Post Reply
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Should I be Offended?
2 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 9:03PM #11
Dutch777
Posts: 9,058

Mar 29, 2012 -- 7:55PM, Nino0814 wrote:

Here's another example of Religious Conservatives clashing with science: www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/2...Bully for the scientist for refusing to be censured.  




Since when has the RCC championed dogma-free, theology unencumbered science?


Most telling is the remark by one cleric that a free and unimpeded discussion of stem cell research would "confuse the faithful for decades to come".  Translation:  RCs might get the facts and think for themselves rather than swallowing the Vatican party line.


Just imagine if those zealots were in charge of society.  Thank Providence for Secularism.

The Path to Moon Lake
doesn't go there.
So walk your own Dharma*Path;
be mindful.

Dutch
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 9:09PM #12
Nino0814
Posts: 1,656

Mar 29, 2012 -- 9:03PM, Dutch777 wrote:


Most telling is the remark by one cleric that a free and unimpeded discussion of stem cell research would "confuse the faithful for decades to come".  Translation:  RCs might get the facts and think for themselves rather than swallowing the Vatican party line.



Dutch, I had the same reaction.  That is one of the justification the RCC used for keeping the scriptures away from the laity.  They might get confused.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 9:13PM #13
Dutch777
Posts: 9,058

Nino,


You're too restrained in your evaluation.


[/quote]

IMO the challenge to traditional beliefs is much greater than moderate to liberal Christians make it out to be.


Traditional beliefs are flat-out incompatable with the findings of contemporary science.


  Accepting Darwinian evolution makes it very difficult to reconcile many traditional ideas about salvation that are based on a perfect creation and a Fall.


There is no intellectually honest reconcilliation between the two.


 The Genesis myth is the foundation of traditional soteriology.  Jesus death on the cross to "pay for our sins", to ransom our souls from Satan, and to destroy the last enemy (death) is tied to the Genesis myth.  


Yes, and it's also tied-into the sacrificial concept of placating angry, bloodthirsty deities --- a belief common to both 2nd. Temple Judaism and many Pagan religions.


 IMO those who reject science, or the logical extension of science's impact on traditional beliefs, love their religion more than the truth.


The reality is that they're actively hostile to empirically demonstrated Truth if it clashes with their anachronistic belief system.   Those people would be more at home in 15th. century Spain, burning "heretics" at the stake.


[/quote]


The Path to Moon Lake
doesn't go there.
So walk your own Dharma*Path;
be mindful.

Dutch
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 9:37PM #14
RJMcElwain
Posts: 2,881

Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:48PM, journeying wrote:


"Republicans" today bear little resemblance to traditional Republicans. Today Goldwater would be far too liberal for this mob. And they would never accept Reagan. They live in the bubble created by Fox and they vote against their own best interests. If there were a real Republican party or candidate, I'd probably still be one.




I think if Barry Goldwater were around today, he'd be a Libertarian, which is what I left the Republicans for. Nowadays, the Republicans seem to be directionless and unprincipled. Of course, I think the same can be said for the other guys as well.

Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."
St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 9:39PM #15
slate
Posts: 221

I hate to admit it, but I was 25 years old.  It was my second time voting in the presidential election. At that time, the voting age in most states was 21.  I voted for - would you believe- Richard Nixon!  John Kennedy was elected in that election.  Needless ot say, I was too young to vote!  They should have made me wait unitl I was 35! 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 11:12PM #16
journeying
Posts: 2,317

I cast my first presidential vote for Goldwater. I lived with Texans and I knew far too much about Johnson to vote for him.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2012 - 12:48PM #17
Jupiter6208
Posts: 2,277

I cast my first presidential vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980 with no regrets actually.

"A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person."  Dave Berry



You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger. Buddha.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2012 - 8:14PM #18
Dutch777
Posts: 9,058

Old Dutch cast his first Presidential vote in 1852 for Franklin Pierce.


OD will always vote for the Episcopalian candidate.  Cool

The Path to Moon Lake
doesn't go there.
So walk your own Dharma*Path;
be mindful.

Dutch
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 12:01AM #19
slu_magoo
Posts: 991

slu's voting history...


1996 - Ralph Nader


2000 - Ralph Nader


2004 - Ralph Nader


2008 - Barack Obama


2012 - God, I hope Nader runs again

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 12:06AM #20
slu_magoo
Posts: 991

Mar 29, 2012 -- 9:37PM, RJMcElwain wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:48PM, journeying wrote:


"Republicans" today bear little resemblance to traditional Republicans. Today Goldwater would be far too liberal for this mob. And they would never accept Reagan. They live in the bubble created by Fox and they vote against their own best interests. If there were a real Republican party or candidate, I'd probably still be one.




I think if Barry Goldwater were around today, he'd be a Libertarian, which is what I left the Republicans for. Nowadays, the Republicans seem to be directionless and unprincipled. Of course, I think the same can be said for the other guys as well.




Talk about directionless and unprincipled!  Bob, have you paid attention to what's passing for 'libertarian' these days?  On another thread, another poster wrote that people of conscience should support 'libertarian' hero Ron Paul.  (You agreed.)  Ron Paul is nothing more than a states-righter.  That's not libertarian.  Unless you want to count George Wallace and Strom Thurmond among your fold (or your fold of deceased heroes), then it makes no sense to be a Ron Paul supporter.  Liberty should be for all in the US -- that's libertarianism.  Letting some states oppress and discriminate at will--which is what Ron Paul supports just like George Wallace before him--is hardly libertarian.  It's chickenshit.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook