Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Dos Equis on May 24, 2008, 09:03:30 PM
-
Study to crack evangelical stereotypes
Story Highlights
New study aimed at "evangelical intelligentsia"
Expert: Many wrongly equate evangelicals with fundamentalists
75 million evangelicals in U.S. emphasize personal relationship with Jesus Christ
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- For decades, Boston University sociologist Peter Berger says, American intellectuals have looked down on evangelicals.
Educated people have the notion that evangelicals are "barefoot people of Tobacco Road who, I don't know, sleep with their sisters or something," Berger says.
It's time that attitude changed, he says.
"That was probably never correct, but it's totally false now and I think the image should be corrected," Berger said in a recent interview.
Now, his university's Institute on Culture, Religion and World Affairs is leading a two-year project that explores an "evangelical intelligentsia" which Berger says is growing and needs to be better understood, given the large numbers of evangelicals and their influence.
"It's not good if a prejudiced view of this community prevails in the elite circles of society," said Berger, a self-described liberal Lutheran. "It's bad for democracy and it's wrong." Watch how evangelicals are branching out politically
The study is being directed by Berger and Timothy Shah, an evangelical political scientist at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Shah is documenting the history of the evangelical movement, including its historical hostility to higher learning, a revival of scholarship, and the minds and ideas it has since produced.
Some aren't convinced evangelical scholars have made as much progress as they think.
Boston College sociologist Alan Wolfe, who wrote an article in The Atlantic, "The Opening of the Evangelical Mind" in 2000, said despite the success of some evangelical scholars, many have retained an insularity and defensiveness that limits their effectiveness.
"There isn't enough mixing in the larger world of ideas," he said.
An estimated 75 million Americans are evangelicals, people who emphasize a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and commit to spreading the message of salvation though his redemptive death.
Evangelicals say they often aren't well-understood beyond their Bible-banging, evolution-hating caricature.
Many equate evangelicals with fundamentalists, an evangelical subset that interprets the Bible literally -- as in the six calendar days of creation -- and is home to ardent evolution opponents. But Shah said most evangelical scientists believe in evolution guided by God.
A quote from a 1993 Washington Post article, describing followers of two leading evangelists as "poor, uneducated and easily led," remains infamous among evangelicals as an example of the bias they claim to face. After President Bush won the 2004 election, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote Bush had won the evangelical vote, in part, by appealing to their "fear of scientific progress."
Mark Noll, an evangelical and well-known historian at the University of Notre Dame, said the stereotype is perpetuated because both religious and secular thinkers have created an either-or choice between science and God.
"It's just false," Noll said. "You go back to (Isaac) Newton and (Johannes) Kepler, the founders of early modern science were theists of one sort or another."
Shah says a major split between evangelicals and popular culture came after the so-called Scopes monkey trial in 1925, in which a teacher was convicted of violating Tennessee's ban on teaching evolution -- a decision later overturned. Defense attorney Clarence Darrow told his opponent, William Jennings Bryan, that: "You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion."
Two years later, Sinclair Lewis's "Elmer Gantry" poked at the anti-intellectualism of leading evangelicals and cast them as corrupt frauds. At the same time, Shah said, the country's institutions of higher education were taken over by people hostile to Christian faith.
"(Evangelicals) felt totally besieged," Shah said. "They felt like the culture made fun of them."
Evangelicals began to emerge from "their self-imposed ghetto" in the 1950s and '60s after prodding from leaders such as Billy Graham, who urged a new intellectual boldness, Shah said.
They also became more prosperous and better educated, and produced more scholars as a result, Berger said.
Notre Dame is home to several of the best-known evangelical thinkers besides Noll, including philosopher Alvin Plantinga, whose "free will defense" takes on the logical problem of evil, and historian George Marsden, who won the prestigious Bancroft Prize for his book on colonial preacher Jonathan Edwards.
Other notables who identify themselves as evangelicals include federal judge Michael McConnell, a top constitutional law scholar, Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, and Duke professor Peter Feaver, a former top director at the National Security Council.
Shah is conducting detailed interviews with top scholars as part of the ongoing research. In December, the project hosted a conference in Boston where evangelicals discussed how their faith informs their work and how to create more room for a religious perspective in various academic disciplines. The research will eventually be published in a book.
As evangelical scholars seek greater influence, Wolfe warns that getting respect is a two-way street.
Evangelicals in the academy too often aren't open to truly engaging those who disagree, said Wolfe, who points to things like "faith statements" at evangelical colleges, which require professors to proclaim Christian belief. A prospering intellectual culture wouldn't make that requirement and shut other views out, he said.
"It's when you view your tradition with such confidence that you want to offer it to others ... that's when you've made it," Wolfe said.
"I don't see evangelicals having that pride in their own tradition, yet."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/05/22/evangelicals.ap/index.html
-
Study to crack evangelical stereotypes
Story Highlights
New study aimed at "evangelical intelligentsia"
Expert: Many wrongly equate evangelicals with fundamentalists
75 million evangelicals in U.S. emphasize personal relationship with Jesus Christ
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- For decades, Boston University sociologist Peter Berger says, American intellectuals have looked down on evangelicals.
Educated people have the notion that evangelicals are "barefoot people of Tobacco Road who, I don't know, sleep with their sisters or something," Berger says.
It's time that attitude changed, he says.
"That was probably never correct, but it's totally false now and I think the image should be corrected," Berger said in a recent interview.
Now, his university's Institute on Culture, Religion and World Affairs is leading a two-year project that explores an "evangelical intelligentsia" which Berger says is growing and needs to be better understood, given the large numbers of evangelicals and their influence.
"It's not good if a prejudiced view of this community prevails in the elite circles of society," said Berger, a self-described liberal Lutheran. "It's bad for democracy and it's wrong." Watch how evangelicals are branching out politically
The study is being directed by Berger and Timothy Shah, an evangelical political scientist at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Shah is documenting the history of the evangelical movement, including its historical hostility to higher learning, a revival of scholarship, and the minds and ideas it has since produced.
Some aren't convinced evangelical scholars have made as much progress as they think.
Boston College sociologist Alan Wolfe, who wrote an article in The Atlantic, "The Opening of the Evangelical Mind" in 2000, said despite the success of some evangelical scholars, many have retained an insularity and defensiveness that limits their effectiveness.
"There isn't enough mixing in the larger world of ideas," he said.
An estimated 75 million Americans are evangelicals, people who emphasize a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and commit to spreading the message of salvation though his redemptive death.
Evangelicals say they often aren't well-understood beyond their Bible-banging, evolution-hating caricature.
Many equate evangelicals with fundamentalists, an evangelical subset that interprets the Bible literally -- as in the six calendar days of creation -- and is home to ardent evolution opponents. But Shah said most evangelical scientists believe in evolution guided by God.
A quote from a 1993 Washington Post article, describing followers of two leading evangelists as "poor, uneducated and easily led," remains infamous among evangelicals as an example of the bias they claim to face. After President Bush won the 2004 election, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote Bush had won the evangelical vote, in part, by appealing to their "fear of scientific progress."
Mark Noll, an evangelical and well-known historian at the University of Notre Dame, said the stereotype is perpetuated because both religious and secular thinkers have created an either-or choice between science and God.
"It's just false," Noll said. "You go back to (Isaac) Newton and (Johannes) Kepler, the founders of early modern science were theists of one sort or another."
Shah says a major split between evangelicals and popular culture came after the so-called Scopes monkey trial in 1925, in which a teacher was convicted of violating Tennessee's ban on teaching evolution -- a decision later overturned. Defense attorney Clarence Darrow told his opponent, William Jennings Bryan, that: "You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion."
Two years later, Sinclair Lewis's "Elmer Gantry" poked at the anti-intellectualism of leading evangelicals and cast them as corrupt frauds. At the same time, Shah said, the country's institutions of higher education were taken over by people hostile to Christian faith.
"(Evangelicals) felt totally besieged," Shah said. "They felt like the culture made fun of them."
Evangelicals began to emerge from "their self-imposed ghetto" in the 1950s and '60s after prodding from leaders such as Billy Graham, who urged a new intellectual boldness, Shah said.
They also became more prosperous and better educated, and produced more scholars as a result, Berger said.
Notre Dame is home to several of the best-known evangelical thinkers besides Noll, including philosopher Alvin Plantinga, whose "free will defense" takes on the logical problem of evil, and historian George Marsden, who won the prestigious Bancroft Prize for his book on colonial preacher Jonathan Edwards.
Other notables who identify themselves as evangelicals include federal judge Michael McConnell, a top constitutional law scholar, Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, and Duke professor Peter Feaver, a former top director at the National Security Council.
Shah is conducting detailed interviews with top scholars as part of the ongoing research. In December, the project hosted a conference in Boston where evangelicals discussed how their faith informs their work and how to create more room for a religious perspective in various academic disciplines. The research will eventually be published in a book.
As evangelical scholars seek greater influence, Wolfe warns that getting respect is a two-way street.
Evangelicals in the academy too often aren't open to truly engaging those who disagree, said Wolfe, who points to things like "faith statements" at evangelical colleges, which require professors to proclaim Christian belief. A prospering intellectual culture wouldn't make that requirement and shut other views out, he said.
"It's when you view your tradition with such confidence that you want to offer it to others ... that's when you've made it," Wolfe said.
"I don't see evangelicals having that pride in their own tradition, yet."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/05/22/evangelicals.ap/index.html
Because their views are wrong.
-
So how do you characterize these people, who are educated, accomplished, and highly intelligent?
Notre Dame is home to several of the best-known evangelical thinkers besides Noll, including philosopher Alvin Plantinga, whose "free will defense" takes on the logical problem of evil, and historian George Marsden, who won the prestigious Bancroft Prize for his book on colonial preacher Jonathan Edwards.
Other notables who identify themselves as evangelicals include federal judge Michael McConnell, a top constitutional law scholar, Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, and Duke professor Peter Feaver, a former top director at the National Security Council.
-
So how do you characterize these people, who are educated, accomplished, and highly intelligent?
Notre Dame is home to several of the best-known evangelical thinkers besides Noll, including philosopher Alvin Plantinga, whose "free will defense" takes on the logical problem of evil, and historian George Marsden, who won the prestigious Bancroft Prize for his book on colonial preacher Jonathan Edwards.
Other notables who identify themselves as evangelicals include federal judge Michael McConnell, a top constitutional law scholar, Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, and Duke professor Peter Feaver, a former top director at the National Security Council.
It's called compartmentalisation of the mind; emotional neediness is not equivalent to intelligence and one can be very intelligent and still emotionally needy.
-
It's called compartmentalisation of the mind; emotional neediness is not equivalent to intelligence and one can be very intelligent and still emotionally needy.
Do you consider these people dumb, crazy, etc.?
-
Do you consider these people dumb, crazy, etc.?
No, clearly such people as those are intelligent. However, they are emotionally needy. Their desire to be 'loved and cared for' by an all powerful father figure fulfills that neediness. Believers invariably believe for emotional reasons; the desire for protection in a hostile world, a sense of hope, wanting to be loved, being part of a community; none of these is a rational reason grounded in evidence.
-
No, clearly such people as those are intelligent. However, they are emotionally needy. Their desire to be 'loved and cared for' by an all powerful father figure fulfills that neediness. Believers invariably believe for emotional reasons; the desire for protection in a hostile world, a sense of hope, wanting to be loved, being part of a community; none of these is a rational reason grounded in evidence.
And you know all this about Judge McConnell, despite never having a single conversation with him?
I thought you said people who believe in God are nuts?
-
And you know all this about Judge McConnell, despite never having a single conversation with him?
I thought you said people who believe in God are nuts?
Some are; most are simply emotionally so needy that they need a father figure to give them a sense of 'hope' and to spare them from their annihilation.
-
Some are; most are simply emotionally so needy that they need a father figure to give them a sense of 'hope' and to spare them from their annihilation.
I'm specifically about Judge McConnell (or really any of the people identified in the article). How do you know they are "emotionally needy"? How do you know why they consider themselves evangelicals? I guess these are really rhetorical questions, because clearly you don't know. I understand you're just expressing an opinion, but you have to admit it's an uninformed opinion.
And didn't you say people who believe in God are crazy? Have you changed your mind?
-
In fact, you created a thread called "Do you ever wonder why genuine believers are not classed as being mentally ill?" http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=197176.0
Some excerpts from that thread:
I wasn't asking for your opinion about theology. You queried whether "genuine believers" are mentally ill. I assume this is your belief? I asked if you had the "same opinion of people who attend, graduate from, and teach at divinity schools? What about those attending/teaching at parochial schools?"
In a way they are. They have been brainwashed. What is the object of study in a divinity school? A forever unprovable entity. It is just plain silly. If they genuinely believe these things, whatever their schooling, I submit that they have some sort of mental illness; it is a cult after all.
-
Nice to see that the movement is doing some housecleaning and PR work to rid themselves of that image the moronic plagues, fraudsters and closeted homosexuals have pervaded it with.
What is a "genuine" believer though? Someone who believes in evolution as does Francis Collins? It's all so complicated. :-[
I also wonder why Ben Stein didn't interview him for his expose, since Collins seems to feel that there is no problem with faith and science in the academic community. ???
For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.
So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?
Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
-
I'm specifically about Judge McConnell (or really any of the people identified in the article). How do you know they are "emotionally needy"? How do you know why they consider themselves evangelicals? I guess these are really rhetorical questions, because clearly you don't know. I understand you're just expressing an opinion, but you have to admit it's an uninformed opinion.
And didn't you say people who believe in God are crazy? Have you changed your mind?
Clinically speaking it is a form of mental illness or to quote Sam Harris:
It is merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the universe can hear your thoughts while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having the rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window.
-
Francis Collins is going to Hell for being a Darwinist. God doesn't like all those who don't read the BIBLE!!!
-
Francis Collins is going to Hell for being a Darwinist. God doesn't like all those who don't read the BIBLE!!!
Collins is a quack and the reasons he gives for becoming a Christian are pretty pathetic.
-
Collins is a quack and the reasons he gives for becoming a Christian are pretty pathetic.
STFU, fundy nutcase ::)
Jesus is coming soon and He will shut you up Himself...
*Singing* "Jesus comes with clouds descending..."
-
STFU, fundy nutcase ::)
Jesus is coming soon and He will shut you up Himself...
*Singing* "Jesus comes with clouds descending..."
Fuck Jesus... ::)
-
Fuck Jesus... ::)
He heard that!!!
Remember, He knows when you are sleeping, He knows when you're awake, He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake!!!
-
He heard that!!!
Remember, He knows when you are sleeping, He knows when you're awake, He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake!!!
Blah, blah, blah...
-
Clinically speaking it is a form of mental illness or to quote Sam Harris:
Are the following people mentally ill because they are evangelicals?
Alvin Plantinga, George Marsden, Judge Michael McConnell, Francis Collins, and Professor Peter Feaver.
-
Are the following people mentally ill because they are evangelicals?
Alvin Plantinga, George Marsden, Judge Michael McConnell, Francis Collins, and Professor Peter Feaver.
Clearly many forms of religion are indeed socially sanctioned forms of madness. Read Collins' book; his reasons for becoming are not only non-scientific but also stupid.
-
Clearly many forms of religion are indeed socially sanctioned forms of madness. Read Collins' book; his reasons for becoming is not only non-scientific but also stupid.
I understand why you don't want to answer. :)
-
I understand why you don't want to answer. :)
I did answer the question; those people are mentally ill.
I don't know why you claim I haven't or presume to know why I allegedly 'do not want to'.
-
I did answer the question; those people are mentally ill.
I don't know why you claim I haven't or presume to know why I allegedly 'do not want to'.
I just assumed you weren't really going to say some of the most educated, accomplished, intelligent people in the country are mentally ill, because you realized how absurd that would sound. But I was wrong.
Pretty extreme way to rationalize your dislike of God and religion.
-
I just assumed you weren't really going to say some of the most educated, accomplished, intelligent people in the country are mentally ill, because you realized how absurd that would sound. But I was wrong.
Pretty extreme way to rationalize your dislike of God and religion.
I don't rationalise anything.
If someone ran around claiming that Zorkhan the Alien Emperor of the Xenox Galaxy were communicating with him telepathically, he would correctly be labled a nut. Change Zorkhan to Yahweh and all bets are off; you can say whatever you like and no one will think you are 'crazy'. If you don't get how absurd THAT is, then you are forever lost...
-
I don't rationalise anything.
If someone ran around claiming that Zorkhan the Alien Emperor of the Xenox Galaxy were communicating with him telepathically, he would correctly be labled a nut. Change Zorkhan to Yahweh and all bets are off; you can say whatever you like and no one will think you are 'crazy'. If you don't get how absurd THAT is, then you are forever lost...
Except the overwhelming majority of people in this country don't run around claiming Zorkhan is God. Classic straw man.
If you don't get how absurd it sounds to label the vast majority of the country, including the people in this article, as mentally ill, then your extreme anti-religious hatred has really blinded you.
-
Except the overwhelming majority of people in this country don't run around claiming Zorkhan is God. Classic straw man.
If you don't get how absurd it sounds to label the vast majority of the country, including the people in this article, as mentally ill, then your extreme anti-religious hatred has really blinded you.
Or Zeus, or Woden or Thor....though there are some. Are Greek polytheists mad? I have said it before, I will say it again; socially sanctioned madness.
-
Or Zeus, or Woden or Thor....though there are some. Are Greek polytheists mad? I have said it before, I will say it again; socially sanctioned madness.
Deicide,
Do you feel like this about Christians only, or do you feel the same about anybody who believes in a higher power out there, all theists, all deists, etc.?
-
Deicide,
Do you feel like this about Christians only, or do you feel the same about anybody who believes in a higher power out there, all theists, all deists, etc.?
No, all theists are fair game to my mind, monotheists in particular.
Deism, well that was once a tenable position but is completely unnecessary now; if someone wants to believe in a totally uninvolved first cause, so be it; I have a bunch of deist internet allies.
-
No, all theists are fair game to my mind, monotheists in particular.
Deism, well that was once a tenable position but is completely unnecessary now; if someone wants to believe in a totally uninvolved first cause, so be it; I have a bunch of deist internet allies.
What do you mean by allies? Friends?
-
What do you mean by allies? Friends?
Allies in the fight against silly and dangerous religious ideas.
-
Allies in the fight against silly and dangerous religious ideas.
So in your opinion Deists are nut cases along with anyone who is not atheist, but you think is okay to have nut cases for allies as long as they join you in your fight against religion?
-
So in your opinion Deists are nut cases along with anyone who is not atheist, but you think is okay to have nut cases for allies as long as they join you in your fight against religion?
I said deists are fine; they are essentially atheists. A first cause that has removed itself from the universe and doesn't interact with it in any way whatsoever...why not? Still an unnecessary position to advocate but it is far more rational than any sort of theism.
-
It's rather obtuse to think that brilliant people can't be mentally ill. John Forbes Nash comes to mind, as do Hemmingway, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Vincent van Gogh, for starters. Many creative, intelligent people have mental problems.
That having been said, is it delusional for Mr./Mrs Neumann to keep their daughter from getting medical attention because they believe Satan is afoot and only God can oust the evil? Yeah, and even most religious people would condemn that. The same people who think that if they pray hard enough with a group of businessmen, God will take time out of his busy schedge to smile upon them and their fiscal concerns. Many atheists find that delusional as well. I don't, as it's harmless, but, some do.
Is it delusional to sit in front of the religion channel, (which is basically the home shopping channel for the spiritually bereft) writing checks to a man in a bad hairhat who, waving spiritual baubles in your face, tells you you'll be "planting seeds in heaven"? Most atheists would say, yes it is. And sad, too. Yet millions give for "the harvest", and millions watch... rapt.
Is it delusional to hope the earth crashes and burns as soon as possible, so the "righteous" will have their orgasmic epiphany as God raptures them? Yes, and most atheists find that idea abhorrent. Yet those people are out there.
Is it delusional to support Hagee the Obese when he proclaims that Bush is the Messiah and that Hitler was God's Great Hunter? Yes, most atheists would say so. Yet, the man has a large following.
That's why it is also great that a handful of people, like those above, and those who composed that new Manifesto, come along and try to bring people better role models... as well as to promote education and learning rather than feed into peoples' weaknesses.
-
I said deists are fine; they are essentially atheists. A first cause that has removed itself from the universe and doesn't interact with it in any way whatsoever...why not? Still an unnecessary position to advocate but it is far more rational than any sort of theism.
So Deists are not nut cases in your opinion only because their "first cause" or "higher power" or "God" has removed itself/Himself?
So if I believed that Yahweh triggered the big bang, then seeded the earth with everything needed to send evolution on its course, then removed Himself from all of it and never again got involved, I would not be a nut case in your opinion?
-
So Deists are not nut cases in your opinion only because their "first cause" or "higher power" or "God" has removed itself/Himself?
So if I believed that Yahweh triggered the big bang, then seeded the earth with everything needed to send evolution on its course, then removed Himself from all of it and never again got involved, I would not be a nut case in your opinion?
That would be a pretty strange way of going about it, wouldn't it? All those millions and millions of years of waste...don't you think Angry Yahweh could have done a better job?
-
So Deists are not nut cases in your opinion only because their "first cause" or "higher power" or "God" has removed itself/Himself?
So if I believed that Yahweh triggered the big bang, then seeded the earth with everything needed to send evolution on its course, then removed Himself from all of it and never again got involved, I would not be a nut case in your opinion?
Listen to Hitchens talk about it for the first bit; some design... ::)
-
That would be a pretty strange way of going about it, wouldn't it? All those millions and millions of years of waste...don't you think Angry Yahweh could have done a better job?
Even so, if that was my belief, that Yahweh triggered the big bang, then seeded the earth with everything needed to send evolution on its course, then removed Himself from all of it and never again got involved, I would not be a nut case in your opinion?
-
Listen to Hitchens talk about it for the first bit; some design... ::)
Hitchens supports the US invasion of Iraq? Why? I thought secular people considered this a religious conflict and were very much opposed to it. It has been referred to as a religious conflict by skeptics on this and the politics board.
-
Hitchens supports the US invasion of Iraq? Why? I thought secular people considered this a religious conflict and were very much opposed to it. It has been referred to as a religious conflict by skeptics on this and the politics board.
Many of us skeptics find Hitchens position on the Iraq war untenable, myself included. It is bizarre. It is the Hitchen's paradox.
-
Hitchens supports the US invasion of Iraq? Why? I thought secular people considered this a religious conflict and were very much opposed to it. It has been referred to as a religious conflict by skeptics on this and the politics board.
Hitchens has been pro-war from the start. He makes a very good and convincing case, then as now.
Shows you that you shouldn't stereotype "secular people" into one mindset :)
-
Hitchens has been pro-war from the start. He makes a very good and convincing case, then as now.
Shows you that you shouldn't stereotype "secular people" into one mindset :)
You promote his anti-religion book, debates and speeches, don't you? One of his arguments against religion is violence, yet he's pro-war from the start?
Shows you that even if Hitchens, as many secular people would like, takes God and religion out of this world, if that were possible, you still have violence, war and suffering perpetrated and supported by so called "brilliant", "enlightened" and "civilized" secular people. Not saying that Hitches would be perpetrating it necessarily, but that he would be supporting it just as he does now.
-
You promote his anti-religion book, debates and speeches, don't you? One of his arguments against religion is violence, yet he's pro-war from the start?
Shows you that even if Hitchens, as many secular people would like, takes God and religion out of this world, if that were possible, you still have violence, war and suffering perpetrated and supported by so called "brilliant", "enlightened" and "civilized" secular people. Not saying that Hitches would be perpetrating it necessarily, but that he would be supporting it just as he does now.
You're missing the point by a mile. Have you read or heard his pro-war arguments? I doubt you have. You just want to make a narrow comparison here...
Before you talk, look up his articles or listen to his arguments on the war issue: from the Kurds onwards...
Once again, I find myself referring you to the library ;)
-
You're missing the point by a mile. Have you read or heard his pro-war arguments? I doubt you have. You just want to make a narrow comparison here...
Before you talk, look up his articles or listen to his arguments on the war issue: from the Kurds onwards...
Once again, I find myself referring you to the library ;)
His arguments are ok but point by point he loses and has lost debates on the Iraq issue; it is only his ego that keeps him on the issue.
-
You're missing the point by a mile. Have you read or heard his pro-war arguments? I doubt you have. You just want to make a narrow comparison here...
Before you talk, look up his articles or listen to his arguments on the war issue: from the Kurds onwards...
Once again, I find myself referring you to the library ;)
Yes, I read them on the Internet this morning. No need to go to the library. ;)
I guess the Bush administration should count Hitchens as an ally in justifying the US invation of Iraq.
-
I don't think Chris Hitchens ever got over the fatwa placed on Salman Rushdie's head, and that his views are of a personal nature. :)
I also believe human beings have a blood lust and will to survive that goes way back to our evolutionary tribal past. Religious people are no more or less apt to engage in slaughter and warfare than anyone else. The reasons are manmade but the urge is visceral. When religious people engage in war in the name of God they're simply fulfilling their evolutionary instinct, same as everyone else. Oil, God, borders, it's all the same.
-
I don't think Chris Hitchens ever got over the fatwa placed on Salman Rushdie's head, and that his views are of a personal nature. :)
I also believe human beings have a blood lust and will to survive that goes way back to our evolutionary tribal past. Religious people are no more or less apt to engage in slaughter and warfare than anyone else. The reasons are manmade but the urge is visceral. When religious people engage in war in the name of God they're simply fulfilling their evolutionary instinct, same as everyone else. Oil, God, borders, it's all the same.
But no other force on earth makes such a transcendental difference of people as does religion and thus a truely insane reason to wage war.
-
I don't think Chris Hitchens ever got over the fatwa placed on Salman Rushdie's head, and that his views are of a personal nature. :)
I also believe human beings have a blood lust and will to survive that goes way back to our evolutionary tribal past. Religious people are no more or less apt to engage in slaughter and warfare than anyone else. The reasons are manmade but the urge is visceral. When religious people engage in war in the name of God they're simply fulfilling their evolutionary instinct, same as everyone else. Oil, God, borders, it's all the same.
Hi Deedee! So if this is true, don't you think that we, religious and secular alike, are better off following, not our "evolutionary instinct", but instead following the 10 commandments, "thou shall not kill", etc., and the teachings of Jesus, "do unto others...", "love your enemies", "bless those who curse you", etc.?
-
Hi Deedee! So if this is true, don't you think that we, religious and secular alike, are better off following, not our "evolutionary instinct", but instead following the 10 commandments, "thou shall not kill", etc., and the teachings of Jesus, "do unto others...", "love your enemies", "bless those who curse you", etc.?
Hi loco! Yes absolutely I do think those rules are good. I also think that as we evolved, the empathy instinct became instilled in our DNA to ensure our survival. Safety in numbers. This caused us to create a God whom we would fear and love, in order to further ensure that we would follow those rules and thereby flourish and multiply. :) We kind of overdid it with the multiplying, but nevertheless, here we are.
-
But no other force on earth makes such a transcendental difference of people as does religion and thus a truely insane reason to wage war.
It's all insane, really. I do think if it weren't about religious elbow jostling, it would be something else. The point is, man, like all animals, must occasionally cull the herds. Imagine how over run the earth would be if Protestants and Catholics, muslims and christians, didn't slaughter each other at different points in history.
-
Hi Deedee! So if this is true, don't you think that we, religious and secular alike, are better off following, not our "evolutionary instinct", but instead following the 10 commandments, "thou shall not kill", etc., and the teachings of Jesus, "do unto others...", "love your enemies", "bless those who curse you", etc.?
or this teaching of Jesus...
Luke 19:27-"But as for these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king-bring them here and slaughter them in my presence!'"
The alleged Jesus said many different things...that one is my personaly favourite...
-
or this teaching of Jesus...
Luke 19:27-"But as for these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king-bring them here and slaughter them in my presence!'"
The alleged Jesus said many different things...that one is my personaly favourite...
So, for you, it boils down to the same beef that every other deist or atheist believes....if God is so loving, why does he allow evil? Why does he allow the slaughter of women and children? The age-old question that really doesn't desire an answer from those who do not believe in the deity of Christ.
-
or this teaching of Jesus...
Luke 19:27-"But as for these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king-bring them here and slaughter them in my presence!'"
The alleged Jesus said many different things...that one is my personaly favourite...
Jesus did not say that, but instead the king in a story that Jesus told is the one who said that. Below is the complete passage. In this story, the king whom Jesus is talking about is most likely Herod Archelaus: http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_archelaus.htm
Luke 19:12-27 (New International Version)
12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'
17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'
18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'
19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'
20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'
25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'
26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
-
So, for you, it boils down to the same beef that every other deist or atheist believes....if God is so loving, why does he allow evil? Why does he allow the slaughter of women and children? The age-old question that really doesn't desire an answer from those who do not believe in the deity of Christ.
No it doesn't boil down to that at all. I have stated repeatedly that it is a silly question. There is no god, hence the question of good or evil is an invented one. 'Why' questions usually are invented, much like your fictious deity has been invented.
-
Jesus did not say that, but instead the king in a story that Jesus told is the one who said that. Below is the complete passage. In this story, the king whom Jesus is talking about is most likely Herod Archelaus: http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_archelaus.htm
Luke 19:12-27 (New International Version)
12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'
15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'
17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'
18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'
19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'
20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'
25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'
26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
The good old, 'it's all just a parable' line; thanks loco. ::)
Loco if you believe that evolution is true, then I am sure you would agree that Genesis is a fictitious account of how life began? Why do you believe that the alleged Jesus of Nazareth 'died' for the sins of two nonexistent individuals?
-
The good old, 'it's all just a parable' line; thanks loco. ::)
De nada! ;D
Loco if you believe that evolution is true, then I am sure you would agree that Genesis is a fictitious account of how life began? Why do you believe that the alleged Jesus of Nazareth 'died' for the sins of two nonexistent individuals?
I accept evolutionary change "at" and "below" the level of species. I do not accept evolutionary change "above" the level of species, or particles to people evolution. I believe that God created Adam and Eve as human beings and that we descended from them.
When I see evidence such as human DNA and chimp DNA being 95%-98% similar, I see it as evidence that chimps and humans share, not a common ancestor, but a common supreme designer and creator.
Jesus himself spoke of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus said that God created the world. So according to Jesus, Genesis is true. So if I'm always going to be a fool to the world anyway simply for calling myself a Christian, I may as well be a consistent fool and believe in Genesis because according to the same Jesus that I claim to believe in, Genesis is true.
-
It's rather obtuse to think that brilliant people can't be mentally ill. John Forbes Nash comes to mind, as do Hemmingway, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Vincent van Gogh, for starters. Many creative, intelligent people have mental problems.
That having been said, is it delusional for Mr./Mrs Neumann to keep their daughter from getting medical attention because they believe Satan is afoot and only God can oust the evil? Yeah, and even most religious people would condemn that. The same people who think that if they pray hard enough with a group of businessmen, God will take time out of his busy schedge to smile upon them and their fiscal concerns. Many atheists find that delusional as well. I don't, as it's harmless, but, some do.
Is it delusional to sit in front of the religion channel, (which is basically the home shopping channel for the spiritually bereft) writing checks to a man in a bad hairhat who, waving spiritual baubles in your face, tells you you'll be "planting seeds in heaven"? Most atheists would say, yes it is. And sad, too. Yet millions give for "the harvest", and millions watch... rapt.
Is it delusional to hope the earth crashes and burns as soon as possible, so the "righteous" will have their orgasmic epiphany as God raptures them? Yes, and most atheists find that idea abhorrent. Yet those people are out there.
Is it delusional to support Hagee the Obese when he proclaims that Bush is the Messiah and that Hitler was God's Great Hunter? Yes, most atheists would say so. Yet, the man has a large following.
That's why it is also great that a handful of people, like those above, and those who composed that new Manifesto, come along and try to bring people better role models... as well as to promote education and learning rather than feed into peoples' weaknesses.
I like you Deedee.
-
I like you Deedee.
I want to marry her and I don't ever even want to get married ... ;D
-
De nada! ;D
I accept evolutionary change "at" and "below" the level of species. I do not accept evolutionary change "above" the level of species, or particles to people evolution. I believe that God created Adam and Eve as human beings and that we descended from them.
When I see evidence such as human DNA and chimp DNA being 95%-98% similar, I see it as evidence that chimps and humans share, not a common ancestor, but a common supreme designer and creator.
Jesus himself spoke of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus said that God created the world. So according to Jesus, Genesis is true. So if I'm always going to be a fool to the world anyway simply for calling myself a Christian, I may as well be a consistent fool and believe in Genesis because according to the Jesus that I claim to believe in, Genesis is true.
You are quite proud of your foolishness, aren't you?
-
You are quite proud of your foolishness, aren't you?
If you call belief in Jesus Christ foolishness, then yes, I am proud of it.
1 Corinthians 1:18
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
1 Corinthians 2:14
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
-
If you call belief in Jesus Christ foolishness, then yes, I am proud of it.
1 Corinthians 1:18
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
1 Corinthians 2:14
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
Lo encuentro verdaderamente tan triste que usted se parece ser un hombre inteligente que ha lanzado su intelecto por esperanza falsa y la consolación deshonesta. Usted cree en estas cosas porque usted desea que eran verdades, no porque son. Realmente es triste.
-
If you call belief in Jesus Christ foolishness, then yes, I am proud of it.
1 Corinthians 1:18
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
1 Corinthians 2:14
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
I'll second that motion, Loco. ;D
-
Lo encuentro verdaderamente tan triste que usted se parece ser un hombre inteligente que ha lanzado su intelecto por esperanza falsa y la consolación deshonesta. Usted cree en estas cosas porque usted desea que eran verdades, no porque son. Realmente es triste.
Thanks very much Deicide! I appreciate your words, I really do! But likewise, it saddens me that you cannot experience the peace and joy that only faith in Jesus Christ can offer, along with His Holy Spirit and eternal life. But maybe some day you will. Don't be sad for me though. I'll be just fine. As I've told you before, I used to be a bad man many years ago, and for me to do good things and stop doing bad things, it took Jesus Christ.
-
I'll second that motion, Loco. ;D
;D
-
Thanks very much Deicide! I appreciate your words, I really do! But likewise, it saddens me that you cannot experience the peace and joy that only faith in Jesus Christ can offer, along with His Holy Spirit and eternal life. But maybe some day you will. Don't be sad for me though. I'll be just fine. As I've told you before, I used to be a bad man many years ago, and for me to do good things and stop doing bad things, it took Jesus Christ.
So for you, religion is moral viagra and without it you would be raping, robbing and killing?
-
So for you, religion is moral viagra and without it you would be raping, robbing and killing?
Nope. All I know is that Jesus Christ changed me. And I have seen many other lives changed by Jesus Christ.
-
Nope. All I know is that Jesus Christ changed me. And I have seen many other lives changed by Jesus Christ.
So transparent.... :-\ So sad...
-
So transparent.... :-\ So sad...
I'm not sure what you mean, but Jesus did change me and he has changed many lives. Here yet another example:
"Carl Gustav Jung (July 26, 1875, Kesswil – June 6, 1961, Küsnacht) was a Swiss psychiatrist, influential thinker, and founder of analytical psychology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung
"Jung's influence can sometimes be found in more unexpected quarters. For example, Jung once treated an American patient (Rowland H.) suffering from chronic alcoholism. After working with the patient for some time, and achieving no significant progress, Jung told the man that his alcoholic condition was near to hopeless, save only the possibility of a spiritual experience. Jung noted that occasionally such experiences had been known to reform alcoholics where all else had failed.
Rowland took Jung's advice seriously and set about seeking a personal spiritual experience. He returned home to the United States and joined a Christian evangelical church. He also told other alcoholics what Jung had told him about the importance of a spiritual experience. One of the alcoholics he told was Ebby Thatcher, a long-time friend and drinking buddy of Bill Wilson, later co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Thatcher told Wilson about Jung's ideas. Wilson, who was finding it impossible to maintain sobriety, was impressed and sought out his own spiritual experience. The influence of Jung thus indirectly found its way into the formation of Alcoholics Anonymous, the original 12-step program, and from there into the whole 12-step recovery movement, although AA as a whole is not Jungian and Jung had no role in the formation of that approach or the 12 steps."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung#Spirituality_as_a_cure_for_alcoholism
-
I'm not sure what you mean, but Jesus did change me and he has changed many lives. Here yet another example:
"Carl Gustav Jung (July 26, 1875, Kesswil – June 6, 1961, Küsnacht) was a Swiss psychiatrist, influential thinker, and founder of analytical psychology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung
"Jung's influence can sometimes be found in more unexpected quarters. For example, Jung once treated an American patient (Rowland H.) suffering from chronic alcoholism. After working with the patient for some time, and achieving no significant progress, Jung told the man that his alcoholic condition was near to hopeless, save only the possibility of a spiritual experience. Jung noted that occasionally such experiences had been known to reform alcoholics where all else had failed.
Rowland took Jung's advice seriously and set about seeking a personal spiritual experience. He returned home to the United States and joined a Christian evangelical church. He also told other alcoholics what Jung had told him about the importance of a spiritual experience. One of the alcoholics he told was Ebby Thatcher, a long-time friend and drinking buddy of Bill Wilson, later co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Thatcher told Wilson about Jung's ideas. Wilson, who was finding it impossible to maintain sobriety, was impressed and sought out his own spiritual experience. The influence of Jung thus indirectly found its way into the formation of Alcoholics Anonymous, the original 12-step program, and from there into the whole 12-step recovery movement, although AA as a whole is not Jungian and Jung had no role in the formation of that approach or the 12 steps."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung#Spirituality_as_a_cure_for_alcoholism
And plenty of Hindus have been changed by Vishnu; what exactly is your point? None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the truth of Christian claims.
-
Lo encuentro verdaderamente tan triste que usted se parece ser un hombre inteligente que ha lanzado su intelecto por esperanza falsa y la consolación deshonesta. Usted cree en estas cosas porque usted desea que eran verdades, no porque son. Realmente es triste.
I find it sad too that you being so intelligent don't believe in our saviour Jesus Christ. You don't believe because you don't want to believe not because it isn't real ;D
I am also spanish
-
I find it sad too that you being so intelligent don't believe in our saviour Jesus Christ. You don't believe because you don't want to believe not because it isn't real ;D
I am also spanish
Bienvenido, hermano! ;D
-
Bienvenido, hermano! ;D
::)
-
And plenty of Hindus have been changed by Vishnu; what exactly is your point? None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the truth of Christian claims.
Good for them. And some of those Hindus later become Christians. I happen to know three former Hindus turned Christians really well. Most of my friends happen to be from India. Some of my Indian friends even grew up in Christian homes in India. But I know, this isn't proof that Christianity is true. It's all about grace through faith.
"Christians, including Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants form the third largest group in Kerala. Since centuries, they have blended well with the changing socio-cultural environment of the region. They are a unique faction of Christians who are Hindus by culture, Christians by religion, and Judeo-Syro-Oriental in worship. They have sometimes, even in some official documents, been called Nasranis (followers of Jesus of Nazarene) or Saint Thomas Christians."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayali#Christians
-
Have there been Christians that have converted to Hindus?
-
Have there been Christians that have converted to Hindus?
Have their been Invisible Pink Unicornists that have converted to Pastafarianism?
-
Have their been Invisible Pink Unicornists that have converted to Pastafarianism?
Did Jack and Jill have a sexual relationship?
-
Did Jack and Jill have a sexual relationship?
Probably...until Jack came and lost interest with the release of his load...
-
Probably...until Jack came and lost interest with the release of his load...
And don't forget, their guilt about their sexual relationship before marriage was validated by their belief in God, but becuase they were both Christians, they knew it didn't matter becuase they were saved. So they continued to shag vigorously.
-
And don't forget, their guilt about their sexual relationship before marriage was validated by their belief in God, but becuase they were both Christians, they knew it didn't matter becuase they were saved. So they continued to shag vigorously.
That's true...
-
I like you Deedee.
I like you too Decker. Always a voice of calm reason. :)
-
I want to marry her and I don't ever even want to get married ... ;D
You only say that because I'm a realist easy-going about certain male habits. ;D
-
You only say that because I'm a realist easy-going about certain male habits. ;D
No; I say it because of your prose which bespeaks intelligence and wit; rare qualities in most humans these days. ;)