Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Editor of Nature institutes open warfare against Christianity.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Editor of Nature institutes open warfare against Christianity.

    Nature 447, 753 (14 June 2007) Published online 13 June 2007

    Evolution and the brain (Editorial)
    With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

  • #2
    Is it possible to post a longer quote?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by SUTG View Post
      Is it possible to post a longer quote?
      "With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside."

      The reason I said that it was open warfare against Christianity is because it is essentially only certain Christian denominations (with the possible exception of a few small Jewish sects) who insist that human beings were "created in the image of God".

      "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Note the repetition for emphasis).

      Thus, the act of "blowing off" this Christian belief that the editor of Nature did in his opening sentence, constitutes an act of open warfare against those who believe that the Bible is the word of God (according to the latest polls, a majority of Americans).

      No amount of weasel wording can hide this act of open warfare against believing Christians.

      The Nature editor was wise for not trying this against Moslems.
      Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
      Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by bob b View Post
        "With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside."

        The reason I said that it was open warfare against Christianity is because it is essentially only certain Christian denominations (with the possible exception of a few small Jewish sects) who insist that human beings were "created in the image of God".

        "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Note the repetition for emphasis).

        Thus, the act of "blowing off" this Christian belief that the editor of Nature did in his opening sentence, constitutes an act of open warfare against those who believe that the Bible is the word of God (according to the latest polls, a majority of Americans).

        No amount of weasel wording can hide this act of open warfare against believing Christians.

        The Nature editor was wise for not trying this against Moslems.
        How is the editor of Nature committing an act of warfare against Christianity by stating his views? Your OP shows that the editor's statement was made in an editorial, not a published scientific paper.

        Incidentally, while the Bible may state specifically that man was created in the image of God, it is not only Christians or Jews who believe this. For example, some Hindus believe that Lord Brahma split himself in two to create male and female. Other Hindus believe that all living things are derived from Lord Brahma's body. You might also want to investigate the Apache creation story.
        "If god doesn't like the way I live, Let him tell me, not you."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by pleasedtomeetme View Post
          How is the editor of Nature committing an act of warfare against Christianity by stating his views? Your OP shows that the editor's statement was made in an editorial, not a published scientific paper.
          Apparently the editor must feel that the editorial page of a scientific journal is an appropriate place to publish personal opinions that are bound to offend the religious beliefs of a large segment of the Western society he lives in. On the other hand since Nature is a British publication he may feel comfortable doing this from there. But to me I can't help but wonder why he would do such a provocative thing? Is he frustrated that after all these years that so many people still believe in the Bible? Somehow I feel that this latest approach will backfire.

          Incidentally, while the Bible may state specifically that man was created in the image of God, it is not only Christians or Jews who believe this. For example, some Hindus believe that Lord Brahma split himself in two to create male and female. Other Hindus believe that all living things are derived from Lord Brahma's body. You might also want to investigate the Apache creation story.
          So this makes his action more reasonable?

          BTW, is your reply intended to be a refutation or only the normal tactic of critics to obfuscate?
          Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
          Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

          Comment


          • #6
            And Christians truly question why they have received labels to the degree of "warmongers." A writer freely expresses his opinion in a paper only to be misconstrued as beginning some sort of violent conflict.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bob b View Post
              Apparently the editor must feel that the editorial page of a scientific journal is an appropriate place to publish personal opinions that are bound to offend the religious beliefs of a large segment of the Western society he lives in. On the other hand since Nature is a British publication he may feel comfortable doing this from there. But to me I can't help but wonder why he would do such a provocative thing? Is he frustrated that after all these years that so many people still believe in the Bible? Somehow I feel that this latest approach will backfire.
              I'm sure he had the foresight to how his remarks would be viewed. You see, there are some people in this world who do not kowtow to every group that may be offended by what they say. Nature is a scientific periodical, after all.

              Originally posted by bob b
              BTW, is your reply intended to be a refutation or only the normal tactic of critics to obfuscate?
              You stated in you OP that it is only "certain Christian denominations (with the possible exception of a few small Jewish sects) who insist that human beings were 'created in the image of God.'"

              The point of my post was illustrate the fact that your statement is not true. Did that clear up any of the obfuscation for you?
              "If god doesn't like the way I live, Let him tell me, not you."

              Comment


              • #8
                He just seems to be saying that the idea of creationism can be cast aside. Not really too controversial amongst the scientific community.

                Unless you equate Christianity with YEC, you can probably call off the jihad.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                  He just seems to be saying that the idea of creationism can be cast aside. Not really too controversial amongst the scientific community.
                  In fact, it is somewhat akin to, say, a protestant Christian writer saying that the idea of transubstantiation can be cast aside. Not really too controversial among the protestant Christian community.

                  Actually, neither of these subjects can be found to be truly controversial at all in either community. If anything, the percentage of protestant Christians who believe firmly in transubstantiation is likely a much higher percentage than that of scientists who hold to belief in creationism.
                  Just to give the creationists among us an easily understood analogy, of course. God alone knows I have tried to the best of my ability to speak plainly, and such reasonable discourses have thus far been highly ineffective.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Paine View Post
                    And Christians truly question why they have received labels to the degree of "warmongers." A writer freely expresses his opinion in a paper only to be misconstrued as beginning some sort of violent conflict.
                    The editorial page of a prestigious scientific journal was not the place to express a personal opinion using a wording from the Bible ("image of God") to express his contempt for people of faith. Creationism and/or ID must be making great inroads with the public fto cause someone in his position to do such a thing as he did in the way that he did.

                    The more such things happen the more people will begin to see that atheists are now openly engaging in warfare with people of faith.

                    The mask has been thrown off.
                    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by bob b View Post
                      The editorial page of a prestigious scientific journal was not the place to express a personal opinion using a wording from the Bible ("image of God") to express his contempt for people of faith. Creationism and/or ID must be making great inroads with the public fto cause someone in his position to do such a thing as he did in the way that he did.

                      The more such things happen the more people will begin to see that atheists are now openly engaging in warfare with people of faith.

                      The mask has been thrown off.
                      ed·i·to·ri·al /ˌɛdɪˈtɔriəl, -ˈtoʊr-/
                      –noun
                      1. an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors.


                      You truly are a piece of work, bob. Would you care to redefine the entire English dictionary while you're at it? You've been on quite a roll today, between this and other threads.

                      One might ask, if an editorial is apparently not the place to relate an opinion, then where is?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Paine View Post
                        ed·i·to·ri·al /ˌɛdɪˈtɔriəl, -ˈtoʊr-/
                        –noun
                        1. an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors.

                        You truly are a piece of work, bob. Would you care to redefine the entire English dictionary while you're at it? You've been on quite a roll today, between this and other threads.

                        One might ask, if an editorial is apparently not the place to relate an opinion, then where is?
                        Try reading the totality of what I said instead of "cherry picking" a word here and there and using a dictionary on a certain word.

                        You evolutionists seem to fit a pattern: never directly address a subject, instead try to obfuscate by misquoting or partially quoting. You are a classic example of the genre.
                        Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                        Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Actually, it isn't even an opinion, but a scientifically established fact, if all that he is saying is that we weren't created fully formed by a god. That is why I wanted to see the rest of the editorial.

                          Would you have been less offended if he said that "the belief that astrology is true can surely be cast aside"?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                            Actually, it isn't even an opinion, but a scientifically established fact, if all that he is saying is that we weren't created fully formed by a god. That is why I wanted to see the rest of the editorial.
                            B]Scientifically established fact[/B]?

                            But what other option is available to an atheist?

                            As I said you guys must be getting really worried for you (and the editor) to use such obviously unscientific arguments.
                            Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                            Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by bob b View Post
                              The editorial page of a prestigious scientific journal was not the place to express a personal opinion using a wording from the Bible ("image of God") to express his contempt for people of faith. Creationism and/or ID must be making great inroads with the public fto cause someone in his position to do such a thing as he did in the way that he did.

                              The more such things happen the more people will begin to see that atheists are now openly engaging in warfare with people of faith.

                              The mask has been thrown off.
                              If an editorial were published in a religious magazine slighting atheists would you be equally angry?
                              "Those who have crossed
                              With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
                              Remember us--if at all--not as lost
                              Violent souls, but only
                              As the hollow men
                              The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X