Christians in Support of Evolution
Sanford Manley
From New York Times
But no mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
--
Sanford M. Manley
"Words are, of course, the most powerful
drug used by mankind."- Rudyard Kipling
http://ansaman.livejournal.com/
Lazarhat
news:1hapmzc.44aihz1go32x1N%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk...
> Sanford Manley <manl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> No registration required
>>
>> From New York Times
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/9a2v3
>
>
>> But no mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
>
>
> [waves to Buddha in passing]
>
> --
> ^Ï^
No mention of the FSM because of the sauce schism.
Actually wouldn't that be funny?
Start a schism over marinara vs. alfredo in the new FSM religion?
"You defame the glorious alfredo covered FSM again you infidel and the
streets will run red with your own marinara!"
Daryl
'more than 10,000 ministers had signed the letter, which
states, in part, that the theory of evolution is "a
foundational scientific truth." To reject it, the letter
continues, "is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance
and transmit such ignorance to our children."'
All the Christians I know have no quarrel with evolution.
One I know sends his kids to a Christian school and got
very concerned when it looked like the science teacher
there might have been teaching the so-called "young earth
theory"...concerned to the point that he was going to
talk to the principal about it if it turned out that the
teacher was using it as more than an example of a theory
to test (it seemed possible that either could have been
the case).
--
Daryl
Daryl
sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk says...
>
>Sanford Manley <manl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> No registration required
>>
>> From New York Times
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/9a2v3
>
>
>> But no mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
>
>
>[waves to Buddha in passing]
[waves back]
--
Daryl
Kimberly
> No registration required
>
> From New York Times
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9a2v3
>
> But no mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
>
would western civilization.
Kimberly
--
"It's a slippery slope, the erosion of human civil rights. Hope you
all brought your sled." -- Lazarhat, absfg
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Daryl
says...
>
>Sanford Manley wrote:
>> No registration required
>>
>> From New York Times
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/9a2v3
>>
>> But no mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
>>
>Do I support evolution? Yes, I think it would be an excellent idea. So
>would western civilization.
<rimshot>
:)
Hey Laz, howcum you haven't actually provided us with a good
rimshot.mp3/ogg/mov or something?
--
Daryl
Uncle Weasel
(in message <r7qdnUpgLoTYRW3e...@magma.ca>):
In the book I just mentioned, Karen Armstrong said that most conservative
Christians had no problem with evolution until the Scopes trial, when the
secularists and anti-religious really gave it to them, thus drawing a line
which haspersisted to this day. Armstrong makes a good case that the
hostility of the anti-religious produced the allegiance to Creationism.
As a young Christian, I had no problems with Darwin from either the Catholic
or the Orthodox hierarchy. None of the mainstream Protestant churches my
friends went to denied the ToE, either. The current position was formed by
politics more than theology.
---Uncle Weasel
--
"I merely borrowed somebody else's Perl scripts, loaded them up on my
Linux shell account and then edited them using vi in Bash.
I think that pretty comprehensively demonstrates that I am not a geek!"
---Kirsten "I am not a geek!" Bayes
Daryl
Yea verily that is most likely the truth. It does make
you wonder though how it is that something thusly formed
can have the influence it does in some parts of the
continent (which shall remain nameless and unpunctuated
with commas). Why do people in one place feel the need
to continue the (frankly silly) struggle whilst others
have no problem embracing and advancing the opposite?
--
Daryl
Ben
Right, but the reason the Scopes trial came about is because they had
already passed a law declaring it illegal to teach evolution. And
scopes lost! They didn't over turn the law. He may have generated some
publicity about it, but it didn't change the fact that in Tennessee it
was illegal to teach anything but creationism.
Ben
Lazarhat
news:r7qdnURgLoRMRW3e...@magma.ca...
[he was waving behind himself after passing gas]
< wrinkles nose >
Lazarhat
I'll transfer it over to the PSP the next time I'm doing such things.
(So I can schlep it to work and transfer it to the internets from there...
since I am still working without a net at home.)
Uncle Weasel
(in message <tK7If.12545$Lp2...@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>):
True, but the Creationists were made to feel like hicks in all the mainstream
media of the day. They won the trial, but lost in the newspapers.
---Uncle Weasel
--
"Cretans always lie." Epimenides the Cretan
Wilson
Daryl writes ...
Your desire to regionalize the issue is not helpful! Stupid
people are everywhere you know.
--
Wilson
A guy walks up to me and asks "What's Punk?"
So I kick over a garbage can and say "That's Punk!"
So he kicks over the garbage can and says "That's Punk?"
And I say "No, that's trendy!"
--Billie Joe Armstrong
Lazarhat
news:0001HW.C0167B00...@News.Individual.NET...
aka "the court of public opinion".
Ned Ludd
>>> Catholic or the Orthodox hierarchy. None of the mainstream Protestant
>>> churches my friends went to denied the ToE, either. The current
>>> position was formed by politics more than theology.
>>> ---Uncle Weasel
>>
>> Right, but the reason the Scopes trial came about is because they
>> had already passed a law declaring it illegal to teach evolution.
>> And scopes lost! They didn't over turn the law. He may have
>> generated some publicity about it, but it didn't change the fact
>> that in Tennessee it was illegal to teach anything but creationism.
>> Ben
>
> True, but the Creationists were made to feel like hicks in all the
> mainstream media of the day. They won the trial, but lost in the
> newspapers.
>
Because they were hicks. Stupid red-neck bible-thumping hicks.
The fact that it's still an issue 80 years later shows that it's
more than just a 'reaction' to some 1920's "secularists" and the
"anti-religious".
In a way it's the same battle as with Islam and their religious
fanatics. The same damn battle that has gone on since, oh when?...
Darwin for sure. Galileo for sure. Copernicus. Is that as far
back as it goes? Is there nothing equivalent in the ancient world?
Ned
Kimberly
because he was teaching them to think for themselves and question the
conventional wisdom of the day.
--Kimberly
--
"There is a special, very highly spiritual level of communication that
knows no age. Froggy slippers are the height." --Evelyn Ruut
Ned Ludd
"Kimberly" <kap...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ibdIf.1470$JR6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>> True, but the Creationists were made to feel like hicks in all the
>>> mainstream media of the day. They won the trial, but lost in the
>>> newspapers.
>>
>> Because they were hicks. Stupid red-neck bible-thumping hicks.
>> The fact that it's still an issue 80 years later shows that it's
>> more than just a 'reaction' to some 1920's "secularists" and the
>> "anti-religious".
>> In a way it's the same battle as with Islam and their religious
>> fanatics. The same damn battle that has gone on since, oh when?...
>> Darwin for sure. Galileo for sure. Copernicus. Is that as far
>> back as it goes? Is there nothing equivalent in the ancient world?
>
> because he was teaching them to think for themselves and question the
> conventional wisdom of the day.
>
Thanks, Kimberly. Yes, shitheadedness is eternal.
Ned
...
Late in the fifth century B.C.
Phaedrus asked Socrates if he
believed the old stories. Said Socrates:
"The wise are doubtful, and I would not
be alone if I too doubted."
So we see the word still had power
Twenty-four centuries ago -
Is it that much different today?
...
- Excerpt from "Eternity"
Uncle Weasel
(in message <HIcIf.11063$Nv2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>):
>
> "Uncle Weasel" <x...@woc.org> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C0167B00...@News.Individual.NET...
>>
>>>> As a young Christian, I had no problems with Darwin from either the
>>>> Catholic or the Orthodox hierarchy. None of the mainstream Protestant
>>>> churches my friends went to denied the ToE, either. The current
>>>> position was formed by politics more than theology.
>>>> ---Uncle Weasel
>>>
>>> Right, but the reason the Scopes trial came about is because they
>>> had already passed a law declaring it illegal to teach evolution.
>>> And scopes lost! They didn't over turn the law. He may have
>>> generated some publicity about it, but it didn't change the fact
>>> that in Tennessee it was illegal to teach anything but creationism.
>>> Ben
>>
>> True, but the Creationists were made to feel like hicks in all the
>> mainstream media of the day. They won the trial, but lost in the
>> newspapers.
>>
> Ned:
> Because they were hicks. Stupid red-neck bible-thumping hicks.
> The fact that it's still an issue 80 years later shows that it's
> more than just a 'reaction' to some 1920's "secularists" and the
> "anti-religious".
>
> In a way it's the same battle as with Islam and their religious
> fanatics. The same damn battle that has gone on since, oh when?...
> Darwin for sure. Galileo for sure. Copernicus. Is that as far
> back as it goes? Is there nothing equivalent in the ancient world?
That's why Armstrong uses 1492 as a starting point. Important things happened
that year that embody the term "modernism." Before modernism, and the
intellectual ferment that birthed scientific methodology, "science" was
hodge-podge practical lore in a traditional matrix blended with mythology.
People were capable of rationalism -- our brains seem hard-wired for logic --
but saved it for innovative needs, like warfare. Religion was either
conservative or revolutionary, depending on which way your flame blew, albeit
there were far fewer revolutionaries. Although there have always been
tensions between the conservative view and new understandings, it didn't
really get into secularism vs. theocracy because there were no secularists in
mass.
In 1492, the loss of Spain to the Jews, who shared quite a high culture there
with the Islamic Moors, was a psychic disaster. You had many questioning, not
only Judaism, but all religion. These Jews spread to the rest of Western
Europe and infected it with several modernist memes. Walah!
The rank and file of any religion (excepting maybe Unitarians) I can think of
don't really have much time or ability or inclination to think for
themselves. They will readily accept what their leaders tell them to accept.
The leaders seem to pick ideas that arouse usable passion in their followers,
as a means of control. Before the Scopes trial galvanized the "hicks," there
wasn't much usable passion in evolution vs. creationism.
But again, fundamentalism isn't simply conservative religion. It's a direct
reaction of conservative religion to modernism, which it sees as a threat,
yet the reaction is part of the modernist package, accepting many modernist
principles. An example is trying to make creationism into science through ID,
showing the acceptance of the principle of the primacy of rationality. Though
churches over and over say that they're going back to their roots, their
wellsprings, their source, in reforms and schisms, they only create new,
pseudo-atavistic forms. You can't have what you had 2000 years ago, because
the context has changed.
So I would say that, no, there was nothing equivalent in the ancient world.
---Uncle Weasel
--
After considerable thought, I have decided to withhold any further comment
other than the fact that I am withholding comment. I would have withheld that
comment also, but I am withholding the reason why I chose to say anything at
all. Why I am saying this, I will not say. --Sanford Manley, absfg
Ned Ludd
>
> Uweasel:
There have always been people who knew religion was crap. Socrates
is a case in point. He was condemned not only for "corrupting youth"
but for blasphemy. I'll agree that rationality did not begin to
destroy huge areas of religious authority until the scientific method
developed and was accepted as a standard throughout the world. And
even then it has taken hundreds of years. But any and every assertion
by religious 'authority' involving a testable event has been destroyed
by science.
Ned
Ben
And every attempt of science to define some sort of natural morality has
been destroyed by religion. If only the morons and assholes would stop
trying to use the wrong tool...
Ben
Lazarhat
news:TdrIf.15613$Lp2....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
Socrates was a alleged pederast, folks.
Ben
He was also a fictional character. I don't recal reading the dialogs
where Socrates gets it on with anyone, but maybe it was in Bill and
Ted's part II.
Edgar
According to Plato?
--
Edgar
(The advertising below is not authorized by me. You agree to use any
links provided by teranews at your own risk)
Kimberly
I have never heard that before, Laz. He was convicted for corrupting the
youth of Athens, but as I already mentioned, it was for teaching them to
think for themselves, not for sexual activity.
Kimberly
teachings. The trial of Socrates is too well documented in the
historical record for him to have been a fictional creation of Plato's.
--Kimberly
Ben
But the person we know as Socrates was a creation of Plato. There may
have been a historical person as well, but there doesn't seem to be much
reason to believe that the two are all that similar.
Uncle Weasel
(in message <S5rIf.11360$Nv2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>):
> There have always been people who knew religion was crap. Socrates
> is a case in point. He was condemned not only for "corrupting youth"
> but for blasphemy. I'll agree that rationality did not begin to
> destroy huge areas of religious authority until the scientific method
> developed and was accepted as a standard throughout the world. And
> even then it has taken hundreds of years. But any and every assertion
> by religious 'authority' involving a testable event has been destroyed
> by science.
Native American religion's attitude of kinship with all life?
Didn't Soc offer prayers to Zeus?
Don't you think religion offered something useful enough to society (beyond
its utility to the priests) that kept it a factor in human life to this
point?
Uncle Weasel
(in message <TdrIf.15613$Lp2....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>):
Bingo!
--
"Teaching fakery which purports to be dhamma is such a terrible thing:
it's like encouraging people to jump into a lifeboat with a hole struck
in the bottom. The vessel which should be saving people dooms them."
---Kirsten Bayes, absfg
Uncle Weasel
(in message <ZSrIf.1636$JR6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
>> Socrates was a alleged pederast, folks.
>
> I have never heard that before, Laz. He was convicted for corrupting the
> youth of Athens, but as I already mentioned, it was for teaching them to
> think for themselves, not for sexual activity.
He was a male Athenian. It was normal for older men to have sexual relations
with young men and boys. Nothing to "allege."
---Uncle Weasel
--
No, like "why does no-mind think at all?"
---Stumper
It only thinks it thinks, it doesn't think at all...
I think.
---Sanford M. Manley, absfg
Kimberly
I would disagree with that. Yes, the details of we know of the teachings
and philosophy of Socrates comes to us almost exclusively from Plato,
and are thus perhaps irreconcilably intermingled with Plato's own
beliefs, but his is by no means the only account of Socrates we have. As
an example, Aristophanes play 'Clouds' -- which makes a mockery of the
sophists -- has Socrates as one of its principal targets (even though
Socrates was not one of the sophists). According to one of my books,
when the play was originally presented, Socrates was in the audience,
and is even reported to have stood up in his seat so the audience could
appreciate the work of the maskmaker who had made the mask for the
character on stage -- which tells thus at a minimum that Socrates had a
sense of humor about himself and the views held of him by his fellow
Athenians.
--Kimberly (whose undergraduate degree was in Ancient Greek History --
can you tell?)
Kimberly
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:23:05 -0500, Kimberly wrote
> (in message <ZSrIf.1636$JR6...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
>
>
>>>Socrates was a alleged pederast, folks.
>>
>>I have never heard that before, Laz. He was convicted for corrupting the
>>youth of Athens, but as I already mentioned, it was for teaching them to
>>think for themselves, not for sexual activity.
>
>
> He was a male Athenian. It was normal for older men to have sexual relations
> with young men and boys. Nothing to "allege."
>
> ---Uncle Weasel
>
that the ancient Greeks were "omnisexual" -- men, women, children,
sheep, goats, whatever. A man was thought odd in that society if he
fixated on only one of those groups for his squeeka.
Lazarhat
What he said.
Although he advocated for pure lust rather than the complete subjugation
(mind heart and 'soul') of one's object of affection. In other words "it's
just sex, not a lifestyle....".
Lazarhat
Yeah. An opiate that didn't depend upon poppy farming.
Ned Ludd
"Ben" <eggplan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TdrIf.15613$Lp2....@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>> is a case in point. He was condemned not only for "corrupting youth"
>> but for blasphemy. I'll agree that rationality did not begin to
>> destroy huge areas of religious authority until the scientific method
>> developed and was accepted as a standard throughout the world. And
>> even then it has taken hundreds of years. But any and every assertion
>> by religious 'authority' involving a testable event has been destroyed
>> by science.
>
> has been destroyed by religion. If only the morons and assholes
> would stop trying to use the wrong tool...
> Ben
>
When scientists attempt "define some sort of natural morality"
without testable events and repeatable experiments, they are
not scientists.
Guess again, Ben. Plenty of rational workers in the science
fields have gone OUT of their fields attempting to define morality,
and run amok of the human psyche. And rightly so.
Ned
Ned Ludd
>
>> There have always been people who knew religion was crap. Socrates
>> is a case in point. He was condemned not only for "corrupting youth"
>> but for blasphemy. I'll agree that rationality did not begin to
>> destroy huge areas of religious authority until the scientific method
>> developed and was accepted as a standard throughout the world. And
>> even then it has taken hundreds of years. But any and every assertion
>> by religious 'authority' involving a testable event has been destroyed
>> by science.
>
> Native American religion's attitude of kinship with all life?
>
Don't get me started on the savagery of the native American tribes.
You don't want to go down that route.
> Didn't Soc offer prayers to Zeus?
>
Only in the sense that Huang Po bowed to the statue.
> Don't you think religion offered something useful enough to society
> (beyond its utility to the priests) that kept it a factor in human
> life to this point?
> ---Uncle Weasel
>
No. Never. It was always oppression. I thought once that the
scribes of the church preserved the knowledge of the ancients through
the dark ages, but they didn't. They edited, destroyed, censored,
etc. Just like they destroyed the native literature and culture
of every civilization they encountered. And by 'church' I mean EVERY
religion that has attained empire (or imperial control) on earth.
Ned
Sanford Manley
> --Kimberly (whose undergraduate degree was in Ancient Greek History --
> can you tell?)
The ancient greeks were wierdo freaks :)
--
Sanford M. Manley
"Words are, of course, the most powerful
drug used by mankind."- Rudyard Kipling
http://ansaman.livejournal.com/
Pete Watters
> Kimberly said:
>
> > --Kimberly (whose undergraduate degree was in Ancient Greek History --
> > can you tell?)
>
> The ancient greeks were wierdo freaks :)
Everybody repeat after me: "I" before "E" except after "C" and in
certain weird exceptions.
Pete (glad to hear your mom is doing OK...)
--
"No more serious thinking until someone shows us some cash." -- absfg motto
Kimberly
> Sanford writes:
>
>
>>Kimberly said:
>>
>>
>>>--Kimberly (whose undergraduate degree was in Ancient Greek History --
>>>can you tell?)
>>
>>The ancient greeks were wierdo freaks :)
>
>
> Everybody repeat after me: "I" before "E" except after "C" and in
> certain weird exceptions.
>
> Pete (glad to hear your mom is doing OK...)
>
people have used the word "ancient", which violates the rule, strikes me
as rather weird.
--Kimberly
Pete Watters
> Pete Watters wrote:
> > Sanford writes:
> >
> >
> >>Kimberly said:
> >>
> >>
> >>>--Kimberly (whose undergraduate degree was in Ancient Greek History --
> >>>can you tell?)
> >>
> >>The ancient greeks were wierdo freaks :)
> >
> >
> > Everybody repeat after me: "I" before "E" except after "C" and in
> > certain weird exceptions.
> >
> > Pete (glad to hear your mom is doing OK...)
> >
> Quoting the "'I' before 'E' except after 'C'" rule immediately after two
> people have used the word "ancient", which violates the rule, strikes me
> as rather weird.
See? Tould you. You're just nou fun at all.
Piete (or Peite, whatever floats your boat...)