|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Mar 12, 2020 11:20:08 GMT -5
BS, Lee. You are just exposing your own sexism.
I am sexist in the sense I believe men should lead in our common struggle against evil. Burn those Bibles and Korans Lee.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2020 11:38:45 GMT -5
I was under the impression that the unreasonable, irrational and hideous aspects of religion made secularism. So to religions then goes all praise and glory for making the rejection of religious dogma a preferable option to themselves. False religion is rejectable. My experience with secularism is it tends to kick you back to theism in a quest to find handles to it. that's interesting. I can't say that I agree, but I can't be reasonably certain I disagree. I love it when people do this to me (no sarcasm). Something to mull over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2020 11:58:34 GMT -5
BS, Lee. You are just exposing your own sexism.
I am sexist in the sense I believe men should lead in our common struggle against evil. It's been observation that men are disgusting pigs, until a disaster happens and the disgusting pigs insist on aiding/saving women and children before themselves. I've also wondered how feminism can teach us that men are pigs, while also maintaining men and women aren't different. Men = pigs Men = women Women = pigs I dont deny inequality exists, but do get weary of the quest by modern feminism to paint men as the problem with our world's ills. It (and I've watched this happen to young men for a while now) builds a generation of men who feel their masculine nature is toxic, and (hate to break it to everyone) testosterone is the most potent sex hormone. Masculinity should be celebrated, while immoral behavior towards women treated as diametrically opposite. Nothing improves a society for the better like empowering females. Nothing will keep those improvements that so many women fought for embedded in our culture like the empowerment of good, moral men. Cause here's the reality: though men who are in fact immoral scumbags are (rightly) despised by women, good, moral men hate scumbag men just as much, if not more.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Mar 12, 2020 12:56:09 GMT -5
I am sexist in the sense I believe men should lead in our common struggle against evil. It's been observation that men are disgusting pigs, until a disaster happens and the disgusting pigs insist on aiding/saving women and children before themselves. I've also wondered how feminism can teach us that men are pigs, while also maintaining men and women aren't different. Men = pigs Men = women Women = pigs I dont deny inequality exists, but do get weary of the quest by modern feminism to paint men as the problem with our world's ills. It (and I've watched this happen to young men for a while now) builds a generation of men who feel their masculine nature is toxic, and (hate to break it to everyone) testosterone is the most potent sex hormone. Masculinity should be celebrated, while immoral behavior towards women treated as diametrically opposite. Nothing improves a society for the better like empowering females. Nothing will keep those improvements that so many women fought for embedded in our culture like the empowerment of good, moral men. Cause here's the reality: though men who are in fact immoral scumbags are (rightly) despised by women, good, moral men hate scumbag men just as much, if not more. I was just saying yesterday that women want to be treated equal... and rightly so... but they still expect men to open doors for them.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 12, 2020 13:37:50 GMT -5
More pseudoscience exposed: "Some time ago I was reading that the earth is 4.55 billion years old and I asked myself ‘How do we know it is that old?’. I found the answer in the isotope dating literature. But what else I found there convinced me that we don’t know that the world is 4.55 billion years old. See what you think!" creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j06_1/j06_1_2-5.pdf I tried to find out more information about the writer of that book outside of your post & could not find him or the book.
Could you give more details?
Thanks.
It appears to be a journal published by Answers in Genesis Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (CEN Technical Journal). There was a name change to Journal of Creation and now it looks like it is Answers Research Journal (ARJ). Volume 3 might be of special interest to @gratu. It contains Jason Lisle's solution to the starlight problem, anisotropic synchrony convention, proposing that the speed of light is direction dependent. Would make for a good comparison of the theory developed independently by @gratu. Admission criteriaCriteria for articles submitted to ARJfor publication: 1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model? 2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model? 3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework? 4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative? 5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate? 6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture? As one of the ARJ contributors (Georgia Purdom) noted: "We have a particular viewpoint. We start with the Bible as being true. And many other journals do not. They are going to start with human reasoning as the basis for truth." ARJ was reviewed when it was announced: Answers in Genesis, the group that last year shelled out $27 million to open the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., is at it again. This time, the intelligently designed group has established its own journal for creationist scholars who want their work reviewed by fellow biblical literalists—without the scientific worldview sticking its monkey nose in. (News Bytes of the Week. Scientific American, 1 February 2008.) Now, it’s not exactly Earth-shattering news that a creation “science” “journal” has to do some serious cherry-picking to fill its pages. But personally, I’m pleasantly shocked to find that they’re so darn transparent about it. They’ve helpfully explained in a neatly-ordered list that they’re only interested in hearing news that confirms what they already believe. Of course this kind of tunnel vision exists, but you’d think they would do their best to cover it up in public. Instead, it’s all nicely laid out as editorial policy. Thanks, AiG! (Jennifer Barone, Creationists Fight Back with Laughable Faux-Science “Journal." Discover, 13 February 2008.)
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 12, 2020 13:39:46 GMT -5
BS, Lee. You are just exposing your own sexism.
I am sexist in the sense I believe men should lead in our common struggle against evil. Even though men tend to exhibit more "evil" tendencies than women?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 13, 2020 7:35:43 GMT -5
Their profile is bigger, more physical, and they spend more time in prison. A thorough study of good and evil of the sexes would use a wider criteria.
The Bible says women are a crown to their husbands. It certainly says a lot about men who carry on vital and benevolent relationships with women.
Paul said he knew nothing good dwelt within him, in his flesh. Can all honest men say that? Romans 7:18
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 13, 2020 9:50:50 GMT -5
Their profile is bigger, more physical, and they spend more time in prison. A thorough study of good and evil of the sexes would use a wider criteria. The Bible says women are a crown to their husbands. The bible certainly is not without error. It say a lot about goat herders who lived 6,000 years ago, Anyone can say that. Do you think Paul was a closet homosexual? Human greatness does not lie in wealth or power, but in character and goodness. People are just people, and all people have faults and shortcomings, but all of us are born with a basic goodness. Anne Frank
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 13, 2020 10:25:37 GMT -5
Anne was possibly a little extraordinary?
..And no
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 13, 2020 17:17:43 GMT -5
Anne was possibly a little extraordinary? ..And no Lee, the point is that one could look to a number of written texts and find many things attributed to real of fictional people. John Shelby Spong, an Episcopal Bishop, speculated that the Paul, a self proclaimed unmarried man who was plagued by an unnamed weakness, was a secret homosexual. Do you have any evidence that shows that this was not the case?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 14, 2020 7:54:34 GMT -5
Pauls confidence indicates he wasn't in conflict over his sexuality.
Pauls statement expresses our nakedness more clearly before God than Anne's.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 14, 2020 10:03:28 GMT -5
Pauls confidence indicates he wasn't in conflict over his sexuality. Pauls statement expresses our nakedness more clearly before God than Anne's. Paul's confidence does little to address his homosexual feelings.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 14, 2020 10:26:20 GMT -5
It he was gay it didn't affect his preaching that I can tell. You've offered a couple other opinions but they're unconvincing.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 14, 2020 16:11:27 GMT -5
It he was gay it didn't affect his preaching that I can tell. You've offered a couple other opinions but they're unconvincing. It is difficult to say if it affected his preaching since you have nothing with which to compare it. It was not an opinion of mine but from the work done by John Spong and others. You have little to contradict Spong's claims.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2020 17:28:42 GMT -5
It he was gay it didn't affect his preaching that I can tell. You've offered a couple other opinions but they're unconvincing. It is difficult to say if it affected his preaching since you have nothing with which to compare it. It was not an opinion of mine but from the work done by John Spong and others. You have little to contradict Spong's claims. that would be a purely speculative claim at best and unsubstantiated by any record available...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 14, 2020 17:56:56 GMT -5
It is difficult to say if it affected his preaching since you have nothing with which to compare it. It was not an opinion of mine but from the work done by John Spong and others. You have little to contradict Spong's claims. that would be a purely speculative claim at best and unsubstantiated by any record available... Much like Paul's claim of the vision on the road to Damascus. Or the virgin birth. Or the resurrection.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Mar 14, 2020 18:54:29 GMT -5
that would be a purely speculative claim at best and unsubstantiated by any record available... Much like Paul's claim of the vision on the road to Damascus. Or the virgin birth. Or the resurrection.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2020 18:58:38 GMT -5
that would be a purely speculative claim at best and unsubstantiated by any record available... Much like Paul's claim of the vision on the road to Damascus. Or the virgin birth. Or the resurrection. those were very specific claims nothing vague like "a thorn in my side"...nice try though
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 14, 2020 20:29:05 GMT -5
Much like Paul's claim of the vision on the road to Damascus. Or the virgin birth. Or the resurrection. those were very specific claims nothing vague like "a thorn in my side"...nice try though Really, a thorn in my side or a holy ghost in my vagina/uterus - whether specific or vague they are claims unsubstantiated by any record available...
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 14, 2020 20:59:48 GMT -5
It is difficult to say if it affected his preaching since you have nothing with which to compare it. It was not an opinion of mine but from the work done by John Spong and others. You have little to contradict Spong's claims. that would be a purely speculative claim at best and unsubstantiated by any record available... Dont give sophists the time of day. I think this thread should moved if Gratu and others have nothing else to say about the theory of evolution or our relationship to Creation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2020 21:09:02 GMT -5
those were very specific claims nothing vague like "a thorn in my side"...nice try though Really, a thorn in my side or a holy ghost in my vagina/uterus - whether specific or vague they are claims unsubstantiated by any record available... being specific or being vague are light years apart in claims...show me the biblical record were it is specific about the homosexuality of Paul...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 14, 2020 21:17:38 GMT -5
Really, a thorn in my side or a holy ghost in my vagina/uterus - whether specific or vague they are claims unsubstantiated by any record available... being specific or being vague are light years apart in claims...show me the biblical record were it is specific about the homosexuality of Paul... Whether they are specific or vague statements has nothing to do with whether they are true. Isaiah 7 was specific for the time it was written but was taken my Matthew and twisted into a vague prophecy regarding the insemination of Mary. Would Paul being a homosexual make any difference in his message?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2020 21:21:14 GMT -5
being specific or being vague are light years apart in claims...show me the biblical record were it is specific about the homosexuality of Paul... Whether they are specific or vague statements has nothing to do with whether they are true. Isaiah 7 was specific for the time it was written but was taken my Matthew and twisted into a vague prophecy regarding the insemination of Mary. Would Paul being a homosexual make any difference in his message? if he was actively involved in it yes....
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Mar 16, 2020 8:08:21 GMT -5
I tried to find out more information about the writer of that book outside of your post & could not find him or the book.
Could you give more details?
Thanks.
It appears to be a journal published by Answers in Genesis Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (CEN Technical Journal). There was a name change to Journal of Creation and now it looks like it is Answers Research Journal (ARJ). Now, it’s not exactly Earth-shattering news that a creation “science” “journal” has to do some serious cherry-picking to fill its pages. But personally, I’m pleasantly shocked to find that they’re so darn transparent about it. They’ve helpfully explained in a neatly-ordered list that they’re only interested in hearing news that confirms what they already believe. Of course this kind of tunnel vision exists, but you’d think they would do their best to cover it up in public. Instead, it’s all nicely laid out as editorial policy. Thanks, AiG! (Jennifer Barone, Creationists Fight Back with Laughable Faux-Science “Journal." Discover, 13 February 2008.) And the materialists aren't transparent. Students don't learn that God is necessarily excluded until late in the indoctrination period. Shame. Serious cherry picking? You obviously prefer the theories that require dark matter and dark energy as fudge factors. Maybe because they fit your preferred worldview? Starlight, Time and the New Physics, by Dr. John Hartnett is also out there and no fudge factors required. I'm on chapter three.
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 16, 2020 8:45:48 GMT -5
It appears to be a journal published by Answers in Genesis Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (CEN Technical Journal). There was a name change to Journal of Creation and now it looks like it is Answers Research Journal (ARJ). Now, it’s not exactly Earth-shattering news that a creation “science” “journal” has to do some serious cherry-picking to fill its pages. But personally, I’m pleasantly shocked to find that they’re so darn transparent about it. They’ve helpfully explained in a neatly-ordered list that they’re only interested in hearing news that confirms what they already believe. Of course this kind of tunnel vision exists, but you’d think they would do their best to cover it up in public. Instead, it’s all nicely laid out as editorial policy. Thanks, AiG! (Jennifer Barone, Creationists Fight Back with Laughable Faux-Science “Journal." Discover, 13 February 2008.) And the materialists aren't transparent. Students don't learn that God is necessarily excluded until late in the indoctrination period. Shame. Serious cherry picking? You obviously prefer the theories that require dark matter and dark energy as fudge factors. Maybe because they fit your preferred worldview? Starlight, Time and the New Physics, by Dr. John Hartnett is also out there and no fudge factors required. I'm on chapter three. “John G. Hartnett, is an Australian young Earth creationist and cosmologist.” How is that even possible.. how can one reconcile new earth creationist views with the science of cosmology?
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 16, 2020 10:40:34 GMT -5
And the materialists aren't transparent. Students don't learn that God is necessarily excluded until late in the indoctrination period. Shame. Serious cherry picking? You obviously prefer the theories that require dark matter and dark energy as fudge factors. Maybe because they fit your preferred worldview? Starlight, Time and the New Physics, by Dr. John Hartnett is also out there and no fudge factors required. I'm on chapter three. “John G. Hartnett, is an Australian young Earth creationist and cosmologist.” How is that even possible.. how can one reconcile new earth creationist views with the science of cosmology? You can’t. Thus, you get people who have extremely warped views of reality. They can’t believe in the law of non-contradiction in any meaningful sense for instance, which is true of any fundamentalist who interprets the Bible literally.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 16, 2020 11:06:53 GMT -5
And the materialists aren't transparent. Students don't learn that God is necessarily excluded until late in the indoctrination period. Shame. Children do not learn anything about a paranormal being except from other believers. The belief in god is not innate. 'Whataboutism' is not a valid argument. No, I prefer them because there is some supportable research that supports the idea. It is not based solely on beliefs supported by faith that does not require either material nor logical support. I have evaluated the output from the creationist sites and there is little to support their claims other than their beliefs. Let me know when you run into the cosmological constant (wouldn't that be a 'fudge factor'?). I have not heard of this publication. Checking with Creation Ministries International, they state that Hartnett believes that God is the real creator of the universe as the Bible says. Does his book investigate or is it seeking support for his beliefs? In 1932 De Sitter and Einstein explored the idea of a cosmological term ("lambda" or λ) It comes up from time to time but has been largely superseded by other solutions. I guess time will tell. It is certainly better supported than Lisle's ideas!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 17, 2020 0:56:24 GMT -5
I am sexist in the sense I believe men should lead in our common struggle against evil. It's been observation that men are disgusting pigs, until a disaster happens and the disgusting pigs insist on aiding/saving women and children before themselves. I've also wondered how feminism can teach us that men are pigs, while also maintaining men and women aren't different. Men = pigs Men = women Women = pigs I dont deny inequality exists, but do get weary of the quest by modern feminism to paint men as the problem with our world's ills. It (and I've watched this happen to young men for a while now) builds a generation of men who feel their masculine nature is toxic, and (hate to break it to everyone) testosterone is the most potent sex hormone. Masculinity should be celebrated, while immoral behavior towards women treated as diametrically opposite. Nothing improves a society for the better like empowering females. Nothing will keep those improvements that so many women fought for embedded in our culture like the empowerment of good, moral men. Cause here's the reality: though men who are in fact immoral scumbags are (rightly) despised by women, good, moral men hate scumbag men just as much, if not more. Right on, -ipsedixit!
If it hadn't of been for good moral men who loved their mothers, wives, sisters, aunts etc. and understood what was happening to women and wanted women to be treated with dignity, -we as feminists would never have been able to gain what we have.
Luckily for me, I have known many, many such men. And NO! - they were NOT "wimps" because it takes a REAL MAN TO stand up for what is right.
|
|