Posted on 03/09/2006 6:55:14 PM PST by Greg o the Navy
AN EXAMINATIONS board is including references to “creationism” in a new GCSE science course for schools.
as to the wishful translation, from what I see, the various translations all indulge in wishful thinking.
the following are all PAIRED
fornicariis + masculorum = "f[beep!]ers OF men"
concubitoribus + plagiariis = "robbers OF husbands"
mendacibus + periuris = "oath-falsifiers OF lies"
seems Timothy 1:10 is actually castigating ONLY: sodomites, home-wreckers, and false oath speakers.
Yours seems much less contrived than the others. Many thanks.
BTW, I've copied your second amendment parsing onto my homepage. Nice job.
*bows*
g'nite
you do know that Bambi had his vengeance upon Gojira?
oh... you'll like #303 on that thread as well.
With all dues respect, I think you're taking this crevo thing a little too far. Professional creationists are certainly worthy of contempt, but the ordinary folk who follow them out of ignorance, well, they're mostly good, simple people who don't know any better. I don't see why anyone would despise them. Frankly, if they're not doing anything that has an impact on science, why should we, on a personal level, care what their views on science are?
I tend to take John Derbyshire's view on this matter:
All I am pointing out there is that while, speaking as a scientifically-educated person who prefers truth (so far as we can discover it) to falsehood, I would rather you believed in evolution that not, I think there are a great many other things that are much more important. We don’t all have the capacity, or the willingness, or the time, to master elaborate scientific theories. (I wonder how many of those who chuckled at Sunday’s Doonesbury strip could actually give a full explanation of the theory of evolution from a standing start?) Unless we are professional specialists, there is no need for us to, other than by way of making a courteous gesture towards the ideal of objective scientific knowledge in general.
...My ideal nursing-home attendant, auto mechanic, or president would be a cheerful, capable, well-motivated person who was thoroughly au courant with the theory of evolution — and indeed with all the most recent advances in astronomy, biochemistry, cosmology, dendrochronology, endochrinology ...yachting, and zoology.
Life, however, often consists of making a choice between unsatisfactory alternatives. Invited to choose between having my kids educated, my car fixed, or my elderly relatives cared for by (a) people of character, spirit, and dedication who believe in pseudoscience, or (b) unionized, time-serving drudges who believe in real science, which would I choose? Invited to choose between a president who is (a) a patriotic family man of character and ability who believes the universe was created on a Friday afternoon in 4,004 B.C. with all biological species instantly represented, or (b) an amoral hedonist and philanderer who “loathes the military” but who believes in the evolution of species via natural selection across hundreds of millions of years, which would I choose? Are you kidding?
just found this on another thread:
Darwin on slavery:
Voyage of the Beagle
Chapter XXI
....
On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil, I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master's eye. These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European nations. I have seen at Rio de Janeiro a powerful negro afraid to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was present when a kind-hearted man was on the point of separating forever the men, women, and little children of a large number of families who had long lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of; nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited at the houses of the upper classes, where the domestic slaves are usually well treated; land they have not, like myself, lived amongst the lower classes. Such inquirers will ask slaves about their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull, who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching his master's ears. 34
It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested against with noble feeling, and strikingly exemplified, by the ever-illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffered from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of you wife and your little children—those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own—being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty: but it is a consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any nation, to expiate our sin.
http://www.bartleby.com/29/21.html
Take a look at post #827, and tell me that people who post screeds about Darwin being a racist are not worthy of contempt.
potent and irrefutable.
Certainly clearer than the Biblical statements trotted out.
ayyuh. however, in spite of its clarity, I will not bet against the outcome that some will shrug this off and reiterate their claims that Darwin favored slavery.
Well..... duh!
None at ALL?
do try to stay on track, LC - "slave-taker/trader" is not in the KJV.
that observation doesn't merit a "duh!" considering the snarky "in case you missed it" to which it is (part of) a direct response
none whatsoever.
for your snark to contain any justice, the verse you quoted would have to be either the only or the predominant version of that verse.
It isn't.
your inaccurate choice of selective emphasis ignores the fact that this verse is limited to "men who think godliness is a means to financial gain"
I do not believe godliness is a means to lucre. I doubt From Many_One does either. Neither of us, after all, is a televangelist or member of Discovery Institute.
so, whether or not *you DO* believe this to be so, no.
Did you ever miss the boat on that one.
I'm surprised, you are usually relevant, even it wrong. :)
Try tracking the sub-thread again.
I'm guessing the direction and implications of the translations are uncomfortable to a sincere (I believe Elsie is) literalist.
The Bible as currently understood and translated does not ever give as heartfelt an outcry against slavery as Darwin did. That must pain at least some literalists.
There isn't any outcry against slavery whatsoever in the Bible. There are regulations, particularly in regard to acquiring slaves, but no outcry against ownership of slaves. The outcry that Elsie found deals with slave trading or kidnapping. Obviously this deals with illicit means of acquiring slaves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.