A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Hey even Wiccans believe in God.
If you vote a muslim for president Im sure he will be sworn in on the Quran.
- Status
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Well then, my second reason for opposing Creationism is because God isnt scientific and that not all believe in God.
J
Joyousguard
Guest
J
Joyousguard
Guest
This is a bad example. Not through any fault of your own but do to the fact that Wicca is such a broad term it can include a whole lot of differnt things. One of the beliefs is that Wiccan’ s are polytheistic
.Quite possibly, considering a congressman was recently sworn in on the Quran. But that is a different argument in this instance.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Read your history and see how certain settlements mistreated those who didn’t follow their Church beliefs. Catholics were persecuted for goodness sakes. Religion as a state religion is dangerous to faith as well…It’s why any sect or faith is discriminated against…
J
Joyousguard
Guest
I’m assuming you mean that the study of God isn’t scientific but it is actualy. Or if you meant that the existence of God cannot be proven scientificaly, you would be wrong to a certain extent. However, they can’t prove cigarretes cause cancer either so I wouldn’t put too much faith in that thinking
E
edwest2
Guest
The motives of the anti-Creationists are clear. Even though an awareness of God can be reached by human reason, the motivation for human potential and the human mind to be exalted above God goes back to the words spoken by the devil to Eve in the Garden, “ye shall be as Gods.”
Science has become the means by which the atheist finds ways to deny God. All available weapons are being used:
Ridicule of the work of God which is revealed to have been done a certain way.
Ridicule of Intelligent Design which consists of criteria that archaeologists use all the time to distinguish an artifact that is designed by an intelligence from an artifact formed by erosian, breakage or other natural means.
Ridicule of miracles which the Church uses, today, to canonize saints.
Ridicule of religion in general as being evil, patriarchal, inflexible (this about the God who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow), and hateful. As to the latter, which words of Christ tells us to harm our neighbor?
Christians in general are going through a new assault by the following: ACLU, atheists, brights, secular humanists, anarchists, Marxists and anarchists. The purpose is to abolish guilt, shame, embarrassment and most of all, any sense of sin.
And this, my fellow Catholics, can be seen in any media. Everyone is out for themselves and their own pleasure. Right and wrong mean something only if it is to the advantage of the individual. Pleasing the self and perhaps a few others that you deem worthy is job one. Sacrificial love, either toward God or spouse or children, simply means you are willing to live in a “comfortable concentration camp.” (quote from feminist Betty Friedan)
My fellow Catholics, have an answer prepared for those who ask you about the hope that is in you. About the divinity of Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit. Of the knowledge, both natural and supernatural, that is held in trust by the Catholic Church. Get a Catechism and read it.
God bless,
Ed
Science has become the means by which the atheist finds ways to deny God. All available weapons are being used:
Ridicule of the work of God which is revealed to have been done a certain way.
Ridicule of Intelligent Design which consists of criteria that archaeologists use all the time to distinguish an artifact that is designed by an intelligence from an artifact formed by erosian, breakage or other natural means.
Ridicule of miracles which the Church uses, today, to canonize saints.
Ridicule of religion in general as being evil, patriarchal, inflexible (this about the God who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow), and hateful. As to the latter, which words of Christ tells us to harm our neighbor?
Christians in general are going through a new assault by the following: ACLU, atheists, brights, secular humanists, anarchists, Marxists and anarchists. The purpose is to abolish guilt, shame, embarrassment and most of all, any sense of sin.
And this, my fellow Catholics, can be seen in any media. Everyone is out for themselves and their own pleasure. Right and wrong mean something only if it is to the advantage of the individual. Pleasing the self and perhaps a few others that you deem worthy is job one. Sacrificial love, either toward God or spouse or children, simply means you are willing to live in a “comfortable concentration camp.” (quote from feminist Betty Friedan)
My fellow Catholics, have an answer prepared for those who ask you about the hope that is in you. About the divinity of Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit. Of the knowledge, both natural and supernatural, that is held in trust by the Catholic Church. Get a Catechism and read it.
God bless,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
The fact not all believe in God has no bearing whatsoever on the truth. One can believe 1 + 1 does not equal 2, but it doesn’t negate the truth of the matter.
So we shouldn’t teach our kids this truth because not all believe it?
J
Joyousguard
Guest
You took my ascertation out of context. I made no comments on state religion but rather said that seperation of church and state was to protect the church from elements of political interference like with the Anglican church and the Russian Orthodox church under communism. I am well aware of how Catholics were treated particulalry in this country. (Freemasons)
As we learn more and more about science we come to realize that many things we came to understand by faith are in fact true. (See Abortion, specifically a court case in New Jersey around 1992. Or Dr. Jerome Lejune the father of modern Genetics)
In addition read my post above or the Encyclical “HUMANI GENERIS”
T
TMC
Guest
I agree, broadly speaking, that the First Amendment provides protection both to the church from the state and to the state from the church. But that was not the original intention of the Amendment. I think the original motive was to protect the individual states from both, and to protect citizens from collusion between the two.
But even if you believe, as I do, that the establishment clause should not prevent citizens from involving God in their public lives, that really has nothing to do with creationism and schools. To advocate teaching the creationist beliefs of one subset of Christians in public schools is clearly promoting one religion above others. In fact, I think Catholics should be particularly opposed as creationist thought lines up much better with evangelical theology than Catholic theology and promotion of creationism is likely to lead to more defections from the faith.
E
edwest2
Guest
I would like someone to outline the negative effects of creationism being taught in schools.
I would also like someone to explain why In God We Trust appears on US money.
God bless,
Ed
I would also like someone to explain why In God We Trust appears on US money.
God bless,
Ed
T
TMC
Guest
My last post explained some of the negative consequences for Catholics - that it may lead young Catholics from the faith. But I can list a few in no particular order. For some I will say why that is bad in case its not obvious.
- It is government promotion of a particular religious viewpoint. this is bad for a lot of reasons. a big one is because we don’t want the government involved in religious promotion, period. If it can promote this now, it can promote Mormonism or Scientology tomorrow.
- It promotes a viewpoint that is rejected by most Catholics and accepted by many evangelicals. This would likely lead to more defections from the Church to those denominations.
- If presented as science it devalues true scientific thought and exploration, giving our children a disadvantage in this important area of study.
- It would set a bad precedent of establishing curricula by bowing to the demands of the most vocal, rather than by making reasoned choices.
As for the “In God We Trust,” its there because people asked for it. It has been on and off the money since the Civil War. It was made the national motto in the 50’s, about the same time that “under God” was added to the pledge. Like “under God” it has the advantage (unlike creationism) of being mostly non-denominational (some people may prefer “gods”), being inoffensive to all but the most uptight of the irreligious, and causing no affirmative harm. A day may come that it drifts back off the currency (as it was for about 50 years in the early 20th century) but I doubt that would happen soon.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
it will mislead people into believe that creationism is science.
it was an anti-communism proganda.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
When I went to school a Science was defined as any organized body of knowledge. There were Physical Sciences as well as others. The argument really is about teaching Creationism, which could be a Science, in a Physical Science Class. It has absolutely no place there.
Our problem with separation of Church and state as defined today since about 1947 in the Hugo Black Court is that it is viewed differently than it was before that time. In the earlier times religion could speak about matters of state and state could speak about matters of religion. However government and religion were not to manifest a legal control of one over the other, nor could the federal government make any particular denomination the State Religion. Some of the states did so for some years after the founding of the United States of America. The high wall between Church and State is of relatively recent practice.
Our problem with separation of Church and state as defined today since about 1947 in the Hugo Black Court is that it is viewed differently than it was before that time. In the earlier times religion could speak about matters of state and state could speak about matters of religion. However government and religion were not to manifest a legal control of one over the other, nor could the federal government make any particular denomination the State Religion. Some of the states did so for some years after the founding of the United States of America. The high wall between Church and State is of relatively recent practice.
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you for your detailed response. The fact is, the government of the United States has been promoting a Judeo-Christian identity in this country for a long time. There is a White House Christmas tree lighting ceremony and rabbis attend to the lighting of a national Mennorah.
In the 1960s, The US Government regularly told its citizens we were in a battle with Godless Communism.
Now the spotlight has turned on those who want no public mention of God, especially in the public square of national debate. A vocal minority has ensured that its beliefs and platform have been endorsed and broadcast by the majority of the media. I think it is valid for Christians to examine why Creation or a God derived theory of Intelligent Design has met with vocal condemnation. The Catholic Church holds that God was intimately involved with Creation.
I do not believe religious beliefs should be forced on anyone so I am not advocating religion be taught as science. However, mysteriously, scientists have been able to complete their educations and go on to do great work in the past while holding to Christian teaching. Apparently, the idea that teaching anyone about Creation, whether in or out of the classroom, is in no way harmful as far as getting work as a scientist.
A set of ideas is being promoted by a primarily anti-religious minority right now, and they are promoting it to the Government as well. For the first time in this country’s history, atheists have hired a lobbyist to present their concerns to the government. While atheism is not an organized religion per se, it does hold rather strictly to certain anti-God beliefs. And it wants to be promoted by the Government.
You might be interested to know that the Supreme Court building has a statue of Moses with the Ten Commandments on the outside in public view. At one time, a Nativity scene (sometimes called a creche) appeared in front of my local City Hall until the ACLU woke up one day and decided it was unconstitutional. Please note, the week before, it was fine. And nobody was required to look at it, bow before it or leave money.
By considering God in any way, shape or form in Creation undermines the goals of those who don’t want anyone telling them what to do or making them feel guilty, or embarrassed or ashamed or sinful. It’s as simple as that.
God bless,
Ed
In the 1960s, The US Government regularly told its citizens we were in a battle with Godless Communism.
Now the spotlight has turned on those who want no public mention of God, especially in the public square of national debate. A vocal minority has ensured that its beliefs and platform have been endorsed and broadcast by the majority of the media. I think it is valid for Christians to examine why Creation or a God derived theory of Intelligent Design has met with vocal condemnation. The Catholic Church holds that God was intimately involved with Creation.
I do not believe religious beliefs should be forced on anyone so I am not advocating religion be taught as science. However, mysteriously, scientists have been able to complete their educations and go on to do great work in the past while holding to Christian teaching. Apparently, the idea that teaching anyone about Creation, whether in or out of the classroom, is in no way harmful as far as getting work as a scientist.
A set of ideas is being promoted by a primarily anti-religious minority right now, and they are promoting it to the Government as well. For the first time in this country’s history, atheists have hired a lobbyist to present their concerns to the government. While atheism is not an organized religion per se, it does hold rather strictly to certain anti-God beliefs. And it wants to be promoted by the Government.
You might be interested to know that the Supreme Court building has a statue of Moses with the Ten Commandments on the outside in public view. At one time, a Nativity scene (sometimes called a creche) appeared in front of my local City Hall until the ACLU woke up one day and decided it was unconstitutional. Please note, the week before, it was fine. And nobody was required to look at it, bow before it or leave money.
By considering God in any way, shape or form in Creation undermines the goals of those who don’t want anyone telling them what to do or making them feel guilty, or embarrassed or ashamed or sinful. It’s as simple as that.
God bless,
Ed
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I agree and thank you for that reminder, even though no one here has made such an assertion.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Not sure how you think that…but let’s take the 3rd one for instance and draw a deeper meaning. She said she had hoped Creationism had been killed in 1987. Why? Why would a person, especially a scientist, in the ever-changing world of science from the flat earth to the surprise of quantum physics, have no desire to consider that a new discovery could support Creation? I contend because she views the Christian God as her enemy, as evidenced in the 2nd quote. Go ahead and listen to the interview, it’s only 30 minutes. If you want to hear two condescending elitists (Forest and the show host) tell you the motives of Christians, even Behe, this is the audio for you!
Of course they also prop up Ken Miller’s Catholicism, but I find him more reasonable than them anyway…he stated in a different interview that the Origin of Species expressed a certain grandeur at work. Christians who understand Darwinism shouldn’t feel threatened by its science.
I
inthecloud
Guest
- It is government promotion of a particular religious viewpoint. this is bad for a lot of reasons. a big one is because we don’t want the government involved in religious promotion, period. If it can promote this now, it can promote Mormonism or Scientology tomorrow.
- It promotes a viewpoint that is rejected by most Catholics and accepted by many evangelicals. This would likely lead to more defections from the Church to those denominations.
- If presented as science it devalues true scientific thought and exploration, giving our children a disadvantage in this important area of study.
- It would set a bad precedent of establishing curricula by bowing to the demands of the most vocal, rather than by making reasoned choices.
Not good for Catholicism to promote their beliefs.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Creationism is nothing but a fundamentalist view of the bible. There are people who have worked very hard to get this into science classes. Remember the Scopes trial? If not, rent and watch “Inherit the Wind”. That is creationism. That should never be allowed into our science curricula.
Contend away. I absolutedly disagree with you.
Behe? You mean the guy who admitted that in order to justify ID as science, he had to change the definition of science so much that even astrology would be considered a science?
Your perception that they are condescending is a personal feeling you have because they were victorious and you support the losing side.
That’s exactly right. One can be a devout believer and still accept evolution because the science is sound. That’s the problem with creationism - you have to reject all of the science that supports evolution while also ignoring the complete lack of evidence supporting creationism.
Peace
Tim
E
edwest2
Guest
Not good for Catholicism to promote “their” beliefs? Excuse me? Guilt by association? We are not talking about Catholics becoming Baptists or Muslims.
God bless,
Ed
- Status