Posted on 06/30/2008 11:40:53 AM PDT by Soliton
For example, some people are already writing off most major religions which are based essentially on an Earth-centric model, as never being able to recover from such a crippling body blow. (The Bible makes no mention of other planets or life on other planets.)
(Excerpt) Read more at economictimes.indiatimes.com ...
Even higher in the Martian sky, the Earth and Moon hang in space, as seen from Mars. The HiRISE camera onboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter acquired this image at 5:20 a.m. MST on October 3rd, 2007, at a range of 142 million kilometers, while orbiting Mars.
Several dust devils cross a plain in this animation of a series of images acquired by NASA's Mars Rover Spirit in May, 2005. (NASA/JPL-Caltech/Cornell/USGS)
Yes,God commanded we USE the resources but so much of modern society,Western and non Western,have too often ravaged those precious God given gifts to despoil this wonderful Earth.
Example-in my little suburban town I spent my childhood in,at least two thirds of the small and moderate sized houses have been converted to”monster mansions”.Why?The average family size is considerable smaller than it was seventy years ago when the original houses were built.
Its an aesthetic eyesore and a testament to man’s tendency to want to glofify himself and his edifices over God.
But in order to get the same kind of protection from religious zealotry that other religions get by opening caucus and ecumenical threads, you have to acknowledge that it is a religion. I, for one, don’t have any problem with scientism being called a religion and treated as such — it might put an end to the continuous flamewars on the crevo threads. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck and isn’t a goose, it’s probably a duck — so it might as well enjoy the benefits of a duck’s life by calling itself a duck.
Why? If the reasons for limiting what is considered acceptable civil debate in discussing theology over in the Religion forum are valid and reasonable then you should be willing to adhere to them in any forum if you are discussing what you perceive to be religion, regardless of whether anyone else does or not. If you aren't willing to accept that as reasonable here, what reason is there to believe you'll accept it somewhere else? Moving the "crevo" threads to the Religion forum won't stop the flame wars, it'll just move it over there and the Religion mods don't seem to want it. I can't say I blame them.
Why? If the reasons for limiting what is considered acceptable civil debate in discussing theology over in the Religion forum are valid and reasonable then you should be willing to adhere to them in any forum if you are discussing what you perceive to be religion, regardless of whether anyone else does or not.
***You’d think that was true of any religion, but it’s not. Hence, the ecumenical and caucus threads. The religion of scientism would be no different in that regard.
If you aren’t willing to accept that as reasonable here, what reason is there to believe you’ll accept it somewhere else?
***Because the rules for ecumenical and caucus threads are very clear, and the kinds of comments that the evolutionists don’t like to see would be thrown out by such rules. See, they would get what they want. All they gotta do is admit it’s a religion.
Moving the “crevo” threads to the Religion forum won’t stop the flame wars, it’ll just move it over there and the Religion mods don’t seem to want it. I can’t say I blame them.
***The religious flame wars do not continue on caucus threads. They continue on the open threads, which is how things oughtta be.
Are there any tactics or forms of attack that are not permitted (”mind reading”, attributing motivation, etc.) on “open” threads in the Religion forum that aren’t particularly restricted here?
Yes. That’s what the caucus threads are for.
There are no restrictions about engaging in those kinds of tactics or personal attacks in the Religion forum, except on the caucus threads?
Something like that, you might want to read through the rules about caucus & ecumenical threads. It’s probably one of the adminlecture series.
Don't worry about the caucus and ecumencial threads.
Are there any rules about what's considered acceptable civil debate in the Religion formum in general that are more stringent that what's generally applied outside of that forum?
I have no idea.
Get one. The RM’s don’t want it over there because they don’t want the flame war. You come in to “crevo” threads, call everything you disagree with a “religion” and then attack it and the other posters with terms and tactics that aren’t considered civil in a serious theological discussion. If you don’t understand and respect the limits they’ve put on theological discussion in that forum, I doubt you’d adhere to them over there any better than you do here.
What are you talking about? Is this thread an example? Where does it call itself a crevo thread? It’s about religion.
You come in to “crevo” threads, call everything you disagree with a “religion”
***Baloney. And maybe you should get an idea.
and then attack it and the other posters with terms and tactics that aren’t considered civil in a serious theological discussion.
***If they’re open threads, then your kind of tactics are allowed. If they’re not open threads, your kind of tactics are not allowed. You are engaging in projection here, kiddo. Interestingly enough, such tactics would not be allowed on a caucus thread.
If you don’t understand and respect the limits they’ve put on theological discussion in that forum, I doubt you’d adhere to them over there any better than you do here.
***You are the one who doesn’t understand the limits that have been put on theo discussions, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking such basic questions.
Hasta la vista, you may have the last word.
I think you know exactly what I'm talking about.
No, it was rhetoric. Especially(in one sense of the word), since you changed words. I used abiogenesis which is diametrically different to biogenesis. That is why I stated that your comment seemed as if Obama produced it.
I guess so. Mars has some sort of dying religion now. And here all I thought they needed was women.
Bacterial Evolution Disproves Conservatism?
Reason Magazine | 6/30/2008 | Ronald Bailey
Posted on 06/30/2008 10:48:44 AM PDT by Soliton
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2038673/posts
Religion is between man and himself. Religion is man's invention to deflect God's laws. It places an impenitrable wall between man and God. If we wish to be closer to God, there is only one way: The Gospel of Jesus Christ. It eliminates the need for religion.
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.