George Coyne also addresses what he sees as a tragic moment in the relationship of the Catholic church to science: namely the errors in Cardinal Schönborn's comments in the New York Times.Abstract I would essentially like to share with you two convictions in this presentation: (1) that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, while evoking a God of power and might, a designer God, actually belittles God, makes her/him too small and paltry; (2) that our scientific understanding of the universe, untainted by religious considerations, provides for those who believe in God a marvelous opportunity to reflect upon their beliefs. Please note carefully that I distinguish, and will continue to do so in this presentation, that science and religion are totally separate human pursuits. Science is completely neutral with respect to theistic or atheistic implications which may be drawn from scientific results.
— Father George Coyne
Father Coyne expressed his concerns earlier in this interviewThe most recent episode in the relationship of the Catholic Church to science, a tragic one as I see it, is the affirmation by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn in his article in the New York Times, 7 July 2005, that neo-Darwinian evolution is not compatible with Catholic doctrine and he opts for Intelligent Design. To my estimation, the cardinal is in error on at least five fundamental issues, among others: (1) the scientific theory of evolution, as all scientific theories, is completely neutral with respect to religious thinking; (2) the message of John Paul II, which I have just referred to and which is dismissed by the cardinal as "rather vague and unimportant," is a fundamental church teaching which significantly advances the evolution debate; (3) neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal: "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection;" (4) the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer; (5) Intelligent Design is not science despite the cardinal's statement that "neo-Darwinism and the multi-verse hypothesis in cosmology [were] invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.
Father Coyne's position on "Intelligent Design" is quite clearSo why does there seem to be a persistent retreat in the Church from attempts to establish a dialogue with the community of scientists, religious believers or otherwise? There appears to exist a nagging fear in the Church that a universe, which science has established as evolving for 13.7 x 1 billion years since the Big Bang and in which life, beginning in its most primitive forms at about 12 x 1 billion years from the Big Bang, evolved through a process of random genetic mutations and natural selection, escapes God's dominion. That fear is groundless. Science is completely neutral with respect to philosophical or theological implications that may be drawn from its conclusions. Those conclusions are always subject to improvement. That is why science is such an interesting adventure and scientists curiously interesting creatures. But for someone to deny the best of today's science on religious grounds is to live in that groundless fear just mentioned
Fortunately, Father Coyne does not stand alone in his opinion, a Vatican newspaperThe director of the Vatican Observatory has lashed out at proponents of the theory of Intelligent Design, the Italian news service ANSA reports. "Intelligent design isn't science, even if it pretends to be," said Father George Coyne. He said that if the theory is introduced in schools, it should be taught in religion classes, not science classes. ANSA reported that the Jesuit priest made his remarks at a conference in Florence.
Even Schonborn has shifted (or clarified) his positionAfter months of mixed messages from Pope Benedict XVI and his aides, the Vatican directly addressed the issue in the Tuesday (Jan. 17) edition of L'Osservatore Romano by reaffirming Catholic support for the science behind Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. In an editorial by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, Italy, the newspaper said proponents of intelligent design improperly blurred the lines between science and faith to make their case that certain forms of biological life are too complex to have evolved through Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. "If the model proposed by Darwin is held to be inadequate, one should look for another model. But it is not correct methodology to stray from the field of science pretending to do science," Facchini wrote. Views expressed in L'Osservatore do not affect church doctrine, but the newspaper is thought to reflect Vatican thinking because its content is published with official approval.
And Kenneth Miller, Professor of Biology at Brown University and the author of 'Finding Darwin's God.', argued thatIn a recent interview with Beliefnet in the Austrian capital, Schönborn set out his sometimes misunderstood views, clearly distinguishing between evolution and what he calls "evolutionism." He explained that while he believes that God is the intelligent designer of the universe, his position on evolution springs from a philosophical rather than a scientific standpoint. His main concern, he said, was not to denigrate evolution as a natural process but to criticize atheistic materialism [the idea that only matter, not spirit, exists] as the dominant philosophy of today's secular societies.
The theory of evolution is not inherently atheistic. A random natural process can fall within God's plan for creation.
207 Comments
Corkscrew · 21 February 2006
I'm not sure how the lack of a conflict between science and religion suggests that science needs God. How badly am I missing the point here?
BWE · 21 February 2006
PaulC · 21 February 2006
Russell · 21 February 2006
Carol Clouser · 21 February 2006
All this is very nice and dandy but says nothing about the big elephant in the room, the apparent conflict between the Bible and three branches of science.
These clergymen who respect science must choose between
(1) eviscerating entire portions of narrative in the Bible as not meaning what it appears to be saying, that those parts were never intended to describe actual events and that it is all just allegory for something or other,
(2) Science refutes the Bible and they should just dispense with the claim that it is divinely inspired, or
(3) re-examine the Bible very carefully to see if its words could actually be saying things that are compatible with science.
Now which is it going to be?
Option (1) seems contrived and making excuses,
Option (2) is the preferred option for many but unacceptable to these clergymen,
Option (3) is the option they should look into very carefully since its efficacy HAS ALREADY been demonstrated.
Wislu Plethora, FCD · 21 February 2006
Carol the threadkiller strikes again, and has no original thoughts to offer. Let the disemvoweling begin!
BWE · 21 February 2006
Carol, do you believe in the Christian God?
Do you know why that last comment was, um, I'll let other, more articulate folks place the adjectives.
David Heddle · 21 February 2006
Fortunately, although it's never acknowledged on Panda's Thumb, Fr. Coyne does not and cannot make statements ex cathedra, so nothing he says can be couched as "The Catholic Church says". Of course, on PT his statements are considered infallible, and more binding on the Catholic faithful than anything a pope says. Coyne's opinion that ID belittles god is only his opinion, and it is a nonsensical one. ID may not be science, but it may be true---will Fr. Coyne stand before God and inform Him that He belittled Himself by the methods He chose?
As for complete separation between science and religion, that is utter nonsense---for it demands that God's creation is manifestly orthogonal to Himself, or, another way of saying the same thing, it demands general revelation (science) is completely independent from special revelation---even though special revelation (the bible and, for Catholics, sacred tradition) states that the two overlap.
Fr. Coyne said ""Intelligent design isn't science, even if it pretends to be,"" but what is clear is that Fr. Coyne is not a theologian, even he pretends to be.
Surprising you've left it for me to point out that you have called Panda Thumb's prized marionette, Kenneth Miller, "Keith B Mille". You may want to correct that. He's also wrong (useful idiots usually are) --evolution, as he described it, is indeed inherently atheistic.
wamba · 21 February 2006
Space_Monkey · 21 February 2006
Father Coyne, IMO, is wrong to say that science and religion are not in conflict. Science (and philosophy) are branches of inquiry - they require that whatever one says must be backed up with some kind of reasoning and evidence. Religion is not inquiry - it does NOT require that its claims be backed up by rigorous argumentation; religion is faith.
Now as long as religions make claims that are untestable, do not cohere with everything else we know, are internally inconsistent, or otherwise unreasonable, science and religion will conflict. And such claims are central to most religions - ie that there is a deity whose presence is untestable, that has X,Y and Z contradictory properties, and who acts through supernatural means.
Wislu Plethora, FCD · 21 February 2006
PaulC · 21 February 2006
steve s · 21 February 2006
Oooo, David Heddle AND Carol Clouser. This is sure to be a quality thread.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 21 February 2006
Moses · 21 February 2006
Doc Bill · 21 February 2006
I believe that Carol's argument works equally well with "Moby Dick."
Why ignore the Great White Whale in the room, I say.
Moses · 21 February 2006
My rhetorical question of the day:
Why is it Judaism, and it's variants, accept the evolution of all religions but their own, which they seek to fix unchanging and perfect, like fossilized insects in amber?
It's just rhetorical. I know the answer. I just find the denials, even among many historians and archaeologists, to be amazing.
NJ · 21 February 2006
Doc Bill · 21 February 2006
Yes, and we all know what happens when you get three or more anti-thinking particles together...
...the repel EVERYTHING else.
Chiefley · 21 February 2006
Carol,
The insistence on Bible inerrancy (i.e. literally true) is a relatively new phenomenon and only held by a small number of very conservative or fundamentalists sects, and mostly in America. Almost all of the mainstream denominations do not hold the Bible to be inerrant for matters outside of the subject of salvation.
In summary: Although you are having trouble understanding this concept, it appears that billions of mainstream Christians around the world do not.
I invite you to examine this site and this site on comparing basic doctrines of the mainstream Christian denominations in regard to Bible inerrancy.
Glen Davidson · 21 February 2006
Oh great, Clouser and Heddle are already here with their irrelevant comments. But we can try to discuss issues related to the actual article, and that is my plan.
I doubt that science is neutral with respect to theism and atheism, but certainly those who forgo literalism may be religious without selectively rejecting science. Basically I applaud Coyne, then.
What seems more likely than science needing any kind of religion is that religion needs to agree with science. This is not only in order to avoid massive denial, but also because religion needs to agree with logic and empiricism in order to make claims which are meaningful within religious systems. Religious scientists have often recognized this, or something like it, as they strove for coherent thought both within religion and within science. If religion denies science it becomes even less credible than it is anyway, because not only does it then have to make claims beyond the realm of investigation, it must use claims from beyond our ability to establish fact in order to deny established factual claims.
A religion that agrees with science is able to at least be internally consistent. A religion that does not agree with science is internally inconsistent (at least this is true of most Western religions, since these religions generally agree with the concepts of empiricism and logic and their use in the accepted manner), because it denies the use of the epistemological framework in investigating "nature", one that it also claims is solid and sound in religion.
God is the author of truth, according to most of Xianity. This is why the Church adopted much pagan science and religion. There were famous glitches in the general attempt to understand true religion according to the truth about nature, but on the whole this idea that God is the source of all truth remains a theme throughout Catholic theology. Importantly, it is not agreeable to Catholic theology to fault the proper consideration of evidence in any area, since truth is where you find it. The Scriptures are quite notable in lacking contextual statements about God (how could they be otherwise?), and thus one must understand the Bible according to its referential situation in "nature" and the environment.
I know that there are any number of Protestant religions that privilege the Bible over the knowledge that "nature" provides. However I cannot see any reason for this other than an ad hoc attempt to shield an unthinking prior commitment to a proclaimed "literalistic" reading of the Bible. The Protestants used Biblical "literalism" to break away from the Church, and many continue to hold onto this "successful weapon". However, even their Bible states that God is not the author of confusion, which means that their literalism becomes internally inconsistent when it denies the truths of science, given that it is confusing to be told that God designed organisms to appear to have evolved via RM+NS (plus the rest of evolutionary theory).
In particular, little more than confusion ever comes out of IDism. What I have always liked better about creationism is that in most of its parts it has steadfastly refused to question the values and practices of science. On the down side, this is why it is so strenuous in its massive denial and in the projection of evil motives and/or atheism onto scientists--since it can't hope to show that its beliefs are scientific. On the plus side, creationists rarely try to tamper with the rules of evidence and thought, while ID finds itself unable to oppose science except through distortions of meaning.
The final score is that religion really cannot pick and choose sources of "truth", because the same cognitive and methodological means are used to determine the truth of these sources in any case. The more sophisticated religionists do know this, therefore they do not oppose science. The rest put God in the traditional place held by Satan, as the source of confusion and as an unreliable guide to truth for his human followers.
Science doesn't need religion, then, but religion needs to acknowledge God in "nature" for acting truthfully, and without deviation, to his putative creation.
What really chafes most anti-science religionists is, however, the fact that science doesn't need God.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Rob Knop · 21 February 2006
(1) eviscerating entire portions of narrative in the Bible as not meaning what it appears to be saying, that those parts were never intended to describe actual events and that it is all just allegory for something or other,...
You don't need science to do that. Just read the Bible all by itself. It freely self-contradicts. You only need to get about 2 chapters into Genesis before that happens.
If you want to view the Bible as a source of meaning and inspiration, then you must view it as something other (I will go ahead and say "more") than a direct literal narrative. Just as Jesus spoke in parables, people can find inspiration and meaning in literature (fiction), including Bible stories.
Insisting that the Bible is completely self-consistent in every detail doesn't make sense irrespsective of any scientific discovery. You can insist that it has a unified meaning as a whole, if you read it that way, but you're kidding yourself if you try to read it as narrative history and think that it doesn't self-contradict.
Given that the vast majority of Christians have no problem reading the Bible as other than literal, there's no elephant; using the Bible as a literary source of enlightenment is not at all in conflict with anything in science.
-Rob
BlastfromthePast · 21 February 2006
Leigh Jackson · 21 February 2006
Father Coyne, as a religious person, may feel the need to reconcile his faith with his science.
He may do so as he pleases. Other religious persons will produce different ways of doing so which please them.
Every which way religious folks will twist and turn to fit the things together.
Or, they may not bother. They may choose simply to put the finger up to science.
Whatever,we non-religious folks are just happy to have the science. We do not have to justify or reconcile science to anything. For us it's strictly and purely a science thing. Thank God.
Flint · 21 February 2006
AD · 21 February 2006
Raging Bee · 21 February 2006
Carol: you forgot option 4, which is to remember that the Bible is: a) not really ABOUT science or the material world, but about Man's relationship to God; and, b) that the Bible is clearly not a literal document like a newspaper or a physics textbook.
As I've said before, looking for scientific insights in the Bible is a bit like watching "Brokeback Mountain" and looking for information about the trees in the background: yes, you could get some interesting tidbits of knowledge out of such an exercize, but you'd be MISSING THE POINT OF THE WORK!
Besides, why do we need to learn ancient Hebrew in order to get scientific truth out of the original OT text, when we'd only have to look to modern scientific papers to verfy it anyway? Why not just skip the Hebrew OT bits and stick to the modern papers?
Flint · 21 February 2006
And it suddenly occurs to me that Blast thinks science works just like religion does: If you believe something strongly enough and swear it's true, it COMES TRUE. Evolutionists have been worshiping at the wrong altar, listing to the wrong saints. They may SAY they understand things like testing, falsification, verification, etc. but that's really just lip service. Every now and then, as in this case, it slips out that they think science is just another religion.
Greg Peterson · 21 February 2006
Regarding standing before God and telling him that the "methods that he chose" to create biological diversity "belittle him," hey, if Ken/Keith Mille/Miller won't do it, I will. Why would the esteem-deficient being of revealed religions create in such a way as to appear totally unnecessary to the process? Oooow, but dat wascawy deity is twicksy. Come on. A lot of things "might be true," but we don't going around worrying about them. Invisible unicorns might be responsible for internal combustion, but I remain a strict unicorn agnostic--to the point of a-unicornism. Should I live in fear of unicorn retaliation on that great and dreadful day of One-Horned Transparent Equine Judgment? Nah.
A person can use "orthogonal" and still just be Forest Gump with no shrimp recipes.
Sir_Toejam · 21 February 2006
now THAT was clever beyond measure...
Sir_Toejam · 21 February 2006
Leigh Jackson · 21 February 2006
There is no scientific controversy concerning evolution. There is a superabundance of evidence to prove it; none at all to support ID.
There is no evidence to support any kind of intelligent designer whatsoever, be it of the kind favoured by the DI --- a being which creates complex life-forms complete in the first instance, and subsequently intervenes miraculously in the course of their physical evolution; or whether it be the kind favoured by the CC, a being who controls and directs evolution entirely by "natural" processes in toto from start to finish, and who then injects "souls" into humankind when their physical bodies have developed to their intended endpoint.
There cannot be any scientific evidence for either of these two kinds of designer. It is impossible to determine scientifically that any particular natural phenomenon has no natural cause --- such as Behe's irreducibly complex "machines" --- one cannot scientifically prove a miracle. Nor is it possible for science to demonstrate that natural processes are in reality simply long drawn out miracles sustained by a being which transcends nature.
To say that either of these two forms of ID is compatible with science is akin to saying that chalk is compatible with cheese, or indeed to say that they are compatible with one another. Whether chalk and cheese are compatible or not is an "is the glass half full" kind of question. The metaphor is usually meant to point to the great differences between the two substances, but it is a simple matter, if we so choose, to show how similar they are when compared with a multitude of other substances.
What kind of compatibility precisely is being claimed between science and religion?
Science can no more prove that God does not exist that it can prove that gremlins or unicorns do not exist. There is no scientific evidence for any of them. There is, however, excellent scientific evidence to suggest that all of them are figments of the human imagination.
To say that God has acted to direct evolution over aeons of time in such a way as to make it look as if He/She hasn't, is not so different from saying that He/She acted a few thousand years ago to create a world with all the scientific appearance of having existed for aeons beforehand. In both cases things are not what they appear to be.
God is equally invisible in both cases (at least to science), and science is equally incapable of disproving either possibility. From the scientific point of view both are equally possible. (They are both equally irrelevant to what is possible for science.) If one of them is compatible with science, therefore, then they both must be, and also with one another.
Which is the greater illusion: that we have not evolved at all, but only appear to have done; or that we have not evolved by "chance and necessity" (the CC's commonly favoured way of describing the scientific mechanisms of evolution, and which I do not scruple with), but only appear to have done?
If the latter is thought to be less of an illusion, does that make it any the more comprehensible to reason? And if faith is required in order to unravel the divine benevolent purpose behind the illusion, then why should God not have chosen the greater one for us to be deceived by, as being a greater test of faith? Or perhaps God just wishes us to be doubly confused by the two scientifically unanswerable possibilities, so that we give up thinking completely and just have faith. If there is a God, that is.
What then does it signify to say that religion can be compatible with science? Is it not to say anything at all, since religion ultimately makes of science a mere illusion?
Or is it not simply the case that they are incompatible? This question, at least, appears to be a genuinely controversial one!
Chiefley · 21 February 2006
Space Monkey wrote... "Now as long as religions make claims that are untestable, do not cohere with everything else we know, are internally inconsistent, or otherwise unreasonable, science and religion will conflict. And such claims are central to most religions - ie that there is a deity whose presence is untestable, that has X,Y and Z contradictory properties, and who acts through supernatural means."
I understand your point, but the answer to your question already lies within your question. If religion makes an untestable assertion, then by definition, that assertion is outside of the province of science. For example, if I say that God loves me, that is an untestable statement. It is outside of science and not in conflict with science.
On the other hand, if I say that I my religious faith informs me that yellow objects are not subject to the force of gravity, I am making a statement that is both religious and scientific. It is scientific because it is testable.
This is why the major denominations insist that theology yield to science when it concerns the natural world. Those denominations are not very concerned about that, because they are much more concerned with subjects such as Gods Love, etc. The rest can be left to the tinkerers.
The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It is a love story.
Mike Walker · 21 February 2006
Well the Greeks managed to get plenty of good science done (for their day) without any knowledge of a Judeo-Christian deity. And the Chinese Dynasties managed to get along pretty well without it too.
As our scientific understanding continues to expand, the problem for fundamentalists will always face is that the gaps their God can lurk in will continue to shrink. Even for the IDists, not all of whom are fundies, the problem is pretty much the same. Their God lurks in the realms of complexity and deep time, areas science has only recently been able to begin to scratch the surface of.
Sir_Toejam · 21 February 2006
Rilke's Granddaughter · 21 February 2006
Rilke's Granddaughter · 21 February 2006
Sir_Toejam · 21 February 2006
Mythos · 21 February 2006
Ed Darrell · 21 February 2006
Heddle, To you, Perry Mason is "inherently atheistic," since in the Erle Stanley Garner stories AND in the television series, God never does it. There is always another, non-God proximate cause (usually sitting in the courtroom, waiting to confess).
If we were stuck with Heddle's definition of how science is "atheistic," we'd also have to acknowledge:
1. Automobiles are inherently atheistic -- God never cranks the engine.
2. Electric lights are inherently atheistic, at least ever since Franklin showed that lightning is electricity and not God's wrath in action.
3. Drama is inherently atheistic. We know it was Shakespeare who wrote some of them, Arthur Miller a bunch of others, and Rodgers and Hammerstein who put them to music.
If we stick with Heddle's definitions, Heddle is "inherently atheistic," since, presumably, he pushes the keys on his computer himself.
Can we ratchet the discussion up a few notches, perhhaps?
Sir_Toejam · 21 February 2006
Rilke's Granddaughter · 21 February 2006
At the risk of saying something obvious. it appears that the Catholic church is demonstrating a subtlety of thinking that Protestants (and I lump Dave Heddle and Carol in here) can't handle: the concept that the Bible just might mean MORE than it appears to say, and that Protestant faith - by insisting on the testability of its claims - opens itself up for falsification.
Caledonian · 21 February 2006
The good Father falls back on a half-truth: scientific theories themselves are neutral toward religious thought. The scientific method, however, is not.
Sir_Toejam · 21 February 2006
I've pointed this out before, but since blast, heddle and carol all decided to post on this thread, I'll say it again.
Science does NOT promote atheism.
Rather, it simply leaves room for atheism, just like it leaves room for christianity, judaism, buddhism, etc.
If folks like Heddle and Blast had their way, there would be no more room for anything but their own preconceptions.
I personally would find that world to be more than a bit boring, if nothing else.
PvM · 21 February 2006
Keith B Miller should be Kenneth Miller
Alann · 21 February 2006
I think Father Coyne has a very good point in that ID belittles God.
I personally think creationism belittles God as well. When you look at the world with all it suffering, it is far from perfection, so which of these makes the most sense:
1) The designer was evil and intentional created suffering.
2) The designer was imperfect and created an imperfect world.
3) The creator made a perfect world, but than decided to punish us because one of our ancestors transgressed against him.
4) God made a world which evolves, one which he seeks to nurture with love instead of dictating or designing.
Option 4 is the only one that works in my book.
Also, we need to get over our ridiculous arrogance that the world, even the universe was created just for us. With something this large and this old, humans are really more of an afterthought. Besides maybe God is more of a dog person.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Science is truth. God is truth.
Science cannot conflict with God, it is our understanding of science, or (as is often intentionally left out) our understanding of God which is flawed.
JONBOY · 21 February 2006
The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It is a love story. WHAT BULL**** Go ahead Chiefley give us all an example,and while you at it include these "Lovely: stories from the fountain of truth and love.
"Behold I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts...." (Mal. 2:3).
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" (1 Sam. 15:3).
"As I listened, god said to the others, 'Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children...." (Ezek. 9:5-6).
Num. 31:31-40 says, "Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses. The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.... And the half, the portion of those who had gone out to war, was....16,000 people, of which the tribute for the Lord was 32." Women rank right up there with cattle, donkeys, and sheep. And they have to be virgins, at that! Imagine a righteous and perfect God wanting 32 virgins to be set aside for himself!
Chiefley · 21 February 2006
Rilke's Granddaughter said... "At the risk of saying something obvious. it appears that the Catholic church is demonstrating a subtlety of thinking that Protestants (and I lump Dave Heddle and Carol in here) can't handle: the concept that the Bible just might mean MORE than it appears to say, and that Protestant faith - by insisting on the testability of its claims - opens itself up for falsification."
At the risk of pointing out you are wrong, most mainstream Protestant Denominations do not hold the Bible to be inerrant. They hold that the Bible must be interpreted within a larger theological framework, just as the Catholics say.
Once again, for those that seem to be hard of hearing, only a few Protestant sects, mostly American ones, hold the Bible to be inerrant.
limpidense · 21 February 2006
ID and Creationism - wait, let's really give an opinion here! - modern fundamentalism, under any label, "belittles" everything, except the egos and bank accounts of the swindlers actually running the carnival booths and patent medicine shows.
Chiefley · 21 February 2006
JONBOY wrote... "The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It is a love story. WHAT BULL**** Go ahead Chiefley give us all an example,and while you at it include these "Lovely: stories from the fountain of truth and love..."
Haha, yes, I get it. But it might suprise you to know that the Old Testament has a sequel in which God sends his only son to die for our sins, etc. In this sequel, God's son teaches us that all beliefs and all practices that place any kind of religious dogma above God's compassion or human compassion are worse than no religion at all (as demonstrated in the Parable of The Good Samaritan, Luke 10:25-37). This is not an isolated example. Its central to Christianity.
I would go and find the sequel if I were you.
Sir_Toejam · 21 February 2006
steve s · 21 February 2006
In accordance with what JONBOY said, not only is the bible not used as a science textbook, modern christians (minus the Ken Ham etc wing) have the decency not to use it as an ethics textbook.
If only certain other religions COUGHIslamCOUGH would follow their lead...
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 21 February 2006
Why is it that whenever we ask all the ID nutters here to please please pretty please tell us what the scientific theory of ID is, they never say a word --- but whenever the topic of religious opinions comes up, they never shut up.
It's almost enough to make me think that (1) ID is nothing but fundamentalist religious apologetics, (2) IDers are just lying to us when they claim it isn't, and (3) Judge Jones was entirely correct to rule that it is.
steve s · 21 February 2006
At least the media's starting to get it, somewhat, Lenny. Did you see the NYT story on the "Dissent from Darwin" petition? It was titled
Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition
which is a good sign.
Mr Christopher · 21 February 2006
Carol, when you read in the bible where it says a woman who lies about her virginity (and is foudn out after she has married) should be stoned to death, how do you reconcile THAT? Seriously.
Just curious. If the 6 day creation thing stumps you so badly I'd be very interested to know how you reconcile something in the bible (that NO one supports) on a purely moral and not scientific basis.
Do you think women who lie about being virgins prior to being married should be stoned to death? The bible is very clear on the matter, what's your take on it?
Bonus question - how do you suppose the clergy reconciles this?
KiwiInOz · 21 February 2006
Moses - your comments re the evo-devo of Judaisim are tantalisingly interesting (OT, sorry Lenny, ".. and it came to be known that the Rev Dr commanded that the IDists be smote upon the mountain, and so it was done ...[Blog of Panda, Ch 3, v 26]"). Can you point to some starter references for reading up on this stuff? I had heard about the big G's wife, but not Asherah and her serpents, etc.
Tony · 21 February 2006
Science does not need God. Or does it?
I agree that SCIENCE does not need God. However, I think that there are many scientists (along will millions of other people) that need God (or similar deity) for whatever personal reasons they may have.
BWE · 21 February 2006
A Voice · 21 February 2006
Evolutionary biology will continue to turn up facts about human behavior, psychology, and sociology.
Politicians of all stripes will do their best (worst) to use those findings to support their goals. Those who deny the facts will wither.
Remember Social Darwinism? How will the EvolCons fare if the PoMos don't get a grip on PoPoMoism?
Remember, you read it here first.
... and here and there and ...
B. Spitzer · 21 February 2006
JS · 21 February 2006
KiwiInOz · 21 February 2006
BWE - dangerous things, women. ;)
Carol Clouser · 21 February 2006
Mr. Christopher,
I don't know what you mean by "the six day creation thing stumps you so badly". I think I have a very good handle on that matter.
You are wrong about stoning women who lie about their virginity, for many reasons. First, the death penalty is not even discussed in the context of lying about virginity, but for adultery. Second, all death penalties in the Bible must be read within the context of other statements on the subject in the Bible. Which is why these penalties were hardly ever carried out by the Sanhedrin, who followed Biblical law for many centuries. The death penalty was simply hardly ever applicable. A Sanhedrin (High Court) that executed anyone even once in 70 years, according to the Talmud, was considered "a murderous court".
Simply put, the death penalty is theoretically applicable when the act (adultery in this case) is witnessed by two observers who meet the various requisite criteria AND who warn the perpetrators just before the deed is done that it is an offense against God punishable by death AND the perpetrator must respond, "yes, I am aware of that and that is precisely why I am doing this". In other words, it must be a public act of rebellion against God. All of this comes directly from the Bible.
Many death penalties in the Bible cannot under these conditions EVER be carried out (such as the so called "rebellious son") and were never intended to be carried out. The Bible is merely indicating the severity of the offense in the eyes of God by describing it as "punishable by death".
Mike Walker · 21 February 2006
Ah Carol, lost in her own little world of logic. I never cease to be amazed at the lengths people like her go to prove that the Bible is inerrant. I've already been warned by others not to waste my time trying to argue with her. It's not worth the effort--she can't admit an error in the Bible even if you prove beyond all possible doubt that there is one.
Andy H. · 21 February 2006
H. Humbert · 21 February 2006
Of course what all the IDers refuse to admit is that ID does "belittle God, makes her/him too small and paltry." Coyne is absolutely right.
What kind of a god starts a process like evolution in motion, but then needs to "tweek" his creation with little miracles here and there because he lacked the foresight to plan it all correctly in the first place? "Hmm, I really should have given that bacteria the ability to evolve a flagellum. Oh, well, nothing has developed any eyes yet, I guess no one will see." *POOF* "Tada! An irreducibly complex feature!"
Yeah, fantastic theology, ID is. Turns god into a addle-brained baffoon.
Glen Davidson · 21 February 2006
Mr Christopher · 21 February 2006
Carol the bible clearly says that a woman who claims she is a virgin prior to being married but is in fact NOT a virgin is to be stoned to death. If her husband accuses her of not being a virgin but in fact she is still a virgin HE get fined 200 silver
sheckles.
Read your bible, Carol.
Carol Clouser · 21 February 2006
Mr. Christopher,
Sorry. There is no such statement in the Bible, referring of course as I always do to the original Hebrew Bible. Please cite chapter and verse and I will look into it for you.
Mike Walker wrote:
"she can't admit an error in the Bible even if you prove beyond all possible doubt that there is one."
So far that has not happened. So its purely academic. But go ahead, put me to the test. Prove beyond all possible doubt that there is an "error", and see how I react. You might be surprised.
Perhaps people are warning you away from me because you and they get mighty upset when your so called "proofs" of error turn out, upon careful examination, to be nothing but wishful thinking. Even worse, they sometimes are based on downright ignorance, fabrications and distortions. Religion is after all much more of an emotional enterprise than an intellectual one, to most people. So I will understand if you stay away from me. You will not get your feathers ruffled.
Liz Tracey · 21 February 2006
It would seem that Mr. Christopher is referring to Deuteronomy Chapter 22 verses 13-21, for those of you playing along at home.
Corkscrew · 21 February 2006
Corkscrew · 21 February 2006
Carol: This translation of the Hebrew Bible (the first one that came up on Google) appears to substantiate Mr Christopher's claim.
Deuteronomy ch. 22:
"[20] But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; [21] then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee."
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 21 February 2006
Alice · 21 February 2006
The number one complaint (rightfully so) from the science community, is that religion and religious doctrine should stay on their side of the tracks and not concern themselves with science and the scientific method. Here you have one of the major religions of the world stating that exact thing, and you (the science-minded who have commented) are attacking the religious doctrine for "scientific" or personal reasons!!! You are indignant when the fundamentalist insist evolution is nothing more than a "materialistic religion", but have no problem pointing out the problems with religious doctrine on an evolution blog!!
You guys laugh about how the religious crowd continues to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to forwarding their agenda. Well the scientific community continues to shoot themselves in the foot with threads like this. Father Coyne is doing exactly what we want: keeping religion out of science. We should be thankful for the example he and the Catholic Church is setting about evolution and let people debate the religious doctrine on a religion web site.
Rilke's Granddaughter · 21 February 2006
While I realize it's fun to point out to Carol that she is, as always, utterly wrong in her claim, I admit I'm fascinated to see how she tries to deny, avoid, obfuscate, or simply ignore your responses.
I've been spending a little time on www.christianforums.com, and if you think the attitude of religious nutters (such as Carol, David, and Larry) towards atheists or scientists is harsh, it's NOTHING compared to how some of them treat each other.
Carol Clouser · 21 February 2006
Liz Tracey and Corkscrew,
The Artscroll translation of the Hebrew Bible correctly has it as such: "...for she has committed an outrage in Israel, to commit adultery at her father's house..."
This does not at all sound like the offense of lying about her virginity. Even "harlot" refers to sexual behavior.
In any event, there not only is no death penalty in the Bible for lying, there is not one for sex by unmarrieds. The rabbis even disagree as to whether sex between unmarrieds is Biblically prohibited altogether. So we are talking here about adultery, pure and simple.
I assume you understand the phrase "at her father's house". This is one case not to read too literally.
PvM · 21 February 2006
PaulC · 21 February 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 21 February 2006
Rilke's Granddaughter · 21 February 2006
Mr Christopher · 21 February 2006
Artscroll Hebrew translations
No thanks of accepting Artscroll as an authority on ancient Hebrew text.
Pierce R. Butler · 21 February 2006
Moses: Can you recommend any good books on the history you summarize above?
Rilke's Granddaughter · 21 February 2006
Rilke's Granddaughter · 21 February 2006
Sir_Toejam · 21 February 2006
Paul Flocken · 22 February 2006
Carol,
If the penalty described is to be stoned, and the consequence of being stoned is to die then, to wit, the penalty is to die; ie, it is a 'death penalty'. QED. How simple is that? Why can't you just admit that?
Raging Bee · 22 February 2006
Wow, several of us mention the rather obvious fact that many people -- Christian and non-Christian -- derive wisdom in moral and spiritual matters from non-literal interpretation of the Bible, and Carol ignores them completely in her desperate haste to "prove" that we should all be learning particle physics or some such from its stories! I still can't help thinking of her whole career as one long pitiful hijacked thread...
Mr Christopher · 22 February 2006
Carol Clouser · 22 February 2006
Mr. Christopher,
I was not citing Artscroll as an authority or as a source. I quoted Artscroll merely for convenience. You see, unlike some ignoramuses here, I can read the Hebrew text of the Bible and the Aramaic of the Talmud in the original. I have a good feel for the flow, tone and usage of the words, in all its subtleties and nuances, in both texts. I don't need Artscroll to tell me that "liznot" denotes sexual violations and that the phrase "to play..." (the harlot) does not appear in the original at all.
I thought I addressed the Bible codes on another thread. Was not the anecdote with that student addressed to you? The point of that was to ridicule the whole enterprise. That is not to say that there are no secrets in the HB. Just that to the extent they might be there they are not for us to know, at least not in this clumsy manner.
Paul,
I was responding to questions and presented the facts. As they say, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The WHOLE picture. I did not make up any of those facts. If that interferes with your preference for finding in the Bible harsh penalties for minor, everyday offenses, I cannot help you. This is the document, mind you, that commanded helping a runaway slave and forbade returning him at a time when the entire world, as spelled out in the code of Hammurabi and later Roman law, executed anyone who helped a runaway slave.
Sir_Toejam · 22 February 2006
uh, did ANYBODY see Carol actually address the relevant passages refered to by Mr. Christopher?
what i saw was yet another deflection, intended to establish her authority without addressing the question at hand.
as usual.
gcbrown · 22 February 2006
Carol,
I'm just a lurker here, but I have noticed that you do an amazing job of ignoring relevant comments. I enjoy some of your posts, because at first they seem to offer a different perspective. However, it just becomes the same old crap when you can't back it up.
Andy H. · 22 February 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 February 2006
Shut up, Larry.
JONBOY · 22 February 2006
Hi Chiefley, Your preponderance toward apologetics are only outweighed by your total lack of biblical understanding. Here is your sequel!!!!!
Matthew: Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36:Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24 :Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46
Luke: Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47 Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning everything and everybody. 17:26-27
John: Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14
Acts: Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10 The author of Acts talks about the "sure mercies of David." But David was anything but merciful. For an example of his behavior see 2 Sam.12:31 and 1 Chr.20:3, where he saws, hacks, and burns to death the inhabitants of several cities. 13:34
Romans: Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death." 1:31-32 God punishes everyone for someone else's sin; then he saves them by killing an innocent victim. 5:12
2 Thessalonians: Jesus will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." 1:7-9 Jesus will "consume" the wicked "with the spirit of his mouth." 2:8
Revelation: "I [Jesus] will kill her children with death." 2:23 Jesus makes war. 19:11 With eyes aflame, many crowns on his head, clothes dripping with blood, a sword sticking out of his mouth, and a secret name, Jesus leads the faithful into holy war. 19:12-15
Extracting good values from the Bible is like picking strawberries from a bucket of manure.
Raging Bee · 22 February 2006
Carol wrote:
I have a good feel for the flow, tone and usage of the words, in all its subtleties and nuances, in both texts.
So now she's admitting there's "subtleties and nuances" in the original Biblical texts, for which she had to get a "good feel." What happened to the strict literal reading of the original texts in the original languages that's supposed to give us all kinds of literal scientific truth that we can't find in any English translations?
This is beginning to sound like someone re-reading the "subtleties and nuances" of Nostradamus' writings to get a literal retroactive prediction of the latest big political development.
Show me a scientific text with "subtleties and nuances," and I'll show you a badly written scientific text.
Raging Bee · 22 February 2006
After cherrypicking about one page of text from a book that's hundreds of pages long, JONBOY concluded:
Extracting good values from the Bible is like picking strawberries from a bucket of manure.
And yet, somehow, a lot of Christians manage to do just that, without a heck of a lot of visible effort. Most of the passages you quote are unfamiliar to me precisely because so few of the Christians I know actually quote them, or consider them important.
Here's a helpful hint: if you're closer to a pile of manure than to a pile of strawberries, the former will appear larger, the latter will appear smaller, and the smell of the former will be stronger. All of that can be corrected by walking AROUND the manure to get close to the strawberries.
Before you belittle the alleged dearth of "good values" in the Bible, perhaps you should ask yourself how much "good values" are contained in your own writings. Knowingly ignoring the wise or decent things someone else says, and concentrating obsessively on the bad or questionable, makes me wonder whether you even want to find good values.
Caledonian · 22 February 2006
Judeo-Christianity have a great deal to do with defining what we mean by "good" values.
It should also be noted that many adherents of those faiths don't actually know what their faith teaches.
Raging Bee · 22 February 2006
It should also be noted that many adherents of those faiths don't actually know what their faith teaches.
That's because "their faith" doesn't teach anyone anything; people and experience teach people. So what people know about "their faith" comes from what certain people taught them about the subject.
If many Christians don't know that "their faith" teaches the unsavory Bible passages that the religion-bashers go on about, it is probably because their teachers didn't bother with those passages, because they didn't consider them an important part of "their faith." So for all practical purposes, "their faith" doesn't really teach any of that hateful stuff.
Space_Monkey · 22 February 2006
Well suppose science IS neutral with regard to untestable religious claims - ie the claim that there is a deity. The question still remains "Why should I believe that there is a deity?" One must either 1) believe in God purely on (irrational) faith, 2) fall back on iffy and largely discredited philsophical arguments (Paley's design argument, the ontological argument, ID) or 3) argue on the equally iffy basis of utility - ie we should believe not because we're justified in believing but because believing is good for us.
Personally, I do not care if there is a God or not. To be overly intellectually or emotionally invested in a claim whose truth or falsity makes absolutely no demonstrable difference in the real world is, for me, a tremendous failire to care about the right things.
Stephen Elliott · 22 February 2006
Keith Douglas · 22 February 2006
Schönborn doesn't seem to realize that at the very least the materialism he derides is part of the metaphysics of contemporary science, most notably in neuroscience. An immaterial soul that does anything runs into conflict with science - both neuroscience, and even physics, as Descartes was reminded long ago. What I would find interesting is Coyne's take on the matter.
JONBOY · 22 February 2006
Raging Bee said: "After cherrypicking about one page of text from a book that's hundreds of pages long."and,"Before you belittle the alleged dearth of "good values" in the Bible, perhaps you should ask yourself how much "good values" are contained in your own writings. Knowingly ignoring the wise or decent things someone else says, and concentrating obsessively on the bad or questionable, makes me wonder whether you even want to find good values. I have encountered the same arguments on numerous occasions and your pleading is one the most common,only you forgot to use the "out of context" and "we should not read the bible literally"excuses,of course,I realize that apologists, such as yourself, place great reliance on shifting the point of issue. Why are Xtians such as yourself,unfamiliar with such quotes ,or consider them important? because to do so, may test your transparent faith.
You make most serious mistake of all Christians asserting the Bible is the Word of God. I'd like to give you a list, a litany, of the deeds that God committed somewhere in the Old Testament. Now remember, God, the Perfect Being, did all of fol owing in what is supposedly His book. He created evil (Lam. 3:38, Jer. 26:3, 36:3, Ezek. 20.:25-26, Judges 9:3, 1 Sam. 16:23, 18:10); He deceived (Jer. 4:10, 15:18, 20:7, 2 Chron. 18:22, Ezek. 14:9, 2 Thess. 2:9-12); He told people to lie(Ex. 3:18, 1 Sam. 16:2); He lied (Gen 2:17, 2 Sam. 7:13); He rewarded liars (Ex. 1:15-20); He ordered men to become drunken (Jer. 25:27); He rewarded the fool and the transgressor (Prov.26:10); He delivered a man, Job, into Satan's hands (Job 2:6); He mingled a perverse spirit (Isa. 19:14); He spread dung on people's faces (Mal. 2:3)); He ordered stealing (Ezek. 39:10, Ex. 3:22); He made false prophecies (Jonah 3:4. Gen. 5:10); He Changed his mind (Jonah 3:10); He caused adultery (2 Sam. 12:11-12); He ordered the taking of a harlot (Hosea 1:2, 3:1-2); He killed (Num. 16:35, 21:6, Deut. 32:39, 1 Sam. 2:26, Psalm 135:10); He ordered killing (Lev. 26:7-8, Num. 25:4-5); He had a temper (Deut. 13:17, Judges 3:8); He was often jealous (Deut. 5:9, 6:15); He wasn't omnipresent (Gen4:16, 11:5, 1 Kings 19:11-12); He wasn't omniscient (Deut. 8:2, 13:3, 2 Chron. 32:31); He often repented (Ex. 32:14, 1 Sam. 15:35); He practiced injustice (Ex. 4:22-23, Joshua 22:20, Rom. 5:12); He played favorites (Deut. 7:6, 14:2, 1 Sam. 12:22); He sanctioned slavery (Ex. 21:20-21, Deut. 15:17); He degraded deformed people (Lev. 21:16-23); He punished a baster for being illegitimate (Deut. 23:2); He punished many for the acts of one (Gen. 3:16, 20:18); He punished children for the sins of their fathers (Ex. 12:29, 20:5, Deut. 5:9); He prevented people from hearing his word (Isa. 6:10, John 12:39-40); He supported human sacrifice (Ex. 22:29-30, Ezek. 20:26); He ordered cannibalism (Lev. 26: 29, Jer. 19:9); He demanded virgins as a part of war plunder(Num. 31:31-36); He ordered gambling (Joshua 14. 2, Num. 26:52, 55-56); He ordered horses to be hamstrung (Joshua 11:6); He sanctioned violation of the enemies women (Deut. 21:10-14); He excused the beating of slaves to death (Ex. 21:20-21); He required a woman to marry her rapist (Deut. 22:28:29); He taught war (Psalm 144:1); He ordered the burning of human feces to cook food (Ezek. 21:3-5); He intentionally issued bad laws (Ezek. 20:25); He excused the sins of prostitutes and adulterers (Hosea 4:14); He excused a murderer and promised his protection (Gen. 4:8-15); He killed a man who refused to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law (Gen. 38:9-10); and He is indecisive (Gen. 18:17). Now, can you imagine anyone saying, "Yes, that's my book, that represents me; that's the way I am." -especially a supposedly perfect being. What villain, what criminal, in all history had a record to match?
I find goodness and kindness in my life ,but not from a belief system that,s based on a book as rotten and corrupt as the Bible.
Mr Christopher · 22 February 2006
Carol makes a good case for why the bible cannot be trusted as a guide for morality or science. I have often wondered if the bible writers were insane. The bible is incomprehensible and ANYONE can claim to truly know what is meant by the passages and no one can prove that person is wrong. This makes the bible about as useful as Aesop's fables. The Korean to English instructions for assembling my daughter's tricycle are far more clear and useful than the spilled poetry we call the bible.
Anyone who would speak to people about matters that concern everlasting peace or everlasting torture and use parables (and not plain direct communication) is a cruel asshole of the highest order.
But hey, according to The Tortured One I have a perpetual life of "teeth gnashing" to look forward to so who am I to talk about the lunacy of the bible?
Carol, I saw your post in the other thread about the bible code but I was unable to get what you meant. I now sorta get it. Anyhow, thanks for addressing my question(s).
Stephen Elliott · 22 February 2006
David Heddle · 22 February 2006
BWE · 22 February 2006
Lenny, I apologize in advance.
Raging Bee,
I get that you are about the spiritual life and the experiential aspects of spiritualism but think about this: How many people does gOD kill in the bibles and how many people does Beelzebub kill? How many aggressive words are attributed as the voice of god and how many are attributed to people? There may be strawberries but they are being carried by assholes who smell like the manure they produce. I love analogies.
IMHO, Father Coyne is merely explaining that trying to go from conclusion to data rather than data to conclusion might not give the same results and that one appears to be a more reliable method than the other. I presume he is religious and spiritual.
Many people want to "not shoot those who are on our side". It seems to me that those who are "on our side" are those who wish to have education include arriving at conclusions through data rather than the other way around.
I wonder how believing in the inerrent truth of holy texts fits this?
I frequently poke a little fun at certain people who take themselves quite seriously. Often, they get upset. But I am not sure when even one upset response to a statement I have made has been anything more substantial than a rant over hurt feelings. Where was I going with this? Carol? Heddle? Andy? Dear gOd. All three together.
RO · 22 February 2006
Frank J · 22 February 2006
Carol Clouser · 22 February 2006
Mr. Christopher wrote:
"Anyone who would speak to people about matters that concern everlasting peace or everlasting torture and use parables (and not plain direct communication) is a cruel asshole of the highest order."
You are forgetting that the HB was never intended for the entire world, nor was it meant to be separated from the oral tradition it came with. The HB is a product of the Jews (divinely inspired), by the Jews and for the Jews, and they still diligently study that oral tradition as recorded, for example, in the Midrash, Talmud, and so on.
It is not God's fault that having endowed His loftiest creations with free will, some of them choose to mistranslate, distort, add to, then nullify his written work.
BWE · 22 February 2006
RO · 22 February 2006
Ogee · 22 February 2006
PvM · 22 February 2006
PvM · 22 February 2006
How again do YOU explain co-evolution?
RO · 22 February 2006
BWE · 22 February 2006
AD · 22 February 2006
I must confess, I've lost track. Have we come to a consensus about who's God (or non-God, in the atheists case) has the biggest penis yet?
Sorry for the sarcasm, but that's really what the entire discussion comes across as. We can argue until we are blue in the face, but the odds of convincing anyone to agree with subjective personal belief on unreliable literature is approximately zero (0).
Perhaps this underscores the importance of the methodological naturalism and scientific method, however. Without objectively verifiable, repeatable, testable, falsifiable claims, we get arguments like this one.
JONBOY · 22 February 2006
David H, You have several lamentable habits, including inadequately rationalizing the obvious, and patronizing your opponent.You have been so thoroughly imbued with a belief system, that you consider any evidence to the contrary, of yours, couldn't possibly be valid. You even close your eyes to contrary biblical verses and dismissed them out-of-hand. God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). (I see no mention of an immortal soul)
But,let us assume your reasoning is correct,then one could ask
Why are we being punished for Adam's sin? After all, he ate the
forbidden fruit, we didn't. It's his problem, not ours, especially in
light of Deut. 24:16, which says children shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers,also, God must be perfect, God created Adam, so he, must have been perfect. How then could Adam have sinned? Regardless of how much free will he had, if he chose to sin, he wasn't perfect. I see no point in engaging in any more duologue with you, as much of your malediction is little more than opinions and conjectures based on an offended ego and are no more valid than my own or anyone else .We'll let the readers judge.
.
Rilke's Granddaughter · 22 February 2006
Raging Bee · 22 February 2006
Wow, JONBOY, you sure showed a lot of dedication researching all the nasty bits in the Old Testament. Good on ya, mate. Too bad you seem to have missed the sequel, where some smartass kid questioned all the wise guys about it a few generations later and said that no one needed all those draconian laws and punishments to get to the central point, which was (to put it VERY simplistically) that humans needed to open themselves to the voice and power of the divine within them, and acknowledge and respect the divine in each other, and thus achieve enlightenment and harmony with God and his universe.
Once again, you devote too much time and energy to bits that really don't matter to most real Christians' daily lives as much as the words of Christ himself. Why are you not researching his words, rather than a bunch of hateful threats from a bygone era? Deliberately avoiding something?
Even most Pagans are well aware that the teachings of CHRIST form the central tenets of CHRISTIANITY. And if Pagans, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, etc. can get this point, then you have no excuse for missing it. (Yes, I know a lot of idiots call themselves Christians and are still hooked on the graphic violence and perverted sex stuff, but you're not going to let them tell you what to think, are you?)
(PS: As I've said here before, I'm neither a Christian nor an apologist. If you're going to argue by labeling, at least try to get your labels right.)
Mr Christopher · 22 February 2006
Rilke's Granddaughter · 22 February 2006
Rilke's Granddaughter · 22 February 2006
Yes, but Raging Bee, isn't Christ the same chappie who states that the Law is to remain unchanged? That's he's not there to change even a 'tittle' of it, and that it will last to the end of time? Or could it be that Christ (like some other folks we know) said different things to different audiences? Maybe Dembski is being Christian when he completely contradicts himself.
Sweet!
Leigh Jackson · 22 February 2006
AD · 22 February 2006
RO · 22 February 2006
JONBOY · 22 February 2006
Raging Bee, Thanks for the complements mate, it was hard work ,took me all of 2 minutes. So let me get this ,the book that Xtians MUST base their beliefs on,(no evidence from any other sources) can be used as a religious menu,embrace the parts that suit the palette and forget about the parts that may be embarrassing. I can buy that,so long as Xtians are honest about it(which invariably they are not).
Sorry if I miss-labeled you,if it looks like it, and sounds like it,you know?
Raging Bee · 22 February 2006
JONBOY wrote:
So let me get this ,the book that Xtians MUST base their beliefs on,(no evidence from any other sources) can be used as a religious menu,embrace the parts that suit the palette and forget about the parts that may be embarrassing. I can buy that,so long as Xtians are honest about it(which invariably they are not).
Once again, you are making a statement about ALL Christians (actually three statements -- I have to admit you're efficient) that is clearly only true for SOME Christians. A very poor and lazy choice of words at best; and an act of outright bigotry at worst.
Furthermore, when you imply that selectively reading and interpreting bits of the Bible is somehow dishonest or questionable, you are repeating exactly what the fundies and literalists want us to believe. Do you believe them? Whose side are you on?
BWE · 22 February 2006
But this is the fun debate. ID in schools is, for the moment anyway, a non-issue. (Wait til Alito gets a hold of it)
Look at all the threads that have over a hundred responses. THey are threads where we are debating the lines in the gray area btween science and religion. Maybe they all just hash the same thing over and over but that is apparently what the readers are commenting about. Why should we not keep doing it if it is fun? During the Kitzmiller trial, I read the transcripts and didn't comment at PT at all. Living in Oregon means I don't really have fundies making news so I have to go out into the big wide world to make fun of them.
You all don't post any comments at my blog:
http://brainwashedgod.blogspot.com
so I have to comment here. You're the ones who force me to do it.
Lynn · 22 February 2006
And lo, they lived in Oppression, confined to a cage which, though lovely to the eyes, provided no opportunity for occupation or entertainment. And the Great Oppressor hovered over their pitiful heads, issuing threats of Great Retribution should they attempt to exceed the boundaries of their confinement, or attempt to improve their minds or understanding. And he placed a fierce warrior with a deadly weapon at the gates to their cage. And in the center of the cage, the Oppressor placed a bookcase containing a multitude of tomes, each holding a portion of the knowledge of the world and the guides to judgment and ethics. There He placed it, to tempt and tease, for He forbade them to touch even one page of the font of knowledge, for fear of His terrible retrobution.
But the day came when a Great Liberator entered their cage. He whispered and coaxed until the woman, being the more adventurous, defied the Great Oppressor and opened the first of the books of knowledge. And finding the knowledge exciting and enlightening, she pursuaded the man to follow her lead. And they began to learn.
But Lo! The Great Oppressor roared over the cage, ranting and raving, and He gathered the man and woman up and threw them from the cage, condemning them to exist without his claimed benevolent protection, and to suffer the privations and agonies of the real world.
But alas! His actions came too late! For the woman and the man had gained enough knowledge to exist without the smothering protection of the Great Oppressor, and they continued to pursue knowledge and understanding. And in the fullness of time, though they and their descendants frequently suffered the annoying whining of those who yearned for the shiftless life of the cage, their knowledge grew great, and the world which they crafted for themselves was far greater than the pitiful existence in the garden--er--cage.
***
There's more than one way to interpret the book of Genesis... ;^)
BWE · 22 February 2006
Lynn. I love you.
steve s · 22 February 2006
Leigh Jackson · 22 February 2006
If Coyne can reconcile his religious faith with evolution whilst accepting the complete lack of scientific evidence for the process being guided in any way, then good for him.
I think he is going to have trouble persuading very many others of his own point of view.
In any case that is not the position of the CC. Catholic Church teaching is emphatic: evolution can only be compatible with Christian faith if the process is guided by God.
Furthermore the CC says that nature is known to be designed by reason and physical evidence alone, not by faith. Faith is only required in order to know the form of the creator-designer - the triune God revealed in the New Testament.
The CC's teaching is in flat contradiction with the scientific evidence. Coyne occupies a position on the outermost fringes of Catholic theology.
Carol Clouser · 22 February 2006
Mr. Christopher wrote:
"Then again I have a moral compass and god has yet to prove he has any sense of morality. Obviously god could care less if he is misquoted or misunderstood regardless of what the consequences might be."
If God would ask me I would advise it to provide some feedback at this point in time. But, alas, God has its own cosmic considerations of which we know nothing, and it asks neither you nor me. Once we assume the existence of a God/creator we must, in my opinion, concede that reading its mind is beyond our reach. We can speculate and theorize, that is about it.
If it helps, it was all predicted over three thousand years ago by Moses (Deut. 31:18). "And I will hide, will hide, my face on that day (yohm here too is better translated as "era")... for he has turned to other gods." Huge numbers of people today worship "other gods" - the god of money, the god of power, the god of fame, the god of sex, and on and on. But now I am begin to preach, something I just do not do. So I will stop this right here.
JONBOY · 22 February 2006
Raging Bee, Lets define a Xtian "One who believes the New Testament is "A divinely inspired book," admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin" (not my quote). The two are inexorably joined together,either you accept ALL the scriptures as they are presented, as absolute truth,and follow them to the letter, or you dont,try as you may,there is no way around that my friend. You said "A very poor and lazy choice of words at best; and an act of outright bigotry at worst".Please do not resort to Ad Hominem attacks,it does little to bolster your arguments
You said "Furthermore, when you imply that selectively reading and interpreting bits of the Bible is somehow dishonest or questionable",
They most certainly are,not only to their own self conscience(to thine own self be true)but also to the religion they are supposed to be representing.The rest of your statement"you are repeating exactly what the fundies and literalists want us to believe. Do you believe them? Whose side are you on",seems to makes little or no sense.
Rilke's Granddaughter · 22 February 2006
Sir_Toejam · 22 February 2006
Carol Clouser · 22 February 2006
Stephen Elliott wrote:
"I have only one question for you (at the moment). Which is more important, God or the bible? There you go. Only a one word answer required."
The Bible.
In Judaism it is one's actions that carry far more weight than one's beliefs or opinions. The HB is a recipe book and an instructional manual for how to live an uplifting, ethical lifestyle that serves as an example and inspiration to others. What a better place this planet would be if people abided by only a fraction of its precepts.
The catch is that a human being typically needs to be motivated to follow any particular set of rules. The prime motivation for following the HB is that it is divinely inspired. So one cannot just read God out of the picture. The likely result is no God, no Bible.
CJ O'Brien · 22 February 2006
"The HB is a recipe book"
NOW I understand. Those 'dietary laws' never made that much sense to me before.
Alann · 22 February 2006
Try double checking the meaning of words, you might be surprised what you find. (I used dictionary.com for a quick reference)
Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
Exactly what I thought, but it got me thinking, why does atheism mean denying the existence of God as opposed to resembling the word amoral (neither moral or immoral) as to say having nothing to do with belief God? For now I will use the term non-theistic.
Science is very non-theistic, it has NOTHING to do with belief in God. Ergo it cannot possible be atheistic if that means opposing belief in God.
Materialism: Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
Naturalism: Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
Science is not really materialistic naturalism as described here. Science should not and does not hold that it can explain EVERYTHING. Rather I would say science only concerns itself with those phenomena which can be explained using a materialistic on naturalistic basis.
So lets add a new word:
Ascientific: Neither scientific or Unscientific, rather having nothing to do with science. (see Intelligent Design)
Besides:
Only God can make a tree, and only a religion would be so silly as to cut one down to print a bible.
Mr Christopher · 22 February 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 February 2006
Glen Davidson · 22 February 2006
Matt Young · 22 February 2006
BWE · 22 February 2006
For that matter, I would like to study Hallucinations to see whether they might be religious experiences. I rather suspect that they are. ANyone here who has had a self induced hallucination can probably attest to the absolute difference of reality while experiencing the hallucination. Just because you come down doesn't make the trip anyu less real. I believe it was Carl Sagan who said that. Anybody know? I think the quote is off a bit so I couldn't google it.
Andy H. · 22 February 2006
Sir_Toejam · 22 February 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 February 2006
Shut up, Larry.
Raging Bee · 22 February 2006
You said "Furthermore, when you imply that selectively reading and interpreting bits of the Bible is somehow dishonest or questionable",
They most certainly are,not only to their own self conscience(to thine own self be true)but also to the religion they are supposed to be representing.
Right -- a Christian-basher telling Christians the One True Way to "represent" their faith. This joke was funny at first, but now it's just old.
So...first JONBOY dredges up all of the ugliest bits of the Bible to show there's nothing good in it; then he explicitly says that a Christian who takes the good bits and leaves the ugly bits is being dishonest. This hypocricy can only come from someone who has already prejudged Christianity to be evil and devoid of merit, and is determined to demean and attack every Christian whose beliefs and actions prove him wrong. You've gone from inconsistent to incoherent.
The rigid bigots, extremists, and fundamentalists have taught you well; as you were abused, so you seek to abuse others. And since, beneath all the relentless bombast, you have nothing decent or positive to offer in place of the religious doctrines you simultaneously define, defend and attack, there is no further point in arguing with you. Buh-bye.
Christian · 22 February 2006
Hey all,
I haven't had time to read through all the posts, and of course, I am fairly new to Panda, and I am clumsy with posting.
But, Moses, I would like to know more about the history that you quote. I have been reading a bit of Bart Ehrman lately, which provides an interesting viewpoint of how "orthodox christianity" came to be. Particularly, since the canon of the new testament wasn't fixed until the fourth century AD, there were four hundred years of people writing "holy" texts and proclaiming that their text's contained the truth of Christ. This gap seems to leave four hundred years of literary BS to be inserted, and then the "correct" form to be decided by the victors.
I am something of a spiritualist myself, since good science strictly follows what it can discern of the universe itself, either through biology (yes, evolution is a major part of bio), and through physics and chemistry. It is quite hard to separate engineering from physics, even EE. And chemistry is pretty hard to really separate from physics, since quantum physics underlies how the atoms react with each other on the order of the laws of chemistry.
(OK, I was a business major, not ANY sort of science major, I have just read a bit, and this is how I view things fitting together, at least at he moment, until new data (that I can understand) comes in, the world needs more Stephen Hawkings across ALL disciplines, either the sciences, or business)
I am aware of earlier Jewish writings that were not accepted into the "old testament", and am curious of any references you might have.
And, to all the PT contributors, who might think I might be a little nuts, please understand, I support science whole heartedly. It might be that the "god gene" has a little more hold of me than I would like, but it is impossible to refute evidence that comes straight from existence, so I whole heartedly accept science, in all it's forms. Father Coyne is doing the best that he can to reconcile his view of god with what the universe that his god created tells him. In that sense, he is to be commended. Viewing the bible as an allegorical tale is fairly harmless, maybe helpful, as long as one does not fall into literalism. That provides excuses for atrocities against everything from science to fellow humans. Believe me, from my view, PZ Myers, and the majority of posters here (read as non fundamentalists) have a huge leg up on literalists and IDiots, and the like.
I admit, that I do listen to the local "christian" radio station just to see how logic can be twisted, and how people can settle on a religion that they claim is 2000 years old, yet realistically had many parts of it's basic tenets disputed for the first four hundred years after the individual in question was born.
Alright, enough for now. Have to get up in the morning and get to my decidedly secular job, and get results in reality for my family, and let that take care of my "rewards" in the afterlife.
To all of Pandas Thumb, and it's supporters, keep up the good fight.
Sir_Toejam · 23 February 2006
Sir_Toejam · 23 February 2006
Carol Clouser · 23 February 2006
David Heddle,
I fully appreciate your reluctance to delve into Joneboy's post, based as it is on stupidity, ignorance and malice, but since you did comment on the "God is a liar" point, let me take that a step further.
Even if we take the verse "on the day that thou shall eat of it (the forbidden tree) thou shall die" literally, it is preposterous to accuse God of lying on the basis of the fact that Adam did live hundreds of years after he ate of the tree. God was projecting into the future, and was literally issuing a threat, which in the end He chose not to keep. At worst one can accuse God of changing His mind here. At best, He showed mercy and forgiveness and either posponed or rescinded the punishment based on Adam's pleas and arguments. If anything this is meant to serve as a model of behavior for humans to emulate.
Can one accuse a parent who issues a threat to a child that a certain infraction will lead to a particular punishment, and then forgives the child after the infraction is committed, of having lied to the child?
Nebogipfel · 23 February 2006
Andy H. · 23 February 2006
Rilke's Granddaughter · 23 February 2006
David Heddle · 23 February 2006
Renier · 23 February 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 23 February 2006
Kate · 23 February 2006
Ok, I've been a lurker for a while and will likely return to that after putting in my 2 cents here since I'm sure that the fundie aetheists will find my remarks as misguided as the fundie Christians.
First, I think that the easiest way to show that Carol whoever is full of it is to demonstrate that the passage from Leviticus was left in the Old Testament for the same reason many of the other books were. They demonstrated the laws that were the most agregious and were to be altered. In this case by John 8:5-11. A passage where Jesus stops a mob from stoning an accused adultress to death. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" sound familiar? Jesus said that he came to complete the laws... and in what he did can be said to have "erased" the law allowing for stoning people to death by his actions. Even if a fundie would disagree with my theology on that.
Second, I think that there are fanatics of all stripes (and fanatical atheists can be just as blind as fanatic Christians), but the difference is in how they act and react to things. I'm all for "live and let live", but my biggest problem with Christian fundamentalists is that by denying the most important part of Biology they are PROMOTING "live and let die". Nothing new can come from an idea that was dead 400 years ago (at least). We gain nothing and lose much when we allow only the crazies to control the debate. So if there are other moderate, evolution supporting Christians out there lurking and someone like Carol makes such an EASILY countered point.... speak up!
Kate · 23 February 2006
Oh and also to Carol's answer to which is more important, God or the Bible... I'm really confused by her Christian theology. The holy trinity isn't the father, the son and the holy scripture afterall...
Alann · 23 February 2006
Glen Davidson · 23 February 2006
Kate, I need to mention to you that Carol espouses Judaism, not Christianity. That's why she appears intent on defending (or denying) laws that virtually no Jew follows, and whose wisdom has escaped the lawmakers of present-day Israel.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
BWE · 23 February 2006
Kate · 23 February 2006
Thanks Glen D!
But why does she keep citing the Bible, not the Torah as would be much more appropriate? Her words invite the misunderstanding I came to...
CJ O'Brien · 23 February 2006
Kate · 23 February 2006
For some reason my head is thinking that the 10th century is too late for the clergy to manage an insertion in a key gospel. I'd love to see the research material on it though. It'd be more believable to me if it had been done a fair bit earlier.
I'd also debate that a scribe inserted it. A monk/scribe is more possible, but by the tenth century there'd have been too many "bible"'s out there I think to slip something new into a Gospel...
I don't think it alters my thesis to any great degree since there are many other things in Leviticus that are (at least) obliquely mentioned in the NT, and the stance "killing is wrong" is pretty much a theme in the gospels that ends with the crucifiction as proof, so one more story about it being wrong isn't that big a deal. I'd be interested to know if killing adulterers was a big problem in the area the scribe was living...
David Heddle · 23 February 2006
Raging Bee · 23 February 2006
Matt Young wrote:
...you'll have a lot of trouble convincing me that putative religious experiences cannot be studied scientifically to see whether they could be hallucinations...
Many such experiences can indeed be scientifically studied; but the actual significance of these experiences in people's lives (the degree of their "religiousness" if you will) would be another matter. Scientists can study my hallucinations, but they'd have a harder time separating the "religious" from the "non-religious" hallucinations.
CJ O'Brien · 23 February 2006
Andy H. · 23 February 2006
David Heddle · 23 February 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 23 February 2006
JONBOY · 23 February 2006
Carol Cluoser said "I fully appreciate your reluctance to delve into Joneboy's post, based as it is on stupidity, ignorance and malice"
I've notice when Carol fails to produce any real substance to her arguments, she resorts to Ad Hominem attacks, which she seems to think strengthens her point.It does'nt.
She also said "Even if we take the verse "on the day that thou shall eat of it (the forbidden tree) thou shall die" literally, it is preposterous to accuse God of lying on the basis of the fact that Adam did live hundreds of years after he ate of the tree. God was projecting into the future, and was literally issuing a threat, which in the end He chose not to keep. At worst one can accuse God of changing His mind here. At best, He showed mercy and forgiveness and either postponed or rescinded the punishment based on Adam's pleas and arguments. If anything this is meant to serve as a model of behavior for humans to emulate". Carol, Show me verse and scripture to support any of your statements,if you are unable to,you are just offering a personal opinion,which is no more valid or worthy than mine, or anyone else.
Please explain to me, from the scriptures and not from your personal opinion, how a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God can change his mind.If he did, he would not be perfect,and there for, not God.
No amount of theological reasoning can make an inherently unjust idea seem right. Punishing billions of people for the acts of one is not only inherently unfair and unwarranted but also in opposition to other Biblical verses such as:
Deut. 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers (2Chron.25:54) :every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (2 Kings 14:6)
Ezek. 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bearthe iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Jer. 31:29-30 "In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."
Rom. 2:6 "Who will render to every man according to his deeds."
Each of these verses shows that every person should only be punished for those sins which he commits, not those of others. If you wished to contradict my position, show me the scriptures that support your claims. If Jesus died for my own sins ,he certainly wasted his time.
Original sin makes about as much sense as if I were sitting at home one evening and the police came to my door, and stated I was under arrest because my father in Europe just shot and killed someone. I responded by asking what that had to do with me and they said, "He's your father isn't he?"
Oh and let me ask you or David,a couple of questions. Which of you worship the one TRUE God? and, has the true Messiah arrived yet,a simple yes or no will do just fine.
AC · 23 February 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 23 February 2006
Rob Knop · 23 February 2006
Prove beyond all possible doubt that there is an "error", and see how I react.
Well, if you insist on reading the Bible as literal history....
* The Earth isn't flat (strongly implied by the first chapter of Genesis, and necessary if you are going to maintain the concept of absolute "day" and "night".)
* The moon (lesser light) isn't just out at night.
* Even within itself: what was created in what order? Plants, then animals, then man? Or man, then trees, then animals? Genesis 1 gives one order, Genesis 2 gives another. This very direct contradiction is what always has me scratching my head when people insist that the Bible should be read as a consistent history of anything rather than as a book of stories and mythology mixed with history.
...and that's just on the first page or two.
-Rob
TJ, Esq. · 23 February 2006
but, Rob, all of your cited conflicts simply vanish like magic if you use Carol *ahem* Landa's patented-super-true-absolutely-correct-regardless translation!
or haven't you been listening?
for shame!
but wait!
if you order the Landa Translation(TM) now, you'll get a free set of ginsu steak knives!
they chop, slice, dice, but unfortunately aren't incisive enough to cut through soft butter.
Raging Bee · 24 February 2006
Please explain to me, from the scriptures and not from your personal opinion...
Why should we, if our beliefs are shaped by our personal opinion and experiences as well as by this or that scripture? Our spirituality exists to enhance our lives, not to conform to your prejudice.
carol clouser · 24 February 2006
Jonboy,
It's really very simple, as my previous post explained. God issues a threat and appears not to carry it out in the end. Where is there a lie here?
You are absolutely right that a real God does not change its mind. Where such does appear in the Bible it is meant anthropomorphically. Big word, right? Think of it this way. God acts, for reasons best known to him but we are entitled to speculate, in a way that appears to us that he changed his mind.
In this case I would assume there is a lesson for us, as I described previously.
Your long series of citations regarding punishment for one's own sins is entirely unnecessary. The Bible neither states nor implies anywhere that you or anyone else will die because Adam violated the rules. Neither is Adam the first human, nor is he the first to die. None of these distortions are in the text. If you think otherwise, cite chapter and verse and I might respond (if you stop spouting anti-Bible venum based on ignorance).
BWE · 24 February 2006
Zarquon · 24 February 2006
I don't know why David Heddle is trying to present the views of the catholic Church on evolution. He is a heretic, and a heretic is guaranteed to mislead people on the Church's view.
Zarquon · 24 February 2006
I don't know why David Heddle is trying to present the views of the catholic Church on evolution. He is a heretic, and a heretic is guaranteed to mislead people on the Church's view.
Raging Bee · 24 February 2006
Why is anyone here talking about Cardinal Schonborn at all? His views on creationism directly contradict the statements of Pope JP-II, as well as respected Vatican scientists, and he flatly said that JP-II didn't really mean what he had said. He contradicted and brushed off the official Vatican line, and clearly represents no one in the Church but himself.
Rilke's Granddaughter · 24 February 2006
Leigh Jackson · 24 February 2006
JONBOY · 25 February 2006
Carol C, The rudeness of your diatribe is only matched by the inadequacies of your erudition. Your puerile propensity for pejoratives is something only the uncouth could envy. I feel sorry for anyone who is incapable of discussing even the most cherished beliefs without vituperation and vilification. One can totally disagree with someones philosophy and still be civil.(big words right)You said "Your long series of citations regarding punishment for one's own sins is entirely unnecessary. The Bible neither states nor implies anywhere that you or anyone else will die because Adam violated the rules.Then could please explain these biblical statements :1Cor. 15:22 "For as in Adam all die,:Rom. 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners":Rom. 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:",please show me the scriptures that refute those statements.
Carol Clouser · 25 February 2006
Jonboy,
I generally do not respond to posts like that last one of yours, but I will in this case to clarify an important point you seem to have missed. Whenever I use the term "the Bible" I am referring to the "Hebrew Bible", meaning the original version of what christians call the "old testament". I am at all not getting involved here with the quotations you introduced as they all are not from the Hebrew Bible.
Andy H. · 26 February 2006
k.e. · 26 February 2006
Lawrence Fafarman posting as Andy H.
says:
"All but over" ? Because of the decision of a single judge ?
hahahaha .....yeah Larry because the decision of a single judge imposing the law of the land.
You may think that you can deny those laws and you would be in good company.
right here on Pandas Thumb your little ruse was discussed long before you showed up.
Evolution Deniers and Holocaust Deniers in a locked step.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/12/evolution_denie.html
k.e. · 26 February 2006
Actually Lawrence Fafarman currenty posting under Andy H.
here is something interesting
do a search on Larry + Holocaust on the PT search box
are we in for another name change? B.F. the 2 Bill's John B etc. etc.
Arden Chatfield · 26 February 2006
Even if Larry changes his name again (he's due) I think we'll spot him immediately. His style is quite, um, distinctive.
To revisit an old question, does anyone here know why exactly Larry/Andy/BF etc. hasn't been banned for his sock puppetry?
William E Emba · 26 February 2006
JONBOY · 27 February 2006
Carol Clouser,For once I must say I absolutely agree with you !!!!!!!!
Now please explain to Davis Heddle,why he is wrong.
Carol Clouser · 27 February 2006
No, Jonboy, you respectfully ask David Heddle to respond to your questions above. After you hear what he has to say, you will be in a position to react intelligently.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 February 2006
Raging Bee · 1 March 2006
Even among Larry Farflungdung's diversions and non-sequiturs, this self-contradictory sentence stands out:
I think that the church is playing to both sides of the ID controversy --- that is why the anti-ID article was published in the official Vatican newspaper.
The official vatican Newspaper explicitly takes one side in the ID controversy, and that's "playing to both sides?" You sound stupider every day.
The CC's official position is so clear and simple even you should be able to understand it: that God guided, and still guides, the workings of the universe, including the evolution of life on Earth, but that such guidance is not discernable or provable by honest scientific inquiry; that evolution is real science, and can only be overthrown and replaced with real science; and that ID is not real science.
Rilke's Granddaughter · 1 March 2006
Rilke's Granddaughter · 1 March 2006
JONBOY · 1 March 2006
Carol Clousr,I promised my friend Raging Bee not to post any comments of a religious nature,so I will just make an observation.
You said "ask David Heddle to respond to your questions above. After you hear what he has to say, you will be in a position to react intelligently". I know emphatically that Heddles response would be diametrically opposed to yours,as a Xtian he has no other choice.
You do not share the same bible as Heddle,or the same God,or the same Messiah,yet you revere his opinions,and defend his positions to the hilt,many on PT would question your motives.
Raging Bee · 1 March 2006
Yo, JONBOY, I never meant to stop you from having fun with Carol and Heddle! FWIW, I absolve you from your promise, which I never asked for in the first place. (Besides, fair's fair -- I never promised you anythihg.) Party on, dude!
Andy H. · 2 March 2006
Rilke's Granddaughter · 2 March 2006
bobby · 8 April 2006
If this cite is saying God is fake you SUK BECAUSE I LOVE GOD SO MUCH AND I HATE YOU IF YOU ARE TALKING BAD ABOUT MY HOLY HEAVENLY GOD AND JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRT, I LOVE HIM SO MUCH AND YOUR R GOING TO HELL IF YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN.
bobby · 8 April 2006
If this cite is saying God is fake you SUK BECAUSE I LOVE GOD SO MUCH AND I HATE YOU IF YOU ARE TALKING BAD ABOUT MY HOLY HEAVENLY GOD AND JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRT, I LOVE HIM SO MUCH AND YOUR R GOING TO HELL IF YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN.
Sir_Toejam · 8 April 2006
well, i guess it being close to easter and all, it's appropriate to resurrect a thread like this?
er, happy easter, bobby?
Caty Tota · 14 June 2006
You guys are the 77308 best, thanks so much for the help.