Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...
Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!
Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.
Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.
Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.
Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!
Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?
Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!
Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!
Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?
Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?
I know the things you describe; I can't stand it when threads degenerate into an exchange of senseless one-liners, people "zinging" each other, and the "pack behavior." When a post goes thataway, my eyes glaze over. I usually just stop reading it, though will look on my Comments page to see if anyone's trying to reach me.
I did go take a look at the late-night exchange last evening that VR pointed me to. All I can say is: Hey, the commandment is "love thy neighbor," not "abuse thy neighbor," or "insult thy neighbor," or "goad thy neighbor." Enuf said.
But I can understand the frustration that many Christian believers have with a very common attitude encountered among some of the people to whom this post is addressed. That Christians are illiterate morons, superstitious, anti-rational, undereducated folks who are deserving of all the contempt that the "enlightened Olympian types" [Judge Bork's term] see fit to heap on them. Actually, an example of this from a very thoughtful and circumspect person appears either on this thread, or the Phoebe thread (I forget which).
The subject was the Galileo affair. Whenever this comes up, it seems that people smugly conclude that Galileo came to the attention of the Inquisition strictly because his science somehow contradicted Church orthodoxy. This is a gratuitous oversimplification: Galileo had powerful support in the College of Cardinals; the Pope dithered. Finally, Galileo was forced to "recant." Two points: the affair really had little to do with either science or theology. What it had everything to do with was the political pressures brought to bear on the Church in the environment of the Counter-Reformation. Europe was in meltdown; sectarian warfare was the order of the day. Don't forget, this was in the day of "the religious state," where monarchs were considered the "defenders of the Faith." Rome had irresistible political motives for consolidating and strengthening the institutional Church. Galileo had to "fall in line" (or be excommunicated, which he chose not to do). This was all about "political discipline," not science.
Actually, the Christian Church has an incredibly distinguished intellectual reputation dating back to very early in its history, and continuing to this day. All the great universities of Europe (and in early America) were church-founded and supported institutions, with a professoriate mostly men in religious orders. To this day, the Jesuits are considered among the finest teachers in the world. If the Church had not "recovered" the great legacy of the ancient world, transmitting it throughout the West, the astounding intellectual and creative outburst of the Renaissance would be inconceivable.
And certainly Sir Isaac Newton -- to name just one great intellectual eminence -- was not handicapped by his total devotion to the Christian religion in his development of classical mechanics.
I'm just ranting here. Back on point: The one thing I simply can't stand -- the one really unforgivable thing -- is when I post an "argument," and, no matter what its subject may be, my "respondent" changes it into an argument about me: My motives are questioned! Or worse, motives that I do not have at all are gratuitously attributed to me. I can handle outright personal attacks (which really are quite rare); but I hate it when people put words in my mouth, rather than read -- and understand -- what I have actually written.
Anyhoot, now I'm running on too long here. To just wrap up: I just think we all need to take a look at our own behavior. If it ridicules, if it's a personal attack, if it doesn't contribute something of substance to the conversation, then maybe we need to resist using the Post button.
People have to take responsibility for what they do here. Thanks for writing, js1138.
Something for you to ponder: Those bright lines were drawn quite recently by judges who were/are rather sympathetic to leftist positions especially concerning business and commerce.
Visitors to this thread should be aware that a small cadre of anti-science (and especially anti-evolution) people have perfected the practice of trolling for insults, so that when their provocative posts are answered, they can then complain of "abusive" behavior. They do this in the hope of having our threads pulled. Such people are a detriment to this website, and to the conservative cause. Everyone is therefore urged to NEVER respond to such posters. It can be difficult, because they are skilled at inciting flame wars; but it is only in this way that we can maintain a high standard of civil discourse, and preserve Jim Robinson's excellent forum as a place where conservatives can gather.Rather self-explanatory. And note this: urging people to avoid flame wars is not abusive conduct. But what I want to show you starts at post 556, when "NewLand" pings me with a link to a new thread he has started: You Can Begin To Learn About The Bible Here... . Now that Bible thread is an interesting thread, because at post 9 of that thread NewLand says this:
Visitors to this thread should be aware that a small cadre of anti-religion (and especially anti-creation) people have perfected the practice of trolling for insults, so that when their provocative posts are answered, they can then complain of "abusive" behavior. They do this in the hope of having our threads pulled. Such people are a detriment to this website, and to the conservative cause. Everyone is therefore urged to NEVER respond to such posters. It can be difficult, because they are skilled at inciting flame wars; but it is only in this way that we can maintain a high standard of civil discourse, and preserve Jim Robinson's excellent forum as a place where true conservatives can gather.Pretty clever, huh? A ripoff of my post, and a bogus warning about a bogus threat if ever there was one, because I don't think the evolution crowd spends much time in religion threads. And we certainly don't go there and cause disruptions. Never. Yet for some reason -- put your thinking cap on, A-Girl -- I was specifically pinged to see this thread, where I would see my warning (about flame wars in the evolution thread) being directed against me in a bible thread! Why was I pinged to see that?
I'll tell you why. They intended for me to visit a bible thread and start making a fuss, so they could complain to Jim Robinson about how horrible I am, and what a "Christian basher" I am. Think about it, A-Girl. Why else copy my warning language, and then ping me to a thread I would otherwise never visit? Just to be friendly? Because they enjoy my company? Is there any alternative explanation for this except that I was being set up for an abuse-button hit? I may be paranoid, sure, but in that case there's another explanation for the situation. What is it?
But they got a big surprise. When I responded to the unexpected ping, and saw what they had done, I posted this:
I fully approve of this thread, and I wish you well. I despise the actions of all disruptors. Therefore, I consent to your use of my text in post #9. I freely give you this consent even though you didn't seek it. May God bless all who peacefully participate in this thread.The "Bible" thread kind of withered and died after not too many more postings. Like it ran out of steam for some reason. My suspicion is that the whole thread was created to be nothing but a trap to get me banned. That's right; the whole thread was a fake facade. It wasn't about the bible, it was about getting evolution supporters banned. I can't prove that, and you may now suspect that I've gone off the deep end, but tell me this -- but what else explains what I've pointed out?41 posted on 07/10/2003 8:10 AM EDT by PatrickHenry
In any event, these are the people who claim I'm a Christian basher. Look how they set me up, hoping I would bash, and look how I acted instead. You wanted examples. You wanted evidence. Okay. Now you have it.
You are a party in interest, AndrewC -- mainly by virtue of being a "victim"....
No, it really hasn't. Slavery was well established before Christ and Christianity has been critical of it almost from the beginning.
There have been Christian slave owners but they had to hammer their square peg of their world philosophy into the round hole of the teachings of Jesus.
And not everybody who goes to church or comes from a "Christian" country is a Christian.
Some monsters look to the Bible to justify their monstrosities, and some look to Darwin. In either case, the problem is neither the Bible nor Darwin, but the monsters themselves.
One would think that this point is virtually self-evident, but there are a surprising number of people who choose to blame one or the other for someone's bad ats...
Do you see nothing provocative, and arrogant in this unsolicited post? So arrogant as a MOF that you don't even "get" WHY NewLand would mimic/mock your words.
If I say: "Someone in this room hasn't taken a bath all week," and I get a response from someone who tells me that his personal hygene is none of my business ... well, what are we to think?
A tactic employed by many, in hopes of displaying the irony bestowed by the original author.
Of course, this tactic only works when the original author can be humble enough to "get it".
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.