Editor of Nature institutes open warfare against Christianity.
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
"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.
pleasedtomeetme
New member
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."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.
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.
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.
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?
pleasedtomeetme
New member
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.
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.'"bob b said:
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?
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.
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?
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.
SUTG
New member
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"?
Would you have been less offended if he said that "the belief that astrology is true can surely be cast aside"?
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.
PlastikBuddha
New member
If an editorial were published in a religious magazine slighting atheists would you be equally angry?
Why should I? Are religious magazines supposed to be neutral on the subject of God in the same way that science journals claim they are neutral about God?
The reason the general public accepts current science teaching in schools is because scientists claim they are neutral about God (a baldfaced lie of course, as the editorial in Nature makes abundantly clear).
PlastikBuddha
New member
So because science is religiously neutral, all scientists must be as well? If a scientist writes an editorial in which he confesses his personal belief in God and that man is made in His image you would be as outraged as you are by a scientist voicing his personal belief that man is not made in God's image?
Silly boy. If such an editorial appeared in a science journal the editor would be fired immediately on the grounds that an editorial in a science journal was not the place to express personal opinions about religion.
PlastikBuddha
New member
I seriously doubt that. This persecution of Christians in a nation that is Christian by majority is just imagination. Look at how often politicians throw God around to court popularity. Speaking hypothetically, though- would you be as idignant if the situation were reversed?
SUTG
New member
Science is also neutral on the deliciousness of ham sandwiches. Still, I know of quite a few scientists who would love a nice, toasty ham sandwich. Go figure.