Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
This discussion was created by bethanie (675210) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More with the Christian Conservatives! More

More with the Christian Conservatives!

Comments Filter:
  • i guess we'd all be better off if no one spoke of or reported the crazy things the various gov'ts are doing?
    • That's a good point. We definitely want to know about this stuff.

      But wouldn't you agree that there is also a political agenda behind HOW it's reported? The NYTimes keeps harping on this stuff, using all of the buzzwords and labels. They pick the juiciest quotes and inflamatory language.

      I mean, look at how they end this particular story (you DID RTFA, didn't you?!):

      "It's like when the hijackers took over those four planes on Sept. 11 and took people to a place where they didn't want to go," she added. "

      • Compare, for example, how the NYTimes covers the Supreme Court considering medical marijuana or state's rights in the management of drugs within their own borders. Then look at how the NYTimes covers the Supreme Court considering whether a city hall should be made to remove a plaque with the ten commandments. There is a very definite bias that comes across just by the language used. Choice of words and quotes can be used to slant an article even when it supposedly has been fact checked.

        That quote is rea
  • Do you believe in creationism or evolution? And which do you think should be taught in school?
    • Please use precise terms.

      Creationism -- the idea that God created the world -- is not a contradiction to the observable principle of evolution.

      "Evolutionism" -- the idea that we did, in fact, evolve from animals -- is a seperate but related thing to evolution.
      • By creationism I meant the whole "God created the Earth in seven days" concept, as stated in the Bible. And by evolution, I mean the whole "Big Bang, cosmological development, stellar evolution, planetary formation, primordial soup, single cell organisms to life as we know it developing according to Darwinism" gig.
        • What if you believe that God created the earth with the big bang and cosmological developement, steller evolution, planetary formation, primordial soup, single cell organisms to life as we know it according to Darwainism, and it was all God's plan all along?
          • Well, in that case, it seems like a lot of work for nothing, doesn't it?
            • Not at all- sometimes the Journey is the Reward. If I was a bored immortal entity with all of eternity on my hands, something very much like the universe we live in would be a nice diversion for 36 billion years or so. Actually, given the uncertainty principle, it might be a very nice diversion for quite a bit longer...after all, one of the intelligent species living within the universe just might figure out how to defeat that pesky second law of thermodynamics...
              • If God created Man in His own image, and God created all those billions of planets did he:

                1. Create lots of planets with intelligent life in His own image on them? or,

                2. Create only this planet with intelligent life in His own image on it? (In which case all those other planets are just for show.)
                • Only time will tell, I guess....
                • In his own image is a poetic license for the spiritual- the Bible is not a textbook of science says the Pope, and since he's the Supreme Court of the institution that wrote the Bible, I have a tendency to believe him over the fundamentalists and Biblical Atheists on how to interpret it.

                  Having said that, the obvious answers to your questions are:
                  1. Man is in the image of God because he is a creator and can shape his environment to meet plans and thoughts. There is nothing preventing any other sentient bei
                  • the Bible is not a textbook of science says the Pope, and since he's the Supreme Court of the institution that wrote the Bible

                    The Catholic Church is no more the institution that wrote the Bible than SCOX is the group that wrote UNIX. The group that wrote the New Testament (Matthew through Revelation) may have started out from the Christians that came out of Judea two thousand years ago, but somewhere along the line, core beliefs forked. One group became the Catholics, and one didn't.

                    The exact history o
                • Where's this intelligent life you speak of? (sorry, couldn't resist :-)

                  Unfortunately, its looking more and more like we're alone in this neck of the woods (google for "fermi's paradox").

                  At first, its sad to think we may just be a cosmic statistical rounding error, but then again, without some form of ftl transport, we'd be effectively alone anyways.

                • It is my opinion that we don't really need to know.

                  The idea of the Scriptures (as I see it) is that God had people write down what He wanted us to know for general day-to-day living. We learn where we fit in the Grand Scheme of Things, how we should treat our fellow Man, and all that. Scripture was not intended to be your Perl tutorial (or anything like that), so don't start that track. ;)

                  Whether there is life on other planets or not, Scripture doesn't say. (Brigham Young, while he was president of the
          • In that case, there's no problem with teaching evolution in schools, because evolution as studied IS your version of Creationism, just with a motivator/guide--which science can't detect, and so it's not relevant to science education.

            I don't think you're what he's talking about when he gets pissed at "creationists" (which, for better or worse, means "Young Earth Bibilcal Literalist" these days, since people like you are just "evolutionists" IMHO.)
            • I don't think you're what he's talking about when he gets pissed at "creationists"

              Yeah, actually "creationists" tend to get pissed at me. I think both should be understood and learned. Nobody got hurt for adding more knowledge to their repetoir.

              I learned evolution. I know my religion. The christian in me tells me God created the universe. The scientist (engineer) in me tells me things evolved at through a spectacular journey. So I think "wow... God made the universe so well it actually 'grows' it
              • And, for some reason, both sides dislike this outlook...

                And what's amazing is that most people agree with you, not either "side".

              • You sure "evolutionists" dislike your outlook? It sounds to me like you believe God created the big bang and it took 7 God-days for God/The Universe to create all the rest. Isn't that how most scientists who believe reconcile it? Seems like only people who are anti-God/religion could dislike that.
            • i went to parochial school and they taught us evolution. in fact, we never really covered the story of Creation

              not that i would have really paid attention ... i see the old testament as seriously flawed and very un-Christian. the only thing it seems 'good' for is that zealots tend to use to lend weight to their arguments (homos are bad, don't let them get married; enslave people; kick someone else's ass if they hurt you, etc. it's awfully violent)
        • As PlanesDragon stated, (unless you insist that the "seven days" MUST be LITERALLY seven earth-days) there is no contradiction between the two. The only issue is whether or not there was a "purpose", as opposed to a "random lucky series of accidents". Note the quotes around both. *I* am not taking a side, only pointing out the false dichodomy. (bet I spelled that wrong! :->)
          • Well, let's not forget that a lot of people take the Bible very literally. And that includes everything from Genesis to the Garden of Eden to the handing down of the Ten Commandments, to Sodom and Gomorrah, to the birth of Christ, to the Passion of Christ, etc.
            • yeah.... there are idiots in any branch of beliefe and every political party and every country on the earth. Too bad we can't get away from them all... I wonder what those people would say about the teaching of the major figure inChristianity... Jesus. I wonder if they remember that Jesus taught in parabols, which are not to be taken as word for word truth yet those are in the same Bible.

              jason
          • You know, I always felt the same way too: why do people see them as contridictory points of view? I mean seriously, the order in which God created the animals in the bible isn't so far off from the order in which other people believe they evolved, the main sticking point being time frames (days v.s. millions of years). When the bible was first inked, does anyone seriously believe that people at that time could grasp what a million was? Maybe when it was written down the attempt to explain this was "7 God da
            • God created heaven and Earth on the first day, before light and dark. who's to say that first day wasn't 6 billion years long?

              There are lots of ways where both ideas can work with each other just fine. That's just a very simple one. However, a lot of the friction of "that's not possible" comes from the religious freaks who view anything scientific/knowledge as evil.
          • And that we're counting in days before day and night were finished.
        • Actually there's two stories in the Bible. The 7 day gig and the other one. Check it out.

          Also, in the 7 day gig, how did he tell days without creating the sun until day 4?

          Crazy insane, I tell you.
          • Man, it's the people who believe that Jesus literally fed thousands with three fishes and five loaves of bread that crack me up. I mean, I know it was meant to be a miracle but that's a stretch if you ask me.

            Even my Sunday School teacher openly expressed doubts about that one, and she lived her life with the Bible as her manual: if it was in there, she bought it.
            • three fishes and five loaves of bread
              It's because everyone there was doing crack, got the munchies, and snarfed down everything else that wasn't nailed down. Then, when the 3 fish and the 5 loaves came out, nobody was hungry any more (they all had a bad case of the nods).
      • "Evolutionism" -- the idea that we did, in fact, evolve from animals -- is a seperate but related thing to evolution.

        Actually Evolutionism is, as far as I know, a fictional straw-man argument posited by Creationists.

        No one I have met or read religiously believes that Evolution is a religious dogma that must be believed - which what the name Evolutionism implies.

        • No one I have met or read religiously believes

          Atheists never do. But their disclaiming of being a religion does not mean that the government should not treat them as a religion.

          (To go to an exterme, the KKK doesn't consider itself a 'hate group' either.)

          There are people who believe that Evolutionism is the actual literal truth, and that anything that contradicts it is patently untrue. This is both unscientific, but also very religious. I'd go so far as to argue that blending evolution and evolutionis
          • The funniest part about this all is Charles Darwin started off his infamous evolution paper with the explaination that this is a theory, and some, if not all parts could be proven false and shouldn't be considered 100% truth.
            • Ah, but Darwin was a deeply religious man at the time. He struggled with his own beliefs before he penned his critical works and he wrote them with one eye on the fact that he strongly believed in the existence of God.

              Later in his life, when he lived through the torment of seeing his young children slowly die of ill health before his own eyes he began to have doubts about his faith, questioning how any God with even a hint of benevolence could let innocents suffer so readily. Even so, he was remained a com
          • Exactly what are you implying about the Krispy Kreme Korporation?
          • There are people who believe that Evolutionism is the actual literal truth, and that anything that contradicts it is patently untrue. This is both unscientific, but also very religious.

            Could you provide me a link to a website advocating this viewpoint? Certainly if there are more than 10 such ppl holding such a belief at least on of them must be on the Internet by now.

            • Certainly if there are more than 10 such ppl holding such a belief at least on of them must be on the Internet by now.

              Yes, they are on the 'net. But they're not out to say "hey, your religion is WRONG, evolution disproves it!" By and large, they simply treat religious folk as "irrational" and religion as "cultural fiction."

              Come to think of it, I should amend that "anything" to "anything in extant human knowledge." Most atheists are as willing to have their nonreligious beliefs changed as any "theist"
              • You wanna give him a link? How about this post/thread [slashdot.org]? :-)

                ....Bethanie....
                • Hey, thanks. I knew there was someone with that belief. ;)

                  To take up on something you mentioned in the above-linked thread, does your view of religion as personal extend to holding that the objective truth of one's godheads is forbidden territory for those who are not part of your household? (i.e., if you were to be in a hypothetical religious discussion with a person whose beliefs differed from yours who tried to find commonality, would you be offended?)

                  • if you were to be in a hypothetical religious discussion with a person whose beliefs differed from yours who tried to find commonality, would you be offended?

                    Hmmm.... I don't think so. I mean, talking about religion and beliefs is a pretty normal thing to do when you're trying to get to know someone. But it does get pretty personal. I guess I'd consider it just a hair short of discussing personal incomes & finances (in specific figures).

                    I don't consider talking about differing beliefs to be fellows
                    • Does that answer your question? Why do you ask?

                      yes, it does.

                      I ask because not too long ago I had occasion for a religious discussion with some neo-pagans, and they grew rather upset when I put forth that whatever objective reality our gods had, the other could certainly comment upon that.

                      (To use a finance analogy, it's akin to someone being angry when told that paying all your bills on time is a good thing.)
            • Do you remember when the Kansas Board of Education modified its biology requirements a few years ago? What they did was remove some requirements relating to transspeciation. The reaction from the world to this was completely disproportionate to what had happened. There was no banning of evolution, in fact it was still required to be taught. There was no mandate at all to teach creationism.

              From my perspective it seems as though the reason for the reaction was that the media is populated by fundamentalist se
    • OK. I'm not sure why it matters, but I'm happy to answer your question.

      I believe in evolution, pretty much as you've described it below. I think that string theory is really interesting, and look forward to seeing more about it as research allows.

      I think that BOTH evolutionism and creationism should be taught in school. Evolution taught in science class (as the current, most widely accepted scientific explanation of how existence came to be), and creation taught in English class, where students have the
      • I will be teaching my children that the Bible is a story, just like the Greek and Nordic myths are stories.

        OK, I'm going to ask a question and it isn't me accusing you or getting mad, just to hear your opinion. Please don't lash out at me (if you do, I'll get out the whip[1]).

        Now, why give your children an opinion? Why not let them determine their own opinion of the various religions? Christianity, Buddhism[2], Hinduism, etc all provide lessons in morals and stories that show why morality is import
        • That's a great question, FK, and I'm not the least bit offended.

          I guess the answer is, sure, my kids will get to make their own religious choices. But I will readily admit that I will have a BIG problem if they come to me when they're 13 years old, swearing that Jesus died for their sins and trying to share the Word of God with me. That would smack of peer pressure and typical adolescent rebellion, IMO.

          You have to realize that I believe as strongly that the Bible IS a myth as strongly as some people bel
          • well, except for that whole indulgence in the pleasures of the flesh thing, I guess

            Hey, Christians know how to party!!!
            Pleasures of the flesh is totally cool if you are married (which you are), so feel free not to feel any guilt (not that you do) ;-)
            Unless you are talking to a devout Catholic, no one has a problem with whatever you do behind your bedroom after marriage (most devout Catholics don't like birth control... but its getting phased out with the times now-a-days).

            I'll get out my leather boot
            • Hey, Christians know how to party!!!

              You must not be hangin' out with the Christians I'm hangin' out with. :-) These are the folks who were discussing having a beer or glass of wine with dinner as if it were something sinful, and called Cold Mountain [imdb.com] (which I've not seen) "soft porn."

              When I said, "Yeah, there'll be times when I'm watching Sex and the City and I'll have to tell Kiddo to go play somewhere, that it's not appropriate," one of the other mothers retorted, "Well, does she ever ask you why *you
              • sounds like pentecostals. run. run fast!

                as for the tv stuff. when i was still punching knees, i did a lot of stupid things. one time was too much, so, what'd my mom do? sat me down and told me "i brought you into this world, i could just as easily make you leave too". she's an old school, italian-american, catholic mother that doesn't take shit from anyone. fk might be able to relate to that

                kids have it too easy nowadays. they've all got 4 nintendos, computers, get driven around everywhere, blah. it's
          • You might dig this [amazon.com].

            One of the ex-Jebbies at my school gave me a copy. And if there's one thing those Southrons hate more than an Athiest, it's someone trained by the Jebbies [newadvent.org].

            Yup, I'm a product of the Ratio Studiorum [newadvent.org]. Pure evil, baby. I make Jesus jokes to the faithful and play the fundamentalist card against the unsuspecting Secular Humanists. ;-)

    • Do you believe in creationism or evolution? And which do you think should be taught in school?

      I like how my HS AP Bio teacher brought up the subject. She spent a part of a class (about 10 or 15 mins or so) going over creationism -- just in overview. Then ended it saying "But that's theology and outside the scope of this class. It wont be brought up again or appear on any exam -- this is BIOLOGY and we study the use and practice of the scientific method as applied to BIOLOGY".

      Worked for me -- and back

  • The N.Y. Times is the one pushing harder, just look at their intolerance for Christians. We're the "radical right", "Jesus Freaks", "Cultists", "Brainwashed", "intolerant", "Homophobes", "rednecks from the red states", and the list goes on and on - and the reason is simple - we have positions that differ from the liberal religion of secular humanism, and dissention is not tolerated by the Left.. so, in order to discredit us, they have created the "religious right" as a bogeyman. But let's look at how Christ
    • Why is George W. Bush instantly a dumbass for beliving in God?

      Speaking as a truly faithfull Catholic who believes in God, I think you've missed a nuance here- GWB is an idiot for believing that the voices in his head ARE God (as he told a group of Amish that were required to walk through a metal detector to get to him) as opposed to merely believing in God. It's a small distinction, but it's the difference (in modern terms) between faith and schizophrenia.
    • No, you're "demonized", because your side tries to get the government to impose your beliefs on everyone else. Abortion being legal doesn't affect you if you oppose abortion because you'll never get one. Homosexual marriage doesn't affect you if you oppose it because more likely than not, you're not gay. Removing religious artifacts from the trappings of government doesn't affect you because YOU'RE not the government. You're free to express yourself and your beliefs. Display the ten commandments to your he
      • Abortion being legal means that innocent children get slaughtered. So yeah, on this topic we want to "impose our value" of "hey quit murdering your children" on you. Homosexual marriage, however, means that marriage takes on a different meaning. Words have meanings, and these meanings are important. Marriage, by definition, is one man and one woman. Anything else is just not marriage - again, homosexuals can have civil unions - their sin is between them and God, but stop assaulting my marriage by trying to
        • If you think about abortion logically, if the religious don't want people to have abortions they should wait a couple generations. If their morals are demonstrably superior, everyone who will have wanted an abortion will have had one and their beliefs would die with them, leaving the religious their "moral" utopia.

          As for homosexual marriage, no one is arguing that churches should be forced to perform them. Once you guys let the government take the word, you've lost control of it, it's become public domain
          • If you think about abortion logically,

            If you think about murder logically...If their morals are demonstrably superior, everyone who will have wanted to commit murder will have done so and their beliefs would die with them, leaving the anti-murder people their "moral" utopia.

            My point: People want things to be illegal because they think that they are "bad". In this case the abortion/murder comparison is particularly apt, because as the grandparent poster pointed out, they believe that abortion *IS* murder.

            • I see your point, but mine is that murder doesn't prevent you from procreating. The whole point of abortion is to prevent you from procreating.
              • In no particular order,
                There are other methods to prevent oneself from procreating. That doesn't make abortion right or wrong, but it might be an important point IF abortion is the murder of a human being.
                IF life begins at conception, it's too late to prevent.
                IF Abortion is murder, does that mean that "preventing you from procreating" justifies murder?

                If you are going to seriously debate abortion, these are questions about whether or not it is murder can't be wished away. The "whole point of abortion is tha

                • The first question is something that anti-abortion and pro-abortion persons are never going to agree upon. BUT!!! It's a stupid question anyway[*]. Let's assume it begins at conception, then it must begin at conception for all other animals also. Are all those other animals human? Of course not. Is an egg a chicken? Of course not. All sorts of things are alive, but we don't have any problem killing them.

                  * In my own dumb opinion.
                  • Are all those other animals human?

                    ???? Uhmmm No? A dog is not a human, nor is a chicken. Total non-sequiter. Has our society (other than a few on the fringes!) ever stated that animal's lives are equal to human lives?

                    All sorts of things are alive, but we don't have any problem killing them.

                    Indeed we don't. But we DO, as a society, have a problem with killing[1] humans. The fact that we are cool with killing salmon doesn't mean it's OK to kill my neighbor. Or does it?.... Again, a non-sequiter.

                    The basic

                    • [1] Under "normal" circumstances, not including "special cases" like war, self-defense, etc.
                    • My point wasn't that if you think that murder is wrong that you should equate humans with animals, but that if you are going to make an argument against abortion you shouldn't say stupid things like "Life" starts at conception. People who say that completely cheapen their argument by trying to say that life is important when they show through other actions that they consider it cheap.

                      The question of whether abortion is murder or not was answered by the Supreme Court during Roe V. Wade. If the Justices cons
                    • but that if you are going to make an argument against abortion you shouldn't say stupid things like "Life" starts at conception.

                      Again, a total non-sequitor. This may come as a surprise, but more than a few people DO think that life begins at conception. Really. For true. When they state an honestly held belief, that isn't "cheapening their argument". It is STATING their arguement. EVEN IF you disagree with it.

                      People who say that completely cheapen their argument by trying to say that life is important w

        • i don't see abortion as murder. why do you feel the need to prevent someone from having options and making their own decisions? isn't there something fundamentally wrong with limiting the decisions someone can make about their own life and body? "but the baby doesn't have a choice" ... so what? really.

          i'm a dude, and last time i checked, i don't have a vagina. but if i ever knocked up one of my gf's, hey. their vagina, their business. not mine, not the federal government's. no one's but her own. i find i
    • I could write a lengthy reply with point-by-point answers to the issues you've raised but I won't, because it won't change your beliefs a single bit.

      What I will say though is this: people like you - people who claim to be persecuted but are happy to persecute others (whether it's because their gay, godless or green-skinned) - frighten me.
    • You're the problem because you want to spread your religion and effect my life and choices. That's scary to non-believers.

      How about every person I interact with I'll wish a 'Happy Assrape!' or 'Happy Killing!' because in my religion I believe December 24th is Assrape Your Brother Day and Dec. 25th is abort a fetus day? I'll send my children to school with my holy book and tell them to spread the good words to everyone no matter how much they don't want to listen. Then I'll go to street corners and shout
      • If you phrased your argument a little better, it might have been more effective. Instead, you come off looking more than just a little bit ridiculous.

        Let's address your point, however. If a Muslim wants to walk around wishing people a happy Ramadan, I have no problem with that. If a Jew wants to walk around wishing people a Happy Hannukah, again - no problem. Both cases, as well as the Christian wishing you a Merry Christmas, is protected Free Speech.

        If a Muslim child wants to bring a Koran to school -

        • No I purposefully didn't use the jewish or muslim examples. What if 70% of the country shaved/waxed/electralosis their heads so they were bald. Then all the time they told those with hair to get rid of theirs? Sometimes they'd say it happily, or cheerily, or with disapproving looks, or wariningly/threateningly that bad things would happen in the afterlife. Those with hair might get offended/annoyed/bothered.

          How about I constantly badger you to drink orange juice? After all, it's good for you and no ha
          • No I purposefully didn't use the jewish or muslim examples. What if 70% of the country shaved/waxed/electralosis their heads so they were bald. Then all the time they told those with hair to get rid of theirs? Sometimes they'd say it happily, or cheerily, or with disapproving looks, or wariningly/threateningly that bad things would happen in the afterlife. Those with hair might get offended/annoyed/bothered.

            But, the bald folks would still have a Constitutionally protected right of Free Speech to tell long

            • But, the bald folks would still have a Constitutionally protected right of Free Speech to tell long-haired people like myself to "get a haircut!". Just because someone deems something offensive, does not trump their right to say it.

              We agree they would. That's not what we were discussing. You wanted to know how it's offensive, which I explained. If the OJ lovers would spend less time and effort evangelizing, I'd be less offended and happier.

              Really? You don't care if a child lives or dies? That's prett
  • You know, I'm wondering who's pushing their agenda harder, the fundamentalists or the NYTimes editorial board?
    I hate to sound like me... but my vote is on NYT. The sky is falling the sky is falling!
  • "Christian Conservatives Press Issues In Statehouses"

    Good.

    Maybe a little sanity will return to the world. A world where nativity scenes don't spark as much outrage as punching a pair of scissors into the neck of a baby (that's fetus for the common-sense challenged) days away from delivery.

    A world where a crucifix in a city's seal doesn't spark as much outrage as a crucifix in a jar of urine in a publicly funded art show.

    A world where the terms "Master and Slave" on hard drives doesn't spark as much outr

Slashdot Top Deals

Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty. -- Plato

Close