Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Peyton Quinn on May 9, 2012 at 10:14pm

Well can not some people see evolution simply as the tool of god?

That would seem to me to be a sect of 'creationism'.

But like Atheism, we can't all seem to decide on a common defintion of how an 'athesit' or 'creationist' is truly defined.

To me evolution, like calculus, physics and genetics shows a clear order to this Universe.

I do not see it as possibly being limited to a 'being' though, that is so all together far to limiting even if it were a 'god being'.

I even see that 'order' as  being conected to our higher human consciounness of 'Good and Evil' too in an admitedly less well defined sense though.

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on May 10, 2012 at 12:02am

Well can not some people see evolution simply as the tool of god?

Yes. But that is not creationism as the term is most commonly used (or as Will meant it) - the full term should properly be literalist creationism. Literalist Creationism holds that the animals were formed more or less as we find them today, as per the account in genesis. E.g. god created man whole cloth and ready to go, not god created the evolutionary path that would eventually lead to man. 

Those who consider evolution a tool used by god can sometimes fall under Intelligent design, but not creationism.

Permalink Reply by Will on May 9, 2012 at 10:06pm

That puzzled me too.  

Permalink Reply by Peyton Quinn on May 10, 2012 at 2:24pm

"Those who consider evolution a tool used by god can sometimes fall under Intelligent design, but not creationism"

 

Ok I grasp this disitnction.So it appears I am an Intelligent design advocate.

But does this suggest that Creationist have as threir God a being that is not 'Intellgent"? Do you see what I mean here?

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on May 10, 2012 at 2:26pm

I do, but you are mistaking one definition of a word, for another which is dependent on its usage. 

Permalink Reply by Elliott Jason Ridgway on May 10, 2012 at 4:16pm

...devote Chritians such as the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. Though I am not a' ravid fan 'of the RCC  by any means, I do feel the Pope is a genuine devote Christian.

http://bsalert.com/news/1418/Pope_Caught_Orchestrating_Church_Pedop...

A BBC documentary has exposed that Pope Benedict XVI, aka Cardinal Ratzinger, played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests.
In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety.
The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

..............

 http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/popersquos-child-...

Pope’s child porn 'normal' claim sparks outrage among victims

Victims of clerical sex abuse have reacted furiously to Pope Benedict's claim yesterday that paedophilia wasn't considered an “absolute evil” as recently as the 1970s.

In his traditional Christmas address yesterday to cardinals and officials working in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI also claimed that child pornography was increasingly considered “normal” by society.

“In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the Pope said.

“It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a ‘better than' and a ‘worse than'. Nothing is good or bad in itself.”

Permalink Reply by Netza R. on May 8, 2012 at 10:34pm

Aside from the topic, I am glad to see that today my state voted against the reforming of the 24th article of the Mexican Constitution, reforms initiated by the catholic church and people from the right wing which wanted to rephrase it in order to eventually get religion more in the public square, particularly religion in schools and in politics. An obvious intent on behalf of the church to recover many of its privilieges, under the guise "expanding religious freedom"... yeah as if teaching catholic dogma in schools will enhance personal and religious liberties. VIVA MEXICO, VIVA EL ESTADO LAICO!

Permalink Reply by JonEdanger on May 9, 2012 at 5:26am

Given the stories we've been shown about corruption, 50k people killed, hangings off bridges, etc, I'm thinking that reforms might be in order.

Of course that might just be media bias for those of us who don't know what's going on. Maybe things on the ground for the average Mexican are just fine.

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on May 9, 2012 at 5:29am

If those privileges mean the estates it had, I don't see any reason to give those privileges. But otherwise, are you sure 'el estado laico' shouldn't be trying to get the Catholic church on its side & make it useful somehow? Mexico is in pretty bad shape & it seems it needs all the help it could possibly get.

Permalink Reply by Peyton Quinn on May 9, 2012 at 8:25am

Ademas amigo mio, viva La Verdad!

Permalink Reply by Netza R. on May 9, 2012 at 11:36am

yeah there is a lot going on, and LOTS of reform is necesary, particularly issues dealing with unemployment, education, and of course security... which is precisely what our politicians should focusing on. I do see reasons not to give them back, but what should alarm us the most is getting the church in classrooms and politics. The SNTE (Sindicato Nacional de Trabjadores de la Educacion) which is the biggest workers union in latin america as far as membership, has done horrible things with public education, and I think we can come up with real and better reforms than "ok lets let the church teach", which in our earlier history it did and the result was 95% illiteracy. As far as politics go, this isn´t the thread for it but it was pretty bad, the american and french interventions for example, not all of which where started by the church but which the church used to get back its privileges and properties. The liberal reforms of the 1860s and the constitution of 1917 were necesary in order to guarantee a secular government and really provide religious freedom, there was NO religious freedom... besides, drugdealers and hitmen are some of the most religious people around, Im not sure what religious folk can do about it, they´ve done just about nothing for now. Our constitution already provides the grounds for people to practice whatever religious cult they want so long as it doesn´t harm or intervene with the liberties of others, in their temples and outside so long as it abides by the law. I see no need for reform in this area, we´ve got bigger problems than this, Jon mentioned just a couple, and the ecclesiastical herarchy is pushing this apparently to "really guarantee religious freedom".. Im not sure what more do they need

Permalink Reply by Peyton Quinn on May 9, 2012 at 1:37pm

Rafael every word you speak here rings so very true to me.I have lived an worked in Latin America and Mexico for a bit here and there.

Mexico was actually improving economically and in small part polotically before the Narco wars started. Now even I would not go to Mexico now as I used to much less take my wife and go to the 'off the path' country people places I enjoyed once there.

Giving the RCC more power will in my remote estimation will make things even worse in Mexico. That institution has a few times protected the people, but mostly has just exploited them.

The Narco wars if not curtailed dramatically will destroy any chance the decent Mexican people have for any sort of a better life.

Meanwhile the US goverment through the BATF sold the narco traders assault rilfes ( Operation Fast and Furious).And nobody in BATF has been held accountbale though it has now stopped at least.

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• 29
• …
• 65
• Next ›
• Page