|
Author
|
Topic: The Clergy Project
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 6 of 151 (263171)
11-26-2005 12:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
11-26-2005 12:24 AM
|
|
Mennonites are liberal??? They're one step from Amish. Moved into the 19th century by using cars. Amish, now there's an honest fundamentalist view. Takes nothing from the world it does not believe in.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by jar, posted 11-26-2005 12:24 AM | | jar has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
polls. 
You have to be very careful about polls and how they were taken, what questions were asked and in what order. The analysis could be superficial and not control for other factors that could influence an answer. Polls that I have seen that do attempt to differentiate the fundamentalist beliefs from the general "oh I don't know, maybe god exists because my parents thought so and all my friends, but I haven't really thought about it" kind of answer that would be regarded as positive in some polls (like CNN), show that this proportion for literal fundamentalis views is somewhere between 15% and 20% of the USof(N)A population -- about the same as the atheist proportion. And "polls" done on internet sites that give you four preconceived answers to choose from on a question? useless. But they get cited too.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by robinrohan, posted 11-26-2005 4:11 AM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 14 of 151 (263205)
11-26-2005 7:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
11-25-2005 8:30 AM
|
|
No equivocation on that statement, unlike the one used by the Discovery Institute, there is no mistaking their intent:
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth. Faith and other fundamentalists will nit-pick the list to death, equivocating over every single conservative leaning one they find ("they are confused") and attack them with the ad hominem argument that they are "liberal" and "not true christian" and ignore the fact that they support evolution and the teaching of science in science classes in public schools. Of course this list is just as good as the "Steve" list and just as irrelevant as the "discovery" list. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2005 8:30 AM | | PaulK has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 18 by DorfMan, posted 11-26-2005 9:21 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 17 of 151 (263214)
11-26-2005 8:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
11-26-2005 8:40 AM
|
|
...and the fact that there are many Protestants - is significant. It certainly indicates that you should be qauliftying your references to "Protestant" theology since there are so many Protestants who reject it. This gets into some points that Faith made in her thread, {YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology} that I have not addressed there (and don't want to obfusticate my discussion of perceptions of reality with). Excerpts from Faiths thread
Faith, msg 204 writes: The problem apparently is that at EvC there are MANY notions of the nature of God and God's will, and many different interpretations of the Bible, which obscures the fact that outside EvC there is a coherent theology of the Bible that is orthodox and representative of a solid family of Protestants. ... it IS established in this Protestant frame of reference. (I'm not saying there is perfect consistency within this theology but on all the important points there is). So it is not open to EvC-ers to determine "that God actually said what it is claimed that he said." This HAS been established. Faith, msg 209 writes: The only theologies that are relevant to this discussion are the literalists, and I'm trying to point out that there is a body of Protestant literalist theology that is a consistent coherent worldview. Faith, msg 223 writes: I'm also trying to break the hegemony of the ruling science premise by insisting on the equality of the Biblical creationist premise,... This is asserting a {single\set\body} source for Faith's position, "a coherent theology of the Bible that is orthodox and representative of a solid" "body of Protestant literalist theology," so to validate that what she was saying comes from that source, and not her opinion of it, all she needs to do is show the source material. How can this be hard to do if there is a coherent source? If nothing else she should be able to establish what the "important points" are where there is "perfect consistency" as a starting point.
No legitimate Protestant theology ever leaves it up to the individual to interpret scripture. It has a history and a coherent body of interpretation across many denominations and commentators and preachers. The viewpoint I'm talking about is indeed coherent. I have a nose for it and can point out a great many of its representatives if you'd like a list. But then here she is asserting that her opinion is a selection mechanism for what that {family\body} of theology contains within its scope. Just as she has been doing with this list here. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2005 8:40 AM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 20 of 151 (263241)
11-26-2005 10:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by DorfMan
11-26-2005 9:21 AM
|
|
always nice to see the basis of the fundamentalist movement restated, particularly to show the time period where it originated. 1895 ... well into the beginning of the scientific era.
{faith of any kind is} accepted by choice, the right to choose is a divine gift, and the right to mess with that choice is not a right. Agreed.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by DorfMan, posted 11-26-2005 9:21 AM | | DorfMan has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by Faith, posted 11-26-2005 11:41 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 60 of 151 (263513)
11-27-2005 2:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
11-26-2005 11:41 AM
|
|
Re: History of the Liberal-Fundamental split
that's one mans opinion. he could be wrong eh?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by Faith, posted 11-26-2005 11:41 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 92 of 151 (263975)
11-28-2005 11:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by Funkaloyd
11-28-2005 9:56 PM
|
|
Re: Definition of Christian
Trying to make Thomas Jefferson a christian (see Jefferson Bible)? He didn't think so.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by Funkaloyd, posted 11-28-2005 9:56 PM | | Funkaloyd has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 100 of 151 (264306)
11-29-2005 7:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 98 by iano
11-29-2005 10:20 AM
|
|
Re: Definition of Christian
Is there anyone there who thinks they aren't a Christian? Well I've got news for you.. uh oh ... time to cue the "good news" band and warm up the choir .... 
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 98 by iano, posted 11-29-2005 10:20 AM | | iano has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 104 by DorfMan, posted 11-29-2005 10:05 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: Definition of Christian
don't you know? there are "kinds" of christians ...
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: Definition of Christian
and front row seats.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 122 by ReverendDG, posted 12-04-2005 11:41 PM | | ReverendDG has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: A Christian
They stick their noses in other people`s business, and whine a lot. And claim to be the victim when others object ... goal (1) spread the gospel, and when that fails, goal (2) play the martyr card. 
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 129 by Nighttrain, posted 12-06-2005 2:18 AM | | Nighttrain has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 145 of 151 (266546)
12-07-2005 7:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 133 by iano
12-06-2005 11:04 AM
|
|
Re: Definition of Christian
... to whit: the ability to discern spiritual things ... This is special to christianity???? Seems to me people who talk about seeing "auras" and the like are not christians ...
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 133 by iano, posted 12-06-2005 11:04 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 149 by iano, posted 12-08-2005 7:01 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 151 of 151 (266987)
12-08-2005 8:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 149 by iano
12-08-2005 7:01 AM
|
|
Re: Definition of Christian
Discernment means being able to sense God in his word and in his action - and know it is God at Work. so do hindus. so do pantheists. so do ... your point?
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 149 by iano, posted 12-08-2005 7:01 AM | | iano has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2