When has religion irked you personally and why?

husker wrote:

Quote:
maliagar

Quote:
You don't fix the Hubble telescope with a hammer... you don't cure leukemia with an aspirin, you don't examine theological and philosophical issues with slang or street language.

Sure you can just do it in another language than english :wink:

Is that your picture?

:wink:

0 Replies

truth
Maliagar, I agree with your last point, regarding the charge of elitism.

0 Replies

Well, I won't pursue the point any further, but the creation maliagar speaks of and creationism are one and the same. We are just being subjected to double talk here.

0 Replies

That's been his only consistent belief; double talk/speak. c.i.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Well, I won't pursue the point any further...

As I recall, you haven't pursued any points... just one- or two-liner bits of your "wisdom"... :wink:

Quote:

...but the creation maliagar speaks of and creationism are one and the same. We are just being subjected to double talk here.

Another possibility would be that you don't have the linguistic sophistication to deal with these issues properly... therefore everything is the same to you, and every dictionary of philosophy and theology that makes the proper distinctions will be suspect of "double talk" (to you and others in the same frequency).

Go ahead and keep using your basic American Heritage vocabulary for your medical, mechanical, financial, technical, philosophical and theological needs (somebody called it "the dumbing down" of society...)

Ah... the paradoxes of hyperdemocracy...

:wink:

0 Replies

Here's another proof of maliagar's double speak. His idea of "scientific creationism" has it's flaws. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/sci_cre.html
c.i.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Here's another proof of maliagar's double speak. His idea of "scientific creationism" has it's flaws. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/sci_cre.html
c.i.

"My" idea of scientific creationism??? Laughing

You need a tune up, man! :wink:

0 Replies

I would have let it drop, but maliagar is so arrogant that it's hard to walk away. He thinks he spouts wisdom by making long and longest posts, but he merely compounds the foolishness, then tries to be condescending when called on it. I don't need to write a book when he has failed to address my simple observations. What for? So he could arrogantly toss it away without addressing anything? He has yet to show a difference between Creation and Creationism, except to point out that one bears an ism while the other arbitrarily doesn't.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

maliagar is so arrogant that it's hard to walk away.

Others have had the same experience, but I doubt it's my "arrogance" (although I never denied that I'm a sinner :wink: ).

Anyway, I will give you the benefit of the doubt just one last time, Edgar. And I hope this time you get it (at least, try to). For it is always possible that you're learning something here, right?, and that there are some distictions that you were not aware of, right?, and that you have certain prejudices about certain groups of Christians, right?

So let's forget all the nice adjectives you address to this humble on-line educator, and go straight to it:

Quote:

He has yet to show a difference between Creation and Creationism, except to point out that one bears an ism while the other arbitrarily doesn't.

That's the point. You claim that it is an arbitrary distinction, without discussing the evidence that's been provided. Here it goes again, but slowly:

1. Creation: The belief that God brought to being the whole of reality (time, space, matter, energy, life, etc.) out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). THIS IMPLIES NOTHING ABOUT THE WAY CREATION ACTUALLY (I.E., EMPIRICALLY) HAPPENED (SEVEN DAYS, BILLIONS OF YEARS). The Church does not meddle with that, and science is free to study the empirical evidence (which is by definition located in time and space) in whatever way it sees fit.

2. Creationism: A philosophical, theological, and scientific outlook that seeks to provide empirical evidence of the origin of the universe that is compatible with a literalist reading of the first 2 or 3 chapters of Genesis (it did happen in 7 days...). In other words, it is an effort to reconcile Genesis with science by redoing science.

Creationism has been influential ONLY in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in other English-speaking nations. It is a phenomenon only among fundamentalist evangelicals. It is not an issue for historical, mainstream Protestantism, the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox churches. Furthermore, it is NOT an issue in other sections of the Christian world (continental Europe, Latin America).

Those who think that creationism is essential to Christianity have not been exposed to mainstream, historical Christianity... just to 19th century, U.S.-centered evangelicalist movements.

Is it clear now?

:wink:

0 Replies

maliagar,

I have lived in Latin America (not the same country as yours) and that is not supported by my experiences.

Creationist have been known to stray from literalism. Famously in the case of saying the 7 days were representative of a larger time-frame.

In any case it's a logomachy. When someone (I don't remember who) called you creationist they weren't trying to say you think the Bible is literally true so much as simply saying you believe in creation.

You reacted as if it were an insult but at the same time confirm that you still believe in a form of creation you 'believer-in-creation' you. :wink:

0 Replies

One says accept it on faith; the other tries to find evidence to support it. But, THEY BOTH BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS. Either way, your theories float on air instead of resting on a foundation.

0 Replies

It's sorta like looking for WMD's in Iraq.

0 Replies

Creation in the religious sense doesn't make any sense, because it is based stricktly on faith, and not on imperical evidence. Based on that kind of "creationism," any philosophical, theological, or scientific search is an oxymoron. c.i.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I have lived in Latin America (not the same country as yours) and that is not supported by my experiences.

I wonder about your anecdotal experiences...

In any case, I repeat for it is true: Creationism is not an issue in Latin America or Europe, among mainstream Protestants, Catholic, and Orthodox. Are you really prepared to deny this? Or you just want to say that you lived in Latin America?

Now, if late-19th-century U.S. sects flood Latin America or Europe (JWs, Mormons, Adventists, and the rest of it) they will bring with them their folk, heartland type of U.S. "Christianity". But that's not historic, mainstream, Christianity.

Quote:

When someone (I don't remember who) called you creationist they weren't trying to say you think the Bible is literally true so much as simply saying you believe in creation. ...confirm that you still believe in a form of creation you 'believer-in-creation' you.

And that's supposed to be a discovery? Laughing

In case anybody doesn't know: Guys, I confess: I'm a Christian.

And in case anybody doesn't know, Christians believe in creation.

Now, a few certainly didn't know this: Creationism is not just believing in creation. It is a much more specific thing:

It is the fundamentalist response to evolutionism (a 19th century U.S. discussion that continues to this day in certain sections of the Anglo-American scene). And it involves shaping science in the image of Genesis 1, 2, and 3.

No mainstream Christian church or group accepts this.

[I should really charge for these classes]

:wink:

0 Replies

Hey, Edgar:

A gentleman admits it when he learns something new...

You're free to agree or disagree with whatever you feel like agreeing or disagreeing.

But now you'll understand just a bit better when you listen to other people talk about this.

Do I hear a "Thank you"?

:wink:

edgarblythe wrote:

One says accept it on faith; the other tries to find evidence to support it. But, THEY BOTH BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS. Either way, your theories float on air instead of resting on a foundation.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Based on that kind of "creationism," any philosophical, theological, or scientific search is an oxymoron. c.i.

Amen, Cicerone. Rolling Eyes

You should publish a book...

...packed with all your theories. It would be a thick volume.

You could also include a half-page appendix, with your evidence (a signature).

:wink:

0 Replies

arrogance of self-rightousness denigrates ones message.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

arrogance of self-rightousness denigrates ones message.

Are we lacking a sense of humor or what?

(and what about self-examination, in light of your previous postings?)

Man, life's short, and a bit of innocent fun is always a good motivation...

:wink:

0 Replies

its your message and if you aren't concern about people taking it seriously then you are welcome to your "humor" but it most often results in pissing in the wind. [I should really charge for these classes]

0 Replies

I don't know if anyone here is saying that creation and creationism is the same thing. But, most of us (I certainly do) see very little difference between the 2. Even given your explaination. It seems to me that you are splitting hairs. And that may be a very important point to you, but to me, it seem very trivial.

0 Replies

When has religion irked you personally and why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know