This is not another evolution thread...

[segovius]

...so please don't turn it into one. I'd like to focus on the points raised recently in discussions with Chris Cuilla and MarcUk about the term 'fundies', whether they are a real threat or a neurotic obsession of certain posters and about bashing in general.

This Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/02/weden02.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/01/02/ixworld.html) brought it all home to me and really raises the points I wish could have been raised in that discussion.

This is the 'threat' encapsulated. It's not about god, Christianity or religion - people should be free to believe whatever they like ad they have for a long time in the US. And it's worked. Now though, a problem has arisen....

A new 'Museum of Creation' has been built costing $25M in Kentucky which aims to focus on the Creationist view - obviously.

My first objection would be to the presentation as a 'Museum'. At this point it becomes unacceptable - a Church Centre, yes. Museum, no.

The centrepiece of the museum is a series of huge model dinosaurs, built by the former head of design at Universal Studios, which are portrayed as existing alongside man, contrary to received scientific opinion that they lived millions of years apart.

Other exhibits include images of Adam and Eve, a model of Noah's Ark and a planetarium demonstrating how God made the Earth in six days.

Again, the scientific angle would be a major objection. They have passed from 'belief' to presentation as 'fact'. They are also imo, presenting lies as truth - and yes, we must say 'lies' now if this is where the agenda is going because they are no longer talking of religious 'belief' but 'fact'. As these 'facts' are demonstrably untrue that makes them lies. So my second objection here would be to lying to the public.

The museum, which has cost a mighty $25 million (£13 million) will be the world's first significant natural history collection devoted to creationist theory. It has been set up by Ken Ham, an Australian evangelist, who runs Answers in Genesis, one of America's most prominent creationist organisations. He said that his aim was to use tourism, and the theme park's striking exhibits, to convert more people to the view that the world and its creatures, including dinosaurs, were created by God 6,000 years ago.

My bold: another serious objection on two levels:

1) This surely is of dubious legality. I am not familiar with US law but it seems that there is a prostletysing agenda here. 'Convert' is the aim rather than 'present'.

2) And this I think strikes at the root of what many people think of this particular brand of Christian faith we are discussing. Ie: why is it so 'aggressive' ? I don't mean physically (although one could certainly draw parallels) but why does it have to constantly be on a 'mission to convert' ?

I think it is this more than anything that gets people's backs up - it is insulting to the intelligence (to those that have more intelligence than the 'convertor').

Among the projects still to be finished is a reconstruction of the Grand Canyon, purportedly formed by the swirling waters of the Great Flood – where visitors will "gape" at the bones of dinosaurs that "hint of a terrible catastrophe", according to the museum's publicity.

Some people somewhere will believe this. Perhaps many. Then they will believe other things - and they will be stupider because of it. It is a Trojan Horse of sorts. Dangerous.

In keeping with modern museum trends, there will also be a cafe with a terrace to "breathe in the fresh air of God's creation'', and a shop "crammed'' with creationist souvenirs, including T-shirts and books such as A is for Adam and Dinky Dinosaur: Creation Days.

Say it with me: MONEY

This next point relates to the point above about the 'aggressiveness' of this particular brand of Christian faith we are discussing - ie their constant use of 'fear' (more parallels possible in the 'real' world). This is a conditioning technique they have been using for centuries (they used it on me as it happens when I was a child but they overdid the dosage and now I'm immune) and imo it is obscene. I will bold the relevant bits in this next quote:

Mr Ham is particularly proud of a planned reconstruction of the interior of Noah's Ark. "You will hear the water lapping, feel the Ark rocking and perhaps even hear people outside screaming," he said.

More controversial exhibits deal with diseases and famine, which are portrayed not as random disasters, but as the result of mankind's sin. Mr Ham's Answers in Genesis movement blames the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado, in which two teenagers killed 12 classmates and a teacher before killing themselves, on evolutionist teaching, claiming that the perpetrators believed in Darwin's survival of the fittest.

Other exhibits in the museum will blame homosexuals for Aids. In a "Bible Authority Room" visitors are warned: "Everyone who rejects his history – including six-day creation and Noah's flood – is `wilfully' ignorant.''

Elsewhere, animated figures will be used to recreate the Garden of Eden, while in another room, visitors will see a tyrannosaurus rex pursuing Adam and Eve after their fall from grace. "That's the real terror that Adam's sin unleashed," visitors will be warned.

That's enough - there's tons more but you'll have to find it for yourselves. You get the picture.

To conclude: this is prima facie evidence of what I oppose and what imo should be opposed.

All this is not to oppose Christianity - it is to oppose the above attitudes:

Because they are based on hate (see examples)
Because they are based on falsehood (see examples)
Because they are based on money (see examples)
Because they are not based on Christianity (see examples)

[Scott]

Originally posted by segovius
...

My bold: another serious objection on two levels:

1) This surely is of dubious legality. I am not familiar with US law but it seems that there is a prostletysing agenda here. 'Convert' is the aim rather than 'present'.

There's no law against prostletyzing and at least one important constitutional right protecting it. What would you have the government do? Shut it down?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Scott
There's no law against prostletyzing and at least one important constitutional right protecting it. What would you have the government do? Shut it down?

Yes.

[dmz]

You are definitly smoking the good stuff today Sergovious.

Bigot weed?

[BRussell]

There are already a few of these. Here's one (http://www.icr.org/museum/) with some pictures. But segovius, you're right when you say you don't understand US law when you say the government should shut it down. And I don't know much about laws elsewhere, but I sincerely doubt it would be illegal or would be shut down anywhere in Europe.

[segovius]

Originally posted by BRussell
There are already a few of these. Here's one (http://www.icr.org/museum/) with some pictures. But segovius, you're right when you say you don't understand US law when you say the government should shut it down. And I don't know much about laws elsewhere, but I sincerely doubt it would be illegal or would be shut down anywhere in Europe.

Well, as I say, I don't know US law but in Europe if someone publicly blamed gays for AIDS they would be censured and certainly sacked if in a public position.

I believe that any museum that had such an exhibit would be forced to withdraw the exhibit. If, as in this case, the Museum's raison d'etre was inextricably linked to the statement (for example if it was an ant-gay group's museum) then I believe it would be shut down. And rightly so.

I also think it possible that such a museum could fall foul of race laws too on the basis of the following:

A display showing ancient Babylon will deal with the Tower of Babel and "unravel the origin of so-called races'',

Although much would depend on how they tackled the issue - the quote is innocuous but the intent behind it may not be.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Yes.

Well then you'd be violating the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution.

P.S. If you don't like the place, don't go. I don't care much for strip clubs (which I think present immoral choices and temptations for men)...these cannot (and will not) be shut down (here anyway). I don't go. I don't even protest them.

P.P.S. The strip club is a somewhat analogous example as it (in my opinion) presents "lies" about women (in that they are to be view as objects of lust, desire, sexual gratification, etc.)

P.P.S. I am NOT trying to derail the thread by the use of the above example.

[Common Man]

They have a right to present what they want and others have a right to accept or reject it. Segovius, what you are suggesting is no different than the far right Christians demanding that movies or TV shows or books that they find "dangerous" be banned by the government.

[Chris Cuilla]

Besides...if we are going to have the government ferret out public lies, then I vote that we start with politicians.

Oh, wait...

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well then you'd be violating the 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution.

Well, I don't live in the US and don't intend to but the question was "what would I have the government do, close them down ?" - I can't very well respond by saying 'give them funding, mount a massive ad campaign and organise free tours to it for the whole population' can I ?

P.S. If you don't like the place, don't go.

It's not as simple as that. Although I certainly won't be queing up to go at any point in the foreseeable future.

There are many things I'm sure that you believe should not exist and where 'don't go' is superfluous. We might even agree on some of them.

This is not about entertainment - or about bashing - it is an example of why I find this line of 'thought' a threat. It is a threat to intelligence and reason.

I don't care much for strip clubs (which I think present immoral choices and temptations for men)...these cannot (and will not) be shut down (here anyway). I don't go. I don't even protest them.

Well, I don't see sex as a sin personally and certainly I have no problem with naked bodies (although it depends whose I suppose) so I would disagree that there could be 'temptation' in a strip club.

I do have an issue with such establishments but it would be more on the grounds of exploitation of women (where that occurs) and generally in regard to the commercialisation of sexuality. Oh and it's lame.

None of these reasons are a 'threat' to anything. Except the moral view of some uptight Mrs Grundy figure and that [i]should[/b] be threatened in my view :D

P.P.S. The strip club is a somewhat analogous example as it (in my opinion) presents "lies" about women (in that they are to be view as objects of lust, desire, sexual gratification, etc.)

Not in the least analogous. The sexual urge is an undeniable fact. Men's attraction to women's bodies is an undeniable fact.

The postulated equivalent premises of this museum are an undeniable crock of something else.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
It's not as simple as that.

It never really is, is it?

Originally posted by segovius
Well, I don't see sex as a sin personally and certainly I have no problem with naked bodies (although it depends whose I suppose) so I would disagree that there could be 'temptation' in a strip club.

I do have an issue with such establishments but it would be more on the grounds of exploitation of women (where that occurs) and generally in regard to the commercialisation of sexuality. Oh and it's lame.

None of these reasons are a 'threat' to anything. Except the moral view of some uptight Mrs Grundy figure and that should be threatened in my view :D

Not in the least analogous. The sexual urge is an undeniable fact. Men's attraction to women's bodies is an undeniable fact.

I see, so it isn't something that you happen to have enough a problem with that shutting it down is an option.

Look, maybe you should have faith in a) the "age of reason", b) the fact that the evolution advocates already have their education/indoctrination program in full force in most (public) school (at least in the U.S.) , and c) the insufficiency of the creationist view...have enough faith that this will fall flat on its face.

The government has no (and should have no) say in this at all. Just like they cannot shutdown many other things that other groups of people consider immoral, lies, offensive and threatening.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Common Man
They have a right to present what they want and others have a right to accept or reject it. Segovius, what you are suggesting is no different than the far right Christians demanding that movies or TV shows or books that they find "dangerous" be banned by the government.

Look, forget about my reply to Scott - no reply to Scott has ever served any effect whatsoever, other than to derail the thread obviously.

I made my points in the opening post: I find this a threat because it presents things that are demonstrably untrue as facts.

The question isn't really what am I wanting to do about it because in a sense it is nothing to do with me. I know the truth and I live in an area that is not suffering from the malaise I describe - nor will it ever.

The question is more - what are the people in the US who will be damaged by this going to do about it, if anything ?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
If, as in this case, the Museum's raison d'etre was inextricably linked to the statement (for example if it was an ant-gay group's museum) then I believe it would be shut down. And rightly so.

Why?

Am I not allowed to hold an "anti-gay" viewpoint? And even talk about it? And even argue about why I think I'm right? And even present my views in any way that I wish?

[segovius]

Oh - meant to say that I don't mean 'doing something' about the museum but rather 'doing something' about the prevailing culture that gives rise to the museum.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Oh - meant to say that I don't mean 'doing something' about the museum but rather 'doing something' about the prevailing culture that gives rise to the museum.

Can't this be said about so many things...sexual immorality, divorce, deception...the prevailing culture that gives rise to immorality, sinfulness and corruption?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Why?

Am I not allowed to hold an "anti-gay" viewpoint? And even talk about it? And even argue about why I think I'm right? And even present my views in any way that I wish?

You are 'allowed' to have an 'anti-gay' viewpoint.

You are 'allowed' to have an 'anti-Jew' viewpoint.

If you open a public space that purports to perform an educational function and present as facts that the appalling and terrible tragedies either group has suffered are 'deserved' or 'punishments' then yes, you should be shut down and would be in certain countries in Europe.

In the US too if the target was Jews actually.

(paging Scott.....paging Scott....please proceed to the nearest phone booth and change into costume)

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Can't this be said about so many things...sexual immorality, divorce, deception...the prevailing culture that gives rise to immorality, sinfulness and corruption?

Well, I would say that (minus the 'sinfulness' tag) - in fact I am saying it now as I am putting all these things in (more or less) the same basket.

[dmz]

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach
Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach
-Bob Dylan

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by dmz
In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach
Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach
-Bob Dylan

I'm trying to decode this in my head. I cannot. Perhaps I am too obtuse. Please help. Someone translate for me.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I'm trying to decode this in my head. I cannot. Perhaps I am too obtuse.

Or not obtuse enough.......

:D

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Or not obtuse enough.......

:D

It is quite possible that you are the first person ever to have made that accusation of me.

:lol:

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach
Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach
-Bob Dylan

he's saying it's Ok to kill evolutionists without shame, as it is glory to God.

Kind of like Martin Luther's "It's OK to tell lies, as long as they are favourable to God."

Which is the whole Creationist mindset, 'honourable lies'. :no:

Anyway, let them have their coercian musuem, it's all over in 18 months when Jesus comes back, and they're in a hell lot of trouble.

I particularly like the bit about 'hearing the screams' outside Noah's ark. Pure nasty brainwashing - from the purveyors of love. :lol:

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by MarcUK
he's saying it's Ok to kill evolutionists without shame, as it is glory to God.

Really? Wow. That Bob Dylan...interesting dude.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Really? Wow. That Bob Dylan...interesting dude.

do I need to spell it out for you word for word? My God, no wonder you have a problem realising Genesis is allegorical.;)

[MarcUK]

More controversial exhibits deal with diseases and famine, which are portrayed not as random disasters, but as the result of mankind's sin

which one of you Fundies will admit to believing that the Asian Tsunami's are not due to plate techtonics (another theory trashed by Creationists) and were actually an act of God to Punish the Muslim Nations.

Dmz, NaplesX, Common Man?

Which one is big enough?

[edit, just dealt with this topic in another thread, seems I wasn't too far out on my 'educated' assumption http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49484]

[Common Man]

Huh? What are you talking about?

[Common Man]

OK. These people have a right to present their views. Period. Likewise, we all have a right to protest their views in any peaceful way we want. We can write what we want. We can march in front of their museum 7 days a week if we want. Our constitution allows a lot of things people don't like. The KKK can march through a black community and the neo nazis can march through a Jewish community. This is the price we pay for freedom of speech. There is a problem when you want to apply freedom of speech only to points of view you accept.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Common Man
Huh? What are you talking about?

Mark UK question is this one :

- do you think that god is directly involved in natural phenomenas ?
or
- do you believe that god is not directly involved in the natural phenomenas, and that he just created the laws involved in such phenomenas ?

[MarcUK]

we'll see how much 'freedom of speech' really counts when you have transformed yourself into Europe 1500.

Given the chance, Fundies will be the first to imprison, torture and murder people who disagree that the Bible is the divine word of God.

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
which one of you Fundies will admit to believing that the Asian Tsunami's are .... an act of God to Punish the Muslim Nations.

Dmz, NaplesX, Common Man?

Which one is big enough?




First of all, the Dylan quote is an illustration of what sergovious is doing here in this forum -- denying to others the intellectual rights he grants himself. Putting it another way, his idea of "Diversity" and "tolerance" are scaring the hell out of me.

Not much to say on the Tsunamis, except that it is notable that it was a blow to the child sex industry. An odd coincidence, if nothing else. Trying to divine the purposes of God is not my forte.

[Common Man]

I understood the question Powerdoc. I reponded the way I did because I found the suggestion that I consider this disaster to be "God's wrath" totally absurd.

[Chris Cuilla]

:wow:

Well, this one fell apart more quickly than I expected.

( frees me up for something else anyway )

Later all.

:)

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Mark UK question is this one :

- do you think that god is directly involved in natural phenomenas ?
or
- do you believe that god is not directly involved in the natural phenomenas, and that he just created the laws involved in such phenomenas ?

how about neither!

I do not think that God caused the earthquakes to punish anybody. However, if we are assuming my belief, that God is akin to the sun, then ultimately the sun is partially to blame for techtonics of the earthquake! However this is not a direct consequence of the sun willing an earthquake.

If you are talking generally, then I do not believe that God is directly involved in natural phenomenas, but as you say, it is possible, that God is involved in creating the laws of the universe, but I have no evidence of that, and it is just a faith.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Common Man
I understood the question Powerdoc. I reponded the way I did because I found the suggestion that I consider this disaster to be "God's wrath" totally absurd.

And yet, it is consistant with the impression you project on these boards.

I see dmz is slyly condoning of Gods handywork.

[dmz]

One more thing on "Why" these things happen.

I watched ALL of my Grandparents succumb to cancer, parkinsons and alziemers.

All of them.

The day after my Grandmother's funeral, we found out my dad had prostate cancer -- he's been "cured" since then -- but at that time I had to truly question whether God enjoyed torturing us to death, one by one -- and wonder if we just had to sit back and take it the best we can. My wife once had a misscarriage at 12 weeks and the same thing happened ---"Why the fuck me, God?"

Is God that sadisitic? Or rather, is sin really that serious? What if all the time and energy that mankind had spent killing each other in history had been spent curing disease and setting up Tsunami warning systems?

Why do these things happen? I don't know -- in the end not even Our Lord got out of this world without scars. Read the book of Job -- in the end God asked Job if was there when he made the world, and basically told him he didn't owe Job an expalnation.

I actually don't believe if He tried to explain it we would have the capacity to understand.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by MarcUK
how about neither!

I do not think that God caused the earthquakes to punish anybody. However, if we are assuming my belief, that God is akin to the sun, then ultimately the sun is partially to blame for techtonics of the earthquake! However this is not a direct consequence of the sun willing an earthquake.

If you are talking generally, then I do not believe that God is directly involved in natural phenomenas, but as you say, it is possible, that God is involved in creating the laws of the universe, but I have no evidence of that, and it is just a faith.

Of course Mark UK, my question was destinated to believers. If you don't believe in god, the answer is easy.
I also think that your question was formulated for believers also. As my question was just a translation of yours, it stayed unchanged in that matter. ;)

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
And yet, it is consistant with the impression you project on these boards.

I see dmz is slyly condoning of Gods handywork.

Don't be too hard on them - the problem is a serious theological issue for them and one they most likely do not have the intellectual capacity to resolve.

For those others who may wish to ponder, it is this:

The God of the Old Testament behaves in exactly this way - he wipes out whole tribes, entire cities and on occasion the complete human race except for a floating zoo.

The methodology He uses is ALWAYS that of natural disasters. Despite the popular misconception of the 'thunderbolt from above' and with possible exceptions on the individual level (pillars of salt etc) God always utilises natural disasters to inflict his punishments.

So, the question is:

Is He still observing the same MO and if so what is the evidence of this ? Especially what is the evidence if not the tsunami. To put it plainly - if the OT God is 'real' then the tsunami must be His handiwork

except if:

a) The human race is much better and far less sinful

b) He has resorted to other modalities (can of worms here with unchanging God - this is to admit that God can change his mind. If so then there are huge problems and all bets are off re religious 'truth'.

c) God has given up.

Which is it I wonder ?

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by segovius
Don't be too hard on them - the problem is a serious theological issue for them and one they most likely do not have the intellectual capacity to resolve.

For those others who may wish to ponder, it is this:

The God of the Old Testament behaves in exactly this way - he wipes out whole tribes, entire cities and on occasion the complete human race except for a floating zoo.

The methodology He uses is ALWAYS that of natural disasters. Despite the popular misconception of the 'thunderbolt from above' and with possible exceptions on the individual level (pillars of salt etc) God always utilises natural disasters to inflict his punishments.

So, the question is:

Is He still observing the same MO and if so what is the evidence of this ? Especially what is the evidence if not the tsunami. To put it plainly - if the OT God is 'real' then the tsunami must be His handiwork

except if:

a) The human race is much better and far less sinful

b) He has resorted to other modalities (can of worms here with unchanging God - this is to admit that God can change his mind. If so then there are huge problems and all bets are off re religious 'truth'.

c) God has given up.

Which is it I wonder ?

There isn't any theological problem to this question for you.
Why : because you consider that the bible is inspired by god, but not his litteral transcription.

So god do not contradict him between the old and new testament. It's only the way people percieved god that differ.

In the old polytheistic religions, the gods was responsible of all the natural phenomenas, and especially the disasters. The bible, althought more modern, in it's monotheistic and less human faced conception, is not exception to this.
As the scientifical knowledge increased, and that people understood how things where created, this old conception of the direct hand of god in the natural phenomenas vanished.

Now if you consider that god is directly involved, you will have a huge theological problem to face, and only Jesuistic (kinda twisted people) mind are able to solve such issues ...

[MarcUK]

yes, but it is a theological problem, if you keep insisting OT God still relavent, literal, and wish to adhere and persuade others to follow OT thinking.

And it's especially relavent, when you preach that the theory of Plate-techtonics is a satanly inspired sin to deceive us into thinking the world is more than 10000 years old.

Fundies do not accept plate techtonics, so it would be pretty hypocritical to blame that for the tsunami's. So there must be another reason.....

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by MarcUK
yes, but it is a theological problem, if you keep insisting OT God still relavent, literal, and wish to adhere and persuade others to follow OT thinking.

And it's especially relavent, when you preach that the theory of Plate-techtonics is a satanly inspired sin to deceive us into thinking the world is more than 10000 years old.

Fundies do not accept plate techtonics, so it would be pretty hypocritical to blame that for the tsunami's. So there must be another reason.....

This is the paradox. Fundies (as you call it, I am not sure I understand this world) believe in a good who deal directly with them. They have a great faith in this god, because this god is near them, but they can't understand him.

In an other point of vue, others Believers like Segovius, think otherwise, his conception of god is more metaphysical (read more abstract) : he did not deal directly with god, but probabily understand it more, in the way Segovius do not think, that all the bad things he face in life, is sent by god as a punishment, but a direct consequences of our actions.
Note that from his point of vue (but Sego correct me if I am wrong) if humans followed more, his vision (wich is certainly not a message of violence and destruction) we could avoid this at a point or an another.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
There isn't any theological problem to this question for you.
Why : because you consider that the bible is inspired by god, but not his litteral transcription.

So god do not contradict him between the old and new testament. It's only the way people percieved god that differ.

In the old polytheistic religions, the gods was responsible of all the natural phenomenas, and especially the disasters. The bible, althought more modern, in it's monotheistic and less human faced conception, is not exception to this.
As the scientifical knowledge increased, and that people understood how things where created, this old conception of the direct hand of god in the natural phenomenas vanished.

Now if you consider that god is directly involved, you will have a huge theological problem to face, and only Jesuistic (kinda twisted people) mind are able to solve such issues ...

That's true - up to a point.

The problem arises when one tries to link the OT and the NT without explaining how God acts differently in both.

For me there is no problem as Jesus clearly states that he is replacing the old laws but for the Church there is a problem as they continue to reference those laws - and Jesus.

They try to have their cake and eat it.

[MarcUK]

I'll let Sego speak for himself, but I wouldn't mind wondering Sego,

If everything, good or bad is the will of God, what's your take on the tsunami's?

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by segovius
That's true - up to a point.

The problem arises when one tries to link the OT and the NT without explaining how God acts differently in both.

For me there is no problem as Jesus clearly states that he is replacing the old laws but for the Church there is a problem as they continue to reference those laws - and Jesus.

They try to have their cake and eat it.

Thanks for this clarification. And sorry to have tried to speak at your place.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Thanks for this clarification. And sorry to have tried to speak at your place.

No worries - I didn't mean it as a correction, hadn't read your second post.

Might even be better if you did speak in my place some of the time :D

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
I'll let Sego speak for himself, but I wouldn't mind wondering Sego,

If everything, good or bad is the will of God, what's your take on the tsunami's?

Well, I don't personally believe that God intervenes in any way on the material level - in fact I think He probably can't.

This is just my idea so it could be very wrong but I think in a way that when God created the universe He created something apart from Himself that He could not interfere with - even when He desperately wanted to.

The purpose of this I don't know but everything that happens within this bubble He created happens randomly and of course, bad things tend to happen. He can't do anything about it.

I think He does intervene on the 'spiritual' level though - and that if one can transcend the 'bad things' and the 'material world' then one can make contact with this level which is not affected one way or another by anything that happens in 'the world'.

So the world is 'unreal' and nothing that happens in it is real. Maybe it is a test, I don't know.

But the test is to transcend the 'unreal' - see through it. That means transcend tsunamis and Rolls Royces, lottery wins and sudden death, amazing sex with hot blondes, Mac and PC and being cornered by fundies on a wet weekend in Blackpool.

[MarcUK]

sounds awfully like gnostic teaching, inner level.

[Carson O'Genic]

I'm sorry to say Segovius, that as much as I dislike the idea of this "museum" I think they have the right to build whatever they wan't and call it whatever they want. The consitution pretty much guarantees the right to be a complete idioit. Shall we discuss the Church of Scientology while we are at it?

The way we fight this crap is to educate. Fundies know this and do there best to get on and control the school boards. The battlefield is in the classrooms.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
I'm sorry to say Segovius, that as much as I dislike the idea of this "museum" I think they have the right to build whatever they wan't and call it whatever they want. The consitution pretty much guarantees the right to be a complete idioit. Shall we discuss the Church of Scientology while we are at it?

The way we fight this crap is to educate. Fundies know this and do there best to get on and control the school boards. The battlefield is in the classrooms.

Not quite as poetic or inspiring as "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"...but I guess it will have to suffice.

:rolleyes:

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
a complete idioit.

Maybe I would be taken more seriously if I could at least spell idiot correctly. ;) Clearly, I'm no Voltaire.

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
That's true - up to a point.

The problem arises when one tries to link the OT and the NT without explaining how God acts differently in both.

For me there is no problem as Jesus clearly states that he is replacing the old laws but for the Church there is a problem as they continue to reference those laws - and Jesus.

They try to have their cake and eat it.


Sergovious, you're doing it, again.

You get on these forums and make crowd-pleasing statements that are nonsequiturs wrapped in wishfull thinking. You should really read the literature of the collective Christian community before you make these nonsense statements.

I mean, if you're looking to dupe the ignorant with low-grade crap, you have the crowd eating out of your hand, otherwise you would get nailed nine ways from Sunday in any intelligent discourse. Statements like:

the problem is a serious theological issue for them and one they most likely do not have the intellectual capacity to resolve.

....are exceptionally delusional.

I wouldn't comment on this, but the audiance here seems to be so ignorant of even the most basic aspects of Christian theology that I have to say something. It's one thing to be inconsistent about the different postmodern claptrap that floats around the culture, and even to ignore basic trends in accepted materialist dialoge, but to make up statements -- at will -- to fit whatever pops into your head -- while ignoring a huge body of literature on the subject -- is really poor form.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by dmz
. Statements like:


....are exceptionally delusional.

I wouldn't comment on this, but the audiance here seems to be so ignorant of even the most basic aspects of Christian theology that I have to say something. It's one thing to be inconsistent about the different postmodern claptrap that floats around the culture, and even to ignore basic trends in accepted materialist dialoge, but to make up statements -- at will -- to fit whatever pops into your head -- while ignoring a huge body of literature on the subject -- is really poor form.

Sego's comment was not particulary nice, but I will prefer to be enlighten more than to be called ignorant.

Your only explanation displayed here is that you think that god is directly involved with what happen here (even the tsunamis), but that we humans are not clever enought to understand.

Is this quote serious ?
Not much to say on the Tsunamis, except that it is notable that it was a blow to the child sex industry. An odd coincidence, if nothing else. Trying to divine the purposes of God is not my forte

I will remind you, that this last years the governements of many of those countries fight against this horrible industry. More some european countries, sue their citizens involved in such traffic.
It's far from perfect, but the results are real.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Sego's comment was not particulary nice, but I will prefer to be enlighten more than to be called ignorant.

No, you're right - it wasn't.

But what can you do ? I meant it as a statement of fact rather than an insult. I wish to God it was different because then we could actually discuss things and still disagree - with this mindset you cannot discuss. They just won't go there. There has to be a reason for that doesn't there ?

To the people who have the mindset we are talking about if 'facts' conflict with 'belief' they will reject the facts. Every time. Why, if not for that reason ?

With other people - you and me say, if we have a 'belief' and we meet a new 'fact' then if necessary we change our belief. Widen it. Grow.

I might have learned the new 'fact' from you and I might still disagree with your belief but accept the 'fact'.

They can't do that and in a discussion forum that's frustrating. Sometimes you express that frustration. I apologise if anyone took offence.

Originally posted by dmz
Sergovious, you're doing it, again.

You get on these forums and make crowd-pleasing statements that are nonsequiturs wrapped in wishfull thinking. You should really read the literature of the collective Christian community before you make these nonsense statements.

But they are only nonsense statements to you - of course there may be many others and they may indeed be nonsense - but what I mean is that it is not an objective fact. There are plenty of people who share all sorts of opposing views on this issue.

And that's the point. It IS an issue. You would like it not to be but it is.

I mean, if you're looking to dupe the ignorant with low-grade crap, you have the crowd eating out of your hand,

Who are the ignorant ? Sounds dodgy to me. Also why is my opinion low-grade crap just because it differs from yours. You haven't refuted it.

Also I think that there are better ways of crowd-pleasing round here than focussing on religion. We are a weird minority on this board. The geeks and outsiders that everyone else thinks are a bunch of oddballs. Deal with it :D

otherwise you would get nailed nine ways from Sunday in any intelligent discourse. Statements like:

I'd love the chance to find out - just once before I die....please

I wouldn't comment on this, but the audiance here seems to be so ignorant of even the most basic aspects of Christian theology that I have to say something. It's one thing to be inconsistent about the different postmodern claptrap that floats around the culture, and even to ignore basic trends in accepted materialist dialoge, but to make up statements -- at will -- to fit whatever pops into your head -- while ignoring a huge body of literature on the subject -- is really poor form.

I take issue with this.

I would argue - and yet again I could start another thread on this just like I had to with the Bible Tampering which we had to give up on because you refused to even acknowledge the facts, let alone attempt to counter them - that the God of Jesus and the God of the OT are in no way shape or form the same God.

I could back this up with evidence, quotes and research and probably expand it into an article of 10, 000 words plus.

But it wouldn't be true. It would be research. I happen to believe it but that is not important.

And that's the whole point. In University, when you are given an essay to write you back it up with sources, argument and analysis. If you do that, you pass.

If another essay on exactly the same theme does that and argues the opposite, it passes.

If another essay, claims the same things but doesn't back it up - it fails.

To me it's research and exploration, to you it's about belief.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
.
I wouldn't comment on this, but the audiance here seems to be so ignorant of even the most basic aspects of Christian theology that I have to say something. It's one thing to be inconsistent about the different postmodern claptrap that floats around the culture, and even to ignore basic trends in accepted materialist dialoge, but to make up statements -- at will -- to fit whatever pops into your head -- while ignoring a huge body of literature on the subject -- is really poor form.

You're saying an awful lot, but not actually saying anything.

Why don't you refute the argument, instead of wandering off into drivel-land.?

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
You're saying an awful lot, but not actually saying anything.

Why don't you refute the argument, instead of wandering off into drivel-land.?

I only skimmed those posts....very quickly....very busy.

Powerdoc, please don't confuse "ignorant" with "stupid" -- there are no stupid people on this thread. But the things that sergovious is coming out here with are pretty loopy.

My basic bitch is that sergovious if pulling whatever he wants out of his hat, and for the most part it's riddled with inconsistency -- but no one seems to notice.

His statements just aren't anything that either a consistent materialist or post modernist would stomach, and his observations of the Bible and theology are just as badly formed -- like his willy-nilly grazing of philosophy, his "theological" observations won't fly with anyone From the Greek Orthodox to the Amish.

Sergovious, I can't let you make mountains from molehills and lead people to believe that The Church at large has somehow internalized glaring errors in theology and thought and not either ejected that error. I'm beginning to think you are clowning around with these "theories" -- especially the inconsistent nonsense statement that started this thread.

Agian, don't misunderstand me, there are no stupid or underread people on this forum. The soundness of the reasoning here, is a different matter.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
I only skimmed those posts....very quickly....very busy.

Powerdoc, please don't confuse "ignorant" with "stupid" -- there are no stupid people on this thread. But the things that sergovious is coming out here with are pretty loopy.

My basic bitch is that sergovious if pulling whatever he wants out of his hat, and for the most part it's riddled with inconsistency -- but no one seems to notice.

His statements just aren't anything that either a consistent materialist or post modernist would stomach, and his observations of the Bible and theology are just as badly formed -- like his willy-nilly grazing of philosophy, his "theological" observations won't fly with anyone From the Greek Orthodox to the Amish.

Sergovious, I can't let you make mountains from molehills and lead people to believe that The Church at large has somehow internalized glaring errors in theology and thought and not either ejected that error. I'm beginning to think you are clowning around with these "theories" -- especially the inconsistent nonsense statement that started this thread.

Agian, don't misunderstand me, there are no stupid or underread people on this forum. The soundness of the reasoning here, is a different matter.

err....ok.....could someone do me a favour and put this guy straight....I'm watching some paint dry.....

[Powerdoc]

Well it's seem that it's time to close this thread.