Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Atheistic fundamentalism
Topic Started: Dec 22 2007, 09:02 AM (4,622 Views)
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Dec 25 2007, 07:55 PM
Daniel
Dec 25 2007, 10:33 PM
Larry
Dec 25 2007, 07:15 PM
Yes Daniel. Really.

Perhaps you shouldn't give lectures about things you know nothing about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Perhaps you shouldn't inject yourself into discussions you are too ignorant to involve yourself in. When the only "education" you have is what you can Google, you get into serious trouble:

"there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."[2]

Even the Wiki article you linked makes it clear that it wasn't the religious who believed in a flat earth.

Now I suggest you take your kitty cat and put it in your lap for comfort while you read both of these Wiki articles. Then I suggest you stop interrupting this discussion with rabbit trails on other topics that you are too ignorant to understand.

That's what you have have? You make a general statement about science having to be corrected by religion and your entire focus is the Middle Ages? You're a moron.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Dec 25 2007, 08:41 PM

How many religion you know of can claim the same? How many adherents of religions acknowledge that their religion is "incomplete" and needs more work?
Catholicism, for one.
Quote:
 


There are even verbiages in religious texts that essentially say "thou shalt not add or subtract anything from this set of text," which essentially cap the "growth" of the religions on which such texts are based. :shrug:

Such as?

British Book of Birds, indeed.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Dec 25 2007, 08:42 PM
Quote:
 
Show me where scientists believed that the Earth was flat until the religious people corrected them. You're a moron.


From your Wiki article:
"Even a literal reading of the Bible could, however, be taken to mean that the Earth was seen as being circular or spherical, since the Hebrew word "chuwg" can also mean "circle" or "sphere"."

Now - the remark was made as a sarcastic bit of humor aimed at Jeffrey. Jeffrey, as ignorant of theology as he is, is still intelligent enough to understand what I was getting at. Because you are an uneducated moron, you have chosen to fight a battle over it. All you've done is show that your "education" consists of Googling Wiki articles, with no ability to comprehend the complexities of all that is discussed in those articles.

The fact is, the notion that people thought the earth was flat is for the most part, a fallacy.

You can Google the word "fallacy" if you need to.

Back out of it now, moron.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
You're a hoot, Daniel. Other than my retarded cousin, I don't believe I've ever met anyone whose mind is as defective as your's.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Ummm, Daniel, the early proponents of flat earth (Anaximander, Hecataeus of Miletus, Leucippus, Democritus, Lucretius) were scientists, not particularly religiously informed and often quite opposed to the religious doctrine. One of the scientific arguments against a spherical earth is that people would be upside down or inverted (antipodes). Augustine's incorrect arguments are not made on religious but scientific/rationalist grounds as well. it is pretty clear from art history that the spherical orb was the ancient Christian and pagan model for the globe and cosmos -- this was actually somewhat of a theological position based in Hellenic cosmologies and the fascination with orbits, spheres and circles. It might have been right for the wrong reasons.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Daniel
Dec 25 2007, 08:30 PM
By classical times the idea that Earth was spherical became increasingly important in Ancient Greece. Pythagoras in the 6th century BC, apparently on aesthetic grounds, held that all the celestial bodies were spherical. However, most Presocratic Pythagoreans considered the world to be flat.[9] Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth,[10] noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. This is only possible if their horizon is at an angle to northerners' horizon. Thus the Earth's surface cannot be flat.[11] He also noted that the border of the shadow of Earth on the Moon during the partial phase of a lunar eclipse is always circular, no matter how high the Moon is over the horizon. Only a sphere casts a circular shadow in every direction, whereas a circular disk casts an elliptical shadow in all directions apart from directly above and directly below.[12]

The Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes. Eratosthenes knew that in Syene, in Egypt, the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice, while he estimated that a shadow cast by the Sun at Alexandria was 1/50th of a circle. He estimated the distance from Syene to Alexandria as 5,000 stades, and estimated the Earth's circumference was 250,000 stades and a degree was 700 stades (implying a circumference of 252,000 stades).[13]

IT, this does not look like the religious correcting scientists. People other than the religious knew that the Earth is spherical before Christ. Larry's statement was a generalization that was meant to give a certain effect, like much of what he writes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Dec 25 2007, 08:54 PM
You're a hoot, Daniel. Other than my retarded cousin, I don't believe I've ever met anyone whose mind is as defective as your's.

Do me a favor and die in your sleep.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Dec 25 2007, 01:33 PM
Here is a brief and inadequate summary of moral realism, the view that moral judgments are true or false:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

jeff: on the wiki page, does this following passage really explain moral realism? :
Quote:
 
Moral realism asserts that moral statements express propositions about the actual state of reality, that a statement such as "murder is wrong" is in fact true or false in the same way that the statement "it is raining" or "the Earth revolves around the Sun" is true or false.

The statement "it is raining" can be right or wrong depending on whether it is raining, and the truth changes with the rain cycle. I don't see how that can be compared to whether murder is right or wrong, since presumably it is always wrong (or always right).

(by "murder", I am taking it as the unjust and deliberate killing of an innocent human being)

The statement "the Earth revolves around the Sun" is taken by everyone to be true, which would say "murder is wrong" is always true.

However, the fact of the Earth continuously revolving around the Sun is observable as true. The notion of murder as wrong (I am assuming that is what we are intended to deduce from the comparison) is not an observable fact.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Daniel
Dec 25 2007, 10:19 PM
Daniel
Dec 25 2007, 08:30 PM
By classical times the idea that Earth was spherical became increasingly important in Ancient Greece. Pythagoras in the 6th century BC, apparently on aesthetic grounds, held that all the celestial bodies were spherical. However, most Presocratic Pythagoreans considered the world to be flat.[9] Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth,[10] noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. This is only possible if their horizon is at an angle to northerners' horizon. Thus the Earth's surface cannot be flat.[11] He also noted that the border of the shadow of Earth on the Moon during the partial phase of a lunar eclipse is always circular, no matter how high the Moon is over the horizon. Only a sphere casts a circular shadow in every direction, whereas a circular disk casts an elliptical shadow in all directions apart from directly above and directly below.[12]

The Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes. Eratosthenes knew that in Syene, in Egypt, the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice, while he estimated that a shadow cast by the Sun at Alexandria was 1/50th of a circle. He estimated the distance from Syene to Alexandria as 5,000 stades, and estimated the Earth's circumference was 250,000 stades and a degree was 700 stades (implying a circumference of 252,000 stades).[13]

IT, this does not look like the religious correcting scientists. People other than the religious knew that the Earth is spherical before Christ. Larry's statement was a generalization that was meant to give a certain effect, like much of what he writes.

He never said anything about Christ or Christian religious people (before you challenged him).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
IT, this does not look like the religious correcting scientists. People other than the religious knew that the Earth is spherical before Christ. Larry's statement was a generalization that was meant to give a certain effect, like much of what he writes.


Here is my verbatim post, Daniel - you can Google the word "verbatim" if you need to...

"Jeffrey......... no one thinks the earth is flat any more. Scientists used to, but the religious people finally won out on that one......"

The "effect" as you put it, was to say 3 things, all of them completely correct: 1. No one thinks the earth is flat any more. 2. Scientists used to (evidenced by IT's information that it was the scientists of the day who argued for a flat earth, not the religious, clearly showing that the religious saw the earth as a globe while the scientists were still arguing it was flat) and 3: The religious finally won out on that one (evidenced by the fact that today everyone including scientists now agree with what the religious said all along, that the earth was round.)

Quote:
 
Do me a favor and die in your sleep.


Now that was just plain ugly, Daniel. It's one thing to point out your ignorance, it's another thing entirely to wish you would die. I don't want you to die, Daniel. I just want you to either get an education, or stay our of conversations where your tiny little brain can only muddle the conversation as it has for the last two pages in this thread. This thread is about atheist fundamentalism, not who figured out the earth is round first.

Either way, to wish someone would die is a really bad thing, Daniel. It's something a little kid would do. Something a little jr high school girl would do between reading her little pink paged Perez Hilton teenybopper gossip website and oh.... shopping for a purse...

You made a huge argument where one didn't need to be simply because you're ignorant, Daniel. Have the good sense to back out of it instead of digging yourself in deeper.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Dec 25 2007, 09:31 PM
Daniel
Dec 25 2007, 10:19 PM
Daniel
Dec 25 2007, 08:30 PM
By classical times the idea that Earth was spherical became increasingly important in Ancient Greece. Pythagoras in the 6th century BC, apparently on aesthetic grounds, held that all the celestial bodies were spherical. However, most Presocratic Pythagoreans considered the world to be flat.[9] Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth,[10] noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. This is only possible if their horizon is at an angle to northerners' horizon. Thus the Earth's surface cannot be flat.[11] He also noted that the border of the shadow of Earth on the Moon during the partial phase of a lunar eclipse is always circular, no matter how high the Moon is over the horizon. Only a sphere casts a circular shadow in every direction, whereas a circular disk casts an elliptical shadow in all directions apart from directly above and directly below.[12]

The Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes. Eratosthenes knew that in Syene, in Egypt, the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice, while he estimated that a shadow cast by the Sun at Alexandria was 1/50th of a circle. He estimated the distance from Syene to Alexandria as 5,000 stades, and estimated the Earth's circumference was 250,000 stades and a degree was 700 stades (implying a circumference of 252,000 stades).[13]

IT, this does not look like the religious correcting scientists. People other than the religious knew that the Earth is spherical before Christ. Larry's statement was a generalization that was meant to give a certain effect, like much of what he writes.

He never said anything about Christ or Christian religious people (before you challenged him).

Excuse me. He said "religious". I did not say that he said "Christ". Please stop being argumentative with me. I have explained my position and I am not changing it. If you are supporting his assinine generalization, then so be it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
BTW, Daniel, I think it fair to say that the initial scientific and rationalist intuitions proved wrong, and eventually everyone agreed for other scientific reasons, not religious ones. Also, the Hellenic views of spheres and circular motion and the perfection of the circle were probably more cosmological than theological/religious, though there was a lot of overlap in these areas of thinking as folks tried to understand the order of creation. As I said, the right answers prevailed though held for the wrong reasons (like Galileo's insistence that the path of the earth must be spherical rather than elliptical since he had been influenced by Platonism and neoplatonists, though he was right about heliocentricity).

Larry was obviously twitting Jeff since Jeff rehashes 19th century arguments to discredit religion as if they were ancient ones.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Daniel
Dec 26 2007, 12:05 AM
ivorythumper
Dec 25 2007, 09:31 PM
Daniel
Dec 25 2007, 10:19 PM
Daniel
Dec 25 2007, 08:30 PM
By classical times the idea that Earth was spherical became increasingly important in Ancient Greece. Pythagoras in the 6th century BC, apparently on aesthetic grounds, held that all the celestial bodies were spherical. However, most Presocratic Pythagoreans considered the world to be flat.[9] Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth,[10] noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. This is only possible if their horizon is at an angle to northerners' horizon. Thus the Earth's surface cannot be flat.[11] He also noted that the border of the shadow of Earth on the Moon during the partial phase of a lunar eclipse is always circular, no matter how high the Moon is over the horizon. Only a sphere casts a circular shadow in every direction, whereas a circular disk casts an elliptical shadow in all directions apart from directly above and directly below.[12]

The Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes. Eratosthenes knew that in Syene, in Egypt, the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice, while he estimated that a shadow cast by the Sun at Alexandria was 1/50th of a circle. He estimated the distance from Syene to Alexandria as 5,000 stades, and estimated the Earth's circumference was 250,000 stades and a degree was 700 stades (implying a circumference of 252,000 stades).[13]

IT, this does not look like the religious correcting scientists. People other than the religious knew that the Earth is spherical before Christ. Larry's statement was a generalization that was meant to give a certain effect, like much of what he writes.

He never said anything about Christ or Christian religious people (before you challenged him).

Excuse me. He said "religious". I did not say that he said "Christ". Please stop being argumentative with me. I have explained my position and I am not changing it. If you are supporting his assinine generalization, then so be it.

Chill out Danny boy. I was drafting a more nuanced response when you got pissy.

Have a merry Christmas.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Dec 25 2007, 09:34 PM
Quote:
 
IT, this does not look like the religious correcting scientists. People other than the religious knew that the Earth is spherical before Christ. Larry's statement was a generalization that was meant to give a certain effect, like much of what he writes.


Here is my verbatim post, Daniel - you can Google the word "verbatim" if you need to...

"Jeffrey......... no one thinks the earth is flat any more. Scientists used to, but the religious people finally won out on that one......"

The "effect" as you put it, was to say 3 things, all of them completely correct: 1. No one thinks the earth is flat any more. 2. Scientists used to (evidenced by IT's information that it was the scientists of the day who argued for a flat earth, not the religious, clearly showing that the religious saw the earth as a globe while the scientists were still arguing it was flat) and 3: The religious finally won out on that one (evidenced by the fact that today everyone including scientists now agree with what the religious said all along, that the earth was round.)

Quote:
 
Do me a favor and die in your sleep.


Now that was just plain ugly, Daniel. It's one thing to point out your ignorance, it's another thing entirely to wish you would die. I don't want you to die, Daniel. I just want you to either get an education, or stay our of conversations where your tiny little brain can only muddle the conversation as it has for the last two pages in this thread. This thread is about atheist fundamentalism, not who figured out the earth is round first.

Either way, to wish someone would die is a really bad thing, Daniel. It's something a little kid would do. Something a little jr high school girl would do between reading her little pink paged Perez Hilton teenybopper gossip website and oh.... shopping for a purse...

You made a huge argument where one didn't need to be simply because you're ignorant, Daniel. Have the good sense to back out of it instead of digging yourself in deeper.

You made unsolicited personal attacks on me all day on Christmas Day. How dare you lecture me on being ugly. You ignorant piece of trash.

This is the entirety of what you said:

"Jeffrey......... no one thinks the earth is flat any more. Scientists used to, but the religious people finally won out on that one......"

"the religious people" didn't win ****. "Scientists" knew the Earth was spherical HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE THE MIDDLE AGES.

You want to insult me and make unsolicited comments after everything I post? On Christmas? On any website but this one you would have been banned. Oh, that's right. You have been banned from everyone website except this one. Drop dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Dec 25 2007, 11:12 PM
Daniel
Dec 26 2007, 12:05 AM
ivorythumper
Dec 25 2007, 09:31 PM
Daniel
Dec 25 2007, 10:19 PM
Daniel
Dec 25 2007, 08:30 PM
By classical times the idea that Earth was spherical became increasingly important in Ancient Greece. Pythagoras in the 6th century BC, apparently on aesthetic grounds, held that all the celestial bodies were spherical. However, most Presocratic Pythagoreans considered the world to be flat.[9] Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth,[10] noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. This is only possible if their horizon is at an angle to northerners' horizon. Thus the Earth's surface cannot be flat.[11] He also noted that the border of the shadow of Earth on the Moon during the partial phase of a lunar eclipse is always circular, no matter how high the Moon is over the horizon. Only a sphere casts a circular shadow in every direction, whereas a circular disk casts an elliptical shadow in all directions apart from directly above and directly below.[12]

The Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes. Eratosthenes knew that in Syene, in Egypt, the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice, while he estimated that a shadow cast by the Sun at Alexandria was 1/50th of a circle. He estimated the distance from Syene to Alexandria as 5,000 stades, and estimated the Earth's circumference was 250,000 stades and a degree was 700 stades (implying a circumference of 252,000 stades).[13]

IT, this does not look like the religious correcting scientists. People other than the religious knew that the Earth is spherical before Christ. Larry's statement was a generalization that was meant to give a certain effect, like much of what he writes.

He never said anything about Christ or Christian religious people (before you challenged him).

Excuse me. He said "religious". I did not say that he said "Christ". Please stop being argumentative with me. I have explained my position and I am not changing it. If you are supporting his assinine generalization, then so be it.

Chill out Danny boy. I was drafting a more nuanced response when you got pissy.

Have a merry Christmas.

The line in my post to you about Christ was referencing a demarcation point; it was not meant as a response to Larry. I'm not sure that he did mention Christ and frankly I don't care.

Merry Christmas to you too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Dec 25 2007, 09:34 PM
Quote:
 
IT, this does not look like the religious correcting scientists. People other than the religious knew that the Earth is spherical before Christ. Larry's statement was a generalization that was meant to give a certain effect, like much of what he writes.


Here is my verbatim post, Daniel - you can Google the word "verbatim" if you need to...

"Jeffrey......... no one thinks the earth is flat any more. Scientists used to, but the religious people finally won out on that one......"

The "effect" as you put it, was to say 3 things, all of them completely correct: 1. No one thinks the earth is flat any more. 2. Scientists used to (evidenced by IT's information that it was the scientists of the day who argued for a flat earth, not the religious, clearly showing that the religious saw the earth as a globe while the scientists were still arguing it was flat) and 3: The religious finally won out on that one (evidenced by the fact that today everyone including scientists now agree with what the religious said all along, that the earth was round.)

Quote:
 
Do me a favor and die in your sleep.


Now that was just plain ugly, Daniel. It's one thing to point out your ignorance, it's another thing entirely to wish you would die. I don't want you to die, Daniel. I just want you to either get an education, or stay our of conversations where your tiny little brain can only muddle the conversation as it has for the last two pages in this thread. This thread is about atheist fundamentalism, not who figured out the earth is round first.

Either way, to wish someone would die is a really bad thing, Daniel. It's something a little kid would do. Something a little jr high school girl would do between reading her little pink paged Perez Hilton teenybopper gossip website and oh.... shopping for a purse...

You made a huge argument where one didn't need to be simply because you're ignorant, Daniel. Have the good sense to back out of it instead of digging yourself in deeper.

Drop dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Dec 25 2007, 10:27 AM
Quote:
 
Larry - Science converges over time (decades or even sometimes centuries) on a common viewpoint. (How many informed people still doubt the earth revolves around the sun?) Religion, like astrology and other topics without a subject matter, does not achieve this consensus.


Well Jeffrey, the ones who doubted the earth revolved around the sun were the scientists, not the religious.

IT, this was the exchange between Jeff and Larry. Larry made a generalization, which he later repeated. Really, I guess you can that "twitting" if you want. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Dec 25 2007, 09:34 PM
Either way, to wish someone would die is a really bad thing, Daniel. It's something a little kid would do. Something a little jr high school girl would do between reading her little pink paged Perez Hilton teenybopper gossip website and oh.... shopping for a purse...

Drop dead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Axtremus
Dec 26 2007, 05:30 AM
And a logician would look at mythologies and say they are Let us suppose that there is a "why" question, Q, for which no scientific model can give an answer. Let us further suppose that there are other [non-scientific] models that give answers {A1, A2, A3, ...} to this question Q. Now how do you know which answer(s) is (are) the "correct," "right," or "most appropriate" one(s)? If you can't answer the question of which answer(s) to accept, would any of these answers do you any good? Or would you argue that it's unnecessary to know which answer(s) is (are) the "correct," "right," or "most appropriate" one(s)? :blink:

Of course, non-scientific methods don't work with the methods of science, that's tautologicial. It is meaningless to assess, say, religious explanations by scientific means or vice versa.

Humans have many devices to assess or explain a situation which are not scientific or logical in nature, such as "gut feeling", "what your heart tells you", "what your conscience tells you" etc. These devices may very well give you unique answers to these questions - these answers cannot be verified using scientific means, but this does not per se make them invalid.

I really think it is useless and meaningless to compare and "benchmark" science and religion in the way you do. You cannot assess one with the methods of the other one. There is no competition between the two.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Axtremus
Dec 26 2007, 05:30 AM
Klaus
Dec 25 2007, 01:58 PM
A logician would say that science, viewed as a logical axiom system, is incomplete, i.e., it does not  have a unique model (which would then be reality) but rather a whole class of different models.

And a logician would look at mythologies and say they are illogical (while some others would put it more kindly and say certain mythologies "transcends" logic, which amount to the same thing). So, I don't get see how this affects the atheism vs. theism debate one way or another.

It certainly affects the debate in a quite fundamental way.

Do you have any idea what incompleteness means?

The incompleteness result of Gödel is in my estimation the most fundamental result in logic and mathematics ever, and its implications for science are just beginning to be acknowledged and explored. This result shows that the logic method of acquiring and deducing knowledge is quite limited in a very fundamental way. In the 20th century, it has put mathematics and logic into its biggest crisis ever, and the 21th century will see the same crisis in physics in my estimation. For example, some scientists have already noted that the long-standing "Theory of Everything" is probably impossible due to his result, see here or here


Informally speaking, incompleteness means that a theory will always have big gaps, i.e., questions that are impossible to answer using this theory. It is an inherent limitation and should make all believers of the scientific method (to which I also belong) a bit more humble about what they can achieve.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
edit:

no still Christmas
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Dec 26 2007, 01:18 PM
edit:

no still Christmas

:help: :tongue:
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Moonbat
Dec 26 2007, 06:18 AM
edit:

no still Christmas

These Christians are really sharing their love, aren't they.

:lol:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Klaus
Dec 26 2007, 01:21 PM
Moonbat
Dec 26 2007, 01:18 PM
edit:

no still Christmas

:help: :tongue:

Moonbat working on a post for over 50min already.

This can't be good :lol:
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
'The Archbishop of Canterbury has warned that human greed is threatening the environmental balance of the Earth.

In his Christmas sermon, Dr Rowan Williams called on Christians to do more to protect the environment.

The planet should not be used to "serve humanity's selfishness", he told worshippers at Canterbury Cathedral.

Meanwhile, the leader of England and Wales's Roman Catholics, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, has said people should do more to welcome immigrants.

'Fragile balance'

Dr Williams said humanity needed to protect the world that God had created.

"The whole point of creation is that there should be persons... capable of intimacy with God, not so that God can gain something but so that these created beings may live in joy," he said.

"And God's way of making sure that this joy is fully available is to join humanity on Earth so that human beings may recognise what they are and what they are for."

The leader of the Anglican Church said this meant people should treat both others and nature with reverence.

"More and more (is) clearly required of us as we grow in awareness of how fragile is the balance of species and environments in the world and just how our greed distorts it," he said.

"When we threaten the balance of things, we don't just put our material survival at risk, more profoundly we put our spiritual sensitivity at risk - the possibility of being opened up to endless wonder by the world around us.

"Yes, it (the world) exists in one sense for humanity's sake, but it exists in its own independence and beauty for humanity's sake - not as a warehouse of resources to serve humanity's selfishness."

The archbishop spoke of the "brave and loving people on both sides of the dividing wall" in Bethlehem.

"The delight and reverence we should have towards the things of creation is intensified many times where human relationships are concerned," he said.

"And if peace is to be more than a pause in open conflict, it must be grounded in this passionate amazed reverence for others."

He also mentioned the atheist Professor Richard Dawkins, whose comments about the Earth's diversity Dr Williams said reflected the feeling of the Spanish saint, St John.

'Violated and blasphemed'

In the Archbishop of York's sermon at York Minster, Dr John Sentamu said that every person was a "stand-in for God".

He said the abduction of Madeleine McCann and the murder of schoolboy Rhys Jones were examples of God being "violated and blasphemed".

"For God who came to us in humility speaks forcefully to our pride, economic and social status, justice and the importance of human worth, forcing us to see each human being as a God-carrier, a stand-in for God," he said.

Dr Sentamu also highlighted trouble-spots around the world including Darfur, Zimbabwe and the Middle East.

"May the God who 'shone in our hearts and gave us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ' give us the grace and the courage to stop all those who are disfiguring his image and likeness in the suffering people he loves in His world," he said.

'Good reasons'

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor said in his Christmas Homily, broadcast live on BBC Radio 4, that Christians should ensure "nothing and nobody remains untouched by the tidings of comfort and joy that came from heaven on the first Christmas night".

The Archbishop of Westminster said: "A theme which is much in the news in Britain at the moment is the question of the many immigrant peoples who come to our country.

"Most immigrants come to our country because they wish to have a better life and work so as to provide for their families."

He added: "Many of these people are trying, for perfectly good reasons, to enter Britain and they need to be welcomed." '
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply