Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 07:43 pm
Intrepid,

Don't even bother.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 08:05 pm
Steve Lefemine, an anti-abortion activist in Columbia, S.C., was
looking at a full-color satellite map of Hurricane Katrina when something in the swirls jumped out at him: the image of an 8-week-old fetus.

"In my belief, God judged New Orleans for the sin of shedding innocent
blood through abortion," said Lefemine, who e-mailed the flesh-toned
weather map to fellow activists across the country and put a stark
message on the answering machine of his organization, Columbia Christians for Life.

"Providence punishes national sins by national calamities," it said.
"Greater divine judgment is coming upon America unless we repent of the national sin of abortion."

Lefemine is far from the only person to see the wrath of God in the
awesome damage that Katrina has wreaked on the Gulf Coast. As with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and last year's South Asian tsunami, the hurricane has spawned many competing explanations and apocalyptic visions from across the religious and ideological spectrum.

"It is almost certain that this is a wind of torment and evil that Allah
has sent to this American empire," a Kuwaiti official, Muhammad Yousef
Mlaifi, wrote Wednesday in the Arabic daily Al-Siyassa under the
headline "The Terrorist Katrina is One of the Soldiers of Allah . . ."

In Israel, Christian journalist Stan Goodenough was struck by the
juxtaposition in recent days of Jewish settlers being removed from
their homes in the Gaza Strip and Americans being forced out of their homes in New Orleans.

"Is this some sort of bizarre coincidence? Not for those who believe in
the God of the Bible . . .," he wrote in a column for the Web site
Jerusalem Newswire. "What America is about to experience is the lifting of God's hand of protection; the implementation of His judgment on the nation most responsible for endangering the land and people of Israel."

In Philadelphia, Michael Marcavage saw no coincidence, either, in the
hurricane's arrival just as gay men and lesbians from across the country
were set to participate in a New Orleans street festival called "Southern
Decadence."

"We take no joy in the death of innocent people," said Marcavage, who
was an intern in the Clinton White House in 1999 and now runs Repent
America, an evangelistic organization calling for "a nation in rebellion toward God" to reclaim its senses.

"But we believe that God is in control of the weather," he said in a
telephone interview. "The day Bourbon Street and the French Quarter was flooded was the day that 125,000 homosexuals were going to be
celebrating sin in the streets. . . . We're calling it an act of God."

The Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson, who were roundly
criticized for suggesting that the Sept. 11 attacks were divine retribution for abortion, homosexuality, feminism and the proliferation of liberal groups, have been silent on the meaning of the hurricane. Most of the
major Christian political advocacy groups also have been cautious.

"It's a very risky business ascribing divine intent to natural disasters.
Nobody but God really knows why these things occur," said Robert
Knight, director of Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute.

But there has been enough speculation that Focus on the Family,
psychologist James Dobson's Colorado-based Christian ministry, has been promoting media appearances by its director of "teen apologetics," the Rev. Alex McFarland.

McFarland said in a telephone interview that theologians had debated
for centuries how a good, wise and all-powerful God could allow so much
evil and suffering.

"When someone asks 'Why do innocent people suffer?' I will gently
remind them that we are not really innocent," he said. "God did create a
perfect world. But we humans introduced moral evil, sin, rebellion and
disobedience. And after God judged human sin in Noah's flood, the
weather patterns that we know today developed."

Rather than blaming the hurricane on any particular sin or sinners,
however, McFarland wanted to impart a positive message.

"As a Christian, I would say that God didn't cause this but God did
allow it, and we believe that God will bring a greater good out of this," he
said. "For God's love, power and wisdom to remain uncompromised, he
will have to bring more good than pain from it, ultimately."

Ted Steinberg, a professor of history at Case Western Reserve
University in Cleveland, argues in his 2000 book, "Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural Disaster in America," that Americans have often seen divine will in earthquakes, floods and droughts whose consequences have been worsened by improper planning.

In his opinion "as an atheist," he said, Katrina "was an unnatural
disaster if ever there was one." By building levees along the Mississippi and draining marshland, he said, the Army Corps of Engineers and local
officials hastened the sinking of New Orleans below sea level and
destroyed the barrier islands that protected the Gulf Coast.

"Blaming God," he said, "is moral hand-washing."

That view was echoed this week by environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth, which said the Bush administration bore some responsibility because it had "worked tirelessly to derail international agreement on climate change and sought to put narrow U.S. economic interests above global climatic stability."

McFarland of Focus on the Family said "it's sad that people would take
the opportunity to spin this into some kind of political sound bite" and
blame the government.

"Are we taking the opportunity to make this into a religious sound
bite? I suppose so," he said. "But that is only at the prompting of people's questions. Human suffering, and the longing for answers, and the desire to process this spiritually and emotionally -- that's a defensible
reality.

Whereas George W. Bush creating global warming, and consequently
Katrina, is speculative at best."

-- Alan Cooperman, writing in The Washington Post, 4 September 2005;
page A27
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301408.html
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 08:14 pm
Again, you make it seem that all Christians are alike. You call us close minded? You won't budge one iota from how you feel about God no matter what we tell you or how we act toward you.

You can learn something from everyone, sometimes it is just how not to act.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 08:38 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Brandon9000 Wrote:

Quote:
We do not ridicule the belief merely because it is different from ours. We...let's say have a negative opinion of the belief, because it is a belief in the supernatural arrived at by non-scientific, non-logical means. I assure you we would not ridicule an alternative scientific theory.


So, because we believe in something greater than man, you ridicule us? Well, since we believe God is superior to man (science), wouldn't it make sense for us to ridicule you since you feel man (science) is superior to God (at least some believe that, don't know about you personally)? Yet, we do not. I don't think you would like it much either. No one likes to be ridiculed for any reason.

We do not believe that information about the structure of the universe can ever be obtained reliably by other than the scientific method, and certainly not by examination of ancient texts.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 08:40 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Intrepid wrote:

At least some of us Creationists are open to parts of evolution. You, on the other hand, just laugh and point fingers at those who have a different opinion than you do.

We do not ridicule the belief merely because it is different from ours. We...let's say have a negative opinion of the belief, because it is a belief in the supernatural arrived at by non-scientific, non-logical means. I assure you we would not ridicule an alternative scientific theory.


Why ridicule at all? Just because some people have a belief system that is different than yours does not give you licence to ridicule them for it. You must have a ball with other cultures, religions and those who have never heard of science.

I didn't really mean that I ridicule it, but we do think it's arrived at by a foolish methodology that doesn't produce correct results. We believe in the scientific method, and, indeed, all history tells us that this is the preferred method for determining matters of fact.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 08:40 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Brandon9000 Wrote:

Quote:
We do not ridicule the belief merely because it is different from ours. We...let's say have a negative opinion of the belief, because it is a belief in the supernatural arrived at by non-scientific, non-logical means. I assure you we would not ridicule an alternative scientific theory.


So, because we believe in something greater than man, you ridicule us? Well, since we believe God is superior to man (science), wouldn't it make sense for us to ridicule you since you feel man (science) is superior to God (at least some believe that, don't know about you personally)? Yet, we do not. I don't think you would like it much either. No one likes to be ridiculed for any reason.

We do not believe that information about the structure of the universe can ever be obtained reliably by other than the scientific method, and certainly not by examination of ancient texts.

But that does not give you the right to ridicule. No one has that right. Not us, not you, no one.

LOL. Ok, now it's gone from ridiculous to foolish. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 08:42 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Brandon9000 Wrote:

Quote:
We do not ridicule the belief merely because it is different from ours. We...let's say have a negative opinion of the belief, because it is a belief in the supernatural arrived at by non-scientific, non-logical means. I assure you we would not ridicule an alternative scientific theory.


So, because we believe in something greater than man, you ridicule us? Well, since we believe God is superior to man (science), wouldn't it make sense for us to ridicule you since you feel man (science) is superior to God (at least some believe that, don't know about you personally)? Yet, we do not. I don't think you would like it much either. No one likes to be ridiculed for any reason.

We do not believe that information about the structure of the universe can ever be obtained reliably by other than the scientific method, and certainly not by examination of ancient texts.

But that does not give you the right to ridicule. No one has that right. Not us, not you, no one.

I didn't say it did. But I do believe that the methods you attempt to use to understand the nature of the universe are ludicrously unworkable.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 08:44 pm
LMBO! You just can't help yourself can you? Now, it's ludicrous, You can't say the same thing without using these words?

You could have just said you believed they were unworkable and that would have been clear, concise, and courteous.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 08:57 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
LMBO! You just can't help yourself can you? Now, it's ludicrous, You can't say the same thing without using these words?

You could have just said you believed they were unworkable and that would have been clear, concise, and courteous.
MA, the whole thread has become ludicrous.
cicerone imposter wrote:
But that "examination of evidence" is very subjective to the individual when defining "faith."
Subjective, meaning circumstantial? Not a deal breaker.
cicerone imposter wrote:
This world's been praising the bible god for two thousand years, and what has it accomplished?

More death and mayhem.
Is that the fault of God or the priesthood?

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Yep fossils being found contemporaneous with their supposed ancestors would be a problem for evolution, alright. I'm curious, rather than tossing it out why is something other than evolution not considered?


Do you have another *scientific* theory, other than evolution, to suggest that we consider?

Are you asking us to consider theories outside of science?
Methinks there is a certain moral convenience that comes along with an over reliance on the *scientific*. When the conclusions are disparate, we do well to consider the premises.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
"Nobody is trying to force anything on you or make you think differently than you do. Opinions are given and can be accepted or rejected."

Except that if you dont believe, you are destined for eternal damnation. And thats not a threat, it really is a promise.
It's not a matter of belief. Satan believes.
cicerone imposter wrote:
Did you know the fear of the LORD is His treasure? (Isa 33:6)
Have you ever been to court to contest a traffic ticket? Did you not have a wholesome fear of the judge because of his or her authority? Whassamatter with that?
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Only can only wonder what you are trying to achieve by posting small portions of verses without comment. Do you really expect to be taken seriously?
Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

DONT like quote mining when its turned on you. Calm Down its only a discussion. Problem with the Bible is that its meant to be quote mined. There usually is quite a bit of "stand alone" verse whcih has given the Fundamentalists a lot of mileage on their own. How the Pentateuch has been revised over time to pave way for a Valid New Testament has always amazed me.
'Splain yerself.
cicerone imposter wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
farmerman, If we think about it, it's really sad how creationists continue to refute evolution based on their fears. The recent finds of insects and animals in the caves of Tennessee is an excellent example of evolution. Since they live in a pitch-dark environment, they have learned to survive without eyes, and their other senses have become more accute - not only to survive from preditors, but also to find food. The only difference between their surface cousins and the darkness survivors are all necessitated for survival. Amazing stuff.

Intrepid wrote:
Why is it sad, CI? What fears?

Fears as mentioned in the bible. What'sa matta, you no like-a the bible quotes? LOL

If you're gonna ask a question, I'm a gonna try to answer. You no like-a that?
You only partially answered: fear of what?
cicerone imposter wrote:
Steve Lefemine, an anti-abortion activist in Columbia, S.C., was
looking at a full-color satellite map of Hurricane Katrina when something in the swirls jumped out at him: the image of an 8-week-old fetus.

"In my belief, God judged New Orleans . . . etc. blah and blah.
Mr . LeFemme, or whatever his name is, is not posting on a2k. If he were, he would get the trashing he deserves. Stop using strawmen. Give us some of your own thoughts.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 09:04 pm
"....fear of what?"

You evidently didn't read the verses I took from the bible. Go back and read them; they are self-explanatory.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 09:05 pm
If simple English is difficult for you, I'm afraid I can't be of any help. I'm sure if you find a ten year old in your neigboirhood, he/she would be able to explain those verses for you.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 09:11 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
If simple English is difficult for you, I'm afraid I can't be of any help. I'm sure if you find a ten year old in your neigboirhood, he/she would be able to explain those verses for you.


He probably could. YOU obviously can't.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 09:14 pm
I never claimed to understand the bible like you christians. I'm just quoting verses from it, because I've heard "it's the word of god." Is that right or wrong?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 09:18 pm
I've also noticed through long-term observation that it takes a certain kind of reading ability to understand the bible. It seems christians are able to define words differently than what most dictionaries say. I'll admit it's a bit too confusing for a simpleton like me to understand the bible. I usually refer to a dictionary for words I don't understand clearly, but you christians have different definitions than what I see in any dictionary. It is confusing.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 09:18 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I never claimed to understand the bible like you christians. I'm just quoting verses from it, because I've heard "it's the word of god." Is that right or wrong?

Oh, aren't you just the cutest little thing?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 09:21 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
If simple English is difficult for you, I'm afraid I can't be of any help. I'm sure if you find a ten year old in your neigboirhood, he/she would be able to explain those verses for you.
Most ten year olds I know can spell neighborhood. And most ten year olds would have read the part of my post where I gave you this explanation:
I wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Did you know the fear of the LORD is His treasure? (Isa 33:6)
Have you ever been to court to contest a traffic ticket? Did you not have a wholesome fear of the judge because of his or her authority? Whassamatter with that?
You equate the word fear with something unwholesome and crow about your superior intellect. Tell me: Do you allow your grandchildren to ride in the car without a car seat or seat belt? If you are not afraid of injuring your loved ones, are you not afraid to get a ticket?


Sheesh!
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 09:24 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I've also noticed through long-term observation that it takes a certain kind of reading ability to understand the bible. It seems christians are able to define words differently than what most dictionaries say. I'll admit it's a bit too confusing for a simpleton like me to understand the bible. I usually refer to a dictionary for words I don't understand clearly, but you christians have different definitions than what I see in any dictionary. It is confusing.
Joe Sixpack has always been the quintessential common man. Are you trying to take his place? How are you at barbecue? Laughing
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 09:25 pm
farmerman wrote:
real life said
Quote:
Do you think that scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton were 'unscientific' in their belief that God created the world?

Isaac Newton had no opinions based upon data or evidence, whereas leonardo did.
Youve dismissed my answer to you re contemporaneity between fossils negating ancestry. Our model based only upon evidence supports the rise of "cousins" from a common ancestor. There are no problems out there that have not been solved within an evolution model. I daresay that Creationism cant state that.

Some problems for you that are insurmountable(IMO)
1How did all those species, unique to only one tiny spot on the globe get where they are?

2How did species become extinct in exact sequences that refute Creation?

3How does the "reoccurence"of similar morphological features over long periods of time fit the Creationist model

4 How do all the intermediate fossil phyla and classes that have morph features similar to both those classes occur in a Creation mold

5Howdoes biostratigraphy fit a Creationist model?

6How does a coincident environmental feature occur at just the right time as a new series of morphological changes in organisms is introduced. (plants and animals)

I could go on and on, but Ive gotta fix the weedwhacker.


Hope the weed whacker is doing the job it accidentally came to be suited for.

To your questions: These are somewhat interesting. Let's look at them one at a time or else each post in reply is gonna get longer and drawn out over many subjects.

You asked:

Quote:
Some problems for you that are insurmountable(IMO)
1How did all those species, unique to only one tiny spot on the globe get where they are?


This is an interesting question since both evolutionists and creationists may have to answer the same question.

I really don't see how this is insurmountable for creation but not for evolution. If all species, according to evolution, can be traced back in time to a single ancestor, then how did all those species travel from one spot on the globe to where they are today?

Isn't this simply a logistical problem that faces the creationist and evolutionist alike?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 09:25 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I've also noticed through long-term observation that it takes a certain kind of reading ability to understand the bible. It seems christians are able to define words differently than what most dictionaries say. I'll admit it's a bit too confusing for a simpleton like me to understand the bible. I usually refer to a dictionary for words I don't understand clearly, but you christians have different definitions than what I see in any dictionary. It is confusing.


I can understand your confusion and the dilemma this puts you in.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Oct, 2005 09:28 pm
neo, I have never in my life claimed I have a superior intellect. As a matter of fact, if you've read most of my posts about me, my most common claim is "I was the black sheep of our family." "All my siblings did well in school, while I barely graduated high school." If that's bragging about my "superior intellect," you're mistaking me for somebody else. LOL BTW, even Joe Sixpack knows better.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 199
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 06/20/2025 at 10:13:11