cbs poll on evolution vs. creationism

[Commissar]

 

BWAhahahahahahaha

 

 

~~~

 

Ahem.

 

Way back, you said I would have a hard time claiming things like the crusades and the Inquisition were not religious. But even the most cursory reading of the crusades reveals the preoccupation of the commanders and men with booty. The Inquisition seems a little more religious, judging by the rail transcripts I've read. But at the same time it was clearly used as a means of imposing conformity in all areas of life, not just preventing the worship of devils. And it was this feature of enforcing conformity that made it so useful to the Powers at the time, and allowed it free reign.

 

~~~

 

Points to everyone using actual quotes. So far as I can see all we are proving is that verses from both peacefu and warlike views exist in all the major holy texts. The politicals can thereby use the books either way. But it is politics that is to blame. The desire in humans to weild influence and achieve status. I look at Iain Paisley, or Muqtada Sadr and although they are from utterly different cultural and religious backgrounds I see the same 'faith' - in themselves. It is this arrogance which to blame, not the faith which they wrap themselves in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wasn't suggesting that other motives couldn't coexist with the religious ones with regard to the Crusades; the later Crusades especially were mostly just attempts to grab whatever you could and hold onto it. But even they, and the first couple especially, very much were composed of those inspired by religion to do as the pope was asking.

 

As far as the Inquisition goes...I first need to know if we're talking Inquisition or inquisitions. When I took a class on this subject (I got my theology minor unwittingly, by the way; took enough history classes that were cross-listed with theology to qualify), I went in with assumption that I would discover that the established Inquisition was all just a big, 1984-like system of social enforcement. To some extent I'll agree that it was, but not nearly the way I had thought of it. Actual Inquisitors themselves were extremely religious, and unless they were simply lying for posterity's sake, I have a hard time believing that the vast majority, if not all of them, saw themselves as doing God's will, as opposed to ruthlessly enforcing the Church's supremacy over all aspects of social life. I know this argument would carry a lot more weight if I could cite some stuff to back up it up, and if you truly want me to, I could probably find a couple of my old readers - never sold those textbooks for some reason.

 

Inquisitions, on the other hand, (and I'm talking lower-case i here) were most certainly religious. This was before the Church actually established the Holy Office of the Inquisition (or whatever it's name was), and were mostly independent investigations into heresy by local bishops - though the trials and punishments themselves were almost exclusively carried out in civil courts. I say 'most certainly religious' because that's how I view the Church's conflicts with groups like the Waldensians and the Cathars...there were substantial theological differences between such heretical groups and the Church. As long as they weren't publically challenging Church theology, they could pretty much do whatever they wanted.

[Dark Moth]

You can believe whatever you want to believe about me and my faith, metaflamer. Even right now, you're being insulting and taking shots at the faith. Even now, you still misintepret almost everything I'm saying. You are the one being the hypocrite. You are truly ignorant. That is all I'll say, since we're obviously not going to convince each other of anything. Until you are ready to actually act like a respectful person (and stop contradicting yourself), you are nothing more than a condescending, boorish Nazi with the charisma of a weasel*, an ego the size of Russia, and who basically acts like he's the supreme arbiter of right and wrong. Once again, I extend my sympathies to any Christian who has the misfortune of meeting you in real life. :D Though I do apologize if you aren't an atheist.

 

*Actually, I take it back. It isn't fair to the rest of the weasels.

 

Gracias. Hasta luego.

Edited November 6, 2005 by Mothman

[Commissar]

Alright, kids, let's play nice and not invoke Nazis. Use your inside voices.

[Colrom]

In the case of the Cathars the Church under Innocent III and following Popes was determined to exterminate the Cathars by Crusades and Inquisition whether they spoke up or not.

 

In fact the Cathars were well in hiding following on the Crusades which killed most of them when an Inquisition was launched to wipe them out completely.

 

By the way, the techniques of later Inquisitions were perfected by the chief inquisitor against the Cathars who eventually became Benedict VII (I think).

 

Eventually the Inquisition againt the Cathars brought about the betrayal of the last "Perfect" (a Cathar of highest pioty and regard) and killed him.

 

It was not enough to be silent, Commissar.

[Commissar]

In the case of the Cathars the Church under Innocent III and following Popes was determined to exterminate the Cathars by Crusades and Inquisition whether they spoke up or not.

 

In fact the Cathars were well in hiding following on the Crusades which killed most of them when an Inquisition was launched to wipe them out completely.

 

By the way, the techniques of later Inquisitions were perfected by the chief inquisitor against the Cathars who eventually became Benedict VII (I think).

 

Eventually the Inquisition againt the Cathars brought about the betrayal of the last "Perfect" (a Cathar of highest pioty and regard) and killed him.

 

It was not enough to be silent, Commissar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They had a long, long history. They originated somewhere around 950AD, and the Church didn't really start to take a true interest in them until the middle of the 12th century. That's two hundred years. Until then, they were not persecuted, but rather...well, I don't want to say 'reasoned with,' but they were in fact allowed to debate their theology with the Church.

[Walsingham]

Ditto to Commissar. It's fun to roughhouse, but someone always ends up crying. In any event, personal insults are unhelpful. I believe someone said it better than me when they said attack the ideas not the person.

 

~~

 

Commissar, you make an interesting point. And without knowing much Inquisitorial history beyond having read the Malleus Maleficarum and played Lionheart I concur. I am willing to bet many Inquisitors pictured themselves as doing god's work. Not defending the status quo. But it can hardly be a coincidence that their investigations rarely went against the heirarchy, even though such persons were far more able to indulge in vices than the peasants. I also think egotism and arrogance may have played their part more than you give credit to.

 

~~~

 

I should also like to announce my conversion to the cult of the miniature giant space hamster. There will be a BG3, and Boo will rise again!

[Commissar]

Ditto to Commissar. It's fun to roughhouse, but someone always ends up crying. In any event, personal insults are unhelpful. I believe someone said it better than me when they said attack the ideas not the person.

 

~~

 

Commissar, you make an interesting point. And without knowing much Inquisitorial history beyond having read the Malleus Maleficarum and played Lionheart I concur. I am willing to bet many Inquisitors pictured themselves as doing god's work. Not defending the status quo. But it can hardly be a coincidence that their investigations rarely went against the heirarchy, even though such persons were far more able to indulge in vices than the peasants. I also think egotism and arrogance may have played their part more than you give credit to.

 

~~~

 

I should also like to announce my conversion to the cult of the miniature giant space hamster. There will be a BG3, and Boo will rise again!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you read that willingly? I had to go through the whole damn thing in a week and wanted to shoot myself afterwards.

 

And, to be quite honest, the aristocracy was very often the target of inquisitions and the Inquisition - I forget his name at the moment, which is really rather bad, since I wrote a paper on him, but the Bishop of...geez, I want to say Toledo (in Spain, obviously, not Ohio) was tried by the Inquisition for around ten years before finally being let off the hook. Largest diocese in Spain at the time, if I recall correctly. Of course, that was mostly just a power struggle - not only between his rival, the Secretary General of the Inquisition, but also between the Spanish monarchy and the Pope.

 

I'm obviously something of an atheist, and not terribly enamoured with Christianity in general, so believe me, I went into my study of this subject thinking that, through all the smoke and mirrors, I'd find that it really was just some sort of fascist control system. I have to admit I didn't find much to support that. As with anything, politics of course played its part, but overall I really am forced to conclude that the inquisitors and the Inquisitors really were working for the service of their religion, which, if you grant that premise, more or less proves my initial point. Funny how I worked that in there, yeah?

[Walsingham]

Yup. Read willingly. I have a relative who is actually professionally a witch. So I thought I had best be prepared if she tried anything. :D

 

Getting back to teh topic. Does it really mean a great deal if the US does begin to believe in creationsim wholesale. I think it does, but want to hear youse fellers.

[Commissar]

Yup. Read willingly. I have a relative who is actually professionally a witch. So I thought I had best be prepared if she tried anything.  :D

 

Getting back to teh topic. Does it really mean a great deal if the US does begin to believe in creationsim wholesale. I think it does, but want to hear youse fellers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it does. As the Catholic church recently put it, that's a step closer to fundamentalism. And, like it or not, nobody respects a highly religious country - especially a country in which religious elements are seen to play a large role in the government. Putting creationism in public schools is essentially sponsoring it, because there's no way in hell any reasonable person could suggest it's actual science.

 

We're already going to be trailing in biotechnology if the federal government continues to balk at funding stem cell research, which means that if - and I do mean if - important advances come from such lines of scientific advancement (such as, I don't know, a cure for cancer, or even something more 'mundane' like Alzheimer's), we're going to be well behind the curve and buying our juice from somebody else. I have no problem with people who read the Bible literally, but it does clearly state that faith alone can cure a person of their ailments - that'd be a fun national healthcare policy, huh?

 

It's a bad road to go down, and I really wish someone would explain why it seems to be happening.

[Colrom]

Correction. The inquisitor who became Pope was Benedict XII.

[Blank]

Permitted to violence in the Bible?!?!!!?!??!??! SURE THATS RIGHT IF YOU TOTALLY TWIST IT AND MAKE UP NEW THINGS AND SAY THAT THE BIBLE SAYS YOU CAN BE VIOLENT!!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Judges 16:27-30 - "Now the house was full of men and women ... about three thousand men and women.... And Samson called unto the Lord, and said ... strengthen me ... that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines.... And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood..... And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life. "

 

Lev. 24:16 - "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

 

Lev. 21:9 - "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."

 

Dt. 13:6 - "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."

 

2 Chr. 15:13 - "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

 

Ps. 58:10 - "The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. "

 

Sounds pretty violent to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, well then i guess you are a member of the one of the twelve tribes of Israel and you have gone back in time to when those rules were enacted in the tribes.

 

Sure these passages are violent. But the Bible doesn't permit US to violence.

 

God ordered them to do such drastic things (i.e. put to death those not seeking the Lord) because He wanted His people to remain pure and undefiled from the rest of the world. If God said to His chosen people,"Put to death those who don't follow me, but ya'know, you don't really have to do that. And i won't do much other than scold you for it." Hmmm, doesn't sound like an effective command to me.

 

Did I mention that God hates sin?

(-Isaiah 13:9- See, the day of the LORD is coming

[Darque]

No one likes Sin

 

Sin did destroy the world, and even Zanarkand on a regular basis

 

.............I must be really really tired to remember all this obscure video game storyline junk

[Gabrielle]

I'm drawing a blank here.

[Darque]

I wish I were

[Blank]

I'm drawing a blank here. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you seen me? or are you just guessing what i look like and drawing that...

 

hmm, i am bad at jokes... sorry. i'd better shut up for now.

[Dark Moth]

A lot of people cite the differences between OT and NT. One of the tenants of Christianity was that Jesus was the ultimate blood offering: that he doomed himself to bring the sin of the world on himself and suffer the worst of deaths. Think of it as a hero's sacrifice. The theory here is that God was loving, but he was also just. He loved his creation, but he had to punish them if they did wrong. Since someone had to be punished, his Son stepped in and took the punishment for humanity. In doing that, God could be both loving and just. Which is one reason why you here a lot about death and punishment in the OT, but not the NT.

Edited November 6, 2005 by Mothman

[Commissar]

A lot of people cite the differences between OT and NT.  One of the tenants of Christianity was that Jesus was the ultimate blood offering: that he doomed himself to bring the sin of the world on himself and suffer the worst of deaths.  Think of it as a hero's sacrifice.  The theory here is that God was loving, but he was also just.  He loved his creation, but he had to punish them if they did wrong.  Since someone had to be punished, his Son stepped in and took the punishment for humanity.  In doing that, God could be both loving and just.  Which is one reason why you here a lot about death and punishment in the OT, but not the NT.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seems odd to me that he waited so long.

[WITHTEETH]

But Jesus is God. Thus Jesus sacficed himself to himself for the people that he created imperfect, that will inevitally be imperfect. Got Logic?

 

Trinity (theology), in Christian theology, doctrine that God exists as three persons

[Whitemithrandir]

"I came from black goo"

Simply sounds less impressive

Than "I came from God".

[WITHTEETH]

"I came from black goo"

Simply sounds less impressive

Than "I came from God".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, beauty is more attractive then what i consider the truth many a times. I choose beauty over truth much of the time.

 

Love might just be a drug called serotonin, do i want to think of that next time im falling in it? No, I like to just feel the raw emotions. Its a great feeling, great drug. Gotta love it!

Edited November 6, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[taks]

damn, still no intelligent falling proponents. oh well.

 

taks

[LoneWolf16]

another poll:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-...nterpiece_x.htm

 

this was very interesting, but hardly a surprise:

 

God created human beings in their present form exactly as described in the Bible

 

By income level

$75K and up: 37%

$50K-$74.9K: 51%

$30K-$49.9K: 56%

Under 20K: 70%

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The point of being a Christian is definitely not to make a lot of money. So yes, it is hardly a surprise that people who have a Christian (but not limited to Christian) belief about God (such as: God created human beings in their present form exactly as described in the Bible) would have lower incomes...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Higher income, for the most part, indicates a higher level of education. :ph34r:

 

A lot of people cite the differences between OT and NT.  One of the tenants of Christianity was that Jesus was the ultimate blood offering: that he doomed himself to bring the sin of the world on himself and suffer the worst of deaths.  Think of it as a hero's sacrifice.  The theory here is that God was loving, but he was also just.  He loved his creation, but he had to punish them if they did wrong.  Since someone had to be punished, his Son stepped in and took the punishment for humanity.  In doing that, God could be both loving and just.  Which is one reason why you here a lot about death and punishment in the OT, but not the NT.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe it was stated earlier, I don't remember who by, that Peter was crucified upside down. If true, that sounds a little worse than what Jesus went through. Who's the real hero? "

 

And I know I'm going to regret saying this, but to me, any parent who is willing to let their child suffer and die, for any reason, has no right to be a parent in the first place...omniscient being or not.

 

For the record: Agnostic. And I happen to agree with Numbers and Meta on this one. I've seen far too many profoundly stupid people touting the same nonsense, contradicting themselves, and making claims any sane person would immediately discount to take the beliefs behind it all, as a whole, seriously.

 

Don't get me wrong. I think everybody should believe what they want to. Whatever gets you through the day works just fine, so long as it doesn't affect anybody else in a negative way...like, oh, say, ritual sacrifice...or exclusively teaching creationism in schools (Screw Kansas). It's been said before, but I figure I may as well repeat it...so long as you keep it to yourself and don't try to force it on others, via government or public education, fine by me, have fun, go nuts, enjoy yourself.

[LoneWolf16]

damn, still no intelligent falling proponents.  oh well.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Intelligent falling?

[Walsingham]

Hang on a minute. Crucified upsdie down? I'll tell you why he's not the hero. He was clearly showboating.

 

"Here, Centurion, I know it's Jesus thang. But he's the boss' son, and the magical miracle kid. If I give you a fiver could you, I dunno, make mine more special?"

 

Sets a terrible example, too. I mean, what's next? Juggling while being crucified upside down, and saying the alphabet backwards?

 

~~

 

I should say that I don't think its bad that creationism should be looked at in school. but the only way you can teach that it is of equal validity is to ignore the scientific paradigm. Which, as I say is our greatest knowledge farming tool ever. Or rather, without it we can't get anywhere.

 

I also think Commissar's right, inasmuch as if the US swings any further towards fundamentalism her allies are going to get even more alarmed than they are at present. I know many republican voters believe we don't actually exist, but us foreigners kind of outnumber youse fellers, and support your economy. Going Talibantastic would be ill-advised.

 

Irrespective of my opinion, I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say I thought the Framers wanted a separation of Church and State. What gives?

[Commissar]

Irrespective of my opinion, I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say I thought the Framers wanted a separation of Church and State. What gives?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Keep talking like that and you'll have Gromnir in here.