Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

maggie · 02-17-09 10:46 pm

If you look at how the Dominionists are behind the creation science movement, and what their aims are...yikers...they want to run the whole <strike>country</strike> world. Creation science is political down to the core. Talk about exclusion!

bob_2 · 02-17-09 11:10 pm

Why all the concern over Dominionist all of a sudden. No Adventist who has read his eschatology correctly feels that anything will approach the original Early Church before Christ's return. Give it a rest. In fact, non-SDAs that believe in the Rapture feel that God has to remove them from the earth because things are going to get worse, instead of better.

maggie · 02-17-09 11:19 pm

Give it a rest. I should obey you because?

neal · 02-17-09 11:21 pm

... Marxism could only become what it was by banning participation of opponents.... Capitalist/FreeThought/Evolution: Free markets, the desire to pursue and accumulate property, the freedom to think for yourself and come to your own conclusions, the right to believe whatever conclusions you come to are the correct conclusions, and the survival of the fittest in business, ideas, and governments, Versus Communist/Christian/Creation: Controlled markets by a centralized government, controlled thoughts and rights by a centralized philosophy, thought crimes, the punishment of non-conformist ideas and actions by expulsion/death, "If you are not for us you are against us", equalized living standards by rewarding the confiscation of property from the wealthy and giving to the less wealthy, common sharing of assets and resources whether you worked for them or not, and the belief that a powerful figure has the knowledge/power to decide life and death, what will exist/not exist, and the rules that life will abide by on the pain of torture and 2 deaths. There is no comparison between the two. One system says control-control-control, the other says may the best man/woman/idea/life-form/business-idea/product win. 'Think what we say you can think' vs. 'think whatever you want'. Etc. Bob, you don't even have the right to decide under your belief system. A goat herder wrote something down, said it came from an invisible unknowable deity and 3000 years later you are telling me that science, which is based on evidence, should make way in the classroom for tales of a goat herder that have been FALSIFIED and HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE. Legal courts have ruled that Intelligent Design IS NOT SCIENCE. Restricting science classes to the teaching of science is common sense, not Marxism.

neal · 02-17-09 11:29 pm

A quote from Engels (Marx & Engels)<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Germany had her Social Reformers as early as the Reformation. Soon after Luther had begun to proclaim church reform and to agitate the people against spiritual authority, the peasantry of Southern and Middle Germany rose in a general insurrection against their temporal lords. Luther always stated his object to be, to return to original Christianity in doctrine and practice; the peasantry took exactly the same standing, and demanded, therefore, not only the ecclesiastical, but also the social practice of primitive Christianity. They conceived a state of villainy and servitude, such as they lived under, to be inconsistent with the doctrines of the Bible; they were oppressed by a set of haughty barons and earls, robbed and treated like their cattle every day, they had no law to protect them, and if they had, they found nobody to enforce it. Such a state contrasted very much with the communities of early Christians and the doctrines of Christ, as laid down in the Bible. Therefore they arose and began a war against their lords, which could only be a war of extermination. Thomas Münzer, a preacher, whom they placed at their head, issued a proclamation, [162] full, of course, of the religious and superstitious nonsense of the age, but containing also among others, principles like these: That according to the Bible, no Christian is entitled to hold any property whatever exclusively for himself; that community of property is the only proper state for a society of Christians; that it is not allowed to any good Christian to have any authority or command over other Christians, nor to hold any office of government or hereditary power, but on the contrary, that, as all men are equal before God, so they ought to be on earth also. These doctrines were nothing but conclusions drawn from the Bible and from Luther’s own writings; but the Reformer was not prepared to go as far as the people did; notwithstanding the courage he displayed against the spiritual authorities, he had not freed himself from the political and social prejudices of his age; he believed as firmly in the right divine of princes and landlords to trample upon the people, as he did in the Bible. Besides this, he wanted the protection of the aristocracy and the Protestant princes, and thus he wrote a tract against the rioters disclaiming not only every connection with them, but also exhorting the aristocracy to put them down with the utmost severity, as rebels against the laws of God. “Kill them like dogs!” he exclaimed. The whole tract is written with such an animosity, nay, fury and fanaticism against the people, that it will ever form a blot upon Luther’s character; it shows that, if he began his career as a man of the people, he was now entirely in the service of their oppressors. The insurrection, after a most bloody civil war, was suppressed, and the peasants reduced to their former servitude.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/10/23.htm" target=_top>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/10 /23.htm</a>

bob_2 · 02-18-09 3:06 am

Neal, I don't know how you got to the position, menatally you have, but enjoy it as best you can, I give up trying to understand your bitterness and caustic behavior. For whatever you are looking forward to, I hope you find it.

neal · 02-18-09 8:54 am

I guess you ran out of parrot lines and are now reduced to attacks on me (ad hominem instead of the topic? ... I don't know how you got to the position.... Um, evidence? Logic? Rational thought? Have you ever thought of trying them sometime? You are a good little communist Bob- don't think anything accept what is 'approved' by somebody else cuz you might get tortured or executed (Your approved book is black versus the Little Red Book of Mao). Like your deity has promised to do just like a communist dictator. Your deity has PROMISED to be the biggest mass murderer in history. The communists now only pale in comparison to the future leader. I promise to rehash this in the future every time you want to claim that evolution is somehow communist. As Cadge agrees, IT IS 180 DEGREES OPPOSITE and is instead CAPITALISTIC.

bob_2 · 02-18-09 3:50 pm

Evolution is what it is because opposing views sucha a Intelligent Design are not allowed. Why, becaue the Intelligent Designer is transcendant. That is not allowed in the scientific world. Therefore, Evolution, is spoken of as fact, when it is hardly, but they don't allow any opposition. I wouldn't label it Communist or Capitalist, maybe exclusionist. If we truly are studying Origins, then all possiblities must be discussed or you will have a false answer.

elaine · 02-18-09 5:51 pm

How can one possibly explain a supernatural event? Science does not deal in supernatural explanations; but if they did, whose word would be accepted? Where is the authority to question? The end result: Blind faith. The blind leading the blind. Follow the guru who promises ALL the answers.

neal · 02-18-09 9:36 pm

If we truly are studying Origins, then all possiblities must be discussed or you will have a false answer. That is false. When students are taught about lightning we don't have to discuss the Biblical tale that lightning comes from the hebrew god who uses it to strike down misbehaving humans. When students are taught about the atmosphere they don't have to discuss the possibility that Genesis is might be correct- there really IS a hard dome over the flat earth with an ocean above it. No, Bob. These myths have been disproven in the case of the dome or have a natural explanation in the case of lightning. In the case of origin myths you would have to discuss the Pastafarian belief that His Noodliness the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the earth. And my ancestor's tale about the Coyote, the Hummingbird, and Water Beetle. And the Hindu tale, and the chinese tale, etc ad infinitum. Evolution is NOT the study of the origin of LIFE but the study of the origin of different FORMS of life. If you want to have children study various creation myths then lobby for a comparative religion class in schools. You won't because, IMO, you only want ONE CERTAIN myth taught.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Coyote and the monster. A long, long time ago, people did not yet inhabit the earth. A monster walked upon the land, eating all the animals--except Coyote. Coyote was angry that his friends were gone. He climbed the tallest mountain and attached himself to the top. Coyote called upon the monster, challenging it to try to eat him. The monster sucked in the air, hoping to pull in Coyote with its powerful breath, but the ropes were too strong. The monster tried many other ways to blow Coyote off the mountain, but it was no use. Realizing that Coyote was sly and clever, the monster thought of a new plan. It would befriend Coyote and invite him to stay in its home. Before the visit began, Coyote said that he wanted to visit his friends and asked if he could enter the monster's stomach to see them. The monster allowed this, and Coyote cut out its heart and set fire to its insides. His friends were freed. Then Coyote decided to make a new animal. He flung pieces of the monster in the four directions; wherever the pieces landed, a new tribe of Indians emerged. He ran out of body parts before he could create a new human animal on the site where the monster had lain. He used the monster's blood, which was still on his hands, to create the Nez Percé, who would be strong and good. According to the lore of numerous tribes, animals walked the earth prior to man. They helped to shape, teach, feed, and spiritually nurture the people who later lived with them. Animals played a vital role in the life of the Native people, and honoring their spirits could bring blessings, life balance, and abundance. Many Native Americans believed in the special medicine, or power, that each animal held. The mythic beasts were often given the highest respect that could be bestowed on a spirit: the role of creator. When an individual or tribe needed assistance, it called upon an animal's knowledge, power, and spirit. To this day, animals are considered sacred by the Native American peoples and are appealed to in times of need.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.worldandi.com/public/1998/cljul98.htm" target=_top>http://www.worldandi.com/public/1998/cljul98.htm</a>

bob_2 · 02-18-09 10:53 pm

Intelligent Design is Science, Math. To reject it is prejudicial to mathematics. Complexity can be figured mathematically, and whether a designer is probable or chance is probable.

bob_2 · 02-18-09 11:07 pm

Here is an article that may be of interest to the discussion. Some of the quotes are breath-taking: Accident or Intelligent Design? Science and the Origin of Life <a href="http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more&gclid=CN7-9LDK55gCFYU-3god9EWIdQ" target=_top>http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more&gcl id=CN7-9LDK55gCFYU-3god9EWIdQ</a>

neal · 02-18-09 11:09 pm

Intelligent Design is Science, Math. To reject it is prejudicial to mathematics. Sorta like rejecting the idea that 'a day is like a thousand years' is prejudicial to the calendar? Maybe we should fund a study to figure out how a day is similar to a thousand years. Teach it as a mathematical possibility in schools! Bob, if there were evidence for ID the scientist would win the Nobel Prize! To claim that the reason ID theories are not published in Nature or Science is ludicrous.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:A professor at the University of Vermont, Nicholas Gotelli, got an invitation to debate one of the clowns at the Discovery Institute. Here's what they wrote.<blockquote> Dear Professor Gotelli, I saw your op-ed in the Burlington Free Press and appreciated your support of free speech at UVM. In light of that, I wonder if you would be open to finding a way to provide a campus forum for a debate about evolutionary science and intelligent design. The Discovery Institute, where I work, has a local sponsor in Burlington who is enthusiastic to find a way to make this happen. But we need a partner on campus. If not the biology department, then perhaps you can suggest an alternative. Ben Stein may not be the best person to single-handedly represent the ID side. As you're aware, he's known mainly as an entertainer. A more appropriate alternative or addition might be our senior fellows David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer, respectively a mathematician and a philosopher of science. I'll copy links to their bios below. Wherever one comes down in the Darwin debate, I think we can all agree that it is healthy for students to be exposed to different views--in precisely the spirit of inviting controversial speakers to campus, as you write in your op-ed. I'm hoping that you would be willing to give a critique of ID at such an event, and participate in the debate in whatever role you feel comfortable with. A good scientific backdrop to the discussion might be Dr. Meyer's book that comes out in June from HarperCollins, "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design." On the other hand, Dr. Belinski may be a good choice since he is a critic of both ID and Darwinian theory. Would it be possible for us to talk more about this by phone sometime soon? With best wishes, David Klinghoffer Discovery Institute</blockquote> You'll enjoy Dr Gotelli's response.<blockquote> Dear Dr. Klinghoffer: Thank you for this interesting and courteous invitation to set up a debate about evolution and creationism (which includes its more recent relabeling as "intelligent design") with a speaker from the Discovery Institute. Your invitation is quite surprising, given the sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you yourself posted on the Discovery Institute's website: <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/" target=_top>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/</a> However, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific community has come to expect from the creationists. Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category. Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren't members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals. "Conspiracy" is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn't live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don't maintain scientific standards. Finally, isn't it sort of pathetic that your large, well-funded institute must scrape around, panhandling for a seminar invitation at a little university in northern New England? Practicing scientists receive frequent invitations to speak in science departments around the world, often on controversial and novel topics. If creationists actually published some legitimate science, they would receive such invitations as well. So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn't science and doesn't merit an invitation. In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an evolutionary biologist, I can't tell you what a badge of honor this is. My colleagues will be envious. Sincerely yours, Nick Gotelli P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.</blockquote><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/how_to_respond_to_requests_to.php#more" target=_top>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/how_to_ respond_to_requests_to.php#more</a>

bob_2 · 02-19-09 4:53 am

Creationism due to a Trancendant God being involved can allow Gotelli to smuggly point out that the man made science would never allow anythng involving the transcendant, unless the mathematics of probability are recognized as science , shich it should. When scholars are locked out of peer review publication, again I would point how Marxism came into it's own by excluding opposition. Neal I can see why you would enjoy the letter, since his smug attitude reminds me a little, maybe a lot of you. What are you guys afraid of?

neal · 02-19-09 7:58 am

Should science classes include the actions of transcendent fairies? In your belief a god with a penis walked around on the earth, had a unique son, arm wrestled with a human, cannot be looked upon because it exists in the material world and looking at it would kill you, throws down lightning bolts, intervenes to determine how the roll of dice, wrote on a stone, lost a battle to some people with iron chariots, and has an affinity for fine-smelling cooked meat. Science is a study of non-transcendent things/actions. If it is not of the material world and does not act on the material world it is like trying to study transcendent fairies. You want another life. You are supposed to love some guy more than your wife and devote all your thoughts and dreams to this guy. This guy is going to reward you by giving you another life where this guy will change you so that you don't even have any more heterosexual tendencies to your wife. Because scientists tend to come to the conclusion that everything has a natural explanation it upsets you so you want them to shut up. Sorry. They study reality. I do hope you keep your belief because you have assured us that you would be an immoral psychopath without your religion. For the safety of your community, please keep believing. I respect your RIGHT to your belief. I do not have to RESPECT your belief, nor allow it to be taught as a truth. Based on the evidence it is false. ... I would point how Marxism came into it's own by excluding opposition. Sorta like the christian church for 1500 years? Paul says not even to eat with non-believers. Don't marry non-believers. etc. Like I said, communists.

bob_2 · 02-19-09 12:48 pm

If tanscendant fairies have an opinion about Origins, why not. What are you afraid of, that your logic is not up to it. Do you want the answer of Origins, or Science's answer. That's what you have to ask, because the answer may not be within Science, ever thought of that???? Not too many are as brash as you to call Christianity Communist, each to his own, But study would find you wrong, but I realize you are a busy guy and tend to through stuff against the wall to see what sticks, that is one way to get your truth. (Message edited by Bob_2 on February 19, 2009)

neal · 02-19-09 8:46 pm

Do you want the answer of Origins, or Science's answer. I am firmly convinced that you are not after truth but are desperate to deny anything that shows your fantasy of another life to be nothing but a fairytale. ... But study would find you wrong... Prove me wrong. I'd be happy for you to do that instead of just making stoopid assertions backed up by volumes of hot air. I seem to be the one that has done the studying. You just do the talking. BTW, cutting and pasting apologetics is not studying so you may as well skip that. It might work down at whatever church you go to but it doesn't cut it in the real world.

george · 02-19-09 10:53 pm

What are you guys afraid of. Maybe being forced to eat an apple pie made with oranges.

maggie · 02-19-09 11:25 pm

The Transcendent Faeries know better than to argue origins from science if the answer is not within science.

bob_2 · 02-20-09 12:25 am

OOPs, there is one of those creepy posts. You promised.

bob_2 · 02-20-09 11:43 am

Look, let's just suppose, Neal, that a trancendant God, wanted to create us in His image. Man creates science, but science can't get to that answer. Man not too smart, eh. Maybe need to consider transcendant evidence for answer that is stumping him but some of men are perversely obstinate.

george · 02-20-09 1:44 pm

Isn't it science that created Christian missions through health care? Does God not heal when medical science cures illness? Isn't science as much God's revelation to man as any prophesy? At the same time, scientific research is usually fueled by profits so there is a lot of science that doesn't get done because it isn't profitable. However, anyone living in the western world enjoys the products of scientific research and that includes churches with their satellite dishes pointing toward heaven right along with the steeples. Hypocrisy isn't exclusive to the practice of religion.

bob_2 · 02-20-09 4:44 pm

If science excludes trancendant items, will correct answers created by trancendant items ever be known by scientists, that excude them. If Christ healed a leper, and "scientists" were observing, would they have to say, the event never happened because you can't prove it scientifically?

elaine · 02-20-09 9:51 pm

For those who wish to research transcendent items, surely, the Christian research groups would be happy to fund such a search. If it is worthy of publication, it would also surely find a publication that would accept it. In fact, maybe a Nobel prize could be in the future?

bob_2 · 02-21-09 8:23 am

The point, Ms. Educated 80 year old, is if the reality is the result of a transcendant event like creation, man will never find the answer if it always rules out transcendant causes. It is like man to create something, science, that excludes God when he may be the one that created the reality , not using laws that man thinks are tte only limiting forces. Please let me hear if you get the point. I have nothing against science as far as it goes, but man should not expect all to wait for science to find out they can never get an answer, possibly. Likewise, the Flood, if God use Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and dealt with the side issues, of heat gerneration, with his ways or ability that man doesn't or won't understand with their current understanding, then they ought not to reject the story out of hand, until they explore more. Even then they may never understand how God did it.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 02-17-09 10:46 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#27 02-17-09 11:10 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#28 02-17-09 11:19 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#29 02-17-09 11:21 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#30 02-17-09 11:29 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#31 02-18-09 3:06 am

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#32 02-18-09 8:54 am

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#33 02-18-09 3:50 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#34 02-18-09 5:51 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#35 02-18-09 9:36 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#36 02-18-09 10:53 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#37 02-18-09 11:07 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#38 02-18-09 11:09 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#39 02-19-09 4:53 am

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#40 02-19-09 7:58 am

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#41 02-19-09 12:48 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#42 02-19-09 8:46 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#43 02-19-09 10:53 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#44 02-19-09 11:25 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#45 02-20-09 12:25 am

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#46 02-20-09 11:43 am

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#47 02-20-09 1:44 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#48 02-20-09 4:44 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#49 02-20-09 9:51 pm

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

#50 02-21-09 8:23 am

Re: Christianity is Communism, Capitalism is Evolutionary

Board footer