Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
| Quote |
Comment #59023
Posted by MAJeff on November 20, 2005 07:28 PM (e) (s)
Just sent this link to my sister—an ordained Methodist minister who ADORED (along with her clergy friends in the Twin Cities) the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59024
Posted by vhutchison on November 20, 2005 07:29 PM (e) (s)
I have had several members of the ‘pro-evolution’ clergy, who have signed the project, ask if we could get a list of those who have signed from each state or if a search function could be added for that purpose. I have e-mailed the originator of this valuable effort and made this suggestion, but have hadm no response. I hope others will make the same suggestion.
The clergy members who have asked for such a list wish to enlist members into the anti-ID efforts.
Searching through 10,000 names is a major task.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59037
Posted by carol clouser on November 20, 2005 09:25 PM (e) (s)
One, to not read the bible literally is to not take it seriously. For if words do not mean what they say, anyone can read anything into it. You cannot have it both ways.
Two, this sounds like the apologetics of folks who fear contradiction by science and have invented the great excuse for all such possible contradictions in the future. The Bible meant something else! These clerics truly lack faith. Let them just give it up and be done with it!
Three, with a little knowledge and discernment these faithless clerics would come to appreciate that the Bible CAN BE READ LITERALLY and still NOT CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE. As Judah Landa amply demonstrates in his IN THE BEGINNING OF, the original Hebrew Bible, when correctly and accurately translated, simply does not lead to any conflict with science. No word games, no twisted meanings, just correct translation. That’s all it takes.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59039
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 20, 2005 09:33 PM (e) (s)
As Judah Landa amply demonstrates in his IN THE BEGINNING OF
Just for the new folks who showed up only recently and who may not have seen Carol’s posts before, she works for the publisher of Judah’s book, and is just here shilling it.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59040
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on November 20, 2005 09:35 PM (e) (s)
And where is Carol’s evidence that any of the clerics associated with the Clergy Project is “faithless”? I have no problem taking Matthew 7:1 literally. Most of the antievolution flamers act like it isn’t even there.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59041
Posted by Swoosh on November 20, 2005 09:38 PM (e) (s)
Has the DI enlisted any more “scientists” to sign their “evolution skeptics” propaganda document?
I poked around on their website, but the only reference to the so-called “growing number of scientists” I could find was in their FAQ. They don’t link to the document, but state a number around 300. Which is actually about 100 less than I remember reported earlier this year, so perhaps they are also attempting to redefine “growing”.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59043
Posted by Bobby Stapp on November 20, 2005 09:39 PM (e) (s)
Hey Wesley, do you believe in God? I’m a theistic evolutionist. Where’s the thread by Henry?
|
| Quote |
Comment #59045
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on November 20, 2005 09:45 PM (e) (s)
Since Henry’s comment and the reply did not follow the topic here, I moved them over to the After the Bar Closes thread for this post.
I express my ideas of classifying stances, and my position, in this essay, which has been up for about a decade, IIRC.
|
| Quote |
Comment #59046
Posted by k.e. on November 20, 2005 09:49 PM (e) (s)
Bobby define God
|
| Quote |
Comment #59047
Posted by jim on November 20, 2005 09:49 PM (e) (s)
Carol,
9919 religious leaders and scholars representing every *mainstream* religion in the United States either support the teaching of Evolution or do not find any conflict between teaching Science / Evolution and their religion.
Since you feel differently it could be because of one of these three reasons:
1) You don’t belong to a mainstream religion. For more information read:
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_scie…
2) You misunderstand your religion’s position regarding Science. For more information read:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5025_s…
3) You misunderstand Science’s position regarding religion / a creator. For more information read:
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html…
This boils down to either you belong to a fringe believe OR you’re ignorant. In either case, this hardly supports the proposition that your ideas should be taught in school.
FYI, there are TWO creation stories in Genesis. If we are to read the Bible literally, then one of these must be wrong. Care to tell me which part of the Bible is wrong?
|
|
