Maybe in the US but certainly not Australia or Western Europe…
Because it shows a lack of understanding in what modern Christianity is about. But that has never stopped you in the past.
Isn’t that the Christianity that doesn’t allow condoms to be shipped to Africa? The one that actively hides pedophiles? That sort of thing?
Have you talked to Anglicans in the Sydney diocese recently?
Again with the broad brush approach, I don’t deny these things happen.
Of course; that’s what I said. Science, as an institution, would never address it at all.
I actually said, “One can say, ‘the guiding principle of the universe is love.’”
I didn’t say it myself! I don’t believe it myself! Are you somehow under the impression that I was holding it up as a principle that I, or that science, defends? You’re speaking as if rebutting me, but it isn’t regarding anything I put forward!
No, it shows that I do understand what its about; I just don’t agree with your whitewashed, rose-colored-glasses version of it.
Meh and I don’t agree with your “religion is evil” crap you sprout.
A broad brush? Over a billion people support the guy in Rome who does this shit. I know I personally don’t give money to people I don’t agree with, so how is he staying afloat if so many disagree with him?
Most Catholics support the church but not a lot of the shit it has done and most of us understand that it will change as the world changes as it has done for 2,000 years or so. It has done it before and it will continue to morph and change as society changes.
In some ways it is like science, it has a view and then changes it based on evidence and unlike science on public views.
A better analogy may be a politician who wishes to stay in office or a marketing team who wish to keep people buying their product.
I think it is a bit more fundamental than that, but the analogy is fair.
All religions have to evolve or die, it’s true.
The thing is, I expect science to be fallible, since the process involves models that improve under refinement over time. But when it’s a church with divinely inspired wisdom, altered positions raise the question of why God had to grudgingly concede that scientists got to the truth of things before He did.
Here’s the closest thing I’ve been able to find online to an explanation of the reasons that Hawking and his first wife’s marriage broke up:
There’s no indication that Jane Hawking left him because he talked about his atheism. She had just gotten tired of his arrogance, which became worse as he became famous. It was also exhausting to have to spend so much time taking care of him as well as three children. As she says, they had married without thinking much about the long term. When they met in 1963, it was the middle of the Cold War and there was a general attitude of “We’re all going to get blown up in a few years, so what does it matter if we die of something else before then?” This review doesn’t discuss it, but she had already begun an affair with the guy she married after the divorce towards the end of the marriage. And, finally, it was Stephen who initiated the divorce.
I’m not saying that this makes her a great person. She was tired of being little wifey in the background who takes care of everything so the famous man doesn’t have to worry about the details. I’m just saying that his atheism had nothing really to do with the divorce.
No, I was just being silly, Trinopus.
[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner]
…I’m just saying that his atheism had nothing really to do with the divorce.
[/QUOTE]
Ok. We believe you. My mistake. Sorry.