I'm not baptized. My MIL prays for my soul. Not sure I'm comfy with that

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by hoopified

the poster called out santorum, romney, and gingrich. I asked for citations that supported his/her assertion.

I can see that you're beyond reasonable discussion. common with liberals, I've found.

My quotes were evidence and my nick is not "google"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...alist-machine/


Another one...and no AA doesn't work, we allow churches to be tax free they don't need secular money if they want to push belief. Not because of the belief but because it gives the idea that government endorses one religion over another.


Rick Santorum Against "Privileges" for Gays

"Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition...This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country--the United States of America."

[Saint Cad]

Penn Jilette of Penn & Teller and vehement atheist had an interesting take that I tend to agree with. If a person truly believes in a doctrine that only Christians (and in your MIL's case baptised) can be saved, then for them to NOT try and convert you is an evil act since by their theology, they are allowing you to make decisions that condemn your soul to Hell for eternity.

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

My quotes were evidence and my nick is not "google"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...alist-machine/


Another one...and no AA doesn't work, we allow churches to be tax free they don't need secular money if they want to push belief. Not because of the belief but because it gives the idea that government endorses one religion over another.


Rick Santorum Against "Privileges" for Gays

"Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition...This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country--the United States of America."

And you have yet to cite a policy position from any of these candidates that is "forcing one's beliefs on another". The best you can come up with is doma. And that isn't forcing anything, it's simply maintaining the status quo. With a few exceptions, gay marriage is illegal now.

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Penn Jilette of Penn & Teller and vehement atheist had an interesting take that I tend to agree with. If a person truly believes in a doctrine that only Christians (and in your MIL's case baptised) can be saved, then for them to NOT try and convert you is an evil act since by their theology, they are allowing you to make decisions that condemn your soul to Hell for eternity.

And taking theological commentary from Penn and Teller is always a good idea. Do you really want to get into Christian doctrine?

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by hoopified

the poster called out santorum, romney, and gingrich. I asked for citations that supported his/her assertion.

Citation was given. But seeing that they wrote it with disappearing ink on invisible paper, I can see why you didn't notice it. I myself had to complete a 2 hour quest to obtain the necessary skill of SecretSight in order to read it, and I don't think you're strong enough to defeat the Orc guarding the Glasses of All-Seeing

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by hoopified

And taking theological commentary from Penn and Teller is always a good idea. Do you really want to get into Christian doctrine?

Sure.
<rolls one sleeve up>

[sisu]

Originally Posted by diggerwam

I was raised w/o religion and was not baptized. My mother had some religion but did not feel like people were born w/ original sin so therefore did not need to be baptized. My MIL has said that she prays for my soul. I'm not really comfortable with that knowledge. Obviously I can force her to stop and I'm sure prayer like this happens for non specific people all the time. She's known me for 20 years. She knows I'm a good guy. I feel like she feels that we aren't equals. Or else why pray. Please explain it to someone who is very unreligious and also why should I care what she does in the privacy if her own church.

So all you are complaining that you think that she thinks that she is better?

FFS take a few cups of cement and HTFU.

Why is this even an issue?

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by sisu

So all you are complaining that you think that she thinks that she is better?

FFS take a few cups of cement and HTFU.

Why is this even an issue?

The praying is harmless, but really what is the point of her telling his wife?

What good does she think will come of it?

The MIL is just being a stereotypical MIL but causing conflict in a family unit is quite a valid reason to post a question/rant on the interweb.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

The praying is harmless, but really what is the point of her telling his wife?

Well, that is her daughter—doncha suppose they talk about stuff?

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

Well, that is her daughter—doncha suppose they talk about stuff?

No, I don't find it helpful to talk negatively about anyone behind their back, nor is it helpful to infer your child's choice in spouse was poor or unacceptable.

Proverbs 16:28

A dishonest man spreads strife, and a whisperer separates close friends.

[Boyo Jim]

If you press her on this she will hate you, try to poison your relationship with your wife, and write you out of her will. Let it go.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

No, I don't find it helpful to talk negatively about anyone behind their back, nor is it helpful to infer your child's choice in spouse was poor or unacceptable.

I didn't infer from the OP that the MIL was doing any of these things. How is praying for someone('s soul) necessarily negative?

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

I didn't infer from the OP that the MIL was doing any of these things. How is praying for someone('s soul) necessarily negative?

Originally Posted by rat avatar

The praying is harmless, but really what is the point of her telling his wife?

What good does she think will come of it?

The MIL is just being a stereotypical MIL but causing conflict in a family unit is quite a valid reason to post a question/rant on the interweb.

Didn't I say the praying was harmless?

His MIL telling his wife was destructive, it puts her on the spot, she has to defend him, tell him etc...

Her saying "I"m praying for him" is indicating disapproval.

As per the OP

Originally Posted by diggerwam

I was raised w/o religion and was not baptized. My mother had some religion but did not feel like people were born w/ original sin so therefore did not need to be baptized. My MIL has said that she prays for my soul. I'm not really comfortable with that knowledge. Obviously I can force her to stop and I'm sure prayer like this happens for non specific people all the time. She's known me for 20 years. She knows I'm a good guy. I feel like she feels that we aren't equals. Or else why pray. Please explain it to someone who is very unreligious and also why should I care what she does in the privacy if her own church.

[sisu]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

The praying is harmless, but really what is the point of her telling his wife?

Cause she cares if he goes to hell.

Originally Posted by rat avatar

What good does she think will come of it?

That they might come to church

Originally Posted by rat avatar

The MIL is just being a stereotypical MIL but causing conflict in a family unit is quite a valid reason to post a question/rant on the interweb.

I don't see how she is causing conflict and guess what she still is her daughter.

Really everyone is getting hysterical over nothing.

[gamerunknown]

How is praying for someone('s soul) necessarily negative?

It isn't, but I seem to recall some impertinent chap saying to pray in private rather than in public and only to inform someone to their face if they've been sinning.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by sisu

Cause she cares if he goes to hell.

That they might come to church

I don't see how she is causing conflict and guess what she still is her daughter.

Really everyone is getting hysterical over nothing.

How is discussing manners, hysterical?

f(not comfy) = 1/not comfy?

There, have some thread Hyperbola for some Hyperbole.

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Sure.
<rolls one sleeve up>

Great. Ready when you are.

[thelabdude]

Originally Posted by cckerberos

Will it, though?

If everyone has to accept Jesus of their own free will, what effect can another's prayers have?

I think the majority, but not all, of those thinking of themselves as Christians agree with me that we are saved by our faith and accepting Jesus' dying on the cross to atone for our sins. Others see things differently. None of us should want anybody to burn in Hell. Any of us failing to forgive others and wanting to see them burn in Hell are endangering our own salvation. See the Lord's Prayer.

So for most of us we need to pray for Jesus to enter into the unbelievers hearts and for them to accept the grace. Your aunt may be of a tradition that thinks they can affect your salvation by praying for you.

As for baptism, I don't feel it necessary to have somebody else sprinkle you or dunk you in water. I struggled with the Bible's clear message that you must be baptized when it is a work by another. The only work that counts is Jesus' death on the cross. When I became part of the Friends church, their explanation that baptism is being immersed in the Holy Spirit made a lot of sense to me.

Even if you find her misguided, and she is at odds to the Bible's teaching, she means well. Quietly thank her and quickly bring up something else.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by hoopified

Keep trying.

DOMA laws are seeking to keep marriage traditionally defined. There's no furthering of some agenda, there's only seeking the status quo.

Please try to focus. Name ONE proposal by any candidate that is overtly religious, that is by design seeking to enforce religious dogma of any kind, that prevents you from doing anything you're doing right now.

Why does a law have to prevent somebody from doing something they're doing right now to qualify as religious oppression? In any event, DOMA prevents two people who are lawfully married in one state from enjoying the benefits of marriage in another.

Anyway, DOMA-type legislation has nothing to do with "keeping marriage traditionally defined". In a traditional marriage, the male was the head of the household and the female had few or no rights. Traditional marriage was effectively abolished in the US by the Married Womens' Property Acts in the late nineteenth century and marital rape laws in the 1970s.

...to buttress your point, you will have to show that someone or some group is wishing that creationism replaces science curriculum, thereby reducing the amount or quality of knowledge students receive.

Adding creationism to science curricula unambiguously does reduce the amount or quality of knowledge that students receive. I assume you will accept the premises that the amount of time schools devote to science classes is limited, yes? Creationism isn't science. If students are learning it in science classes, they have less time to learn the things science class is for.

[Interrobang]

I've had similar experiences with my in-laws (Episcopaleans). The understand that I am not religious; I used to attend church with them when I visited on a Sunday because it's important to the family, but that faded over time. I think they finally get it.

Even so, they sometimes make comments to me or to others, along the lines that I'm really a Christian but don't know it. This is in the context of situations when I've been helpful in unexpected ways (picking up a pile of gifts that had been gathered at the church for distribution to the poor, going on a service trip to post-Katrina New Orleans, offering to donate part of my liver).

At first I bristled...I'm NOT Christian, and I DO know it. I eventually decided to take it in the spirit it's meant. They're just saying that I'm a good guy, and that's the filter they see it through. Oddly, my wife gets more ornery about it these days.

[hoopified]

[quote=Really Not All That Bright;14914113]

Why does a law have to prevent somebody from doing something they're doing right now to qualify as religious oppression

That seems to be the fear from republican candidates. That one will win then implement some sort of grand, sweeping agenda that is meant to impose their religious beliefs. If things remain as they are, then that's not possible.

In any event, DOMA prevents two people who are lawfully married in one state from enjoying the benefits of marriage in another.

Why should Maine recognize an untraditional marriage from Georgia?

Anyway, DOMA-type legislation has nothing to do with "keeping marriage traditionally defined".

So you say. But you're not a supporter of doma. So I'm not sure you're qualified to determine what the motivations is.

In a traditional marriage, the male was the head of the household and the female had few or no rights. Traditional marriage was effectively abolished in the US by the Married Womens' Property Acts in the late nineteenth century and marital rape laws in the 1970s.

No. You're comparing the expression of marriage with its definition. Two different things.

Adding creationism to science curricula unambiguously does reduce the amount or quality of knowledge that students receive. I assume you will accept the premises that the amount of time schools devote to science classes is limited, yes? Creationism isn't science. If students are learning it in science classes, they have less time to learn the things science class is for.

That's a fair point for which I am surprised no one has offered before on this thread. I do accept your premise. However, I wonder how much would actually be used for creationism, my suspicion is that it would be verylittle. The questions then becomes whether or not more information outweighs the time cost? I'm not sure. But you still have to prove that the students are less educated from a curriculum that offers creationism as supplemental.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by hoopified

...Why should Maine recognize an untraditional marriage from Georgia?...

Because there is a legal concept called reciprocity that has in the past been specifically applied to marriage. It was that that a marriage that was legitimate in the state where it took place had to be recognized as legitimate by all the other states.

This is why somebody who married their opposite-sex 10 year old first cousin in one state legitimately could travel to any other state without risk of statutory rape or incest charges. Even if said marriage couldn't have taken place in said state, that state was bound to recognized the legitimacy of the marriage.

DOMA specifically repealed this requirement as related to same-sex marriage.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by hoopified

... However, I wonder how much would actually be used for creationism, my suspicion is that it would be verylittle. The questions then becomes whether or not more information outweighs the time cost? I'm not sure. But you still have to prove that the students are less educated from a curriculum that offers creationism as supplemental.

Excuse me? Creationism has absolutely no scientific underpinning whatsoever. There is no "more information" to convey. I can see creationism being a legitimate area of study (alongside astrology and phrenology) in some kind of comparative sociology course, but not as a supplement to evolution. It doesn't "supplement" evolution, it flat out contradicts it, with no rational basis.

[hoopified]

[quote=Boyo Jim;14915376]

Because there is a legal concept called reciprocity

If reciprocity works in this instance, why doesn't it work in every instance? And if does, then why do we even have states with their own constitutions, legislatures, etc.? If it doesn't, why can't this be an instance where it doesn't?

that has in the past been specifically applied to marriage.

Certainly. The traditionally recognized form of marriage. The idea ssm is a relatively new consideration, so appeals to the past may not hold muster.

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Excuse me? Creationism has absolutely no scientific underpinning whatsoever. There is no "more information" to convey. I can see creationism being a legitimate area of study (alongside astrology and phrenology) in some kind of comparative sociology course, but not as a supplement to evolution. It doesn't "supplement" evolution, it flat out contradicts it, with no rational basis.

There would seem to be some smart people, smarter than I, and maybe even smarter than you, who would disagree. So it's not so cut and dried as you propose.

Still, if creationism is such a sham, why not take two days, teach it, and let the facts fall where they may? What are you so afraid of?

[Boyo Jim]

Yes, it is so cut and dried. US courts, including the Supreme Court, have so ruled multiple times, even when "creation science" is gussied up as "intelligent design".

It is religion, pure and simple.

There may be people smarter than me claiming otherwise, but they are either charlatans with a political agenda, or delusional. Or perhaps both.

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Yes, it is so cut and dried. US courts, including the Supreme Court, have so ruled multiple times, even when "creation science" is gussied up as "intelligent design".

It is religion, pure and simple.

There may be people smarter than me claiming otherwise, but they are either charlatans with a political agenda, or delusional. Or perhaps both.

Lol. Okay. No need to get so emotional. If the supreme court is the final arbiter on what is science, then you can live with that.

And if those who disagree with you, based on the findings of the supreme court, or whatever, are charlatans or delusional, then so be that to.

[Boyo Jim]

There's also pretty much the entirety of the of the scientific community, and in particular the life sciences, who are firmly in the "creationism is junk science" camp.

How about this argument? Science live new fields to explore -- it gets them more money, more jobs, more ways to get famous, and probably other stuff that I can't think of at the moment. There are serious and reputable scientists who are studying all kinds of fringe stuff like ESP and telekinesis. But they are nearly unanimous in condemning creation science as totally worthless.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by cckerberos

Will it, though?

If everyone has to accept Jesus of their own free will, what effect can another's prayers have?

Well, since all things happen according god's will, prayers work by appealing to god to change his will that some people must suffer. It must work once in a while, or the practice would die out. Unless the prayerful are just ignorant.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by hoopified

However, I wonder how much would actually be used for creationism, my suspicion is that it would be verylittle.

Why do you think so? If creationists are going to all the trouble of trying to revise school science curricula to include creationist alternatives to science, why do you imagine that they wouldn't want to spend a significant amount of science teaching time on those alternatives?

Originally Posted by hoopified

The questions then becomes whether or not more information outweighs the time cost? I'm not sure.

Teaching creationism in a science class is not providing students with "more information" about science: it's just wasting the time that is supposed to be devoted to a specific and well-defined subject.

Similarly, teaching science in a Sunday school scripture class would not be providing the class members with "more information" about their faith, which is what a scripture class is supposed to be for.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Well, since all things happen according god's will, prayers work by appealing to god to change his will that some people must suffer. It must work once in a while, or the practice would die out. Unless the prayerful are just ignorant.

Nope, this is why it is faith.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...-heal-the-sick

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

There's also pretty much the entirety of the of the scientific community, and in particular the life sciences, who are firmly in the "creationism is junk science" camp.

How about this argument? Science live new fields to explore -- it gets them more money, more jobs, more ways to get famous, and probably other stuff that I can't think of at the moment. There are serious and reputable scientists who are studying all kinds of fringe stuff like ESP and telekinesis. But they are nearly unanimous in condemning creation science as totally worthless.

And yet, there are scientists who disagree. You know, those guys who have those odd letters in their names, and they study subjects that ology or onomy or something like that.

So at the outset, you're reasoning is flawed. Not much of a scientist, are you?

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

How about this argument? Science live new fields to explore -- it gets them more money, more jobs, more ways to get famous, and probably other stuff that I can't think of at the moment. There are serious and reputable scientists who are studying all kinds of fringe stuff like ESP and telekinesis. But they are nearly unanimous in condemning creation science as totally worthless.

so you're saying scientist will sometimes do things for money? Huh! There's something here that makes your universalist claims suspicious but I can't quite figure it out. Any ideas?

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by hoopified

There would seem to be some smart people, smarter than I, and maybe even smarter than you, who would disagree. So it's not so cut and dried as you propose.

Really? Please name some smart and scientifically knowledgeable people who claim that creationism is a scientifically valid alternative theory to evolution.

Originally Posted by hoopified

Still, if creationism is such a sham, why not take two days, teach it, and let the facts fall where they may? What are you so afraid of?

In the first place, you've offered no evidence beyond your own wishful thinking that teaching creationism in science class would be limited to "two days" or to any other arbitrary time interval. Let's see you supply some actual evidence of such limitation before you try to argue that the time devoted to non-science teaching would naturally be so small that it's no big deal.

In the second place, it's not a sign of fear or irrational aversion to be opposed to deliberate misrepresentation of facts. I have nothing against believers teaching creationism to children in Sunday school or other faith-based venues as part of their religion. I have everything against believers trying to teach (or mandate the teaching of) creationism to students in science classes under the false assertion that it qualifies as a scientifically valid viewpoint.

I don't have to be "afraid of" liars and fools in order to oppose their educational agendas.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by hoopified

And yet, there are scientists who disagree. You know, those guys who have those odd letters in their names, and they study subjects that ology or onomy or something like that.

So at the outset, you're reasoning is flawed. Not much of a scientist, are you?

They have not provided evidence to support a claim or to falsify the concept of evolution.

The body of evidence that exists in support of the Theory of evolution is so broad, so vast and so entwined with the basic concepts of our world that anyone who could disprove it would be famous and held as one of the greats in the scientific world.

Why have all of these men, who are smart, not falsified the theory?

Also note, there are more scientists named "Steve" that support evolution than evolution denyers.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by hoopified

And yet, there are scientists who disagree. You know, those guys who have those odd letters in their names, and they study subjects that ology or onomy or something like that.

Really? Like I said, let's see some examples.

A scientifically valid hypothesis demonstrates its validity by growing more and more widely accepted and experimentally confirmed as research and evidence accumulate over time.

The epistemic path of creationism has been in precisely the OPPOSITE direction. For many hundreds of years, most scientists within the Judeo-Christian tradition believed that biblical accounts of creation were a legitimate part of a scientific worldview. But over the past few centuries, everything that we've learned in the physical sciences and life sciences has contributed to making creationist ideas more and more scientifically untenable.

If a hypothesis with no general scientific credibility and no convincing supporting evidence should be accepted as a respected alternative theory just because a handful of fringe thinkers believe it, then there's no reason we shouldn't be teaching astrology and witchcraft in school science classes too.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by hoopified

so you're saying scientist will sometimes do things for money? Huh! There's something here that makes your universalist claims suspicious but I can't quite figure it out. Any ideas?

Yes. What you're having trouble with here is your own inability to distinguish between the concepts of doing research for money and telling lies for money.

Almost all scientists do the former, which is why they like having more research possibilities to explore, and why most of them would be perfectly happy to do serious research on creationist hypotheses if there were any actual evidence suggesting that creationism is in fact scientifically valid.

Most scientists, however, do not do the latter (based on the evidence about the overall validity and falsifiability of their inferences provided by peer-reviewed published scientific research). Which is why attempting to insinuate that scientists' rejection of creationism is somehow suspect because scientists "do things for money" is a crock of shit.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by hoopified

Great. Ready when you are.

So first question related to the OP.
Does the example set forth by the Apostles encourage Christians to try and convert non-believers.

Second question.
She prays for his soul. How does it hurt the OP? And yes we can bring Pascal's wager into this if you want.

[hoopified]

[quote=Kimstu;14916201]

Yes. What you're having trouble with here is your own inability to distinguish between the concepts of doing research for money and telling lies for money.

Well, I'm certainly glad I have you to straighten me out.

Almost all scientists do the former, which is why they like having more research possibilities to explore, and why most of them would be perfectly happy to do serious research on creationist hypotheses if there were any actual evidence suggesting that creationism is in fact scientifically valid.

Of course, this is total crap. You're position there's no research to explore creationism because no one is doing any research. Okay.

Most scientists, however, do not do the latter (based on the evidence about the overall validity and falsifiability of their inferences provided by peer-reviewed published scientific research). Which is why attempting to insinuate that scientists' rejection of creationism is somehow suspect because scientists "do things for money" is a crock of shit.

How pleasent. One is left to wonder what about this makes you so angry? I'm not insinuating it. I'm stating it. Scientists, legitimate or not, wouldn't touch creationism with a ten foot, magnetized pole because other scientists will ostracize them.

[hoopified]

[quote=Saint Cad;14916501]

So first question related to the OP.
Does the example set forth by the Apostles encourage Christians to try and convert non-believers.

Yes.

Second question.
She prays for his soul. How does it hurt the OP?

It doesn't.

[thelabdude]

Originally Posted by hoopified

There would seem to be some smart people, smarter than I, and maybe even smarter than you, who would disagree. So it's not so cut and dried as you propose.

Still, if creationism is such a sham, why not take two days, teach it, and let the facts fall where they may? What are you so afraid of?

2 days? It isn't that complex of a subject. It could easily be covered in the time spent in unconstitutional attacks on the existence of God common in the teaching of evolution. If God choose to work within natural laws to create the world, that is no proof he doesn't exist. Any teacher insisting on teaching that it does should be removed from the classroom.

Most of what I read about evolution goes into long winded proof of the obvious fact that selective breeding works. That is Biblical, look how well Jacob managed his striped sheep. Then having proved selective breeding, they jump the chasm to creating species that can no longer interbreed. Frankly I am confused and don't feel I have enough data to make a sound decision. There does seem to be a great fear of the idea of creationism.

[Saintly Loser]

Originally Posted by Blake

The fact that she is attempting to produce an effect is offensive, whether the effect occurs or not. It is telling the recipient of the "prayer" that they an errant child, unable to think for themselves and in need of correction from teacher. Whether the teacher actually exists is rather irrelevant.

It's not telling the recipient (well, the subject) of the prayer anything of the kind. It's praying for grace, understanding, wisdom, whatever, for the subject. It doesn't imply anything along the lines of the subject being an "errant child" or unable to think, or in need of correction. Religious people quite often pray for themselves -- does that mean they think of themselves as errant children, etc.?

Originally Posted by rat avatar

In many sects you can kill a young boy, have sex and ejaculate on his body and eat/collect little bits or real cannibalism. And a short time later through the magic of wishful thinking mixed with a little bit of wine and toast all's good for you.

WTF? I'm guessing you're particularly excercised about Catholicism, but still, WTF?

Originally Posted by rat avatar

“Does faith matter? Absolutely,” Gingrich said. “How can you have judgment if you have no faith? How can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?” He continued, “the notion that you are endowed by your creator sets a certain boundary of what we mean by America.” Gingrich said that Americans should value religion first, above morality and knowledge.

“a secular atheist country potentially one dominated by radical Islamists”

"I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As president, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion. And I’ll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.” —Rick Perry


"I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution." —Rick Perry

"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." - Santoum

Do I need to keep going?

It's worth nothing that the people you quote have either already been rejected by their own party, or are going to be rejected by that same party shortly.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by hoopified

No. You're comparing the expression of marriage with its definition. Two different things.

What is the "expression" of marriage?

One of the defining features of marriage as traditionally practiced is that the wife owned no property and was in many respects effectively the property of her husband.

Another redefinition of marriage that has largely taken root in the past 50 years is the no-fault divorce. I would say that one of the defining features of any practice is how it ends. Wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by Saintly Loser

It's worth nothing that the people you quote have either already been rejected by their own party, or are going to be rejected by that same party shortly.

Not really, since hoopified specifically asked for examples from Gingrich. Goalpost moving aside, will this do?

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Saintly Loser

WTF? I'm guessing you're particularly excercised about Catholicism, but still, WTF?

Why do you assume I was speaking of the Catholic Church? I was talking about how Jeffrey L. Dahmer was "saved" by the Church of Christ. I actually kept it clean but the idea you were not appalled by churches action by my sanitized description of the christian concept of vicarious redemption is sad.

It also demonstrates why I am justified in finding the concept repulsive.

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

Jeffrey L. Dahmer was "saved" by the Church of Christ. .

I doubt Dahmer or CoC claims this. Try to get some sense of theology before criticizing it.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by hoopified

One is left to wonder what about this makes you so angry?

Mostly the stupidity of the people who think that creationism is a scientifically valid construct that deserves to be treated as science. Sometimes their dishonesty too, though.

Seriously, you're not going to get anywhere trying to paint opposition to teaching creationism in science classes as some kind of irrationally hyper-emotional overreaction. People who understand science and respect education oppose the teaching of creationism in science classes not because they hate religion or find it frightening, but simply because creationism is not science.

As I said, if you advocate the teaching of creationism in science classes then you have no rational reason to oppose the teaching of things like astrology and witchcraft there too. But I can just imagine the pants-wetting hysteria that would afflict the advocates of teaching creationism if somebody proposed that.

Originally Posted by hoopified

I'm not insinuating it. I'm stating it. Scientists, legitimate or not, wouldn't touch creationism with a ten foot, magnetized pole because other scientists will ostracize them.

Not if there were any actual scientific evidence for creationism, they wouldn't. The reason scientists look down on claims that creationism is scientifically legitimate is that creationists haven't managed to come up with any actual scientific evidence to justify such claims.

And it's not as though they haven't had the chance, either. Creationists have had every opportunity they could possibly wish for to construct scientifically valid theories based on creationism, starting back in the early modern period when practically every scientist in the Western world already was a convinced creationist.

Despite the best efforts of many of the best minds in the history of modern science, the creationist worldview simply failed to produce anything that could stand up against competing hypotheses when evaluated in the light of the accumulated evidence. It wasn't prejudice that killed creationism in scientific circles: it was knowledge.

Originally Posted by thelabdude

2 days? It isn't that complex of a subject. It could easily be covered in the time spent in unconstitutional attacks on the existence of God common in the teaching of evolution. If God choose to work within natural laws to create the world, that is no proof he doesn't exist. Any teacher insisting on teaching that it does should be removed from the classroom.

There's no question that assertions about the existence or nonexistence of God definitely don't belong in a science classroom. Evolution is a scientific theory that, like all scientific theories, explains natural phenomena by means of natural laws, and thus has no bearing on whether or not supernatural beings exist or how they behave if they do.

And AFAICT, most science teachers are well aware of this. Do you have a cite for the claim that science teachers actually do "commonly" assert the nonexistence of God in the process of teaching evolution? Because that really sounds like bullshit to me.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by hoopified

I doubt Dahmer or CoC claims this. Try to get some sense of theology before criticizing it.

Funny, how you keep saying I'm ignorant but the facts are on my side.

http://www.christianchronicle.org/ar...frey_Dahmer%3F

[hoopified]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

Funny, how you keep saying I'm ignorant but the facts are on my side.

http://www.christianchronicle.org/ar...frey_Dahmer%3F

The fact that you think this article supports your point only bolsters my original criticism. I'll let you figure it out since you like to pass yourself off as so brilliant.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by hoopified

I doubt Dahmer or CoC claims this. Try to get some sense of theology before criticizing it.

Try to get some information about facts before casually and ignorantly contradicting them. As a matter of fact, the Reverend Roy Ratcliff of the Madison (WI) Church of Christ makes no secret of the fact that he gave Dahmer religious instruction culminating in his baptism:

[Crescent (OK) Church of Christ member Curt] Booth usually ministered to inmates at prisons closer to home. But in April 1994, he caught a glimpse of Dahmer on television. Dahmer mentioned that he wished he could “find a little peace,” Booth said.

The Oklahoma church member sensed what he considered the hurt in Dahmer’s voice and eyes. Booth said he thought: “I know somebody who can give you that peace. His name is Jesus Christ.”

Booth sent Dahmer a Bible correspondence course teaching the steps to salvation. Dahmer mailed the answers back and thanked Booth for the course.


“But I still have one problem,” Dahmer wrote. “This prison does not have a baptismal tank and Mr. Burkum the prison chaplain is not sure if he can find someone to bring a tank in and baptize me? I’ve taken all the other steps.”

Booth contacted Roy Ratcliff, minister of the Madison Church of Christ in Wisconsin. Ratcliff set up weekly Bible lessons with Dahmer and baptized him on May 10, 1994. Ratcliff later shared that Dahmer told him he had been fearful of the minister’s visit.

“He dreaded that I might say, ‘No, you’re too evil. You’re too sinful. I can’t baptize someone like you,’” Ratcliff said.

I would think that a sincere Christian would be proud at the notion that his chosen faith had converted and welcomed someone as formerly wicked as Jeffrey Dahmer, not shamefacedly trying to pretend it didn't happen.

Originally Posted by hoopified

The fact that you think this article supports your point only bolsters my original criticism. I'll let you figure it out since you like to pass yourself off as so brilliant.

There's nothing to figure out: the article in question, as my quote above plainly shows, does support the claim about Dahmer having been saved in the Church of Christ while in prison.

Why are you so embarrassed about that?

[Saintly Loser]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

Why do you assume I was speaking of the Catholic Church? I was talking about how Jeffrey L. Dahmer was "saved" by the Church of Christ. I actually kept it clean but the idea you were not appalled by churches action by my sanitized description of the christian concept of vicarious redemption is sad.

It also demonstrates why I am justified in finding the concept repulsive.

I assumed, apparently wrongly, that you were speaking of Catholicism because often people, either antitheists (an excellent word) or extremist Protestants who don't consider Catholics to be truly Christian call the Eucharist "cannibalism."

I don't know anything about the Church of Christ "saving" Jeffrey Dahmer vicariously. Vicarious salvation is not a Christian concept, generally speaking. I suppose it's possible that some sect may believe that it's possible, but if that's true, it would definitely be a minority position. A tiny minority, at that.