Not really, it's the exact opposite. He is partitioning. Maybe you should read it again. He's essentially saying, "Muslims who fly planes into American buildings are terrorists".
Oh another thing was that science back then was a heretic if you are against creation. So I'm pretty sure these great mind Catholic were smart enough to stay with these group because it give them an opportunity to explain their idea without being badly punished by the Catholic Church. If you're not part of the Catholic Church and spur you theory of evolution, you will not get the same treatment as the one that are. So pretty much by staying with the Catholic Church these bright minded people were able to do their work without being put down.
Oh, you better have that mentality thinking in the back of your mind. If you somehow lose that mentality thinking. Don't be surprised when you get caught with your pants down because you think it's only a small minority so it won't happen.
Sigh. First, whoever made that old coloring book (looks like it must have been dredged up from maybe as far back as the 50's, who knows?) does not speak for 'Christianity' or Christians. That is only what it is - a misguided attempt by a good-intentioned person to come up with something interesting for children to color. Second, as much as some of you people may associate *The Bible* as being part-and-parcel with *Christianity*, anyone who bashes Christianity as 'illogical' because of things in the Old Testament are merely exhibiting their own woeful lack of understanding of Christianity. In a nutshell: The Old Testament is primarily a compilation of the oral and allegorical history of the Hebrews, passed down through stories and writings among the Hebrew tribes for generation upon generation. It was their history, literal in some ways yes, but mostly never meant to be taken literally. Most of the stories of the Old Testament exist in order to explain why certain moral rules of conduct were necessary. When the ancient Hebrew stories refer to 'The First Day', etc.. when it refers to the Garden of Eden.. when it refers to a flood which wiped out the entire world.. it's allegory, people. And it has never not been. Now, are there plenty of Christians who feel compelled to take the Old Testament as a literal word-for-word iteration of 'WHAT REALLY HAPPENED'? Yes, of course. But when criticizing 'Christianity', you really need to try to understand the distinction between denominations and the over-arching concept of Christianity itself. Certain denominations are much more focused on trying to take the old testament literally, while some are less so. The only seriously important thing in the Bible is that when Christ arrived, he announced the end of the old order, the old way of doing things, and that a new promise was being given from on high. That's all. When one understands that the oral history of the Hebrews was mainly simply a way for their people to remain knit together through traditions and rules, a way for them to have cohesive moral values, consistent practices, and and an ability to resist intrusion by the surrounding polytheistic peoples of the regions in which they lived.. one then is able to rise above the pettiness of 'bashing' Christianity, and trying to use fossil records, evolution, science, etc etc as some sort of weapon against it. There is nothing in Christianity which runs counter to those things. Nothing. If you would like a rather entertaining and detailed look into one author's conceptualization of how the 'creationism' process may have worked, I would suggest, interestingly enough, taking a look at Memnoch the Devil, by Ann Rice. It's an entertaining thought experiment, if you like that sort of thing. Anyway, I am not trying to argue with anyone here, nor will I get into an argument. I just wanted to let people know that the easy route of trashing Christians as uneducated bumpkins out of touch with reality is not always accurate. Sure, it is in a lot of cases. But that is a human failing, not a failing of Christianity itself.
I think a Biblical Scholar wrote it. I would to take this time and say hello to my friends in D&D land. Have you missed me?
Are you familiar with the concept of faith? because it seems that your idea of a provable God kind of defeats the entire purpose of faith. you snicker @ christians and their 'fairy tales' but you believe humans used to be monkeys. even though there is really no scientific evidence? snicker. (personally, I do believe in evolution, to an extent.) anyway... here is a poll.... Disbelief in God by Academics Discipline % __________________ Physics 40.8 Chemistry 26.6 Biology 41.0 Overall 37.6 Sociology 34.0 Economics 31.7 Political Science 27.0 Psychology 33.0 Overall 31.2 -'We find that field-specific and interdisciplinary differences are not as significant in predicting religiosity as other research suggests. Instead, demographic factors such as age, marital status, and presence of children in the household are the strongest predictors of religious difference among scientists. In particular, religiosity in the home as a child is the most important predictor of present religiosity among this group of scientists. We discuss the relevance these findings have for understanding issues related to current theory and public debate about the intersection between religion and science'. http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289 and if you are really bored... here is a list of intellectually inferior scientists who believe in God. http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm
You're not really up on your current events in evolutionary science and biology, are you? And "academics" who believe in god is a cute statistic, but it really proves nothing. We already went over "scientists" who believe in god in the D&D (if you want to see those meaningless statistics, its something like 30% believe in a personal god, and less than half that in the elite ranks)... so what's the point? That belief in god makes you smart? That you can believe in god and do scientific stuff? Yeah, nobody said you can't. And you could be the smartest SOB on the planet and if you told me you believed in something you had no evidence of (or something with mountains of evidence against it), I'd still think it is idiotic to do so.
Quick question for you: Do you love your (pick one - Mother, Father, Wife, Girlfriend, Son, Daughter) ? Assuming the answer is yes... prove it. thank you Matthew McGon-a-HEYYYY...
for the most part, no. care to be a little more specific though? of course it doesn't. again, what is the point of faith if you need irrefutable evidence of God's existence? It clearly says in the bible that no man shall see God's face and live. I know this will also be written off as hogwash as you don't believe in the bible either, but what else do you expect christians to base their beliefs off of? faith has never been presented as an easy discipline. It's easy to question something you can't absorb with the senses, but God doesn't exist in that capacity. If you understood what type of being God WOULD HAVE TO BE in order to create something like the universe, time, the human body and all the emotions we are capable of feeling, perhaps the many different dimensions of God would make more sense to you. I don't know how else to say it, but if we could see God and know for certain that he was real, the concept of religion would be pointless.
My love of my parents, oreo cookies, or the rockets, doesn't claim to explain the origin of the universe, the rules of life, etc.
Not to pick on your post, or insert myself into the argument here, but this is kind of a pet peeve of mine. You can't reference the bible as "evidence" for why something is the way it is to someone who doesn't believe in the bible. Clearly, what DonnyMost wants you, as a person, to base their beliefs off, is logic, reason and science. As you pointed out, this starts to question faith, and in DonnyMost's case it seems like he may question the concept of faith completely. Personally, I have faith, but don't believe in the bible, think most parts of religion are idiotic and base most of my beliefs of logic, reason and science... I'd agree that there seems to be some "bashing" of christianity here, some by me, but you can't overlook its history and the beliefs of a majority of its followers, even if those beliefs aren't reflective of official positions or what the "smart" christians know. it's one thing to say the bible shouldn't be taken as fact but as allegory, but it seems that a disproportionately large number of christians do, in fact, believe in the literal translation of the bible. just as a frighteningly large % of christians believe in creationism, when all scientific evidence points to the contrary, when a very very very high % of scientists (those more qualified in the area) believe in evolution and an even higher % of life scientists (those most qualified) believe in evolution (something like 99%+; evolution used loosely here, but you get the idea). pointing out that discrepancy as odd, strange and a failing of the religion isn't bashing, it just is what it is.
Irrelevant. You yourself claimed that to believe in something you cannot prove makes you and idiot. Maybe you were being a little harsh, perhaps?
What's more, one probably could empirically prove that you love your parents, by looking at your life history (who you know, events in your life, your statements, your actions, etc, etc.). Just as I could prove my two dogs love each other but don't love all other dogs they meet. it's not that complicated.
