Posted on 08/15/2005 9:18:06 AM PDT by hc87
Exactly eighty years after the Scopes "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tennessee, history is about to repeat itself. In a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in late September, scientists and creationists will square off about whether and how high school students in Dover, Pennsylvania will learn about biological evolution. One would have assumed that these battles were over, but that is to underestimate the fury (and the ingenuity) of creationists scorned.
The Scopes trial of our day--Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover Area School District et al--began innocuously...
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
I found a couple of those churches here in North Texas.
They are still probably erasing my skid marks from floor around the door out. I managed to locate a decent Assemblies of God church close to my home. The pastor has a real gift for exhortation and has done a lot of preaching that is 180 degrees away from "tickling the ears".
Take care, MPI.
" Yes. I think it is fine to impose Christianity. That is my position."
That is why your position is evil. Good thing the Constitution and the founding fathers didn't agree.
How dare you try to be reasonable on a crevo thread!
;-)
Awww, shucks....
Are you suggesting that the Creator endowing certain inalienable rights is not foundational to our freedoms and liberties?
What does the founding of the United States have to do with evolution or science?
What I'm trying to do is defuse this issue. And since 1) creationists started the fight. And 2) evolution is not going away because truth never does. The only way to defuse this is to get creationists to back down and keep their religion in church.
About Jews...My wife's grandfather was Jewish. I have Jewish friends. I "feel" good about them.
About Catholics being Christian...I would consider that some are and some are not. I have an uncle that is a priest and another that is a bishop in the Catholic Church.
"Aren't they all "man's" theories? Can you give an example of a "Godly" theory?"
Theory has different meanings to different people. Gravity is often referred to as theory, yet it exists. The Creator, the Heavenly Father to many is a theory and anything Written would fall into theoretical statements.
Psalms 22 foretold of Christ death, what the high priest would say and soldiers gambling for Christ's clothing, all of which is recorded in the Gospels.
That to me is evidence that the Creator and His only begotten Son are who they say they were, are and will be.
Therefore, it is not destructive to conservatism when the Creator is mentioned.
Religion [Christianity] is not meant to be kept in the Church, nor did the founders/constitution intend it to be. (Still love ya, though.)
I believe that you'd get along well with a friend of mine who has restored many aircraft, including an L2(?) spy plane (canvas body...still flies it).
He rebuilt two Russian made fighter jets and flew them for a period of time...sold both of them a couple of years ago
" I have Jewish friends. I "feel" good about them."
And you think it is just fine for the government to force Christianity on them? With a friends like you they wouldn't need enemies.
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. Ex.21:20-21
Interesting how cause and effect evaporate with time. Interesting that the beating itself is OK.
But there are no revisions in the Bible, so slavery is still OK, and slaves are still commanded to obey.
Gravity is a fact (apples fall from the tree to the ground) and a theory (an explanation of the fact that apples fall from trees). Evolution is likewise a fact and a theory.
Psalms 22 foretold of Christ death, what the high priest would say and soldiers gambling for Christ's clothing, all of which is recorded in the Gospels.
You interpret it that way. As a Jew, I certainly don't.
That to me is evidence that the Creator and His only begotten Son are who they say they were, are and will be.
That is fine for theology, but it isn't science.
Need I point out that the founders of the U.S. did not see fit to guarantee those rights to all people, under the law?
I can only assume because they had Biblical authority on their side.
Well now could one not conclude that it is because of your religious beliefs you find evolution a fact.
That's fine. But we're talking about science, evolution, and politics. What the founding documents say is another thread.
Religion [Christianity] is not meant to be kept in the Church, nor did the founders/constitution intend it to be.
The founders certainly did want religious arguments *out* of the public domain. Those kinds of arguments were the primary difficulties in bringing the various states into a Union, because several of those states still had official state religions. The founders took care to excise religious disagreements out of public life, because they knew that a situation like we have here would happen. We have a split. We are never going to agree on this subject, and the intelligent thing to do is agree to disagree on it, and drop the subject.
Religious people can teach anything they want in church. But ID is faith, and it forcing it into public school science classes is inflammatory and should not be attempted.
You could conclude that, but you would be wrong. My acceptance of the ToE is due not to my religious beliefs, but rather to the physical evidence which supports it.
And if you're emotionally immature, your presuppositions will fit only with what reality you are able to face. [More on my profile page]
I can only repeat myself:
Excerpt: "...Let's anticipate and toss off the obvious objection: "Why did God make the Bible so hard to understand, then?" It isn't -- none of this keeps a person from grasping the message of the Bible to the extent required to be saved; where the line is to be drawn is upon those who gratuitously assume that such base knowledge allows them to be competent critics of the text, and make that assumption in absolute ignorance of their own lack of knowledge ..."
Why Bible Critics Do Not Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt
Like it or not.
Those Arminians really get the emotions stirred up, don't they? LOL
I see I was not clear enough.
Is is your belief that Jews should be required to become Cristian in order to hold public office?
How do you distinguish between a Christian Catholic and a Catholic who is not Christian?
This question is in response to your statement:
"About Catholics being Christian...I would consider that some are and some are not. I have an uncle that is a priest and another that is a bishop in the Catholic Church." (ellipsis yours)
I notice you have nothing to say about the original subject regarding the Bible. The claim was made that the bible contains no revisions in its teachings, and I pointed out that stoning seems to be out of favor, along with the dietary laws.
The jury is still out on slaver, but the most recent editions of the New testament still instructs slaves to obey their masters, even when their masters are unjust.
My ancestors were too poor to own slaves, but my grandparents' neighbors had slaves, and they used the Bible to justify it. They went to their graves thinking they were good Christians.
Trying to change the subject again, are ya? That only works with the easily distracted. LOL
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.