I’m not sure they mean specific people when they say “enemy” though. The Bible doesn’t get that specific on the subject “Thou shalt love Jimmy Peterson like thy would thy own neighbor even though he put gum in your hair in the 2nd grade.”
Any non believer of Christ would be considered to be an “enemy” by some interpretations of the Bible. Any belief not of Christ would be considered false and thereby to some degree of “satan” if you go with the “if it isn’t of Christ, it’s of the devil” mentality of some believers. Not all, just some.
There’s so much room for personal interpretation when it comes to the Bible, your guess is as good as mine.
Broad brush my ass. A month ago Pat Robertson cheered his audience by informing them that God would soon inflict violent vengeance on all the people of Dover, Pennsylvania because some of them believe in the theory of evolution. Given that attitude from America’s most powerful Christian leader, what these two fellows in Kansas did was merely obeying religious orders. Of course there are some Christians who don’t think it’s a good idea to murder all those who acknowledge the truth of evolution, but they’re decidedly out of their religion’s mainstream in this country.
Pat Robertson is America’s most powerful Christian leader? What kind of power does he have, exactly? I imagine far more people in this country consider the pope their leader than Pat Robertson, and far, far more religious people subscribe to neither the pope’s nor Robertson’s teachings. You’re confusing media attention with mainstream belief, it seems. The majority of religious people in this country do not follow Robertson; he’s not the measuring stick for the “mainstream”. I’m an atheist, BTW, before you accuse me of being one of all-powerful Robertson’s minions.
You beat me to it, woodstockbirdybird. The only time I even hear about Pat Robertson is when the media picks up another diarrhea of the mouth statement he makes. He certainly doesn’t speak for any Christians I know.
That is more or less what I meant; to the extent I was speaking of Christians, I was speaking of the fundamentalist, won’t-leave-you-alone sort. The sort who want prayer and Genesis in the schools, evolution out and gays unable to marry.
Honestly, it never occured to me to blame Kansas.
It was meant as sarcasm/irony.
Next time I’ll try to get more sleep the night before I post; if I’m less fuzzy I’ll write better.
And yes, I can use a broader brush : “This is proof of the fundamental evil of humanity; a species which has long since demonstrated it deserves annihilation !!”. See; that’s lot’s broader, and crazier to boot ! :
More seriously it’s not that broad a brush; if it was, those laws against gay marriage wouldn’t keep passing. If there is a silent majority of Christians who believe in tolerance, they should stop being so silent.
Even then, not all fundies are like the type you describe. The fundies in my family, for instance, want school prayer, creationism, and lack of gays. But they are certainly not the types to beat up a professor. And they’re certainly tolerant of people like… well, me, for example.
Facts may not vary from person to person, but whether or not the person spouting them actually knows what the fuck they are talking about varies WIDELY from person to person.
Sigh, gotta knock this little gem of ignorance down again and again until people who think they are smart will stop spreading this nonsense.
CREATIONISM IS NOT PROVEABLY BULLSHIT. It is not incompatible with Evolution. There are a lot of creation myths that do not include adam, eve, a serpent or an apple. They are ALLEGORY, meant to describe processes that happened before we developed things called “WORDS”. Creationism and Evolution are not in conflict. I’ll say it again to you one more time in case you didn’t understand that the first 8 bajillion times you heard it CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION ARE NOT IN CONFLICT!!!
Goddamn, you think you people who are spouting for science all the time would actually know how to apply it. Just because some people made up a pseudo-science in order to try and explain creationism, doesn’t mean that creationism as a whole is PROVEABLY BULLSHIT, because no one has proven any such thing.
Are you misunderstanding what he said, or are you actually defending ID? If the latter, I’m sure that one or two Dopers would be glad to argue it with you in GD.
Simulpost. While I agree that (non-Biblical) creationism cannot be specifically disproven, the reason is that it is an unfalsifiable non-hypothesis. It’s junk-science, if it deserves to be called science at all. And I’m sure you’ll agree that the best way to turn it into real science does not involve mugging professors.
“Creationism” does not refer to any and all religious or spiritual beliefs about the origin of the world, but to the specific religious/political agenda of a subset of Christian fundamentalists who believe in the literal truth of the Biblical creation story, and seek to have it taught in science classes in the US. It is, in every respect, entirely incompatible with what we currently understand about almost every discipline of science, and has been conclusively falsified over and over, barring a deliberate act of deception by God himself.
And, once again, I’ll point out that you’d look a lot less like an idiot if you actually understood the terms you use before you use them. You’d still be an idiot, of course, but it would be much more difficult for everyone around you to tell.
My favorite part of the Brooks Sumner Affair is that hundreds and hundreds of people thought it was a clever idea to send him a new cane for Christmas.
Idiot getting tailgaited pulls over in a desolate area and gets out of his car to confront superior (possibly armed) numbers. Idiot gets the shit kicked out of him. Idiot learns not to do that again.
Idiot passes down that valuable information to his progeny, and eventually those unwilling to learn lay at the roadside in a bloody pulp. Effectively taking themselves out of the gene pool.
And you would look a lot less like an idiot if you didn’t go around acting as if your definition of Creationism is the only definition of Creationism. For example, I believe that God created the Earth in 6 days, but I would never want this taught in a science class in a public school. I still consider myself a Creationist, regardless of your definition.
Here are some definitions from some people who don’t agree with me on how the earth was created, but also disagree with you on what the term ‘Creationism’ means.
Oh, give me a break. It’s not my definition of creationism, it’s the one that’s in common usage in the current political climate in the US. You want to use a specialized definition of the term, that’s fine, make it clear up front, and we can work from that. But when someone uses the term in its most accepted context, and someone like mswas blasts him for an inconsistency that clearly doesn’t apply to his usage, that person is a fucking idiot.
