Subject:
|
Re: Mormon bashing again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:08:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
668 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > The Puritans were doing their best to persecute other religions, lost, and
> > were chased here more than anything.
>
> Very true, but not all "pilgrims" were puritans.
Ahhh, yes, you referenced pilgrims and after reading that section I forgot and
thought you said Puritans. My mistake.
>
> > It was that many religions came here and had
> > to get along is what was the key. Rather than continue the religious wars of
> > Europe, tolerance and non-establishment of a state religion paid off. Not
> > perfectly. Not without its ups and downs, but adherence to that course has
> > saved us a lot of grief.
> >
> > The Roman Cathotlic, which did its best to influence politics, blocked the
> > flow of Greek literature and the Greek bible because that was the Greek
> > Orthodox religion.
>
> It was far more than that, and the greek bible had little to do with Greek
> Orthodoxy at this point in time. The ante-nicene and post-nicene church was • far
> from greek orthodoxy, it was so fragmented - much like today - between the two
> Alexandrias, Rome and Syria primarily that it would be impossible to • categorize
> it so succinctly. The cut off of greek literature facilitated the perpetuation
> of the Roman dominance of Europe under the guise of the papacy.
It cuts both ways - they were religions that decided they needed to compete and
have political control. I'm not saying either were right or wrong, just that
neither really had clean hands.
>
> > Evolution itself simply isn't under question in the scientific community.
>
> I have read numerous articles over the years that state that a large number of
> scienists concede that there must be an Architect. They don't call it Jehovah,
> but they admit that there is too much order to be accidental. Unfortunately, I
> don't have references.
This does not exclude evolution as a scientific principle.
>
> >
> > The age of the universe is extrapolated to be vaguely around 25-30 billion
> > years old, not 300-400 billion. Our sun is somewhere around 5 billion years
> > old (again, the conventional wisdom).
>
> There is much evidence that states that the earth must be much younger.
> History, geology and biology are very supportive of creationism. I can
> eloborate if necessary. Do you honestly think that the development of the
> evolutionary theory had nothing to do with Darwin and his bunch despising
> religion - they were far from objective scientists who stumbled across a
truth.
Geology and biology are quite the opposite - they support a very long time
frame. Geology an extremely long time frame.
Evolution was arrived at independently by another scientist at almost the same
time as Darwin. He simply forced Darwin to publish. And what evidence do you
that Darwin depised religion? The theory of evolution came about because of
Darwin's observations during his voyage as a naturalist aboard the Beagle. He
didn't sit around in some bar concocting schemes to bring down religion. In any
event, evolution doesn't address religion at all. It neither confirms or
denies it.
>
>
> > > > I don't care what people believe, but I really don't think public schools
> > > > are the place for religion.
>
> I'm not advocating that either. Yet as I said, atheism, secularism or what • ever
> you want to call it - is as much a religion, and evolution is as much a • theory.
>
This is going back to someone else's comments, not mine. In any case, we
simply disagree here. Creationism (or whatever name is applied this week to
try and dodge the religion aspect) is based on religious beliefs. This is
fine. I don't have a problem with that - just DON'T try and pass it off as
scientific theory. People died in droves in Russia due to crop failures that
came about because of dogmatic pseudo-science that fit the preconceived notions
of those in power.
Evolution is a theory. So is gravity. I'm not sure what your point is. These
are scientific theories, not religious theories. The problem is you are mixing
the two.
> > People simply don't want someone else's religion imposed on them.
> > don't impose your religion on me. Don't force my son to recite
> > the eight-fold path. Don't force Jews to recite prayers to Jesus. Don't
> > force your children to recite prayers to Satan (God only knows why someone • would worship Satan, but, hey, freedom of religion). Don't force Hindus to
> > gather mistletoe. Don't establish a state religion.
>
> No one has ever done these things, and I don't believe anyone is proposing
> that. The problem is that everyone on each side of an issue is reactive • instead
> of proactive. Every part of these discussions - puritans, atheists, darwin,
> mormons, etc. ad nausseum - are based on a reaction to what someone else has
> done versus taking a positive first step in any direction. We allow ourselves
> to framed by our opponents, and run as far as possible to the opposite
extreme.
Okay, teach science in science classes, don't inflict religion A's prayers on
religion B's in a publically funded school (since you note atheism as a
religion - which I tend to agree with - that would then mean any prayer). If
there is to be school-led prayer, whose prayer will it be? Since the advocates
of this are the Christian Right, I can fairly well guess. I'm NOT saying there
is anything wrong with their prayers, just don't inflict it on everyone else
(and I'm NOT saying I'm part of that everyone else).
> > Communism was a state religion (or religion substitute). It was dogmatic and
> > not to be questioned. Stalin rejected Darwinism (remember all those Russian
> > crop failures) because it didn't fit the state religion. It illustrates the
> > dangers of letting dogma dictate to science what is acceptable theory.
>
> Yet a visceral disdain exists of anything religious in the scientific
> community. It's relegated to superstition. Science is not supreme. Not
> everything can be proven or demonstrated scientifically. Science is morally
> vacuous. I don't believe the two are irreconcilable. Many of the greatest
> advances in science were made by devout christians.
Science is morally neutral. It simply obeserves and defines what is. Morality
is the subject of religion and philosophy. Science does not pretend to be
supreme or have all the answers to life.
Your first and last sentence in the paragraph above are in conflict with each
other. In any case, the point remains: it is dangerous to subject science to
dogmatic throught.
>
> >
> > Last recorded words of the Columbine killers, "We are going to a better
> > place." Not the words of atheists.
>
> You don't know what they meant by that. What about Kamikaze pilots, they
> thought they were going to a better place - doesn't make'em christian.
I didn't mention christian. It makes them religious. You were indicating that
they did what they did because they lacked religion.
> > Unfortunately, too much has been deemed permissable
> > in the very name of God - murder, slavery, racism.
>
> Very true. Still doesn't change who He is, just proves who we are.
>
>
My point was evil can exist with religion or without.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) ... (...) Maybe they thought that life was so terrible that death was better than the hell that was their life. For some people nowhere is a better place. Not that I think they were non-religious, I just don't think that their statement (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) I agree and have said nothing to the contrary. (...) Very true, but not all "pilgrims" were puritans. (...) It was far more than that, and the greek bible had little to do with Greek Orthodoxy at this point in time. The ante-nicene and (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
