| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Glenn Arnold" |
| Date: |
22 Feb 2005 02:41:03 PM |
| Object: |
Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
(Regarding Oscar acceptance speeches)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/22/oscars.rock.ap/index.html
"Don't thank God," Rock said. "God's busy working on the tsunami, so
leave him alone."
Now let's see how many show biz people pay attention.
Glenn Arnold
.
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
22 Feb 2005 05:45:07 PM |
|
|
"Glenn Arnold" <oldnoah@att.net> wrote in message
news:421B98DF.8030700@att.net...
(Regarding Oscar acceptance speeches)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/22/oscars.rock.ap/index.html
"Don't thank God," Rock said. "God's busy working on the tsunami, so leave
him alone."
Now let's see how many show biz people pay attention.
Glenn Arnold
I am so tired of God getting the blame for all the deaths in that tsunami.
All He did was create the planet that did what the planet does.
Oh. If He exists, He has also done the following, according to most theistic
belief systems:
Told us, individually, to take care of the poor...which, by the way, if we
humans had done a decent job of that would have saved a great many lives of
those who were too poor to live in places that were safer.
Told us, individually, to watch out for our brothers and sisters and not put
wealth above welfare. If certain national leaders had paid attention to THAT
instruction, they would have evacuated the coastal areas when they got the
tsunami warnings instead of being afraid that such an evacuation would
negatively impact the tourist trade. They could at least have warned the
schools not to take the kids down to the shore for field trips.
In fact, had people paid attention to the instructions the god they believed
in gave them in the first place, the death toll would have been far, far
lower. Infinitely lower.
But you go ahead; blame the god you don't believe in for the acts of those
who disobey Him.
.....or who don't believe in one.
sheesh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
23 Feb 2005 08:44:20 AM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:7uPSd.37693$uc.10154@trnddc08...
"Glenn Arnold" <oldnoah@att.net> wrote in message
news:421B98DF.8030700@att.net...
(Regarding Oscar acceptance speeches)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/22/oscars.rock.ap/index.html
"Don't thank God," Rock said. "God's busy working on the tsunami, so
leave
him alone."
Now let's see how many show biz people pay attention.
Glenn Arnold
I am so tired of God getting the blame for all the deaths in that tsunami.
All He did was create the planet that did what the planet does.
HE SHOULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGNING
A WORLD WITH DEFECTS THAT INDISCRIMINENTLY KILLED OVER 370,000
MEN WOMEN AND INNOCENT CHILDREN? REALLY???
Oh. If He exists, He has also done the following, according to most
theistic
belief systems:
Told us, individually, to take care of the poor...which, by the way, if we
humans had done a decent job of that would have saved a great many lives
of
those who were too poor to live in places that were safer.
Told us, individually, to watch out for our brothers and sisters and not
put
wealth above welfare. If certain national leaders had paid attention to
THAT
instruction, they would have evacuated the coastal areas when they got the
tsunami warnings instead of being afraid that such an evacuation would
negatively impact the tourist trade. They could at least have warned the
schools not to take the kids down to the shore for field trips.
In fact, had people paid attention to the instructions the god they
believed
in gave them in the first place, the death toll would have been far, far
lower. Infinitely lower.
But you go ahead; blame the god you don't believe in for the acts of those
who disobey Him.
....or who don't believe in one.
sheesh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
23 Feb 2005 09:40:44 AM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8F0Td.267359$w62.145584@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:7uPSd.37693$uc.10154@trnddc08...
"Glenn Arnold" <oldnoah@att.net> wrote in message
news:421B98DF.8030700@att.net...
(Regarding Oscar acceptance speeches)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/22/oscars.rock.ap/index.html
"Don't thank God," Rock said. "God's busy working on the tsunami, so
leave
him alone."
Now let's see how many show biz people pay attention.
Glenn Arnold
I am so tired of God getting the blame for all the deaths in that
tsunami.
All He did was create the planet that did what the planet does.
HE SHOULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGNING
A WORLD WITH DEFECTS THAT INDISCRIMINENTLY KILLED OVER 370,000
MEN WOMEN AND INNOCENT CHILDREN? REALLY???
No. Because if the planet were NOT geologically active, it would not be
livable at all. We so cover the planet now that there is no place where the
planet could make 'adjustments' that would not endanger people.
Now it is true also that, as I noted earlier, far fewer people would have
died had we as humans paid more attention to the teachings of the gods we
happen to believe in; most religions have instructions to help the poor, to
put people above things...and a great many of the deaths were the result of
people ignoring those instructions.
So tell me; if you are walking down a road, and you pass a sign saying 'road
closed' and another saying 'beware of rock slides' and another saying 'in
case of flood, climb to high ground' (yeah, there is actually a road sign
that says this..) and you simply keep walking, who is at fault for your
getting squished by a boulder?
A measly 6.something earthquake just killed hundreds of people in an Iranian
village. An earthquake the same magnitude HERE would, perhaps, injure a few
and quite possibly kill nobody at all, and there are far more people here
than in the middle of Iran ("here" being S. California). Is that God's
fault? Iran gets earthquakes all the time. They have access to information
and technology that would allow them to build earthquake resistant
dwellings, but they do not, and people die. Is THAT God's fault? Or man's?
So; if thousands of people died in the tsunami because somebody decided that
an evacuation would hurt the tourist trade, and thousands more died because
they lived in substandard housing, how is that GOD'S fault? The thing is,
there was a tsunami warning. Had it been heeded, many, many thousands of
people would have lived who did not. How is THAT God's fault?
But never mind, you will go on being illogical; taking a being you don't
believe in out of the context of that belief and blaming him, all to justify
your contempt for the believers. If it makes you feel superior, be my guest.
However, you need to know this; that the believers are quite aware of the
context.
<snip to end>
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
23 Feb 2005 09:49:43 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
-snip-
Now it is true also that, as I noted earlier, far fewer people would have
died had we as humans paid more attention to the teachings of the gods we
happen to believe in; most religions have instructions to help the poor, to
put people above things...and a great many of the deaths were the result of
people ignoring those instructions.
There are also instructions about what to do to unbelievers, and to
those who don't follow the rules, etc. There are thousands of
instructions. Many of them conflict. Many are vague. So, each
person or group decides which instructions are more important, and
they concentrate their efforts on those ones.
And the wierd thing is that many people who don't have religious
beliefs come up with some very similar ideas about what they ought to
be doing!
Yup, Chris Rock's joke was pretty damn funny. But it was a joke....
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fatman" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
23 Feb 2005 11:47:01 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8F0Td.267359$w62.145584@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:7uPSd.37693$uc.10154@trnddc08...
"Glenn Arnold" <oldnoah@att.net> wrote in message
news:421B98DF.8030700@att.net...
(Regarding Oscar acceptance speeches)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/22/oscars.rock.ap/index.html
"Don't thank God," Rock said. "God's busy working on the
tsunami, so
leave
him alone."
Now let's see how many show biz people pay attention.
Glenn Arnold
I am so tired of God getting the blame for all the deaths in that
tsunami.
All He did was create the planet that did what the planet does.
HE SHOULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGNING
A WORLD WITH DEFECTS THAT INDISCRIMINENTLY KILLED OVER 370,000
MEN WOMEN AND INNOCENT CHILDREN? REALLY???
No. Because if the planet were NOT geologically active, it would not
be livable at all. We so cover the planet now that there is no place
where the planet could make 'adjustments' that would not endanger
people.
No basis for your claim there. The earths ecosystem is not a result of
the movement of the earth's crust. Tetonic movement is due to various
factors, none which involve "gods". You are saying that the geological
rebound that is occuring due to the Ice Age is necessary for life on
this planet? If the great flood story had occured as in the bible,
there would be no life on this planet. The temperatures would have
boiled the oceans, the air pressure and water vapor would have crushed
anything living, and the resulting geological compression would have
resulted in geological activity thousands of times greater in frequency.
Now it is true also that, as I noted earlier, far fewer people would
have died had we as humans paid more attention to the teachings of
the gods we happen to believe in; most religions have instructions to
help the poor, to put people above things...and a great many of the
deaths were the result of people ignoring those instructions.
Gods teach that tragedy is just and warranted. 90% of the deaths are
directly related to the location of the victims and the proximity to
the ocean. Economic status of the victims is not what killed them. A
100 foot wave doesn't ask for bank statements as it comes crashing upon
you. A wealthy person sitting in his car by the beach died just as
easily as the peasant walking by.
So tell me; if you are walking down a road, and you pass a sign
saying 'road closed' and another saying 'beware of rock slides' and
another saying 'in case of flood, climb to high ground' (yeah, there
is actually a road sign that says this..) and you simply keep
walking, who is at fault for your getting squished by a boulder?
So nobody should live within 5 miles of a beach? Sounds logical. Maybe
we should post signs on our beaches warning that off shore earthquakes
may result in massive waves that will kill within 5 miles of the beach.
A measly 6.something earthquake just killed hundreds of people in an
Iranian village. An earthquake the same magnitude HERE would,
perhaps, injure a few and quite possibly kill nobody at all, and
there are far more people here than in the middle of Iran ("here"
being S. California). Is that God's fault? Iran gets earthquakes all
the time. They have access to information and technology that would
allow them to build earthquake resistant dwellings, but they do not,
and people die. Is THAT God's fault? Or man's?
Strict building codes prevent deaths only because people were getting
killed in southern California just like Iran. Those people are living
closer to the ideals championed by their religion (not fluanting
wealth, living a modest lifestyle). Their fault they don't invest
billions of dollars they don't have on safer buildings? Make no
mistake, a "6. something" earthquake in New York City would be
devistating.
So; if thousands of people died in the tsunami because somebody
decided that an evacuation would hurt the tourist trade, and
thousands more died because they lived in substandard housing, how is
that GOD'S fault? The thing is, there was a tsunami warning. Had it
been heeded, many, many thousands of people would have lived who did
not. How is THAT God's fault?
Thousands died due to the fact they lived by the beach. A mansion on
the beach gets destroyed pretty easy.
But never mind, you will go on being illogical;
Man, left yourself wide open on that one .........
taking a being you
don't believe in out of the context of that belief and blaming him,
Illogical statement.
all to justify your contempt for the believers.
Contempt? How? You hold comtempt for the non-believers because they
don't share the same asinine belief in gods.
? If it makes you feel
superior, be my guest. However, you need to know this; that the
believers are quite aware of the context.
<snip to end>
Yep, believers put events into bat-*****-crazy-wild-***** superstition.
Fatman
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
23 Feb 2005 02:08:00 PM |
|
|
"Fatman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:383tsjF5jelmpU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8F0Td.267359$w62.145584@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in message
news:7uPSd.37693$uc.10154@trnddc08...
"Glenn Arnold" <oldnoah@att.net> wrote in message
news:421B98DF.8030700@att.net...
(Regarding Oscar acceptance speeches)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/22/oscars.rock.ap/index.html
"Don't thank God," Rock said. "God's busy working on the
tsunami, so
leave
him alone."
Now let's see how many show biz people pay attention.
Glenn Arnold
I am so tired of God getting the blame for all the deaths in that
tsunami.
All He did was create the planet that did what the planet does.
HE SHOULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGNING
A WORLD WITH DEFECTS THAT INDISCRIMINENTLY KILLED OVER 370,000
MEN WOMEN AND INNOCENT CHILDREN? REALLY???
No. Because if the planet were NOT geologically active, it would not
be livable at all. We so cover the planet now that there is no place
where the planet could make 'adjustments' that would not endanger
people.
No basis for your claim there. The earths ecosystem is not a result of
the movement of the earth's crust. Tetonic movement is due to various
factors, none which involve "gods". You are saying that the geological
rebound that is occuring due to the Ice Age is necessary for life on
this planet?
It would seem so. Geologic activity is necessary for an atmosphere, for one
thing. ANY atmosphere....you need to keep up with modern science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fatman" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
24 Feb 2005 11:40:54 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
It would seem so. Geologic activity is necessary for an atmosphere,
for one thing. ANY atmosphere....you need to keep up with modern
science.
That explains Jupiter and other gas planets? Volcanic activity can
contribute to the composition of an atmosphere, but tetonic plate
activity would have a negligible effect. Loved the line with keeping up
with modern science. That was brilliant. Modern science doesn't use
supernatrual imaginary beings.
Fatman
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
24 Feb 2005 01:28:41 PM |
|
|
"Fatman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:386ht5F5j9ipaU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
It would seem so. Geologic activity is necessary for an atmosphere,
for one thing. ANY atmosphere....you need to keep up with modern
science.
That explains Jupiter and other gas planets? Volcanic activity can
contribute to the composition of an atmosphere, but tetonic plate
activity would have a negligible effect. Loved the line with keeping up
with modern science. That was brilliant. Modern science doesn't use
supernatrual imaginary beings.
No, it's not supposed to...saying 'god did it' is lazy. Sure, God did it.
Now we get to find out HOW. And we are, I firmly believe, supposed to do our
utmost to do just that; find out how.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fatman" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
26 Feb 2005 08:52:21 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Fatman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:386ht5F5j9ipaU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
It would seem so. Geologic activity is necessary for an atmosphere,
for one thing. ANY atmosphere....you need to keep up with modern
science.
That explains Jupiter and other gas planets? Volcanic activity can
contribute to the composition of an atmosphere, but tetonic plate
activity would have a negligible effect. Loved the line with
keeping up with modern science. That was brilliant. Modern science
doesn't use supernatrual imaginary beings.
No, it's not supposed to...saying 'god did it' is lazy. Sure, God did
it. Now we get to find out HOW. And we are, I firmly believe,
supposed to do our utmost to do just that; find out how.
So you claim geological activity is required for an atmosphere, which
would take millions of years, yet the god of Christian mythology
created the atmosphere in one day without the need for geological
activity. Please use science to support either or both contradictory
claims.
Fatman
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
26 Feb 2005 09:22:19 AM |
|
|
"Fatman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:38bgp3F5molumU2@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
"Fatman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:386ht5F5j9ipaU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
It would seem so. Geologic activity is necessary for an atmosphere,
for one thing. ANY atmosphere....you need to keep up with modern
science.
That explains Jupiter and other gas planets? Volcanic activity can
contribute to the composition of an atmosphere, but tetonic plate
activity would have a negligible effect. Loved the line with
keeping up with modern science. That was brilliant. Modern science
doesn't use supernatrual imaginary beings.
No, it's not supposed to...saying 'god did it' is lazy. Sure, God did
it. Now we get to find out HOW. And we are, I firmly believe,
supposed to do our utmost to do just that; find out how.
So you claim geological activity is required for an atmosphere, which
would take millions of years, yet the god of Christian mythology
created the atmosphere in one day without the need for geological
activity. Please use science to support either or both contradictory
claims.
It is true that some Christians believe in a literal seven 24 hour day
creation. However, MOST DO NOT. MOST of them believe in some modified
version of it. For instance, a bunch believe that a 'day' in God's eyes
means 'period of time', using to support that notion the fact that a 24 hour
day didn't come into being until the planet was created and turning around a
star. God, having created the universe, isn't bound to call our planetary
rotation period a 'day'. Others go with the entire geological history and
evolutionary cycle that scientists now accept, claiming that yeah, God did
it, and the geological processes that we can describe along with biological
evolution is how He did it. I'm one of the latter group.
So I believe I will turn down your invitation to debate, thank you, since
you are asking me to defend a position I do not hold.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fatman" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
26 Feb 2005 08:29:03 PM |
|
|
I know a guy, who knows a guy who said DianaC wrote:
"Fatman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:38bgp3F5molumU2@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
"Fatman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:386ht5F5j9ipaU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
It would seem so. Geologic activity is necessary for an
atmosphere, >> >> for one thing. ANY atmosphere....you need to keep
up with modern >> >> science.
That explains Jupiter and other gas planets? Volcanic activity
can >> > contribute to the composition of an atmosphere, but tetonic
plate >> > activity would have a negligible effect. Loved the line
with >> > keeping up with modern science. That was brilliant. Modern
science >> > doesn't use supernatrual imaginary beings.
No, it's not supposed to...saying 'god did it' is lazy. Sure, God
did >> it. Now we get to find out HOW. And we are, I firmly believe,
supposed to do our utmost to do just that; find out how.
So you claim geological activity is required for an atmosphere,
which would take millions of years, yet the god of Christian
mythology created the atmosphere in one day without the need for
geological activity. Please use science to support either or both
contradictory claims.
It is true that some Christians believe in a literal seven 24 hour
day creation. However, MOST DO NOT. MOST of them believe in some
modified version of it. For instance, a bunch believe that a 'day' in
God's eyes means 'period of time', using to support that notion the
fact that a 24 hour day didn't come into being until the planet was
created and turning around a star. God, having created the universe,
isn't bound to call our planetary rotation period a 'day'. Others go
with the entire geological history and evolutionary cycle that
scientists now accept, claiming that yeah, God did it, and the
geological processes that we can describe along with biological
evolution is how He did it. I'm one of the latter group.
So I believe I will turn down your invitation to debate, thank you,
since you are asking me to defend a position I do not hold.
The overwhelming majority of the prodestant reformation is based on
sola scriptura, that scriputre alone is the basis of salvation. One of
those tenants is that the Bible is innerrant. Your claim that most
Christians do not believe in a seven day (24hr a day) period is wrong
and not supported by scripture. The Christian god separated day into
night and made one day. That is an absolute satement on what a day is
(like we really needed one).
Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, all believe in a
seven day creation. They make up 90% of the Christian faith. You are
trying to defend a position that is not supported by the main stream of
Christianity and acting as if it is. I can see why you may shy away
from this topic, since you are making broad statements about your own
beliefs and applying them to the majority of Christians as if they were
in lock step with you. If you may answer a personal question? What
denomenation of Christianity (If any) do you describe yourself as to
belonging to?
I ask for no reason as to better understand your point of view since I
like to know what doctrine those who engage in debate are comming from.
My strong suit is oddly enough, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Sunni
Muslim (Ok, the last one is a stretch, but I try).
--
Fatman
I am not an EAC commanto!!!!!!
They do not exsist. I always sneak around in the shadows, ready to "Go".
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
26 Feb 2005 10:20:26 PM |
|
|
"Fatman" <Me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:rq2dnXxPf4zyrbzfRVn-sg@comcast.com...
I know a guy, who knows a guy who said DianaC wrote:
"Fatman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:38bgp3F5molumU2@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
"Fatman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:386ht5F5j9ipaU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
It would seem so. Geologic activity is necessary for an
atmosphere, >> >> for one thing. ANY atmosphere....you need to keep
up with modern >> >> science.
That explains Jupiter and other gas planets? Volcanic activity
can >> > contribute to the composition of an atmosphere, but tetonic
plate >> > activity would have a negligible effect. Loved the line
with >> > keeping up with modern science. That was brilliant. Modern
science >> > doesn't use supernatrual imaginary beings.
No, it's not supposed to...saying 'god did it' is lazy. Sure, God
did >> it. Now we get to find out HOW. And we are, I firmly believe,
supposed to do our utmost to do just that; find out how.
So you claim geological activity is required for an atmosphere,
which would take millions of years, yet the god of Christian
mythology created the atmosphere in one day without the need for
geological activity. Please use science to support either or both
contradictory claims.
It is true that some Christians believe in a literal seven 24 hour
day creation. However, MOST DO NOT. MOST of them believe in some
modified version of it. For instance, a bunch believe that a 'day' in
God's eyes means 'period of time', using to support that notion the
fact that a 24 hour day didn't come into being until the planet was
created and turning around a star. God, having created the universe,
isn't bound to call our planetary rotation period a 'day'. Others go
with the entire geological history and evolutionary cycle that
scientists now accept, claiming that yeah, God did it, and the
geological processes that we can describe along with biological
evolution is how He did it. I'm one of the latter group.
So I believe I will turn down your invitation to debate, thank you,
since you are asking me to defend a position I do not hold.
The overwhelming majority of the prodestant reformation is based on
sola scriptura, that scriputre alone is the basis of salvation. One of
those tenants is that the Bible is innerrant. Your claim that most
Christians do not believe in a seven day (24hr a day) period is wrong
and not supported by scripture. The Christian god separated day into
night and made one day. That is an absolute satement on what a day is
(like we really needed one).
Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, all believe in a
seven day creation. They make up 90% of the Christian faith. You are
trying to defend a position that is not supported by the main stream of
Christianity and acting as if it is. I can see why you may shy away
from this topic, since you are making broad statements about your own
beliefs and applying them to the majority of Christians as if they were
in lock step with you. If you may answer a personal question? What
denomenation of Christianity (If any) do you describe yourself as to
belonging to?
Excuse me, but have you paid attention to, say, the POPE on this recently?
Are you flippin' NUTS?
And I am LDS.
Or a Latter-day Saint.
Or a Mormon.
Or a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I ask for no reason as to better understand your point of view since I
like to know what doctrine those who engage in debate are comming from.
My strong suit is oddly enough, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Sunni
Muslim (Ok, the last one is a stretch, but I try).
None of those will help you much with me. ;-)
Well, perhaps the Catholics; we seem to march better with them than anybody.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fatman" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
27 Feb 2005 04:29:17 PM |
|
|
I know a guy, who knows a guy who said DianaC wrote:
"Fatman" <Me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:rq2dnXxPf4zyrbzfRVn-sg@comcast.com...
I know a guy, who knows a guy who said DianaC wrote:
"Fatman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:38bgp3F5molumU2@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
"Fatman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:386ht5F5j9ipaU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
It would seem so. Geologic activity is necessary for an
atmosphere, >> >> for one thing. ANY atmosphere....you need to keep
up with modern >> >> science.
That explains Jupiter and other gas planets? Volcanic activity
can >> > contribute to the composition of an atmosphere, but
tetonic >> plate >> > activity would have a negligible effect. Loved
the line >> with >> > keeping up with modern science. That was
brilliant. Modern >> science >> > doesn't use supernatrual imaginary
beings. >> > >
No, it's not supposed to...saying 'god did it' is lazy. Sure,
God >> did >> it. Now we get to find out HOW. And we are, I firmly
believe, >> >> supposed to do our utmost to do just that; find out
how. >> >
So you claim geological activity is required for an atmosphere,
which would take millions of years, yet the god of Christian
mythology created the atmosphere in one day without the need for
geological activity. Please use science to support either or both
contradictory claims.
It is true that some Christians believe in a literal seven 24 hour
day creation. However, MOST DO NOT. MOST of them believe in some
modified version of it. For instance, a bunch believe that a 'day'
in >> God's eyes means 'period of time', using to support that notion
the >> fact that a 24 hour day didn't come into being until the
planet was >> created and turning around a star. God, having created
the universe, >> isn't bound to call our planetary rotation period a
'day'. Others go >> with the entire geological history and
evolutionary cycle that >> scientists now accept, claiming that yeah,
God did it, and the >> geological processes that we can describe
along with biological >> evolution is how He did it. I'm one of the
latter group.
So I believe I will turn down your invitation to debate, thank you,
since you are asking me to defend a position I do not hold.
The overwhelming majority of the prodestant reformation is based on
sola scriptura, that scriputre alone is the basis of salvation. One
of those tenants is that the Bible is innerrant. Your claim that
most Christians do not believe in a seven day (24hr a day) period
is wrong and not supported by scripture. The Christian god
separated day into night and made one day. That is an absolute
satement on what a day is (like we really needed one).
Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, all believe in a
seven day creation. They make up 90% of the Christian faith. You are
trying to defend a position that is not supported by the main
stream of Christianity and acting as if it is. I can see why you
may shy away from this topic, since you are making broad statements
about your own beliefs and applying them to the majority of
Christians as if they were in lock step with you. If you may answer
a personal question? What denomenation of Christianity (If any) do
you describe yourself as to belonging to?
Excuse me, but have you paid attention to, say, the POPE on this
recently? Are you flippin' NUTS?
And I am LDS.
Or a Latter-day Saint.
Or a Mormon.
Or a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I ask for no reason as to better understand your point of view
since I like to know what doctrine those who engage in debate are
comming from. My strong suit is oddly enough, Roman Catholic,
Lutheran, and Sunni Muslim (Ok, the last one is a stretch, but I
try).
None of those will help you much with me. ;-)
Well, perhaps the Catholics; we seem to march better with them than
anybody.
Well then your statement about your belief being inline with the
majority of Christians is wrong. I am not aware of any major Christian
denomenation that is in fellowship with the LDS.
As far as the Pope is concerned, I do not keep tabs on what he says,
one way or another since I am not a Catholic. I may be wrong here, but
I thought Catholics are taught a seven day creation, but they can
believe the day to be a thousand years (or as Augustine suggested all
seven were one day in a sevenfold explanation) if that is what evidence
suggests to them.
--
Fatman
I am not an EAC commanto!!!!!!
They do not exsist. I always sneak around in the shadows, ready to "Go".
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
27 Feb 2005 09:30:49 PM |
|
|
"Fatman" <Me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Q86dnfU4eo4g1L_fRVn-uA@comcast.com...
I know a guy, who knows a guy who said DianaC wrote:
<snip to>
I ask for no reason as to better understand your point of view
since I like to know what doctrine those who engage in debate are
comming from. My strong suit is oddly enough, Roman Catholic,
Lutheran, and Sunni Muslim (Ok, the last one is a stretch, but I
try).
None of those will help you much with me. ;-)
Well, perhaps the Catholics; we seem to march better with them than
anybody.
Well then your statement about your belief being inline with the
majority of Christians is wrong. I am not aware of any major Christian
denomenation that is in fellowship with the LDS.
Excuse me, but when did I ever claim that my beliefs were 'inline' with the
majority of Christians? What I SAID was that the majority of Christians
(not necessarily their official doctrines, though that too seems to be
changing) do not believe in a literal seven 24 hour day creation cycle. They
don't. The vast majority of them, though they believe in some sort of
creationism, also believe that the scientists aren't all that off track.
Now me, I'm all the way on the other end. I am an 'evolutionist' who thinks
that THAT is how 'Godidit'.
As far as the Pope is concerned, I do not keep tabs on what he says,
one way or another since I am not a Catholic.
Excuse me. You just claimed that your 'strong suit' (your words) IS
Catholicism.
I may be wrong here, but
I thought Catholics are taught a seven day creation, but they can
believe the day to be a thousand years (or as Augustine suggested all
seven were one day in a sevenfold explanation) if that is what evidence
suggests to them.
(sigh) And isn't that what I just said about what some Christians believe,
that a 'day' equals more than 24 hours in the eyes of God?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fatman" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
28 Feb 2005 08:48:32 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Fatman" <Me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Q86dnfU4eo4g1L_fRVn-uA@comcast.com...
I know a guy, who knows a guy who said DianaC wrote:
<snip to>
I ask for no reason as to better understand your point of view
since I like to know what doctrine those who engage in debate are
comming from. My strong suit is oddly enough, Roman Catholic,
Lutheran, and Sunni Muslim (Ok, the last one is a stretch, but I
try).
None of those will help you much with me. ;-)
Well, perhaps the Catholics; we seem to march better with them than
anybody.
Well then your statement about your belief being inline with the
majority of Christians is wrong. I am not aware of any major
Christian denomenation that is in fellowship with the LDS.
Excuse me, but when did I ever claim that my beliefs were 'inline'
with the majority of Christians?
I am referring to the creation aspect only. I didn't mean to imply that
an LDS member has beliefs in Christianity, as a whole, with other
Christian denominations.
What I SAID was that the majority
of Christians (not necessarily their official doctrines, though that
too seems to be changing) do not believe in a literal seven 24 hour
day creation cycle. They don't. The vast majority of them, though
they believe in some sort of creationism, also believe that the
scientists aren't all that off track.
Can you cite a survey or such to indicate this? I do not accept this as
fact, but merely an assertion on your part.
Now me, I'm all the way on the other end. I am an 'evolutionist' who
thinks that THAT is how 'Godidit'.
As far as the Pope is concerned, I do not keep tabs on what he says,
one way or another since I am not a Catholic.
Excuse me. You just claimed that your 'strong suit' (your words) IS
Catholicism.
That still does not imply I keep up with Papal doctrine. The vast
majority of my family are "strong" Catholics.
I may be wrong here, but
I thought Catholics are taught a seven day creation, but they can
believe the day to be a thousand years (or as Augustine suggested
all seven were one day in a sevenfold explanation) if that is what
evidence suggests to them.
(sigh) And isn't that what I just said about what some Christians
believe, that a 'day' equals more than 24 hours in the eyes of God?
You claim it is a majority belief. I say it is not. You also snipped
the line about all seven days being a metaphor for one, divided day.
I guess this horse has been beaten to death.
Fatman
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
28 Feb 2005 12:02:42 PM |
|
|
"Fatman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:38gp9uF5cducjU1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
"Fatman" <Me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Q86dnfU4eo4g1L_fRVn-uA@comcast.com...
I know a guy, who knows a guy who said DianaC wrote:
<snip to>
I ask for no reason as to better understand your point of view
since I like to know what doctrine those who engage in debate are
comming from. My strong suit is oddly enough, Roman Catholic,
Lutheran, and Sunni Muslim (Ok, the last one is a stretch, but I
try).
None of those will help you much with me. ;-)
Well, perhaps the Catholics; we seem to march better with them than
anybody.
Well then your statement about your belief being inline with the
majority of Christians is wrong. I am not aware of any major
Christian denomenation that is in fellowship with the LDS.
Excuse me, but when did I ever claim that my beliefs were 'inline'
with the majority of Christians?
I am referring to the creation aspect only. I didn't mean to imply that
an LDS member has beliefs in Christianity, as a whole, with other
Christian denominations.
You do realize, don't you, that Mormons ARE Christian, yes? That those
Christians who wish to deny us that title also deny it to Catholics or
Lutherins...indeed, anybody that doesn't believe precisely as they do ABOUT
Christ? I get a little annoyed when someone tells me that I'm not a
Christian.
No.
Make that very annoyed. I may not agree with mainstream Christianity about
everything, but then they don't agree with each other a whole lot, either.
;-)
What I SAID was that the majority
of Christians (not necessarily their official doctrines, though that
too seems to be changing) do not believe in a literal seven 24 hour
day creation cycle. They don't. The vast majority of them, though
they believe in some sort of creationism, also believe that the
scientists aren't all that off track.
Can you cite a survey or such to indicate this? I do not accept this as
fact, but merely an assertion on your part.
Well, you certainly have a right to ask this. Let's see if I can find one.
Ah...
Gallup poll referenced here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
According to this, 44% of Americans believe in strict creationism. Everybody
else believes in some form of evolution, 39% believing in a 'God guided'
form of it.
Now me, I'm all the way on the other end. I am an 'evolutionist' who
thinks that THAT is how 'Godidit'.
As far as the Pope is concerned, I do not keep tabs on what he says,
one way or another since I am not a Catholic.
Excuse me. You just claimed that your 'strong suit' (your words) IS
Catholicism.
That still does not imply I keep up with Papal doctrine. The vast
majority of my family are "strong" Catholics.
And yet, the papal encyclical that included evolution as an acceptable
belief, that is, well worth examining and quite possibly truth, was in 1950.
Since then, the Catholic church leadership has gone more and more toward the
idea that evolution is an accurate discription of what happened. Indeed, the
Catholics have come right out and said that while the bible is 'inerrant' in
terms of ' religious truth that [has] been revealed for personal salvation'
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom.htm), but that it might not be
that accurate in terms of science.
I may be wrong here, but
I thought Catholics are taught a seven day creation, but they can
believe the day to be a thousand years (or as Augustine suggested
all seven were one day in a sevenfold explanation) if that is what
evidence suggests to them.
(sigh) And isn't that what I just said about what some Christians
believe, that a 'day' equals more than 24 hours in the eyes of God?
You claim it is a majority belief. I say it is not. You also snipped
the line about all seven days being a metaphor for one, divided day.
Sorry about the snip....but as I have just shown you, it is a majority
belief.
I guess this horse has been beaten to death.
Fatman
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
28 Feb 2005 12:35:11 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"Fatman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:38gp9uF5cducjU1@individual.net...
snip
What I SAID was that the majority
of Christians (not necessarily their official doctrines, though that
too seems to be changing) do not believe in a literal seven 24 hour
day creation cycle. They don't. The vast majority of them, though
they believe in some sort of creationism, also believe that the
scientists aren't all that off track.
Can you cite a survey or such to indicate this? I do not accept this as
fact, but merely an assertion on your part.
Well, you certainly have a right to ask this. Let's see if I can find one.
Ah...
Gallup poll referenced here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
According to this, 44% of Americans believe in strict creationism. Everybody
else believes in some form of evolution, 39% believing in a 'God guided'
form of it.
So...44 + 39 = 83% that believe in creationism in some form. "god
guided" evolution is creationism...as opposed to the modern view of
evolution by natural selection.
snip
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
28 Feb 2005 05:29:38 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:zvJUd.196$L17.4@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DianaC wrote:
"Fatman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:38gp9uF5cducjU1@individual.net...
snip
What I SAID was that the majority
of Christians (not necessarily their official doctrines, though that
too seems to be changing) do not believe in a literal seven 24 hour
day creation cycle. They don't. The vast majority of them, though
they believe in some sort of creationism, also believe that the
scientists aren't all that off track.
Can you cite a survey or such to indicate this? I do not accept this as
fact, but merely an assertion on your part.
Well, you certainly have a right to ask this. Let's see if I can find
one.
Ah...
Gallup poll referenced here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
According to this, 44% of Americans believe in strict creationism.
Everybody else believes in some form of evolution, 39% believing in a
'God guided' form of it.
So...44 + 39 = 83% that believe in creationism in some form. "god guided"
evolution is creationism...as opposed to the modern view of evolution by
natural selection.
My claim was that the majority of people believed in either evolution
without divine guidance, or evolution WITH divine guidance; in other words,
the majority of people do not believe in the literal seven 24 hour day
creation story, but rather in some modified version of it involving more
time, or god guided evolution. Which, I believe, I established.
After all, strict evolutionist that I am, I am also in your 'some form of
creationism' group, yes? Since I believe that this is HOW God did it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
28 Feb 2005 08:25:23 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
snip
My claim was that the majority of people believed in either evolution
without divine guidance, or evolution WITH divine guidance; in other words,
the majority of people do not believe in the literal seven 24 hour day
creation story, but rather in some modified version of it involving more
time, or god guided evolution. Which, I believe, I established.
After all, strict evolutionist that I am, I am also in your 'some form of
creationism' group, yes? Since I believe that this is HOW God did it?
I think those who study biology would be interested in any hypotheses
you might have for *how* godidit!
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
01 Mar 2005 12:07:30 AM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:noQUd.660$L17.362@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DianaC wrote:
snip
My claim was that the majority of people believed in either evolution
without divine guidance, or evolution WITH divine guidance; in other
words, the majority of people do not believe in the literal seven 24 hour
day creation story, but rather in some modified version of it involving
more time, or god guided evolution. Which, I believe, I established.
After all, strict evolutionist that I am, I am also in your 'some form of
creationism' group, yes? Since I believe that this is HOW God did it?
I think those who study biology would be interested in any hypotheses you
might have for *how* godidit!
I think that those who study biology are already looking at the processes by
which 'godidit'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
01 Mar 2005 08:52:21 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:noQUd.660$L17.362@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DianaC wrote:
snip
My claim was that the majority of people believed in either evolution
without divine guidance, or evolution WITH divine guidance; in other
words, the majority of people do not believe in the literal seven 24 hour
day creation story, but rather in some modified version of it involving
more time, or god guided evolution. Which, I believe, I established.
After all, strict evolutionist that I am, I am also in your 'some form of
creationism' group, yes? Since I believe that this is HOW God did it?
I think those who study biology would be interested in any hypotheses you
might have for *how* godidit!
I think that those who study biology are already looking at the processes by
which 'godidit'.
Apparently they are seeing zero evidence *that* godidit. At least
I've never heard of any discoveries....
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
01 Mar 2005 03:03:56 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:Fk%Ud.1020$L17.13@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DianaC wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:noQUd.660$L17.362@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DianaC wrote:
snip
My claim was that the majority of people believed in either evolution
without divine guidance, or evolution WITH divine guidance; in other
words, the majority of people do not believe in the literal seven 24
hour day creation story, but rather in some modified version of it
involving more time, or god guided evolution. Which, I believe, I
established.
After all, strict evolutionist that I am, I am also in your 'some form
of creationism' group, yes? Since I believe that this is HOW God did it?
I think those who study biology would be interested in any hypotheses you
might have for *how* godidit!
I think that those who study biology are already looking at the processes
by which 'godidit'.
Apparently they are seeing zero evidence *that* godidit. At least I've
never heard of any discoveries....
My point is, they aren't supposed to be looking for God in this; they are
looking at the processes. Which is as it should be.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
01 Mar 2005 10:02:26 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:52:21 GMT, J Forbes <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
DianaC wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:noQUd.660$L17.362@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DianaC wrote:
snip
My claim was that the majority of people believed in either evolution
without divine guidance, or evolution WITH divine guidance; in other
words, the majority of people do not believe in the literal seven 24 hour
day creation story, but rather in some modified version of it involving
more time, or god guided evolution. Which, I believe, I established.
After all, strict evolutionist that I am, I am also in your 'some form of
creationism' group, yes? Since I believe that this is HOW God did it?
What's an "evolutionist"?
I think those who study biology would be interested in any hypotheses you
might have for *how* godidit!
I think that those who study biology are already looking at the processes by
which 'godidit'.
Apparently they are seeing zero evidence *that* godidit. At least
I've never heard of any discoveries....
Diana is being stupid. Again.
Believers who study biology study the way they believe goddidit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fatman" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
05 Mar 2005 09:46:22 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
Can you cite a survey or such to indicate this? I do not accept
this as fact, but merely an assertion on your part.
Well, you certainly have a right to ask this. Let's see if I can find
one.
Ah...
Gallup poll referenced here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
According to this, 44% of Americans believe in strict creationism.
Everybody else believes in some form of evolution, 39% believing in a
'God guided' form of it.
Sorry about extreme time to reply. I was a juror in a trial that had
to deal with sexual misconduct of the first degree (with a 5 year old
girl and her uncle).
Very difficult case do have to sit thru. Anyway.......
So that poll therefore shows a 5% majority of those believing in a "God
created, non-evolution" vs. "God guided, evolution". 10% do not include
god in any level. I suspect they are not Christians therefore. 7% are
unaccounted for so that may imply a non-Christian god belief.
The fact of the matter is, Christians believe in a literal seven day
creation by a slim margin.
Fatman.
--
Going off-line for a while to recover from a rough week.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
05 Mar 2005 03:54:32 PM |
|
|
"Fatman" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:38u2icF5same0U1@individual.net...
DianaC wrote:
Can you cite a survey or such to indicate this? I do not accept
this as fact, but merely an assertion on your part.
Well, you certainly have a right to ask this. Let's see if I can find
one.
Ah...
Gallup poll referenced here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
According to this, 44% of Americans believe in strict creationism.
Everybody else believes in some form of evolution, 39% believing in a
'God guided' form of it.
Sorry about extreme time to reply. I was a juror in a trial that had
to deal with sexual misconduct of the first degree (with a 5 year old
girl and her uncle).
Very difficult case do have to sit thru. Anyway.......
I imagine it was. I hope the truth got told and what needed to happen
actually did happen.
So that poll therefore shows a 5% majority of those believing in a "God
created, non-evolution" vs. "God guided, evolution". 10% do not include
god in any level. I suspect they are not Christians therefore. 7% are
unaccounted for so that may imply a non-Christian god belief.
Or not.
The fact of the matter is, Christians believe in a literal seven day
creation by a slim margin.
Moving the goal posts, sir.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
27 Feb 2005 10:46:17 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
snip
Now me, I'm all the way on the other end. I am an 'evolutionist' who thinks
that THAT is how 'Godidit'.
Just how much of us do you attribute to evolution? The lds site says:
"You are here to receive a physical body, gain experience, and develop
divine attributes—like justice, mercy, and love."
It appears to me that justice, mercy, and love are the result of
evolution. Do you agree?
And I have no idea how "godidit" by evolution. That just does not
make any sense at all, from my understanding of how evolution works.
snip
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
27 Feb 2005 11:38:48 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:tmxUd.7570$873.4746@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DianaC wrote:
snip
Now me, I'm all the way on the other end. I am an 'evolutionist' who
thinks that THAT is how 'Godidit'.
Just how much of us do you attribute to evolution? The lds site says:
"You are here to receive a physical body, gain experience, and develop
divine attributes—like justice, mercy, and love."
You went there. Good. It may not convince you of the truth of anything, but
you might have a better view of where *I* come from, anyway.
It appears to me that justice, mercy, and love are the result of
evolution. Do you agree?
No. "justice", "mercy" and "love" are abstractions...that evolution has made
us able to comprehend.
And I have no idea how "godidit" by evolution. That just does not make
any sense at all, from my understanding of how evolution works.
And how DOES evolution work that would give you a problem with this?
Here's how I think about it:(and because the LDS church has no official
position on evolution there are all levels of belief about this, this one is
mine alone) God created the universe, including all the laws that operate
it. I figure that if He did so, there is no reason not to use them to do
whatever tweaking he needs; I mean, why bother inventing physical laws if
all you are going to do is break them? Why go to all that trouble?
So, there is no contradiction, seems to me, in figuring that God would use
the processes He invented to form our world and the bodies we inhabit.
Indeed, it doesn't make any sense to do it any other way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
28 Feb 2005 01:17:31 AM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:tmxUd.7570$873.4746@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DianaC wrote:
snip
Now me, I'm all the way on the other end. I am an 'evolutionist' who
thinks that THAT is how 'Godidit'.
Just how much of us do you attribute to evolution? The lds site says:
"You are here to receive a physical body, gain experience, and develop
divine attributes—like justice, mercy, and love."
You went there. Good. It may not convince you of the truth of anything, but
you might have a better view of where *I* come from, anyway.
I hope you don't expect me to get much from that site! it sure does
not appear to be written to answer skeptical questions.
It appears to me that justice, mercy, and love are the result of
evolution. Do you agree?
No. "justice", "mercy" and "love" are abstractions...that evolution has made
us able to comprehend.
From what I can tell, love is an emotion...and justice and mercy are
abstractions about things that we actually feel and do.
This is about human behavior. Do you believe that human behavior has
evolved, or that it is somehow separate from our brains?
And I have no idea how "godidit" by evolution. That just does not make
any sense at all, from my understanding of how evolution works.
And how DOES evolution work that would give you a problem with this?
Here's how I think about it:(and because the LDS church has no official
position on evolution there are all levels of belief about this, this one is
mine alone) God created the universe, including all the laws that operate
it. I figure that if He did so, there is no reason not to use them to do
whatever tweaking he needs; I mean, why bother inventing physical laws if
all you are going to do is break them? Why go to all that trouble?
So, there is no contradiction, seems to me, in figuring that God would use
the processes He invented to form our world and the bodies we inhabit.
Indeed, it doesn't make any sense to do it any other way.
It makes more sense to me that we just happened. If you claim that
everything is the way it is so that humans will be produced as they
are, then I don't buy it.
There's an interesting chapter in Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker"
which explores a very simple evolution simulation on a computer. It
seems that what you get out is as unpredictable as can be. And
thinking about it, real life evolution seems to work that way too.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
28 Feb 2005 11:47:43 AM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:fAzUd.7578$MY6.2057@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DianaC wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:tmxUd.7570$873.4746@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DianaC wrote:
snip
Now me, I'm all the way on the other end. I am an 'evolutionist' who
thinks that THAT is how 'Godidit'.
Just how much of us do you attribute to evolution? The lds site says:
"You are here to receive a physical body, gain experience, and develop
divine attributes—like justice, mercy, and love."
You went there. Good. It may not convince you of the truth of anything,
but you might have a better view of where *I* come from, anyway.
I hope you don't expect me to get much from that site! it sure does not
appear to be written to answer skeptical questions.
It's not supposed to. It's a simple, and very basic, introduction to the
church from the POV of believers. However, you have talked me into it, I
will attempt to answer questions.
It appears to me that justice, mercy, and love are the result of
evolution. Do you agree?
No. "justice", "mercy" and "love" are abstractions...that evolution has
made us able to comprehend.
From what I can tell, love is an emotion...and justice and mercy are
abstractions about things that we actually feel and do.
This is about human behavior. Do you believe that human behavior has
evolved, or that it is somehow separate from our brains?
Both...
And I have no idea how "godidit" by evolution. That just does not make
any sense at all, from my understanding of how evolution works.
And how DOES evolution work that would give you a problem with this?
Here's how I think about it:(and because the LDS church has no official
position on evolution there are all levels of belief about this, this one
is mine alone) God created the universe, including all the laws that
operate it. I figure that if He did so, there is no reason not to use
them to do whatever tweaking he needs; I mean, why bother inventing
physical laws if all you are going to do is break them? Why go to all
that trouble?
So, there is no contradiction, seems to me, in figuring that God would
use the processes He invented to form our world and the bodies we
inhabit. Indeed, it doesn't make any sense to do it any other way.
It makes more sense to me that we just happened. If you claim that
everything is the way it is so that humans will be produced as they are,
then I don't buy it.
I think some early tweaking was done, but then don't WE do that ourselves?
Shoot, humans have been guiding evolution since before we knew that's what
we were doing.
There's an interesting chapter in Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker"
which explores a very simple evolution simulation on a computer. It seems
that what you get out is as unpredictable as can be. And thinking about
it, real life evolution seems to work that way too.
And yet, we mere humans mess with it all the time...
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Chris Rock: Don't thank God. |
28 Feb 2005 12:26:09 PM |
|
|
DianaC wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:fAzUd.7578$MY6.2057@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DianaC wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:tmxUd.7570$873.4746@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
snip
It appears to me that justice, mercy, and love are the result of
evolution. Do you agree?
No. "justice", "mercy" and "love" are abstractions...that evolution has
made us able to comprehend.
From what I can tell, love is an emotion...and justice and mercy are
abstractions about things that we actually feel and do.
This is about human behavior. Do you believe that human behavior has
evolved, or that it is somehow separate from our brains?
Both...
How would it be separate from our brains? How would this work?
And I have no idea how "godidit" by evolution. That just does not make
any sense at all, from my understanding of how evolution works.
And how DOES evolution work that would give you a problem with this?
Here's how I think about it:(and because the LDS church has no official
position on evolution there are all levels of belief about this, this one
is mine alone) God created the universe, including all the laws that
operate it. I figure that if He did so, there is no reason not to use
them to do whatever tweaking he needs; I mean, why bother inventing
physical laws if all you are going to do is break them? Why go to all
that trouble?
So, there is no contradiction, seems to me, in figuring that God would
use the processes He invented to form our world and the bodies we
inhabit. Indeed, it doesn't make any sense to do it any other way.
It makes more sense to me that we just happened. If you claim that
everything is the way it is so that humans will be produced as they are,
then I don't buy it.
I think some early tweaking was done, but then don't WE do that ourselves?
Shoot, humans have been guiding evolution since before we knew that's what
we were doing.
We have mostly done away with natural selection, but that says nothing
about how we got to be the way we are.
Again, do you think that a god made the univers with the goal of
making humans like us?
There's an interesting chapter in Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker"
which explores a very simple evolution simulation on a computer. It seems
that what you get out is as unpredictable as can be. And thinking about
it, real life evolution seems to work that way too.
And yet, we mere humans mess with it all the time...
I think you missed my point entirely...
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
