Jacques Berlinerblau is associate Professor and Director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Many years ago he received a doctorate in ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literature from New York University. Soon after, for reasons that he himself has never fully understood, he completed another doctorate in theoretical sociology from the New School for Social Research. Feeling sufficiently credentialed to write about and research any topic under the sun, his areas of interest include the Bible, its composition, its interpretation, and in particular the way that it has been dragooned into modern political discourse. To this end his new book is called "Thumpin' It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today's Presidential Politics" (Westminster John Knox), described by First Things as "laugh-out-loud funny as well as astute." He also has published "The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously" (Cambridge:2005). An earlier book, "Heresy in the University: The Black Athena Controversy and the Responsibilities of American Intellectuals" (Rutgers: 1999) probed the manner in which institutions of higher education handle scholarly dissent. He has written extensively in scholarly journals on the subject of heretics, intellectuals, secularism, and Jewish civilization. This confluence of interests accounts, to a great degree, for his fascination with modern Jewish-American literature. A life-long New Yorker, he has recently moved to Washington D.C. with his family and is beguiled by the strange traffic lights that count down the seconds until they finally change colors.
Close.
Jacques Berlinerblau is program director and associate professor of Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and author of "Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics."
Full bio »
"Are you really that dense or are you the only one that can define 'reality'?"
It's not my definition:
re·al·i·ty
1: the quality or state of being real
2 a (1): a real event, entity, or state of affairs (2): the totality of real things and events
— in reality : in actual fact
All you have is beliefs...??? You can't answer any more questions with 'fact' than I can. Are you really that dense or are you the only one that can define 'reality'?
"This world and yourself, Sir, is all you will ever have and is all you will ever be."
As will you. You just choose to deny reality, as do children.
I'm never impressed when Xians point out that they believe as children or - worse - are proud to be fools for Christ. I say that while granting the truth in calling such beliefs the beliefs of fools.
As we used to say in NYC: your beliefs and a subway token will get you downtown.
"You see, it is all about beliefs and beliefs are all that humans really have and all that we will be."
I couldn't disagree more strongly. That's a child's view of the world, not an adult view. It ignores the beauty and mystery of the observable, which is all we really have, while betting the house on things unseen, things that mostly likely never were and never will be.
Beliefs - especially falsely held strong beliefs - may bring people peace, but it is the peace of the tomb, both intellectually and spiritually. Belief based on BS is BS itself.
The world is a marvelous, exciting and fulfilling place in which to live. What need have we of the imaginary explanations of religion and their incessant scolding of reality? Religion howls at the winds of reality, and the winds are finally and happily shouting down the scolds. Religion is nothing more than the outright theft of our own better selves, packaged and marketed to a consumer who buys back from religion the birthright he already has earned and owned for himself through our evolution as a species.
It's a great time to be alive. The human intellect is on the march and the human condition continues to mature and improve. What need to we modern humans have of the fears, ignorance and guilt of the Bronze-Aged religions? The sooner such anti-human beliefs are thrown on the pyre of history, the better.
I really don't have to prove that God exists...do I?
I am only asked, in my understanding, to believe that God exists.
But you know...for one...we can't count the stars and I could go on, even to my personal experience.
Depends what one's definition of "sacred" is, doesn't it?
I give the odds of the god of any of the world's religions being the creator of the universe the same odds I give that the tooth fairy did it. There's no reason to give the gods any more chance than that, is there? There's no evidence for the involvement of the supernatural, so one must make up a fairy tale to believe that there is/was.
The thing about fairy tales? They're all of equal value.
Maybe it is a daydream. But to exclude it, even in a social, historical or cultural aspect is pretty narrow minded. Answer me this....where does life come from?
PAUL THOMPSON writes:
"The pursuit of Truth...is the ultimate answer. A secular humanist only sees parts of what there is to look at in that pursuit. They see the physical world and themselves."
Perhaps they see only the physical world because that's all there is to see. The spiritual world you seem enamored of is a fiction of the corporate and individual imagination. A daydream.
One wonders if Paul would think it the "pursuit of truth" to spend a good part of one's day contemplating the impact the ancient Greek and Egyptian gods had on one's life, rather than contemplating the impact the ancient Hebrew god/godman had on one's life. For some reason, I kinda think he'd look at such a "pursuit" as a huge waste of time and energy.
The pursuit of Truth...is the ultimate answer. A secular humanist only sees parts of what there is to look at in that pursuit. They see the physical world and themselves.
And thanks...I will be more forward with what my education entails....since everyone seems to be so interested!
Paul Johnson - are you saying God is not the ultimate answer?
I don't know where you got the idea that secular humanists attack people as "uneducated and ignorant" but if you want to dissuade that attitude, I suggest not being vague and misleading about your education.
Here's a question for you -- how do you define "Secular humanism?"
You must have thought wrong...Christians don't have all the answers. And I brought up my education...because secular humanist attack people as uneducated and ignorant. I was just pointing out that I had an education.
Paul THompson - no one asked for your identity - but to identify the names of your schools. You are the one that brought up your educational credentials, remember, and you chose to use your real name.
"This is really an agrument about how secular humanists think they have all the answers and nobody else is to be listened to."
It's hard to listen to someone who is trying to deceive you about his credentials.
And I thought it was Christians who had all the answers - God did it.
I do respect your right to believe what you want to believe. I hope you also will acknowledge the 'mystery' that confronts us. I hated that word, mystery, too....but I have learned to accept it as part of the human condition. Be in Peace.
Yes it is my real name...and it is a very common name, so I feel secure in using it. Why do you guys want my identity? This is really an agrument about how secular humanists think they have all the answers and nobody else is to be listened to. All I am pointing out is is that you guys don't have all the answers....my identity is not a significant factor to this debate....how about one on you guys publishing your email, home address, work and home phone numbers?
Paul Thompson - is that your real name? If so, why do you use it if you're concerned about internet privacy? If not, why not name your schools - thousands of people have gone to those schools - no way you could be singled out.
I respect your right to your privacy, and I agree with you that revealing any info that one considers private while posting in a public forum is hardly mandatory.
That said, I am again put in the position of taking you at your word that the non-specific info you are providing somehow answers my questions. It doesn't. We are back at the point where I respect your right to believe whatever you wish without my having to respect that belief as being true.
As far as your "argument" against evolution, there are easy and direct answers to your arguments, answers that would refute your assertions in a mere seconds. But rather than write them out here myself, I'd ask you to search the internet for such sites that do hold the cogent counter-argument to your points, and to read the answers for yourself, answers that I am now providing you through my non-specific answers that are re-directing your attentions elsewhere.
Hey, that's easy! I wish I had learned about that debating tactic sooner.
I feel that that information is to personal to share on something like the internet. I went to a State University and a mainline denominational seminary, why the insidiousness for me to reveal personal information. You want to attack me because you can't answer to the argument?
Your answers are yet anther example of why you are so frustrating to chat with. You just don't have it in you to give a straight answer, do you?
I asked for the name and location of your school and if said school was accredited. You provide nothing except to say you went to a State School which we are to assume was accredited. You provide no name nor location, which is what I asked for. Ditto on the divinity school you attended for your Masters.
You do, however, cite Drew University which happens to be the most-expensive private college in NJ. Of course, you didn't attend this school as it's not a State school. You've cited it to say that they now offer a "Doctor of Ministry in Environmental Ministries and Ecological Spirituality," which you then assert is the same thing as your Ecotheology degree. Uh-huh. Like a degree in music theory is the same as a degree in music education.
So let's see - you wrote, "Again, what is it that you want? I am not a coward or a fraud. State what it is that you are asking for me to provide and I will," but you still couldn't bring yourself to directly and specifically answer my first three questions. Yet I'm supposed to accept your roundabout way of saying nothing at all to be a sufficient response to specific questions.
Right.
I won't bother getting into your anti-evolution answers until you've answered my first three questions.
Why is it so hard for you to answer the questions simply and directly? Are you in the witness protection program or something?
1. evolution of life from non-living matter and from one basic type of organism to a different type has not the slightest experimental/observational support. You refer to 'tranisition fossils', but there never been an observable transition in any lab, field or species. And I'm supposed to believe that the myriad of diversity came from a process that has never been observed. Again, I dispute the 'transitional fossil'...show me one of those by the way.
2. While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.
3. Mutations have been observed to destroy, delete or corrupt genetic information or to be neutral, but have not been observed to add information. This is true even of ‘beneficial’ mutations like shrivelled-eyed cave fish or flightless beetles on windswept islands, where the changes still involve loss of sight or flight. Particles to people evolution requires so many information-increasing mutations, that it should be easy to find such mutations happening today, and we have yet to observe even one.
Yes, I just called Drew University, they have just started offering a Doctor of Ministry in Environmental Ministries and Ecological Spirituality. So, thanks you this bantering...I might just go for my Doctorate...althought what I am currently doing doesn't require that I obtain this degree...I'm a bit ticked from all or your attacks. I'm sure you can find other programs, ecotheology is a broad term.
As far as accreditation...I went to a State University for my undergrad and environmental micro work and a main-line denomination seminary for my M.Div.
"The Constitution states that it was ordained and established to secure the "Blessings of Liberty" to succeeding generations. According to Webster's Dictionary to "bless" is to invoke divine care, and to be "blessed" is to enjoy the bliss of heaven. Thus, both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence make reference to a divine connection with liberty." We the people, have a relationship with our Creator...according to the framers.
"State what it is that you are asking for me to provide and I will."
Thanks for your reply. I'd like answers to the following:
1. The name and location of the college(s) that conferred your degrees.
2. Whether or not said college(s) were/are accredited
3. Has any school been accredited to teach and confer a degree in Ecotheology?
4. Enumerate the facts contained in the theory of natural selection that you believe are mere conjecture and why they are to be considered conjecture and not fact. Give us three to start with and we'll go from there.
I would appreciate specific answers to each question as opposed to one blanket answer for the 4 questions posed.
What is it that you want from me. My argument is that there is not one ounce of indisputable proof that evolution answers how life became as we know it. It is a 'belief-system' for atheist, that is all. In fact, science was never meant to answer the questions relating to the assumptions that you and your humanist brethren always allude to. Again, what is it that you want? I am not a coward or a fraud. State what it is that you are asking for me to provide and I will.
"Are you trying to look like a scientist to make your fundamentalist Christian points? Do you realize how bad this makes christians look?"
Well, E Fav, as we can see from PT's last post, he has a divinity degree. He won't tell us which school he attended or whether it's an accredited school, so I'm going to assume he attend an unaccredited Creationist college that teaches the sciences only as a "know thine enemy" primer in how to make circular arguments that drive REAL scientists crazy.
I'd love to see the syllabus for the biology classes he took. I'd bet a nickel that the courses and even their titles came right out of the Kent Hovind school of "science."
I say this because PT's entry into and subsequent discourse in this thread follow an all-too familiar pattern. A realist (in this case, moi) makes a science-based statement. PT jumps in to challenge that statement through an ad hominem attack. When challenged to provide proof to back up his statements, he resorts to the "Argument from Authority" (ie: "I have multiple science degrees, so I don't have to answer that question."). When then challenged on the legitimacy of those degrees - and after being impeached by his own words that indicate he doesn't have a basic understanding of the scientific method - he switches the subject entirely to a debate on the Constitution and his rights as an American! When challenged on the "facts" he put forth about said Constitution, he plays the CHRISTIAN VICTIM CARD - the ultimate "Get out of debate jail free" card that works beautifully at church bingo games, but not so much in public forums like On Faith.
Throughout all of this he provides not a shred of evidence to back up his original challenge to the initiating post (mine) that got the ball rolling.
Paul, you're either a fraud or a coward or both.
And BTW, Paul - as far as the "Blessings of Liberty," Liberty is ITS OWN BLESSING, just as children are a blessing. It's a basic concept that applies to religionists and non-believers alike. It comes FROM WE THE PEOPLE, from our Constitution, NOT from any imaginary supernatural being. Can't you understand that?
Further BTW - you're welcome to provide answers to any of the MANY challenges put forth to you above. Should I hold my breath, or should I look forward to more obfuscation and Artful Dodger tactics from your end?
For what it's worth, I apologize for jumping back into this fray after promising to leave the field. Oh well, one must always be prepared for the rear-guard action.
Ecotheology is a new field. My masters degree is in Divinity with a strong emphasis on ecotheology. I was the only one that showed up for the program, it was attempted to be offered as a masters in environmental ministry, however it was not pursued by the institution, because of lack of interest by other students. However, it is a field of study...of which I pursued, again recieving a four-year M.Div. I also did one-year of study in an environmental microbiology master's program and my undergrad is a B.A. in biology. So, I have two degrees and more than a dozen additional hours in environmental micro.
As far as the Constitution, it secures the 'Blessings of Liberty'....now who do you guys think these guys were asking to 'Bless the USA'?
The Constitution establishes the laws that protect the rights stated in the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, it is the foundational document of the Constitution. In other words, this country would not have the Constitution that we have if we did not have the Declaration of Independence as written, "endowed by Our Creator". I am not a expert on history, but my point is is that those that hate God need to leave the rest of us to believe what we choose to believe. I choose to not believe that evolution has answered the questions of how life became into being. And you in turn attack me personally as if I were uneducated and ignorant , questioning my degrees. I'd like to know what makes you so smart?
The word 'creator' is not in the Constitution. It exists only in the Declaration of Independence which has absolutely nothing to do with the law of the U.S. It was not developed through democratic methods - just a bunch of rich white guys figuring out how to create a society where they would be in control.
BTW, Washington, Jefferson and Franklin among quite a few others were Deists not Christians. They didn't believe in Jesus or the bible or intervention or any of that Christian stuff. You may or may not have advanced degrees in biology, but you clearly know almost nothing about history.
Interesting how a White, Christian conservative is afraid to be noted as such. In most societal circles, that is called a racist!
I guess the racist American's can not find someone racist enough to put down all the minorities at once like George Bush almost did with the exception of the Hispanic population.
What is your definition of a Conservative Protestant? Is that just another name for a Catholic? I wonder who God would vote for? Probably the Dalai Lama.
I don't want to get personal on someones website. Ecotheology is the a study of earth (the physical) and Spirit (the non-physical). As far as what that entails....it was very multi-discplined and four years didn't do it justice. Mostly, there is a need for both our 'scientific eye' and our 'philosophical eye' If you use both at least you'll have focus...but again the more you know the more you know you don't know. Even Socrates said he was wise because he knew he wasn't. I hope that is what you were asking.
You just don't get it. First off, at the Value Voters Debate, Huckabee didn't even know what a particular US Law was that funded overseas abortions - if you are any kind of Pro lifer you have to know what that is. Second, Huckabee pulled a Michael Dukakis and Willy Horton of his own in Arkanasas which ended up killing someone in Missouri - not exactly what conservative voters are looking for. In addition, Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas higher than any other governor, including Bill Clinton - that won't fly. But all that really doesn't matter and that is not what Americans are looking for. Giuliani and Romney are losing numbers and contributions at an alarming rate - the two media darlings don't pass the muster and will get crushed in the primaries. However, there is one candidate that Christian Conservatives are flocking to, and its not so much about what he says, but rather how he has lead his life. He has been married for 50 years, has 18 grandchildren, is a baby doctor and delivered over 4000 babies and recently won the Conservative Leadership Conference Straw Poll in Nevada. His honesty and credibility are unsurpassed and thats what all Americans are looking for, an honest, credible and trustworthy candidate. Americans are simply sick of corruption and want drastic change. Ron Paul is that candidate and thats why his campaign is skyrocketing into the lead.
There is no discussion with atheistic progressive secular humanist...you folks want everyone to believe what you do...and...that is not my experience. I hope you can live with that fact?
Our "firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence." – Declaration of Independence, 1776
"... The many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause." – official explanation of the Great Seal's symbolism, 1782
"I entertain a fond hope that the same kind providence which has conducted us so far in our journey will open a way for the future happiness and prosperity of the United States." – Charles Thomson (to his wife Hannah), 1783
"If it had not been for the justice of our cause, and the consequent interposition of Providence, in which we had faith, we must have been ruined." – Ben Franklin (to William Strahan), 1784
"The frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favour." – Ben Franklin at Constitutional Convention, 1787
"Our sincere and humble thanks for... the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war." – George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789
DMM tried a typical ploy of those who want to be taken seriously and considered an expert when they really know nothing about the subject about which they are speaking. He threw out a few technical terms, like thermodynamics, and the claimed superior knowledge, then shut down without supporting his case.
DMM -- rather that tell us to come back after we educated ourselves, why don't you educate us on these issues? I guess you arte so intellectually superior that no-one would understand?
BTW - never take a creationist seriously when he throws out the term "thermodynamics." It's like making the Hitler comparison. The accuser immediately loses credibility.
Written like the deists they were who were the product of their times, and most of whom utterly rejected the dogmas of Christianity, often and in great detail.
You don't want to discuss. You want to pontificate. I see no room for serious discourse, so I'll take my leave of this non-conversation.
I'm not playing your game. To date, you have provided not a single specific.
I toss the ball in your court: enumerate the facts contained in the theory of natural selection that you believe are mere conjecture and why they are to be considered conjecture and not fact.
Give us three to start with and we'll go from there.
All Comments (150)
Folks, you’ve got to read "Track Amazon's 30-day refund guarantee"
http://digg.com/software/Track_Amazon_s_30_day_refund_guarantee_with_Apnoti
This is really outrageous stuff and the best I ever read about the thing.
It’s not theories but carefully researched hard facts.
Cheers
-------------
January 31, 2008 10:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 31, 2008 10:48
Hi,
Amazon has a nice offer which ends Monday, Jan. 28, 2008 - you can get 5 HD-DVDs for free
if you buy a Toshiba DVD player.
More about this on Bargain Hunter http://bargains-hunter.blogspot.com
January 26, 2008 10:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 26, 2008 10:07
Hi,
Amazon has a nice offer which ends Monday, Jan. 28, 2008 - you can get 5 HD-DVDs for free
if you buy a Toshiba DVD player.
More about his on Bargain Hunter http://bargains-hunter.blogspot.com
January 25, 2008 1:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 25, 2008 13:40
Hi,
ever wondered how to get better Amazon deals or how to get that 30-day refund from Amazon?
We discovered a gret service which tracks prices for you and alerts youl.
Check out our latest review at:
http://bargains-hunter.blogspot.com/2007/12/apnoticom-review.html
December 5, 2007 11:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 5, 2007 11:27
Hi,
ever wondered how to get better Amazon deals or how to get that 30-day refund from Amazon?
We discovered a gret service which tracks prices for you and alerts you by email.
Check out our latest review at:
http://bargains-hunter.blogspot.com/2007/12/apnoticom-review.html
December 5, 2007 6:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 5, 2007 06:25
Hi,
get cheaper Amazon Deals and Shake the Price!
Read more on:
http://bargains-hunter.blogspot.com/2007/12/get-cheaper-amazon-deals-with-apnoti.html
December 5, 2007 5:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 5, 2007 05:27
Hello, nice site :)
December 2, 2007 7:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 2, 2007 19:50
Hello, nice site :)
December 2, 2007 7:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 2, 2007 19:49
Hi,
I just found the blog:
http://bargains-hunter.blogspot.com/2007/11/amazon-price-drop-more-than-44-and-i.html
There is an amazing how-to for changing the amazon price.
November 14, 2007 10:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 14, 2007 10:16
Hello!
Very interesting site, beautiful design, thank.
best admin
Burkhard Pfizer
berirtrerejas
October 21, 2007 1:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 21, 2007 13:01
Hi Friends!
Very interesting site, beautiful design, thank.
best admin
Otto Ludwig
berirtrerejas
October 21, 2007 1:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 21, 2007 13:01
Hello all
It's a very good site !! Very nice work, admin :)
thank
Oskar Thomsen
berirtrerejas
October 20, 2007 3:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 20, 2007 15:33
Hi Friends!
Wow! This site is very good!
thank
Hubert
berirtrerejas
October 20, 2007 6:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 20, 2007 06:37
Hello all
Very interesting site, beautiful design, thank.
thank
Oskar Thomsen
berirtrerejas
October 19, 2007 11:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 19, 2007 23:03
Hi Friends!
It's a very good site !! Very nice work, admin :)
give thanks
Bruno Mehlmann
berirtrerejas
October 19, 2007 9:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 19, 2007 09:21
Paul writes:
"Are you really that dense or are you the only one that can define 'reality'?"
It's not my definition:
re·al·i·ty
1: the quality or state of being real
2 a (1): a real event, entity, or state of affairs (2): the totality of real things and events
— in reality : in actual fact
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reality
October 18, 2007 10:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 18, 2007 22:34
All you have is beliefs...??? You can't answer any more questions with 'fact' than I can. Are you really that dense or are you the only one that can define 'reality'?
I am done....thank you!
October 18, 2007 6:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 18, 2007 18:07
Paul writes:
"This world and yourself, Sir, is all you will ever have and is all you will ever be."
As will you. You just choose to deny reality, as do children.
I'm never impressed when Xians point out that they believe as children or - worse - are proud to be fools for Christ. I say that while granting the truth in calling such beliefs the beliefs of fools.
As we used to say in NYC: your beliefs and a subway token will get you downtown.
October 18, 2007 5:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 18, 2007 17:28
So it is written, 'You must be as a little child to enter in the Kingdom of Heaven.'
This world and yourself, Sir, is all you will ever have and is all you will ever be.
And I have never excluded the physical. God thought and it is...that again Sir, is Belief.
October 18, 2007 5:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 18, 2007 17:10
PAUL THOMPSON writes:
"You see, it is all about beliefs and beliefs are all that humans really have and all that we will be."
I couldn't disagree more strongly. That's a child's view of the world, not an adult view. It ignores the beauty and mystery of the observable, which is all we really have, while betting the house on things unseen, things that mostly likely never were and never will be.
Beliefs - especially falsely held strong beliefs - may bring people peace, but it is the peace of the tomb, both intellectually and spiritually. Belief based on BS is BS itself.
The world is a marvelous, exciting and fulfilling place in which to live. What need have we of the imaginary explanations of religion and their incessant scolding of reality? Religion howls at the winds of reality, and the winds are finally and happily shouting down the scolds. Religion is nothing more than the outright theft of our own better selves, packaged and marketed to a consumer who buys back from religion the birthright he already has earned and owned for himself through our evolution as a species.
It's a great time to be alive. The human intellect is on the march and the human condition continues to mature and improve. What need to we modern humans have of the fears, ignorance and guilt of the Bronze-Aged religions? The sooner such anti-human beliefs are thrown on the pyre of history, the better.
October 18, 2007 3:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 18, 2007 15:37
You see, it is all about beliefs and beliefs are all that humans really have and all that we will be.
October 18, 2007 2:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 18, 2007 14:46
Well, you CAN'T prove that god exists, can you?
As far as god having a hand in creation, I can only quote Laplace: Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.
October 18, 2007 2:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 18, 2007 14:44
I really don't have to prove that God exists...do I?
I am only asked, in my understanding, to believe that God exists.
But you know...for one...we can't count the stars and I could go on, even to my personal experience.
October 18, 2007 2:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 18, 2007 14:39
Depends what one's definition of "sacred" is, doesn't it?
I give the odds of the god of any of the world's religions being the creator of the universe the same odds I give that the tooth fairy did it. There's no reason to give the gods any more chance than that, is there? There's no evidence for the involvement of the supernatural, so one must make up a fairy tale to believe that there is/was.
The thing about fairy tales? They're all of equal value.
October 18, 2007 2:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 18, 2007 14:33
Nope....but I do believe it is sacred!
October 18, 2007 2:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 18, 2007 14:27
PAUL THOMPSON writes:
"Ok...Dr. Frankenstein. You seem to know?"
Do you?
October 18, 2007 2:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 18, 2007 14:23
Ok...Dr. Frankenstein. You seem to know?
October 18, 2007 2:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 18, 2007 14:20
PAUL THOMPSON writes::
"Maybe it is a daydream. But to exclude it, even in a social, historical or cultural aspect is pretty narrow minded."
Sure, as long as one spends about .05% of their time thinking about the daydream and not 50% of their time.
"Answer me this....where does life come from?"
Not from a supernatural being that we call god.
October 18, 2007 2:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 18, 2007 14:06
Maybe it is a daydream. But to exclude it, even in a social, historical or cultural aspect is pretty narrow minded. Answer me this....where does life come from?
October 18, 2007 11:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 18, 2007 11:02
PAUL THOMPSON writes:
"The pursuit of Truth...is the ultimate answer. A secular humanist only sees parts of what there is to look at in that pursuit. They see the physical world and themselves."
Perhaps they see only the physical world because that's all there is to see. The spiritual world you seem enamored of is a fiction of the corporate and individual imagination. A daydream.
One wonders if Paul would think it the "pursuit of truth" to spend a good part of one's day contemplating the impact the ancient Greek and Egyptian gods had on one's life, rather than contemplating the impact the ancient Hebrew god/godman had on one's life. For some reason, I kinda think he'd look at such a "pursuit" as a huge waste of time and energy.
October 18, 2007 10:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 18, 2007 10:30
The pursuit of Truth...is the ultimate answer. A secular humanist only sees parts of what there is to look at in that pursuit. They see the physical world and themselves.
And thanks...I will be more forward with what my education entails....since everyone seems to be so interested!
October 17, 2007 11:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 23:59
Paul Johnson - are you saying God is not the ultimate answer?
I don't know where you got the idea that secular humanists attack people as "uneducated and ignorant" but if you want to dissuade that attitude, I suggest not being vague and misleading about your education.
Here's a question for you -- how do you define "Secular humanism?"
October 17, 2007 10:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 22:28
You must have thought wrong...Christians don't have all the answers. And I brought up my education...because secular humanist attack people as uneducated and ignorant. I was just pointing out that I had an education.
October 17, 2007 5:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 17:03
Paul THompson - no one asked for your identity - but to identify the names of your schools. You are the one that brought up your educational credentials, remember, and you chose to use your real name.
"This is really an agrument about how secular humanists think they have all the answers and nobody else is to be listened to."
It's hard to listen to someone who is trying to deceive you about his credentials.
And I thought it was Christians who had all the answers - God did it.
October 17, 2007 4:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 16:59
Mr. Mark,
I do respect your right to believe what you want to believe. I hope you also will acknowledge the 'mystery' that confronts us. I hated that word, mystery, too....but I have learned to accept it as part of the human condition. Be in Peace.
October 17, 2007 4:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 16:26
Yes it is my real name...and it is a very common name, so I feel secure in using it. Why do you guys want my identity? This is really an agrument about how secular humanists think they have all the answers and nobody else is to be listened to. All I am pointing out is is that you guys don't have all the answers....my identity is not a significant factor to this debate....how about one on you guys publishing your email, home address, work and home phone numbers?
By the way....Huck is tied for 2nd in Iowa.
Go Huck!!!!!!!
October 17, 2007 4:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 16:18
Paul writes:
"But the point is...we have the right to believe what we consider to be Truth and others should respect that right."
I respect your right to believe what you consider to be Truth. I just don't believe that your truth has a shred of truth about it.
THAT'S what being an American is all about, wouldn't you say?
October 17, 2007 4:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 16:15
Paul Thompson - is that your real name? If so, why do you use it if you're concerned about internet privacy? If not, why not name your schools - thousands of people have gone to those schools - no way you could be singled out.
October 17, 2007 4:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 16:09
Whatever....
But the point is...we have the right to believe what we consider to be Truth and others should respect that right. So said...Go Huck!!!!!!!
October 17, 2007 3:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 15:58
Dear Paul -
I respect your right to your privacy, and I agree with you that revealing any info that one considers private while posting in a public forum is hardly mandatory.
That said, I am again put in the position of taking you at your word that the non-specific info you are providing somehow answers my questions. It doesn't. We are back at the point where I respect your right to believe whatever you wish without my having to respect that belief as being true.
As far as your "argument" against evolution, there are easy and direct answers to your arguments, answers that would refute your assertions in a mere seconds. But rather than write them out here myself, I'd ask you to search the internet for such sites that do hold the cogent counter-argument to your points, and to read the answers for yourself, answers that I am now providing you through my non-specific answers that are re-directing your attentions elsewhere.
Hey, that's easy! I wish I had learned about that debating tactic sooner.
October 17, 2007 3:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 15:53
I feel that that information is to personal to share on something like the internet. I went to a State University and a mainline denominational seminary, why the insidiousness for me to reveal personal information. You want to attack me because you can't answer to the argument?
October 17, 2007 3:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 15:41
Dear Paul (Anonymous?) -
Your answers are yet anther example of why you are so frustrating to chat with. You just don't have it in you to give a straight answer, do you?
I asked for the name and location of your school and if said school was accredited. You provide nothing except to say you went to a State School which we are to assume was accredited. You provide no name nor location, which is what I asked for. Ditto on the divinity school you attended for your Masters.
You do, however, cite Drew University which happens to be the most-expensive private college in NJ. Of course, you didn't attend this school as it's not a State school. You've cited it to say that they now offer a "Doctor of Ministry in Environmental Ministries and Ecological Spirituality," which you then assert is the same thing as your Ecotheology degree. Uh-huh. Like a degree in music theory is the same as a degree in music education.
So let's see - you wrote, "Again, what is it that you want? I am not a coward or a fraud. State what it is that you are asking for me to provide and I will," but you still couldn't bring yourself to directly and specifically answer my first three questions. Yet I'm supposed to accept your roundabout way of saying nothing at all to be a sufficient response to specific questions.
Right.
I won't bother getting into your anti-evolution answers until you've answered my first three questions.
Why is it so hard for you to answer the questions simply and directly? Are you in the witness protection program or something?
October 17, 2007 3:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 15:32
[url=http://yourdecoration.com/white-man-black-cock.html]bad credit[/url]
October 17, 2007 3:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 15:19
1. evolution of life from non-living matter and from one basic type of organism to a different type has not the slightest experimental/observational support. You refer to 'tranisition fossils', but there never been an observable transition in any lab, field or species. And I'm supposed to believe that the myriad of diversity came from a process that has never been observed. Again, I dispute the 'transitional fossil'...show me one of those by the way.
2. While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.
3. Mutations have been observed to destroy, delete or corrupt genetic information or to be neutral, but have not been observed to add information. This is true even of ‘beneficial’ mutations like shrivelled-eyed cave fish or flightless beetles on windswept islands, where the changes still involve loss of sight or flight. Particles to people evolution requires so many information-increasing mutations, that it should be easy to find such mutations happening today, and we have yet to observe even one.
Yes, I just called Drew University, they have just started offering a Doctor of Ministry in Environmental Ministries and Ecological Spirituality. So, thanks you this bantering...I might just go for my Doctorate...althought what I am currently doing doesn't require that I obtain this degree...I'm a bit ticked from all or your attacks. I'm sure you can find other programs, ecotheology is a broad term.
As far as accreditation...I went to a State University for my undergrad and environmental micro work and a main-line denomination seminary for my M.Div.
October 17, 2007 2:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 14:23
"The Constitution states that it was ordained and established to secure the "Blessings of Liberty" to succeeding generations. According to Webster's Dictionary to "bless" is to invoke divine care, and to be "blessed" is to enjoy the bliss of heaven. Thus, both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence make reference to a divine connection with liberty." We the people, have a relationship with our Creator...according to the framers.
October 17, 2007 2:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 14:07
Paul writes:
"State what it is that you are asking for me to provide and I will."
Thanks for your reply. I'd like answers to the following:
1. The name and location of the college(s) that conferred your degrees.
2. Whether or not said college(s) were/are accredited
3. Has any school been accredited to teach and confer a degree in Ecotheology?
4. Enumerate the facts contained in the theory of natural selection that you believe are mere conjecture and why they are to be considered conjecture and not fact. Give us three to start with and we'll go from there.
I would appreciate specific answers to each question as opposed to one blanket answer for the 4 questions posed.
Thank you in advance for your answers.
October 17, 2007 2:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 14:07
Mr. Mark,
Back on that attack mode...I see.
What is it that you want from me. My argument is that there is not one ounce of indisputable proof that evolution answers how life became as we know it. It is a 'belief-system' for atheist, that is all. In fact, science was never meant to answer the questions relating to the assumptions that you and your humanist brethren always allude to. Again, what is it that you want? I am not a coward or a fraud. State what it is that you are asking for me to provide and I will.
October 17, 2007 1:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 13:59
E Fav wrote to Paul:
"Are you trying to look like a scientist to make your fundamentalist Christian points? Do you realize how bad this makes christians look?"
Well, E Fav, as we can see from PT's last post, he has a divinity degree. He won't tell us which school he attended or whether it's an accredited school, so I'm going to assume he attend an unaccredited Creationist college that teaches the sciences only as a "know thine enemy" primer in how to make circular arguments that drive REAL scientists crazy.
I'd love to see the syllabus for the biology classes he took. I'd bet a nickel that the courses and even their titles came right out of the Kent Hovind school of "science."
I say this because PT's entry into and subsequent discourse in this thread follow an all-too familiar pattern. A realist (in this case, moi) makes a science-based statement. PT jumps in to challenge that statement through an ad hominem attack. When challenged to provide proof to back up his statements, he resorts to the "Argument from Authority" (ie: "I have multiple science degrees, so I don't have to answer that question."). When then challenged on the legitimacy of those degrees - and after being impeached by his own words that indicate he doesn't have a basic understanding of the scientific method - he switches the subject entirely to a debate on the Constitution and his rights as an American! When challenged on the "facts" he put forth about said Constitution, he plays the CHRISTIAN VICTIM CARD - the ultimate "Get out of debate jail free" card that works beautifully at church bingo games, but not so much in public forums like On Faith.
Throughout all of this he provides not a shred of evidence to back up his original challenge to the initiating post (mine) that got the ball rolling.
Paul, you're either a fraud or a coward or both.
And BTW, Paul - as far as the "Blessings of Liberty," Liberty is ITS OWN BLESSING, just as children are a blessing. It's a basic concept that applies to religionists and non-believers alike. It comes FROM WE THE PEOPLE, from our Constitution, NOT from any imaginary supernatural being. Can't you understand that?
Further BTW - you're welcome to provide answers to any of the MANY challenges put forth to you above. Should I hold my breath, or should I look forward to more obfuscation and Artful Dodger tactics from your end?
For what it's worth, I apologize for jumping back into this fray after promising to leave the field. Oh well, one must always be prepared for the rear-guard action.
October 17, 2007 1:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 13:45
Ecotheology is a new field. My masters degree is in Divinity with a strong emphasis on ecotheology. I was the only one that showed up for the program, it was attempted to be offered as a masters in environmental ministry, however it was not pursued by the institution, because of lack of interest by other students. However, it is a field of study...of which I pursued, again recieving a four-year M.Div. I also did one-year of study in an environmental microbiology master's program and my undergrad is a B.A. in biology. So, I have two degrees and more than a dozen additional hours in environmental micro.
As far as the Constitution, it secures the 'Blessings of Liberty'....now who do you guys think these guys were asking to 'Bless the USA'?
October 17, 2007 1:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 13:04
Paul Thompson -- First Ditto what DZ said about the Constitution, then Ditto what Mr Mark and Jim said about your supposed degrees.
I did a little Google research on my own and found no hits for "Ecotheology degree " but 900 for "ecology degree" and 113 hits for "Theology degree."
Is this perhaps a new field? Has any school been accredited to teach it?
Are you trying to look like a scientist to make your fundamentalist Christian points? Do you realize how bad this makes christians look?
October 17, 2007 12:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 12:51
DZ,
The Constitution establishes the laws that protect the rights stated in the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, it is the foundational document of the Constitution. In other words, this country would not have the Constitution that we have if we did not have the Declaration of Independence as written, "endowed by Our Creator". I am not a expert on history, but my point is is that those that hate God need to leave the rest of us to believe what we choose to believe. I choose to not believe that evolution has answered the questions of how life became into being. And you in turn attack me personally as if I were uneducated and ignorant , questioning my degrees. I'd like to know what makes you so smart?
October 17, 2007 11:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 11:46
Paul Thompson:
The word 'creator' is not in the Constitution. It exists only in the Declaration of Independence which has absolutely nothing to do with the law of the U.S. It was not developed through democratic methods - just a bunch of rich white guys figuring out how to create a society where they would be in control.
BTW, Washington, Jefferson and Franklin among quite a few others were Deists not Christians. They didn't believe in Jesus or the bible or intervention or any of that Christian stuff. You may or may not have advanced degrees in biology, but you clearly know almost nothing about history.
October 17, 2007 11:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 11:06
Interesting how a White, Christian conservative is afraid to be noted as such. In most societal circles, that is called a racist!
I guess the racist American's can not find someone racist enough to put down all the minorities at once like George Bush almost did with the exception of the Hispanic population.
Patrick
October 17, 2007 8:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 08:58
What is your definition of a Conservative Protestant? Is that just another name for a Catholic? I wonder who God would vote for? Probably the Dalai Lama.
October 17, 2007 8:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 08:52
Jim,
I don't want to get personal on someones website. Ecotheology is the a study of earth (the physical) and Spirit (the non-physical). As far as what that entails....it was very multi-discplined and four years didn't do it justice. Mostly, there is a need for both our 'scientific eye' and our 'philosophical eye' If you use both at least you'll have focus...but again the more you know the more you know you don't know. Even Socrates said he was wise because he knew he wasn't. I hope that is what you were asking.
October 17, 2007 12:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 17, 2007 00:05
Paul,
I'd like to know what schools granted your advanced degrees. And pardon my ignorence, but what does a degree in ecothology entail?
Good points Mr. Mark
October 16, 2007 11:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 16, 2007 23:50
Dear Mr. Berlinerblau,
You just don't get it. First off, at the Value Voters Debate, Huckabee didn't even know what a particular US Law was that funded overseas abortions - if you are any kind of Pro lifer you have to know what that is. Second, Huckabee pulled a Michael Dukakis and Willy Horton of his own in Arkanasas which ended up killing someone in Missouri - not exactly what conservative voters are looking for. In addition, Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas higher than any other governor, including Bill Clinton - that won't fly. But all that really doesn't matter and that is not what Americans are looking for. Giuliani and Romney are losing numbers and contributions at an alarming rate - the two media darlings don't pass the muster and will get crushed in the primaries. However, there is one candidate that Christian Conservatives are flocking to, and its not so much about what he says, but rather how he has lead his life. He has been married for 50 years, has 18 grandchildren, is a baby doctor and delivered over 4000 babies and recently won the Conservative Leadership Conference Straw Poll in Nevada. His honesty and credibility are unsurpassed and thats what all Americans are looking for, an honest, credible and trustworthy candidate. Americans are simply sick of corruption and want drastic change. Ron Paul is that candidate and thats why his campaign is skyrocketing into the lead.
October 16, 2007 11:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 16, 2007 23:48
There is no discussion with atheistic progressive secular humanist...you folks want everyone to believe what you do...and...that is not my experience. I hope you can live with that fact?
October 16, 2007 11:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 16, 2007 23:31
Our "firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence." – Declaration of Independence, 1776
"... The many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause." – official explanation of the Great Seal's symbolism, 1782
"I entertain a fond hope that the same kind providence which has conducted us so far in our journey will open a way for the future happiness and prosperity of the United States." – Charles Thomson (to his wife Hannah), 1783
"If it had not been for the justice of our cause, and the consequent interposition of Providence, in which we had faith, we must have been ruined." – Ben Franklin (to William Strahan), 1784
"The frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favour." – Ben Franklin at Constitutional Convention, 1787
"Our sincere and humble thanks for... the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war." – George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789
October 16, 2007 11:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 16, 2007 23:21
DMM tried a typical ploy of those who want to be taken seriously and considered an expert when they really know nothing about the subject about which they are speaking. He threw out a few technical terms, like thermodynamics, and the claimed superior knowledge, then shut down without supporting his case.
DMM -- rather that tell us to come back after we educated ourselves, why don't you educate us on these issues? I guess you arte so intellectually superior that no-one would understand?
BTW - never take a creationist seriously when he throws out the term "thermodynamics." It's like making the Hitler comparison. The accuser immediately loses credibility.
October 16, 2007 11:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 16, 2007 23:20
Our founders where not deist...just more of your misinformation and deception...
Our founders believed in Providence...that is not a deist concept.
October 16, 2007 11:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 16, 2007 23:11
Dear Paul -
Yes, "Our Creator."
Not "Our God."
Not "Our Jesus."
Written like the deists they were who were the product of their times, and most of whom utterly rejected the dogmas of Christianity, often and in great detail.
You don't want to discuss. You want to pontificate. I see no room for serious discourse, so I'll take my leave of this non-conversation.
Good luck to you.
October 16, 2007 11:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 16, 2007 23:07
I am not playing a game. I have a right to my beliefs. Oh...by the way...the Constitution states that that right comes from "Our Creator"
October 16, 2007 10:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 16, 2007 22:46
Paul -
I'm not playing your game. To date, you have provided not a single specific.
I toss the ball in your court: enumerate the facts contained in the theory of natural selection that you believe are mere conjecture and why they are to be considered conjecture and not fact.
Give us three to start with and we'll go from there.
Thanks.
October 16, 2007 10:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 16, 2007 22:25