PDA

View Full Version : Dad files protest on school Ark story



PoliCon
12-04-2008, 11:27 PM
A QUEENSLAND father of five has taken action in the Anti-Discrimination Commission after his four-year-old daughter was asked to help make a replica of Noah's Ark at the local state school.

Ron Williams, who has five children under the age of 10, is opposed to religious instruction in state schools.

He said he was taking action because he did not believe students should be "exposed to superstitious mumbo-jumbo, presented as fact, in an educational setting".

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24752539-601,00.html


GIMME A BREAK!


The school denies the claim, saying the children were shown a video of Evan Almighty -- a comedy about a man who builds a replica of Noah's Ark -- and a book about the Ark as part of a unit of study on animals and the noises they make. just another example of atheist paranoia.

GrumpyOldLady
12-05-2008, 08:33 AM
That doesn't sound like it was religious at all.

I understand not wanting religious instruction given to children. I am very careful about that with my daughter. I don't want someone teaching her THEIR religion - which we disagree with.

But this is a bit much. It was just about animals in a film - not about the religious aspects of the Noahs' Ark Myth.

Speedy
12-05-2008, 08:47 AM
By fairy tales like human caused Global Warming is okay.

Odysseus
12-05-2008, 10:08 AM
A QUEENSLAND father of five has taken action in the Anti-Discrimination Commission after his four-year-old daughter was asked to help make a replica of Noah's Ark at the local state school.
Ron Williams, who has five children under the age of 10, is opposed to religious instruction in state schools.
He said he was taking action because he did not believe students should be "exposed to superstitious mumbo-jumbo, presented as fact, in an educational setting".
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24752539-601,00.html
GIMME A BREAK!
just another example of atheist paranoia.
At least we know Wilbur's real name. :D

That doesn't sound like it was religious at all.
I understand not wanting religious instruction given to children. I am very careful about that with my daughter. I don't want someone teaching her THEIR religion - which we disagree with.
But this is a bit much. It was just about animals in a film - not about the religious aspects of the Noahs' Ark Myth.
Noah's Ark is a religious story, but it's also so basic to western culture that not teaching it, at least as part of the mythology of our civilization, is dereliction. Can you imagine how ignorant an Australian would have to be to not have heard of that story? Besides, it's one of many flood myths that go across almost every culture, including the Greeks Epimetheus/Pandora myth, which even included an ark.

By fairy tales like human caused Global Warming is okay.
Worshipping Gaeia is okay, but Judaism and Christianity are right out.

PoliCon
12-05-2008, 10:34 AM
By fairy tales like human caused Global Warming is okay.oooo good one speedy! :D

noonwitch
12-05-2008, 11:18 AM
Some of the coolest toys I've seen for little kids are variations on Noah's Ark. Little kids love to play with the animal figures, and march them on and off the ark-if nothing else, it's a good way to teach kids the names of different animals. My sister-in-law's father made my brother's kids a really cool one out of wood.


I'm not big on overtly religious issues being taught in public schools, but Noah's Ark doubles as a kids' story-not quite a fairy tale, like Cinderella, but like Odysseus said, it's part of western culture's mythology or fables-stories with moral lessons embedded in them. Even Disney used Noah's Ark in Fantasia 2000 (Donald Duck is Noah's assistant, and helps check the animals onto the ark, to the tune of Elgar's "Pomp and Circumstance").

PoliCon
12-05-2008, 12:31 PM
Some of the coolest toys I've seen for little kids are variations on Noah's Ark. Little kids love to play with the animal figures, and march them on and off the ark-if nothing else, it's a good way to teach kids the names of different animals. My sister-in-law's father made my brother's kids a really cool one out of wood.


I'm not big on overtly religious issues being taught in public schools, but Noah's Ark doubles as a kids' story-not quite a fairy tale, like Cinderella, but like Odysseus said, it's part of western culture's mythology or fables-stories with moral lessons embedded in them. Even Disney used Noah's Ark in Fantasia 2000 (Donald Duck is Noah's assistant, and helps check the animals onto the ark, to the tune of Elgar's "Pomp and Circumstance").need we remind people that Odysseus is a story of the greek religious system? or that Cinderella has pagan religious themes? We need to be honest - the only religion that people object to is Christianity.

FlaGator
12-05-2008, 01:05 PM
need we remind people that Odysseus is a story of the greek religious system? or that Cinderella has pagan religious themes? We need to be honest - the only religion that people object to is Christianity.

Christ told us to expect this behavior by those who are lost.

jinxmchue
12-05-2008, 04:26 PM
So where were people like that when California schools were having kids dress, act, and pray like Muslims and play games where they carry out jihads?

Odysseus
12-05-2008, 04:37 PM
need we remind people that Odysseus is a story of the greek religious system? or that Cinderella has pagan religious themes? We need to be honest - the only religion that people object to is Christianity.
Exactly. But I picked the screen name Odysseus because at the time, I was deployed in Iraq and felt a certain distance from family and home. I'm not changing it, regardless of what some ACLU types say.

BTW, the Ninth Circuit, which would horsewhip a Christian or Jew for prosletyzing in a classroom, has no problem with Moslems doing it:

Court clears school of pushing religion with lesson on Islam (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/18/BAGLFFQENB1.DTL)
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

A Contra Costa County school was educating seventh-graders about Islam, not indoctrinating them, in role-playing sessions in which students used Muslim names and recited language from prayers, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a lawsuit by two Christian students and their parents, who accused the Byron Union School District of unconstitutionally endorsing a religious practice.

"The Islam program activities were not overt religious exercises that raise Establishment Clause concerns,'' the three-judge panel said, referring to the First Amendment ban on government sanctioning a religion.

During the history course at Excelsior School in the fall of 2001, the teacher, using an instructional guide, told the students they would adopt roles as Muslims for three weeks to help them learn what Muslims believe.

She encouraged them to use Muslim names, recited prayers in class and made them give up something for a day, such as television or candy, to simulate fasting during Ramadan. The final exam asked students for a critique of elements of Muslim culture.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled in favor of the school district in 2003, saying that the class had an instructional purpose and that students had engaged in no actual religious exercises.

The appeals court upheld her ruling Thursday in a three-paragraph decision that was not published as a precedent for future cases, which generally is an indication that the court considers the legal issue to be clear from past rulings.

The court cited its 1994 ruling rejecting a suit by evangelical Christian parents in Woodland (Yolo County) who objected to elementary school children reading texts that contained tales and role-playing exercises about witches. In that case, the court said classroom activities related to the texts, which included casting a make-believe spell, were secular instruction rather than religious rituals.

The brevity of Thursday's ruling "underscores the fact that what the district and its teachers did was entirely within the mainstream of educational practice,'' said Linda Lye, attorney for the Byron schools.

Edward White of the Thomas More Center, the attorney in the case for the two children and their parents, said he will ask the full appeals court for a rehearing. He said the panel failed to address his argument that the district violated parents' rights.

"What happened in this classroom was clearly an endorsement of religion and indoctrination of children in the Islamic religion, which would never have stood if it were a class on Christianity or Judaism,'' White said.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.


Christ told us to expect this behavior by those who are lost.
I'm not changing my screen name. :mad:

enslaved1
12-05-2008, 04:38 PM
So where were people like that when California schools were having kids dress, act, and pray like Muslims and play games where they carry out jihads?

That's good multicultural learning. It helps show the vast superiority of those non-Western cultures, and by immersing our children in this type of education, the foul stain on humanity that is Judeo-Christian culture can be eradicated from the earth.

Odysseus
12-05-2008, 04:41 PM
That's good multicultural learning. It helps show the vast superiority of those non-Western cultures, and by immersing our children in this type of education, the foul stain on humanity that is Judeo-Christian culture can be eradicated from the earth.

It also helps that Christans and Jews won't behead you if you sue them for prosletyzing, but Moslems will.

PC Guy
12-05-2008, 08:13 PM
Someone that I know of sent me an e-mail a while back (which I still have) that is very much related to this news article.

Since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord's Prayer are not allowed in most public schools anymore because the word "God" is mentioned.... a kid in Arizona wrote the attached NEW School prayer. I liked it....
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.

But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.

So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!

Amen

jinxmchue
12-06-2008, 10:40 AM
That's good multicultural learning. It helps show the vast superiority of those non-Western cultures, and by immersing our children in this type of education, the foul stain on humanity that is Judeo-Christian culture can be eradicated from the earth.

So how hard was it cleaning the vomit out of your keyboard after typing that? ;)

capt_jesus89
12-06-2008, 03:03 PM
That doesn't sound like it was religious at all.

I understand not wanting religious instruction given to children. I am very careful about that with my daughter. I don't want someone teaching her THEIR religion - which we disagree with.

But this is a bit much. It was just about animals in a film - not about the religious aspects of the Noahs' Ark Myth.

This quote came from a particular grumpy old lady is response to an article about the film Evan Almighty being shown in public schools.
People can have other religions. People have since the dawn of humankind. Only 33 percent of people on earth are Christians. Is your daughter supposed to pretend that the other 2/3s of the world doesn't exist because you are unable to find a religious common-ground?
It's self-deceiving when a person assumes something or someone is wrong before they hear both sides of the story. Is that not what our American judicial system is based upon? "Innocent until proven guilty". You can't teach a child to learn when you tell them to have a closed mind about certain things as opposed to others.

Also, if the film is just about animals and their antics, then why were they showing it during school in the first place? That's the question. How does Evan Almighty make it into the curriculum? I've seen that film, and it doesn't hold any academic value in any subject of study. That is, unless you are studying film.

wilbur
12-07-2008, 02:15 PM
need we remind people that Odysseus is a story of the greek religious system? or that Cinderella has pagan religious themes? We need to be honest - the only religion that people object to is Christianity.

I certainly object to them all. Christianity gets most of the attention because its the dominant religion in this country, by far.

wilbur
12-07-2008, 02:16 PM
So where were people like that when California schools were having kids dress, act, and pray like Muslims and play games where they carry out jihads?

From what I saw, people raised hell about that too...

wilbur
12-07-2008, 02:22 PM
The school denies the claim, saying the children were shown a video of Evan Almighty -- a comedy about a man who builds a replica of Noah's Ark -- and a book about the Ark as part of a unit of study on animals and the noises they make.


This does sound a little like some hot steamy bulls**t.

How is building an arc replica in any way helpful in learning about animals and the 'noises' they make? Something doesnt compute here. Thats like trying to teach kids about astronomy by teaching them to write horoscopes.

Perhaps some national geographic or discovery specials like 'Planet Earth' would be much better material.... but instead they get Evan Almighty?

jinxmchue
12-08-2008, 09:24 AM
From what I saw, people raised hell about that too...

And people like you laughed at and mocked them. "Bunch of crazy, intolerant, ignorant fundies who don't want their kids learning about those 'evil Mooselems!'"

jinxmchue
12-08-2008, 09:25 AM
This quote came from a particular grumpy old lady is response to an article about the film Evan Almighty being shown in public schools.
People can have other religions. People have since the dawn of humankind. Only 33 percent of people on earth are Christians. Is your daughter supposed to pretend that the other 2/3s of the world doesn't exist because you are unable to find a religious common-ground?
It's self-deceiving when a person assumes something or someone is wrong before they hear both sides of the story. Is that not what our American judicial system is based upon? "Innocent until proven guilty". You can't teach a child to learn when you tell them to have a closed mind about certain things as opposed to others.

Also, if the film is just about animals and their antics, then why were they showing it during school in the first place? That's the question. How does Evan Almighty make it into the curriculum? I've seen that film, and it doesn't hold any academic value in any subject of study. That is, unless you are studying film.


Alright, who left the "idiots only" entrance unlocked again?

enslaved1
12-08-2008, 09:32 AM
So how hard was it cleaning the vomit out of your keyboard after typing that? ;)

I have a black belt in sarcasm-fu. The vomit suppression ability is a basic skill that must be mastered in the beginning stages. :p

jinxmchue
12-08-2008, 09:39 AM
This does sound a little like some hot steamy bulls**t.

How is building an arc replica in any way helpful in learning about animals and the 'noises' they make? Something doesnt compute here. Thats like trying to teach kids about astronomy by teaching them to write horoscopes.

Spoken exactly like someone who's never seen children's books.


Perhaps some national geographic or discovery specials like 'Planet Earth' would be much better material.... but instead they get Evan Almighty?

And that's spoken exactly like someone who's ignorant of or turns a blind eye to the garbage they often run on NatGeo and Discovery.

PoliCon
12-08-2008, 10:41 AM
I certainly object to them all. Christianity gets most of the attention because its the dominant religion in this country, by far.Trouble is - RELIGION is part of our history. You can want to ignore it all you like - as long as the relgion itself is not being taught - I see no problem with learning about what other people believe. It's being a total ASSHOLE that makes someone say - no religion - no how. If you want that applied we need to dispose of all history courses - all literature courses - most philosophy - suppress most science because there is religion entwined in it all.

PoliCon
12-08-2008, 10:43 AM
This does sound a little like some hot steamy bulls**t.

How is building an arc replica in any way helpful in learning about animals and the 'noises' they make? Something doesnt compute here. Thats like trying to teach kids about astronomy by teaching them to write horoscopes.

Perhaps some national geographic or discovery specials like 'Planet Earth' would be much better material.... but instead they get Evan Almighty?It's call teaching within a construct. LITTLE KIDS learn best when learning is made part of play. The STORY is the framework within which the learning is built. The emphasis is not on the ark but on the animals and their sounds.

wilbur
12-08-2008, 11:00 AM
And people like you laughed at and mocked them. "Bunch of crazy, intolerant, ignorant fundies who don't want their kids learning about those 'evil Mooselems!'"

And who were and where these people you speak of? Your imagination doesnt count.

wilbur
12-08-2008, 11:08 AM
Trouble is - RELIGION is part of our history. You can want to ignore it all you like - as long as the relgion itself is not being taught - I see no problem with learning about what other people believe. It's being a total ASSHOLE that makes someone say - no religion - no how. If you want that applied we need to dispose of all history courses - all literature courses - most philosophy - suppress most science because there is religion entwined in it all.

But not so much in zoology or animal behaviour, which is what these kids were supposed to be learning? The whole thing wreaks of attempting to sneak in religious messages where they don't belong, but with some measure of plausible deniability.

By all means, kids should be taught about mythological tales such as the ark story and creation story, and others... but in the appropriate venue and in the appropriate context.

PoliCon
12-08-2008, 11:19 AM
But not so much in zoology or animal behaviour, which is what these kids were supposed to be learning?
THEY'RE IN KINDERGARTEN!! They're supposed to be learning that cows go MOO and that cats go MEOW. Not zoology.





The whole thing wreaks of attempting to sneak in religious messages where they don't belong, but with some measure of plausible deniability.Bullshit. It's teaching kids within the framework of a story. Given that they used Evan Almighty which is a completely fictitious only a fool would claim that it was teaching RELIGION.


By all means, kids should be taught about mythological tales such as the ark story and creation story, and others... but in the appropriate venue and in the appropriate context.Given that it's kindergarten and the purpose is to get kids to learn the basics of recognition - it was COMPLETELY in context.

wilbur
12-08-2008, 11:59 AM
THEY'RE IN KINDERGARTEN!! They're supposed to be learning that cows go MOO and that cats go MEOW. Not zoology.

Bullshit. It's teaching kids within the framework of a story. Given that they used Evan Almighty which is a completely fictitious only a fool would claim that it was teaching RELIGION.
Given that it's kindergarten and the purpose is to get kids to learn the basics of recognition - it was COMPLETELY in context.

Sorry, the theme choice was very poor, the father was right to do what he did. You and the others here would have a fit if they were building some item from Islam mythology and you know it.

PoliCon
12-08-2008, 12:52 PM
Sorry, the theme choice was very poor, the father was right to do what he did. You and the others here would have a fit if they were building some item from Islam mythology and you know it.The theme choice was just fine. The father is your typical atheist reactionary who wants to demand that the world be free of religion. He and all those like him can kiss my hair ass right in the cleft. Oh and FYI - Noah and the ark ARE muslim as well as Christian and Jewish. Dumbass. :rolleyes:

wilbur
12-08-2008, 01:17 PM
The theme choice was just fine. The father is your typical atheist reactionary who wants to demand that the world be free of religion.


Or perhaps he didn't want his kids minds poisoned with a horror story of a vengeful, spiteful and despicable all powerful tyrant exacting revenge upon mankind through genocide... in the guise of some light-hearted fable. Can't say as I blame him. Only through religious belief would anyone feel proud or confortable exposing children to such violence and depravity. This dad seems like the one sane person in the asylum.

PoliCon
12-08-2008, 02:42 PM
Or perhaps he didn't want his kids minds poisoned with a horror story of a vengeful, spiteful and despicable all powerful tyrant exacting revenge upon mankind through genocide... in the guise of some light-hearted fable. Can't say as I blame him. Only through religious belief would anyone feel proud or confortable exposing children to such violence and depravity. This dad seems like the one sane person in the asylum. like a typical fearful atheist you are completely off base in your analysis of the the narrative.

Odysseus
12-08-2008, 04:07 PM
From what I saw, people raised hell about that too...
Yes, and the Ninth Circus ruled in favor of the Moslems. The point is that when it's Christian or Jewish doctrine, the left goes bananas, but when it's anti-western doctrine (Islam, pagans, lettuce-worship, whatever), they bend over backwards to demonstrate their "sensitivity" to other cultures. The fact that they are hostile to this culture is obvious.


Or perhaps he didn't want his kids minds poisoned with a horror story of a vengeful, spiteful and despicable all powerful tyrant exacting revenge upon mankind through genocide... in the guise of some light-hearted fable. Can't say as I blame him. Only through religious belief would anyone feel proud or confortable exposing children to such violence and depravity. This dad seems like the one sane person in the asylum.
You have issues, don't you? :rolleyes: As I said before, the hostility to the Judeo-Christian tradition is obvious.

FlaGator
12-08-2008, 07:28 PM
Or perhaps he didn't want his kids minds poisoned with a horror story of a vengeful, spiteful and despicable all powerful tyrant exacting revenge upon mankind through genocide... in the guise of some light-hearted fable. Can't say as I blame him. Only through religious belief would anyone feel proud or confortable exposing children to such violence and depravity. This dad seems like the one sane person in the asylum.

I guess you have issues with Handel and Gretel, Little Red Riding Hood and The Three Pigs being read in school.

By the way, your description of God shows that you are ignorant of God and purposes. He is loving, patient and forgiving but his patience does have it's limits. Being an atheist I suppose you perfer the human monsters and tyrannts as long as they toe the atheist line. All altheists would love to see the return of Stalin and Mao.

FlaGator
12-08-2008, 07:35 PM
Yes, and the Ninth Circus ruled in favor of the Moslems. The point is that when it's Christian or Jewish doctrine, the left goes bananas, but when it's anti-western doctrine (Islam, pagans, lettuce-worship, whatever), they bend over backwards to demonstrate their "sensitivity" to other cultures. The fact that they are hostile to this culture is obvious.


You have issues, don't you? :rolleyes: As I said before, the hostility to the Judeo-Christian tradition is obvious.

Wilber exhibits some level of obsessive behavior when it comes to Christianity. He jumps in feet first to a majority of posts relating to Christianity. I understand getting involved in the ones dealing with atheism, such as this thread, but I question his need to get involved in many of the threads he does when atheism is in no way relative to the topic at hand. If he doesn't believe then why care what believer's have faith in? If he's not defending atheism them why introduce it in to a topic because it has a christian theme? The need to respond seems obsessive/compulsive.

MrsSmith
12-08-2008, 07:35 PM
I guess you have issues with Handel and Gretel, Little Red Riding Hood and The Three Pigs being read in school.

By the way, your description of God shows that you are ignorant of God and purposes. He is loving, patient and forgiving but his patience does have it's limits. Being an atheist I suppose you perfer the human monsters and tyrannts as long as they toe the atheist line. All altheists would love to see the return of Stalin and Mao.

But he probably loves "King and King." It's so much "nicer" to teach kids about homosexual sex than about the Creator. :rolleyes:

MrsSmith
12-08-2008, 07:42 PM
Or perhaps he didn't want his kids minds poisoned with a horror story of a vengeful, spiteful and despicable all powerful tyrant exacting revenge upon mankind through genocide... in the guise of some light-hearted fable. Can't say as I blame him. Only through religious belief would anyone feel proud or confortable exposing children to such violence and depravity. This dad seems like the one sane person in the asylum.

I take it you've missed the minor point that all people (and all living things) die. Each and every one that is not murdered (defined as a human life ended by another human), will die at the time appointed by God. Whenever God decides "it's your time," that is the proper time to die. As He created your life, provided all the raw material for the support of your life, and watched over you all your life, only He has the right to end your life, or any other life. :D

Odysseus
12-09-2008, 11:27 AM
Wilber exhibits some level of obsessive behavior when it comes to Christianity. He jumps in feet first to a majority of posts relating to Christianity. I understand getting involved in the ones dealing with atheism, such as this thread, but I question his need to get involved in many of the threads he does when atheism is in no way relative to the topic at hand. If he doesn't believe then why care what believer's have faith in? If he's not defending atheism them why introduce it in to a topic because it has a christian theme? The need to respond seems obsessive/compulsive.
He's sort of like Gator where Israel is concerned. Outraged, completely unreachable and utterly indifferent to anything but his own worldview.

But he probably loves "King and King." It's so much "nicer" to teach kids about homosexual sex than about the Creator. :rolleyes:
Liberals only demand tolerance of minority views, religions or practices, especially when they undermine the moral, political or legal order of the majority. Demanding that kids learn about homosexuality "proves" that liberals stick up for the underdog, while demanding that kids not learn about their own heritage, religion or history unless it is condemned "demonstrates" their "enlightenment." I have no doubt that Wilbur considers himself to be an enlightened, tolerant individual, and he may be when the subject isn't Christianity, but the true test of tolerance is how you react to ideas that you dislike but which do you no harm.

wilbur
12-09-2008, 12:28 PM
He's sort of like Gator where Israel is concerned. Outraged, completely unreachable and utterly indifferent to anything but his own worldview.

Liberals only demand tolerance of minority views, religions or practices, especially when they undermine the moral, political or legal order of the majority. Demanding that kids learn about homosexuality "proves" that liberals stick up for the underdog, while demanding that kids not learn about their own heritage, religion or history unless it is condemned "demonstrates" their "enlightenment."


There is a systemic problem around here, with peoples imaginations running away with them, and dropping them off somewhere on the other side of Pluto. Still not a liberal... never have I demanded we 'teach homosexuality in schools', or encouraged any social engineering to that effect in public school (it is hard to tell who is more guilty of that sort of social engineering of secular institutions, the religious right, or minority advocates).

I wouldn't get so 'outraged' half the time if so many of you would actually respond to comments as they are posted, instead of setting your imaginations on auto pilot and start ranting and raving about liberal bogeymen that have nothing to do with what I have said or done.

So honestly, if you feel the need to spew off about this crap, don't attach it to me or my points of view, because they certainly are not mine.

PoliCon
12-09-2008, 12:38 PM
There is a systemic problem around here, with peoples imaginations running away with them, and dropping them off somewhere on the other side of Pluto. Still not a liberal... never have I demanded we 'teach homosexuality in schools', or encouraged any social engineering to that effect in public school (it is hard to tell who is more guilty of that sort of social engineering of secular institutions, the religious right, or minority advocates).

I wouldn't get so 'outraged' half the time if so many of you would actually respond to comments as they are posted, instead of setting your imaginations on auto pilot and start ranting and raving about liberal bogeymen that have nothing to do with what I have said or done.

So honestly, if you feel the need to spew off about this crap, don't attach it to me or my points of view, because they certainly are not mine.How have you been CW? thought you were banned.

PC Guy
12-09-2008, 08:00 PM
I have a black belt in sarcasm-fu. The vomit suppression ability is a basic skill that must be mastered in the beginning stages. :p

BLACK BELT IN SARCASM FU!!!! *LAUGHING OUT LOUD* :D

Hatejane
12-10-2008, 01:16 PM
So where were people like that when California schools were having kids dress, act, and pray like Muslims and play games where they carry out jihads?

pick me!! pick me! I know the answer to that one .

People like that were too busy sewing burquas complete with face shields for their daughters and congratulating themselves for their "open mindedness" and all inclusiveness.:rolleyes:

wilbur
12-10-2008, 02:34 PM
pick me!! pick me! I know the answer to that one .

People like that were too busy sewing burquas complete with face shields for their daughters and congratulating themselves for their "open mindedness" and all inclusiveness.:rolleyes:

Yes, I'm sure they were :rolleyes:

Some of you should try out real world every once in a while... instead of trying to construct a picture of it through news bites and letting your imagination fill in the rest.

Odysseus
12-10-2008, 07:19 PM
There is a systemic problem around here, with peoples imaginations running away with them, and dropping them off somewhere on the other side of Pluto. Still not a liberal... never have I demanded we 'teach homosexuality in schools', or encouraged any social engineering to that effect in public school (it is hard to tell who is more guilty of that sort of social engineering of secular institutions, the religious right, or minority advocates).
Trust me, you're a liberal. If you haven't figured that out by now...
No, you've never "demanded" it, you just never weigh in when it's the topic. Silence equals consent, or at least indifference. But, let a cross be seen, and you're all over it.


I wouldn't get so 'outraged' half the time if so many of you would actually respond to comments as they are posted, instead of setting your imaginations on auto pilot and start ranting and raving about liberal bogeymen that have nothing to do with what I have said or done.

So honestly, if you feel the need to spew off about this crap, don't attach it to me or my points of view, because they certainly are not mine.
See below

Yes, I'm sure they were :rolleyes:

Some of you should try out real world every once in a while... instead of trying to construct a picture of it through news bites and letting your imagination fill in the rest.
Something about attaching positions to other peoples' points of view? The Ninth Circuit found in favor of Islamic indoctrination (not to mention spell-casting) in public schools in the name of "diversity." The most liberal court in the nation demonstrated through its rulings that it only objects to religious displays in the public sector if they are part of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

wilbur
12-11-2008, 09:10 AM
Trust me, you're a liberal. If you haven't figured that out by now...
No, you've never "demanded" it, you just never weigh in when it's the topic. Silence equals consent, or at least indifference. But, let a cross be seen, and you're all over it.

Something about attaching positions to other peoples' points of view? The Ninth Circuit found in favor of Islamic indoctrination (not to mention spell-casting) in public schools in the name of "diversity." The most liberal court in the nation demonstrated through its rulings that it only objects to religious displays in the public sector if they are part of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

It's a symptom of a sick broken brain when you can only think in terms on/off liberal/conservative. Dare I say it lacks 'nuance'? ;) Or will you call me a liberal because I used that word now?

Actually, I'll refer you to the thread in question, where this particular issue was discussed here: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=16834&postcount=7

PoliCon
12-11-2008, 03:12 PM
Yes, I'm sure they were :rolleyes:

Some of you should try out real world every once in a while... instead of trying to construct a picture of it through news bites and letting your imagination fill in the rest.spoken by someone who thinks New England **IS** the real world lol:rolleyes:

Odysseus
12-11-2008, 03:57 PM
It's a symptom of a sick broken brain when you can only think in terms on/off liberal/conservative. Dare I say it lacks 'nuance'? ;) Or will you call me a liberal because I used that word now?

Actually, I'll refer you to the thread in question, where this particular issue was discussed here: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=16834&postcount=7

Congratulations. You're equally hostile to all religions, and make no distinction between one that has nurtured western civilization, permitted the development of western scientific thought and the emancipation of billions and one that inculcates barbaric intolerance, misogyny and violence wherever it is encountered. Some nuance.

wilbur
12-11-2008, 07:59 PM
Congratulations. You're equally hostile to all religions, and make no distinction between one that has nurtured western civilization, permitted the development of western scientific thought and the emancipation of billions and one that inculcates barbaric intolerance, misogyny and violence wherever it is encountered. Some nuance.

Sure, between the choice of those two poisons, Christianity (as it exists presently in western democracies) is preferable to Islam... but its poison nonetheless... so not exactly equal.

Stay tuned to the thunderdome for a nice debunking of all the myths that you repeat above.

Zathras
12-11-2008, 10:07 PM
Sure, between the choice of those two poisons, Christianity (as it exists presently in western democracies) is preferable to Islam... but its poison nonetheless... so not exactly equal.

Stay tuned to the thunderdome for a nice debunking of all the myths that you repeat above.

Oh, you mean this thread right here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=8448) that was started back on 11-26-08? I'm sure CS would prefer for you to respond to him before you take on Odysseus.

MrsSmith
12-11-2008, 11:11 PM
Sure, between the choice of those two poisons, Christianity (as it exists presently in western democracies) is preferable to Islam... but its poison nonetheless... so not exactly equal.

Stay tuned to the thunderdome for a nice debunking of all the myths that you repeat above.

Yep. The kind of poison that builds hospitals and schools, pregnancy centers and homeless shelters. The kind of poison that sends disaster assistance all over the world, feeds the starving all over the world, builds homes and drills wells all over the world. So poisonous... :rolleyes:

wilbur
12-12-2008, 09:05 AM
Yep. The kind of poison that builds hospitals and schools, pregnancy centers and homeless shelters. The kind of poison that sends disaster assistance all over the world, feeds the starving all over the world, builds homes and drills wells all over the world. So poisonous... :rolleyes:

I would actually give credit to those people who actually do such things... not the mythological belief system that wants to steal credit for all the good things people do.

MrsSmith
12-12-2008, 06:20 PM
I would actually give credit to those people who actually do such things... not the mythological belief system that wants to steal credit for all the good things people do.

Except for the "minor" point that the belief system is the reason for the actions. When you know that God is taking care of you, it's a lot easier to give the time and money you would have otherwise saved up for yourself.

Goldwater
12-12-2008, 07:09 PM
Except for the "minor" point that the belief system is the reason for the actions. When you know that God is taking care of you, it's a lot easier to give the time and money you would have otherwise saved up for yourself.

If there is a God, he isn't taking care of you, or getting involved on this planet in any way we understand.

If he is protecting you, why isn't he protecting the children that die every few seconds in Africa? I'd choose helping the kid about to die over you any day.

wilbur
12-12-2008, 07:39 PM
Except for the "minor" point that the belief system is the reason for the actions. When you know that God is taking care of you, it's a lot easier to give the time and money you would have otherwise saved up for yourself.

I have a little more respect for humanity than to think we are all hell bound evil doers from the start because our ancestors ate apples. People do good things because they are good.

BTW, that's the same rational faith healers use while they watch their kids die because they refuse to take them to doctors for treatable disease... 'God takes care of you mentality' encourages one to discard practical action in favour of useless superstitious rites and rituals.

Bleda
12-12-2008, 07:42 PM
Atheists always over-estimate humanity.

wilbur
12-12-2008, 09:59 PM
Atheists always over-estimate humanity.

No, I just recognize where the good deeds of good humans come from. The same holds true for their bad ones.

wiegenlied
12-13-2008, 05:06 AM
If there is a God, he isn't taking care of you, or getting involved on this planet in any way we understand.

If he is protecting you, why isn't he protecting the children that die every few seconds in Africa? I'd choose helping the kid about to die over you any day.

At least, he gave me two hands so I am able to help myself out. Maybe he gives those African kids something else too which I dont know what. :D

PoliCon
12-13-2008, 12:22 PM
If there is a God, he isn't taking care of you, or getting involved on this planet in any way we understand.

If he is protecting you, why isn't he protecting the children that die every few seconds in Africa? I'd choose helping the kid about to die over you any day. So - you want God to violate some peoples free will but not other peoples?

PoliCon
12-13-2008, 12:23 PM
I have a little more respect for humanity than to think we are all hell bound evil doers from the start because our ancestors ate apples. People do good things because they are good.

BTW, that's the same rational faith healers use while they watch their kids die because they refuse to take them to doctors for treatable disease... 'God takes care of you mentality' encourages one to discard practical action in favour of useless superstitious rites and rituals. Death is only a door. It is the beginning not the end. :)

PoliCon
12-13-2008, 12:25 PM
Atheists always over-estimate humanity. They just do not grasp basic concepts such as justice or faith. They think to be just you have to treat everyone exactly the same no matter what. That's not justice. It should not surprise anyone that they think man is inherently good.

wilbur
12-13-2008, 12:37 PM
They just do not grasp basic concepts such as justice or faith. They think to be just you have to treat everyone exactly the same no matter what. That's not justice. It should not surprise anyone that they think man is inherently good.

What is justice?

PoliCon
12-13-2008, 12:40 PM
What is justice?
I already defined it for you in another thread. :P I'll remind you what it is NOT - it's NOT fair.

Goldwater
12-13-2008, 01:50 PM
So - you want God to violate some peoples free will but not other peoples?

No, read again sir. I said if I had the power only to help one or the other, I'd know what my priorities were pretty easily.

PoliCon
12-13-2008, 02:14 PM
No, read again sir. I said if I had the power only to help one or the other, I'd know what my priorities were pretty easily. Trouble is - you want someone's free will to be violated in the process. Kids in Africa are starving due to MANS choices not Gods.

wilbur
12-13-2008, 02:49 PM
Trouble is - you want someone's free will to be violated in the process. Kids in Africa are starving due to MANS choices not Gods.

You just refuted most of your own beliefs and argued for deism.

Goldwater
12-13-2008, 03:32 PM
You just refuted most of your own beliefs and argued for deism.

He just agreed with me, and it feels so good.

PoliCon
12-14-2008, 09:27 PM
You just refuted most of your own beliefs and argued for deism.

And you just clearly demonstrated why I do not discuss doctrine with heathen. They have no clue what the beliefs of Christianity are - but not only do you guys pretend to be experts on Christianity - you claim to know what **I** believe without even bothering to ask what it is I believe.

wilbur
12-15-2008, 11:31 AM
And you just clearly demonstrated why I do not discuss doctrine with heathen. They have no clue what the beliefs of Christianity are - but not only do you guys pretend to be experts on Christianity - you claim to know what **I** believe without even bothering to ask what it is I believe.

I'm just going by what YOU have said.

At the very least, I know you are Christian... which means you are a theist. God interferes in the world, affects outcomes... helps people. If we unpack your last statement a little bit, we see it amounts to an argument for deism. It implies that God cannot interfere or affect outcomes in our world. If he did interfere, say by helping kids in Africa, it would deprive someone of their free will. And according to you, God would not do that. That rules out God interfering in the world at all. There goes the efficacy of prayer. There goes the entire story of Christ.

So is there something special about the situation of African children that prevents God from providing assistance without depriving people of their free will? Is this 'something' not present in other parts of the world so that he may be free to answer prayers and provide assistance without depriving someone of their free will? If so, I'd love to hear that...

I think its pretty clear that you do not actually have a coherent belief system. You have a 'theology of the moment' that mindlessly answers any challenge you are presented with any given instant... with no care or concern if its consistent or valid in light other answers you may have given only moments ago. Contradictions abound, but are forgotten by the time you posit a shallow quip in response to another challenge. Then when its pointed out that you just freely stuck your own foot in the bear trap you retreat by saying its the fault of the heathens for not understanding your non-sensible and contradictory beliefs... which you have clearly articulated yourself. A little self-sealing system of self-deception so that so that your belief remains unshaken no matter what argument you are presented with. Just so long as you refuse to think too deeply about it or actually connect the dots, it can survive.

PoliCon
12-15-2008, 02:27 PM
God interferes in the world, affects outcomes... helps people. False assumption and premise.

wilbur
12-15-2008, 03:32 PM
False assumption and premise.

It's false only if you are a deist or an atheist... neither of which is compatible with Christianity. You really should read up on your religion ;)

Here again you deny practically everything Christian... With your statement here you deny that there is such a thing as divine revelation. You deny scripture.

PoliCon
12-15-2008, 03:38 PM
It's false only if you are a deist or an atheist... neither of which is compatible with Christianity. You really should read up on your religion ;)

Here again you deny practically everything Christian... With your statement here you deny that there is such a thing as divine revelation. You deny scripture. Your false premise is based on a clear misunderstanding of Christianity - it's teachings - and it's realities. Sadly - many Christians misunderstand and believe this false premise as well. :(

wilbur
12-15-2008, 03:40 PM
Your false premise is based on a clear misunderstanding of Christianity - it's teachings - and it's realities. Sadly - many Christians misunderstand and believe this false premise as well. :(

If you believe in divine revelation (ie god-inspired scripture), you have to believe god interferes in the world... its that simple. To believe otherwise is to believe in a round square.. a logical impossibility.

PoliCon
12-15-2008, 03:44 PM
If you believe in divine revelation (ie god-inspired scripture), you have to believe god interferes in the world... its that simple. To believe otherwise is to believe in a round square.. a logical impossibility.
God does not INTERFERE. He may intercede or intervene - but he does not Interfere. To interfere would be to go against the free will of someone and God does NOT do that. Sorry to burst your bubble.

wilbur
12-15-2008, 03:55 PM
God does not INTERFERE. He may intercede or intervene - but he does not Interfere. To interfere would be to go against the free will of someone and God does NOT do that. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Ahhh haha, we are back to ludicrous arguments over definition... You going to start quibbling over the definition of 'is' too? Is Bill Clinton a personal hero of yours or something? Once again, common usage and the dictionary and thesaurus do not back you up. A few more arguments with you'll have a good start to a brand new language.. :)



Main Entry: intervene
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: mediate
Synonyms: arbitrate, barge in, butt in*, come between, divide, horn in, intercede, interfere, intermediate, interpose, interrupt, intrude, involve, meddle, mix in, muscle in, negotiate, obtrude, part, put in two cents, reconcile, separate, settle, sever, step in, take a hand

PoliCon
12-15-2008, 04:45 PM
Ahhh haha, we are back to ludicrous arguments over definition... You going to start quibbling over the definition of 'is' too? Is Bill Clinton a personal hero of yours or something? Once again, common usage and the dictionary and thesaurus do not back you up. A few more arguments with you'll have a good start to a brand new language.. :)



Main Entry: intervene
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: mediate
Synonyms: arbitrate, barge in, butt in*, come between, divide, horn in, intercede, interfere, intermediate, interpose, interrupt, intrude, involve, meddle, mix in, muscle in, negotiate, obtrude, part, put in two cents, reconcile, separate, settle, sever, step in, take a hand Perhaps you need to look up the definition of SYNONYM. Your definition is correct. To mediate not to interfere. It pays to say what you mean - and to know what you are saying.

wilbur
12-15-2008, 05:24 PM
Perhaps you need to look up the definition of SYNONYM. Your definition is correct. To mediate not to interfere. It pays to say what you mean - and to know what you are saying.

Or perhaps you need to look at the definitions of the words you keep contesting.

This is where theism leads eventually. Absurdities become the only escape... in your case you are trying to redefine a language by your own invented standards, on the fly.

Again, we consult the merriam-webster:



Interfere

Main Entry:
in·ter·fere Listen to the pronunciation of interfere

....

1 : to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes : come into collision or be in opposition

2 : to strike one foot against the opposite foot or ankle in walking or running —used especially of horses

3 : to enter into or take a part in the concerns of others

4 : to act reciprocally so as to augment, diminish, or otherwise affect one another —used of waves

PoliCon
12-15-2008, 05:33 PM
Or perhaps you need to look at the definitions of the words you keep contesting.

This is where theism leads eventually. Absurdities become the only escape... in your case you are trying to redefine a language by your own invented standards, on the fly.

Again, we consult the merriam-webster:Bullshit. I'm using the words in the proper way - using them to mean what they mean and not what the Dewey corrupted education system promotes - "the words mean what you want them to mean." Interfere and intervene are two different words - with two different meanings which is why there is not just one word with the same meaning. Two words with the same meaning is exactly POINTLESS. FURTHER - there are numbers before these definitions for a reason. You might want to find out what that reason is. Definition #1 - the PRIMARY and most accepted and used definition of the word - is completely accurate and exactly why I say - God intervenes but does not interfere.

wilbur
12-15-2008, 06:41 PM
Bullshit. I'm using the words in the proper way - using them to mean what they mean and not what the Dewey corrupted education system promotes - "the words mean what you want them to mean."


You really are hilarious... its all an orchestrated conspiracy at the highest levels to purposefully confuse the definitions of interfere and intervene... to derail conversations about theism! :eek: Alert the authorities! You can't even claim political distortions on this one... there is no 'interference doctrine' like there is with the word 'fair'.




Interfere and intervene are two different words - with two different meanings which is why there is not just one word with the same meaning. Two words with the same meaning is exactly POINTLESS.


Uh.... welcome to the English language? You may call it pointless, but its still a fact... one that you have to live with. There are even pointless rules in our syntax that arose out of convention. "I" before "E" except "C"... Hell.... the letter "X". It may be pointless in your mind too have two words that mean the same thing but that doesn't change the fact that there are thousands of them.



FURTHER - there are numbers before these definitions for a reason. You might want to find out what that reason is. Definition #1 - the PRIMARY and most accepted and used definition of the word - is completely accurate and exactly why I say - God intervenes but does not interfere.

And again, context of the conversation is what determines which meaning is used. In the context of this thread and our conversation, the more narrow definitions could work.... and you are desperately trying to cling to this idea to save face... but so does the wider definition... where it simply means 'involved'. You can tell this from the context that I really meant it in the wider sense.. here is a quote:

I said:

... "At the very least, I know you are Christian... which means you are a theist. God interferes in the world, affects outcomes... helps people.".

At this point you should be reminded that your claims and mine both arose before the term 'interfere' was used... it started with the word 'help', so this English lesson is moot anyhow. You claimed God couldn't 'help' the children in Africa without removing free will... and unless you can demonstrate what circumstances prevent God from 'helping' the African children's plight , while easily intervening in the affairs of man in other circumstances, you simply have no ground to run to in order to escape your contradictions.

Goldwater
12-15-2008, 06:46 PM
You guys have a lot of patience to discuss such a boring and repetitively debated topic over and over, too much for me. :p

PoliCon
12-15-2008, 10:31 PM
You really are hilarious... its all an orchestrated conspiracy at the highest levels to purposefully confuse the definitions of interfere and intervene... to derail conversations about theism! :eek: Alert the authorities! You can't even claim political distortions on this one... there is no 'interference doctrine' like there is with the word 'fair'. NO you jackass - the purpose was and remains to dumb down the masses - to give them only what they need to become good cogs in the state. No rhetoric - no philosophy - a whole sale destruction of grammar and diction - and God forfend that we should teach Western History. Nope. Our kids don't learn about the Magna Carta or even our own constitution. No. Instead their skulls full of mush are filled with leftist propaganda and bullshit about George Washington Carver and the peanut. :mad:



Uh.... welcome to the English language? You may call it pointless, but its still a fact... one that you have to live with. There are even pointless rules in our syntax that arose out of convention. "I" before "E" except "C"... Hell.... the letter "X". It may be pointless in your mind too have two words that mean the same thing but that doesn't change the fact that there are thousands of them.
Your ignorance is profound and rather sad. I before E except after C always works with words that have their origins in the ENGLISH language. All of the exceptions are words introduced into english from other languages. People like you are perfect examples of why and how the individual vocabulary of people has been shrinking exponentially. Your use of rightspeak and the dumbing down of the language will have us back to grunts and growls in no time.




And again, context of the conversation is what determines which meaning is used. even when context LENDS meaning to words - and will often reveal which definition of the word is being used - the words still have a given SET definition and even a connotation that cannot be changed. Like it or not Fair has a meaning that is different - no matter how SIMILAR - meaning that does the word just in modern english usage. In any thoughtful and enlightened dialog it does not take much to recognize that the two different words are DIFFERENT for a reason or they would be spelled and pronounced the exact same way.
In the context of this thread and our conversation, the more narrow definitions could work.... and you are desperately trying to cling to this idea to save face... Save face with whom? lol YOU????? You inflate your own importance should you truly believe such.


but so does the wider definition... where it simply means 'involved'. Were we having a casual conversation about pointless things in the rightspeak fashion of the left - the words we use would be inconsequential. But we're not - or at least **I'm** not.
You can tell this from the context that I really meant it in the wider sense.. here is a quote:

I said: In which there is the negative connotation of interference as well as the assumption that God will violate the free will. I simply said that this assumption and connotation is incorrect. You have been hung up on the language issue ever since. You seem to think that if you can win here you can somehow prove me wrong theologically. You are mistaken on both counts.



At this point you should be reminded that your claims and mine both arose before the term 'interfere' was used... it started with the word 'help', so this English lesson is moot anyhow. You claimed God couldn't 'help' the children in Africa without removing free will... and unless you can demonstrate what circumstances prevent God from 'helping' the African children's plight , while easily intervening in the affairs of man in other circumstances, you simply have no ground to run to in order to escape your contradictions.No sir I did not say that God could not help without removing free will. You should go back and read what I said. This is exactly why I do not discuss theology with heathen. You lace any conversation with false assumptions and then try to drive them home and claim victory when people refuse to deal with your false premise. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
12-15-2008, 10:33 PM
You guys have a lot of patience to discuss such a boring and repetitively debated topic over and over, too much for me. :pI find the constant attempts to trap me into saying specific things amusing myself. They tried the same thing with Jesus. ;)

wilbur
12-15-2008, 11:06 PM
Not even going to bother to reply to the top portion... I had it typed out but.... its quite ridiculous at this point...



No sir I did not say that God could not help without removing free will. You should go back and read what I said. This is exactly why I do not discuss theology with heathen. You lace any conversation with false assumptions and then try to drive them home and claim victory when people refuse to deal with your false premise. :rolleyes:

You were dealing with my 'false premise' just fine... until you realized your mistake perhaps.. then got fixated on word games. I didn't have to prove you wrong theologically... you did it yourself.. it just had to be explained to you because you did not even see it.

Ok, simple... lets go back to one of the sentences... set the record straight:

Original:
"At the very least, I know you are Christian... which means you are a theist. God interferes in the world, affects outcomes... helps people.".

Now lets modify it:

"At the very least, I know you are Christian... which means you are a theist. God intervenes in the world, affects outcomes... helps people.".

Now look at these two sentences; explain the functional difference between what they describe in terms of the action God would take by either interfering or intervening in Africa on behalf of the children.

Odysseus
12-16-2008, 12:05 PM
I have a little more respect for humanity than to think we are all hell bound evil doers from the start because our ancestors ate apples. People do good things because they are good.
No, people do good things because they choose to do good things. You may not think of us all as sinners, but even you must agree that we are all imperfect creatures that do what we can with what we have. We choose between good and evil daily, based on the best information available, including the moral lessons of our culture, which are based in our religious traditions. When we sever those traditions and lose the meaning of the morality that we have inherited, we begin to lose our bearings and the choices that we make become more concerned with expediency than right or wrong.

BTW, that's the same rational faith healers use while they watch their kids die because they refuse to take them to doctors for treatable disease... 'God takes care of you mentality' encourages one to discard practical action in favour of useless superstitious rites and rituals.
Except that this isn't the mainstream Judeo-Christian idea. The major difference between Islam and Christianity (and Judaism) is that in Islam, the world exists because Allah continually wills it. There are no natural laws except those in the Koran. Christianity and Judaism believe that God set the world in motion at creation, according to rational laws based on his will. This means that the universe is knowable, that one can get closer to God through individual inquiry and effort. This is the crucial difference which made the Renaissance and Enlightenment possible under Christian rule, while Islam, after initial successes due to the assimilation of dhimmi science and a permissive culture of inquiry (which was destroyed with the end of the Abassid Caliphate), has stagnated for centuries.

What is justice?
The opposite of mercy.

You guys have a lot of patience to discuss such a boring and repetitively debated topic over and over, too much for me. :p
Agreed, but if the resurrection of a dead horse isn't proof of something, what is? :D

PoliCon
12-16-2008, 03:48 PM
Not even going to bother to reply to the top portion... I had it typed out but.... its quite ridiculous at this point...



You were dealing with my 'false premise' just fine... until you realized your mistake perhaps.. then got fixated on word games. I didn't have to prove you wrong theologically... you did it yourself.. it just had to be explained to you because you did not even see it.

Ok, simple... lets go back to one of the sentences... set the record straight:

Original:
"At the very least, I know you are Christian... which means you are a theist. God interferes in the world, affects outcomes... helps people.".

Now lets modify it:

"At the very least, I know you are Christian... which means you are a theist. God intervenes in the world, affects outcomes... helps people.".

Now look at these two sentences; explain the functional difference between what they describe in terms of the action God would take by either interfering or intervening in Africa on behalf of the children. God will not do anything that will remove or negate the freewill of any person. FOR EXAMPLE - You are driving down the street - being a good boy. Got your seatbelt on - both hands on the wheel - obeying all the traffic laws - just like you're supposed to do. Sally is coming the other way - obeying all the laws - driving super safe and bing a good girl. Mary is playing ball in the yard with her brother billy and their dog scruffy. Bill being 8 and not all that great of a pitcher over throws his sister and scruffy takes off after the ball - Mary sees you and Sally both coming towards Scruffy and knows that because of the bushes - you will not see him until too late. Scruffy runs out right in front of sally -and being a good animal rights activist - Sally swerves - but since you are in the other lane - she can't swerve in your direction - so she swerves towards the sidewalk - just as Mary comes out from behind the big bush and Sally runs Mary down. Killing her. She couldn't have stopped. It was a freak accident.

Should God have taken away your freewill and forced you to be elsewhere so that when Sally when to swerve - your lane would have been clear? Or should he have taken Sallys free will? or Mary's? Or maybe Billies?

wilbur
12-16-2008, 04:10 PM
God will not do anything that will remove or negate the freewill of any person. FOR EXAMPLE - You are driving down the street - being a good boy. Got your seatbelt on - both hands on the wheel - obeying all the traffic laws - just like you're supposed to do. Sally is coming the other way - obeying all the laws - driving super safe and bing a good girl. Mary is playing ball in the yard with her brother billy and their dog scruffy. Bill being 8 and not all that great of a pitcher over throws his sister and scruffy takes off after the ball - Mary sees you and Sally both coming towards Scruffy and knows that because of the bushes - you will not see him until too late. Scruffy runs out right in front of sally -and being a good animal rights activist - Sally swerves - but since you are in the other lane - she can't swerve in your direction - so she swerves towards the sidewalk - just as Mary comes out from behind the big bush and Sally runs Mary down. Killing her. She couldn't have stopped. It was a freak accident.

Should God have taken away your freewill and forced you to be elsewhere so that when Sally when to swerve - your lane would have been clear? Or should he have taken Sallys free will? or Mary's? Or maybe Billies?

I could see any number of solutions to that problem, for an omnipotent deity that did not involve removing free will. Changing the trajectory of the ball, making a stop light last a little longer so that you would not be on the road at the same time etc etc. But none that I can think of that could be labelled as interfering, but not simultaneously also labelled as intervening. That is the difference I am asking about.

PoliCon
12-16-2008, 04:19 PM
I could see any number of solutions to that problem, for an omnipotent deity that did not involve removing free will. Changing the trajectory of the ball, making a stop light last a little longer so that you would not be on the road at the same time etc etc. But none that I can think of that could be labelled as interfering, but not simultaneously also labelled as intervening. That is the difference I am asking about. Who said anything about a stop light? And Remember - Mary was not chasing the ball she was chasing the DOG. Lets say that the Dog was running so fast - he kicked the ball out into the street himself so the change in trajectory is not possible. IN FACT - lets say that circumstances are all such that the only way that God could change the situation would be for him to take way the free will of one or another of the people involved - BETTER STILL - lets say that the only way that he could intervene would be to take away YOUR free will - would that be acceptable to you?

wilbur
12-16-2008, 04:26 PM
Who said anything about a stop light? And Remember - Mary was not chasing the ball she was chasing the DOG. Lets say that the Dog was running so fast - he kicked the ball out into the street himself so the change in trajectory is not possible. IN FACT - lets say that circumstances are all such that the only way that God could change the situation would be for him to take way the free will of one or another of the people involved - BETTER STILL - lets say that the only way that he could intervene would be to take away YOUR free will - would that be acceptable to you?

Well you said God does not interfere, he only intervenes or intercedes. I am trying to picture how could could intervene in this scenario while not interfering.

Goldwater
12-16-2008, 04:40 PM
The nature of God "intervening" implies the world is going along without him, surely the definition of "interfere" covers the same area though? Free will is secondary to God whether he is doing either.

PoliCon
12-16-2008, 04:50 PM
The nature of God "intervening" implies the world is going along without him, surely the definition of "interfere" covers the same area though? Free will is secondary to God whether he is doing either.I disagree. God does not violate our free will. Choice is the only thing we have that is truly ours.

Goldwater
12-16-2008, 05:49 PM
I disagree. God does not violate our free will. Choice is the only thing we have that is truly ours.

But if he "intervenes" is that not running over free will?

PoliCon
12-16-2008, 05:53 PM
But if he "intervenes" is that not running over free will?nope. :cool:

Goldwater
12-16-2008, 05:57 PM
nope. :cool:

Blah, I'd argue that it is sir. But we've obviously hit a wall.

PoliCon
12-16-2008, 06:39 PM
Blah, I'd argue that it is sir. But we've obviously hit a wall.Do you have an example?

Goldwater
12-16-2008, 06:43 PM
Do you have an example?

An example of God intervening in the world?

PoliCon
12-16-2008, 06:45 PM
An example of God intervening in the world?of God violating anyones free will.

Goldwater
12-16-2008, 06:46 PM
of God violating anyones free will.

A real life one or a theoretical one?

PoliCon
12-16-2008, 06:57 PM
A real life one or a theoretical one?
a scriptural one if possible. :)

Goldwater
12-16-2008, 07:48 PM
a scriptural one if possible. :)

How about the Great Flood?