Posted on 05/12/2006 12:13:47 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
In his op-ed "Evolution's bottom line," published in The New York Times (May 12, 2006), Holden Thorp emphasizes the practical applications of evolution, writing, "creationism has no commercial application. Evolution does," and citing several specific examples.
In places where evolution education is undermined, he argues, it isn't only students who will be the poorer for it: "Will Mom or Dad Scientist want to live somewhere where their children are less likely to learn evolution?" He concludes, "Where science gets done is where wealth gets created, so places that decide to put stickers on their textbooks or change the definition of science have decided, perhaps unknowingly, not to go to the innovation party of the future. Maybe that's fine for the grownups who'd rather stay home, but it seems like a raw deal for the 14-year-old girl in Topeka who might have gone on to find a cure for resistant infections if only she had been taught evolution in high school."
Thorp is chairman of the chemistry department at the University of North Carolina.
I would think so.
In the Netherlands, he just up and took Church property in retaliation for what the Dutch Bishops said. No cause or due process. I'm not a Canon Lawyer though, so I'll check with one I know to be sure.
So he punished specific individuals of a captured a conquered people in an occupied country for defying the edicts of the occupiers. Is that illegal? If the US forces in Afganistan needed the site of a catholic church for strategic perposes, would George Bush be ex-communicated?
If a church property is forfitted in in the US because it was used to distribute marijuana, does that mean George Bush is excommunicated?
Obviously not, if it is done with due process and the like.
Uh huh. What is due process in freshly occupied afganistan? Whatever our troops say it is, pretty much? If anything, you'd have to give Hitler the upper hand here in terms of due process. The legislature gave him the power to make up his own laws.
If George Bush just up and declared without cause that a piece of Church property was hereby Government property, then yes.
Yea right. Hitler had cause--they were illegally sheltering jews.
An even clearer case is Hitler's publicly professed membership in some secret societies, another latae sententiae excommunication, which was known with the publication of Mein Kampf.
Oh...shivver me timbers. The capitol crime of wearing funny hats at Mason hall. This might be even more heinous than knocking over a nun while skateboarding.
Correction. The devil misquoted the scriptures to get what he wanted by misrepresentation. Christ corrected him. The misrepresentation that Satan was making in 4:6 is that it is ok to tempt God. Christ corrected him. So Satan can twist scripture; but, he isn't using scripture itself (truth) for his own ends. He perverts it and uses the perversion to his own end so that he uses evil to his end where Christ uses Good to his.
Well, youre' simply wrong. The Devil did not misquoute scripture:
Matthew 4:
6...If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written,He shall give his angels charge concerning thee:
and in their hands they shall bear thee up,
lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
This a direct reference to Psalms 91:11-12, which reads:
For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Neither did the Devil misrepresent the meaning of the verse. What Christ did do, is put it into perspective by saying:'...It is also written, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.' This is something that Christ does very often, and we see it take form at the very beginning of his ministry in Matthew chapters 5-7.
Here are some examples:
5:21 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; [Ex. 20.13 · Deut. 5.17] and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
5:22 but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
------------------------------------------------
5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: [Ex. 20.14 · Deut. 5.18] 28 but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
-----------------------------------------------
This is a theme that occurs throughout the New Testament, where Jesus completes the parameters of concepts found throughout the Old Testament. One such concept is the command by God to prosper, but in Matthew 19:24, Jesus says: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”
On the one hand, and the lower extreme, God doesn't want us just idly sitting by, doing nothing, while waiting to enter Heaven. On the other hand, and the upper extreme, Christ warns us that too much prosperity will compromise our soul.
Part of the lesson here is that we should strive to understand the Bible as a whole, rather than simply plucking verses to suit our selfish needs. ...
I am not wrong. Misquoting something is more than whether you get the words right or not. One name: Strom Thurmond. Ring any bells. A 'citation' in which the words were right as reported in the MSM while their meaning had nothing to do with reality.. Was the author properly quoted? No. Communication is more than a string of words - it is the intent of the words and their meaning in context that matters. So being verbally accurate is not the same as being true to the content. Your final remark is true; but, it is true because of what I just noted. In the larger scheme of things, Satan was verbally correct while being content inaccurate as to what is meant. The content becomes inaccurate by turning it into a temptation of God.
I've experienced similar in the past few days when someone cited me and misconstrued what I said. He cited me verbally; but, what he read into the commentary was in no way the intent of what was stated. So did he cite me accurately -no. Verbal precision verses content precision. You cannot divorce the two and do a citation justice.
I'm not sure what you're asking here....
Well, let me first acknowledge and thank you for a lengthly and interesting response to this question.
This is what I'm getting at. If belief in who Christ is, absent works of any kind, is enough in and of itself, and we agree that the Devil also holds such beliefs (and arguably, your six points) then why is he not also graced by God.
Surely, none of Gods' creation, including the fallen angels, is beyond redemption. What is it that separates them, form us, if both believe the premises that you propose.
So then , would you say, that it is acts which is the distinctive point here...
I don't believe I was posting to you so I will disregard your ridiculous reply.
The problem with your question is that it doesn't stand true for the fallen angels and Satan. God hung himself on a cross to ransom mankind. Scripture tells us specifically what God has ruled will be the end for Satan and his ilk. I noted before that I did not understand the question you were asking.
It is now clear that you somehow think Satan would be able to be redeemed. Where you get this from is beyond me.
You say, 'surely non of God's creation, including fallen angels..' I would have to direct you to Revelation, Daniel, etc who speak directly to this matter. The fallen angels and Satan are beyond redemption. God has already judged their fate. That is what seperates them from us in this matter.
Again, you're simply wrong. Misquoting is by definition, getting the words wrong. - it is the intent of the words and their meaning in context that matters.
Are you suggesting that had Jesus cast himself down from the temple, the angels would not bear him up as was written?
If the answer to this is no, then the Devil did not misrepresent scripture.
I'd like a cite that specifically states this.
Acts? no. Content. Spirit of the law verses letter of the law. This is spoken to directly in scripture. One can be word smart and content dumb. One can also be word smart and content decietful. The latter is what Satan was guilty of in implying in his use of the citation that it is ok to tempt God. It is not. In the twisting of one passage he violates another. Christ properly threw back at Satan that which he was violated by twisting of intent or 'spirit' of the passage.
Scripture proves scripture.
This is why the scriptures are so important. It is how we know what is true and what is not with regard to proper doctrine. Misconstruing what a passage means will cause violations elsewhere that may be utterly unforseen if one does not know scripture. Ecclesiastes, for example, tells us that when people physically die (righteous or unrighteous), so long as they be dead they can have nothing to do ever in what goes on under the sun.. Ie amongst the living. So, say someone then tries to proffer that one can communicate to or with the physically dead. You instantly know that to be bunk because of Ecclesiastes. Whatever might be cited there would be proven a manipulation or false reading because the issue is already proscribed specifically.
The devil did misrepresent scripture because, as I noted, Scripture proscribes tempting God which is precisely what he was suggesting by his citation that Christ should do. That is misrepresenting the intent of the passage. Letter verses spirit of the passage. I will note again, that scripture deals with this specifically.
Evolution is unrelated to biogenesis, and you are underinformed regarding biogenesis.
Just one? How about Three..
2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Thank you for an interesting discussion
One piece of business people do not know is what they may or may not have told their pastor in the confessional. One can repent of a sin and have the ban of excommunication lifted.
Hitler must have sure cried himself to sleep the night he heard about this big ol' hairy ex-communication.
If people have abandoned the Church and completely renounced their Catholicism, like Hitler did, an excommunication will obviously not bother them the slightest bit.
Hitler never attended a Mass from the time he was 16 to the time he was put down - why would he be upset if he was not welcome to the sacraments if he never even sought them?
Be serious.
If your statement means what it seems to mean, then you were just let off the hook by scripture in the three passages I cited to you. You aren't advocating for the accuser that I can see. We're talking about the validity of Faith only in light of Judgement already passed by God via prophecy and the like. But that could have as easily been contested by asking how if faith alone could redeem satan, then faith plus works could as well. There is no valid challenge there.
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.