EXPELLED Will You Watch It?

[DividedThigh]

maybe is my answer, i might, lol,dt

[James Griffin]

Pelathais,

As per earlier post I agreed with you what passes for “creation science” or “Intelligent Design” theory with many of these men is indeed junk science and self-proving argument.


It does also appear on the surface in an attempt to counter these arguments your posts give a flavor which I do not believe express your core values either.

True the “fact” that Darwinism was the proximate cause of the holocaust is absurd. But your post would give the outward appearance that Christianity was. Yes, I know you were just trying to make a point, but you know the proximate cause of the holocaust was no more Christianity than Darwinism. Hilter’s Mein Kampf was a propaganda piece he wrote in 1925, years before the rise of the Third Reich. You also know that everyone who evokes the name of Christ is not of His Spirit. The crusades were not executed by men seeking to expand the kingdom of Christ, but rather for greed, power and fame. Likewise, there was nothing holy or Christian in the spirit behind Hitler no matter whose authority he purported to invoke.

I believe there MAY be some validity to the point that without the concept of a loving God it is easier to de-humanize and therefore exterminate a people or a belief system which stands in the way of your goals. To that degree, and that degree alone Darwinism may have contributed to subsequent events.

Which finally brings me to the point: The true issue is not whether the “science” of Creationism or Darwinism is correct, it is whether there is a God and whether that God directly concerns Himself in the affairs of Mankind, and even more importantly, concerns Himself with us as individuals and our individual actions.

The issues of Creation Science and Darwinism are merely pawns in the war of these contrasting worldviews which too often take front seat to the infinitely more important underlying issue mentioned above.


As far as the movie is concerned, I will watch it, and wince every time stupidity passes for hard core science and laugh at every self-proving argument. But I applaud Stein on one count: Exposing the hypocrisy of the “intellectual” leftist elite, their censorship techniques and unwillingness to entertain “science” as absurd as their own.

My only regret will probably be not being able to share a bag of popcorn with you while doing it.

JAG

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Pelathais,


As far as the movie is concerned, I will watch it, and wince every time stupidity passes for hard core science and laugh at every self-proving argument. But I applaud Stein on one count: Exposing the hypocrisy of the “intellectual” leftist elite, their censorship techniques and unwillingness to entertain “science” as absurd as their own.
My only regret will probably be not being able to share a bag of popcorn with you while doing it.

JAG

Just to demonstrate how outta the park I am concerning this entire debate.... I thought that is the entirity of the arguement and the intent of the movie.


Is popcorn high in Carbohydrates?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Pelathais,

As per earlier post I agreed with you what passes for “creation science” or “Intelligent Design” theory with many of these men is indeed junk science and self-proving argument.


It does also appear on the surface in an attempt to counter these arguments your posts give a flavor which I do not believe express your core values either.

True the “fact” that Darwinism was the proximate cause of the holocaust is absurd. But your post would give the outward appearance that Christianity was. Yes, I know you were just trying to make a point, but you know the proximate cause of the holocaust was no more Christianity than Darwinism. Hilter’s Mein Kampf was a propaganda piece he wrote in 1925, years before the rise of the Third Reich. You also know that everyone who evokes the name of Christ is not of His Spirit. The crusades were not executed by men seeking to expand the kingdom of Christ, but rather for greed, power and fame. Likewise, there was nothing holy or Christian in the spirit behind Hitler no matter whose authority he purported to invoke.

I believe there MAY be some validity to the point that without the concept of a loving God it is easier to de-humanize and therefore exterminate a people or a belief system which stands in the way of your goals. To that degree, and that degree alone Darwinism may have contributed to subsequent events.

Which finally brings me to the point: The true issue is not whether the “science” of Creationism or Darwinism is correct, it is whether there is a God and whether that God directly concerns Himself in the affairs of Mankind, and even more importantly, concerns Himself with us as individuals and our individual actions.

The issues of Creation Science and Darwinism are merely pawns in the war of these contrasting worldviews which too often take front seat to the infinitely more important underlying issue mentioned above.


As far as the movie is concerned, I will watch it, and wince every time stupidity passes for hard core science and laugh at every self-proving argument. But I applaud Stein on one count: Exposing the hypocrisy of the “intellectual” leftist elite, their censorship techniques and unwillingness to entertain “science” as absurd as their own.

My only regret will probably be not being able to share a bag of popcorn with you while doing it.

JAG

Thanks James. You are correct on all counts. For me to post a pic of Hitler walking out of a church service and at prayer was absurd- and that was my point, the absurdity of trying to make these connections.

For the producers of the film to try and make a man as humane as Richard Dawkins out as the raison d'être of the holocaust goes from absurdity to cruelty and slander. Dawkins gave a good part of his life to nuturing and caring for someone that a social engineer might have said had "no business being alive." He sacrificed to give meaning and significance to a human life that most people would have just shoved off to an institution somewhere. But Dawkins obviously has some innate quality about him that he reveres human life. I ask, where does that quality come from when it is possessed by an atheist? The answer seems to be that he is just a decent person; no Gospel, no Spirit of God moving in him - just his own decency.

I take issue with some of his conclusions, and those of any atheist. But when a public figure is able to be humane and just the way Dawkins has carried himself, then I have to take notice because I want to be as humane as he is. He can be provoked to some acerbic comments, but when his home is invaded by deceptive "evangelists" and his invalid daughter made sport of, I think that I would be worse than acerbic.

And now a film that tries to be funny while simultaneously exploiting the suffering of the victims of the Holocaust come out. I'm left to think that the suffering of the victims of the Holocaust pales to the opportunity to try and "score" some cheap points. And sadly, we have Christian leaders egging folks on.

Did you notice how concerned the Jewish community got when Mel Gibson's Passion film came out? What prompted that concern? It was just a "passion play" on film, after all. But the were worried, perhaps at times overly sensitive to a feared backlash of anti-Semitism that the film might spawn. Why? Because they've been there before.

And now we are told that "Darwinism causes Nazism..." If that were true, how should we respond? Why we should lock up the Darwinists/Nazis. We should ban their books and their speeches. We have a moral obligation to stop another Holocaust, and if Darwin caused the last one - we must make certain he doesn't cause another!

Absurd. And after this exercise, what am I to do when I challenge the very real Lefist bias in academia? They will respond by lumping me in with "Dr. Dino" and other semi-literate figures and ignore what I have to say. The film hurts our cause. It diminishes our voice and makes us all look like a bunch of raving... well, nazis?

[Rhoni]

But I applaud Stein on one count: Exposing the hypocrisy of the “intellectual” leftist elite, their censorship techniques and unwillingness to entertain “science” as absurd as their own.

Jim, I agree totally with your post. I did not say that those things posted were my views but those of the men I heard talking about it on Dr. James Dobson. The crux of the matter you have stated well in the quote I have posted above.

My reaction to Pelathais was his blaming of Christianity on the Halocaust and then bringing in the subject of interracial marriage which I thought unrelated. I don't post well when my emotions are high...as we all know. With this in mind, I apologize to Pelathias for over-reacting to his obvious over-reaction LOL.

Since I'll be in Houston for the opening maybe we can all go together...Jim, Deb & the girls. By then I'll be able to eat popcorn again

Blessigns, Rhoni

[mizpeh]

Pelathais,

Originally Posted by pelathais

I was just pulling out a particular complex feature that existed for billions of years without human observation or interaction. I believe that God did not arrange the rocks there because to do so would serve no purpose. Now, of course there could be some event in the future that proves me wrong - God may "use" the arrangement to save the life of a stranded astronaut from a sandstorm, or something. Then we all would look back and say, "Wow! 2 or 3 billion years in the making! What providence!"

When I read about the accounts of creation in other parts of the Bible, like Proverbs 8, I see God as being lovingly and intimately involved in everything He put His hands to, like an artist who cherishes every stroke of the paintbrush. Unlike those artists who simply splash the paint on the canvas haphazardly an then touch up after their done.

But in the mean time they are rocks thrown about by natural and chaotic forces unconcerned with the needs of mankind. There was an explosion in a distant galaxy 12 billion years ago. So far, the only "reason" for that explosion appears to have been so that atheistic scientists could gauge the age of the universe more accurately than they would have been able to without the explosion. 99% of all believers paid it no mind.

I don't know what to tell you, Pel, about what scientists say is true or false. I can't disprove or prove what they say in order to agree or disagree with them about some things because I don't know what they are basing their conclusions on. But I believe the Bible is truth and false science will be shown to be false and true science to be true in due time.

Was it happenstance that the star of David appeared to lead the wise men to the baby who would be King of Israel?

Do you believe mankind evolved from apes?

I think everyone agrees that there are some games of "chance" where the hand of God is withheld. Did God really care whether your brother went first in a game of Monopoly, or you? Yet the same laws of probabability determined whether or not your parents would have met. If they had never met, there would be no "you."

Sure, God lets us make our own choices whether evil or good. He takes His hands off things to a point to see what we will do but the Bible also tells us that God directs our steps.

I don't think God cares who goes first in a game of Monopoly either but I'm sure He cares if we cheat in a game of Monopoly.

In fact the odds of "you" ever coming into existence are so improbable that the fact you exist at all is miraculous. And the same can be said of each of us. However, the same can be said of the arrangement of the molecules in the dust bunny under this desk. Yet for myself, I say "miraculous!" The dust bunny I call a nuisance. Am I arrogant to do so? If not, then why? Why are the arrangements of my molecules somehow more important than a frog's? This question brings up the soul, that you mention later.

What is the point you are making with all these references to probability and chance? Some of the things we think come about by chance, on retrospect we see as divine direction in our lives. How do we know if something happened by chance or if it was caused by the divine direction and ordination of God? I guess I see God as being much more involved in His creation than you might.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You say you don't see it, but then you said in another post that you would avoid the film in the theater because of it. I think your apparent waffling says something about the spin both sides are putting on this.

Negative accusations from both sides poisons the well and leads to a distrust of what either side has to say.

I thought the main thrust of the movie had to do with scientists who are losing their jobs because they believe in God.

[Rhoni]

[quote=mizpeh;436021]

Negative accusations from both sides poisons the well and leads to a distrust of what either side has to say.

I thought the main thrust of the movie had to do with scientists who are losing their jobs because they believe in God.

It is. On many college campuses they will not entertain any Biblical view of creationism and when an educated professional scientist makes any reference's to the possibility of God creating the universe...they are immediately ostasized and many have lost their jobs and standing in the society of intellectuals.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The Young Earth Creationists (YECs) like ICR, AIG and the author that was linked to, all maintain that a literal intepretation of the 6 day creation story is essential for true belief. ICR and AIG have both vociferously attacked men like Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. James Dobson because of their "Old Earth" understandings

I'm sure Ross and Dobson are equally vocal on their POV.

But how does this rob the faith of millions?

Question these guys and they get upset real fast. Too bad Boomm's not here. I almost raised a stir in a Bible college class once when I questioned that Genesis 10:25 referred to Plate Techtonics. I raised my hand and was recognized and spoke politely, but I was also new to Bible college and didn't realize that there was to be no questions.

I have always believed Gen 10:25 had to do with plate techtonics but with the divine intervention of God causing the shifting.

The earth was once like this: Gen 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

The waters on the earth were all one big ocean and the dry land was one big continent, until something happened to bring about the forming continents an the various oceans. That something was Gen 10:25, IMO.

He carefully avoided formal matriculation in the areas of science that would have challenged his already firmly held beliefs.

You know, there have been some Christians who have left the faith because they came to the conclusion through much study of the original languages and manuscripts that the Bible is not infallible word of God. I believe their conclusion was wrong. They found some things challenging to their faith and left their faith. While others who do the same line of study and work don't give up their faith when they see what they perceive to be errors in the Bible as we know it. Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace are cases in point.

You must have personal knowledge of this man's choices in college to say he carefully avoided formal matriculation to not have his beliefs challenged.

I have no problem with him writing. In fact, he should write more. He is a wonderful Christian and displays the fruit of the Spirit in a manifest fashion that our fellowships desperately need. But his chosen crusade is a mistake. His anger in this one area seems to have caused him to throw away one long term friendship.

I'm sorry you lost a friend. Time may change that situation.

My main concern about his book is that our young people will not be able to be as careful in avoiding the chemistry of biology as the author was. The book tells them, in essence: that either the book is right, or there is no God. When they find out how silly the book is, they may leave their faith in God with a vengence.

Dr Wallace did not lose his faith in God as Ehrman did. If someone has a firm faith in God, no shaking, not matter how strong, will cause that faith to fall.

I want my voice to stand as a witness. Yes, there are silly notions held by Christians, this has always been the case. In fact, it appears to be the lot of the entire human race. But we can, with humility and determination, find out the truths of our cosmos while simultaneously finding even greater truths about the Creator.

I agree with you completely.

If your science teacher dared to introduce anti-religion into the classroom then he/she broke what I consider to be a sacred trust that we as parents make with our children's educators.

Nope, not antireligion just a plain presentation of the Big Bang theory and evolution in a persuasive manner and without a balanced presentation of the possibility of there being a non random First Cause. I came to the conclusion from what he taught that the Big Bang theory followed by the theory of evolution was incompatible with there being a God.

Why don't you start a thread on how someone can believe in God and evolution at the same time?

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

Jim, I agree totally with your post. I did not say that those things posted were my views but those of the men I heard talking about it on Dr. James Dobson. The crux of the matter you have stated well in the quote I have posted above.


Since I'll be in Houston for the opening maybe we can all go together...Jim, Deb & the girls. By then I'll be able to eat popcorn again

Blessigns, Rhoni

The girls miss their "Aunt Rhoni" lol.

Popcorn would work, we're experimenting with vegetarian lifestyle right now.

See you next week.

:-)