Subject:
|
Re: Mormon bashing again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:25:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
687 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Erik Olson writes:
>
> Hear, hear.
>
> Creationism isn't science, it's a tool for making converts to
> Christianity. Similarly, posting the Ten Commandments in schools
> proclaims that authority comes from god ("thou shalt have no
> other gods before me").
Creationism is actually very scientific. Many secular scientists have become
christians precisely because their findings lead them to the conclusion that
everything is too complex to be accidental. I have a few books I could mail to
you that would make this clear.
>
> I just want to make some quick points in the "off-topic" record:
>
> "Atheism" is a straw man. It is usually used to mean Nihilist--someone
Or agnostic.
> who denies everything. But it only means you don't believe in any gods
> at all. There is no such thing as an "Atheist code of behavior" and
> you can't lump all your enemies together with such a word.
My intent was to paint the picture with a broad brush. There is no "official"
atheist code of behavior, but it IS pretty much do what you want.
> Still, religionists believe that there is no way to have morality without a
> god. This has to challenged.
That was my previous point and it is valid. If morality does not come from an
objective point beyond ourselves, then it is entirely of our own making and
subject to the tyranny of a majority and/or the might of the powerful. History
has proven that powerful people with little or no morals WILL dominate the
weak. History has also proven that if a well intentioned system is allowed to
decay it will end in nearly the same chaos. The Roman Empire started with high
ideals and ended in total depravity. Even the theocracy of Israel collapsed
many times due to immorality. Morality must originate outside of ourselves -
there can be no other source - otherwise everything is a house of cards easily
toppled.
> I think that most Christians are aware of only two alternatives, either
> their tradition or the kind of empty-headed bureaucrat world pictured
> by C.S. Lewis (in _That Hideous Strength_ for example.)
I agree, due to their usual perspective of differing shades of black and only
one shade of white. I'm not trying to be that narrow. I'm trying to make basic
fundamental points.
> The religious roots of the US are not the cause of the US as you claim they
> are.
> American ideals were, and are, this-worldly, secular, happy and self-reliant,
> not mystical, humble, or dogmatic. Washington and Jefferson are a long way
> from the Pilgrims (who recreated much of what they supposedly escaped.)
> The US is a result of Enlightenment political philosophy, which was an
> outgrowth of the scientific world view--not the Bible. If you read the letters
> of the Founding Fathers, there is not a whole lot of religion there. Instead,
> they are peppered with "treasonous" statements like "My mind is my own church"
That's why I stated the following in my original message:
> This country was founded by people who accepted and, *for the most part*,
> believed and practiced them (no nitpicks please)
My point was that the ten commandments had an undeniable impact on the framing
of our system. I realize that Jefferson considered himself a theist, but he
also didn't reject the label of christian either. As to the "Enlightenment
political philosophy", this also had great impact on Britian and France, and
most of Europe for that matter, yet our system is unique and far more
successful than is any other. So, what makes ours unique? I believe it is the
Judeo-Christian underpinnings. How can you deny the religious origins when the
constitution starts by saying that our rights come from our Creator. The
posting of the ten commandments anywhere does not constitute an endorsement or
mandate of any kind, it's merely a reference to a historical document that
impacted the formation of our laws.
>
> Finally, who came up with this dumb analogy? This really gets around:
>
> Bill wrote:
> > things like Columbine? Animals do these types of things. It's normal for
> > animals to do these types of things.
>
> Silly. Animals kill weaker animals to eat them! Stop calling the
> animals sinful, too. It's right for the lions to eat the lambs, but animals
> are not suicidal maniacs.
What's silly about it. So, animals only kill to eat, right?! Are you saying
that like doesn't kill like in the animal kingdom? Have you never seen lions or
wolves or kangaroos fight and kill for supremacy in their various groups
(prides, packs, herds etc.) They kill their own for sexual/breeding dominance
which brings feeding beni's with it. They mark their territory and kill their
own kind if it is trespassed. Animals have cannibalized their own species for
many reasons. Which is precisely my point. Survival of the fittest. It's not
sinful - I wasn't calling animals sinful - I said it was normal. So, if we are
evolved from them then it is not wrong to kill for dominance. There is more to
human needs, desires and morality than mere biology or increased cranial
capacity. No amount of protiens and enzymes can account for the human spirit,
personality or desire to be significant.
Bill
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) It's not pretty much do what you want. There is even nothing like that since good behavior is a good behavior and I can distinguish it without the help of any book written centuries before and looks very stupid today. Even if it would be as (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) Major snippage fore and aft. Which is not to say the other things you had to say weren't interesting, or whether I agree with them or not, it's just that this is the only one I wanted to comment on. The Roman Empire started with high ideals - (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (I hope this formats OK when I submit it) Toto, I think we're in Kansas... (...) I've read most of the supposedly "scientific" Creationist literature, and nowhere is the necessary connection between belief in a director or architect ("theistic (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) Hear, hear. Creationism isn't science, it's a tool for making converts to Christianity. Similarly, posting the Ten Commandments in schools proclaims that authority comes from god ("thou shalt have no other gods before me"). I just want to make (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
