Gnostic Bishop wrote:They showed that level when they outlawed I.D.

Intelligent Design is outlawed? Let's hope not.

When the State starts dictating what we're allowed to believe, we're already enslaved. What sane person would ever want that?

The great thing about Christianity is that the vast majority of believers ignore all the stupid stuff while you seem hyperfocused on the stupid stuff.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Christian literalism ushered in the Dark Ages and Inquisition as well as 1,000 years of Christian barbarity.

This is a rather simplistic interpretation, isn't it? The early Church ushered in a 1,000-year period of stability and unity that the world had never before seen, stimulating economic growth and opening trade routes to the East that helped foster intellectual development and eventually the scientific age. It's much more complicated than "Christian literalism ushered in the Dark Ages." The very term "Dark Ages" is a kind of shorthand term that isn't very meaningful to modern scholars of history.

Flann 5 wrote:O.K. Bishop. So what are the causes of evil in the world?

Mostly the same force that holds religions together. Our hivish instincts.

That is what makes us great and what is driving most of the markers for evil downwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_ ... anguage=en

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

Regards
DL

geo wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:They showed that level when they outlawed I.D.

Intelligent Design is outlawed? Let's hope not.

When the State starts dictating what we're allowed to believe, we're already enslaved. What sane person would ever want that?

The great thing about Christianity is that the vast majority of believers ignore all the stupid stuff while you seem hyperfocused on the stupid stuff.

You are correct in that Christians are hypocrites. Idol worshipers have to be. But this aside.

The courts showed that where wishing and hoping that a fantasy be real came against known scientific principles, that scientific secular principles would prevail.

It' ruling against I. D. did not say that if I.D. could not make a case that did not include lies, that the courts would not listen or that a reversal of the original ruling could not be sought.

This is legal. Not political in the sense you meant.

Regards
DL

youkrst wrote:

Flann wrote:
It obviously bothers you that so many Americans believe what you think is scientifically false




it 'bothers' many people, especially those who would like to see the 'dumbed down' 'smartened up'. It should bother you most of all Flann coz these halfwits are often 'filled with the spirit'

Hi Youkrst,
Thanks for your usual straightforward response. Personally I don't find the evolutionary case convincing though I recognise that it's scientific orthodoxy, and I'm swayed also by my convictions in relation to inspiration and revelation.
I'm relieved to hear that you recommend reading as the antidote and not 're-education.'

I don't find mythicism convincing,though I can see how some passages might be viewed that way. I think overall it's presented as narrative history which includes the supernatural.
Ideas about mysterious characters, inventing stories with hidden meanings don't add up for me for reasons I've already given.

youkrst wrote:Literalism in regards to religious texts is a big problem, islamic extremists, christian fundies etc etc how many appalling acts are comitted by those who justify it with a literal interpretation of some verse or other.

I would agree that atrocities are committed and attempts are made to justify them but I can't honestly see how the murder of schoolchildren could be considered as anything other than murder.
I do think that the average Muslim is as appalled as everyone else by these things, and they have to live with being regarded as if they approve of such things.
Many Muslims have lost children themselves in war zones with monotonous regularity and sometimes they might wonder what sort of liberation it really is.
I heard a guy who's name I forget, talking about the bombing in England and Germany of civilians during the second world war.He wrote a book about it.
Apparently during the war British newspapers polled people about bombing German civilians in retaliation for civilian bombing in Britain.
It seems that big majorities in cities that had not been bombed were in favour of payment in kind, while in those that had been bombed with heavy casualties, results were the reverse.
Strange I suppose, and not what you would expect.I guess their experience of it was horrific enough for them to baulk at the idea of inflicting it on the civilians, even of their enemies.
I don't know how some people indulge in hate speech while claiming to be Christian. But they do.
I think if you believe the bible you can't pick and choose what it designates to be sin, but I find no justification for the kind of hate speech coming from some.
It's very selective to say the least, and hatred is equated with murder by Jesus. So where does that leave them?

Gnostic Bishop wrote:The courts showed that where wishing and hoping that a fantasy be real came against known scientific principles, that scientific secular principles would prevail.

It' ruling against I. D. did not say that if I.D. could not make a case that did not include lies, that the courts would not listen or that a reversal of the original ruling could not be sought.

This is legal. Not political in the sense you meant.

Okay, I understand what you're saying. The case to which you refer was a challenge against a school district in Dover, Penn. that had a policy requiring the teaching of ID in schools. Not outlawing ID per se. There remains, i think, some confusion over the nature of private religious belief versus scientific theory. If a school district required teaching of Pagan beliefs, I hope we would see a similar kind of challenge.

geo wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:The courts showed that where wishing and hoping that a fantasy be real came against known scientific principles, that scientific secular principles would prevail.

It' ruling against I. D. did not say that if I.D. could not make a case that did not include lies, that the courts would not listen or that a reversal of the original ruling could not be sought.

This is legal. Not political in the sense you meant.

Okay, I understand what you're saying. The case to which you refer was a challenge against a school district in Dover, Penn. that had a policy requiring the teaching of ID in schools. Not outlawing ID per se. There remains, i think, some confusion over the nature of private religious belief versus scientific theory. If a school district required teaching of Pagan beliefs, I hope we would see a similar kind of challenge.

Any kind of teachings that are not the generally accepted norm should not be ignored but should be taught as a not accepted norm.

We cannot keep secrets from children. They are too bright. All we can do is show the difference between myths and reality.

Regards
DL