I fully understand the fact that some people must cling to creationism. I learned a long time ago that naive and stupid people exist.
There are creationists
There are UFOlogists
There are people who believe in psychics
There are people who hike up in the mountains looking for bigfoot
There are people who think Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy
The fact that certain people believe this stuff has never really surprised or amazed me...but creationism goes a step further.
All of the other crazy people try to use science to support their beliefs, and then make ridiculous and insane statements to explain the lack of scientific evidence.
Creationists REJECT science.
How do you reject science?
How do you look someone in the eye and say "I think science is wrong and a book my parents told me about is right".
I could see someone arguing that a theory was wrong in favor of another scientific theory(this happens in theoretical physics for example)....but to boldly reject the scientific method and scientific findings?
I just would love an explanation from one of these warped individuals.
QUOTE (PuckSR+May 2 2008, 09:18 PM)
I fully understand the fact that some people must cling to creationism.
PuckSR
The fact is you do not fully understand,
That is probably what really bothers you,
PuckSR
The fact is you do not fully understand,
That is probably what really bothers you,
Culture Is A biological Entity
A. Life is a phenomenon of temporary energy constraint
"Life pops in out of its matrix, the energy constrained in Earth's biosphere by Earth's organisms, which are the many varieties of genomes, the communal interdependent life forms of the primal independent genes, the formers and conservers of life's energy bubbles on Earth."
B. Creationism is also a human artifact, a tool of human survival
Creationism = a taught principle that earth's different kinds of life were created separately by a presupposed god, opposed to the theory of evolution, which states that all life's species descend from common ancestors.
C. Science is also a human artifact, a tool of human survival
"During the recent several centuries in the course of human history Science has been evolving at an accelerating rate as a provider of convincing, ever closer approaching, approximate models of the real world.
We understand that Science is just one of the components of our Culture, our package of capabilities to observe the environment, react to it and exploit it for our satisfaction and survival.
Yet there is a distinct, even if still small, growing spreading tendency to accept the findings of evolving Science with ever increasing respect and appreciation, especially in the realms of all forms and types of technology and of life disciplines.
The crucial 21st century question facing humanity is how much further and into which additional disciplines may or should Science be welcome and adopted by society at large, with what hopes and with what expectations."
D. Which doctrine(s) may or should be welcome and adopted by society at large, with what plans or hopes and with what expectations?
Life is a temporary affair. It is temporary on all scales at all levels.
Life's purpose is ours to decide and ours to fulfil. The arguments about life's doctrines should ensue from our choices of life's purpose.
Suggesting,
Dov Henis
A. Life is a phenomenon of temporary energy constraint
"Life pops in out of its matrix, the energy constrained in Earth's biosphere by Earth's organisms, which are the many varieties of genomes, the communal interdependent life forms of the primal independent genes, the formers and conservers of life's energy bubbles on Earth."
B. Creationism is also a human artifact, a tool of human survival
Creationism = a taught principle that earth's different kinds of life were created separately by a presupposed god, opposed to the theory of evolution, which states that all life's species descend from common ancestors.
C. Science is also a human artifact, a tool of human survival
"During the recent several centuries in the course of human history Science has been evolving at an accelerating rate as a provider of convincing, ever closer approaching, approximate models of the real world.
We understand that Science is just one of the components of our Culture, our package of capabilities to observe the environment, react to it and exploit it for our satisfaction and survival.
Yet there is a distinct, even if still small, growing spreading tendency to accept the findings of evolving Science with ever increasing respect and appreciation, especially in the realms of all forms and types of technology and of life disciplines.
The crucial 21st century question facing humanity is how much further and into which additional disciplines may or should Science be welcome and adopted by society at large, with what hopes and with what expectations."
D. Which doctrine(s) may or should be welcome and adopted by society at large, with what plans or hopes and with what expectations?
Life is a temporary affair. It is temporary on all scales at all levels.
Life's purpose is ours to decide and ours to fulfil. The arguments about life's doctrines should ensue from our choices of life's purpose.
Suggesting,
Dov Henis
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 3 2008, 04:57 AM)
PuckSR
The fact is you do not fully understand,
That is probably what really bothers you,
That isn't much of an answer to PuckSR's question so if you'll allow me to interject ...
PuckSR,
We're terrified of death. The thought of not existing terrifies us. We can't accept that our consciousness is a biological condition. Our mommy's and daddy's told us that we were special. We think we are. We are not the "all singing, all dancing, crap of the world". For it to be otherwise would make our live's meaningless. So it can't be so.
Science can't disprove creation. That's enough for us. We don't accept the premise that a negative cannot be proven. If science we're useful then it would have all the answers. Our religion gives us all the answers. Faith is tangible; we know this because our self-delusions have confirmed it. And if you can't believe yourself then who can you believe?
We see miracles everyday. My neighbor (who never misses church services) was scheduled to to on an airplane; but he couldn't find his car keys. He searched and searched but by the time he found them it was too late to make the plane. The plane crashed killing everyone on board. God saved his life by hiding the keys because he was special. The other 168 people were satan loving atheists. He cures cancer all the time. Ask any oncologist ... they've all seen spontaneous remissions that had to be brought on by god. The other 2 or 3 million people that die from cancer every year are all satan loving atheists. God makes people walk who were otherwise lame. I've seen it personally. Evangelical reverends touch lame people all the time and heal them. The number of choirboys touched by Priests is staggering! I have a friend who is an amputee. I know Yahweh will make his stump grow back if he just prays hard enough. Of course, there are no cases where Yahweh has done so but that's because every other amputee is a satan loving atheist. But my friend prays hard so I'm sure he'll be the first.
Our bible gives us absolute truths. We don't want to live in a world of grays. We like it black and white. If it weren't for the bible then humans would be killing humans all the time. But that doesn't happen because the bible says "Thou shalt not kill". So we don't (except in the case of war, or if we're shooting an intruder that is trying to steal our new 52 inch flat screen). The bible tells us not to covet also ... so we don't covet. Our divorce rates are the same as secular people's divorce rates because half of us accidently marry satan loving atheists and didn't know it. We honor our mothers and fathers as the bible tells us to do. That's why when we're rich enough we send them to really nice non-secular elder care facilities where their every need is met unless the satan loving atheist care workers decide that they really need to lay in their feces for hours on end. So you see ... the absolute truths from the bible are our guide.
We don't think we're perfect. We know that there are those amongst us believers that sometimes fall from grace and perpetrate horrendous crimes against others. But those people get to go to jail and find the lord again. He forgives them if they ask and then they can go to heaven!
We know our god is omnipotent, omnipresent, all-loving, all-forgiving and generally all around keen. He uses his powers sparingly. Mostly because he wants to sit back and see how we do things. Of course he already knows exactly how we're going to do things or he wouldn't be omnipotent. But he has his reasons for allowing us to do the incredible harm we do to each other everyday. It would be no sweat off his brow to intervene continuously in our affairs to ensure that we don't murder each other. He could turn the satan loving atheists into worshipful prostrating adherents in the blink of his eye by revealing himself. All he'd have to do is um ... move New York City to the prairies of Kansas. That would be no more difficult for him than picking his own nose and be undeniable proof, right? But it's more entertaining for him to watch. Hey, even a god needs some entertainment eh? And he loves the satan loving atheists ... they make him laugh.
He loves everyone. Except of course the Muslims and the Jews. He doesn't find them funny or entertaining. That's why he let Scummy, Dummy and Rummy (Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld) go over there and kill a crapload of them.
So that's a brief selection of the reasons "we believe". If that's not enough to help you understand us, then let me know and I'd be happy to come up with more.
The fact is you do not fully understand,
That is probably what really bothers you,
That isn't much of an answer to PuckSR's question so if you'll allow me to interject ...
PuckSR,
We're terrified of death. The thought of not existing terrifies us. We can't accept that our consciousness is a biological condition. Our mommy's and daddy's told us that we were special. We think we are. We are not the "all singing, all dancing, crap of the world". For it to be otherwise would make our live's meaningless. So it can't be so.
Science can't disprove creation. That's enough for us. We don't accept the premise that a negative cannot be proven. If science we're useful then it would have all the answers. Our religion gives us all the answers. Faith is tangible; we know this because our self-delusions have confirmed it. And if you can't believe yourself then who can you believe?
We see miracles everyday. My neighbor (who never misses church services) was scheduled to to on an airplane; but he couldn't find his car keys. He searched and searched but by the time he found them it was too late to make the plane. The plane crashed killing everyone on board. God saved his life by hiding the keys because he was special. The other 168 people were satan loving atheists. He cures cancer all the time. Ask any oncologist ... they've all seen spontaneous remissions that had to be brought on by god. The other 2 or 3 million people that die from cancer every year are all satan loving atheists. God makes people walk who were otherwise lame. I've seen it personally. Evangelical reverends touch lame people all the time and heal them. The number of choirboys touched by Priests is staggering! I have a friend who is an amputee. I know Yahweh will make his stump grow back if he just prays hard enough. Of course, there are no cases where Yahweh has done so but that's because every other amputee is a satan loving atheist. But my friend prays hard so I'm sure he'll be the first.
Our bible gives us absolute truths. We don't want to live in a world of grays. We like it black and white. If it weren't for the bible then humans would be killing humans all the time. But that doesn't happen because the bible says "Thou shalt not kill". So we don't (except in the case of war, or if we're shooting an intruder that is trying to steal our new 52 inch flat screen). The bible tells us not to covet also ... so we don't covet. Our divorce rates are the same as secular people's divorce rates because half of us accidently marry satan loving atheists and didn't know it. We honor our mothers and fathers as the bible tells us to do. That's why when we're rich enough we send them to really nice non-secular elder care facilities where their every need is met unless the satan loving atheist care workers decide that they really need to lay in their feces for hours on end. So you see ... the absolute truths from the bible are our guide.
We don't think we're perfect. We know that there are those amongst us believers that sometimes fall from grace and perpetrate horrendous crimes against others. But those people get to go to jail and find the lord again. He forgives them if they ask and then they can go to heaven!
We know our god is omnipotent, omnipresent, all-loving, all-forgiving and generally all around keen. He uses his powers sparingly. Mostly because he wants to sit back and see how we do things. Of course he already knows exactly how we're going to do things or he wouldn't be omnipotent. But he has his reasons for allowing us to do the incredible harm we do to each other everyday. It would be no sweat off his brow to intervene continuously in our affairs to ensure that we don't murder each other. He could turn the satan loving atheists into worshipful prostrating adherents in the blink of his eye by revealing himself. All he'd have to do is um ... move New York City to the prairies of Kansas. That would be no more difficult for him than picking his own nose and be undeniable proof, right? But it's more entertaining for him to watch. Hey, even a god needs some entertainment eh? And he loves the satan loving atheists ... they make him laugh.
He loves everyone. Except of course the Muslims and the Jews. He doesn't find them funny or entertaining. That's why he let Scummy, Dummy and Rummy (Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld) go over there and kill a crapload of them.
So that's a brief selection of the reasons "we believe". If that's not enough to help you understand us, then let me know and I'd be happy to come up with more.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 3 2008, 04:57 AM)
PuckSR
The fact is you do not fully understand,
That is probably what really bothers you,
And how is that an argument? You obviously can't argue against his point, and so are just trying to imply that he doesn't understand it.
- Gehn
The fact is you do not fully understand,
That is probably what really bothers you,
And how is that an argument? You obviously can't argue against his point, and so are just trying to imply that he doesn't understand it.
- Gehn
QUOTE (uaafanblog+May 3 2008, 03:29 AM)
That isn't much of an answer to PuckSR's question so if you'll allow me to interject ...
PuckSR,
We're terrified of death. The thought of not existing terrifies us. We can't accept that our consciousness is a biological condition. Our mommy's and daddy's told us that we were special. We think we are. We are not the "all singing, all dancing, crap of the world". For it to be otherwise would make our live's meaningless. So it can't be so.
Science can't disprove creation. That's enough for us. We don't accept the premise that a negative cannot be proven. If science we're useful then it would have all the answers. Our religion gives us all the answers. Faith is tangible; we know this because our self-delusions have confirmed it. And if you can't believe yourself then who can you believe?
We see miracles everyday. My neighbor (who never misses church services) was scheduled to to on an airplane; but he couldn't find his car keys. He searched and searched but by the time he found them it was too late to make the plane. The plane crashed killing everyone on board. God saved his life by hiding the keys because he was special. The other 168 people were satan loving atheists. He cures cancer all the time. Ask any oncologist ... they've all seen spontaneous remissions that had to be brought on by god. The other 2 or 3 million people that die from cancer every year are all satan loving atheists. God makes people walk who were otherwise lame. I've seen it personally. Evangelical reverends touch lame people all the time and heal them. The number of choirboys touched by Priests is staggering! I have a friend who is an amputee. I know Yahweh will make his stump grow back if he just prays hard enough. Of course, there are no cases where Yahweh has done so but that's because every other amputee is a satan loving atheist. But my friend prays hard so I'm sure he'll be the first.
Our bible gives us absolute truths. We don't want to live in a world of grays. We like it black and white. If it weren't for the bible then humans would be killing humans all the time. But that doesn't happen because the bible says "Thou shalt not kill". So we don't (except in the case of war, or if we're shooting an intruder that is trying to steal our new 52 inch flat screen). The bible tells us not to covet also ... so we don't covet. Our divorce rates are the same as secular people's divorce rates because half of us accidently marry satan loving atheists and didn't know it. We honor our mothers and fathers as the bible tells us to do. That's why when we're rich enough we send them to really nice non-secular elder care facilities where their every need is met unless the satan loving atheist care workers decide that they really need to lay in their feces for hours on end. So you see ... the absolute truths from the bible are our guide.
We don't think we're perfect. We know that there are those amongst us believers that sometimes fall from grace and perpetrate horrendous crimes against others. But those people get to go to jail and find the lord again. He forgives them if they ask and then they can go to heaven!
We know our god is omnipotent, omnipresent, all-loving, all-forgiving and generally all around keen. He uses his powers sparingly. Mostly because he wants to sit back and see how we do things. Of course he already knows exactly how we're going to do things or he wouldn't be omnipotent. But he has his reasons for allowing us to do the incredible harm we do to each other everyday. It would be no sweat off his brow to intervene continuously in our affairs to ensure that we don't murder each other. He could turn the satan loving atheists into worshipful prostrating adherents in the blink of his eye by revealing himself. All he'd have to do is um ... move New York City to the prairies of Kansas. That would be no more difficult for him than picking his own nose and be undeniable proof, right? But it's more entertaining for him to watch. Hey, even a god needs some entertainment eh? And he loves the satan loving atheists ... they make him laugh.
He loves everyone. Except of course the Muslims and the Jews. He doesn't find them funny or entertaining. That's why he let Scummy, Dummy and Rummy (Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld) go over there and kill a crapload of them.
So that's a brief selection of the reasons "we believe". If that's not enough to help you understand us, then let me know and I'd be happy to come up with more.
uaafanblog,
Wow, Great Response
Give Me a Break
PuckSR,
We're terrified of death. The thought of not existing terrifies us. We can't accept that our consciousness is a biological condition. Our mommy's and daddy's told us that we were special. We think we are. We are not the "all singing, all dancing, crap of the world". For it to be otherwise would make our live's meaningless. So it can't be so.
Science can't disprove creation. That's enough for us. We don't accept the premise that a negative cannot be proven. If science we're useful then it would have all the answers. Our religion gives us all the answers. Faith is tangible; we know this because our self-delusions have confirmed it. And if you can't believe yourself then who can you believe?
We see miracles everyday. My neighbor (who never misses church services) was scheduled to to on an airplane; but he couldn't find his car keys. He searched and searched but by the time he found them it was too late to make the plane. The plane crashed killing everyone on board. God saved his life by hiding the keys because he was special. The other 168 people were satan loving atheists. He cures cancer all the time. Ask any oncologist ... they've all seen spontaneous remissions that had to be brought on by god. The other 2 or 3 million people that die from cancer every year are all satan loving atheists. God makes people walk who were otherwise lame. I've seen it personally. Evangelical reverends touch lame people all the time and heal them. The number of choirboys touched by Priests is staggering! I have a friend who is an amputee. I know Yahweh will make his stump grow back if he just prays hard enough. Of course, there are no cases where Yahweh has done so but that's because every other amputee is a satan loving atheist. But my friend prays hard so I'm sure he'll be the first.
Our bible gives us absolute truths. We don't want to live in a world of grays. We like it black and white. If it weren't for the bible then humans would be killing humans all the time. But that doesn't happen because the bible says "Thou shalt not kill". So we don't (except in the case of war, or if we're shooting an intruder that is trying to steal our new 52 inch flat screen). The bible tells us not to covet also ... so we don't covet. Our divorce rates are the same as secular people's divorce rates because half of us accidently marry satan loving atheists and didn't know it. We honor our mothers and fathers as the bible tells us to do. That's why when we're rich enough we send them to really nice non-secular elder care facilities where their every need is met unless the satan loving atheist care workers decide that they really need to lay in their feces for hours on end. So you see ... the absolute truths from the bible are our guide.
We don't think we're perfect. We know that there are those amongst us believers that sometimes fall from grace and perpetrate horrendous crimes against others. But those people get to go to jail and find the lord again. He forgives them if they ask and then they can go to heaven!
We know our god is omnipotent, omnipresent, all-loving, all-forgiving and generally all around keen. He uses his powers sparingly. Mostly because he wants to sit back and see how we do things. Of course he already knows exactly how we're going to do things or he wouldn't be omnipotent. But he has his reasons for allowing us to do the incredible harm we do to each other everyday. It would be no sweat off his brow to intervene continuously in our affairs to ensure that we don't murder each other. He could turn the satan loving atheists into worshipful prostrating adherents in the blink of his eye by revealing himself. All he'd have to do is um ... move New York City to the prairies of Kansas. That would be no more difficult for him than picking his own nose and be undeniable proof, right? But it's more entertaining for him to watch. Hey, even a god needs some entertainment eh? And he loves the satan loving atheists ... they make him laugh.
He loves everyone. Except of course the Muslims and the Jews. He doesn't find them funny or entertaining. That's why he let Scummy, Dummy and Rummy (Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld) go over there and kill a crapload of them.
So that's a brief selection of the reasons "we believe". If that's not enough to help you understand us, then let me know and I'd be happy to come up with more.
uaafanblog,
Wow, Great Response
Give Me a Break
I fully understand that the reason for the animosity toward creationists is their attempt to usurp the education of our children, but it also goes to the other extreme when some use the educational system to indoctrinate their students to Atheism.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
That isn't much of an answer to PuckSR's question so if you'll allow me to interject ...
PuckSR,
We're terrified of death. The thought of not existing terrifies us. We can't accept that our consciousness is a biological condition. Our mommy's and daddy's told us that we were special. We think we are. We are not the "all singing, all dancing, crap of the world". For it to be otherwise would make our live's meaningless. So it can't be so.
uaafanblog: I trust you won't mind if I interject some things as well. Genuine Christians have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the dead. I'd cite you chapter and verse, but I wouldn't want to watch you foam at the mouth anymore than you already have.
PuckSR,
We're terrified of death. The thought of not existing terrifies us. We can't accept that our consciousness is a biological condition. Our mommy's and daddy's told us that we were special. We think we are. We are not the "all singing, all dancing, crap of the world". For it to be otherwise would make our live's meaningless. So it can't be so.
uaafanblog: I trust you won't mind if I interject some things as well. Genuine Christians have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the dead. I'd cite you chapter and verse, but I wouldn't want to watch you foam at the mouth anymore than you already have.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
Science can't disprove creation. That's enough for us. We don't accept the premise that a negative cannot be proven. If science we're useful then it would have all the answers. Our religion gives us all the answers. Faith is tangible; we know this because our self-delusions have confirmed it. And if you can't believe yourself then who can you believe?
Genuine Christians know their Creator. Additionally, if you think that you've SAID ANYTHING AT ALL in your most recent hate-filled rant, then YOU are the most self-deluded of all forum members.
Genuine Christians know their Creator. Additionally, if you think that you've SAID ANYTHING AT ALL in your most recent hate-filled rant, then YOU are the most self-deluded of all forum members.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
We see miracles everyday. My neighbor (who never misses church services) was scheduled to to on an airplane; but he couldn't find his car keys. He searched and searched but by the time he found them it was too late to make the plane. The plane crashed killing everyone on board. God saved his life by hiding the keys because he was special. The other 168 people were satan loving atheists. He cures cancer all the time. Ask any oncologist ... they've all seen spontaneous remissions that had to be brought on by god. The other 2 or 3 million people that die from cancer every year are all satan loving atheists. God makes people walk who were otherwise lame. I've seen it personally. Evangelical reverends touch lame people all the time and heal them. The number of choirboys touched by Priests is staggering! I have a friend who is an amputee. I know Yahweh will make his stump grow back if he just prays hard enough. Of course, there are no cases where Yahweh has done so but that's because every other amputee is a satan loving atheist. But my friend prays hard so I'm sure he'll be the first.
My wife was diagnosed with cancer many years ago. I and a friend of ours at the time laid hands on my wife and prayed for her in Jesus Christ's name. We all watched the tumor come out of her "lower regions" with our own eyes. She's been perfectly fine since. Additionally, for a woman whom the doctors said could never have children, she sure does enjoy spending time with our three children...the three children that came out of her womb. "Catholic priests"? You won't find their type of "priesthood" within scripture, so, right off the bat, you're barking up the wrong tree. "Amputees"? You, like this thread's starter(he started one on amputees once before) couldn't give a rat's @ss about amputees or anyone else I suspect. Ironically, I've met quite a number of amputees(as recently as yesterday) and I've never heard one of them complain about their condition or God. In fact, my friend's uncle was an amputee(both of his legs). In his youth, he was a heroin addict and he used to shoot up in his legs quite often. Apparently, due to his damaged veins and other contributing factors, he developed gangrene and consequently lost both of his legs. I visited him MANY TIMES. Unlike most people that I've met, he quite liked me. I even spoke to him about Christ(often). He prayed to receive Christ as His Lord and Saviour and even accompanied me and my friend to church, back in the days when I used to attend. He died awhile back, but, were he still alive, I don't think that he'd find either you or PuckSR qualified to speak on behalf of amputees.
My wife was diagnosed with cancer many years ago. I and a friend of ours at the time laid hands on my wife and prayed for her in Jesus Christ's name. We all watched the tumor come out of her "lower regions" with our own eyes. She's been perfectly fine since. Additionally, for a woman whom the doctors said could never have children, she sure does enjoy spending time with our three children...the three children that came out of her womb. "Catholic priests"? You won't find their type of "priesthood" within scripture, so, right off the bat, you're barking up the wrong tree. "Amputees"? You, like this thread's starter(he started one on amputees once before) couldn't give a rat's @ss about amputees or anyone else I suspect. Ironically, I've met quite a number of amputees(as recently as yesterday) and I've never heard one of them complain about their condition or God. In fact, my friend's uncle was an amputee(both of his legs). In his youth, he was a heroin addict and he used to shoot up in his legs quite often. Apparently, due to his damaged veins and other contributing factors, he developed gangrene and consequently lost both of his legs. I visited him MANY TIMES. Unlike most people that I've met, he quite liked me. I even spoke to him about Christ(often). He prayed to receive Christ as His Lord and Saviour and even accompanied me and my friend to church, back in the days when I used to attend. He died awhile back, but, were he still alive, I don't think that he'd find either you or PuckSR qualified to speak on behalf of amputees.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
Our bible gives us absolute truths. We don't want to live in a world of grays. We like it black and white. If it weren't for the bible then humans would be killing humans all the time. But that doesn't happen because the bible says "Thou shalt not kill". So we don't (except in the case of war, or if we're shooting an intruder that is trying to steal our new 52 inch flat screen). The bible tells us not to covet also ... so we don't covet. Our divorce rates are the same as secular people's divorce rates because half of us accidently marry satan loving atheists and didn't know it. We honor our mothers and fathers as the bible tells us to do. That's why when we're rich enough we send them to really nice non-secular elder care facilities where their every need is met unless the satan loving atheist care workers decide that they really need to lay in their feces for hours on end. So you see ... the absolute truths from the bible are our guide.
More meaningless drivel. "Thou shalt not kill"(actually, "Thou shalt not MURDER" would be a better translation) does NOT mean that people are INCAPABLE of killing. Rather, it is a commandment to not do so...a commandment that is ofttimes ignored by both theists and atheists alike. I could easily comment on your other drivel as well, but, due to my time limitations, I'll pass on that for now.
More meaningless drivel. "Thou shalt not kill"(actually, "Thou shalt not MURDER" would be a better translation) does NOT mean that people are INCAPABLE of killing. Rather, it is a commandment to not do so...a commandment that is ofttimes ignored by both theists and atheists alike. I could easily comment on your other drivel as well, but, due to my time limitations, I'll pass on that for now.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
We don't think we're perfect. We know that there are those amongst us believers that sometimes fall from grace and perpetrate horrendous crimes against others. But those people get to go to jail and find the lord again. He forgives them if they ask and then they can go to heaven!
Although this is a popular belief amongst professing Christians, it doesn't line up with scripture. Christians ought not even LOOK BACK, let alone SLIDE BACK(backslide). Once again, I could cite you chapter and verse, but I wouldn't want to incite you to go out kill somebody yourself.
Although this is a popular belief amongst professing Christians, it doesn't line up with scripture. Christians ought not even LOOK BACK, let alone SLIDE BACK(backslide). Once again, I could cite you chapter and verse, but I wouldn't want to incite you to go out kill somebody yourself.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
We know our god is omnipotent, omnipresent, all-loving, all-forgiving and generally all around keen. He uses his powers sparingly. Mostly because he wants to sit back and see how we do things. Of course he already knows exactly how we're going to do things or he wouldn't be omnipotent. But he has his reasons for allowing us to do the incredible harm we do to each other everyday. It would be no sweat off his brow to intervene continuously in our affairs to ensure that we don't murder each other. He could turn the satan loving atheists into worshipful prostrating adherents in the blink of his eye by revealing himself. All he'd have to do is um ... move New York City to the prairies of Kansas. That would be no more difficult for him than picking his own nose and be undeniable proof, right? But it's more entertaining for him to watch. Hey, even a god needs some entertainment eh? And he loves the satan loving atheists ... they make him laugh.
You already blew one perfectly good chance to discuss God's omnipotence with me a short while ago. You remember, don't you? You know, when you were erecting STRAWMAN after STRAWMAN after STRAWMAN after STRAWMAN and attributing things to scripture that, IN REALITY, are not contained within its pages. Stick to your hockey blog, dude.
You already blew one perfectly good chance to discuss God's omnipotence with me a short while ago. You remember, don't you? You know, when you were erecting STRAWMAN after STRAWMAN after STRAWMAN after STRAWMAN and attributing things to scripture that, IN REALITY, are not contained within its pages. Stick to your hockey blog, dude.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
He loves everyone. Except of course the Muslims and the Jews. He doesn't find them funny or entertaining. That's why he let Scummy, Dummy and Rummy (Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld) go over there and kill a crapload of them.
Whew! That was close. Good thing that you named the "Scummy, Dummy and Rummy" that you were referring to. I ALMOST launched into a discourse about 3 forum members that I initially thought you were referring to(pssst...you were one of them). Much to your chagrin, the Bible NEVER declared this nation to be Christian in any way, shape or form(in fact, it declared it to be SATANIC, but, as always, scriptural citations will be withheld to help keep you sedated).
Whew! That was close. Good thing that you named the "Scummy, Dummy and Rummy" that you were referring to. I ALMOST launched into a discourse about 3 forum members that I initially thought you were referring to(pssst...you were one of them). Much to your chagrin, the Bible NEVER declared this nation to be Christian in any way, shape or form(in fact, it declared it to be SATANIC, but, as always, scriptural citations will be withheld to help keep you sedated).
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
So that's a brief selection of the reasons "we believe". If that's not enough to help you understand us, then let me know and I'd be happy to come up with more.
Actually, it's just a load of crap that was dumped to help confirm YOUR OWN self-delusions. Well, gotta run before "Officer Photojack" comes along and issues me another citation for addressing something that doesn't coincide with the OP...even though it was a response to what someone else on the thread had written.
Actually, it's just a load of crap that was dumped to help confirm YOUR OWN self-delusions. Well, gotta run before "Officer Photojack" comes along and issues me another citation for addressing something that doesn't coincide with the OP...even though it was a response to what someone else on the thread had written.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 3 2008, 02:54 PM)
I fully understand that the reason for the animosity toward creationists is their attempt to usurp the education of our children, but it also goes to the other extreme when some use the educational system to indoctrinate their students to Atheism.
Yes, I would agree with you there, if that is the case. And that is the point. Education of children, specifically the Scientific subject matter need not include any specific ideology other than the Scientific method etc.
Atheism is a strong position as it is the non-belief or dis-belief in any Supernatural God(s) etc. The only reason Atheism would enter a Scientific classroom would be to counter a Theistic intrusion. Science is Agnostic towards Religion in this context.
Science is not Atheistic at this level because Supernatural hypothesis have no place there.
If Science is taught correctly why would Atheism be brought in?
We don't see attacks on Geography for instance. If Creationists were truly Bible literal then they should be complaining because we don't recognize the 'Four Corners of the Earth' as we understand that the Earth is not shaped that way. Should we teach that controversy too? Of course not. There is none. Similarly there is none regarding Evolution.
Kind regards.
Yes, I would agree with you there, if that is the case. And that is the point. Education of children, specifically the Scientific subject matter need not include any specific ideology other than the Scientific method etc.
Atheism is a strong position as it is the non-belief or dis-belief in any Supernatural God(s) etc. The only reason Atheism would enter a Scientific classroom would be to counter a Theistic intrusion. Science is Agnostic towards Religion in this context.
Science is not Atheistic at this level because Supernatural hypothesis have no place there.
If Science is taught correctly why would Atheism be brought in?
We don't see attacks on Geography for instance. If Creationists were truly Bible literal then they should be complaining because we don't recognize the 'Four Corners of the Earth' as we understand that the Earth is not shaped that way. Should we teach that controversy too? Of course not. There is none. Similarly there is none regarding Evolution.
Kind regards.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
If Creationists were truly Bible literal then they should be complaining because we don't recognize the 'Four Corners of the Earth' as we understand that the Earth is not shaped that way. Should we teach that controversy too?
Sinister Utopia: OR, if the so-called "rational skeptics" around here(and elsewhere) weren't so devious and didn't spend the bulk of their time "straining at gnats, while swallowing camels", then common sense would dictate to them that "the four corners of the earth" merely refers to the north, south, east and west...EVEN AS IT STILL DOES TODAY. In fact, as I mentioned some time ago on this forum, there was recently a commercial done by Fed-Ex(I think it was Fed-Ex...it was one of those delivery companies) in which they stated that they deliver to "the four corners of the earth". Where's your boycott of the commercial? Would you like me to provide you with more info so you can start a campaign against it? Oh, no, that's right...you(individually and collectively) really don't give a damn, except where it suits your own agenda. Well, I've already spent more time here today than I have available to me. Time to get back to work.
Sinister Utopia: OR, if the so-called "rational skeptics" around here(and elsewhere) weren't so devious and didn't spend the bulk of their time "straining at gnats, while swallowing camels", then common sense would dictate to them that "the four corners of the earth" merely refers to the north, south, east and west...EVEN AS IT STILL DOES TODAY. In fact, as I mentioned some time ago on this forum, there was recently a commercial done by Fed-Ex(I think it was Fed-Ex...it was one of those delivery companies) in which they stated that they deliver to "the four corners of the earth". Where's your boycott of the commercial? Would you like me to provide you with more info so you can start a campaign against it? Oh, no, that's right...you(individually and collectively) really don't give a damn, except where it suits your own agenda. Well, I've already spent more time here today than I have available to me. Time to get back to work.
QUOTE (newguy+May 3 2008, 03:22 PM)
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
If Creationists were truly Bible literal then they should be complaining because we don't recognize the 'Four Corners of the Earth' as we understand that the Earth is not shaped that way. Should we teach that controversy too?
Sinister Utopia: OR, if the so-called "rational skeptics" around here(and elsewhere) weren't so devious and didn't spend the bulk of their time "straining at gnats, while swallowing camels", then common sense would dictate to them that "the four corners of the earth" merely refers to the north, south, east and west...EVEN AS IT STILL DOES TODAY. In fact, as I mentioned some time ago on this forum, there was recently a commercial done by Fed-Ex(I think it was Fed-Ex...it was one of those delivery companies) in which they stated that they deliver to "the four corners of the earth". Where's your boycott of the commercial? Would you like me to provide you with more info so you can start a campaign against it? Oh, no, that's right...you(individually and collectively) really don't give a damn, except where it suits your own agenda. Well, I've already spent more time here today than I have available to me. Time to get back to work.
Well if that is the case then I apologize for my ignorance.
Should we then consider teaching about the Egyptian, Roman, Christian, Jewish or Islamic interpretations of the Universe in a science class as valid theories?
If not, my point still stands. Equally there is no place for Atheism. Just teach the subjects.
Sinister Utopia: OR, if the so-called "rational skeptics" around here(and elsewhere) weren't so devious and didn't spend the bulk of their time "straining at gnats, while swallowing camels", then common sense would dictate to them that "the four corners of the earth" merely refers to the north, south, east and west...EVEN AS IT STILL DOES TODAY. In fact, as I mentioned some time ago on this forum, there was recently a commercial done by Fed-Ex(I think it was Fed-Ex...it was one of those delivery companies) in which they stated that they deliver to "the four corners of the earth". Where's your boycott of the commercial? Would you like me to provide you with more info so you can start a campaign against it? Oh, no, that's right...you(individually and collectively) really don't give a damn, except where it suits your own agenda. Well, I've already spent more time here today than I have available to me. Time to get back to work.
Well if that is the case then I apologize for my ignorance.
Should we then consider teaching about the Egyptian, Roman, Christian, Jewish or Islamic interpretations of the Universe in a science class as valid theories?
If not, my point still stands. Equally there is no place for Atheism. Just teach the subjects.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 3 2008, 09:54 AM)
I fully understand that the reason for the animosity toward creationists is their attempt to usurp the education of our children, but it also goes to the other extreme when some use the educational system to indoctrinate their students to Atheism.
Granted, I haven't been in a science class since college (in the late 1970's), but I have never experienced this. All but one of my science teachers never mentioned religion or god.
I did have one physics teacher in college who spent one class explaining his belief in "ex nihilo fiat" - which, as far as I know, no one ever asked him about. And it had nothing to do with anything that class was supposed to be covering.
However, I did have many a religious person tell me that what I was learning in school was incompatible with a belief in "God".
Granted, I haven't been in a science class since college (in the late 1970's), but I have never experienced this. All but one of my science teachers never mentioned religion or god.
I did have one physics teacher in college who spent one class explaining his belief in "ex nihilo fiat" - which, as far as I know, no one ever asked him about. And it had nothing to do with anything that class was supposed to be covering.
However, I did have many a religious person tell me that what I was learning in school was incompatible with a belief in "God".
QUOTE (gmilam+May 3 2008, 11:50 AM)
Granted, I haven't been in a science class since college (in the late 1970's), but I have never experienced this. All but one of my science teachers never mentioned religion or god.
I did have one physics teacher in college who spent one class explaining his belief in "ex nihilo fiat" - which, as far as I know, no one ever asked him about. And it had nothing to do with anything that class was supposed to be covering.
However, I did have many a religious person tell me that what I was learning in school was incompatible with a belief in "God".
Hi, gmilam
I have a daughter entering a large university in a couple of months and a son next year.
I have read in this forum that "If a student comes out of college still believing in God then the college didn't do it's job".
I know that this is was extreme comment and I have to consider the source (photojack) but all I have been hearing makes me wonder what is going on in today's schools.
I think I would be concerned whether I was religious or not.
I did have one physics teacher in college who spent one class explaining his belief in "ex nihilo fiat" - which, as far as I know, no one ever asked him about. And it had nothing to do with anything that class was supposed to be covering.
However, I did have many a religious person tell me that what I was learning in school was incompatible with a belief in "God".
Hi, gmilam
I have a daughter entering a large university in a couple of months and a son next year.
I have read in this forum that "If a student comes out of college still believing in God then the college didn't do it's job".
I know that this is was extreme comment and I have to consider the source (photojack) but all I have been hearing makes me wonder what is going on in today's schools.
I think I would be concerned whether I was religious or not.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 3 2008, 11:31 AM)
Hi, gmilam
I have a daughter entering a large university in a couple of months and a son next year.
I have read in this forum that "If a student comes out of college still believing in God then the college didn't do it's job".
I know that this is was extreme comment and I have to consider the source (photojack) but all I have been hearing makes me wonder what is going on in today's schools.
I think I would be concerned whether I was religious or not.
That's why I am here. To try and figure out what's going on. I found this forum as the Dover trail was cranking up. I did a google to find out what this ID theory was, and that led me here. (I still haven't found out what the actual "theory" is.)
IF there are science teachers actually teaching "atheism" in the classroom, then yes, that should be stopped. However, any time I ask about specific examples I get the same results I have on the ID theory - none.
I have a daughter entering a large university in a couple of months and a son next year.
I have read in this forum that "If a student comes out of college still believing in God then the college didn't do it's job".
I know that this is was extreme comment and I have to consider the source (photojack) but all I have been hearing makes me wonder what is going on in today's schools.
I think I would be concerned whether I was religious or not.
That's why I am here. To try and figure out what's going on. I found this forum as the Dover trail was cranking up. I did a google to find out what this ID theory was, and that led me here. (I still haven't found out what the actual "theory" is.)
IF there are science teachers actually teaching "atheism" in the classroom, then yes, that should be stopped. However, any time I ask about specific examples I get the same results I have on the ID theory - none.
I tried to find the quote that I attributed to photojack and I think this is the one I was thinking of. obviously not photojack
kaneda Posted: Dec 2 2006, 11:39 AM
kaneda Posted: Dec 2 2006, 11:39 AM
QUOTE
You do have to wonder about the extremely poor education of anyone who believes in the bible? Believers should be able to go to their local education authority and tell them that they still believe in god, and immediately be given back all the money their parents paid for their education.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 3 2008, 01:07 PM)
I tried to find the quote that I attributed to photojack and I think this is the one I was thinking of. obviously not photojack
kaneda Posted: Dec 2 2006, 11:39 AM
I think most of us agree that kaneda was/is a whack-o. We find 'em on all sides of a discussion. Unfortunately, they also tend to be the most vocal.
kaneda Posted: Dec 2 2006, 11:39 AM
I think most of us agree that kaneda was/is a whack-o. We find 'em on all sides of a discussion. Unfortunately, they also tend to be the most vocal.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 3 2008, 06:07 PM)
I tried to find the quote that I attributed to photojack and I think this is the one I was thinking of. obviously not photojack
kaneda Posted: Dec 2 2006, 11:39 AM
Hi pnelson419,
So if Kaneda's comment is a cause for concern, then also consider the amount of naturally agnostic/atheist children who leave School as believers. Whats going on?
Isn't it a little young to know the answer to the meaning of life when you leave School or before?
Have their minds already closed to the idea of alternative or factual interpretations?
They must be genius's if they have dismissed the Scientific explanations so early in their lives surely?
Despite your mini-rant at me regarding Biblical interpretation, surely you can see that Children's School education need not be overly influenced by any one particular ideology other than what the School curriculum advises. Any ideology including Atheism. These are World views that can take a lifetime to decide or understand. On these forums (specifically in these threads) I am an Atheist, however elsewhere in my life I am other things, a Son, a Husband, a Brother or Friend, whatever. I am not an 'Atheist' then, I have no 'agenda' in that regard.
As new Scientific and other information comes to light our views can change. But that change is more difficult to reconcile after years of ideological indoctrination of one sort or another. This is different from factual information as that is what we know about the Reality we find ourselves a part of.
There is simply no evidence what so ever to support the Biblical Creationist view, so I do not wish for my children to learn this in School as fact.
There is overwhelming evidence in support of Evolution, I do want my children to learn this as fact.
Incidentally:
The Flat-Earth Bible
kaneda Posted: Dec 2 2006, 11:39 AM
Hi pnelson419,
So if Kaneda's comment is a cause for concern, then also consider the amount of naturally agnostic/atheist children who leave School as believers. Whats going on?
Isn't it a little young to know the answer to the meaning of life when you leave School or before?
Have their minds already closed to the idea of alternative or factual interpretations?
They must be genius's if they have dismissed the Scientific explanations so early in their lives surely?
Despite your mini-rant at me regarding Biblical interpretation, surely you can see that Children's School education need not be overly influenced by any one particular ideology other than what the School curriculum advises. Any ideology including Atheism. These are World views that can take a lifetime to decide or understand. On these forums (specifically in these threads) I am an Atheist, however elsewhere in my life I am other things, a Son, a Husband, a Brother or Friend, whatever. I am not an 'Atheist' then, I have no 'agenda' in that regard.
As new Scientific and other information comes to light our views can change. But that change is more difficult to reconcile after years of ideological indoctrination of one sort or another. This is different from factual information as that is what we know about the Reality we find ourselves a part of.
There is simply no evidence what so ever to support the Biblical Creationist view, so I do not wish for my children to learn this in School as fact.
There is overwhelming evidence in support of Evolution, I do want my children to learn this as fact.
Incidentally:
The Flat-Earth Bible
QUOTE
Flat-earthers also offer some scriptural arguments that are (in my view) weak, ambiguous, erroneous, or irrelevant. (Ironically, it is these that apologists for sphericity usually choose to deal with in their rebuttals to the flat-earthers!) The weak and ambiguous arguments can help support a cumulative picture but are insufficient on their own.
One of the weaker scriptural arguments is that the sky literally has openings (windows) which God can open to let the waters above fall to the surface as rain (see Genesis 7:11, Genesis 8:2, Isaiah 24:18-19, Jeremiah 51:15-16, and Malachi 3:10). While the idea and scriptures are certainly consistent with the flat-earth cosmology, they could (for instance) refer to openings in a spherical shell surrounding a spherical earth. The same applies to the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11:4, often cited as an attempt to literally reach the heavens.
Likewise, flat-earthers frequently cite the numerous Old Testament verses referring to the earth's foundations (see 2 Samuel 22:16, Job 38:4, Psalm 18:15, Proverbs 8:29, Isaiah 24:18, and numerous others). Foundations are, however, fairly well-covered by geocentricity. No one would argue for a flat-earth solely on the basis of “foundations” quotes.
Another less-than-conclusive argument that the Bible is a flat-earth book is its references to the earth's “corners.” For example, “After this, I saw four angels stationed at the four corners [gonia] of the earth holding back the four winds...(Revelation 7:1).” Spherical apologists are quick to point out that the Greek gonia can refer to regions rather than points. Most translations of the Bible opt for points (the King James version says “on the corners of the earth”), implying that the writer viewed the habitable earth as a four-cornered area. (This was indeed the way many early churchmen interpreted it [Cosmas, 548]. The modern flat-earth model doesn't have literal corners.) The corners could, however, be those regions at the ends of the earth referred to by Jeremiah: “[H]e brings up the mist from the ends of the earth, he opens rifts for the rain and brings the wind out of his storehouses (Jeremiah 51:16).” We shall return to the ends of the earth.
The Biblical view of the universe is relatively clear and consistent. Biblical statements bearing on cosmology are (with one possible exception yet to be discussed) consistent with the well-known flat-earth cosmologies of the ancient Near East, but they are often flatly contradicted by modern science. How do spherical apologists reply?
One of the weaker scriptural arguments is that the sky literally has openings (windows) which God can open to let the waters above fall to the surface as rain (see Genesis 7:11, Genesis 8:2, Isaiah 24:18-19, Jeremiah 51:15-16, and Malachi 3:10). While the idea and scriptures are certainly consistent with the flat-earth cosmology, they could (for instance) refer to openings in a spherical shell surrounding a spherical earth. The same applies to the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11:4, often cited as an attempt to literally reach the heavens.
Likewise, flat-earthers frequently cite the numerous Old Testament verses referring to the earth's foundations (see 2 Samuel 22:16, Job 38:4, Psalm 18:15, Proverbs 8:29, Isaiah 24:18, and numerous others). Foundations are, however, fairly well-covered by geocentricity. No one would argue for a flat-earth solely on the basis of “foundations” quotes.
Another less-than-conclusive argument that the Bible is a flat-earth book is its references to the earth's “corners.” For example, “After this, I saw four angels stationed at the four corners [gonia] of the earth holding back the four winds...(Revelation 7:1).” Spherical apologists are quick to point out that the Greek gonia can refer to regions rather than points. Most translations of the Bible opt for points (the King James version says “on the corners of the earth”), implying that the writer viewed the habitable earth as a four-cornered area. (This was indeed the way many early churchmen interpreted it [Cosmas, 548]. The modern flat-earth model doesn't have literal corners.) The corners could, however, be those regions at the ends of the earth referred to by Jeremiah: “[H]e brings up the mist from the ends of the earth, he opens rifts for the rain and brings the wind out of his storehouses (Jeremiah 51:16).” We shall return to the ends of the earth.
The Biblical view of the universe is relatively clear and consistent. Biblical statements bearing on cosmology are (with one possible exception yet to be discussed) consistent with the well-known flat-earth cosmologies of the ancient Near East, but they are often flatly contradicted by modern science. How do spherical apologists reply?
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
Despite your mini-rant at me regarding Biblical interpretation, surely you can see that Children's School education need not be overly influenced by any one particular ideology other than what the School curriculum advises.
Sinister Utopia: I think the "mini-rant" that you referred to came from me, not pnelson419, but I could be wrong.
Ummm, excuse me, but wasn't that exactly my point? "Four corners" and "four winds"? Would it take a rocket scientist to realize that these "four winds" are a north wind, south wind, east wind and west wind? Similarly, would it take a rocket scientist then to figure out the correlation between the "four corners"(north, south, east and west) and the "four winds"? Hopefully, the answer to these questions is obvious. I've addressed some of the SUPPOSED "flat earth" verses in the Bible in the past and I've also offered to address more(my offer was declined). If you have a specific verse in mind, then I'll gladly hear it...even if it's by PM, so we don't disturb the actual topic of this thread. Take care.
Sinister Utopia: I think the "mini-rant" that you referred to came from me, not pnelson419, but I could be wrong.
QUOTE
Another less-than-conclusive argument that the Bible is a flat-earth book is its references to the earth's “corners.” For example, “After this, I saw four angels stationed at the four corners [gonia] of the earth holding back the four winds...(Revelation 7:1).” Spherical apologists are quick to point out that the Greek gonia can refer to regions rather than points.
Ummm, excuse me, but wasn't that exactly my point? "Four corners" and "four winds"? Would it take a rocket scientist to realize that these "four winds" are a north wind, south wind, east wind and west wind? Similarly, would it take a rocket scientist then to figure out the correlation between the "four corners"(north, south, east and west) and the "four winds"? Hopefully, the answer to these questions is obvious. I've addressed some of the SUPPOSED "flat earth" verses in the Bible in the past and I've also offered to address more(my offer was declined). If you have a specific verse in mind, then I'll gladly hear it...even if it's by PM, so we don't disturb the actual topic of this thread. Take care.
QUOTE
Genuine Christians know their Creator. Additionally, if you think that you've SAID ANYTHING AT ALL in your most recent hate-filled rant, then YOU are the most self-deluded of all forum members.
I think I spoke fairly well for you all. I said "Faith is tangible". Is that not somewhat equivalent to saying that Xtians know their creator? Your "knowing" comes from "faith" and no where else right? Isn't that a point of pride with yall? Calling me self-deluded because I follow SCIENCE is a masterpiece of stupidity.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Genuine Christians know their Creator. Additionally, if you think that you've SAID ANYTHING AT ALL in your most recent hate-filled rant, then YOU are the most self-deluded of all forum members. |
I think I spoke fairly well for you all. I said "Faith is tangible". Is that not somewhat equivalent to saying that Xtians know their creator? Your "knowing" comes from "faith" and no where else right? Isn't that a point of pride with yall? Calling me self-deluded because I follow SCIENCE is a masterpiece of stupidity.
"Thou shalt not kill"(actually, "Thou shalt not MURDER" would be a better translation) does NOT mean that people are INCAPABLE of killing.
Yeah that's quite the convenient translation isn't it? That's the interesting thing about translations from ancient languages isn't it? They are often twisted to suit the interpreter. You fools even got the most important teaching from Jesus wrong. He tried to explain to you that "god is love" and you boobs messed that up. Rather than the correct interpretation (which is that you should make "love" of mankind your "god") ... you nutbags assigned a human trait to the mythological creator in some ignorant attempt to anthropomorphize her. I doubt you understand the difference. Jesus was trying to get his followers to recognize that and apply that rule to the human world. He hoped such an attitude would bring about peace amongst all men. But you perverted the dude's meaning in order to facilitate the enlargement of your religious institutions.
Why would you bother to include atheists in violation this rule of your book? What difference does it make if satan loving atheists kill? They're going to hell to be with satan! When a Xtian kills all he must do is sincerely ask forgiveness and all is well.
Why would you bother to include atheists in violation this rule of your book? What difference does it make if satan loving atheists kill? They're going to hell to be with satan! When a Xtian kills all he must do is sincerely ask forgiveness and all is well.
I could easily comment on your other drivel as well, but, due to my time limitations, I'll pass on that for now.
I invite you to comment freely as you wish. Don't allow your time constraints to deprive the readership of you supernaturally inspired wisdom. Does not Yahweh want you to witness? Preach it brother, amen! If you don't evangelize some then how do you ever expect to accumulate enough points to open the pearly gates? Your missing a great opportunity to educate some agnostic weenies.
"Thou shalt not kill"(actually, "Thou shalt not MURDER" would be a better translation) does NOT mean that people are INCAPABLE of killing.
Yeah that's quite the convenient translation isn't it? That's the interesting thing about translations from ancient languages isn't it? They are often twisted to suit the interpreter. You fools even got the most important teaching from Jesus wrong. He tried to explain to you that "god is love" and you boobs messed that up. Rather than the correct interpretation (which is that you should make "love" of mankind your "god") ... you nutbags assigned a human trait to the mythological creator in some ignorant attempt to anthropomorphize her. I doubt you understand the difference. Jesus was trying to get his followers to recognize that and apply that rule to the human world. He hoped such an attitude would bring about peace amongst all men. But you perverted the dude's meaning in order to facilitate the enlargement of your religious institutions.
QUOTE
Rather, it is a commandment to not do so...a commandment that is ofttimes ignored by both theists and atheists alike.
Why would you bother to include atheists in violation this rule of your book? What difference does it make if satan loving atheists kill? They're going to hell to be with satan! When a Xtian kills all he must do is sincerely ask forgiveness and all is well.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Rather, it is a commandment to not do so...a commandment that is ofttimes ignored by both theists and atheists alike. |
Why would you bother to include atheists in violation this rule of your book? What difference does it make if satan loving atheists kill? They're going to hell to be with satan! When a Xtian kills all he must do is sincerely ask forgiveness and all is well.
I could easily comment on your other drivel as well, but, due to my time limitations, I'll pass on that for now.
I invite you to comment freely as you wish. Don't allow your time constraints to deprive the readership of you supernaturally inspired wisdom. Does not Yahweh want you to witness? Preach it brother, amen! If you don't evangelize some then how do you ever expect to accumulate enough points to open the pearly gates? Your missing a great opportunity to educate some agnostic weenies.
Sinister Utopia,
As I noted this quote from kaneda was 1 1/2 years ago.
I made the effort to search it out because I attributed a statement to photojack and wanted to be sure I was correct in doing so.
Though you misattributed a post from newguy to me I would have agreed with him that the reference to the four corners were more likely north, south, east and west coordinates as has been used many times in The Bible.
It is fairly certain ancient peoples had a good understanding of the shape of the earth by the fact that long distances were navigated by land and sea using the stars as coordinates.
No where does The Bible say that the earth is flat no matter how you or any one in the past may have interpreted it.
I am not suggesting that your kids should be taught creation in class. I don't mind evolution being taught in public school but as any other science, as theory not fact.
As I noted this quote from kaneda was 1 1/2 years ago.
I made the effort to search it out because I attributed a statement to photojack and wanted to be sure I was correct in doing so.
Though you misattributed a post from newguy to me I would have agreed with him that the reference to the four corners were more likely north, south, east and west coordinates as has been used many times in The Bible.
It is fairly certain ancient peoples had a good understanding of the shape of the earth by the fact that long distances were navigated by land and sea using the stars as coordinates.
No where does The Bible say that the earth is flat no matter how you or any one in the past may have interpreted it.
I am not suggesting that your kids should be taught creation in class. I don't mind evolution being taught in public school but as any other science, as theory not fact.
Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120967537476060561.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120967537476060561.html
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 3 2008, 08:55 PM)
Sinister Utopia,
As I noted this quote from kaneda was 1 1/2 years ago.
I made the effort to search it out because I attributed a statement to photojack and wanted to be sure I was correct in doing so.
Though you misattributed a post from newguy to me I would have agreed with him that the reference to the four corners were more likely north, south, east and west coordinates as has been used many times in The Bible.
It is fairly certain ancient peoples had a good understanding of the shape of the earth by the fact that long distances were navigated by land and sea using the stars as coordinates.
No where does The Bible say that the earth is flat no matter how you or any one in the past may have interpreted it.
I am not suggesting that your kids should be taught creation in class. I don't mind evolution being taught in public school but as any other science, as theory not fact.
Yes I attributed the quote from you in error, and I apologize for that.
I feel the point I am making was derailed by the focus on the 'Four corners of the earth' reference. I think I should make it clear that it is 100% irrelevant what interpretation I have of the Bible.
The original point was to illustrate how some people DO or HAVE interpreted the Bible. And I made it clear that I was referring to some Bible literalists who DO believe the 'Four corners' interpretation.
I was merely pointing out that as we do not have a controversy in Geography class debating this issue because it is now overwhelmingly evident that the world does not have corners. Similarly it is overwhelmingly evident that we have Evolved.
Evolution is a fact. The theory of Evolution is how we are learning to understand that fact. Within, you will find controversy and differing opinions within scientific circles of the various mechanisms involved etc but not that Evolution occurred, is occurring and will continue to occur.
There is no evidence that Biblical creation occurred, however you interpret it.
As I noted this quote from kaneda was 1 1/2 years ago.
I made the effort to search it out because I attributed a statement to photojack and wanted to be sure I was correct in doing so.
Though you misattributed a post from newguy to me I would have agreed with him that the reference to the four corners were more likely north, south, east and west coordinates as has been used many times in The Bible.
It is fairly certain ancient peoples had a good understanding of the shape of the earth by the fact that long distances were navigated by land and sea using the stars as coordinates.
No where does The Bible say that the earth is flat no matter how you or any one in the past may have interpreted it.
I am not suggesting that your kids should be taught creation in class. I don't mind evolution being taught in public school but as any other science, as theory not fact.
Yes I attributed the quote from you in error, and I apologize for that.
I feel the point I am making was derailed by the focus on the 'Four corners of the earth' reference. I think I should make it clear that it is 100% irrelevant what interpretation I have of the Bible.
The original point was to illustrate how some people DO or HAVE interpreted the Bible. And I made it clear that I was referring to some Bible literalists who DO believe the 'Four corners' interpretation.
I was merely pointing out that as we do not have a controversy in Geography class debating this issue because it is now overwhelmingly evident that the world does not have corners. Similarly it is overwhelmingly evident that we have Evolved.
Evolution is a fact. The theory of Evolution is how we are learning to understand that fact. Within, you will find controversy and differing opinions within scientific circles of the various mechanisms involved etc but not that Evolution occurred, is occurring and will continue to occur.
There is no evidence that Biblical creation occurred, however you interpret it.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
I think I spoke fairly well for you all.
uaafanblog: One of your problems(there are several) is your repeated use of such sayings as "you all". Obviously, you cannot differentiate between INDIVIDUALS. You may not see that as a problem(not that you're here for anything other than trouble anyway), but I do.
uaafanblog: One of your problems(there are several) is your repeated use of such sayings as "you all". Obviously, you cannot differentiate between INDIVIDUALS. You may not see that as a problem(not that you're here for anything other than trouble anyway), but I do.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
I said "Faith is tangible". Is that not somewhat equivalent to saying that Xtians know their creator? Your "knowing" comes from "faith" and no where else right?
No, wrong. Not that you have any genuine desire to understand what I'm about to say, but, as I've plainly stated before, Biblical "faith" has to do with believing the Word of someone you know and have proved to be faithful time and time again. There's a world of difference between that type of "faith" and the type of "wishful thinking" that you(and a whole host of others) seem to describe. But, as I said, you're just here for trouble, so what difference does it really make?
No, wrong. Not that you have any genuine desire to understand what I'm about to say, but, as I've plainly stated before, Biblical "faith" has to do with believing the Word of someone you know and have proved to be faithful time and time again. There's a world of difference between that type of "faith" and the type of "wishful thinking" that you(and a whole host of others) seem to describe. But, as I said, you're just here for trouble, so what difference does it really make?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
Isn't that a point of pride with yall?
How ironic that YOU should be questioning about "pride". It is primarily YOUR PRIDE that keeps YOU from knowing God as He resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. And try working on that "y'all" thing, won't you? There are all sorts of different types of individuals within the ranks of professing Christendom.
How ironic that YOU should be questioning about "pride". It is primarily YOUR PRIDE that keeps YOU from knowing God as He resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. And try working on that "y'all" thing, won't you? There are all sorts of different types of individuals within the ranks of professing Christendom.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
Calling me self-deluded because I follow SCIENCE is a masterpiece of stupidity.
Speaking of "stupidity", only an idiot would make such a faulty conclusion after reading what I actually stated. My reference to your "self-delusion" had absolutely nothing to do with "science" whatsoever.
Speaking of "stupidity", only an idiot would make such a faulty conclusion after reading what I actually stated. My reference to your "self-delusion" had absolutely nothing to do with "science" whatsoever.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
Faith is tangible; we know this because our self-delusions have confirmed it.
That was your original quote. I was merely pointing out the irony/hypocrisy of someone like you speaking of "self-delusions" when almost every criticism that you've offered so far of God or the Bible(on this thread and at least one other) are based upon nothing more/less than YOUR OWN self-delusions. In other words, you made them up and apparently not only believe them, but actually argue against them.
That was your original quote. I was merely pointing out the irony/hypocrisy of someone like you speaking of "self-delusions" when almost every criticism that you've offered so far of God or the Bible(on this thread and at least one other) are based upon nothing more/less than YOUR OWN self-delusions. In other words, you made them up and apparently not only believe them, but actually argue against them.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
Yeah that's quite the convenient translation isn't it? That's the interesting thing about translations from ancient languages isn't it? They are often twisted to suit the interpreter.
Nothing was "twisted" at all. If you think that you can provide documentation to disprove what I previously stated, then by all means do so. If not, it's just more drivel.
Nothing was "twisted" at all. If you think that you can provide documentation to disprove what I previously stated, then by all means do so. If not, it's just more drivel.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
You fools even got the most important teaching from Jesus wrong. He tried to explain to you that "god is love" and you boobs messed that up. Rather than the correct interpretation (which is that you should make "love" of mankind your "god") ... you nutbags assigned a human trait to the mythological creator in some ignorant attempt to anthropomorphize her. I doubt you understand the difference. Jesus was trying to get his followers to recognize that and apply that rule to the human world. He hoped such an attitude would bring about peace amongst all men. But you perverted the dude's meaning in order to facilitate the enlargement of your religious institutions.
"How delusional are you...let me count the ways."
1. As most people on this forum already know, NO ONE has spent more time explaining that God wants us to love one another THAN ME. I've consistently refuted the garbage that "Crusaders", "Inquisitors" and a whole bunch of other people were Christians. So what are you talking about?
2. YOUR TRANSLATION that "love of manking should be my god" is simply that...YOUR TRANSLATION.
3. "Mythological creator". Self-explanatory.
4. "her"? More of YOUR OWN self-delusions.
5. I'm seeking "to facilitate the enlargement of my religious institutions"? LOL!
I NEVER FIT INTO "CHURCH" FROM DAY ONE. As an FYI, I stopped attending church altogether somewhere around 7 years ago. Additionally, prior to my FINAL departure, I spent THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY TIME IN CHURCH trying to fix the problems FROM WITHIN. When I finally realized/admitted that it was a losing battle, I left. Haven't missed it in the least.
"How delusional are you...let me count the ways."
1. As most people on this forum already know, NO ONE has spent more time explaining that God wants us to love one another THAN ME. I've consistently refuted the garbage that "Crusaders", "Inquisitors" and a whole bunch of other people were Christians. So what are you talking about?
2. YOUR TRANSLATION that "love of manking should be my god" is simply that...YOUR TRANSLATION.
3. "Mythological creator". Self-explanatory.
4. "her"? More of YOUR OWN self-delusions.
5. I'm seeking "to facilitate the enlargement of my religious institutions"? LOL!
I NEVER FIT INTO "CHURCH" FROM DAY ONE. As an FYI, I stopped attending church altogether somewhere around 7 years ago. Additionally, prior to my FINAL departure, I spent THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY TIME IN CHURCH trying to fix the problems FROM WITHIN. When I finally realized/admitted that it was a losing battle, I left. Haven't missed it in the least.QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
Why would you bother to include atheists in violation this rule of your book? What difference does it make if satan loving atheists kill? They're going to hell to be with satan! When a Xtian kills all he must do is sincerely ask forgiveness and all is well.
"There you go, again." - Ronald Reagan
See what you did? You just stereotyped all Christians as those who view "non-believers" as "satan loving atheists" and also as those who desire to see them burn in hell. As any intelligent person could tell you(you might have to dig a little to find one around here), I've probably sided with the arguments of atheists MUCH MORE than I've sided with the arguments of professing theists on this forum. The major problem of the atheists, IMO, is that they've thrown out the proverbial baby with the bath water. In other words, they've properly discerned/recognized many flaws in what PROFESSES to be Christianity and have therefore denounced the whole thing. But, then again, what is any of this to you? Like I said, you're just here for trouble.
Well, I'm heading back out on the road tomorrow morning and I've got a lot of work to get done before I leave. I'll check back when I'm able. Take care.
"There you go, again." - Ronald Reagan
See what you did? You just stereotyped all Christians as those who view "non-believers" as "satan loving atheists" and also as those who desire to see them burn in hell. As any intelligent person could tell you(you might have to dig a little to find one around here), I've probably sided with the arguments of atheists MUCH MORE than I've sided with the arguments of professing theists on this forum. The major problem of the atheists, IMO, is that they've thrown out the proverbial baby with the bath water. In other words, they've properly discerned/recognized many flaws in what PROFESSES to be Christianity and have therefore denounced the whole thing. But, then again, what is any of this to you? Like I said, you're just here for trouble.
Well, I'm heading back out on the road tomorrow morning and I've got a lot of work to get done before I leave. I'll check back when I'm able. Take care.
My intent here has nothing to do with "trouble" as you say; instead it is to offend religious adherents. Yes. I want to offend them (you). My original response was an attempt at irreverence (and hopefully a laugh for those who share any measure of my views) in furtherance of that goal. Why do I want to offend?
Because the beliefs you (they) defend are an affront to reason. The simple fact that anyone comes onto this board of science and spews their faith based beliefs as truth is patently offensive to me as a follower of reason. There is NOTHING in any argument by ANY religious adherent that falls into the category of reason yet they (you) insist on spewing as if they did.
You and others of your ilk should be taken aback and/or offended at many of my assertions. That is the point. The fact that you take the time to respond at all is an indication of the lack of depth of your faith. Truly faithful adherents ought to be able to do as their "good" book tells them and turn the other cheek. After all, you "know" the truth! Yet you (them) display defensiveness when attacked (whether my attacks were fair or otherwise is irrelevant in the extreme). Why? Because they (you) don't really have the necessary faith to adhere to the belief system you (they) are discussing. That is hypocrisy defined.
If by my actions I can make one of you shut up then I'm satisfied. Trust that this isn't the only environment where I attack religionists. Whether it is laughing in their face or perhaps just giving them a big fat "FOOK OFF"; I will presume to avail myself of the opportunity. To allow ignorance and myth to go unchallenged would be an equal affront to reason. Somebody needs to say SHUT UP and whether I do it well or not doesn't matter. I'm proud of the fact that I do.
In a few generations the majority of religious adherents will have been reduced to a smattering of few nutbags here and there. It will be the followers of reason that put the nail in that coffin and the world will be much better for it.
Because the beliefs you (they) defend are an affront to reason. The simple fact that anyone comes onto this board of science and spews their faith based beliefs as truth is patently offensive to me as a follower of reason. There is NOTHING in any argument by ANY religious adherent that falls into the category of reason yet they (you) insist on spewing as if they did.
You and others of your ilk should be taken aback and/or offended at many of my assertions. That is the point. The fact that you take the time to respond at all is an indication of the lack of depth of your faith. Truly faithful adherents ought to be able to do as their "good" book tells them and turn the other cheek. After all, you "know" the truth! Yet you (them) display defensiveness when attacked (whether my attacks were fair or otherwise is irrelevant in the extreme). Why? Because they (you) don't really have the necessary faith to adhere to the belief system you (they) are discussing. That is hypocrisy defined.
If by my actions I can make one of you shut up then I'm satisfied. Trust that this isn't the only environment where I attack religionists. Whether it is laughing in their face or perhaps just giving them a big fat "FOOK OFF"; I will presume to avail myself of the opportunity. To allow ignorance and myth to go unchallenged would be an equal affront to reason. Somebody needs to say SHUT UP and whether I do it well or not doesn't matter. I'm proud of the fact that I do.
In a few generations the majority of religious adherents will have been reduced to a smattering of few nutbags here and there. It will be the followers of reason that put the nail in that coffin and the world will be much better for it.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
Does not Yahweh want you to witness?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+)
The fact that you take the time to respond at all is an indication of the lack of depth of your faith. Truly faithful adherents ought to be able to do as their "good" book tells them and turn the other cheek. After all, you "know" the truth! Yet you (them) display defensiveness when attacked (whether my attacks were fair or otherwise is irrelevant in the extreme). Why? Because they (you) don't really have the necessary faith to adhere to the belief system you (they) are discussing. That is hypocrisy defined.
uaafanblog: My, my...you sure are confused, aren't you? Which is it? Should I "witness" or "turn the other cheek"? Ready for the answer? BOTH, as they're in NO WAY related to each other. As I recently explained to another forum member, "turning the other cheek" has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with not responding to questions/comments. In actuality, it has EVERYTHING to do with not fighting back when struck PHYSICALLY.
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever will smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."(Matthew 5:38-39)
And here is where "it hath been said":
"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."(Exodus 21:23-25)
"And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again."(Leviticus 24:19-20)
"And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."(Deuteronomy 19:21)
Those are THE ONLY THREE PLACES in the Old Testament where an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth are mentioned. IN ALL THREE CASES, the context is clearly PHYSICAL. Spare me/us YOUR TWISTED INTERPRETATIONS, okay? You've not touched me physically, so there's been no need whatsoever for me to "turn the other cheek". Any imagined "hypocrisy" is just more evidence of YOUR OWN self-delusions. Seriously, dude, do yourself a favor and take your sideshow elsewhere...ignorant clowns don't fare too well around here. Good night.
uaafanblog: My, my...you sure are confused, aren't you? Which is it? Should I "witness" or "turn the other cheek"? Ready for the answer? BOTH, as they're in NO WAY related to each other. As I recently explained to another forum member, "turning the other cheek" has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with not responding to questions/comments. In actuality, it has EVERYTHING to do with not fighting back when struck PHYSICALLY.
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever will smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."(Matthew 5:38-39)
And here is where "it hath been said":
"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."(Exodus 21:23-25)
"And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again."(Leviticus 24:19-20)
"And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."(Deuteronomy 19:21)
Those are THE ONLY THREE PLACES in the Old Testament where an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth are mentioned. IN ALL THREE CASES, the context is clearly PHYSICAL. Spare me/us YOUR TWISTED INTERPRETATIONS, okay? You've not touched me physically, so there's been no need whatsoever for me to "turn the other cheek". Any imagined "hypocrisy" is just more evidence of YOUR OWN self-delusions. Seriously, dude, do yourself a favor and take your sideshow elsewhere...ignorant clowns don't fare too well around here. Good night.
I am just altogether amazed at the arrogance of some people.
Should all children be taken at birth and raised in a state facility because "God forbid" they may be influenced by a parent in a manner that may be outside a certain belief system.
Hey why not after all children are incapable of independent thought.
Well I can say that is not the case with my children but as far as I know they may be an exception.
Only the Facts Please
You don't Want to Know the Facts
Edit:
This is to edit my mini rant to explain that it was partially in response to posts on this thread and others that have suggested that it is irresponsible of a parent to give their children any world view other than that of an atheist.
Should all children be taken at birth and raised in a state facility because "God forbid" they may be influenced by a parent in a manner that may be outside a certain belief system.
Hey why not after all children are incapable of independent thought.
Well I can say that is not the case with my children but as far as I know they may be an exception.
Only the Facts Please
You don't Want to Know the Facts
Edit:
This is to edit my mini rant to explain that it was partially in response to posts on this thread and others that have suggested that it is irresponsible of a parent to give their children any world view other than that of an atheist.
QUOTE (pnelson+)
It is fairly certain ancient peoples had a good understanding of the shape of the earth by the fact that long distances were navigated by land and sea using the stars as coordinates.
Actually, you are wrong.
The only way one could use the stars to navigate would be if they had detailed astronomical charts recording positions of key stars on different dates of the year. We developed that information long after the bible was written. In fact, we developed that technology after we had agreed that the world was round.
The reason "Greenwich Mean Time" exists is because Greenwich had an extraordinarily long record of astronomical bodies(and had the interesting design of not being able to be rotated)
So...I don't think Ancient People had longitude and latitude.
Wait what?
So what exactly does that mean...
Gravity is a theory too...
Do we tell kids that gravity may not be real, and is only a theory?
Evolution is as much of a fact as gravity. Things evolve.
So how do you propose we teach it in school any differently than we do now?
.....
As far as your kids going to college, I have something to say.
Your kids should graduate from college with the same faith in God they would have if they didn't attend college.
However, they should come out of college being more knowledgable.
Their knowledge might be specific to biology, and if it is....then it is almost certainty that they will stop believing in this creationism crap.
Every creationist I have ever met has been willfully ignorant of Biology. I find this odd, I don't believe in the bible but I pride myself on being knowledgable about the bible.
If your kids get to watch evolution occur in a petri dish, I doubt you are going to be able to convince them that they didn't watch it happen.
Actually, you are wrong.
The only way one could use the stars to navigate would be if they had detailed astronomical charts recording positions of key stars on different dates of the year. We developed that information long after the bible was written. In fact, we developed that technology after we had agreed that the world was round.
The reason "Greenwich Mean Time" exists is because Greenwich had an extraordinarily long record of astronomical bodies(and had the interesting design of not being able to be rotated)
So...I don't think Ancient People had longitude and latitude.
QUOTE
I am not suggesting that your kids should be taught creation in class. I don't mind evolution being taught in public school but as any other science, as theory not fact.
Wait what?
So what exactly does that mean...
Gravity is a theory too...
Do we tell kids that gravity may not be real, and is only a theory?
Evolution is as much of a fact as gravity. Things evolve.
So how do you propose we teach it in school any differently than we do now?
.....
As far as your kids going to college, I have something to say.
Your kids should graduate from college with the same faith in God they would have if they didn't attend college.
However, they should come out of college being more knowledgable.
Their knowledge might be specific to biology, and if it is....then it is almost certainty that they will stop believing in this creationism crap.
Every creationist I have ever met has been willfully ignorant of Biology. I find this odd, I don't believe in the bible but I pride myself on being knowledgable about the bible.
If your kids get to watch evolution occur in a petri dish, I doubt you are going to be able to convince them that they didn't watch it happen.
QUOTE (newguy+)
uaafanblog: My, my...you sure are confused, aren't you? Which is it? Should I "witness" or "turn the other cheek"? Ready for the answer? BOTH, as they're in NO WAY related to each other. As I recently explained to another forum member, "turning the other cheek" has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with not responding to questions/comments. In actuality, it has EVERYTHING to do with not fighting back when struck PHYSICALLY.
... biblical quotes removed because they are wholly irrelevant to a discussion of reasoning ...
Those are THE ONLY THREE PLACES in the Old Testament where an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth are mentioned. IN ALL THREE CASES, the context is clearly PHYSICAL. Spare me/us YOUR TWISTED INTERPRETATIONS, okay? You've not touched me physically, so there's been no need whatsoever for me to "turn the other cheek". Any imagined "hypocrisy" is just more evidence of YOUR OWN self-delusions. Seriously, dude, do yourself a favor and take your sideshow elsewhere...ignorant clowns don't fare too well around here. Good night.
My call for you to "witness" was sarcastic and facetious. Your faith is clearly shallow.
Any number of interpretations related to "turn the other cheek" refute your ridiculous assertion that it is only related to "physical" attack. In a book full of allegory and metaphor it sure is convenient (once again) that xtian religionists pick and choose their interpretations to suit the argument. In fact there are THREE differing classic interpretations of the phrase. Naturally, yours is right huh? Because you "know" god, right?
You sure can get as crazily literal as you wish in one area and then obtusely interpretational in another can't you? More convenience? Thanks for the hilarity. You're pretty funny.
And don't you think rather than telling me that "ignorant clowns don't fare too well around here" that you really ought to leave it up to any readers of this stupid argument to make up their own minds. What part of the "grace" that god has imbued upon you does name-calling come from? LOL.
The "absolute truth" here is that I PWND you at your own game. And Yahweh is pissed off at you because of it! Oops ... a little milk came out of my nose from laughing!
... biblical quotes removed because they are wholly irrelevant to a discussion of reasoning ...
Those are THE ONLY THREE PLACES in the Old Testament where an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth are mentioned. IN ALL THREE CASES, the context is clearly PHYSICAL. Spare me/us YOUR TWISTED INTERPRETATIONS, okay? You've not touched me physically, so there's been no need whatsoever for me to "turn the other cheek". Any imagined "hypocrisy" is just more evidence of YOUR OWN self-delusions. Seriously, dude, do yourself a favor and take your sideshow elsewhere...ignorant clowns don't fare too well around here. Good night.
My call for you to "witness" was sarcastic and facetious. Your faith is clearly shallow.
Any number of interpretations related to "turn the other cheek" refute your ridiculous assertion that it is only related to "physical" attack. In a book full of allegory and metaphor it sure is convenient (once again) that xtian religionists pick and choose their interpretations to suit the argument. In fact there are THREE differing classic interpretations of the phrase. Naturally, yours is right huh? Because you "know" god, right?
You sure can get as crazily literal as you wish in one area and then obtusely interpretational in another can't you? More convenience? Thanks for the hilarity. You're pretty funny.
And don't you think rather than telling me that "ignorant clowns don't fare too well around here" that you really ought to leave it up to any readers of this stupid argument to make up their own minds. What part of the "grace" that god has imbued upon you does name-calling come from? LOL.
The "absolute truth" here is that I PWND you at your own game. And Yahweh is pissed off at you because of it! Oops ... a little milk came out of my nose from laughing!
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 4 2008, 12:28 AM)
Should all children be taken at birth and raised in a state facility because "God forbid" they may be influenced by a parent in a manner that may be outside a certain belief system.
Only the children of religionists should be taken away by the state.
Dont mess with Texas!
Only the children of religionists should be taken away by the state.
Dont mess with Texas!
QUOTE (newguy+)
Seriously, dude, do yourself a favor and take your sideshow elsewhere...ignorant clowns don't fare too well around here.
QUOTE (newguy+)
Speaking of "stupidity", only an idiot would make such a faulty conclusion after reading what I actually stated.
I think you are missing the point.
Let me try to make this a little simpler.
Let me play Devil's Advocate for a bit and pretend that both Atheists and Theists are wrong.
Theists tell their kid there is a God.
We are going to pretend that God is not real.
There is no way to prove that God does not exist.
The kid basis his view on God on what his parents told him.
Since you cannot prove a negative, the kid has no definite proof to change his belief
Now, let us do the same for the other side of the mirror
God is now real....
The child raised by atheists is taught there is no God
But God does exist, and therefore provides evidence of his existence.
The kid can now weigh the evidence. His parents told him God was fake, but he sees evidence of God.
There is a very real chance that he will convert.
The argument is simple, even if we assume that both sides are lying to their children, the atheist-raised child still has the ability to weigh the evidence. The theist raised child doesn't get the same freedom to decide. While all parents want their children to emulate them to some degree....I think that raising your child without religious influence is the best way to insure that they make a decision about religion rather than base their religious views on that of their parents.
If Christians are right....then those free-thinking kids will eventually side with them. Don't worry about your kids being raised Atheist.
When did i say that?
When did i say that?
parents have a right and an obligation to raise their children to the best of their ability
They do....
And is it really best to indoctrinate your children with an idea that you cannot prove?
I am not asking you to deny anything, but complaining about "atheist" influences on kids is a bit silly.
If Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, or any other religion had a legitimate leg to stand on....then children raised atheist would be converting to these religions like crazy.
Now, why do we have all of these kids going off to college and losing their religion?
Maybe because when they get to college they learn that all of that stuff about a global flood and creationism is utter rubbish.
Let me ask you a question nelson.
Were you more or less trusting of your parents when you finally found out that Santa Claus wasnt real?
Christianity can exist without creationism. Why teach your kids creationism when there is so much obvious evidence that explains creationism is rubbish.
Creationists want to keep evolution out of school.
They want us to tell kids "its just a theory"(as opposed to what alternative?)
They want us to stop filling kids heads with all of this "science".
Why?
Why keep kids in a bubble?
I always hear my atheist friends say "the best way to become an atheist is to read the bible".
I never hear creationists say that the best way to become a creationist is to study evolutionary biology.
I wonder who has the factual information on their side?
QUOTE (newguy+)
Like I said, you're just here for trouble.
I decided to take some of your advice...
"For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes." (Luke 6, 44)
But this is good, for you destroy the thing you only pretend to love, and thus destroy also the pretence into the bargain...My, but I have heard tell that it's mighty warm 'down there'!
g.
I decided to take some of your advice...
"For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes." (Luke 6, 44)
But this is good, for you destroy the thing you only pretend to love, and thus destroy also the pretence into the bargain...My, but I have heard tell that it's mighty warm 'down there'!
g.
PuckSR
I would only suggest any explanation of observed phenomena as theory.
I would think anyone really interested in science would not accept any explanation as fact if they really want to better understand.
I would only suggest any explanation of observed phenomena as theory.
I would think anyone really interested in science would not accept any explanation as fact if they really want to better understand.
I wanna do quote thingies too...and in old english
"My mistress with a monster is in love.
Near to her close and consecrated bower,
While she was in her dull and sleeping hour,
A crew of patches, rude mechanicals,
That work for bread upon Athenian stalls,
Were met together to rehearse a play,
Intended for great Theseus' nuptial day.
The shallowest thickskin of that barren sort,
Who Pyramus presented in their sport,
Forsook his scene and entered in a brake.
When I did him at this advantage take,
An ***'s nole I fixèd on his head.
Anon his Thisby must be answerèd,
And forth my mimic comes. When they him spy,
As wild geese that the creeping fowler eye,
Or russet-pated choughs, many in sort,
Rising and cawing at the gun's report,
Sever themselves and madly sweep the sky;
So at his sight away his fellows fly,
And at our stamp here o'er and o'er one falls;
He murder cries and help from Athens calls.
Their sense thus weak, lost with their fears thus strong,
Made senseless things begin to do them wrong,
For briers and thorns at their apparel snatch:
Some, sleeves -- some, hats; from yielders all things catch.
I led them on in this distracted fear
And left sweet Pyramus translated there,
When in that moment (so it came to pass)
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ***.--(Midsummer 3:2)
Kinda makes whoever wrote the bible looks like a silly wanker
I mean, seriously. The bible uses old english(the original language of the bible)...but Shakespeare could do it in rhyme.
And who doesn't know this little tidbit
"To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.
--Hamlet 3:1
Jesus had the speaking ability of a state senator from Montana. Shakespeare, he could make you cry.
"My mistress with a monster is in love.
Near to her close and consecrated bower,
While she was in her dull and sleeping hour,
A crew of patches, rude mechanicals,
That work for bread upon Athenian stalls,
Were met together to rehearse a play,
Intended for great Theseus' nuptial day.
The shallowest thickskin of that barren sort,
Who Pyramus presented in their sport,
Forsook his scene and entered in a brake.
When I did him at this advantage take,
An ***'s nole I fixèd on his head.
Anon his Thisby must be answerèd,
And forth my mimic comes. When they him spy,
As wild geese that the creeping fowler eye,
Or russet-pated choughs, many in sort,
Rising and cawing at the gun's report,
Sever themselves and madly sweep the sky;
So at his sight away his fellows fly,
And at our stamp here o'er and o'er one falls;
He murder cries and help from Athens calls.
Their sense thus weak, lost with their fears thus strong,
Made senseless things begin to do them wrong,
For briers and thorns at their apparel snatch:
Some, sleeves -- some, hats; from yielders all things catch.
I led them on in this distracted fear
And left sweet Pyramus translated there,
When in that moment (so it came to pass)
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ***.--(Midsummer 3:2)
Kinda makes whoever wrote the bible looks like a silly wanker
I mean, seriously. The bible uses old english(the original language of the bible)...but Shakespeare could do it in rhyme.
And who doesn't know this little tidbit
"To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.
--Hamlet 3:1
Jesus had the speaking ability of a state senator from Montana. Shakespeare, he could make you cry.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+May 3 2008, 09:35 PM)
Only the children of religionists should be taken away by the state.
Dont mess with Texas!
And my guess you would take a census
All atheist keep their kids
All others are taken to be raised by atheists
Dont mess with Texas!
And my guess you would take a census
All atheist keep their kids
All others are taken to be raised by atheists
QUOTE
And my guess you would take a census
All atheist keep their kids
All others are taken to be raised by atheists
All atheist keep their kids
All others are taken to be raised by atheists
I think you are missing the point.
Let me try to make this a little simpler.
Let me play Devil's Advocate for a bit and pretend that both Atheists and Theists are wrong.
Theists tell their kid there is a God.
We are going to pretend that God is not real.
There is no way to prove that God does not exist.
The kid basis his view on God on what his parents told him.
Since you cannot prove a negative, the kid has no definite proof to change his belief
Now, let us do the same for the other side of the mirror
God is now real....
The child raised by atheists is taught there is no God
But God does exist, and therefore provides evidence of his existence.
The kid can now weigh the evidence. His parents told him God was fake, but he sees evidence of God.
There is a very real chance that he will convert.
The argument is simple, even if we assume that both sides are lying to their children, the atheist-raised child still has the ability to weigh the evidence. The theist raised child doesn't get the same freedom to decide. While all parents want their children to emulate them to some degree....I think that raising your child without religious influence is the best way to insure that they make a decision about religion rather than base their religious views on that of their parents.
If Christians are right....then those free-thinking kids will eventually side with them. Don't worry about your kids being raised Atheist.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 4 2008, 02:54 AM)
And my guess you would take a census
All atheist keep their kids
All others are taken to be raised by atheists
At birth; from the nursery; immediately, using the threat of violence against the theists if necessary. Thereby ensuring they would have zero exposure to the horrendous lies that mythology perpetrates.
Be very very glad that I'm not King of America.
All atheist keep their kids
All others are taken to be raised by atheists
At birth; from the nursery; immediately, using the threat of violence against the theists if necessary. Thereby ensuring they would have zero exposure to the horrendous lies that mythology perpetrates.
Be very very glad that I'm not King of America.
PuckSR
I Think you miss the point
for one you suppose being atheist makes you a free thinker
for another people are individuals
parents have a right and an obligation to raise their children to the best of their ability
being Atheist doesn't make you a better parent, nor does being Christian Muslim, or any other ideology
I Think you miss the point
for one you suppose being atheist makes you a free thinker
for another people are individuals
parents have a right and an obligation to raise their children to the best of their ability
being Atheist doesn't make you a better parent, nor does being Christian Muslim, or any other ideology
QUOTE
for one you suppose being atheist makes you a free thinker
When did i say that?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| for one you suppose being atheist makes you a free thinker |
When did i say that?
parents have a right and an obligation to raise their children to the best of their ability
They do....
And is it really best to indoctrinate your children with an idea that you cannot prove?
PuckSR,
It did seem you were referring that these were kids raised by atheist
So what should I do,
deny my belief to my children because people like you don't understand.
QUOTE
If Christians are right....then those free-thinking kids will eventually side with them. Don't worry about your kids being raised Atheist.
It did seem you were referring that these were kids raised by atheist
So what should I do,
deny my belief to my children because people like you don't understand.
QUOTE
So what should I do,
deny my belief to my children because people like you don't understand.
deny my belief to my children because people like you don't understand.
I am not asking you to deny anything, but complaining about "atheist" influences on kids is a bit silly.
If Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, or any other religion had a legitimate leg to stand on....then children raised atheist would be converting to these religions like crazy.
Now, why do we have all of these kids going off to college and losing their religion?
Maybe because when they get to college they learn that all of that stuff about a global flood and creationism is utter rubbish.
Let me ask you a question nelson.
Were you more or less trusting of your parents when you finally found out that Santa Claus wasnt real?
Christianity can exist without creationism. Why teach your kids creationism when there is so much obvious evidence that explains creationism is rubbish.
Creationists want to keep evolution out of school.
They want us to tell kids "its just a theory"(as opposed to what alternative?)
They want us to stop filling kids heads with all of this "science".
Why?
Why keep kids in a bubble?
I always hear my atheist friends say "the best way to become an atheist is to read the bible".
I never hear creationists say that the best way to become a creationist is to study evolutionary biology.
I wonder who has the factual information on their side?
PuckSR
I think you are the paranoid one
Good night
I think you are the paranoid one
Good night
I think another religionist just bit the dust! pnelson419 calling PuckSR or his statements paranoid? (()) What does he think of the equally well-argued statements from uaafanblog?
Goodnight pnelson419. Sleep tight in your ignorance and rejection of the entire body of scientific thought. WWnD? (Take off on "What Would Jesus Do? modified to :
"What Would newguy Do?
"Replying to Creationism." I think the N.C.S.E. (National Center for Science Education) has already done an extremely thorough job of that, and is having to continually update their responses to counter further ridiculous claims and attempts from the Creationist front to end science learning as we know it! I'm on their list-server and am updated a few times a month on their vital activities.
THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE BEING DISCUSSED IN THIS FORUM, NOT MORE RELIGIOUS BLATHERINGS!
"Darwin's Reach: A Celebration of Darwin's Legacy Across Academic Disciplines."
The Darwin's Reach conference will examine the impact of Darwin and
Darwinian evolution on science and society in celebration of the 200th
anniversary of the birth of Charles Robert Darwin and the sesquicentennial
of the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. The central theme
of this academic conference is an exploration of how Darwin's ideas have
revolutionized our understanding of both the living world and human
nature. Papers exploring diverse topics on Darwin's legacy are invited
from a wide variety of disciplines, including the natural and social
sciences, humanities, and law.
Topics of interest include but are not limited to Darwin as a scientist,
the reception and development of Darwinian evolution in the 19th and 20th
centuries, Darwinian evolution in the 21st century, misapplications of
Darwinism, evolution in the courts, evolution in art and culture, evolution
and religion, evolution and morality, evolution and sex/gender, evolution
and medicine, evolution and language, evolution and socialization, and
evolution and global climate change. Keynote speakers include Frans de
Waal, Judge John E. Jones III, Jay Labov, and William F. McComas.
The conference will take place March 12-14, 2009, at Hofstra University in
Hempstead, New York, and is sponsored by Hofstra University Library,
Hofstra College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and the Hofstra Cultural
Center.
Keynote speakers include:
Frans de Waal, Ph.D., Charles Howard Candler Professor of Primate Behavior at Emory University; author of Chimpanzee Politics and Our Inner Ape; preeminent researcher on primate social behavior.
Niles Eldredge, Ph.D., Curator of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History; curator of the Darwin exhibition; author of Charles Darwin - Discovering the Tree of Life and numerous other books on the subject of evolution.
Judge John E. Jones III, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, who ruled against the Dover (Pennsylvania) area school board’s attempt to introduce teaching on "intelligent design" into school science classes.
Jay Labov, Ph.D., senior advisor for education and communications at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
William F. McComas, Ph.D., Parks Family Professor of Science Education, University of Arkansas; 2007 recipient of the Evolution Education Award sponsored by the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (BSCS)
THIS IS A CONFERENCE I WOULD LOVE TO ATTEND AND TO GET THEIR PUBLISHED BOOK AND OTHER MATERIALS. THIS IS SCIENCE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE PREEMINENT GLOBAL EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELDS!
IF CREATIONISM IS MENTIONED IN THIS ACADEMIC SETTING, IT WILL ONLY BE DEROGATORILY! WWSD? (WHAT WOULD SCIENTISTS DO?)
)) What does he think of the equally well-argued statements from uaafanblog?Goodnight pnelson419. Sleep tight in your ignorance and rejection of the entire body of scientific thought. WWnD? (Take off on "What Would Jesus Do? modified to :
"What Would newguy Do?
"Replying to Creationism." I think the N.C.S.E. (National Center for Science Education) has already done an extremely thorough job of that, and is having to continually update their responses to counter further ridiculous claims and attempts from the Creationist front to end science learning as we know it! I'm on their list-server and am updated a few times a month on their vital activities.
THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE BEING DISCUSSED IN THIS FORUM, NOT MORE RELIGIOUS BLATHERINGS!
"Darwin's Reach: A Celebration of Darwin's Legacy Across Academic Disciplines."
The Darwin's Reach conference will examine the impact of Darwin and
Darwinian evolution on science and society in celebration of the 200th
anniversary of the birth of Charles Robert Darwin and the sesquicentennial
of the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. The central theme
of this academic conference is an exploration of how Darwin's ideas have
revolutionized our understanding of both the living world and human
nature. Papers exploring diverse topics on Darwin's legacy are invited
from a wide variety of disciplines, including the natural and social
sciences, humanities, and law.
Topics of interest include but are not limited to Darwin as a scientist,
the reception and development of Darwinian evolution in the 19th and 20th
centuries, Darwinian evolution in the 21st century, misapplications of
Darwinism, evolution in the courts, evolution in art and culture, evolution
and religion, evolution and morality, evolution and sex/gender, evolution
and medicine, evolution and language, evolution and socialization, and
evolution and global climate change. Keynote speakers include Frans de
Waal, Judge John E. Jones III, Jay Labov, and William F. McComas.
The conference will take place March 12-14, 2009, at Hofstra University in
Hempstead, New York, and is sponsored by Hofstra University Library,
Hofstra College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and the Hofstra Cultural
Center.
Keynote speakers include:
Frans de Waal, Ph.D., Charles Howard Candler Professor of Primate Behavior at Emory University; author of Chimpanzee Politics and Our Inner Ape; preeminent researcher on primate social behavior.
Niles Eldredge, Ph.D., Curator of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History; curator of the Darwin exhibition; author of Charles Darwin - Discovering the Tree of Life and numerous other books on the subject of evolution.
Judge John E. Jones III, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, who ruled against the Dover (Pennsylvania) area school board’s attempt to introduce teaching on "intelligent design" into school science classes.
Jay Labov, Ph.D., senior advisor for education and communications at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
William F. McComas, Ph.D., Parks Family Professor of Science Education, University of Arkansas; 2007 recipient of the Evolution Education Award sponsored by the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (BSCS)
THIS IS A CONFERENCE I WOULD LOVE TO ATTEND AND TO GET THEIR PUBLISHED BOOK AND OTHER MATERIALS. THIS IS SCIENCE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE PREEMINENT GLOBAL EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELDS!
IF CREATIONISM IS MENTIONED IN THIS ACADEMIC SETTING, IT WILL ONLY BE DEROGATORILY! WWSD? (WHAT WOULD SCIENTISTS DO?)
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Kinda makes whoever wrote the bible looks like a silly wanker
I mean, seriously. The bible uses old english(the original language of the bible)...but Shakespeare could do it in rhyme.
That is just wrong.
Shakespeare, like many authors and poets used frequent biblical allusions. He did not "borrow" material from the bible.
Hamlet was not in exodus
Having your father's ghost tell you about his betrayel is not in the bible
Killing your uncle with poison and a sword through the heart is not in the bible
Pyramus and Thisby is not in the bible
In fact, none of his stories or famous monologues are tied into the bible.
You drastically misread what you just quoted. Shakespeare didn't "borrow" from the bible, he alluded to the bible
That is just wrong.
Shakespeare, like many authors and poets used frequent biblical allusions. He did not "borrow" material from the bible.
Hamlet was not in exodus
Having your father's ghost tell you about his betrayel is not in the bible
Killing your uncle with poison and a sword through the heart is not in the bible
Pyramus and Thisby is not in the bible
In fact, none of his stories or famous monologues are tied into the bible.
You drastically misread what you just quoted. Shakespeare didn't "borrow" from the bible, he alluded to the bible
PuckSR
I think you are the paranoid one
Good night
What am i paranoid about?
Creationism is not taught in public schools BECAUSE people like myself make a big stink any time that a school tries to teach creationism
I think it is plenty, but you seem to think that we shouldn't be teaching it in public schools....
You said earlier that we should teach that "evolution is a theory, not a fact". This would fly in the face of scientific understanding.
You also are worried about your college-bound children(Who are most likely now adults) learning about this evolution stuff.
So...I don't think religion should be outlawed. That would be absurd.
I think our society should make a greater effort to be more skeptical of absurd ideas.
A short list of things that I would LOVE to see more disparaged by the general public:
Creationism
Intelligent Design
Bigfoot
UFOs
The Bermuda Triangle
JFK conspiracy theories
Loch Ness Monster
All of these are ideas that a touch of skepticism and a bit of thought will reveal to be vacuous lies.
It doesn't exactly take a well-studied expert to dismiss these ideas, but for some reason we LOVE them. We give them respect that they don't deserve.
I don't want thought police, but in my Utopia people would use some common sense.
I mean, seriously. The bible uses old english(the original language of the bible)...but Shakespeare could do it in rhyme.
QUOTE (PuckSR+)
Jesus had the speaking ability of a state senator from Montana. Shakespeare, he could make you cry.
http://www.beckhambooks.co.uk/history.htm
The Geneva Bible was the first Bible to add verses to the chapters, so that referencing specific passages would be easier. William Shakespeare quotes thousands of times in his plays from the Geneva translation of the Bible.
http://www.thinkingwithshakespeare.org/index.php?id=53
BIBLE
1. Shakespeare’s Bibles
The English word “Bible” translates the Greek word biblía, meaning “books.” Just as the singular noun “bible” is assembled out of a plurality of texts and traditions, so too, Shakespeare’s Bible is not one book, but many. It consists first and foremost of the Old and New Testaments, each itself divided into many books and sections. Shakespeare would have absorbed the Bible from several sources. William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526, followed by the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament) in 1520, were the first Bibles to be translated into English from Greek and Hebrew, not Latin, and to appear in print, not in manuscript. Myles Coverdale completed Tyndale’s work in 1535, and Thomas Matthew reworked Tyndale and Coveral into a new Bible published in 1537, which became the basis of the Great Bible of 1539-41, the official Bible of the Church of England under Henry VIII.
The most important Bibles for Shakespeare, however, were the BISHOPS’ BIBLE and the GENEVA BIBLE. The Bishops Bible, the official book of the Anglican Church under Elizabeth, was designed for use in church services. The Geneva Bible, more strongly Calvinist in its glosses, was largely used for household study and private reading. The division, however, was not sharp, and both books would have showed up in liturgical and in domestic settings. The presence of these Bibles can be discerned in Shakespeare’s plays, the Bishops Bible perhaps more prominently in his earlier plays and the Geneva Bible in his later plays (Noble); most critics agree that the Geneva Bible has made the greater impact on Shakespeare’s vocabulary and diction.
Scriptural language entered Shakespeare’s world by means other than printed copies of the Bible itself. The Book of Common Prayer (1559) prescribed a calendar of readings designed to cover key portions of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Psalms over the course of the year. Other Biblical passages were incorporated directly into the Book of Common Prayer as prayers and readings for special holidays and occasions, largely using translations traceable to Tyndale and Coverdale. When Shakespeare cites the Ten Commandments, he seems to have the Book of Common Prayer in mind (Noble 16), its precepts instilled by the early repetitions of catechism more than by the active assimilation of personal reading. And Biblical language would also have entered Shakespeare’s discourse through oral conduits, such as homilies, sermons, and an everyday speech colored by Biblical phrases.
The Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, and the Book of Common Prayer – three pillars of the English Reformation in the second half of the sixteenth century – stake out the central zone of Shakespeare’s Biblical consciousness. Yet other bibles did exist during the period, at further removes from Shakespeare’s language yet still forming a part of his larger world. During Shakespeare’s lifetime, but towards the end of his career, King James I authorized the production of his own Bible, published as the KING JAMES BIBLE in 1611. Although its diction would have had little impact on Shakespeare’s plays, the playwright might well have taken an interest in the collective political and theological enterprise that the King James Bible represented, as critics have argued with reference to Measure for Measure (Barnaby and Wry). The Douai-Rheims Bible was a translation published for and by English Catholics beginning in 1582. Although it was illegal to own a copy in Protestant England, the translators of the King James Bible did use it in their work, and it’s possible that Shakespeare would have read a Rheims Bible through his Catholic contacts or his own family. The Bible was also available in Latin and Greek editions, though we have no evidence that Shakespeare ever used them. [**].
At the far edges of Shakespeare’s Biblical imagination lies the Hebrew Bible, which began appearing in print in 1482, spurring study and translation by Christian scholars at Oxford and Cambridge as well as on the continent (Mihelic). In The Jew of Malta, the Jew Barabas pretends to lend his “comment on the Maccabees” to young Mathias (II.iii.157), reflecting some exchange of books among Jews and Christians, though in a distant, and demonized, Catholic setting. In The Merchant of Venice, Shylock does not speak of special books, but he does read the Old Testament in a manner that Shakespeare marks as distinctively Jewish. Even further on Shakespeare’s scriptural horizon stands the Koran, a kind of anti-Bible or counter-Bible for the Christian West; the sacred book of Islam is directly represented in Marlowe’s play Tamburlaine, Part II, but again only enters Shakespeare peripherally — for example, in the Marlovian figure cut by Othello as a former member of a monotheistic counter-covenant consecrated to a jealous God.
Shakespeare’s Bible functioned as a single and singular text — the Good Book, the Book of Books, unified by the central Christian narrative of creation and fall, exodus and covenant, incarnation and redemption. This single story was itself formed, however, out of overlapping and sometimes competing translations and commentaries as well as several media (print, spoken and recited word, everyday speech). In both the authority of its message and the diversity of its sources, Shakespeare’s Bible functions like a strong light emerging against a dark background, its basic shape strong and unmistakable but its edges oddly pixilated.
2. Biblical allusions in Shakespeare
The presence of the Bible in Shakespeare’s language proves neither his godliness nor his ascription to any particular sect; it does demonstrate the resilience and variety of Biblical expression as it entered the English language during the great age of Biblical translation. Shakespeare’s language is too thick with Biblical references to pursue a full accounting here. A few exemplary cases, however, can serve to reveal the scope and complexity of Shakespeare’s Biblical imagination, which ranged freely among the spheres of ethics, theology, anthropology, sociology, and humor.
A. Ethics: the case of Measure for Measure
Biblical language often enters Shakespeare’s dramas in the form of proverbial expressions and recollected parables rather than developed theological statements or specific narrative scenarios. At the opening of Measure for Measure, the Duke tells Angelo,
Heaven doth with us as we with torches do,
Not light them for ourselves; for if our virtues
Did not go forth of us, ‘twere all alike
As if we had them not. (I.i.32-35)
Shakespeare’s most immediate reference is the image of the candlestick from Matthew and Luke, rendered in the Geneva Bible as:
Neither doe men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlesticke, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. (Matthew 5.15)
The parable argues for active virtue in the world; when I venture to act and speak in public, my behavior becomes a light onto others, showing them how to act. The commentators who wrote the Geneva Bible chose this passage for the frontispiece of their 1562 Bible, running the biblical verse around a picture of a seven-armed Jewish menorah. (The 1560 Geneva Bible depicts the parting of the Red Sea during Exodus, dramatizing the authors’ own exile and return to England.) The Geneva commentators clearly envisioned their own work as a collective candelabra providing active illumination to English readers. In Measure of Measure, Shakespeare uses the Biblical citation to explore both the power and the risk of performing virtue, of making virtue appear to others by exercising it out in the open, through public office and public speech. For Angelo, lighting the candle of his virtue ends up setting him aflame with a corrosive passion that threatens to consume him in lies and self-deception. Isabella, too, is almost burned – by Angelo’s obscene advances, but also by her own chaste reticence — when she finds herself pushed into the scene of public life from the enclosed space of the convent. In Measure for Measure, candlesticks can be dangerous as well as illuminating, both to those who risk performing their virtue and to those who witness them.
Measure for Measure is the only work by Shakespeare to take its title from the Bible: the phrase comes from Matthew:
For with what judgement ye judge, ye shalbe judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shalbe measured to you again. (Matthew 7:2; Geneva Bible).
In everyday speech, the phrase “measure for measure” was usually used to represent retributive justice, the idea that the punishment should equal the crime. Yet it carries what amounts to the opposite meaning in Matthew, where it warns that those who judge their fellow humans harshly will be judged with equal harshness by God above. The Duke uses the phrase when he enjoins Isabella to abandon Angelo to the dictates of justice:
An Angelo for Claudio; death for death. Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure. Like doth quit like, and Measure still for Measure. (V.i.407-409)
In the scene, the Duke’s argument pointedly uses the retributive reading of the phrase, yet the passage from Matthew stands behind it, conveying a very different message of mercy. The Duke in effect tests Isabella’s scriptural knowledge against the received wisdom of everyday life: will she accept the Duke’s retributive message, or look deeper for Matthew’s argument for mercy? Throughout the play, Shakespeare invites his characters, and his audience, to compare and evaluate different forms of proverbial discourse. This exercise of Biblical speech in public contexts for the purpose of appraisal and experiment is, we might say, the special candlestick that Shakespeare’s play sets in the window of public life.
2. Theology: the case of Hamlet
Proverbial wisdom is ethical more than theological, involving the quotidian exercise of virtue and wit in the human world rather than matters of salvation. Yet Shakespeare’s plays, though never didactic, do sometimes venture into higher theological territory. In Hamlet, much of the prince’s vision is characterized by a sense of the deep fallenness of God’s creatures. For Hamlet, the world is an “unweeded garden,” and “things rank and gross in nature possess it merely” (I.ii.135-6), recalling the fall from Eden’s bounty into a landscape of “thornes … and thistles” (Gen 3.18; Geneva). The play is bemired in the first chapters of Genesis, with their stories of marriage, fall and fratricide. Hamlet’s unweeded garden is not a secular world — in which civil society has effectively replaced religion — so much as a profane world, a landscape characterized by the sublime distance between the Creator and His creatures, who have fallen away from their maker into a realm of base matter. When Hamlet exclaims against Claudius that he “took my father grossly, full of bread,” (III.iii.80), he likely echoes Ezekiel 16:49: “Behold, this was the iniquitie of thy sister Sodom, Pride, fulnesse of bread, and abundance of idleness” (Geneva Bible; Noble 27). “Fulnesse of bread” expresses Hamlet’s disgust with the heavy forms of corporeal enjoyment, at once solid and sullied, that afflict the fallen world. There may be Eucharistic echoes as well, since the Ghost from Catholic purgatory may have been sated on the bread of the Mass, seen by Protestant reformers as basely materialist (Greenblatt).
The play is haunted by Exodus as well as Genesis. There is something Moses-like in Hamlet’s inscription of the Ghost’s “command” on the “tables” of his mind. (Compare Exodus, where God delivers the Ten Commandments on “tables of stone” (Ex. 24:12; Geneva). The sublimity and terror of the Ghost’s revelation to his son increases Hamlet’s terrible sense of burden, adding the weight of the law to the heaviness of the flesh.
For most of the play, Hamlet feels himself cursed by rather than in charge of the mission delivered by the Ghost. Yet Hamlet’s revolted materialism and his subjection to his father’s command are the preconditions for his transformation in Act V, which he again couches in the language of the Geneva Bible. Hamlet tells Horatio:
There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ‘tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all. Since no man, of aught he leaves, knows aught, what is’t to leave betimes? Let be. (V.ii.215-20)
The sparrow falls into Shakespeare’s text from Matthew:
Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father? (Matt. 10.29; Geneva Bible)
In this phase of the drama, Hamlet stills the restless anxiety of “To be or not to be” by entrusting himself to the simpler “Let be” of God’s plan, reshaping his own passive tendencies into a form of action. The “Let be” of providential time allows Hamlet to live more fully in this world, which he suddenly apphrehends as providing an “interim” for action: “It will be short. The interim is mine” (V.ii.73-4). In Hamlet, Shakespeare plumbs the depths of the Bible’s theological language, expressing a creaturely materialism defined by life in its deeply mortal aspects, yet providing openings for human action.
3. Sociology and anthropology: the case of Othello
We expect ethics and theology from Shakespeare’s Bible, but Shakepeare’s views of human society and cultures can also at times be traced to Scriptural sources. In Othello, Shakespeare, like many of his contemporaries, derives some of his ideas about race and ethnicity from Biblical stories and motifs. The Song of Songs, the Hebrew Bible’s erotic pastoral interlude, may have provided an underlying theme for the play: “I am blacke (O daughters of Jerusalem, but comelie” (1.4; Geneva Bible), linked by Christian commentators to the theme of Gentile conversion (the expansion of Christianity from the Jews to all peoples). The coupling of Othello and Desdemona echoes the universal vision celebrated by Paul in Colossians: “Where there is nether Grecian nor Jewe, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bonde, fre: but Christ is all and in all things” (Col 3:11; Geneva). But other themes from the Bible are less inclusive. When Jeremiah poses the question, “Can the blacke More change his skin, or the leopard his spottes?” (Jer. 13:23; Geneva), the answer is presumed to be negative (Loomba). Does Othello stand in the line of Ham, the son of Noah whose progeny were punished with blackness because he saw his father naked? Or is Othello a type of Balthazar, the African King who visited the manger of Jesus in stories of the Epiphany, reversing Ham’s sin by entering into the scene of Gentile conversion?
Another strand of Biblical imagery in the play associates Othello with idolatry, the promiscuous practice associated with foreign peoples in the Hebrew Bible (Winiarksi). In a powerful and recurrent set of analogies, idolatry (multiple gods) is associated with adultery (multiple partners), a parallelism implicitly activated by Othello’s tragedy of both idolatrous adoration and iconoclastic destruction of his beloved. The most famous editorial crux of the play involves Biblical materials: When Othello throws away his precious “pearl,” does he act like “base Indian” (or foreign idolater, as the Quarto would have it), or like a “base Judean” (like Herod or Judas, figures of Jewish intransigence to Christian conversion), as the Folio reading implies? Throughout Othello, Biblical materials, far from simplifying the ethnographic terrain explored by Shakespeare in this drama, offer competing models for conceiving relationships among peoples and faiths.
4 Humor: Bible jokes
Biblical language need not be sage and serious. In Measure for Measure, Lucio and his friends tell jokes about the Ten Commandments (I.ii.6-16), a genre with its roots in Rabbinic midrashim (exegetical stories) about the giving of the Biblical law, and with many variants still circulating today. In All’s Well That Ends Well, the Clown speaks in jests so colored by Calvinism that they weigh heavily on modern ears. The sublimity of Bottom’s Dream, which
The eye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen, man’s hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceive, nor his heart to report (MSND, IV.i.209-12)
borrows its ratios from Paul’s account of divine revelation in 1 Corinthians: “The eye hath not seene, and the eare hath not heard, nether have entred the heart of man” (1 Cor. 2.9; Bishops [Shaheen]).
Much of what Shakespeare wrote was "borrowed" from scripture. Massachussetts and Rhode Island beckon me. I'll get to my fan mail when I return late Wednesday/early Thursday.
http://www.beckhambooks.co.uk/history.htm
The Geneva Bible was the first Bible to add verses to the chapters, so that referencing specific passages would be easier. William Shakespeare quotes thousands of times in his plays from the Geneva translation of the Bible.
http://www.thinkingwithshakespeare.org/index.php?id=53
BIBLE
1. Shakespeare’s Bibles
The English word “Bible” translates the Greek word biblía, meaning “books.” Just as the singular noun “bible” is assembled out of a plurality of texts and traditions, so too, Shakespeare’s Bible is not one book, but many. It consists first and foremost of the Old and New Testaments, each itself divided into many books and sections. Shakespeare would have absorbed the Bible from several sources. William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526, followed by the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament) in 1520, were the first Bibles to be translated into English from Greek and Hebrew, not Latin, and to appear in print, not in manuscript. Myles Coverdale completed Tyndale’s work in 1535, and Thomas Matthew reworked Tyndale and Coveral into a new Bible published in 1537, which became the basis of the Great Bible of 1539-41, the official Bible of the Church of England under Henry VIII.
The most important Bibles for Shakespeare, however, were the BISHOPS’ BIBLE and the GENEVA BIBLE. The Bishops Bible, the official book of the Anglican Church under Elizabeth, was designed for use in church services. The Geneva Bible, more strongly Calvinist in its glosses, was largely used for household study and private reading. The division, however, was not sharp, and both books would have showed up in liturgical and in domestic settings. The presence of these Bibles can be discerned in Shakespeare’s plays, the Bishops Bible perhaps more prominently in his earlier plays and the Geneva Bible in his later plays (Noble); most critics agree that the Geneva Bible has made the greater impact on Shakespeare’s vocabulary and diction.
Scriptural language entered Shakespeare’s world by means other than printed copies of the Bible itself. The Book of Common Prayer (1559) prescribed a calendar of readings designed to cover key portions of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Psalms over the course of the year. Other Biblical passages were incorporated directly into the Book of Common Prayer as prayers and readings for special holidays and occasions, largely using translations traceable to Tyndale and Coverdale. When Shakespeare cites the Ten Commandments, he seems to have the Book of Common Prayer in mind (Noble 16), its precepts instilled by the early repetitions of catechism more than by the active assimilation of personal reading. And Biblical language would also have entered Shakespeare’s discourse through oral conduits, such as homilies, sermons, and an everyday speech colored by Biblical phrases.
The Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, and the Book of Common Prayer – three pillars of the English Reformation in the second half of the sixteenth century – stake out the central zone of Shakespeare’s Biblical consciousness. Yet other bibles did exist during the period, at further removes from Shakespeare’s language yet still forming a part of his larger world. During Shakespeare’s lifetime, but towards the end of his career, King James I authorized the production of his own Bible, published as the KING JAMES BIBLE in 1611. Although its diction would have had little impact on Shakespeare’s plays, the playwright might well have taken an interest in the collective political and theological enterprise that the King James Bible represented, as critics have argued with reference to Measure for Measure (Barnaby and Wry). The Douai-Rheims Bible was a translation published for and by English Catholics beginning in 1582. Although it was illegal to own a copy in Protestant England, the translators of the King James Bible did use it in their work, and it’s possible that Shakespeare would have read a Rheims Bible through his Catholic contacts or his own family. The Bible was also available in Latin and Greek editions, though we have no evidence that Shakespeare ever used them. [**].
At the far edges of Shakespeare’s Biblical imagination lies the Hebrew Bible, which began appearing in print in 1482, spurring study and translation by Christian scholars at Oxford and Cambridge as well as on the continent (Mihelic). In The Jew of Malta, the Jew Barabas pretends to lend his “comment on the Maccabees” to young Mathias (II.iii.157), reflecting some exchange of books among Jews and Christians, though in a distant, and demonized, Catholic setting. In The Merchant of Venice, Shylock does not speak of special books, but he does read the Old Testament in a manner that Shakespeare marks as distinctively Jewish. Even further on Shakespeare’s scriptural horizon stands the Koran, a kind of anti-Bible or counter-Bible for the Christian West; the sacred book of Islam is directly represented in Marlowe’s play Tamburlaine, Part II, but again only enters Shakespeare peripherally — for example, in the Marlovian figure cut by Othello as a former member of a monotheistic counter-covenant consecrated to a jealous God.
Shakespeare’s Bible functioned as a single and singular text — the Good Book, the Book of Books, unified by the central Christian narrative of creation and fall, exodus and covenant, incarnation and redemption. This single story was itself formed, however, out of overlapping and sometimes competing translations and commentaries as well as several media (print, spoken and recited word, everyday speech). In both the authority of its message and the diversity of its sources, Shakespeare’s Bible functions like a strong light emerging against a dark background, its basic shape strong and unmistakable but its edges oddly pixilated.
2. Biblical allusions in Shakespeare
The presence of the Bible in Shakespeare’s language proves neither his godliness nor his ascription to any particular sect; it does demonstrate the resilience and variety of Biblical expression as it entered the English language during the great age of Biblical translation. Shakespeare’s language is too thick with Biblical references to pursue a full accounting here. A few exemplary cases, however, can serve to reveal the scope and complexity of Shakespeare’s Biblical imagination, which ranged freely among the spheres of ethics, theology, anthropology, sociology, and humor.
A. Ethics: the case of Measure for Measure
Biblical language often enters Shakespeare’s dramas in the form of proverbial expressions and recollected parables rather than developed theological statements or specific narrative scenarios. At the opening of Measure for Measure, the Duke tells Angelo,
Heaven doth with us as we with torches do,
Not light them for ourselves; for if our virtues
Did not go forth of us, ‘twere all alike
As if we had them not. (I.i.32-35)
Shakespeare’s most immediate reference is the image of the candlestick from Matthew and Luke, rendered in the Geneva Bible as:
Neither doe men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlesticke, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. (Matthew 5.15)
The parable argues for active virtue in the world; when I venture to act and speak in public, my behavior becomes a light onto others, showing them how to act. The commentators who wrote the Geneva Bible chose this passage for the frontispiece of their 1562 Bible, running the biblical verse around a picture of a seven-armed Jewish menorah. (The 1560 Geneva Bible depicts the parting of the Red Sea during Exodus, dramatizing the authors’ own exile and return to England.) The Geneva commentators clearly envisioned their own work as a collective candelabra providing active illumination to English readers. In Measure of Measure, Shakespeare uses the Biblical citation to explore both the power and the risk of performing virtue, of making virtue appear to others by exercising it out in the open, through public office and public speech. For Angelo, lighting the candle of his virtue ends up setting him aflame with a corrosive passion that threatens to consume him in lies and self-deception. Isabella, too, is almost burned – by Angelo’s obscene advances, but also by her own chaste reticence — when she finds herself pushed into the scene of public life from the enclosed space of the convent. In Measure for Measure, candlesticks can be dangerous as well as illuminating, both to those who risk performing their virtue and to those who witness them.
Measure for Measure is the only work by Shakespeare to take its title from the Bible: the phrase comes from Matthew:
For with what judgement ye judge, ye shalbe judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shalbe measured to you again. (Matthew 7:2; Geneva Bible).
In everyday speech, the phrase “measure for measure” was usually used to represent retributive justice, the idea that the punishment should equal the crime. Yet it carries what amounts to the opposite meaning in Matthew, where it warns that those who judge their fellow humans harshly will be judged with equal harshness by God above. The Duke uses the phrase when he enjoins Isabella to abandon Angelo to the dictates of justice:
An Angelo for Claudio; death for death. Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure. Like doth quit like, and Measure still for Measure. (V.i.407-409)
In the scene, the Duke’s argument pointedly uses the retributive reading of the phrase, yet the passage from Matthew stands behind it, conveying a very different message of mercy. The Duke in effect tests Isabella’s scriptural knowledge against the received wisdom of everyday life: will she accept the Duke’s retributive message, or look deeper for Matthew’s argument for mercy? Throughout the play, Shakespeare invites his characters, and his audience, to compare and evaluate different forms of proverbial discourse. This exercise of Biblical speech in public contexts for the purpose of appraisal and experiment is, we might say, the special candlestick that Shakespeare’s play sets in the window of public life.
2. Theology: the case of Hamlet
Proverbial wisdom is ethical more than theological, involving the quotidian exercise of virtue and wit in the human world rather than matters of salvation. Yet Shakespeare’s plays, though never didactic, do sometimes venture into higher theological territory. In Hamlet, much of the prince’s vision is characterized by a sense of the deep fallenness of God’s creatures. For Hamlet, the world is an “unweeded garden,” and “things rank and gross in nature possess it merely” (I.ii.135-6), recalling the fall from Eden’s bounty into a landscape of “thornes … and thistles” (Gen 3.18; Geneva). The play is bemired in the first chapters of Genesis, with their stories of marriage, fall and fratricide. Hamlet’s unweeded garden is not a secular world — in which civil society has effectively replaced religion — so much as a profane world, a landscape characterized by the sublime distance between the Creator and His creatures, who have fallen away from their maker into a realm of base matter. When Hamlet exclaims against Claudius that he “took my father grossly, full of bread,” (III.iii.80), he likely echoes Ezekiel 16:49: “Behold, this was the iniquitie of thy sister Sodom, Pride, fulnesse of bread, and abundance of idleness” (Geneva Bible; Noble 27). “Fulnesse of bread” expresses Hamlet’s disgust with the heavy forms of corporeal enjoyment, at once solid and sullied, that afflict the fallen world. There may be Eucharistic echoes as well, since the Ghost from Catholic purgatory may have been sated on the bread of the Mass, seen by Protestant reformers as basely materialist (Greenblatt).
The play is haunted by Exodus as well as Genesis. There is something Moses-like in Hamlet’s inscription of the Ghost’s “command” on the “tables” of his mind. (Compare Exodus, where God delivers the Ten Commandments on “tables of stone” (Ex. 24:12; Geneva). The sublimity and terror of the Ghost’s revelation to his son increases Hamlet’s terrible sense of burden, adding the weight of the law to the heaviness of the flesh.
For most of the play, Hamlet feels himself cursed by rather than in charge of the mission delivered by the Ghost. Yet Hamlet’s revolted materialism and his subjection to his father’s command are the preconditions for his transformation in Act V, which he again couches in the language of the Geneva Bible. Hamlet tells Horatio:
There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ‘tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all. Since no man, of aught he leaves, knows aught, what is’t to leave betimes? Let be. (V.ii.215-20)
The sparrow falls into Shakespeare’s text from Matthew:
Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father? (Matt. 10.29; Geneva Bible)
In this phase of the drama, Hamlet stills the restless anxiety of “To be or not to be” by entrusting himself to the simpler “Let be” of God’s plan, reshaping his own passive tendencies into a form of action. The “Let be” of providential time allows Hamlet to live more fully in this world, which he suddenly apphrehends as providing an “interim” for action: “It will be short. The interim is mine” (V.ii.73-4). In Hamlet, Shakespeare plumbs the depths of the Bible’s theological language, expressing a creaturely materialism defined by life in its deeply mortal aspects, yet providing openings for human action.
3. Sociology and anthropology: the case of Othello
We expect ethics and theology from Shakespeare’s Bible, but Shakepeare’s views of human society and cultures can also at times be traced to Scriptural sources. In Othello, Shakespeare, like many of his contemporaries, derives some of his ideas about race and ethnicity from Biblical stories and motifs. The Song of Songs, the Hebrew Bible’s erotic pastoral interlude, may have provided an underlying theme for the play: “I am blacke (O daughters of Jerusalem, but comelie” (1.4; Geneva Bible), linked by Christian commentators to the theme of Gentile conversion (the expansion of Christianity from the Jews to all peoples). The coupling of Othello and Desdemona echoes the universal vision celebrated by Paul in Colossians: “Where there is nether Grecian nor Jewe, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bonde, fre: but Christ is all and in all things” (Col 3:11; Geneva). But other themes from the Bible are less inclusive. When Jeremiah poses the question, “Can the blacke More change his skin, or the leopard his spottes?” (Jer. 13:23; Geneva), the answer is presumed to be negative (Loomba). Does Othello stand in the line of Ham, the son of Noah whose progeny were punished with blackness because he saw his father naked? Or is Othello a type of Balthazar, the African King who visited the manger of Jesus in stories of the Epiphany, reversing Ham’s sin by entering into the scene of Gentile conversion?
Another strand of Biblical imagery in the play associates Othello with idolatry, the promiscuous practice associated with foreign peoples in the Hebrew Bible (Winiarksi). In a powerful and recurrent set of analogies, idolatry (multiple gods) is associated with adultery (multiple partners), a parallelism implicitly activated by Othello’s tragedy of both idolatrous adoration and iconoclastic destruction of his beloved. The most famous editorial crux of the play involves Biblical materials: When Othello throws away his precious “pearl,” does he act like “base Indian” (or foreign idolater, as the Quarto would have it), or like a “base Judean” (like Herod or Judas, figures of Jewish intransigence to Christian conversion), as the Folio reading implies? Throughout Othello, Biblical materials, far from simplifying the ethnographic terrain explored by Shakespeare in this drama, offer competing models for conceiving relationships among peoples and faiths.
4 Humor: Bible jokes
Biblical language need not be sage and serious. In Measure for Measure, Lucio and his friends tell jokes about the Ten Commandments (I.ii.6-16), a genre with its roots in Rabbinic midrashim (exegetical stories) about the giving of the Biblical law, and with many variants still circulating today. In All’s Well That Ends Well, the Clown speaks in jests so colored by Calvinism that they weigh heavily on modern ears. The sublimity of Bottom’s Dream, which
The eye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen, man’s hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceive, nor his heart to report (MSND, IV.i.209-12)
borrows its ratios from Paul’s account of divine revelation in 1 Corinthians: “The eye hath not seene, and the eare hath not heard, nether have entred the heart of man” (1 Cor. 2.9; Bishops [Shaheen]).
Much of what Shakespeare wrote was "borrowed" from scripture. Massachussetts and Rhode Island beckon me. I'll get to my fan mail when I return late Wednesday/early Thursday.
QUOTE
Much of what Shakespeare wrote was "borrowed" from scripture. Massachussetts and Rhode Island beckon me. I'll get to my fan mail when I return late Wednesday/early Thursday.
That is just wrong.
Shakespeare, like many authors and poets used frequent biblical allusions. He did not "borrow" material from the bible.
Hamlet was not in exodus
Having your father's ghost tell you about his betrayel is not in the bible
Killing your uncle with poison and a sword through the heart is not in the bible
Pyramus and Thisby is not in the bible
In fact, none of his stories or famous monologues are tied into the bible.
You drastically misread what you just quoted. Shakespeare didn't "borrow" from the bible, he alluded to the bible
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Much of what Shakespeare wrote was "borrowed" from scripture. Massachussetts and Rhode Island beckon me. I'll get to my fan mail when I return late Wednesday/early Thursday. |
That is just wrong.
Shakespeare, like many authors and poets used frequent biblical allusions. He did not "borrow" material from the bible.
Hamlet was not in exodus
Having your father's ghost tell you about his betrayel is not in the bible
Killing your uncle with poison and a sword through the heart is not in the bible
Pyramus and Thisby is not in the bible
In fact, none of his stories or famous monologues are tied into the bible.
You drastically misread what you just quoted. Shakespeare didn't "borrow" from the bible, he alluded to the bible
PuckSR
I think you are the paranoid one
Good night
What am i paranoid about?
PuckSR,
Creation is not taught in public schools
Evolution is
So why are you complaining
It seems you don't think that is enough
Do you think all religion should be outlawed?
Creation is not taught in public schools
Evolution is
So why are you complaining
It seems you don't think that is enough
Do you think all religion should be outlawed?
newguy, I own a fine facsimile edition of the Geneva Bible. And a five language, interlinear translation, and one translated from the original Aramaic, the language Jesus is reputed to have spoken. None of those make ANY of it more believable! 
It is myth-based, derives from much earlier pagan rituals and folklore, and was written and selectively modified and interpreted by fallible men. No divine, supernatural or "holy" input whatsoever! (()) You can quote from it til you are blue in the face! It won't win any "converts" here!
pnelson419, Evolution IS taught in public schools for several very good reasons, not the least of which is that it is the accepted unifying concept behind EVERY biological principle.
"Creationism" is NOT taught for several very good reasons, not the least of which is that there is not one SHRED of evidence from science or nature that supports ANY of that HOGWASH! I am not complaining. That is the way it should be and the way it will remain! The Bible is NOT a science text and could NEVER be considered one. Are you going to the "Darwin's Reach: A Celebration of Darwin's Legacy Across Academic Disciplines" seminar? I would love to! 
It is myth-based, derives from much earlier pagan rituals and folklore, and was written and selectively modified and interpreted by fallible men. No divine, supernatural or "holy" input whatsoever! (()) You can quote from it til you are blue in the face! It won't win any "converts" here! pnelson419, Evolution IS taught in public schools for several very good reasons, not the least of which is that it is the accepted unifying concept behind EVERY biological principle.
"Creationism" is NOT taught for several very good reasons, not the least of which is that there is not one SHRED of evidence from science or nature that supports ANY of that HOGWASH! I am not complaining. That is the way it should be and the way it will remain! The Bible is NOT a science text and could NEVER be considered one. Are you going to the "Darwin's Reach: A Celebration of Darwin's Legacy Across Academic Disciplines" seminar? I would love to!
QUOTE
PuckSR,
Creation is not taught in public schools
Evolution is
So why are you complaining
It seems you don't think that is enough
Do you think all religion should be outlawed?
Creation is not taught in public schools
Evolution is
So why are you complaining
It seems you don't think that is enough
Do you think all religion should be outlawed?
Creationism is not taught in public schools BECAUSE people like myself make a big stink any time that a school tries to teach creationism
I think it is plenty, but you seem to think that we shouldn't be teaching it in public schools....
You said earlier that we should teach that "evolution is a theory, not a fact". This would fly in the face of scientific understanding.
You also are worried about your college-bound children(Who are most likely now adults) learning about this evolution stuff.
So...I don't think religion should be outlawed. That would be absurd.
I think our society should make a greater effort to be more skeptical of absurd ideas.
A short list of things that I would LOVE to see more disparaged by the general public:
Creationism
Intelligent Design
Bigfoot
UFOs
The Bermuda Triangle
JFK conspiracy theories
Loch Ness Monster
All of these are ideas that a touch of skepticism and a bit of thought will reveal to be vacuous lies.
It doesn't exactly take a well-studied expert to dismiss these ideas, but for some reason we LOVE them. We give them respect that they don't deserve.
I don't want thought police, but in my Utopia people would use some common sense.
QUOTE (PuckSR+May 4 2008, 09:33 PM)
So...I don't think religion should be outlawed. That would be absurd.
Hey PuckSR,
Wait a second. Before you dismiss the idea. Think about it.
Hey PuckSR,
Wait a second. Before you dismiss the idea. Think about it.
Derek1148, Instead of posting your usual inane, stupid rhetorical questions, try thinking for a change and posting your own unique thoughts. Care to respond with insight and intelligence to this:
Evolution IS taught in public schools for several very good reasons, not the least of which is that it is the accepted unifying concept behind EVERY biological principle. "Creationism" is NOT taught for several very good reasons, not the least of which is that there is not one SHRED of evidence from science or nature that supports ANY of that HOGWASH! I am not complaining. That is the way it should be and the way it will remain! The Bible is NOT a science text and could NEVER be considered one. Are you going to the "Darwin's Reach: A Celebration of Darwin's Legacy Across Academic Disciplines" seminar? I would love to!
Derek1148,
1. How do YOU differentiate a cult from a "religion"?
2. Do YOU think the brainwashing (religious) of children should be outlawed?
3. Do YOU think the "psycho wards" should be emptied onto the public streets, as they are to some extent, now?
4. Do YOU think Creationism has ANY validity, whatsoever? (())
Inquiring ,minds want to know!
Care to respond with insight and intelligence to this:Evolution IS taught in public schools for several very good reasons, not the least of which is that it is the accepted unifying concept behind EVERY biological principle.
"Creationism" is NOT taught for several very good reasons, not the least of which is that there is not one SHRED of evidence from science or nature that supports ANY of that HOGWASH! I am not complaining. That is the way it should be and the way it will remain! The Bible is NOT a science text and could NEVER be considered one. Are you going to the "Darwin's Reach: A Celebration of Darwin's Legacy Across Academic Disciplines" seminar? I would love to! Derek1148,
1. How do YOU differentiate a cult from a "religion"?
2. Do YOU think the brainwashing (religious) of children should be outlawed?
3. Do YOU think the "psycho wards" should be emptied onto the public streets, as they are to some extent, now?
4. Do YOU think Creationism has ANY validity, whatsoever? ((
))Inquiring ,minds want to know!
photojack,
First, I don’t recall asking you a damn thing.
Second, have you ever considered the fact that you are an obnoxious individual?
However,
1. There is none.
2. Yes.
3. That would explain your current freedom.
4. No.
First, I don’t recall asking you a damn thing.
Second, have you ever considered the fact that you are an obnoxious individual?
However,
1. There is none.
2. Yes.
3. That would explain your current freedom.
4. No.
Woah, hold on, time out...
Derek1148 posted what I thought to be a quite clever joke... maybe banning religion isn't such a bad idea after all
and photojack (who seems to be on the same "team" as Derek1148 wrt this whole Creationism idea) attacked him as though Derek1148 were a Creationist..
And now Derek1148 is attacking photojack as though photojack were a Creationist?
Am I seeing this right?
Chill out, both of you! You're on the same team!
Derek1148 posted what I thought to be a quite clever joke... maybe banning religion isn't such a bad idea after all
and photojack (who seems to be on the same "team" as Derek1148 wrt this whole Creationism idea) attacked him as though Derek1148 were a Creationist..
And now Derek1148 is attacking photojack as though photojack were a Creationist?
Am I seeing this right?
Chill out, both of you! You're on the same team!
QUOTE (Dabeer+May 5 2008, 05:35 PM)
You're on the same team!
Jesus Christ, that is a frightening thought.
Jesus Christ, that is a frightening thought.