The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Nerin

:eek: gosh,is JC for real,it must be tiring to be so pompous.

They exist alright....but I won't be bowing in their direction any time soon!

so basically, you acknowledge that i'm free to not be a christian, to follow another faith, but i should still bow to your god??? ( because if i don't i go to hell presumably) and that its fine for me to acknowledge your god, but you won't be respectful to mine?
haha what a funny bunch we have here on this forum

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Actually your logic is off.

hahahaha what a lulzy comment.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote: »

I do see where you're going but I do feel you've just let some juicy halibut off the hook and thrown it back into the wild ocean....you'll probably never catch a piece that nice again. It was a good moment nontheless.

Well, I've never had any reason to doubt Brian's honesty, nor, as you know, do I consider the Discovery Institute and their ilk to be any more representative of Christianity than Phelps.

I am still appalled that anyone would repeat or condone life-threatening slander for the sake of scoring debating points, though, or put it at the same level as "taking scripture out of context". St Paul might well be amazed at the things people make of his words, but he's pretty immune to death threats at this stage.

I haven't yet seen any comment from wolfsbane.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with backtracking and I heartily commend Brian for having the 'nads to admit that he was wrong.

I'd still like to hear his opinion of Mims and company, though. And whether they can continue to be trusted to be honest seekers-after-truth?

I wouldn't trust what either has written. Even if Mims firmly believed that he heard what he did.

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, I've never had any reason to doubt Brian's honesty, nor, as you know, do I consider the Discovery Institute and their ilk to be any more representative of Christianity than Phelps.

cordially,
Scofflaw

For that I am well aware that you don't tar us all with the same brush, but there are those that do.

BrianCalgary

To show my point, here is a post from another thread:

stevejazzx wrote: »

I know they don't represent moderates but come on people surely it is plain to see from something like this that religon texts only feed this kind of fundamentlaism, for if you were to question them - they could rightfully claim that thier mandate lies in the bible, no? Muslims seem sure theirs is firmly contained within the pages of the Quran so what's the difference? For me their is very little differnece... it seems that all all people need to start a holy war is a holy book claiming a true faith...biggest probelm facing mankind in my opinion.

Steve

Where Steve puts fundamentalist Christians in the same boat as Muslims. The only Christians that are exempt are moderates. Does this mean that all other Christians are the same as those in Jesus Camp?

And we'lll blame it all on a book.

Can you see my difficulties and frustrations?

stevejazzx

BrianCalgary wrote: »

To show my point, here is a post from another thread:


Where Steve puts fundamentalist Christians in the same boat as Muslims. The only Christians that are exempt are moderates. Does this mean that all other Christians are the same as those in Jesus Camp?

You seem to be mixed up, I didn't quite say that at all:

Here is a breakdown of what I actually siad Brian:

*Fundamentalists = People in Jesus Camp

*Who do they (the people from the Jesus Camp) represent in my opinon: They do not represent the moderates (it's written clearly in the first line of my post i.e the one that you qouted)

*What's one of the things fundamentalists use to defend their actions? The bible

*Who else does this? Fundamentalist Muslim

That's it.

The rest of your conclusions are made out from reading my post incorrectly and I might suggest, with some presumption too.

BC wrote:

And we'lll blame it all on a book.
Can you see my difficulties and frustrations?

Well certainly, you quote one of my posts from another thread entirely, partially out of context and paste it in here when all that was asked of you from Robin and Scofflaw was to clarify your stance on something that is nothing to do with me.

BrianCalgary

Come one steve you asy that there is little difference between fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.
I put in your entire conclusion of your watching of the Jesus camp. I didn't put in your description of teh movie because I didn't feel it relevant to the discussion, just your conclusions where you atate that: Muslims seem sure theirs is firmly contained within the pages of the Quran so what's the difference? For me their is very little differnece..

With that line you have tarred us with the same brush.

Oh except for the moderates, which you don't define.

Robin and scofflaw asked for clarifiaction and it has everything to do with you because yoyr post is exactly what I'm talking about. looking at Jesus Camp and concluding that we are all alike.

stevejazzx

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And a reply to these points seperately:

Where Steve puts fundamentalist Christians in the same boat as Muslims.

If you examine what I wrote

for if you were to question them (christian fundamentalists) - they could rightfully claim that thier mandate lies in the bible, no? Muslims seem sure theirs is firmly contained within the pages of the Quran so what's the difference?


-Point one of that sentence states that these fundamentlists christians could rightfully claim their mandate or raisond'être can be found within the bible

-Point two of that sentence is that any Muslim will say the same about the Quaran - that it gives them their purpose

Now would you like to argue either of those two points with me becasue that's what I said.

BC wrote:

The only Christians that are exempt are moderates. Does this mean that all other Christians are the same as those in Jesus Camp?

I said, and it's quite clear form my post, that the people in the Jesus Camp movie were fundamentalists and that they (Jesus Camp) do not represnet moderates. Now only with very crude twisting of words could you draw the conclusion that I am saying all other types of christian (the phrase you use) are like those represneted in the Jesus Camp. I didn't say that, Brian. This other groups of christians that you refer to, who aren't moderates or fundamentalists, were coined by you and were not discussed by me in my post.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

And that controversy in full, folks, from the good people at Wikipedia:

In early March 2006 the Texas Academy of Science (TAS) honored University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka as its 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist during its 109th Annual Meeting at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. In a March 3, 2006 lecture at this 109th Annual Meeting, Pianka suggested that the human population is likely to crash, and that a mutant strain of Ebola (which has up to a 90% mortality rate) is a possible culprit. In response to Pianka's speech, Forrest Mims states that Pianka had "endorsed the elimination of 90 percent of the human population" through a disease such as an airborne strain of the Ebola virus. This report was reported in Alex Jones' prisonplanet.com. and also widely propagated through blogs including William Dembski's "Uncommon Descent" and "Telic Thoughts" (another pro-intelligent design blog which has since recanted its original report), Drudge Report and the Discovery Institute—the hub of the intelligent design movement and at which both Mims and Dembski sit as fellows. Dembski has also said that he has reported Pianka to the United States Department of Homeland Security.

Hmm. Statements by a prominent ecologist and evolutionary scientist are taken out of context - nothing new there - but reporting them in the unsupported testimony of one person to the Department of Homeland Security as 'fomenting bioterrorism'? So the guy gets investigated as a potential terrorist - and surprise surprise, nothing. No-one backs Mims' "testimony". Meanwhile, Dr Pianka gets death threats.

Nice. Nice work. No attempt to discredit individual scientists there, nope. I'm genuinely appalled.

Do you think this kind of thing is right, wolfsbane, JC, Brian? Do you think getting your intellectual opponents investigated as terrorists is good? Do you think you should lie about them, hand them over to security forces, send them and their family death threats? Do you think you should render them unto Caesar? Is that your morality?

Commandment 9: "thou shalt not bear false witness".

Jesus wept,
Scofflaw

Glad to answer your questions, Scofflaw.

Do I think it right that Mims made these allegations? Yes, if they are true.

Do I think getting one's intellectual opponents investigated as terrorists is good? Yes, if they are advocating mass extermination.

Do I think one should lie about them? Never.

Hand them over to security forces? Only if they are commiting a crime.

Send them and their family death threats? No, that is a crime - and more importantly, a sin.

The issue is - Was Mims telling the truth or not. You say he took the comments out of context. But the issue goes even beyond whether Mims twisted Pianka's words: Mims also alleges the meeting was deliberately and openly censored. It should be easy enough to assess Mims credibility by testing this: surely such an important meeting will have been video or audio-taped. If it was and shows Pianka to have been lied about, then Mims is exposed.

But if it was not, should you not be wondering why not?

stevejazzx

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Come one steve you asy that there is little difference between fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.
I put in your entire conclusion of your watching of the Jesus camp. I didn't put in your description of teh movie because I didn't feel it relevant to the discussion, just your conclusions where you atate that: Muslims seem sure theirs is firmly contained within the pages of the Quran so what's the difference? For me their is very little differnece..

With that line you have tarred us with the same brush.

What?
Why are you saying this?
My point was simply that fundamntalists from both religons use thier holy books to justify their actions.

bc wrote:

Oh except for the moderates, which you don't define.

The word moderate has bounced around this thread thousand of times and unless it is specifically required, it is never defined. In this case I was obviously/simply refering to peaceful christians who live and let live across cultures etc.

bc wrote:

Robin and scofflaw asked for clarifiaction and it has everything to do with you because yoyr post is exactly what I'm talking about. looking at Jesus Camp and concluding that we are all alike.

No, you used a quote from another thread to justify your uturn in this thread. It is absolutely unbelievable that you could have read my post about the Jesus Camp movie and thought my conclusion was that all christians are alike and that all christians were the same as those in that movie.
It is a million miles away from the actual point I was making about fundamentlaism and holy books. I even added a provision at the begining of my post where I specifically illustrated that I was not talking about moderates, the general defintion of which you seeemed to have forgotten.

BrianCalgary

stevejazzx wrote: »

What?
Why are you saying this?
My point was simply that fundamntalists from both religons use thier holy books to justify their actions.



The word moderate has bounced around this thread thousand of times and unless it is specifically required, it is never defined. In this case I was obviously/simply refering to peaceful christians who live and let live across cultures etc.




No, you used a quote from another thread to justify your uturn in this thread. It is absolutely unbelievable that you could have read my post about the Jesus Camp movie and thought my conclusion was that all christians are alike and that all christians were the same as those in that movie.
It is a million miles away from the actual point I was making about fundamentlaism and holy books. I even added a provision at the begining of my post where I specifically illustrated that I was not talking about moderates, the general defintion of which you seeemed to have forgotten.

I did not have a u-turn. I was making a point (robin calls it trolling ). The point being that atheists come on this board and paint all Christians as fundamentalists bent on murder and manipulation of children. I think my point was made.

Your post I think validates my point. You use the Jesus Camp film and liken Christian fundamentalists with Muslims, and you blame the books for doing so.

I don't see the tem 'moderate' used too often here.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Glad to answer your questions, Scofflaw.

Do I think it right that Mims made these allegations? Yes, if they are true.

Do I think getting one's intellectual opponents investigated as terrorists is good? Yes, if they are advocating mass extermination.

Do I think one should lie about them? Never.

Hand them over to security forces? Only if they are commiting a crime.

Send them and their family death threats? No, that is a crime - and more importantly, a sin.

The issue is - Was Mims telling the truth or not. You say he took the comments out of context. But the issue goes even beyond whether Mims twisted Pianka's words: Mims also alleges the meeting was deliberately and openly censored. It should be easy enough to assess Mims credibility by testing this: surely such an important meeting will have been video or audio-taped. If it was and shows Pianka to have been lied about, then Mims is exposed.

But if it was not, should you not be wondering why not?

Why? I've attended quite a lot of scientific meetings and conferences. They are virtually never recorded. A transcript of the speech, which Pianka gives regularly, is available from Pianka's website - Robin has already given the link.

Why is Mims the only "witness", despite there being a couple of hundred people present? And do you feel it is right to repeat what you do not know to be true, when if not true it is slander of the worst sort?


Scofflaw

stevejazzx

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I did not have a u-turn.

bc wrote:

So Atheists, environmentalists and evolutionists think that genocide is good? Funny how they decry God in OT times, yet their own brethren advocate it?

bc wrote:

Here I read the one side of the story and decided to take the tact that this is mainstream atheistic evolutionary thought and waited for the response, lo and behold there it was.

I knew that a quick google would bring the other side of the story as it was quite outrageous to think that any learned man could come up with something like this nor did I believe it to be true for a second.

So if you were just making a point Brain about hypocrisy why does your original comment ask about athiests 'decrying' the God of the old testament? That was surely a sincere straightforward comment was it not? I can't see any way you could explain that. Are we supposed to believe that one part of your comment was a disguised dig at at atheist hypocrisy while the other part immediately after it was a sincere straihgtforward comment?

bc wrote:

I was making a point (robin calls it trolling ). The point being that atheists come on this board and paint all Christians as fundamentalists bent on murder and manipulation of children. I think my point was made.
Your post I think validates my point. You use the Jesus Camp film and liken Christian fundamentalists with Muslims, and you blame the books for doing so.

I don't see the tem 'moderate' used too often here.

This is just barmy, I'm sorry Brian but I have gone to great lenghts to explain my post, the one you cut from another thread so that you could divert attention away from having to explain yourself. Instead of standing up to the criticisms of Robin and Scofflaw, you decided to quote me out of context and accuse me of being incredibly ignorant and then in argument you simply repeat your claim without any coherent defintion behind it to back it up.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why? I've attended quite a lot of scientific meetings and conferences. They are virtually never recorded. A transcript of the speech, which Pianka gives regularly, is available from Pianka's website - Robin has already given the link.

Why is Mims the only "witness", despite there being a couple of hundred people present? And do you feel it is right to repeat what you do not know to be true, when if not true it is slander of the worst sort?


Scofflaw

Almost all of the religious conferences I attend are recorded - I'm surprised such a renowned speaker as Pianka, in his March, 2006 acceptance speech for the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist award by the The Texas Academy of Science, wouldn't be. It's not rocket science.

I felt free to report it as it is the public domain, and so can be assesssed by those I tell it to - as you are doing. No slander, just a report.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Almost all of the religious conferences I attend are recorded - I'm surprised such a renowned speaker as Pianka, in his March, 2006 acceptance speech for the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist award by the The Texas Academy of Science, wouldn't be.

Your surprise seems a tad manufactured to me -- how many scientific conferences have you attended?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I felt free to report it as it is the public domain, and so can be assessed by those I tell it to - as you are doing. No slander, just a report.

So you don't feel the need to check the factual accuracy of anything that you post?

And having read the primary sources for other side of the argument, do you feel that Mims has reported honestly? And that Dembski did the right thing in reaching for the phone and reporting it to the police?

And if somebody told you that your neighbour wanted to kill most of the world, would you phone Special Branch as fast as you could and then blog in gleeful terms about it, or would you check to see if it was true first?

Nerin

i better keep a look out,i think there are too many humans in the world.
please, dont report me JC.

5uspect

Of the conferences I've participated in I've never seen any offical recording. The papers speak for themselves. Presentations are only really there to provide an indroduction to the work which is usually far to lenghty for a 15-20 minute talk.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Almost all of the religious conferences I attend are recorded - I'm surprised such a renowned speaker as Pianka, in his March, 2006 acceptance speech for the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist award by the The Texas Academy of Science, wouldn't be. It's not rocket science.

It's not at all usual for scientific meetings or conferences. Those who wish to get the information involved get the published articles, abstracts, or conference proceedings.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I felt free to report it as it is the public domain, and so can be assesssed by those I tell it to - as you are doing. No slander, just a report.

"No slander, just a report". Not a bit of analysis, not a bit of criticism - you simply repeated slander. You have clearly indicated that you think the slander is true, and you are the person who first drew it to the attention of others here. Yours are weasel words.

Scofflaw

J C

nerin wrote: »

:eek: gosh,is JC for real,it must be tiring to be so pompous.


so basically, you acknowledge that i'm free to not be a christian, to follow another faith, but i should still bow to your god??? ( because if i don't i go to hell presumably) and that its fine for me to acknowledge your god, but you won't be respectful to mine?
haha what a funny bunch we have here on this forum

For the sin of pride and pomposity I truly repent!!!

I fully acknowledge your God-given free will to believe what you wish.

I am also merely making the logical point that IF the God of the Bible exists that it would be a good idea to be saved.....and I leave any decision in this regard entirely up to you!!!

It's not that I'm not respectful of your God.....merely that I don't know or believe on him/her/it......nor am I likely to in future!!!:D

Nerin

and yet you expect and advise me to bow to yours. double standards much JC?

2Scoops

nerin wrote: »

and yet you expect and advise me to bow to yours. double standards much JC?

I think you're missing the point. Namely, that J C's is the one true God, while yours... is not!

Nerin

LOL
ah yes,true.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

The issue is - Was Mims telling the truth or not. You say he took the comments out of context. But the issue goes even beyond whether Mims twisted Pianka's words: Mims also alleges the meeting was deliberately and openly censored. It should be easy enough to assess Mims credibility by testing this: surely such an important meeting will have been video or audio-taped. If it was and shows Pianka to have been lied about, then Mims is exposed.

Frankly, I would have had more respect for you as a good/moral person if you'd simply acknowledged your mistake. Mims' has no credibility, why do you continue to make excuses? Spreading this kind of garbage is exactly what contributed to this guy getting death threats.

Anyway, even if what he said about Pianka were true, what exactly would have been your point??

J C

5uspect wrote: »

Of the conferences I've participated in I've never seen any offical recording. The papers speak for themselves. Presentations are only really there to provide an indroduction to the work which is usually far to lenghty for a 15-20 minute talk.

This wasn't a run-of-the mill science conference.....it was a public presentation of the prestiguous Distinguished Texas Scientist Award.....by a leading well-respected scientist.......and so I would expect that it would have been televised/electronically recorded for posterity.

Indeed, there is an allegation that video recording equipment WAS present.....but it was turned off.

I don't know where the truth lies on all of this....and I wasn't present at the meeting myself .....so I simply don't know what went on.

I would point out that a video/audio tape of the meeting would resolve the issue definitively.....and if no tape exists then the reasons should be adequately explained.

J C

nerin wrote: »

and yet you expect and advise me to bow to yours. double standards much JC?

I don't expect you to do anything in regard to your beliefs......as I have already said....
"I leave any decision in this regard entirely up to you!!!":)

Respectfully

J C

Nerin

actually JC you advised me to bow to your god.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

I think you're missing the point. Namely, that J C's is the one true God....

..... and probably the best God in the Universe!!

nerin wrote: »

ah yes,true.

...I'm glad that you also agree with me!!!!:)

Respectfully

J C

Nerin

yes jc of course :rolleyes:

dont think i'll ever agree with you on anthing, you're just that sort of guy lol

J C

nerin wrote: »

actually JC you advised me to bow to your god.

....there is a difference between advice ......based on a logical premise......and an expectation that such advice will be heeded!!!:D:)

Nerin

....there is a difference between advice ......based on a logical premise......and an expectation that such advice will be heeded!!!

and there is a difference between you and i, my extreme lack of pomposity.

it may seem strange,for someone like myself who is religious to side with the users here that are atheists, but in all fairness, after reading your posts and seeing some of the shenanigans on this thread/forum, its only logical.