Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Editor of Nature institutes open warfare against Christianity.

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by bob b View Post
    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.
    The central focus of your post seemed to be anger expressed at a writer for expressing an opinion in an editorial. If I "cherry picked" anything out and singled it for address, it was essentially your entire post.

    Originally posted by bob b
    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.
    I will not make yet another generalization regarding you creationists (although the temptation is nigh overwhelming). I will, however, say that you, bob b, seem to be incapable of both reasonable refutation and admittance of error, given that I have yet to see you concede a single argument in which you were obviously "truthsmacked," to borrow the board colloquialism (and there have been many such arguments, including this one). Instead you simply change the subject entirely by some abstract reference to the "patterns" of your opponents.

    Allow me to put it simply. The point is that you said something stupid about the article, and I pointed out your stupidity. You responded by postulating that I somehow misinterpreted your very clear post, which seems to indicate, then, that you are at the very least an ineffective communicator, and at very best an immature "intarweber" incapable of admitting to an occasionally ludicrous post.

    And I would further like to note that if you are denying your previous reference to the editorial as opinion, then it would be obviously implied that you consider the editorial's objectionable content to be fact, would it not?

    Again, the entire purpose of an editorial is to allow a writer to express opinion.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by bob b
      No amount of weasel wording can hide this act of open warfare against believing Christians.
      Originally posted by bob b
      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.
      Irony, how I love thee! It's most amusing when you accuse someone of cherry picking a wod here and there when your entire post and misguided angst is directed against a single sentence without any provided context.

      You see, had you actually read the article (I know, I expect too much of you), you would have seen that the author's provocative opening line was actually a direct reference to a piece Senator Sam Brownback wrote in the New York Times in which he refers to man as reflecting a "unique image and likeness in the created order". The editor of nature, writing in reference to this, argues that man's physical body betrays its natural history. The editor also argues that not only does man's body betray its natural history, but now we are beginning to see that his emotions also reflect their natural history. This is in direct reference to a paper titled "Moral psychology: The depths of disgust", published this month in Nature.

      What he's actually saying is not all that controversial. In fact, you'd probably agree that in a literal physical sense, we are not created in the image of God. The editor makes it unquestionably clear that he is only referring to our physical bodies.

      Does God have an immune system? Does he have a scapula? How about a humoral head that fits nicely into the glenoid fossa? Does he have t-lymphocytes, b-lymphocytes, and natural killer cells? Does he have rods? Does he have cones? Does he have neurons that fire which produce thoughts and emotions?

      Unless you believe God's body possesses these traits, then you really can't go on about arguing that our physical body is created in the image of God. The editor of nature argues that our physical and measurable bodies betray our natural history rather than having been created in the image of God.

      Quoting part of the article that adds context and helps to clarify:
      "This does not utterly invalidate the idea that the human mind is, as Senator Brownback would have it, a reflection of the mind of God. But the suggestion that any entity capable of creating the Universe has a mind encumbered with the same emotional structures and perceptual framework as that of an upright ape adapted to living in small, intensely social peer-groups on the African savannah seems a priori unlikely."

      But let's cut to the chase here: it's much more fun to get up in arms about the evil evolutionists declaring open war on the Bible than to accurately portray an opinion, isn't it?

      Bob, you can do better than this. You are a better man than this. I realize you are merely echoing more prominent voices, but does this excuse you from any responsibility?
      Last edited by Johnny; June 14th, 2007, 10:28 PM.
      “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

      Comment


      • #33
        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.

        "a few small Jewish sects"?! I find that insulting. This is in the Jewish Bible. Remember where you got your Bible from.

        Comment


        • #34
          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.
          Remember that it is Christians who declared war on secular society long ago. The idea that they're surprised, and stung, when secularists push back is more than a little amusing. Christendom has pushed around skeptics, intellectuals, and free thinkers for centuries. Now they're getting a taste of their own medicine. About time!




          Comment


          • #35
            Quick question for Bob, did you knowingly cherry-pick one sentence from the editorial, or didn't you even read the entire editorial?
            "In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system, most of the funds advanced to borrowers (assets of the bank) are created by the banks themselves and are not merely transferred from one set of depositors to another set of borrowers." - Walker F. Todd

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JustinFoldsFive View Post
              Quick question for Bob, did you knowingly cherry-pick one sentence from the editorial, or didn't you even read the entire editorial?
              What part of "the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside" did you not understand?

              He threw down the gauntlet, I didn't.
              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


              • #37
                Originally posted by Bob B
                What part of "the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside" did you not understand?

                He threw down the gauntlet, I didn't.
                I take it you didn't read Johnny's response, explaining how the author of the editorial was referring to a literal physical sense?
                "In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system, most of the funds advanced to borrowers (assets of the bank) are created by the banks themselves and are not merely transferred from one set of depositors to another set of borrowers." - Walker F. Todd

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by JustinFoldsFive View Post
                  I take it you didn't read Johnny's response, explaining how the author of the editorial was referring to a literal physical sense?
                  The damage was done in the opening sentence when the editor in effect mocked the concept of "created in the image of God".

                  Nobody, including the editor, really knows what that phrase means in detail, so he was extremely unwise to "blow it off" as he did.

                  The phrase in scripture was repeated for emphasis, so any bible-believing Christian might conclude that it is important, even if the exact meaning is unclear. But it clearly distinguishes mankind from the rest of the animal word in an important way.

                  Thus, the statement that we should set this idea aside was only the opinion of an unbeliever, and should never have appeared on the editorial page of a scientific journal that claims to be neutral about religion.

                  To me this proves that they lie when they claim they are neutral.
                  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


                  • #39
                    Seems some folks aren't happy till they have something to complain about.




                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Granite View Post
                      Seems some folks aren't happy till they have something to complain about.
                      I believe that Christians have been too tolerant of the ravings of atheists and need to wake up. The editorial in Nature should serve as a wakeup call as to what these people are up to.

                      When atheists misuse their positions of trust in society to try to impose their world view on the rest of us, it needs to be pointed out that they are doing so.
                      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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by bob b View Post
                        I believe that Christians have been too tolerant of the ravings of atheists and need to wake up. The editorial in Nature should serve as a wakeup call as to what these people are up to.

                        When atheists misuse their positions of trust in society to try to impose their world view on the rest of us, it needs to be pointed out that they are doing so.
                        Give me a break. The "ravings" of which you speak consist of an editorial (that you seem not to have even read in its entirety) which critiques a theological concept even you claim not to fully understand. If anyone needs a clue here, Bob, it's you.

                        These people are "up to" trying to understand the cosmos and its origins, a subject of disinterest to Christians with stunted curiosity. Your whining and griping is typical of thin skinned Christians who can't hold their own in the court of intellectual inquiry. Secularists, free thinkers, and skeptics can challenge you guys all they like, and your sob sister routine won't change that.




                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Granite View Post
                          Give me a break. The "ravings" of which you speak consist of an editorial (that you seem not to have even read in its entirety) which critiques a theological concept even you claim not to fully understand. If anyone needs a clue here, Bob, it's you.

                          These people are "up to" trying to understand the cosmos and its origins, a subject of disinterest to Christians with stunted curiosity. Your whining and griping is typical of thin skinned Christians who can't hold their own in the court of intellectual inquiry. Secularists, free thinkers, and skeptics can challenge you guys all they like, and your sob sister routine won't change that.
                          So you agree that it is perfectly appropriate for an editorial in a scientific journal which claims neutrality regarding religion "critiques a theological concept"?
                          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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Johnny View Post
                            But let's cut to the chase here: it's much more fun to get up in arms about the evil evolutionists declaring open war on the Bible than to accurately portray an opinion, isn't it?
                            That's Bob's MO.

                            Bob, you can do better than this.
                            I'd like to think so, but I have serious doubts.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Granite View Post
                              Remember that it is Christians who declared war on secular society long ago. The idea that they're surprised, and stung, when secularists push back is more than a little amusing. Christendom has pushed around skeptics, intellectuals, and free thinkers for centuries. Now they're getting a taste of their own medicine. About time!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by chair View Post
                                "a few small Jewish sects"?! I find that insulting. This is in the Jewish Bible. Remember where you got your Bible from.
                                Give me a break Chair. You know yourself that the majority of Jews, especially in the US, no longer believe in the Bible, especially Genesis.

                                --------

                                Correction: many Jews believe in Genesis in apparently a similar manner that old earth creationists do.
                                Last edited by bob b; June 15th, 2007, 10:44 AM.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X