1 - Is Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?No. Intelligent Design is not based on evidence. There have not been studies done on it, and it does not even attempt to conform to the scientific method.
2 - Is evolution a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?Yes. Evolution is based on countless pieces of evidence, and it is a simple and easily understood theory.
3 - Do you consider evolution to be a theory, or a fact? Why?I consider it a theory. It isn't some universal law, because it is changed and revised over time.
4 - Do you consider Intelligent Design a scientific way of thinking, or mainly a religious way of thinking? Why?A religious way, of course. Intelligent Design was created as an alternative to evolution that would entail the participation of a creator god. It was constructed without evidence, with hopes that evidence would be found later. Scientific theories are constructed from evidence, not the other way around.
5 - Should evolution be taught in public schools? Explain.Yes. It is currently the most complete scientific explanation for the development of life on earth.
6 - Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools? Explain.No. It is not a scientific theory, and it is religion-based. That whole separation of church and state thing applies here.
7 - Should Intelligent Design and evolution both be taught alongside one another? Explain.No. Intelligent Design should not be taught alongside a real theory.
8 - Is it possible to believe in a divine being, as well as Evolution?Of course. Evolution says nothing about the existence of a divine being.
1 - Is Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?The way it is brought seems to have more thought behind it than 'the creator made it because it says so in this book'.
2 - Is evolution a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?It is a very plausible way of explaining how creatures came to be.
3 - Do you consider evolution to be a theory, or a fact? Why?Personally, I take it as fact. One could still nitpick and say that it's a theory, but it's a damn good one.
4 - Do you consider Intelligent Design a scientific way of thinking, or mainly a religious way of thinking? Why?As I said, it's slightly more scientific than simply assuming creation by a creator. I'd still say religious, because I find it hard to think of a non-religious way to find ID a better theory than evolution.
5 - Should evolution be taught in public schools? Explain.Yes, from my point of view, it's the most plausible theory explaining life, which should be taught alongside biology and geology.
6 - Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools? Explain.Definitely not if it is taken as fact and with disregarding evolution. Rather along the lines of 'and in many religions, it is believed that an upper being (or more) created everything'.
7 - Should Intelligent Design and evolution both be taught alongside one another? Explain.See the answer above.
8 - Is it possible to believe in a divine being, as well as Evolution?I don't see why not, as that fits in the personal look on life of someone. I say it's perfectly acceptable to believe in someone who will answer your prayers and in evolution simultaneously.
Currently, I'm working on a project for my evolution class. It's pretty open ended, so long as it relates, in some way, to what we've done thus far in class. What I've decided to do, is go around to multiple forums, and see how each of the following questions are answered. I'd like to ask everyone to simply answer the questions, and not turn this thread into a debate over the questions, thank you, in advance, for your cooperation.
1 - Is Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?
Depends on who you ask. In my personal opinion, it is valid in that it attempts to supply an answer to the question: where do we come from. Now the format and the reasoning (not to mention supporting information) might need a little work here and there, but so do many theories.
2 - Is Evolution a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?
Depends on who you ask. See answer for #1.
3 - Do you consider evolution to be a theory, or a fact? Why?
I consider it to be a theory. Mostly because it is impossible to prove evolution... or even Intelligent Design, for that matter. There is a lot of information that could be bent or twisted either way (depending on the world view of the person looking at the information).
It is only macro-evolution that I consider to be a theory. The other two forms I consider fact.
4 - Do you consider Intelligent Design a scientific way of thinking, or mainly a religious way of thinking? Why?
I consider Intelligent design to be a product of a combined religious and scientific worldview. I'm hoping you didn't mean this as an 'either-or' question. Even if you did, my answer remains the same: both. The why of it is in the fact that I do not consider science and religion mutually exclusive. Usually. There are some cases where I will make the exception, but for the majority of the cases, that stands.
5 - Should evolution be taught in public schools? Explain.
Sure. It's a major scientific theory about the origins of the world. Something of that magnitude warrants teaching to the young of our world. Provided of course, that it is not given precidence over any other theory.
6 - Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools? Explain.
Sure. It's a major scientific theory about the origins of the world. Something of that magnitude warrants teaching to the young of our world. Provided of course, that it is not given precidence over any other theory.
7 - Should Intelligent Design and evolution both be taught alongside one another? Explain.
Yes. They are, as I have experienced them being taught, mutually exclusive. Teaching them side by side gives students a wider perspective and doesn't limit them to only one possible answer to the question: where did we come from?
8 - Is it possible to believe in God, as well as Evolution?
Fixed.
Sure. It's done all the time. There's no rule, written or unwritten, that requires any human to believe in a consistant manner. Having consistant views sure helps, but it isn't a requirement.
I believe in science, in that it can be tested, experimented, and validated to a set of predictable, repeatable outcomes.Should I intelligently design some bacteria for you too? They come in designer colors you know. ;P
You're all thinking of creationism. Intelligent design is not based on ancient beliefs either. Ancient beliefs are based on it, and creationism is a crudely simplified version of it.
I have no problem with evolution (or the teaching of it). However, in my mind, using it as a story for the creation of life is no different than a religon and should not be overly supported in a public schooling system. Basicly, I'd be more than happy if I had recieved a disclaimer that said "Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory." As opposed to what seemed awfully like 'Evolution explains everything!!"Gravity is a theory, not a fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
No because it's just creationism repackaged. As in, "ID" textbooks are just old creation science textbooks where they did a find and replace for "intelligent design"
1 - Is Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?
2 - Is evolution a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?Of course. The evidence is so overwhelming that all thinking people can't help but realize that evolution is real. This is a dumb question.
3 - Do you consider evolution to be a theory, or a fact? Why?Both. There are theories of evolution, regarding some of the details that we aren't sure of exactly how it works, but then there's the fact that life arose through evolution.
4 - Do you consider Intelligent Design a scientific way of thinking, or mainly a religious way of thinking? Why?Religious. All it does is look for gaps in our knowledge in order to try and wedge creationism in. Any approach like that will necessarily become more and more ridiculous as the gaps it exploits are closed. Not to mention it offers nothing new to science, makes no empirical predictions, explains nothing, etc.
5 - Should evolution be taught in public schools? Explain.Of course. It's science.
6 - Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools? Explain.Of course not. That's tantamount to state funding of religious teaching.
7 - Should Intelligent Design and evolution both be taught alongside one another? Explain.Of course not. First of all, it violates the first amendment. Second, you make science look bad by giving dumb crypto-creationist ideas the same status as it.
8 - Is it possible to believe in a divine being, as well as Evolution?Of course it is and many people do. Like, for example, the Pope.
1)Not Yet. De-polarize your thinking.No. This is irrelevant. If you create a bacteria in your basement, that does not affect whether the bacteria in the rest of the world evolved.
People can do gene splicing in their basements nowadays (there's an article on amateur splicing).
When I design a unique bacteria that exists nowhere else in the known world, evolution cannot account for it. It and it's world (the petri dish), and all the matter it's made of were all artificially designed, placed, planned, and created by a (somewhat) intelligent being. The only theory on the existence of species that accounts for this involves intelligent design (and evolution as I'm too lazy to create the other 99% of it from scratch).
When artificially designed life forms become much more common, intelligent design or a very similar theory will be required.
The problem is, if people aren't educated about anything other than evolution in schools, it leads to misunderstanding and ostracisation of those who do believe in alternative theories (we know what kids are like)You honestly believe that will happen?
I'm going to back Cheeetar up on this one.The problem is, if people aren't educated about anything other than evolution in schools, it leads to misunderstanding and ostracisation of those who do believe in alternative theories (we know what kids are like)You honestly believe that will happen?
Edit: I don't mean to be hostile, I just say that I do not think that will happen. At all.
The problem is, if people aren't educated about anything other than evolution in schools, it leads to misunderstanding and ostracisation of those who do believe in alternative theories (we know what kids are like)You honestly believe that will happen?
Edit: I don't mean to be hostile, I just say that I do not think that will happen. At all.
I believe in hard science, so I pretty much agree whit most things said here except that religious nutcase Electronic Phantom.
The problem is, if people aren't educated about anything other than evolution in schools, it leads to misunderstanding and ostracisation of those who do believe in alternative theories (we know what kids are like)
No. This is irrelevant. If you create a bacteria in your basement, that does not affect whether the bacteria in the rest of the world evolved.Both Evolution and ID won't apply? What?
As we create more life forms, we will know where they come from and Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism will not apply to them because of that.
The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.Our planet alone does not constitute the entire universe.
I think what about a dozen other people have said, so I think I'll just point this out, although someone else may have already:I'm not finding it, sorry. Can you point out where?
I was getting at that ID isn't all religious prattle. There is real merit to it.
1 - Is Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?
2 - Is evolution a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?
3 - Do you consider evolution to be a theory, or a fact? Why?
4 - Do you consider Intelligent Design a scientific way of thinking, or mainly a religious way of thinking? Why?
5 - Should evolution be taught in public schools? Explain.
6 - Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools? Explain.
7 - Should Intelligent Design and evolution both be taught alongside one another? Explain.
8 - Is it possible to believe in a divine being, as well as Evolution?
Currently, I'm working on a project for my evolution class. It's pretty open ended, so long as it relates, in some way, to what we've done thus far in class. What I've decided to do, is go around to multiple forums, and see how each of the following questions are answered. I'd like to ask everyone to simply answer the questions, and not turn this thread into a debate over the questions, thank you, in advance, for your cooperation.
1 - Is Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?
2 - Is evolution a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?
3 - Do you consider evolution to be a theory, or a fact? Why?
4 - Do you consider Intelligent Design a scientific way of thinking, or mainly a religious way of thinking? Why?
5 - Should evolution be taught in public schools? Explain.
6 - Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools? Explain.
7 - Should Intelligent Design and evolution both be taught alongside one another? Explain.
8 - Is it possible to believe in a divine being, as well as Evolution?
Find what? I posted that because I wasn't sure whether someone had replied to your post yet. Hence the phrase "may have". But apparently nobody did.Quote from: penguinofhonorI think what about a dozen other people have said, so I think I'll just point this out, although someone else may have already:I'm not finding it, sorry. Can you point out where?
Find what? I posted that because I wasn't sure whether someone had replied to your post yet. Hence the phrase "may have". But apparently nobody did.I was beginning to think I was blind.
I do not intend to argueYou have no sense of fun. But you do know how to play it safer than most.
What merit would that beIt's not 100% baseless, and while there is no real evidence it applies to us we have evidence can apply to life elsewhere, and we know it already describes some life here.
It sure doesn't contribute anything to scienceWell, when we start designing bacteria for various industrial and medical applications, we can finish the sentence "I just the whole petri dish" because the bacteria sure didn't evolve into what we made it in the dish. Same thing with "I just the whole medicine producing goat". Or "I just the whole cyborg". It also contributes when we search for life on other planets... Joseph, have you ever heard of the messenger theory? It might be worth mentioning in your project. Bacteria and plankton for altering gas levels in atmosphere for pre-colonization is another good one.
QuoteWhat merit would that beIt's not 100% baseless, and while there is no real evidence it applies to us we have evidence can apply to life elsewhere, and we know it already describes some life here.
Quotes1. This is the internet, not a school.
You know what? Gravity isn't real, because chickens lay eggs.Tell me again that the last ten years of advances in genetic engineering don't exist. Tell me again that patents on artificial life forms are patents on thin air. Tell me again that artificial species exist as they do because they evolved that way on their own. Tell me again that what we can question, research, hypothesize, test, draw conclusions from and repeat, in that order, defines the world except for GMOs. Tell me again what is scientific can be applied elsewhere except for GMOs. Tell me again that what we do IN OUR OWN LABS is utter nonsense. Tell me again that what I can wave under your nose and slap you upside the face like this is all as fake as the holocaust. Tell me again that all you have left is the equivalent of the religious dogma I'd assume you despise, and it's making me laugh.
The above statement has merit. Why? Chickens lay eggs, and that describes life. My theory should be taught next to evolution.
Edit: Or atleast, until I research my theory a bit more. Just give it some time.
what happened to NOT turning this into a discussion of the questions?I could quit if it weren't for the persons like the one quoted above.
Tell me, yes or no question, are we, an intelligence, not responsible for a number of life forms?Look, we're talking about the majority of organisms on earth, not technicolor guppies. Duh.
we're talking about the majority of organisms on earthRead the definition. Are there biological systems we observe in the universe that resulted from purpose instead of chance?
Just because we can design animals DOES NOT mean that we, or any animals that we did not design, are designed.Just because we have evidence that some animals evolved DOES NOT mean that we, or any animals that we did not see evolve, evolved.
I'm a terribly merciless person. Sorry, but I believe that, just like some people need shooting, some people warrent eternal damnation. If it makes you feel better, I occasionally waver and deide that they only suffer until the end of the world, and then fade into oblivion.Tsk, tsk, tsk.
but is not applicable to the original creation of life.That wasn't the point though. The point was if it is a valid theory, and inherently should be taught in schools
Your reasoning works fine...and reading that sounds like you admit.
Thank you for concisely saying what I would have said
Go make a religion thread to try to screw with strife's beliefs.There are a lot of things I want to tell you to go do right now, if only because you just told me to go do something.
I'm a terribly merciless person. Sorry, but I believe that, just like some people need shooting, some people warrent eternal damnation. If it makes you feel better, I occasionally waver and deide that they only suffer until the end of the world, and then fade into oblivion.Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Do you know what that means? That means that if you're right, you're going to hell. Enjoy.
There are a lot of things I want to tell you to go do right now, if only because you just told me to go do something.;D
A lot of them are offensive things.
One of them is, "Go X a Y."
That was one of the wittier ones.
So... You're in some type of cavalry division in the US military?I'm a terribly merciless person. Sorry, but I believe that, just like some people need shooting, some people warrent eternal damnation. If it makes you feel better, I occasionally waver and deide that they only suffer until the end of the world, and then fade into oblivion.Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Do you know what that means? That means that if you're right, you're going to hell. Enjoy.
I've always wondered about that facet of my personality, I'd probably sell my soul if my country needed it. I've got Fiddler's Green (basicly, it's a field with a bar that's halfway down the trail to hell where all clavarymen when they die).
EDIT: Added a space
I couldn't resist. I needed to say something about an X and a Y. To make me look smart.QuoteThere are a lot of things I want to tell you to go do right now, if only because you just told me to go do something.;D
A lot of them are offensive things.
One of them is, "Go X a Y."
That was one of the wittier ones.
Mission complete!
But seriously, we have enough derails around here.
>.>
I'll bite too, but this severely edited from its first form (which wasn't very nice, in retrospect).
Still, your questions are a little lopsided in favor of evolution... but that's understandable given the class you are taking.
Also. Define which type of Evolution you are talking about. As near as I can remember, there are three of them. Only one of which is controversial. I'm making the assumption that you are talking about macro-evolution: the change of one kind into another.
8 - Is it possible to believe in God, as well as Evolution?
Fixed.
Yeah. Answers in red.
[edit] Here here for dissenting views!
-(e)EP
Well, I go to Australia, are schools in America rougher or something?
...wow
@Torak: Here here for being tolerant of what others believe. And, for your information, I consider myself to be pretty moderate about what I believe.
-(e)EP
I believe you go to hell for denying that Jesus died for your sins, or for rejecting that sacrifice.I hate how people say that instead of simply not believing Jesus was magical and saved our souls, atheists are 'rejecting his sacrifice'.
Strife, if you think Jesus is God, then why would you be joining the army?
Evolution as the origin of life
Just saying; neither of those questions is intended to be answered by evolution.
Just saying; neither of those questions is intended to be answered by evolution.
Who claims that it does?Just saying; neither of those questions is intended to be answered by evolution.
Exactly. I only get huffy when it gets claimed that it does.
The vast majority of our military is some form of Christian,Nominally Christian. You can't be a Christian and be in the military any more than you can be a Christian and make your living as a mugger.
You're one to denote fine points of Christianess Jude?Well I dare say I know more about it than you
Let us think what we want. Religon is what individuals make of it.You can think what you want. You're free to be wrong about stuff. And I'm free to tell you you're wrong.
:o :o :oYou're one to denote fine points of Christianess Jude?Well I dare say I know more about it than youQuoteLet us think what we want. Religon is what individuals make of it.You can think what you want. You're free to be wrong about stuff. And I'm free to tell you you're wrong.
You're one to denote fine points of Christianess Jude?Well I dare say I know more about it than youQuoteLet us think what we want. Religon is what individuals make of it.You can think what you want. You're free to be wrong about stuff. And I'm free to tell you you're wrong.
Ok. So, you're a patriot, and you are a christian (or atleast, you believe you are, which is basically the same thing). You will 'disobey god' in order to be in your countries military. Why do you value your country above god? If there is an eternal afterlife heaven sort of deal, and this life is just a test, why do you, knowingly, condemn yourself to hell to make an inconsequential (compared to eternal afterlife) country slightly more protected?Yes.
Anyway, I've never heard of anything BUT evolution used as the scientific explanation for the origins of life - I always thought it unlikely, so please explain what the scientifically accepted theory is.No, look, unless you live in some sort of country inhabited almost totally by idiots, evolution is not ever used as an explanation of the origin of life. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the origin of life.
Anyway, I've never heard of anything BUT evolution used as the scientific explanation for the origins of life - I always thought it unlikely, so please explain what the scientifically accepted theory is.No, look, unless you live in some sort of country inhabited almost totally by idiots, evolution is not ever used as an explanation of the origin of life. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the origin of life.
NOTHING
Disagreeing =/= flaming
DUDE! are you trying to start a flame war??
The majority of the Army is Christian,A bastardized and corrupted version of Christianity. It's really stretching it to call mainstream Christianity "Christianity" after Constantine's hijacking of it.
and I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I have some kind of monopoly on being a real Christian even if I was oneI don't claim a monopoly on being a real Christian, I'm agnostic (grew up Christian and my parents made sure I knew the Bible pretty well...you'd be surprised how Biblically illiterate a lot of people are). But I do claim to be able to read the New Testament and add 2+2, and I know that the first time when Christians decided it was OK to use violence (ever, not just in "just wars") was after Constantine decided to meld Christianity with Roman paganism, and that's the religion that's since taken over western civilization.
I rate country before God, in a lot of things.That's fine as long as you're aware that that's the exact opposite of what Christianity is about
I don't predict seeing them in direct conflict with each other, without one being corrupted to such an extent where it no longer the original mattersThey're always in conflict with each other. The kingdom of God that Jesus talked about is completely mutually exclusive with the kingdoms, countries and states of the world. "You can't serve two masters," I think he said.
Sorry Jude, but I've thought deeper about my own beliefs than you have.I'm not saying you haven't. I'm just pointing out that if you call your beliefs Christianity, you're gravely mistaken (if not then there's not really a problem)
I've resigned myself to the possibilty of eternal damnation a long time ago.
If it's like "No, Inaluct, it's too late for apologizing. You're going to spend the rest of fucking eternity withthe greatest human intellects who have ever livedother sinners," then I'll be like "Hey man, fuck you, then. Asshole."
And then I'll get to meet Mark Twain.
I'm not concerned with how you label your own posts, I'm suggesting that bashing other's religious views and telling them they aren't actually members of their own faith is pointlessly provocative.
Isn't Christian someone who believes in Christ?
By this definition, there's not but a handful of Christians in the world, but it's the definition that the early church and everyone who knew Jesus in person would have used.
You're speaking to works-based salvation, which is more Mormon than Christian. And it's not Christian at all.
I think you need to go back and read again what it means to be a Christian. You're speaking to works-based salvation, which is more Mormon than Christian. And it's not Christian at all.
-(e)EP
I'll contend that without protection all of your 'good works' can't happen.
I'm gonna argue that 'eternal damnation' is Biblical and not a figment of some priest's imagination.Point me to the verses. And nothing from Revelation, because that's a political allegory.
And the straw-man about the self-justifying priest is a little low for you, Jude.I may not have a specific priest in mind, but the history of the church since Constantine is a history of people comfortable with their worldly lives but wanting a ticket to heaven, making up rationalizations for why Jesus didn't really mean what he said, so that you can live a wealthy and comfortable life and still feel like a good Christian. In the process, of course, true Christianity was all but obliterated. And the idea that faith, not "works" is what saves you is one of those, because it means you can live however you want, ignoring the needy, hating and killing people, placing earthly authorities over the authority of God, and yet still be a "Christian."
I can give God my devotion and prayers and America my life.I think we already went over this...of course you can. It's just the opposite of what Jesus was talking about.
Additionally, when compared to the efforts of a country, individual 'good works' aren't much. Feeding a poor man doesn't compare to sanitation or protection from hostile powers.The thing is, you're never going to have an earthly government devoted to helping the poor or feeding the hungry or - especially - comforting the prisoners and loving its enemies. And the evils brought about by putting power in the state is inevitably greater than any good that could be brought about.
Seconded.I'll contend that without protection all of your 'good works' can't happen.
wat
Point me to the verses.I read that as "point me to the elves." I don't know why.
Also, Jesus attempting to lead the Jews to military 'victory' would result in either God-smiting Roman Legionares (which is something that God does not do) or the Jews getting stomped on.So I take it you don't much like the old testament?
]
First, an avowed atheist who devotes himself to good works still won't get into heaven,
If I can help more people by joining the army, then how is that not compliant with Chirstianity.
Just becuase America is not focused on good works, doesn't mean that it doesn't do more than any other organization does. I have no problem changing the means towards Jesus's end.Ok but Jesus would
Also, Jesus attempting to lead the Jews to military 'victory' would result in either God-smiting Roman Legionares (which is something that God does not do) or the Jews getting stomped on.Uh he's God remember he could lead them to military victory if he wanted to
So I take it you don't much like the old testament?It's certainly full of interesting passages which seem to portray a completely different deity than the new testament one
I said an avowed atheist - by that I meant someone who vehemently denies the existence of God and Jesus, as well as trying to convince others of this non-existence. Almost a religion in itself :Pyou do know that Jude is talking mostly to Strife, right?
I'll contend that without protection all of your 'good works' can't happen.
wat
When was the last time our country had absolutely no choice but deadly force or survival?
For the Cold War, the main question is if a pacifist United States would have been converted into a planned economy dictatorship.
I can't think of any other wars that would have resulted in any significant damage to a pacifist United States. This includes the War of 1812, the Mexican-American war, and both World War I and World War II, in addition to the "overseas adventures" such as the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and the Gulf War, where the other party was obviously no threat to the United States. I'm reserving judgment on Afghanistan and anything else connected to the "War on Terror", since we don't have the benefit of history's hindsight.
The notion of teaming barbarian hordes ready to swarm over the border and slaughter the christian is more'n a little out dated here. I'm not saying that all nations are so fortunate, but in the states we could pull off the "Thou shall not kill" to a T without being slaughtered. When was the last time our country had absolutely no choice but deadly force or survival?
Does just war conflict with the central principles of altruism, mercy and forgiveness?I think it does. The first Christians (not all, but quite a few) did turn the other cheek, and died as a result. Putting your own survival before your faith is common sense, but not what Christianity was about. The fun fact is that after many years of turning the other cheek, and lots of suffering, people were more and more genuinely impressed by the people doing it. Such a lack of fear inspires awe. That Christianity has died a long time ago, save a few souls.
Contrary to what you believe, Jonathan, I feel that WWII was the best demonstration in history of how a truly pacifist state cannot survive.
I'm inclined to believe that if we hadn't entered WWII, the Axis would have divided up the world between them, and maybe later destroyed each other squabbling over the spoils. Considering what horrible bastards the Axis guys were (Nanking, Dachau), just imagine what they would have done once they unquestionably ruled the world and knew for a fact they would never suffer consequences for any inhumane acts they committed.Oh I can imagine that.
I'm pretty sure that what he was getting at here was that America was entirely full of "true Christians" who would really "turn the other cheek", as opposed to having a vast majority of Christians like Strife, our enemies (who have no such prohibition against violence) would swarm over the borders and destroy us. There are those in the world who say, "our religion is the only true way and we will destroy all others" and if we didn't have teenagers riding around in tanks and helicopters, they would in fact "destroy all others". This would not leave a whole bunch of "true Christians" around to feed the hungry and clothe the poor.Yeah, again - speaking from a secular, pragmatic point of view you're absolutely right. The point I'm making is that if you view things from a Christian point of view, things look totally different.
That's what I think Strife was getting at. Keep in mind that religiously I think Strife is wrong on every point, but from a pragmatic point of view, I agree with him on the necessity for every country to have a military.
Oh, and Sean, apparently Hawk Dude is cool with this. Since his project is now done, I don't think he minds what happens to the topic. At least he hasn't posted in the topic recently to tell us to knock it off.
Jesus wasn't laying out a code of nations. Jesus was saying how individual people should make autonomous decisions.Exactly! He was, and part of the way that he told people to live involved distancing themselves from worldly powers and institutions, because those are inevitably corrupting, abusive and evil.
Remember, Jesus did NOT preach a strict code of laws, he fought that notion and that we are capable of making individual decisions. He said it was important to follow God's law, but more important yet, to love our neighbors as ourselves. Jesus spoke against the conflict of his day, not about the notion of just war which arose 300 years later. He clearly did not speak in favor of just war, but he never spoke against just war.
Does just war conflict with the central principles of altruism, mercy and forgiveness?
Does just war conflict with the central principles of altruism, mercy and forgiveness?Absolutely!
And when I say that a God, or to all relevant purposes the equivalent of, is inevitable you say...?
Study some history, and read some psychology books. He's necessary.
And when I say that a God, or to all relevant purposes the equivalent of, is inevitable you say...?
Study some history, and read some psychology books. He's necessary.
You speak of human yearning, but that has no bearing on the existence or non existence of said god. God is not required to explain the spark of life, meaning it can happen within the mechanics of the universe, if life can happen within the mechanics of the universe, why is it necessary to add god in the explanation, other than to justify a Faith.
don't Reason your Faith, its like trying to keep your ice cube warm.