do you know what "Blessed are the poor in spirit" means? really? not just taking a potshot at other people but actually making an honest attempt at deriving the application of the verse from the language used?
You still haven't shown us the "mistranslation" that switches "turn the other cheek" into "kill other people if you think they might conceivably want to kill you at some point in the future".
and when did i say that i agree with that idea? Governments, at least in this part of the world, aren't Christian or Buddhist or Jewish. So what a government does isn't Christian or Buddhist or Jewish. People can be wrong in how they react to real or imagined threats. Was it illegal to remove Saddam Hussein from office because he wouldn't cooperate with the UN arms inspectors? Is it illegal to try to establish a government of the people, for the people, by the people in Iraq? I don't think so. Did the people of Iraq have adequate say in how their government operated? Does that matter in how you evaluated the US incursion? If you oppose all war on the grounds that Jesus said "Turn the other cheek", I have no problem with that position. I think you're misapplying his message, but opposing war is usually a good position to take. Jesus is talking about how to deal with insults, probably specific insults, since he is talking to his disciples. When he says "right cheek" it tells us that he is referring to a backhanded blow. That kind of cuff across the cheek is intended to humiliate, not injure.
Once again I was busted laughing hysterically at something online that I could not explain to my coworkers.
I was a child at the time that video came out, so my judgment was by definition impaired. So can someone who was old enough to know better please tell me: was there ever a time when Rick Astley videos were NOT considered completely laughable?
[youtube]JVRsWAjvQSg[/youtube] Someone just sent this to me and I have not watched all of it. youtube vid of cell biologist Ken Miller taking on ID.
I didn't go through the entire Q & A bit, but I did finish his talk. I am really a novice on the science, but thought he did a great job of explaining both sides of the argument. I will probably watch this one again.
I thought it was excellent, it was wide in it's breadth and scope, covering the "business side" of the ID proponents better than any piece I've seen it before.
Here's an experiment that demonstrates how altruism and such traits might evolve: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/01/evolution-of-al-1.html#more
why? Miller thanked the pastor for the prayer. he talked about having faith himself. i must admit i didn't watch the whole talk, because during the first 30 minutes he didn't say anything that would persuade anyone that ID isn't science except to quote other people who said that it wasn't, without giving any reasons.
actually, it really gets interesting after 30 minutes, when he starts talking about center pieces of ID.
It just seemed out of place to me. YMMV. I suggest you watch the rest. It is very informative. The unintentional hilarious irony of this comment, coming from someone who describes himself as a Christian made my morning! Comic genius!!
Get back to me when you figure out where matter came from. It all depends on which glasses you put on from the start. At the end of the day it's a faith issue. You either want to acknowledge a God or you do not. Finding consistency through observational science does come in to play though. Another note concerning the guy in the video. Who says the things on the evolution side of the ledger like pornography and homosexuality are morally wrong? Each man decides his own morals and therefore his answers in genesis point wasn't relevant at all.
Who says evolution has a "side", to be associated with pornography and homosexuality? It's a scientific theory, supported by facts, that says nothing about anything other than the origin of species.
The simple fact that you think there is an evolution "side" betrays not only your total ignorance of the scientific process, but also your bias.
This video would have settled the whole argument. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_G9awnDCmg"]YouTube - High Stakes Intelligent Designing[/ame]
why? I know I'm answering an old point, but as the thread was bumped I just looked at the video. I think the point they were trying to make with the prayer was that they were not out to attack faith, but rather to expose what they consider to be bad science. Here is the video again: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg"]YouTube - Ken Miller on Intelligent Design[/ame]
Thanks for replying after all this time. Faith is bad science? That is your opinion, but apparently not the opinion of the people who put together that lecture we are referring to. It seems to me that the whole point of starting the lecture with a prayer was to emphasize the point that they were attacking a particular theory which tried to pass itself as science, which is the theory of intelligent design, but they were not trying to attack faith or religion as bad science. I guess you find the prayer out of place because it is your intention to go beyond what they did and to actually attack not just the theory of intelligent design, but also more broadly faith and religion in general, as bad science. I can understand your point to the extent that some people of faith do try to sell their faith as science, and in those cases it can be said to be 'bad science'. It seems to me ridiculous to try to sell faith as science period. I would define 'Science', for the context of this discussion, as about trying to find truth about our reality, with the starting point being what we can perceive with our senses, and by using scientific methods such as observation, making predictions, experimenting and coming up with conclusions that build on previous conclusions until we get a clearer and clearer idea about our material universe and how it works. It also helps us of course in practical terms with applications related to how to manipulate our universe and its physical laws that we discover for our advantage. Faith is about believing conceptually things that we cannot prove. Things that are accepted by some of us either because they make sense to us instinctively, through our own spiritual discovery, or of course in many cases based to a large extent on traditions or dogma. These are things that by their very nature cannot be proven or even discussed based on scientific method. They deal with self, with our own soul which many of us believe we are able to recognize as existing beyond the physical world that science deals with. Faith deals with the ability to build our self, our soul. In that building process we may be aided by a faith (belief) in God, in spirits, in karma, and in other concepts that are not intrinsically part of the material universe and therefore cannot be discussed in scientific terms. Now, many people believe that faith can help us manipulate the physical world for our advantage, and maybe in that sense we can say it to be science, and in those cases it can be proven to be 'bad science' as you say. For example, a witch doctor, or an evangelical pastor, claiming he can cure our diseases based on some sort of spiritual formula, can be said to be practicing bad science. As I understand it, our faith can help us in ways that are not measurable in scientific terms. It can help us in practical terms to help us in our experience as human beings, to understand and enhance our experience of concepts like love, forgiveness, even death. It can give meaning to our reality beyond the physical self and understanding of it we get from science. For many of us this spiritual discovery can result in what we may call spiritual well being. It is a very real thing, as millions of people from different cultures and traditions and experiences and beliefs will be able to vouch for. But it is not real in a way that it can be measured scientifically. So, it cannot be said to be bad science.