Yet another creationist twit (2008-09-17)

[Adrian Laguna]

Alyrium, you may perhaps want to address her apparent belief that evolution happens on an individual basis rather than population basis.

[sketerpot]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I have no problem with Christianity. It's Paulianity that I think is a blight on humankind.

Agreed. Jesus words: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Matthew 19:6

What the hell are you talking about? Here's the verse in context (with bad formatting, sorry):

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The whole point of that verse was to condemn divorce, not to say that marrying a nonbeliever is okay. If anything, this particular message of Jesus is pretty crappy: the only justification for divorce is the wife cheating on her husband? How about abuse? Does that count as a valid justification?

Also, Paul was totally in agreement with Jesus on this. Check out 1 Corinthians 7:

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Paul agrees with Jesus, but expands on the message and doesn't even provide an out for infidelity. On the other hand, he does seem to endorse the strategy of driving away the nonbeliever.


Face it: the Bible is nuts, and the only reason so many people praise the "pure" message of Jesus is because it's the least messed up part of the book they're supposed to revere.

[Feil]

Face it: the Bible is nuts, and the only reason so many people praise the "pure" message of Jesus is because it's the least messed up part of the book they're supposed to revere.

In an age where women didn't have the right to divorce their husbands, and lacked a means to support themselves outside of marriage, restricting the right of the man to divorce the woman to cases of marital infidelity is actually fairly progressive. Of course Jesus' teachings look horrible if you project them onto the twenty-first century. He was a first century guy. The rest of the Jews were still chafing under those pesky Roman laws that kept them from stoning innocent people every day of the week and twice on Sunday, and the Romans were still decorating their roadsides with the crucified populations of troublesome cities.

[PeZook]

Why the hell do these people always say life had to happen by chance? Chemistry doesn't work randomly, for fuck's sake!

Frankly, with the way some chemicals interact, then given the right conditions life will pretty much arise inevitably.

[Zablorg]

I notice many Dumbshit Creationists tend to observe Mike's Hitler page to mean "Hitler was Christian so he was an alright guy" instead of "Hitler was a Christian, so what does that tell us about the influence of Christianity?".

Which I don't understand, because to them, all the other pages are repeating "ALL CHRISTIANS ARE EEEEEVIL", and then suddenly they go to the Hitler page and reverse Mike's stance to "Christians are AWESOME! Hitler was a CHRISTIAN!"

[Ryushikaze]

In an age where women didn't have the right to divorce their husbands, and lacked a means to support themselves outside of marriage, restricting the right of the man to divorce the woman to cases of marital infidelity is actually fairly progressive. Of course Jesus' teachings look horrible if you project them onto the twenty-first century. He was a first century guy. The rest of the Jews were still chafing under those pesky Roman laws that kept them from stoning innocent people every day of the week and twice on Sunday,

Those weren't Roman laws that kept the Jews stoning folks. Those were there long before the Romans dropped in.

and the Romans were still decorating their roadsides with the crucified populations of troublesome cities.

Unless by 'troublesome' you mean 'in revolt', I don't think Rome was in the habit of mass crucifixion. Of course, if you've got a source for that, I'll relent, but that sounds extreme, even for Imeprial Rome.

[Ryushikaze]

I notice many Dumbshit Creationists tend to observe Mike's Hitler page to mean "Hitler was Christian so he was an alright guy" instead of "Hitler was a Christian, so what does that tell us about the influence of Christianity?".

Which I don't understand, because to them, all the other pages are repeating "ALL CHRISTIANS ARE EEEEEVIL", and then suddenly they go to the Hitler page and reverse Mike's stance to "Christians are AWESOME! Hitler was a CHRISTIAN!"

I suspect it's more along the lines of 'The evilutionist [misspelling intentional] is wrong! How can we demonize him! Hey, Hitler page! He must approve of Hitler!' I don't believe they actually read the page in question. They 'just know' what's inside, much like fundies and books like Harry Potter and Golden Compass.

[Chris Parr]

I love how she calls evolution "non-nonsensical". Not nonsense. In other words, unintentionally shooting down her own argument with a double negative.

[Darth Wong]

I notice many Dumbshit Creationists tend to observe Mike's Hitler page to mean "Hitler was Christian so he was an alright guy" instead of "Hitler was a Christian, so what does that tell us about the influence of Christianity?".

Which I don't understand, because to them, all the other pages are repeating "ALL CHRISTIANS ARE EEEEEVIL", and then suddenly they go to the Hitler page and reverse Mike's stance to "Christians are AWESOME! Hitler was a CHRISTIAN!"

I suspect it's more along the lines of 'The evilutionist [misspelling intentional] is wrong! How can we demonize him! Hey, Hitler page! He must approve of Hitler!' I don't believe they actually read the page in question. They 'just know' what's inside, much like fundies and books like Harry Potter and Golden Compass.

I would bet that they read the title and then skip to the last paragraph, and consider that to be good enough.

[madd0ct0r]

lovely Alyrium.

but as a student engineer I'd argue the below is good evidence they let someone like me at it:

Actually, life on earth is jury rigged, redundant and inefficient.

[Guardsman Bass]

Just out of curiosity...if you recognize that the teachings of whatever faith have no utility in describing the real world (am I overstating your perspective?) why would you invest time in sitting through that faith's ceremonies, once a week...?

Because I believe that there is something more to life than what we find in the real world. I joined the LDS church when I was 18 because I received a personal, spiritual, totally unquantifiable confirmation that it was God's Kingdom come to earth, and that I should join. The weekly rituals and services help me to be a better person (some need help, and some don't) and teach me how to be a better husband and father. It brings a sense of community and friendship into our (my wife and I) lives and brings us closer together as a couple.

I believe that God speaks to people today through a living prophet, and that's why I go to church. This belief is based solely on personal experience and anecdotal evidence which I have observed in my own life and therefore does no good to anyone else. I can for a fact say that I believe it is the Truth, much like a crazy person may believe they are Napoleon, Jesus, or the King of Neverwas, but I can say that I don't let religious fundamentalism blind me to the truths of science, logic, or the words of those who's opinions on faith differ from my own. I don't force my religion on anyone, and I didn't when I served my 2-year mission. Likewise, I appreciate that there are people in the world and this internet board who are open minded and participate in intelligent discourse. I hope this doesn't start any "xian bashing" because I have no scientific or empirical defense for my faith. I attend church and participate in my religion because I can feel God at work in my life when I do.

We actually had a big debate about the truth-claims of the LDS Church a loooonnng while back. You ought to check it out, and I'm saying that as someone who grew up in Salt Lake City, Utah, as a member of the Church (I'm an atheist now).

[Kitsune]

Have a link to it?

[Akhlut]

lovely Alyrium.

but as a student engineer I'd argue the below is good evidence they let someone like me at it:

Actually, life on earth is jury rigged, redundant and inefficient.

To be fair, the redundancies are probably features, as if something breaks, you can't take it to the repair shop.

But, yes, jury-rigged all to hell and back.

[Darth Raptor]

Do you reckon they make the automatic connection between "evolutionists" and Hitler because of the latter's pseudoscientific racism? The notion that racism is naturally borne out by evolutionary theory is almost universal among creationists. They assume that some kind of positive value judgment on racism and social Darwinism is implicit in natural selection theories.

[Venator]

I notice many Dumbshit Creationists tend to observe Mike's Hitler page to mean "Hitler was Christian so he was an alright guy" instead of "Hitler was a Christian, so what does that tell us about the influence of Christianity?".

Which I don't understand, because to them, all the other pages are repeating "ALL CHRISTIANS ARE EEEEEVIL", and then suddenly they go to the Hitler page and reverse Mike's stance to "Christians are AWESOME! Hitler was a CHRISTIAN!"

I remember from a while back someone who actually mailed Mike with a garble thanking him for proving Hitler's Christianity and thus clearing his name, or something similarly ridiculous.

@ Alyrium: Great rebuttal, save for the minor grammatical nitpicks others mentioned. I love the "actual biologist" signoff.

[Guardsman Bass]

Have a link to it?

Ask and ye shall receive. Ignore the pretty provocative OP, for the most part - the debate picks up in the first or second page.

[bobalot]

In an age where women didn't have the right to divorce their husbands, and lacked a means to support themselves outside of marriage, restricting the right of the man to divorce the woman to cases of marital infidelity is actually fairly progressive. Of course Jesus' teachings look horrible if you project them onto the twenty-first century. He was a first century guy. The rest of the Jews were still chafing under those pesky Roman laws that kept them from stoning innocent people every day of the week and twice on Sunday,

This isn't a splurge against you.

Christians say that the bibles message is timeless, and totally relevant in todays society but have to "reinterpret" and "consider the context" of passages that are completely embarrassing. It can either be a document that was a product of it's time and marginally useful at best or completely relevant. It can't be both.

How can you say "That area and people were barbaric savages, and all the bad things they say and do in this book have to be taken into context, but what they have to say about morality is completely relevant today!"?

Surely the first statement weakens the latter argument?

The selectivity of what to "reinterpret" is what gives this entire charade away. I don't see a rush of Christians to "re-interpret" or "take into context" the passages about homosexuals.

[DPDarkPrimus]

If you take the books in context you can see the reasoning they had for their laws are inapplicable for our modern societies.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Do you reckon they make the automatic connection between "evolutionists" and Hitler because of the latter's pseudoscientific racism? The notion that racism is naturally borne out by evolutionary theory is almost universal among creationists. They assume that some kind of positive value judgment on racism and social Darwinism is implicit in natural selection theories.

That was my thought exactly. In my experience, fundies routinely link racsim and evolution, so if they bring up Hitler, it's always to show that evolution is evil because (in their minds) it was responsible for the holocaust.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Do you reckon they make the automatic connection between "evolutionists" and Hitler because of the latter's pseudoscientific racism? The notion that racism is naturally borne out by evolutionary theory is almost universal among creationists. They assume that some kind of positive value judgment on racism and social Darwinism is implicit in natural selection theories.

The way I look at it is this.

Evolution (the process) created racism, the same way it created territoriality etc.

Evolution (the idea) doesnt imply or justify it.

[Akhlut]

Do you reckon they make the automatic connection between "evolutionists" and Hitler because of the latter's pseudoscientific racism? The notion that racism is naturally borne out by evolutionary theory is almost universal among creationists. They assume that some kind of positive value judgment on racism and social Darwinism is implicit in natural selection theories.

That was my thought exactly. In my experience, fundies routinely link racsim and evolution, so if they bring up Hitler, it's always to show that evolution is evil because (in their minds) it was responsible for the holocaust.

Too bad they never examine the fact that Germans (and a lot of Europeans in general) hated the Jews with extreme vehemence, and a lot of that had to do with...religious persecution. It wasn't due to evolution, though the Nazis and other anti-Semites may have used that as a scientific justification. A lot of Jewish hatred stemmed from things like the Jews having killed Jesus or poisoned the wells to cause the Black Death or being engaged in usury or killing Christian children for Purim and other half-baked ideas spread throughout the centuries.

And, a lot of fundies would hate to admit it, but German anti-Semitism got a huge boost from Martin Luther, who wrote a little treatise called "On Jews and their Lies."

But, ignore all that, because it was obviously evolutionism that caused the Holocaust.

[Kitsune]

There is a good book called "The Popes against the Jews" which talks about the various anti-semetic activities of the Catholic Church

[General Zod]

Too bad they never examine the fact that Germans (and a lot of Europeans in general) hated the Jews with extreme vehemence, and a lot of that had to do with...religious persecution. It wasn't due to evolution, though the Nazis and other anti-Semites may have used that as a scientific justification. A lot of Jewish hatred stemmed from things like the Jews having killed Jesus or poisoned the wells to cause the Black Death or being engaged in usury or killing Christian children for Purim and other half-baked ideas spread throughout the centuries.

And, a lot of fundies would hate to admit it, but German anti-Semitism got a huge boost from Martin Luther, who wrote a little treatise called "On Jews and their Lies."

But, ignore all that, because it was obviously evolutionism that caused the Holocaust.

Religious persecution is just another spin on knuckle-dragging tribalism.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Too bad they never examine the fact that Germans (and a lot of Europeans in general) hated the Jews with extreme vehemence, and a lot of that had to do with...religious persecution. It wasn't due to evolution, though the Nazis and other anti-Semites may have used that as a scientific justification. A lot of Jewish hatred stemmed from things like the Jews having killed Jesus or poisoned the wells to cause the Black Death or being engaged in usury or killing Christian children for Purim and other half-baked ideas spread throughout the centuries.

And, a lot of fundies would hate to admit it, but German anti-Semitism got a huge boost from Martin Luther, who wrote a little treatise called "On Jews and their Lies."

But, ignore all that, because it was obviously evolutionism that caused the Holocaust.

Precisely. Most Christians of any sort (not just fundies) have never heard of On the Jews and Their Lies. So no, they don't know what poison is in that little book--especially his eight-point plan for how to treat the Jews, which is not coincidentally disturbingly similar to Hitler's plan.

It is only relatively recently that various Lutheran churches have begun to disavow this particular work of their founder. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, for example, did so in 1995, but I'd hazard to say that the vast majority of its members haven't even heard of it (I say this is based on personal experience).

Further reading here.

My apologies for diverting this thread from the original topic. . .

[PainRack]

This isn't a splurge against you.

Christians say that the bibles message is timeless, and totally relevant in todays society but have to "reinterpret" and "consider the context" of passages that are completely embarrassing. It can either be a document that was a product of it's time and marginally useful at best or completely relevant. It can't be both.

I always find this the MOST laughable and frustrating part of debating with any conservative christian. Yes, the Bible morality is relevant and good and timeless, no, you're quoting it out of context and interpreting it wrong and that no longer applies.