HAVE been removed from public view. Shortly, your side WIll be able to euthanize people like me so you don't have to hear my point of view. The concept of God will be gone form this country and you can enjoy the Marxist way of life. You are winning the cultural battle. You have nothing to complain about. Fundamentalism is dying and will be shortly dead. You have plenty in which to rejoice.


How does evolution have anything to do with sexual promiscuity? The 10 Commandments have not been removed from public view. They have been removed from PUBLIC property. If you are so worried about the 10 Commandments, why not erect one on YOUR front yard. Euthanize? Man Richard you sure pulled s h i t out of the air with that one.

Richard,
You really have just proven by your nutty statements why fundamentalism is dangerous and hurting this country. What is sad is the zillions of kids being indoctrinated into this mess. The person that killed the people in the church and the missionary in Colorado was raised as a fundamentalist and homeschooled. Why was I not surprised to hear that.

"As for fundamentalists losing the battle? Our own president said he "talks with God", and you people will likely produce either a mormon or a minister for a candidate. I'm not sure your quite the underdog here. After all, your still squashing gay's right marriage."

And you will likely produce Hillary as the President and then gays will have the right to marry, and I will have to accept the fact that such is now the law of the land.

Amen to that.

Why do you think the law of the land should be only your belief system Richard and ignores other Americans? That is total arrogance!!!

"Richard,
You really have just proven by your nutty statements why fundamentalism is dangerous and hurting this country. What is sad is the zillions of kids being indoctrinated into this mess. The person that killed the people in the church and the missionary in Colorado was raised as a fundamentalist and homeschooled. Why was I not surprised to hear that."

You are attempting to lump all "fundamentalism" together. There is significant difference between what I believe theologically, and say the typical Jerry Falwell or Bob Jones home school student. Frankly most home schooled kids would be better off with an atheist teacher than with their Christian mom.

The problem I have is that you and others who don't believe in God lack the informational background for me to meaningfully articulate the differences. You assume that all Christians believe as Ned Flanders when in reality there are marked differences between what I believe and the typical fundamentalist.

For example, I am not opposed to teaching evolution as a theory in school. I have instructed my kids to learn all they can about the evolutionary theory and global warming etc. Bank tellers learn to spot counterfeit money by constantly handling real money. By exposing them to evolution at school and my view of Creationism at home, they will be able to think for themselves and spot error. I don't want some non-believe public school teacher attempting to teach creationism because they won't get it right anyway.

The abolitionist neo-con point of view IS harming this country.

"The problem I have is that you and others who don't believe in God lack the informational background..."

oooh, Don't assume I lack that background, Richard - I think I would surprise you with my "background"...

The problem with fundamentalists is that they are trying to legislate their faith, and then cry foul when they are thwarted or criticized for it.

The question was "Is fundamentalism hurting America?" and the answer is still "YES".

Richard,
Your erroneous assumption that I don't believe in God as usual is wrong and totally arrogant. I don't believe in your BS version of God, but I do believe in God. BIG DIFFERENCE. However, I also believe that this country should represent ALL AMERICANS and no one belief system should be followed to the detriment of all the others. I think our founding fathers thought the same way. They had already put up with the arrogance of the british empire and anyone that wasnt a member of the church of england was not acceptable particularly Catholics. The puritans had already been run out of england and most of them were in Holland. So our founding fathers were well versed in religious intolerance and didnt want it to be our method of governing.

"And you will likely produce Hillary as the President and then gays will have the right to marry, and I will have to accept the fact that such is now the law of the land."

Actually, she is only for "civil unions" which is ridiculous becuase this country has already found that "separate is not equal." Nice try, the ones for gay marriage are Dennis K. and Bill R. and they are nowhere near winning this election.

"The problem I have is that you and others who don't believe in God lack the informational background for me to meaningfully articulate the differences."


Really, you're just THAT much smarter than us heathens. It seems like recently when we discussed the Bible, we got this from the great Dr. Bonine:


"You are assuming that I eat lobster... never tasted it and I don't eat shrimp either. And there is no such thing as one Christian being better than another."

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!



--------------------------------------------------


You assume that all Christians believe as Ned Flanders when in reality there are marked differences between what I believe and the typical fundamentalist.


I've already told you once, you're the Church Lady, not Ned Flanders.

So in the arena of moral issues how do we as a nation move forward in determining what is a function of church and what is a function of state?

There has to be an equitable way to decide such issues. What we have done for the last 400 posts is not accomplishing anything. No matter what we do, one side is going to believe that the other side is imposing their system of belief.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 12/21/2007).]

"Really, you're just THAT much smarter than us heathens. It seems like recently when we discussed the Bible, we got this from the great Dr. Bonine"

Bob L: so you understand the differences in doctrine between Roman Catholic, Foursquare, Assembly of God, Ramha Bible College, Independent Baptist, Evangelical Free Church of America, Presbyterian Church in America, and Missouri Synod Lutheran? Good for you. We should do lunch sometime.

The point I have been desperately trying to make it that you and others want to lump all of those groups together as "fundamentalist" when their are marked differences between them. At one point or another in my life I have been a part of each those denominations. It is hard to explain the differences to those who question the concept of "God" in the first place.

I am not intentionally trying to be arrogant and I am sorry if I come across that way.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 12/21/2007).]

Quoth Mr. Bonine:

Bob L: so you understand the differences in doctrine between Roman Catholic, Foursquare, Assembly of God, Ramha Bible College, Independent Baptist, Evangelical Free Church of America, Presbyterian Church in America, and Missouri Synod Lutheran? Good for you. We should do lunch sometime.

Never heard of the Ramha Bible College but could probably hold my own discussing the others - however, the last time I tried to have this conversation with you regarding whether or not the Lutheran church fell into the "Reformed" tradition all I got was pissing and whining about how no one can have a religious conversation without know-it-alls ruining it.

Pot, kettle, glass houses, etc, etc, etc....

Anyways, no one cares about the particulars of theology between East Idaho Baptist Fellowship and the Upper Michigan Church of Christ Jesus (Seventh Day) when the answer always seems to come to "Tax Cuts And Bush, Praise The Lord!!!"

(and Lutherans still aren't Reformed, fyi)

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (edited 12/21/2007).]

Bob L: so you understand the differences in doctrine between Roman Catholic, Foursquare, Assembly of God, Ramha Bible College, Independent Baptist, Evangelical Free Church of America, Presbyterian Church in America, and Missouri Synod Lutheran? Good for you. We should do lunch sometime.

----------

Good grief, Richard. Who gives a bleep?

You can lump everyone together as a "non-believer or "Marxist" or "liberal," etc...and then you get your Church Lady panties in a bundle because you're labeled as a "fundie?"

Give me a break.

The doctrinal differences between many of the churches you cited are not that significant. And since, unlike some people, I don't change churches every 25 days, I really don't care that much about those doctrinal differences.

Bridgier: I would contend that there are a lot of lutherans who aren't Lutheran. And whether Lutherans are reformed or not depends on the definition of "reformed".

Bob L: you do have a good point. I think the differences are important because I have a very different understanding of the separation of church and state than I used to have. It may not be discernible to you but it is to me.

Well, I suppose it is time I threw my pantheistic, communist point of view in. Oh, wait! I don't need to, I am a pantheistic communist.

I think the differences are important because I have a very different understanding of the separation of church and state than I used to have. It may not be discernible to you but it is to me.

*************************

What is your new understanding of separation of church and state? It seems perfectly clear to me.

"So in the arena of moral issues how do we as a nation move forward in determining what is a function of church and what is a function of state? "

Very Very easy -

THERE IS NO FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH WHEN THE NATION IS DECIDING MORAL ISSUES.

Any questions?

------------------------------------

"You are attempting to lump all "fundamentalism" together. There is significant difference between what I believe..."

And you, are apparently lumping all religious people together by saying your bible is the only right one; that your "interpretation" is the only right one.

------------------

"sexual promiscuousness and experimentation are common practice and will soon be the law of the land. Gays will be married and mainstream."

You are trying to lump all the Americans together by claiming that sexual promiscuity will become "law of the land" and that the Gays (and their apparent agenda to convert everyone) will become "mainstream"!

LOLOL Wow! This is exciting! Get ready everyone, soon it will be a required law that we all get together in Riverside Park for a giant gay orgy! Mass marriage ceremony to follow at the Gazebo - so pick you parter(s) early. Rev Bonnie will be forced to officiate on behalf of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as required by law.

Hopefully the City will spray for mosquitoes so no one gets HIV!


For reference:


proof:

Read the Hate Mail link - I never laughed so loud in my life!

[This message has been edited by Eric Brandt (edited 12/22/2007).]

I have been a Pastafarian for years! We are smart and love pirates. What more do you need to know

Amorette, I don't need to know ANY more - I saw the webshot in the pumpkin pie on my very own monitor! That's all the proof I needed.

In other words gay marriage is not a moral issue? In your dreams maybe.

I would like to see gay marriage put to a vote of the nation. I am not a supporter of amending the constitution to define marriage, but I do think it would be to the issue once and for all.

Who is "Rev. Bonnie"? Is Eric fallible?

Get ready everyone, soon it will be a required law that we all get together in Riverside Park for a giant gay orgy! Mass marriage ceremony to follow at the Gazebo - so pick you parter(s) early. Rev Bonnie will be forced to officiate on behalf of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as required by law.

Participants looking for employment need not apply at Brandt ITC unless prepared to "straight"en up and not act so gay.

WTF? How retarded is that? Why would Eric's business be involved in this? And why, when he has advocated gay rights from the get go, would you need to be straight to work for him?
You are living proof that fundamentalism is ignorance at it's peak.

And again, RICK, Jesus doesn't like stone throwing butt puppets.

http://www.milescity.com/...tid=4231#3

Eric Brandt stated...
I have personally refused to hire an otherwise "qualified" homosexual I once interviewed because he was too "queeny" and it was incompatible with the image we presented to our conservative community. The decision was based 100% on his composure and 0% on his sexuality - since it is obvious that is not an issue for me.

An interesting admission, but wholly inconsistant with your previous rhetoric, not to mention an illegal hiring practice in 11 states with gay discrimination laws.

A little late Christmas present idea for Eric, if anyone is looking.
http://www.amazon.com/Cov...0375508201

I liked what the New Yorker book review had to say...

Yoshino describes a phenomenon that he calls "covering": the pressure exerted on racial minorities to "act white," the social acceptance offered to gays as long as they don't "flaunt" their identities, the ways women in the workplace are expected to camouflage their lives as mothers. Exploring the history of civil-rights litigation in the United States, Yoshino concludes that courts have too often focussed on individuals' capacity to assimilate, rather than on the legitimacy of the demand that they do so.

All I'm saying is that you seem to hold others to a standard you do not hold yourself to.

Eric, outside of that, despite your threat, I will not remove my previous post, and please do not call my house ever again.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 12/22/2007).]

Rick,
That pressure to 'act white' as so so finely put it, is exerted by a christian right wing community of fundamentalists.

The negative connection with being queeny is not internal, it is external. If any business in this town were to hire a screaming queen, the fundamentalist moral christian right would be all over it in a heartbeat, screaming boycott.

IT IS YOU THAT IS A BIGGOT. GET OVER IT AND ACCEPT YOUR INNER FACIST!

If any business in this town were to hire a screaming queen, the fundamentalist moral christian right would be all over it in a heartbeat, screaming boycott.

I think this has been proven time and time again to NOT be the case. There are openly gay people working at many places in Miles City, and I know of nobody who is refusing to do business at those places. I have no issues with it. I guess some people are just a little too eager to find discrimination where there is none.

And you are helping perpetrate it! You would not have opened this topic, if you weren't looking to cause someone harm. I thoroughly enjoyed your silence on MC.com, perhaps you should consider extending it indefinitely.

Rick,

Why add perjury to your sins?

I never threatened you.

Lying will not improve your position on this.

You sir owe me an apology - your indefinite silence would be sufficient.

As a matter of fact, I think claiming that I threatened you might defame my character somewhat.

Are you absolutely sure on that?

Nope - you're not, because it never happened.

I just want the record to be clear here. The last thing I need is something to happen to you while people think I threatened you.

For the record:

I have REPEATEDLY instructed Rick to keep my business out of these discussions. When the heat is on, he cools it off by stealing from my employees. That's right, he is stealing from the families that work for me. Why? because he has a PERSONAL issue with my politics. Rick has NEVER had a bad experience with my business, yet has attacked it directly numerous times.

I did call his house to recommend that he remove his post. I mirrored that with a direct email. I informed him that I will pursue legal remedies to our issue otherwise.

You can bash my politics all day. That heat I can take. But if you involve my business just because I am one of very few with whom you can use that weapon, then you have stolen more than business, you have stolen my very American voice.

I vote the Rick be banned for his indiscriminate use of a very powerful and inappropriate weapon.

Rick,
I am sure that Holy Rosery Hospital, your employer, wouldn't be too proud of your postings on this. Perhaps you should cool it and not try to get other people inflamed. It really isn't fair to just push buttons to get others upset. Besides that, the question still is, Is Fundamentalism hurting this country. So stick to the topic.

David,
The picture is not only inappropriate, but old. And I'm sure you can find a picture of someone with a gun to his head without crazy frog in the background. It destroys any relevance you were trying to achieve.

"For the record:

I have REPEATEDLY instructed Rick to keep my business out of these discussions. When the heat is on, he cools it off by stealing from my employees. That's right, he is stealing from the families that work for me. Why? because he has a PERSONAL issue with my politics. Rick has NEVER had a bad experience with my business, yet has attacked it directly numerous times."

Not sure what this means and maybe I don't really want or need to know but since you have made public and "for the record" How is Rick stealing from your employees? How is it relevant to the topic at hand? Please explain.

In thinking more about it, I do owe you an apology, Eric. This whole debate has my heart in a place it shouldn't be, especially at this time of year. I thought I had put it behind me, but today I relapsed.

I guess it was difficult to watch Richard get hounded over "discriminatory" beliefs when, to my knowledge and perspective, he has committed no acts any more discrimanatory than those of the person questioning him. I'm sure you'd disagree, but that's another debate that would never end.

I know that you said "business" and "personal" should remain separate, but wondered why you were then allowed to bring your business (and its hiring practices) both into and out of the debate at your leisure.

That said, I will not retract what I've said, but will say that I said them in exactly the wrong spirit. I'll try to remove myself from any further debate on this topic following this post. I apologize for making you angry, Eric, and the worst part for me is that it wasn't entirely unintentional. I shouldn't intentionally provoke, and until I can learn to better control myself, I think I'll be better off abstaining.

To try to tie this whole thing up for my own piece of mind one last time, and because ABC asked the question while I was trying to stay out of it...

Is our sin worse than yours?

I'll refer back to my post at the beginning of this whole argument (two threads ago) which pretty much sums up my feelings (if only I could have left it at that )

http://www.milescity.com/...d=4111#115

I am not better than you, or anyone else, and if I gave anyone the impression that I thought so, I'm sorry.

Thanks Rick for your honesty and apology. Merry Christmas. Now can everyone please go back to the topic of this thread.

Richard,

When people think of your business in a negative light, do you think they bring you business?

It is a fact that some people in this town despise Walmart, and thereby do not shop there, and even boycott their grand super store opening.

No business, no money. No money, no paycheck for your employees. Thereby it can be derived from the above thought that when you have no business, i.e. no money to pay your employees, that people slandering your business publicly means they're taking money from your employees. Hence the stealing comment.

I believe that if I not only was trying to be in business to provide a service and make my own money, but also to provide a decent wage and living for my employees, I would be very upset about someone bashing my business willy-nilly for their own needs.

And I know that if everyone were to partake in the bashing of someone's workplace just because they don't agree with that person, I would be saying every day that Holy Rosary has the worst I.T. department ever. But, since work has very little, if nothing to do with personal politics, WTF is the point of using someone's work and livelihood as a tool against them?

It is not only extremely low and base behavior, but thoroughly unsportsmanlike and definitely not christian.

I understand that I'm definitely not christian most days, this being one of them, but these are public DEBATE forums. While many people may be misinformed or disinclined to perceive another's point of view, that does not mean that we should all partake in mud slinging, especially when it comes to messing with people's livelihoods.

Rick,
I apologize for my mud slinging earlier, but it is extremely difficult to deal with your dog and pony show. I will not, however apologize for asking for your continued silence if you do not change up the act.

PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE the topic is fundamentalism

Thank you.

I have received several emails and phone calls over this recent volley.

I was very pleasantly surprised at the amount of empathy and support for my position. Likewise the concern and support for my business.

I appreciate each of those and wish everyone a Merry Christmas.

Sorry Howdy,
Fundamentalism is damaging, as our Ricks have thoroughly proven.

Rick:

You're a punk.

Seriously.

Bob L.

If your definition of punkdom is making mean spirited posts and a total lack of civility, I think there are several on this site who need to take a long hard look at themselves.

Richard,
In the spirit of getting back to the topic of this thread, my last question to you was about separation of church and state. How do you define it? You said previously that you had acquired a new understanding of it which is why I am asking.

The author of Harry Potter is quoted as opposing Fundamentalism of any form from any religion and I tend to agree with her. Here is a link to a great interview with her concerning her series of books as well as her views on religion.

http://www.time.com/time/...ml?cnn=yes

http://graphics8.nytimes.....large.gif

YOU ALL ARE NUT BALLS!!!