RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 >   
  Topic: The kentucky Creationist Museum< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,08:40   

Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,22:41)
       
Quote
Interesting. Can you point to the passage in the Bible where the crazy make believe dude in the sky rules specifically against premarital sex? Or defines marriage?


Interestingly enough, I've never found any specific verses about premarital sex, that's why I engaged in lot of it.  JUST KIDDING!

But seriously, right from the very beginning the big guy points out the relationship between man and women.   We also have a big 'ol commandment about not commiting adultry, along with other guidelines for sexual conduct in the law.  

There are stories galore giving examples of the crap that follows when biblical patriarchs blew it and were constantly getting a little on the side.  Monogomy is the ticket to a happy healthy sex life, IMHO. :)  

Premarital sex - don't know what to tell ya.  But, I do know that one man/one woman for life seems to be the best option when considering all the pros and cons.

But, then what do I know...I'm actually guillible enough to believe in God <gasp!>.

                   
Quote
Alternatively, if you'd rather not justify this statement, you could answer the questions Zach and I left for you yesterday on your blog.


Patience--I just posted my response to Jeremy.  You're next.

It would have been quicker to answer my questions by just saying "No, there aren't any specific rules against premarital sex, and no definitions." The commandment against "adultry" is an interesting interpretation, since the traditional definition of adultery is "the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with one of the opposite sex" (Oxford English Dictionary). That would not include premarital sex between unmarried folks.

Of course theologians have been known to stretch definitions. A marriage of a Christian to a Jew was called "interpretative adultery", even within the bonds of matrimony. The fact that you interpret stuff as being consistent with how you think about it is not really on the same level of specificity. And that doesn't even begin to address the question of why folks who don't believe in your particular sky-dude should have to go along with your interpretations.

I do find it interesting that you can respond quickly and in your own words to these theological questions, but will delay several days on questions of science. You probably posted a dozen or so comments here at AtBC in the last day or so, but none were substantive discussions of science or biology. My comment on your blog only asks if you agree or disagree with 6 statements, so that I can figure out if we are able to proceed from common assumptions. How long does it take to say "agree" or "disagree" to 6 statements?  Do you have to consult with Walt Brown or Duane Gish before answering questions about what you think or what you know re biology and science? If so, doesn't that tell you something?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,09:17   

Quote
That would not include premarital sex between unmarried folks.


I never said it did.  I said I haven't found any verses giving specific instructions about premaritial sex.  Why do you always mess with my words?

Actually, that is why I take my time responding to you on my blog.  I have to read through my response several times before posting to be sure I'm articulate enough for you to get the message and not read something else into it.

It's easy to post here because I have no intention of putting much thought into anything. It's not worth the time, because regardless of what I say, it's going to get twisted anyway.  LOL. :p

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,09:48   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,09:17)
     
Quote
That would not include premarital sex between unmarried folks.


I never said it did.  I said I haven't found any verses giving specific instructions about premaritial sex.  Why do you always mess with my words?

Actually, that is why I take my time responding to you on my blog.  I have to read through my response several times before posting to be sure I'm articulate enough for you to get the message and not read something else into it.

It's easy to post here because I have no intention of putting much thought into anything. It's not worth the time, because regardless of what I say, it's going to get twisted anyway.  LOL. :p

Wow, that was quick ;)

Re your lack of biblical support for admonitions against premarital sex, you're right. I'm wrong. I did not acknowledge the fact that you never said anything about such verses. Mea culpa; I'll make an effort to read more closely in the future.

But in regard to my current wait for your reply to my last substantive comment on your blog, I'm pretty sure I could read and comprehend "agree" or "disagree". I don't think I would "twist" those words.

And I also note that you did not confirm or deny my supposition that you seek outside help from creationist sources before replying to science/biology-oriented comments on your blog. That makes me even more certain that I am right about that.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,09:57   

I most EMPHATICALLY here proclaim that I do not get outside help from creationists before I respond to your comments.  I thought you were kidding when you said that!

I have talked to various authors who have written books on creation, ID and evolution in the past.  But, I have NEVER contacted them about anything we've discussed.  You're questions aren't that difficult to answer, dave. ;)

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,10:32   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,08:16)
You are putting words in my mouth at this point, so I'll just back off and say your absolutely right.  You win.  I'm deluded.

If you seriously want to take this conversation further, let me know.  But, at that point you'll have to stop misrepresenting my position.

Hmm, I've only extrapolated from what you've said already.
Is there any specific part of what I've said that you have a problem with? Yes, I've put words in your mouth. As you will not answer simple questions like "do you think homosexuality  is a sin?" then what option do I have?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,10:45   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,09:57)
I have talked to various authors who have written books on creation, ID and evolution in the past.  But, I have NEVER contacted them about anything we've discussed.  You're questions aren't that difficult to answer, dave. ;)

No, they aren't difficult to answer. I didn't say that they were; in fact, I think I've said exactly the opposite

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,10:57   

Quote
"do you think homosexuality  is a sin?"


Personally, I think it's unhealthy both emotionally and physically for ~numerous~ reasons.  You can read the thread I posted for further enlightment into my crazy and demented worldview.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,11:05   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,10:57)
Quote
"do you think homosexuality  is a sin?"


Personally, I think it's unhealthy both emotionally and physically for ~numerous~ reasons.  You can read the thread I posted for further enlightment into my crazy and demented worldview.

I'll take that as a Yes then.
What about stoning to death people who commit adultery?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,11:13   

So you won't talk science with us because we'll twist your words?

I think I could take that personally! Are you saying that I would do that? On the basis of no evidence whatsoever? Wow FTK. Arrogant and delusional much?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,11:31   

Quote (Louis @ April 13 2007,11:13)
So you won't talk science with us because we'll twist your words?

I think I could take that personally! Are you saying that I would do that? On the basis of no evidence whatsoever? Wow FTK. Arrogant and delusional much?

Louis

don't forget some people are predisposed to see their own character traits in other people and be blind to them themselves. So maybe it's not surprising FTK anticipates getting "her" words twisted, as it's par for the course round "her" neck of the woods.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,12:13   

Now, now, people.  I've alluded to the possibility that I'm delusional many times now.  I make choices based on evidence like everyone else, and merely hope I'm on the right track.  I don't make claims that something is a "fact" when there are questionable elements to my assertions.

Oh, and yes, I realize that I have a tendancy toward toward displaying arrogance.  It's a little tough to walk into god knows how many Darwinists looking for a fight and choose not to display some confidence.  Unfortunately, somehow my confidence comes off as arrogance (quite often).  It's something I'm still working on. ;)

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,12:29   

Quote
What about stoning to death people who commit adultery?


Well, certainly I don't condone stoning.

sigh....those dratted OT law codes.  I've addressed this in the past as well, so I'll post it here for kicks:

 
Quote
Below you will find quotes from Josh in regard to the OT laws. I’ve pulled them from three different threads. He has obviously given this subject a lot of thought, and it is indeed a troubling issue for many Christians.

 
Quote
"I reject a God given to malicious tricks, so there can't be a conflict between what Moses wrote in the Torah and what is written in the world around us."

"The process of accepting particular religious evidence is different from scientific evidence. Christians don't keep kosher, almost no one rejects clothes made from two forms of cloth on religious grounds, slavery is considered immoral, despite the fact that the Bible has no problem with slavery. I try to think about the Tao Te Ching, and Buddha's teachings are a powerful source of inspiration, but no one accepts every line of religious evidence as equal."

"How we pick and choose is driven by our ability to integrate a particular teaching with our understanding of the world around us and what we believe the broad religious message to be. Slavery was acceptable because a Chosen People could set itself apart from other peoples in a way that modern humans, linked by a common ancestor, culture, and world, cannot. Cotton/wool blends are comfortable in the summer. Kosher laws are a hassle."

"It's the same reason that homosexuality is a heinous sin because of what the Bible says, but eating pork is OK, despite what the Bible says."

"It's convenient for religious authoritarians to use some Bible passages for their purposes, but others are inconvenient. Clothes made of two kinds of fibers are comfortable, and planting two kinds of crops in one field is handy. Leaving fields fallow one year in seven would be expensive. Forgiving all debts every 50th year would be a pain in the neck."

"It's silly to denigrate your opponents' morality. I think it's immoral to deny basic legal protections to any loving, consenting couple. That's an "extreme" position, but it's moral. Just a different morality from some other people's."


OK, Jeremy, I’m keeping my promise here. I wanted to take some time with this as it is a touchy subject for many people.

First I’m going to share an excerpt from the Emmy-winning show The West Wing.

The president of the United States, played by Martin Sheen, is shown twisting the host of a religious radio talk show into an intellectual pretzel.

The scene is the White House, at a meeting with broadcasters. When the religious radio host affirms that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, the president explodes with sarcasm:

“Yes it does!” he shouts. “Leviticus 18:22.”

“I wanted to ask you a couple of questions,” he says, beginning his interrogation. “I’m interested in selling my daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7 . . . what would be a good price for her?

“While thinking about that, can I ask you another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police?”

Now on a roll, the president steams on triumphantly. “Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

“Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side?"

“Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?”

He then sneeringly refers to Bible-believers as “the monthly meeting of the ignorant tight-a** club.” The ensuing silence is deafening. The religious radio host has been verbally chastised into silent submission, her beliefs on homosexuality and the Bible exposed as intellectually absurd and morally bigoted.

Had the president of the United States really demonstrated that the Bible was out of date? Should it indeed be relegated to the scrap heap of history? Do the very Scriptures that condemn homosexuality also give praise to slavery? If so, then how can a Christian today use Scripture to assert that homosexuality is sinful?

I think some people are very uncomfortable when they think they are being told how to live. It is much easier to try to find holes in God’s message so that we can eliminate the laws He asks us to keep. What I think people tend to forget is that God is our creator (through creation or TE - doesn’t matter). He knows what is best for our body because He was the one who created it. He made us and knows what kind of lifestyle will make us happy, healthier people. In OT history, God gave Moses many of the laws to protect them from the affects of sin. Kind of like a guidelines handbook. This would include eating, drinking, clothing, ceremonies, rituals etc. etc. Remember that they were a nomadic desert community for many years. Things would apply to them that would never be considered in the modern world of convenience. Many of these laws were done away with in the New testament with the death and resurrection of Jesus. He was the fulfillment of the law, thus many of those “guidelines for early Israel” do not play any part in what is going on today with Christianity. Now let me expand on that thought.....

Some of those OT laws seem a bit bizarre to us today, but when written (approx. 3,500 yrs. ago), I’m sure these laws had significant application. It is interesting the insight that the Israelites had in regard to quarantine, waste disposal, sterilization, etc. For example:

1. When the Black Plague was killing much of Europe prior to the Renaissance, desperate nations turned to the church for guidance. Returning to the Old Testament laws of Mosses, they instituted principles practiced by the Israelites for diseases like leprosy, handling of the dead and waste disposal.

2. A Biblical insight not understood until late 1800’s is the principle of basic sterilization (washing hands and clothing). Guidelines for washing are stressed in handling of the dead (Num 19). Basic purification practices (some ceremonial) and control of contamination were also specified for many other items including: “unclean” food (Lev 11:29-40), childbirth (Lev 12), bodily discharges (Lev 15) and infection (Lev 13). Even with ceremonial sacrifice and offerings, disease protection was controlled by thorough burning and washing (eg. Lev 6:8-13).

3. In the 1840’s the tragedy of non-scientific, non-Biblical medical practices was poignantly uncovered by Viennese Doctor, Ignaz Semmelweis. In his obstetrics ward he noticed an unusually high death rate of Women examined by teachers and students. The daily practice was to perform autopsies on the dead in the morning and later (without washing) give pelvic exams to new patients. A new practice of thorough washing after autopsies was instituted by the doctor. But it was greeted by sharp ridicule and disdain from his colleagues. Although deaths dropped sharply, Semmelweis’ contract was not renewed. Upon his leaving, washing stopped and deaths again sharply increased. Guidelines within the Bible were not recognized until 1865 by Joseph Lister, an honored scientist and a Christian.

Likewise we have the Agricultural Insights:

The Bible indicates God added an important insight by commanding the Israelites to “give the land a rest every seventh year” Lev 25:4 Today, the need to replenish soil with nutrients by crop rotation and the principle of “fallow” (resting the land) is well known. Although the Leviticus command was written about 1500 BC, the first evidence of the practice (other than Israel) was by the Romans about 200 BC. And it’s conceivable Rome learned of the practice from Israel.

Likewise, the Creator God knows that planting two types of seeds together would not yield a plentiful harvest. Incidentally the Israelites, by following these laws, were practicing excellent crop husbandry. In other words, the soil/crops were being rotated to prevent the soil from becoming sterile; “zapping the nutrients”.

In regard to slavery, I believe it was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it was allowed. You must remember that even though the Israelite slaves were treated very harshly by the Egyptians, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn’t the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly. Some references to this are Exodus 10:10, 21:2, 21:20, and Leviticus 22:11. Remember also, that in modern times; that is, after the Civil War when emancipation was granted to numerous slaves the majority of them chose to remain with their masters on the plantation. So who knows what the situation was in Israel at the time.

In regard to wool & linen: (Deut. 22:11 & Lev. 19:19) In Hebrew, this forbidden mixture is called “shatnez” pronounced shot-nezz. It is an acronym for “combed, spun and woven”, which describes the stages in processing fabric: combing the raw fiber, spinning fibers into thread, and weaving the threads into cloth. (Kevin, forgive me but I am showing off...... do you like it!;) hee hee har har - I’m just kidding - I’m not even sure if that’s right.

Any whoooo....the only way I understand this is that, again, God is either issuing some sort of protection for His people or there is some meaning behind it that we are not aware of. The Old Testament does not explain the reason for shatnez and this would appear to be a law whose logic is not evident. (kind of like the forbidden eating of pork).

Here is the clincher in regard to the laws. Many of the laws and the sacrificial offerings were dispelled after the death of Christ. He was in essence the sacrificial lamb. There are many verses referring to this change in the “Law (or Covenant)”. Jesus broke bread describing it as his body - “broken” for the world. Likewise after supper, referring to the 3rd cup of wine (redemption cup) Jesus called it the NEW COVENANT in his blood... poured out for many.

Now, on to homosexuality.....

There were “sexual perversions” mentioned in both the Old and New Testament. These perversions are considered especially harmful. First Corinthians 6:18 says, “All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” Romans 1:26-27 says, “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men...” Romans 1:28-32 goes on further...

These passages still ring out loud and clear in the New Testament, after the death & resurrection of Christ. They were considered perversions. Who would know best the consequences of same sex unions? God of course. Consequences would include, but are not limited to: disease and deterioration of the family (consider the aids epidemic). There has never been a civilization that has embraced homosexuality as a normal function. Tolerated? Yes. Accepted into mainstream life? Never. (even pagan Rome did not embrace it.)

OK, having said that, how do we treat homosexuals? With as much kindness & respect as we would anyone else. We love the person, but not the sin. It’s kind of like the alcoholic - we love the person but not the problem.

Josh, I’m certainly not perfect, and I’ve done many things that I don’t even care to discuss. Let’s just say that some of the stuff I’ve done is no better than the sin of homosexuality. My late teens through my 20’s were quite interesting. I was a bit of a wild child. But, I can say with all confidence, once I started living the way God intended for me to live, things all fell into place.

I have a cousin-in-law who died from aids about 12 years ago, so I know the heartache that the lifestyle can cause for families. I have 3 other cousins that are gay, and I treat them like anyone else. I’m to chicken shit to tell them they should consider a different lifestyle. I wonder sometimes if I should, because I know it’s wrong and I already have one cousin who has died from aids.
Hmm... what to do.

Anyway, I know you didn’t want to wade through this much stuff, but I hate it when a issue like this is brought up and someone supplies a pat little answer without much explanation. So there you have it....... maybe to much information. Hope some of it made sense.


HTH....probably won't, but at least it will give you something else to bitch at me about. ;)

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,13:47   

FtK wrote, re Old Testament rules and regulations that seem a tad harsh today...
 
Quote
Here is the clincher in regard to the laws. Many of the laws and the sacrificial offerings were dispelled after the death of Christ.

I'll leave the rest of that lengthy and fascinating post to someone else, and just focus on the statement above.

Let's accept that at face value, just for the sake of argument. Is there some place where we can find a list of the OT stuff that no longer applies? Is homosexuality on the list? Is the list different for Catholics and Protestants? Is the list different for different brands of Protestants (some of whom accept homosexuality as a biological fact, rather than treating it as an OT-variety sin)? Who decides?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,13:57   

FTK,

Have you ever considered that we aren't "darwinists" because there's no such thing (oh I know the term gets bandied about by everyone but it has annoyingly false dogmatic connotations) and that we aren't spoiling for a fight?

Do you remember the TV series Quantum Leap? Where at the start there was that annoying nasal female voiceover which went something like "hoping each time that this leap, would be the leap home" with dripping over schamltzy sympathetic whining on the word "home"? Well I do even if you don't. Perhaps we seem so keen because we're hoping that this IDCist will be the one that either comes up with the good old fashion concrete evidence that we hear so much about but never see* or will actually just admit they are wrong when confronted with the usual spades of overwhelming evidence.

Louis

*And before you bother, I've read everything by Dembski, Behe, Johnson and chums, and I really wasn't impressed. Even I could tell it was crap and maths (for example) certainly isn't my field. Some of us, scratch that, ALL of us are interested in nice new ideas. We get terribly disappointed and snarky when they turn out to be old, bad ideas that are well refuted, dressed up in sparkly new clothes to fool the gullible.

--------------
Bye.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:13   

Maybe you should have gone ahead and read the rest of it.

 
Quote
There were “sexual perversions” mentioned in both the Old and New Testament. These perversions are considered especially harmful. First Corinthians 6:18 says, “All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” Romans 1:26-27 says, “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men...” Romans 1:28-32 goes on further...

These passages still ring out loud and clear in the New Testament, after the death & resurrection of Christ. They were considered perversions. Who would know best the consequences of same sex unions? God of course. Consequences would include, but are not limited to: disease and deterioration of the family (consider the aids epidemic). There has never been a civilization that has embraced homosexuality as a normal function. Tolerated? Yes. Accepted into mainstream life? Never. (even pagan Rome did not embrace it.)


There was a LOT of stuff in those law code that applied to people at the time they were given in regard to the environment they were living in.  As far as the new covenant goes, the sacrificial system was done away with due to the ultimate sacrifice.  But, the NT doesn't do away with ALL the laws and we find them scattered throughout.  There is a lot to say about how we treat each other, stuff about sexual perversions, etc.  

Jesus stated that the two most important commandments were to love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.  That certainly covers a lot of ground.  Course, he wasn't the only one to mention those ground rules.  I think if we apply the sermon at the mount as well, we get a good idea of how we should live.  But, the law is not completely demolished because many of those things automatically fall under the teachings of the NT.

And, yup, I'm sure Christians vary on the interpretation of what a "sin" is and what is not.  So what?  We do the best we can.  But, I don't know of many traditional Christians who do not adhere to the new convenant in Christ.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:18   

Ah a conversation about teh gay and all the curdling little bits of good honest christian hate it engenders.

Stephen Fry again, from his autobiography, Moab Is My Washpot:

Quote
There are plenty of other things to be got up to in the homosexual world outside the orbit of the anal ring, but the concept that really gets the goat of the gay-hater, the idea that really spins their melon and sickens their stomach is that most terrible and terrifying of all human notions, love. That one can love another of the same gender, that is what the homophobe really cannot stand. Love in all eight tones and all five semitones of the word's full octave. Love as agape, eros and philos; love as romance, friendship and adoration; love as infatuation, obsession and lust; love as torture, euphoria, ecstasy and oblivion (this is beginning to read like a Calvin Klein perfume catalogue); love as need, passion and desire.


And this, from an interview in OutUK:

Quote
What you do with your penis or your bottom or anything else is so supremely irrelevant in a moral sense. It's what we do with our personalities and other people that matters.


Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:30   

Quote
Have you ever considered that we aren't "darwinists" because there's no such thing (oh I know the term gets bandied about by everyone but it has annoyingly false dogmatic connotations) and that we aren't spoiling for a fight?


Yeah, I know you hate the term, but likewise, I hate being called a creationist, an IDist, an IDiot, and the million other labels that have been applied to me (including the Wicked Witch of the West (RSR) and "vile hag" (gotta love Skatje Myers)).

Anyway, I don't know what to call you because evolutionist is not accurate (I'm an evolutionist).  It is the philosophical position that everything evolved from that first molecule that renders the problem.  Hence you are considered Darwinists.  Sorry.

As far as you "spoiling for a fight", it seems that from what I've read in this forum you guys are rather delighted with the thought, and you throw out fighting words and ridicule at the drop of a hat.  So, yeah, I think some of you enjoy the "fight".

If you were really interested in understanding the position of ID advocates, more of you would be working with them rather then working against them as hard as possible while doing everything in your power to misrepresent much of what they are doing.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:36   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,14:13)
Maybe you should have gone ahead and read the rest of it.

I presume this is supposed to be a response to my post.
Well, this time I did "read the rest of it". But I didn't find a list. Therefore I requested a list, or some linkage to such a list. I don't think I got that anywhere in your response; I did get a bunch of vague handwaving about a new covenant. Who came up with this covenant, did they generate a list, and when did this occur? Has it changed since it was first devised? When?
Remember, I'm a scientist, and I prefer explicit answers rather than vagueness. If such a list doesn't exist, or if it might vary with time, or creed, or ???, then you'll have to forgive me if I don't seem too impressed with what seems to be another version of "what the Iron Age pundits mean to me, personally."
Care to try again?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:37   

Louis, the term "hate" is something that I hope you never apply to what you believe ~my~ feelings are toward anyone or anything.  

I do not "hate".

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:37   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,14:13)
Jesus stated that the two most important commandments were to love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.  

Well, I have no God and so that is out.  How about my neighbour's daughter?  She is cute.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:40   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,15:30)
If you were really interested in understanding the position of ID advocates, more of you would be working with them rather then working against them as hard as possible while doing everything in your power to misrepresent much of what they are doing.

which position did we miss here? And anyway, how can we work with you when you clearly said you refuse to discuss science with us?

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:51   

Quote
But I didn't find a list.


LOL, well Mr. Scientist, no, I don't have a "list".  Are you familiar with the NT?  It's pretty obvious from reading it and the lessons it provides to get a fair idea how one should live their life.  I'm not sure anyone has a "list".  

I think the reason being is that although we try ~very hard~ to follow the suggestions laid out, we all fuck up quite frequently.  Hence, we're in need of and receive forgiveness.  Not to say that if we are living in opposition to how we were to designed to live we won't suffer some consequences, but there is forgiveness.  

Of course, if we run out and commit a million heinous acts because we know we merely have to kneel at the alter and ask forgiveness, that's not living as Christ would have us live, and we're obviously not taking our faith seriously.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:52   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,14:30)
 
Quote
Have you ever considered that we aren't "darwinists" because there's no such thing (oh I know the term gets bandied about by everyone but it has annoyingly false dogmatic connotations) and that we aren't spoiling for a fight?


Yeah, I know you hate the term, but likewise, I hate being called a creationist, an IDist, an IDiot, and the million other labels that have been applied to me (including the Wicked Witch of the West (RSR) and "vile hag" (gotta love Skatje Myers)).

Anyway, I don't know what to call you because evolutionist is not accurate (I'm an evolutionist).  It is the philosophical position that everything evolved from that first molecule that renders the problem.  Hence you are considered Darwinists.  Sorry.

As far as you "spoiling for a fight", it seems that from what I've read in this forum you guys are rather delighted with the thought, and you throw out fighting words and ridicule at the drop of a hat.  So, yeah, I think some of you enjoy the "fight".

If you were really interested in understanding the position of ID advocates, more of you would be working with them rather then working against them as hard as possible while doing everything in your power to misrepresent much of what they are doing.

Boy, there is a lot of stuff in that comment that needs to be unpacked.

FtK - Do you understand the difference between a personal insult (vile hag) and a pejorative term which implies that you learned all the biology you need to know from creationist websites?
Do you understand that terms have specific meanings in science, and that misuse of those terms not only impedes communication, but implies ignorance of the topic under discussion?
Do you understand that repeated misuse of terms, particularly if others have made multiple attempts to correct that misuse, marks you as not only ignorant but unwilling to engage in productive communication?
Do you understand that your perception of others "spoiling for a fight" might have a lot to do with your misuse of that (and other) terms, which automatically marks you as ignorant and unwilling to engage in productive communication?
And finally, do you understand that your self-description as being an evolutionist, while denying the fact of common descent and the evidence for macroevolution, does nothing to dispel either of those perceptions?

Words have meanings. Communication depends on understanding and accepting those meanings. Honest communication depends on not changing those meanings to suit ourselves.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,14:56   

Quote
Yeah, I know you hate the term, but likewise, I hate being called a creationist, an IDist, an IDiot, and the million other labels that have been applied to me (including the Wicked Witch of the West (RSR) and "vile hag" (gotta love Skatje Myers)).

Anyway, I don't know what to call you because evolutionist is not accurate (I'm an evolutionist).  


Splendid. Care to tell us:

a) do you believe the Noah's ark story literally happened?

b) how old do you think the earth is?

c) do you believe in 'macroevolution'?

d) do you believe in common descent?

Or let me simplify d) for you: do you think humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees?

if no to d), then please explain our 98% genetic similarity to chimpanzees.

Thanks in advance, since I'm sure you won't ignore or evade these questions this time, right?

 
Quote
And anyway, how can we work with you when you clearly said you refuse to discuss science with us?


I think I can answer that. She's totally willing to discuss science except we're all mean and uncivil. Except when we're civil, then she's already explained it all elsewhere, and she won't discuss science with us because we obviously don't want to discuss it with her and she has household chores she has to get back to anyway.

Did I guess right?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,15:03   

Quote (stevestory @ April 13 2007,14:40)
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,15:30)
If you were really interested in understanding the position of ID advocates, more of you would be working with them rather then working against them as hard as possible while doing everything in your power to misrepresent much of what they are doing.

which position did we miss here? And anyway, how can we work with you when you clearly said you refuse to discuss science with us?

Honey, I'm not talking about me.  I'm talking about you people working with the big guys from my side of this debate.  

All this immature bickering back and forth is really getting us no where, and my worry is that your side is set on pushing discussions of these issues into the private sector rather than the public square.

You want ID viewed as religion and confined to discussions in the church which, IMO, is going to lead to many more problems in the end.  By claiming that ID is "religion", you're pitting science against religion rather than trying to find a place in our universities to discuss these ~scientific~ issues in a fair and open manner.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,15:09   

Quote
Honey, I'm not talking about me.  I'm talking about you people working with the big guys from my side of this debate.  


Translated: "I'm just making shit up, so don't ask me to provide specific details about anything".

 
Quote

All this immature bickering back and forth is really getting us no where,


Yeah, a huge barrage of ignored questions will do that.

 
Quote
and my worry is that your side is set on pushing discussions of these issues into the private sector rather than the public square.


Was plate tectonics decided in the 'public square'?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,15:32   

Dave - got it.  FTK = ignorant.  You've made that point many times in the past.  Does repeating yourself get tiring?  

Arden - NACIH (not a chance in ####) that I'd touch those topics with a ten foot pole *here*. :)

Got some "household chores" I gotta get back to.

Later people!!!!

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,15:42   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,15:32)
Arden - NACIH (not a chance in ####) that I'd touch those topics with a ten foot pole *here*. :)


Your tough gal routine here is a little unconvincing, given your fear of answering basic questions.

Simple question for you to answer:

"I believe the age of the earth is:

a) 4.5 billion years
b) around 6,000 years
c) several thousand years
d) other"

All you have to do is give one of those four letters. If you pick d), we'd appreciate it if you elaborated.

Why are you afraid to answer this question?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,15:43   

Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,16:03)
You want ID viewed as religion and confined to discussions in the church

You aren't paying attention. I mentioned discussing these ID/creationism matters in philosophy of science classes at university. Nobody here said those classes should have been cancelled. Probably every single person here is in favor of philosophy of science classes featuring discussions of ID/creationism.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2007,15:49   

"I've got evidence God exists"
       "Show it to me then"
"No, but i've got this book....."

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
  150 replies since April 12 2007,09:30 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]