God: Benevolent or Malevolent?

Hey,

You and others dodge points you I make all the time when you are uncomfortable with them. If you and others had the civility to answer some of my questions, I'd be inclined to answer more of yours.

 

Will you pay me for the research? That's a full-time job. That comes off sarcastic, but people like myself joined a car forum to spend some leisure time - not to be badgered into a seemingly endless serious argument.

A lot of people at PC tire of this topic and other political discussions

It's not so obvious since it's the internet, but if the usual active PC members were meeting at an actual place, it would be a lot more obvious the non-religious members would be largely arguing alone, as most of the more religious members would go on to other things.


I do have one specific question for you:

Why are religion-bashing threads like this NOT in Fred's House of Politics? The effect is EXACTLY the same as socio-political topics like abortion, euthanasia, LGBT issues, the role of government, partisan issues. ALL these issues have people that will not change their position in arguments with people that will fight forever attempting to change their minds or humiliate them anyway. ALL these topics get too intense and often personal - never end. Opposing points are often held in contempt. Many PC members protested as the how disruptive they were (see the example sig above) - some left PC.

These thread should go into Fred's House of Politics as they are NO DIFFERENT than other threads sent there. The alternative is abolish Fred's House of Politics and make everything public again.

Given the history of religion-bashing threads being problematical before I weighed in, I find your task to differentiate them from political threads Mission: Impossible, esp. with these quotes you consider religion a political topic

 

Hope this answers your question:

Spiritual/religious matters should be primarily taught at home and secondarily in the Church. Just as Christ is the head of Church, so is the man the head of the family. It is his responsibly to teach. Ultimately that is true for any household more or less. Unfortunately these days with so many broken homes (single parents) the whole family unit is in jeopardy.

With that said, the big bang and evolution should be taught the same way as it was when I was in HS (as far as I know, it still is), as a theory… not settled science. I faintly remembered it being mentioned in Biology and then we were on to dissecting the frog. Perfect. That leaves it up to the student to explore that path, or seminary or trash collecting after they graduate,,, their choice.

Now as far as the secularist trying to eradicate after-school religious programs in the school, well that is just plain wrong. As long as they are peaceful gatherings with peaceful intent; people can come and go as they please, there should absolutely be no issue.

 

Jesus' condemnation of greed did not end at the temple.

 

The constitution prevents religious tests in the public forum, ie debates. The secret ballot is that way for a reason, to be secret. You can vote for who you want, for whatever reason you want and nobody can pass judgement, as you are, because the ballot is secret.

There are plenty of people who voted, and will vote for Barack Obama because he is African American. And that is fine, it is their right to do so without judgement. Just as there will be plenty of people who will vote for Mitt Romney because he is Mormon. That is fine to, because it is their right to do so. The ballot is secret for a reason. Nobody is violating the constitution by voting for any one specifice reason.

 

Evolution's just a theory? That's exactly the sort of thing that does not belong in school. Before, during, or after hours.

 

^ They are still proving Einstein's Theory of Relativity....it came out because Newtonian mechanics did not explain everything - it's also possible Einstein may not have explained everything, although it looks pretty good.

Wouldn't it be nice to know there is a way to travel faster than light after all?

 

Umm last time I checked it was called The Theory of Evolution. Scientists still don't know when, how, where everything started.

 

You're confusing the questions of how life began with how it changes over time. And you're not using the word theory in its proper scientific context.

 

You are, of course, entitled to your "take." But Jesus did not qualify his statement. He was categorical: It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god. Period.

In other places he admonished people to give away all their possessions. To take no thought for tomorrow. To be as the lilies of the field, to not hoard up treasures on Earth. Etc. When asked if people should pay their taxes, he said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." (Which I read as "Shove Caesar's money up Caesar's you-know-what," given his general contempt for wealth.)

You're asking the wrong person. The only person who can answer that is Danny. It's his board. He makes the decisions. Though the mods presumably discuss administrative issues with him, so you might ask one of them as well. They might possibly know Danny's reasoning.

Thank you for answering.

You are both wrong, and I suspect that your misuse of the word "theory" is intentional.

In science, a theory is a WELL-ESTABLISHED CONSTRUCT SUPPORTED BY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE.

In popular parlance, a theory is a hypothesis or a speculation. Creationists love to INTENTIONALLY misuse the word in order to denigrate evolution.

Evolution is a fact. Evolution means change. Populations of organisms change. This was known long before Darwin presented a plausible theory of just how this change happens. Some of the details are still disputed. Most especially whether the change is gradual and steady, (gradualism, advocated by Darwin himself) or whether it procedes in spurts, with long periods of stasis in between (punctuated equilibrium, advocated by Stephen Jay Gould). I personally favor the latter. Research and study continue on the details of how evolution works. But the fact that populations of organisms change is an established fact. And the word for that is evolution.

If you went to a school where you were told that evolution is "just a theory" then your teacher was either a moron, or a religious fanatic who simply did not care about facts and was concerned only with promoting a particular religious dogma.

The big bang now has a good deal of evidence behind it, and more is accumulating all the time, but much of it is fairly recent. It was not even known when some of us were in school. The seminal event was the discovery of the cosmic background radiation. That pretty much convinced the cosmology community. Unfortunately, to fully understand the implications of the CBR requires more education than most theologians possess. But to oversimplify, the four degrees Kelvin background radiation is the remnant left over from a time when the universe was extremely hot, dropped in temperature by the cosmic expansion. We might or we might not ever know what caused the big bang. But it is no longer appropriate to call it, in common parlance, "just a theory." It is now a highly successful construct that explains why the universe is the way it is.

Intelligent theologians accept the knowledge obtained through science, including evolution, the big bang, global climate change, etc., and adapt their theology to it, rather than rejecting science in favor of arbitrary and archaic interpretations of a very old book compiled by people more concerned with promoting their own theology than with truth.

 

Daniel,

My point is you, AirportKid and others even when you don't explicitly inject politics like the quote below, it's every bit if not more disruptive as the topics that do get moved to Fred's House of Politics. Arguments that will never end because convictions seldom change. Arguments that go so intense that even if they did not start out personal, you wonder what's the difference?

And the way I asked it last to AirportKid, it was in the context of: "we atheists can always ask a question theists can't answer - how dare Chuck dodge! I then asked AirportKid why threads like this are any different than the threads moved to Fred's House of Politics. That's not asking for permission to move it there, although it's an excellent idea."

Daniel, you deflected the question directed at AirportKid instead of answering it. Besides, the question was directed at him - not you. You fail to distinguish threads like these with those sent to Fred's House of Politics. Frankly, it's impossible.

Sorry to burst your bubble - there are questions your side can't answer.

I would not take comfort arguing in such a way a thread should be in Fred's House of Politics even if it does not go there.

 

{The following post is offered entirely in a humorous spirit, not a debating point}

I've encountered the opposite, science displacing a religious class. My two kids went to a Lutheran Elementary School since the wise one of the family determined that was where the best education was being taught. (She was right as usual.) Part of the more conservative Lutheran theologies are anti-evolution and I wondered how much of that was enforced in the classroom. However, when science class for most of the classrooms covered dinosaurs, that got the kids attention. And all but one of the teachers was really thrilled to have interested kids. Dinosaurs got covered in pretty good detail. Bottom line is my kids got a really good overview of the different phases of life though earth's geological history, much better than the average public science class. It still cracks me up when one of my kids mentions that the one contrary teacher was "scared of dinosaurs".

 

^ thank you for pointing out it was a humorous post, thing get terribly serious on this topic.

I think you have to present several viewpoints and let the students decide.

 

I am not talking about evolution. I don't deny evolutionary theory. I know what a theory is. People are talking about creationism, and I said that scientists know we evolve, but where it all started remains a mystery.

 

OK, but how do they decide? How do they know what's real? How do they know what's right? How do they know when's someone's lying, or trying to rip them off? Throwing a bunch of conflicting ideas at them and saying 'you figure it out' is not the least bit helpful.

 

Thats called school, at least any school I've been to. All viewpoints are presented and it is up to the individual to decide which one to believe. Independant thought.

 

Very well. You think religion belongs in the politics section. But I'm not the one you need to convince. Danny is the one you need to convince.

Is it really so hard to answer the question of whether or not you think creationism should be taught in science classes as a "theory" of equal validity with evolution? This is not an attempt to stump you. It's an attempt to find out what your opinion is with regard to the teaching of creationism and evolution. Spiderman and Massparanoia have both answered it. You certainly do not have to. But it's not a hard question or one anybody thinks you cannot answer.

Of course there are. No bubbles burst there. One of the really big differences between science and religion is that religion claims to have an answer for everything. Of course, their answer is usually the same: "God did it." Science looks for answers and not only admits, but revels in the fact that there are questions is does not (yet) have answers for.

We don't yet know how life arose. But you might be disappointed to learn about the progress being made. The Teaching Company has a great lecture series titled "The Origins of Life," which presents what we know so far, and the most promising hypotheses being investigated currently.

See, the thing about science is that it has not been around all that long, but it learns more every day. Religion stagnates in ancient books and "authorities" who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago, insisting that they had all the answers and refusing to believe evidence. Science progresses.

Creationists love to latch onto some as-yet unsolved problem and assert "See. You don't know! That proves god did it." Then the problem is solved or the evidence found, and the creationists latch onto something else. The funny thing is that the creationists are often so far behind the times that they continue to hold onto arguments long after they've become out of date.

Science will never know everything. But religion will never know anything.

 

Not true. If all viewpoints were presented there would not be time for all of them. And certain matters are appropriate for certain classes. The question of whether or not we "really" exist belongs in a philosophy class, not a science class or a cooking class. How to prepare an omelet belongs in a cooking class, not a gym class. In a science class the subject is science. Religious creation myths belong in a class on comparative religions, not a science class.