Real World Event Discussions

Round 2: 'Tolerance' on American Universities???

POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 6, 2006 15:10
VIEWED: 8046
PAGE 5 of 6

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, December 5, 2006 11:30 PM

Quote:
posted by Citizen-
Theres the Christian schools that teach radical Christianity in the US, and prepare their students to win debates and so on with the stated purpose of turning out the next presidents of the US.

right.. because Harvard and Yale and these other ivy leagues universities are notorious theistic breeding grounds. academia is a secular humanist machine designed to produce the globalist mindset that actually will enslave us. it seems 'radical' to me that an institution would teach evolutionary theory as proven science.. without showing the evidence that life came from a rock or that all the matter in the universe came from nothing; seems pretty theoretical to me.. kind of short on facts aswell. the real difference is that we admit ours is a religion and we arent forcing it on the public with federal money... which is what you claim we're doing

Quote:
Radical Christian organisations that are playing the long game to litterally take over the US government.

look if that were true, then why does the Federal government consistanly incorporate what christians know to be pagan and occult symbolism? the bible says the final empire on earth is of the antichrist.. so what then is our motive to contribute to the creation of this entity? to seek a christian theocracy in this age would be a contradiction of prophecy... which means theres no scriptural basis for this alleged theocracy. you coincidentally overlook the luciferian masonic influences in government that are far more frequent and substantial.. and they have the motive for a 'new order of the ages'. if the goal were a christian theocracy, then why is creation not taught in schools? they teach evolution-federally funded no less

Quote:
What happens next? I imagine the US becomes a Christian Theocracy and Cartoon gets it's life long dream of leading a violent inquisition against the non-believers.

so read revelations and tell me who it is that WE believe leads this 'inquisition'... because Jesus himself says that its not his believers, but those enforcing the global government of antichrist. we do not have the motive for this atheocracy, the bible says itself that this age is Satans, that the world and its material wealth are desires of the flesh and not heavenly. i know where you are coming from but understand, every attempt to institutionalize christianity becomes in itself a perversion.. so no christian would want this global theocracy, because the bible says that such an entity would be of the antichrist. instead, why arent you reading a little more into the tens of secret societies that place their occultic iconography on the money and government buildings of the world

CITIZEN

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 12:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
right.. because Harvard and Yale and these other ivy leagues universities are notorious theistic breeding grounds. academia is a secular humanist machine designed to produce the globalist mindset that actually will enslave us. it seems 'radical' to me that an institution would teach evolutionary theory as proven science.. without showing the evidence that life came from a rock or that all the matter in the universe came from nothing; seems pretty theoretical to me.. kind of short on facts aswell. the real difference is that we admit ours is a religion and we arent forcing it on the public with federal money... which is what you claim we're doing

Not this boring crap again. There's plenty of evidence for both evolution and the big bang, they're constantly 'evolving' theories that were arrived at scientifically and are being explored scientifically, unlike a religion they are not set in stone. They are not a religion, maybe that's hard for some people to understand, something not being a religion, but they're not. Just because you are incapable or unwilling to look at or understand the evidence because it doesn't show what you want to believe does not mean it is not there.

Really I am beyond any desire to try and discuss this reasonably, over here, in 'backwards' Europe this debate was settled about two centuries ago, and we've never been happier. Religious people get to go to Church, science is taught in science class, religions are studied in Religious Education class and no one is trying to say science is a religion and religion is science.

You guys want to be stuck in the 19th century good luck to you, and in fifty years time when European scientists are working on the latest deep space probe and American scientist are putting the finishing touches to the proof that the sun orbits the Earth and rises in the morning because God turns the celestial hand crank you be sure to tell us how Immoral we Europ-Ains are for actually USING our god given brains rather than denying their existence.

If you Yanks want to live in god fearing ignorance go ahead, I couldn't care less any more, just keep that crap to yourselves please, because we're just ecstatic about our sane non-fundamentalist approach to things over here.

Quote:
look if that were true, then why does the Federal government consistanly incorporate what christians know to be pagan and occult symbolism?

What? So you're denying the existence of these schools because there's a pyramid on the dollar bill?

Quote:
to seek a christian theocracy in this age would be a contradiction of prophecy... which means theres no scriptural basis for this alleged theocracy- its a contradiction of bible prophecy.

So? So's torturing non-believers, that didn't stop Tomás de Torquemada.

Quote:
you coincidentally overlook the luciferian masonic influences in government that are far more frequent and substantial.. and they have the motive for a 'new order of the ages'. if the goal were a christian theocracy, then why is creation not taught in schools? they teach evolution-federally funded no less

Yes I get it already, Christian = good, Science = Luciferian EVIL!!! Teaching Evolution in Science class is teaching the Luciferian religion of science, evidently.

What else is a religion that is taught in schools? English? Definatly! Maths? Without doubt! Chemistry? Well of course (it is a science afterall!) IT? Well obviously, what else could be a subject talking about magic boxes of light?

That's it, every subject in School is a religion, no more funding for schools! I mean come on, you say this mysterious 'electricity' operates your computer, I say it's God, whats the difference?

Maybe if you for once responded to what I had said I would be more willing to talk to you, this has nothing to do with anything I said. There are Christian schools with the stated purpose of breaking down the barrier between church and state, maybe you can back up your accusations that Science is a Lucif

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 1:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
I hope I've given the answer you were seeking. Thanks again.

Not really. I asked you if you could, for the sake of argument, see things from a non-Christian point of view. The answer I get from your last post is a great big "no."

I don't need you to explain what Christians feel indebted to God for, I know that all too well. Do you honestly think that my last post was written out of confusion about Biblical teaching?

I was trying to show you how it doesn't make any sense from a non-Christian point of view; that if one doesn't buy into the Christian world view, the Christian world view sounds goofy. A lot of non-Christians don't believe in sin, for instance. So telling me that the debt I owe to God is my sin sounds a lot like the debt I owe to God is my super goblin nasal spray. I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't mean that it makes any sense to someone who doesn't share your peculiar belief system.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 2:35 AM

Quote:
Not this boring crap again. There's plenty of evidence for both evolution and the big bang, they're constantly 'evolving' theories that were arrived at scientifically and are being explored scientifically, unlike a religion they are not set in stone.

a fact is something you can prove empirically..so why is evolution 'fact' if its not set in stone? if something cannot be proven, like "billions of years ago(nothingness came alive)" ..then it is just as much a faith based religion as ours is

Quote:
They are not a religion, maybe that's hard for some people to understand, something not being a religion, but they're not. Just because you are incapable or unwilling to look at or understand the evidence because it doesn't show what you want to believe does not mean it is not there.

i want the evidence that removes all doubt about our origins.. more than "at some point billions of years ago" lifeless matter itself became living; because thats not science. i dont object to scienctific study, but i object to religious fronts parading as science, which is exactly what evolution is

Quote:
Really I am beyond any desire to try and discuss this reasonably, over here, in 'backwards' Europe this debate was settled about two centuries ago, and we've never been happier.

show me the fossils that prove that all life evolved from an inadamant rock; i assume you europeans have had it for years now right?

Quote:
Religious people get to go to Church, science is taught in science class, religions are studied in Religious Education class and no one is trying to say science is a religion and religion is science.

are they teaching evolution as proven scientific fact? then theyre teaching you a religion as science

Quote:
You guys want to be stuck in the 19th century good luck to you, and in fifty years time when European scientists are working on the latest deep space probe and American scientist are putting the finishing touches to the proof that the sun orbits the Earth

this might suprise you but the same people who control us have control over you all aswell, so they teach the same crap here as in Europe. if we're still around 50 years from now i expect the next batch of mad scientists to be working on merging man with machine... which seems to be the inevitable progression of evolutionary thought

Quote:
and rises in the morning because God turns the celestial hand crank you be sure to tell us how Immoral we Europ-Ains are for actually USING our god given brains rather than denying their existence.

what are you implying... that because Europe is more secular then America that youre thereby more intelligent? make that case for me please

Quote:
If you Yanks want to live in god fearing ignorance go ahead, I couldn't care less any more, just keep that crap to yourselves please, because we're just ecstatic about our sane non-fundamentalist approach to things over here.

well we're not being video taped on every street corner and barked at by servelience cameras yet either.. you must be further evolved then we are i guess. criticize America all you want but your secular leadership is no better than ours.. they dont give a rats ass about your freedoms, you are less an individual sovereign being and more a cog in the machine

Quote:
Maybe if you for once responded to what I had said I would be more willing to talk to you, this has nothing to do with anything I said.

i know what you said.. its the same as i always hear from you, that Christians hate unbelievers and want them converted or murdered.. what am i supposed to say? thats simply not true.. and ive tried to quote you the bible to prove that we would not be motivated by our faith to convert you

Quote:
There are Christian schools with the stated purpose of breaking down the barrier between church and state

and im sure their are evolutionary institutions determined to marginalize and remove all influence of the world religions.. so whats your point? if you thin

RUE

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 2:54 AM

Just a short comment - science can NEVER prove anything is true. Theories are models we construct to explain observations. The theories are then tested over and over till discrepancies are found, then new theories have to be constructed to include all observations. And so on. That's why theories change over time.

PS - you make use of the advances of science every day - from medicine to autos to blenders. And you don't seem to dispute other scientific theories - like gravity, electricity, and blood circulation. So, where do you draw the line between acceptable science and heresy?

SEVENPERCENT

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 3:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

What else is a religion that is taught in schools? English? Definatly!

As an English teacher, I for one welcome our new grammatically correct deities. Let us all bow in wonder and awe before the prophets Reed-Kellogg (who in their majesty gave us the book of diagrams)! Praise be unto those who can differentiate the Predicate Nominative from the Direct Object! All hail the mighty He-Who-Can-Never-Be-Identified-By-My-Students, the Adverbial Prepositional Phrase!

From the book of grammar, Chapter 17 (Exercise 3, Number 2): "And I wept with joy, for there was one among you who did actually know mechanics! Lo! I did look at your paper and see that your subjects and verbs were in agreement, and you did receiveth the A+, as was wanted in the home of your parents..."

Sorry Citizen - Had to.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

RUE

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 3:59 AM

Not to go too far astray - since I learned grammar many many years ago, things have come into common usage - like dangling participles. Has it changed so much?

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 4:31 AM

Citizen,

Not to nitpick another argument with you, but radical christians were fundamental to the founding of this nation. It really worries me not at all. If someone from my one of my local looney christian fringe groups ran for office, I'd weigh what they said in a fair and balanced manner, and either vote for them or not, with pro- or anti- bias.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AntiMason:
a fact is something you can prove empirically..so why is evolution 'fact' if its not set in stone? if something cannot be proven, like "billions of years ago(nothingness came alive)" ..then it is just as much a faith based religion as ours is

Yes we can all talk crap and say it's true, well done. Science isn't a religion, Evolution isn't a religion, it's a scientific theory, it changes as new evidence comes to light and as our understanding of the world improves, Religion just says "this is the way it is, now shut up and stop asking questions, questions are evil". Evolution and theory aren't just fundamentally different they aren't even in the same universe, they're not talking about the same thing. I feel no further need to continue to teach you the very basic and obvious differences between Scientific theories and religion to you when you have a vested interest in not only not to listen but to continue to get the idea wrong. Evolution is not a religion, no if's no buts no "but it's not fact blah blah blah". You haven't listened the millions of times before where people have carefully outlined why you are wrong and you just ignore the whole thing, I feel no further need to beat my head against a brick wall any longer. You want to hate science and technology go be Amish.

Quote:
i want the evidence that removes all doubt about our origins.. more than "at some point billions of years ago" lifeless matter itself became living; because thats not science. i dont object to scienctific study, but i object to religious fronts parading as science, which is exactly what evolution is

I never said it removed all doubt you dolt, I said it wasn't a religion it was a scientific theory. IF evolution WAS a religion it would remove all doubt, that's how religions work "the good book says it is so, therefore it is so, now stop asking damn question" so the fact that is doesn't eloquently proves my point, thank you.

Quote:
show me the fossils that prove that all life evolved from an inadamant rock; i assume you europeans have had it for years now right?

Show me where a religion says "we don't know" like the THEORY of evolution does in places where we don't know. Religions say "God did it" when we don't know, theories, like the theory of evolution, say "lets try to find out" which is exactly what is happening with evolution. Just because the theory of evolution isn't complete (which can never happen, no theory can ever be complete, that's how science works, there's always something more to know) doesn't mean it's a religion. Religions by their very nature ARE complete, again by trying to prove evolution IS a religion you prove it IS NOT.

Quote:
are they teaching evolution as proven scientific fact? then theyre teaching you a religion as science

No they're teaching evolution as a theory which the overwhelming evidence supports and none satisfactorily counters, many theists can't tell the difference because they neither understand or wish to understand science.

Quote:
this might suprise you but the same people who control us have control over you all aswell, so they teach the same crap here as in Europe. if we're still around 50 years from now i expect the next batch of mad scientists to be working on merging man with machine... which seems to be the inevitable progression of evolutionary thought

I imagine church leaders said the something similar to Galileo when they banned him from talking about heliocentrism.

I Europe we left the dark ages behind which is why we don't get these stupid debates any more, it's a deep shame America hasn't.

Quote:
what are you implying... that because Europe is more secular then America that youre thereby more intelligent? make that case for me please

Not more intelligent, just more willing to use our intelligence rather than assume "God did it".

Quote:
well we're not being video taped on every street corner and barked at by servelience cameras yet either.. you must be further e

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

KPO

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 12:15 PM

Hi HK. I'm back.

Quote:
Holy crap! I'm gonna try to address the grim misunderstanding between us evident in your latest post, kpo

Hehe. I’m sure I understand what you were saying perfectly. It’s just I was left to guess why you were saying it. Also, I probably annoyed you by describing your position to you:

Quote:
Out of all this your approach to history comes across as: ‘Don’t worry about what actually took place; everyone make a case for whatever you want to believe – then feel free to try and propagate that belief.’

Which is certainly how you were coming across, although I always thought you probably didn’t realise it – I think perhaps you entered in on one side of the debate just because you noticed an opportunity to talk about one of your favourite subjects -the lack of historical authenticity to the life of Jesus as told in the bible.

So this is where the problem lay, we neither of us were interested in debating the other’s point. You want to show me that there is no conclusive proof about the life of Jesus, even though I’ve never engaged with you on this, and I’m not Cartoon. I want to show you that the professor saying that Jesus was homosexual is probably biased: either he likes to offend christians, or like your friend, is gay himself and wants Jesus as a champion for the gay rights cause. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh on your friend, I just think human beings are very prone to believing what they want to, rather than the truth. And often it is unhelpful: as the saying goes: ‘Spuriousity killed the cat’

I don’t begrudge your friend his opinion, although the professor annoys me because he’s supposed to be an academic. Also his motives (as I perceive them) were malicious. You may notice about me that I always read into people’s motives if I can – people have noble and ignoble motives - if I can work out which kind was the inspiration behind people’s particular actions, then it allows me to retain a sense of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ about them (kind of). Perhaps you think me a ‘motive fabricating monster’; always reading negatively into the motives of people I don’t like, or who say something I don’t like, so that I can dismiss them? Well give me some credit for giving the ‘Islam has the same God’ professor the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, if there’s strong evidence that Jesus was gay, and the professor knows something the rest of the world doesn’t, then I’ll retract my assessment of him. If there’s only flimsy evidence, which the weight of expert opinion has already rejected, then my assessment stays the same.

I haven’t looked into this view myself; but then I’m happy to rely on expert opinion for a lot of things. I’ve only heard the Christian side of things - I’m relying on the fact that a ‘Jesus was gay’ theory which held water would have kicked up a lot of fuss in the mainstream media, given that it’s the liberal man’s fantasy, and considering how much fuss there was for the ‘Da Vinci code’.

Also my instincts tell me this view is spurious, given what I know about old Jewish culture from the bible, and also because I think I see the faulty premise of the argument. The verse; ‘...the disciple jesus loved was reclining next to him’?

Well, as you probably know, the reclining was what they did to all fit around the passover table. As for the ‘disciple Jesus loved’ bit, John referred to himself thus all the way through his gospel, and generally had fuzzy things to say about God and love: ‘For God so loved the world…’, ‘God is love’. I didn’t mind it though; John was always my favourite gospel. Now there are three words for love in greek, if you can tell me that John ever uses the word for erotic love ‘eros’ between Jesus and himself, then the theory may have some credence after all…

If not, are you going to maintain that the mere existence of this, or any other kind of flawed ‘scholarship’ redeems the professor? Even though scholarship exists for things like Holocaust denial? Yep, I aint dropping this point. You point out that this view is much more s