See You Bumkins?

[Nickdfresh]

Skulls may be oldest known human remains

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 Posted: 1:13 PM EST (1813 GMT)

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/TECH/science/02/16/oldest.humans.ap/vert.skull.1.ap.jpg
Two skulls unearthed in Ethiopia in 1967, are about 195,000 years old, a new analysis says.
Image:

NEW YORK (AP) -- A new analysis of bones unearthed nearly 40 years ago in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil record of modern humans back to nearly 200,000 years ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species.

Researchers determined that the specimens are around 195,000 years old. Previously, the oldest known fossils of Homo sapiens were Ethiopian skulls dated to about 160,000 years ago.

Genetic studies estimate that Homo sapiens arose about 200,000 years ago, so the new research brings the fossil record more in line with that, said John Fleagle of Stony Brook University in New York, an author of the study.

The fossils were found in 1967 near the Omo River in southwestern Ethiopia. One location yielded Omo I, which includes part of a skull plus skeletal bones. Another site produced Omo II, which has more of a skull but no skeletal bones. Neither specimen has a complete face.

Although Omo II shows more primitive characteristics than Omo I, scientists called both specimens Homo sapiens and assigned a tentative age of 130,000 years.

Now, after visiting the discovery sites, analyzing their geology and testing rock samples with more modern dating techniques, Fleagle and colleagues report in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature that both specimens are 195,000 years old, give or take 5,000 years.

Fleagle said the more primitive traits of Omo II may mean the two specimens came from different but overlapping Homo sapiens populations, or that they just represent natural variation within a single population.

To find the age of the skulls, the researchers determined that volcanic rock lying just below the sediment that contained the fossils was about 196,000 years old. They then found evidence that the fossil-bearing sediment was deposited soon after that time.

Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center, which specializes in dating rocks, said the researchers made "a reasonably good argument" to support their dating of the fossils.

"It's more likely than not," he said, calling the work "very exciting and important."

Rick Potts, director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, said he considered the case for the new fossil ages "very strong." The work suggests that "we're right on the cusp of where the genetic evidence says the origin of modern humans ... should be," he said.

G. Philip Rightmire, a paleoanthropologist at Binghamton University in New York, said he believes the Omo fossils show Homo sapiens plus a more primitive ancestor. The find appears to represent the aftermath of the birth of Homo sapiens, when it was still living alongside its ancestral species, he said.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[ELVIS]

So, what's your point in posting this ??

[Nickdfresh]

My point is that you are a backward hick.:D

[ELVIS]

So, how is intelligent design bull ??

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
So, how is intelligent design bull ??

You told me there was no proof of evolution. So here is your proof, unless you believe the carbon dating is off by about 194,000 years.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
So, how is intelligent design bull ??

Translation please :confused:

Or is Elvis back on the bottle?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You told me there was no proof of evolution. So here is your proof, unless you believe the carbon dating is off by about 194,000 years.

Heretic!!!

I say we throw Nicky in the river.......

if he sinks........:D

[ELVIS]

How is that proof of evolution ??

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
How is that proof of evolution ??

How is the Bible "proof" of Creationism?

[ELVIS]

The UNIQUENESS OF our LIFE SYSTEM:



AGE: Famed researcher Manfred Eigen headed a team that estimated the age of the genetic code at 3.8 +- 0.6 billion years.(1) The latest geochemical evidence places life's first appearance on Earth at 3.86 billion years. In other words, the origin of the genetic code coincides with the origin of life.
If true, this rules out the origin of life having a source other than on our Earth.



SURVIVAL: Even the simplest forms of life depend upon the symbiotic relationship among three very complex sets of molecules, DNA, RNA, and proteins. Some had theorized that the first life was based upon a single set of molecules termed "super RNA". Experiments with RNA indicated that RNA molecules and even the nucleotides on which they are built were chemically unstable under all possible early earth environments. The only place RNA molecules are safe from chemical destruction is inside the membrane walls of the cell.(2) RNA cannot survive without cells and cells cannot survive and multiply without RNA. They could not have originated independently, or one before the other.
If true, this rules out chance linkages of nucleotide sections in either a prebiotic soup or at hydrothermal vents as the source of life.

COMPLEXITY: In addition to the protective environment that the membrane of the cell provides to the complex molecules inside, outside of the cell in more complex life forms there are proteins that act as molecular pumps, valves, regulators and gates that match the complexity and functionality of equivalent machines made by humans. They are equipped with the capability to distinguish among the different molecules they pump and adjust the flow rates accordingly. They thus determine the kind of molecules and how many enter and exit the cell.(3)
If true, this is strong evidence that complex life systems are not just the result of random mutations but the result of purposeful design! ( also consider photosynthesis )



STABILITY: The most ancient fossils are of blue-green algae, these being more than 3 billion years old. Thats right, the same blue-green algae that exists today, in fact there is NO evidence of change in blue-green algae over the billennia.(4) How can anything be this stable? In the animal kingdom the shark also provides the same evidence of excellence of design and non-susceptibility to changes due to random mutation!
If true, this is strong evidence that the life system was originated by an "Intelligent Designer"!






SUDDEN CHANGE: The fossil record indicates that for 3.3 billion years of life history on Earth not much happened, there was only single-celled creatures and long chains of similar single cells. Then suddenly 543 million years ago species with specialized organs, joints and appendages appeared. During this explosion of life, called the "Cambrian explosion", more than 70 phyla appeared, all 30 phyla in existence today, and including 40 or more now extinct. (5) All this probably occurring within less than 3 million years (6) and in the following 540 million years no new phyla appeared.
Recent analysis of the marine invertebrate fossil record reveals that biodiversity peaked soon after the onset of the Cambrian explosion and has remained constant since then. Biodiversity appears to have reached a ceiling level almost immediately after complex animal life first appeared on the scene.(7)
If true, this rapid and varied change in complexity of life forms defies a naturalistic explanation!






CODE OPTIMIZATION: The genetic code has a very unique error-minimization capability. Researchers working with 1018 possible genetic codes (of the 1.4 X 1070 possible codes) with similar error-minimization capabilities found that they mostly tended to group in a normal distribution curve which they rated at code error values of 3.2 to 12.4 . However, the universal genetic code of our life system rated outside of this distribution with a superior error code rating of 2.6 . (8) "Only one in a million other possible codes is better". If a computer was evaluating codes in order to select the best, to come up with our universal genetic code it would have to evaluate 1054 codes a second,(9) requiring a very powerful super computer.
If true, this is strong evidence that the code was selected by an "Intelligent Designer"!



:elvis:

[Nickdfresh]

**Yawn**

Don't worry Elvis, science is firmly on my side. Post whatever Christian agenda pseudo-science you will.

[LoungeMachine]

Don't let facts and science get in the way of a good story, ELVIS....

[LoungeMachine]

My question is this.......

Why are the reformed drug addicts, alkies, and sex fiends ALWAYS so fervent in their beliefs?????

Are they perhaps replacing one crutch with another?

[FORD]

Many right wing biblical literalists literally believe that God created man a mere 6000 years ago, using the presumed Biblical timeline .

A popular saying in the evangelical community even says

From Adam to Moses - 2000 years. From Moses to Jesus - 2000 years. From Jesus to His second coming - 2000 years"

The rationalization for this argument is that God created life in 6 days and rested on the 7th, and at least 2 seperate occasions in the Bible where we are reminded that "a day is like 1000 years with God".

Hence the 6 "days" have passed, and we should be very close to the 7th, which is the millenial reign of Jesus Christ, a "day" of rest for the world in which Satan & his demons will be confined to Hell, so sin will presumably not exist.

While I believe a lot of what the Bible says, it's just complete ignorance to dismiss hard scientific facts, such as skulls which are considerably older than 6000 years.

[LoungeMachine]

But wasn't Noah something like 400 years old?

It just seems like their Daytimers left a little to be desired

[academic punk]

the bible was written when it was presumed that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

checkmate.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by academic punk
the bible was written when it was presumed that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

checkmate.

are you saying it's not???

ELVIS is gonna be pissed:D

[academic punk]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
My question is this.......

Why are the reformed drug addicts, alkies, and sex fiends ALWAYS so fervent in their beliefs?????

Are they perhaps replacing one crutch with another?


well, that's who polulate the bible!

Look at abraham: he believed he was told to kill his son, and unquestioningly he went to do it. How fucking SICK would that be if you read it in the paper??

Look at Noah: if he wasn't such a notorious drunk some of the people of sodom would have heeded his words. then aftervthe flood he got drunk, fell asleep naked, and b/c some of his children espied him as such, he damned them.

john the baptist? if you saw him on the street, you'd cross to the other side. fast.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
So, what's your point in posting this ??

Okay, the real reason? You (Neo Con) guys can stir shit up, so can I.

Muhuhawhawhawhahaw...

Mission Accomplished!:D

[LoungeMachine]

Nick - 1

Creation - 0

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Don't worry Elvis, science is firmly on my side.

No, actually science is disproving evolution...

I'm posted countless FACTS on this subject in a few threads, and you just blew them all off...

You have posted nothing...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
No, actually science is disproving evolution...

I'm posted countless FACTS on this subject in a few threads, and you just blew them all off...

You have posted nothing...

Except an article that proves the world is older than 6000 years.

[ELVIS]

I never said the world was 6000 years old, and the Bible does not say that either...

Fossil records disprove evolution...

Darwin predicted that fossil records would eventually demonstrate the slow gradual transitions of species needed to prove evolution...

They have not!

Fossil records show the SUDDEN APPEARANCE of EVERY major kind of fish without a trace of ancestors. This is proof that evolution has NOT occured...

If evolution had occured, there would be thousands of fossils of intermediate forms...

There is NOT!

There has not been the slightest trace of an intermediate species...

[FORD]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by academic punk

Look at Noah: if he wasn't such a notorious drunk some of the people of sodom would have heeded his words. then aftervthe flood he got drunk, fell asleep naked, and b/c some of his children espied him as such, he damned them.

Uhh... I think you have Noah and Lot mixed up there. Noah wasn't anywhere near Sodom.

john the baptist? if you saw him on the street, you'd cross to the other side. fast.

Yeah, I imagine a dude who lived out in the wilderness eating locusts might be kinda scary.

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I never said the world was 6000 years old, and the Bible does not say that either...

Fossil records disprove evolution...

Darwin predicted that fossil records would eventually demonstrate the slow gradual transitions of species needed to prove evolution...

They have not!

Fossil records show the SUDDEN APPEARANCE of EVERY major kind of fish without a trace of ancestors. This is proof that evolution has NOT occured...

If evolution had occured, there would be thousands of fossils of intermediate forms...

There is NOT!

There has not been the slightest trace of an intermediate species...

Now that's not entirely true.....
http://www.iflipflop.com/bush_chimp.jpg

[ELVIS]

FORD, why don't you weigh in on this subject ??

[ELVIS]

Hmmm...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
FORD, why don't you weigh in on this subject ??

OK....

Actually, I don't believe either the strict creationist theory OR the Darwin evolution model per se.

I believe God created all life on earth. I don't care if it took him 6 days, 6 weeks or 6 million years to do it, since there isn't a DVD available to watch anyway.

But I believe the life forms God created were a generic prototype, equipped with a large gene pool. For example, he created a dog. Not a poodle, a German Sheperd and a St Bernard seperately. All dogs as we know them came from that common ancestor. Wolves, coyotes, dingos, etc. included

Jokes about Junior's resemblance to a primate all aside, I don't see any evidence to support one species mutating from one entirely different, just changes within species over time, some due to adaptation, some due to manmade reasons (i.e. hormones in meat & dairy foods meant to bring higher profits from cows)

[Warham]

Actually the Bible never says the earth is flat. It calls the Earth a circle in the bible, and refers to the four corners of the Earth. The only way to have a circle with four corners is to have a sphere inside a box. The Bible is quite correct that the Earth is a globe.

Also, the Bible never says the Earth is 6,000 years old. Until one of you chimpanzees (apparently, since you believe in macroevolution) can prove that the Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old, you had best keep it for the biblically challenged.

Warham 1

Chimpanzees 0

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Actually the Bible never says the earth is flat. It calls the Earth a circle in the bible, and refers to the four corners of the Earth. The only way to have a circle with four corners is to have a sphere inside a box. The Bible is quite correct that the Earth is a globe.

Also, the Bible never says the Earth is 6,000 years old. Until one of you chimpanzees (apparently, since you believe in macroevolution) can prove that the Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old, you had best keep it for the biblically challenged.

Warham 1

Chimpanzees 0


We finally found the species you can beat in a debate!;)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
OK....

Actually, I don't believe either the strict creationist theory OR the Darwin evolution model per se.

I believe God created all life on earth. I don't care if it took him 6 days, 6 weeks or 6 million years to do it, since there isn't a DVD available to watch anyway.

But I believe the life forms God created were a generic prototype, equipped with a large gene pool. For example, he created a dog. Not a poodle, a German Sheperd and a St Bernard seperately. All dogs as we know them came from that common ancestor. Wolves, coyotes, dingos, etc. included

Jokes about Junior's resemblance to a primate all aside, I don't see any evidence to support one species mutating from one entirely different, just changes within species over time, some due to adaptation, some due to manmade reasons (i.e. hormones in meat & dairy foods meant to bring higher profits from cows)

Hmm.....

I actually agree with FORD on this one...

Sort of, anyway...

:gulp:

[academic punk]

Originally posted by FORD
[QUOTE]Originally posted by academic punk

Look at Noah: if he wasn't such a notorious drunk some of the people of sodom would have heeded his words. then aftervthe flood he got drunk, fell asleep naked, and b/c some of his children espied him as such, he damned them.

Uhh... I think you have Noah and Lot mixed up there. Noah wasn't anywhere near Sodom.




SHIT!!! Forget the Sodom part...Noah WAS a stinking drunk though. the number of arcs he was caught driving while under the influence!

[Jesterstar]

Nick I wouldn't be so quick to deny intellagent Design. I would defininetly not support the Bibles version of Creation. But Physics has come up with a mathmatical equation that theoretically proves the existance of a consistant energy within all matter that would be what we define as god. I do not beleive that to deny one possibility over another is the right move at this point.

[Jesterstar]

Ford is a smart dude.

[Warham]

FORD's positions of Biblical matters are inconsistent. He believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and believes in Old Testament prophecy, but yet for some reason denies other scriptures in the Old Testament, even when Jesus himself referred to them as being holy writ. He even talked about Adam and Eve as real people. I am of the belief that if you discredit scripture in any sense, your belief in Jesus Christ amounts to believing in the Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny. All he is relegated to is that of a wise man, not the Son of God. All of that prophecy about the end of times is relegated to being in the same category as Ms. Cleo's soothsaying.

[ELVIS]

All scripture is God breathed...

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Warham
I am of the belief that if you discredit scripture in any sense, your belief in Jesus Christ amounts to believing in the Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny.

I agree...

[academic punk]

Well, there you are overlooking the fact that scripture was written by PEOPLE.

Look at Luke: his account of the sermon on the mount differs (slightly) from Mark's.

Even the tone that was adopted in the New Testament towards Rome's culpability for Christ's death is pretty benign (the jews took a harder hit, even though it was STRICTLY Pilate's decision. Why? Because the writers didn't want to anger the government they were still living under, so they took a tonality that was more forgiving towards the Romans, and harsher towards the Jews.

This is something that - aside from the extremeist factions - the majority of Bible scholars agree on today (and one of the problems that many authorities had with Gibson's recent movie).

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by academic punk
Even the tone that was adopted in the New Testament towards Rome's culpability for Christ's death is pretty benign (the jews took a harder hit, even though it was STRICTLY Pilate's decision. Why? Because the writers didn't want to anger the government they were still living under, so they took a tonality that was more forgiving towards the Romans, and harsher towards the Jews.




Blasphemy

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by academic punk
Well, there you are overlooking the fact that scripture was written by PEOPLE.

Look at Luke: his account of the sermon on the mount differs (slightly) from Mark's.

Even the tone that was adopted in the New Testament towards Rome's culpability for Christ's death is pretty benign (the jews took a harder hit, even though it was STRICTLY Pilate's decision. Why? Because the writers didn't want to anger the government they were still living under, so they took a tonality that was more forgiving towards the Romans, and harsher towards the Jews.

This is something that - aside from the extremeist factions - the majority of Bible scholars agree on today (and one of the problems that many authorities had with Gibson's recent movie).

Majority of scholars? Name some. Name some of the problems THEY had with Gibson's movie.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Majority of scholars? Name some. Name some of the problems THEY had with Gibson's movie.

Can and will do. Unfortunately, not until tonight. I have the books at home. (alas, I ain't on a first name basis with them)

[Warham]

Actually, the Jews were responsible.

Jesus was handed into Pilate by the Jews, who washed his hands of Jesus' blood when he asked the mob who he should set free:Barabas or Jesus. They wanted the murderer Barabas. This put his blood on their hands, not the Romans. No matter what scholars will tell you now, that's what the Bible says. It does NOT give anyone a reason to attack or kill Jews though, as their punishment has already been given by God, when the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

The Romans had a hand in killing Christ, but it was the Jews decision ultimately.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
Actually, the Jews were responsible.

Jesus was handed into Pilate by the Jews, who washed his hands of Jesus' blood when he asked the mob who he should set free:Barabas or Jesus. They wanted the murderer Barabas. This put his blood on their hands, not the Romans. No matter what scholars will tell you now, that's what the Bible says. It does NOT give anyone a reason to attack or kill Jews though, as their punishment has already been given by God, when the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

The Romans had a hand in killing Christ, but it was the Jews decision ultimately.

The Jews were calling for his blood, but they had no authority to kill: that was COMPLETELY and STRICTLY up to the Roman authorities. The Jewish method of killing someone was stoning. Crucifiction was a Roman method.

Saying the romans had less to no responsibility is akin to me going to the governor in your state and saying, "How about killing this guy? I feel stronglky about it, he spoke against the government and deserves it." and then the guy simply going, "Uh...if you say so. You sure? Really? Can I at ;least give him a trial? No? All right. Uh...I'm governor, but..uh...whatever you say boss."

could be better, but i'm makng this up off the top of my head, and it's actually a pretty apropos metaphor.

[Warham]

Jesus was not guilty of any Roman law though. If you read the section of his crucifixion, you notice the placard above him on the cross read "King of the Jews". That was reason he was crucified. Usually anybody crucified had their crimes written on the placard above their head. His crime for being executed was "King of the Jews".

That'd be like you being executed for being "Head of his Household"

[academic punk]

The reason the Jewish authorities gave was a) what you say, as well as they claimed that jesus spoke out against paying taxes (which was actually the opposite of what He said, but they were looking to get their wishes fulfilled by whatever means necessary).

still, Pilate performed no trial, and it was compoletely up to him as to jesus' fate. He could have easily said, this is not my problem, i'll flog him, and exile him, but that's it. by all acounts he was pretty enthusiastic in doling out crucifictions: in fact, so much so that HIS bosses evetually communicated that he had to stop or his head'd be next.

[academic punk]

Pilate wouldn't have given much of a crap if the Jews simply left it at "He claims to be King of the jews".

Pilate - or the romans as a whole - wasn't jewish, so it owuld have no effect on him, and besides, at least here in NYC i get a daily menu of folks claiming to be seers and prophets. back then, i would imagine even moreso!

[ELVIS]

This article is a year old...


Who Killed Jesus?

Chuck Colson


February 12, 2004




The cover of the latest Newsweek magazine asks the right question: “Who killed Jesus?” This has been a raging debate for a year, since Mel Gibson started his remarkable film project The Passion of the Christ. He immediately ran into a buzz saw of opposition from the liberal media and Jewish groups who were afraid the film would rekindle anti-Semitism.

Now, Jews have a legitimate concern about this. During the Middle Ages, Christians treated Jews terribly. In Russia there were pogroms against the Jews. And of course some of the maniacs around Hitler professed that they were killing Jews to purify the Christian race.

But is this sensitivity today well-founded? If we would look at history alone, we would have to say that Pontius Pilate certainly was guilty. Legend has it that years after the crucifixion he was frantically washing his hands trying to cleanse himself from the blood of Christ. And, of course, Caiphus the High Priest certainly bears his share of responsibility. So do the crowds who yelled, “Crucify him.” So was it the Romans or the Jews, the venality of Pontius Pilate or the passion of the mob?

It was both and neither. The Jews didn’t cause the death of Jesus, nor did the Romans. They were merely instruments carrying out what God had decreed. He sent His only begotten Son to die on the cross so that the sins of mankind might be forgiven. And those who take Scripture seriously have always known who killed Jesus: You and I and all other sinful human beings did so.

Mel Gibson understands this. In his movie, The Passion of the Christ, the hand holding the spike being nailed through Christ’s wrist is Gibson’s. Who killed Jesus? Mel Gibson knows. And he made the very point with his own hand that he was responsible, not the Jews.

Similarly the Dutch painter, Rembrandt painted The Raising of the Cross as a self-portrait. As Christ hangs on the cross while it is being lifted into place, the soldier pulling it up is Rembrandt. Who killed Jesus? Rembrandt knew. He did. And I did. And you did. We’re the ones who sent Jesus to the cross loaded down with our sins.

So enough of this foolish controversy. My advice to Christians is that you make it abundantly clear to your friends and neighbors that we are the ones responsible and then take them to see the film. Let them experience the passion and explain to them why it was necessary for Jesus to go to the cross. And be ready with a biblical answer for your Jewish friends who hear all of this propaganda, most of it stirred up by professional activists.

Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says that it is not who is to blame that really has everybody up in arms. The media elite know that if people see this film, the right answer to the haunting question “Who Killed Jesus?” will be clear. What strikes terror into the hearts of the media elite is that people might once again be convicted of sin, repent, and come to faith in Christ.

So, three cheers for Mel Gibson. And thanks to Newsweek for asking the right question, even if it does not have the right answer. But now it is up to us Christians to do our job to educate our neighbors and flood the movie theaters.



:elvis:

[Warham]

Actually, that's true Elvis. Great find.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Jesus was not guilty of any Roman law though. If you read the section of his crucifixion, you notice the placard above him on the cross read "King of the Jews". That was reason he was crucified. Usually anybody crucified had their crimes written on the placard above their head. His crime for being executed was "King of the Jews".

That'd be like you being executed for being "Head of his Household"

If I recall, the pharisees spun the "King of the Jews" thing as being a "threat to Caesar's authority" and that's the point when Pliate said to himself "Holy fucking Zeus, can you beleive these clowns?? I'll just put this JC guy up against that convicted murderer Barrabas. The crowd will pick JC, the Jews will be stuck with their own Passover custom, and my Roman ass will be off the hook"

In theory, the plan sounded good at the time. Pilate didn't think that the Pharisees would have moles in the crowd :(

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by FORD
If I recall, the pharisees spun the "King of the Jews" thing as being a "threat to Caesar's authority" and that's the point when Pliate said to himself "Holy fucking Zeus, can you beleive these clowns?? I'll just put this JC guy up against that convicted murderer Barrabas. The crowd will pick JC, the Jews will be stuck with their own Passover custom, and my Roman ass will be off the hook"

In theory, the plan sounded good at the time. Pilate didn't think that the Pharisees would have moles in the crowd :(

Sounds like the plot of a bad Mel Gibson movie to me......;)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Majority of scholars? Name some. Name some of the problems THEY had with Gibson's movie.

I heard a major criticism is that it show Jesus being tortured to the point of where he would have died by Jews, and absolves the Romans from much of the responsibility.

I haven't seen it so I'll reserve judgement.

But it was panned in the Buffalo News as being bad film-making. I have to see it myself.

[academic punk]

It was kind of bad film-making, in the sense of you alredy have to know the story to understand what's going on. it doesn't, for instance, delve into why the Jewish authorities had such a hard-on agianst the guy, or what was the motivation for Judas' betrayal. also, the whole bit of showing the demon fella every three seconds: we get it. he's evil. i don't need to see a maggot crawling in and out of his nose to get the point. Or the ugly baby! how do we know the baby is evil? it's ugly. that there tells you everyhting.

Elvis: great find re: the newsweek article. somehow i missed that one. thd idea of gibson and rembrandt casting themselves as christ's killer recalls a certaiun rolling stoneslyric, doesn't it?

i'll post the section re: rome's culpability in a moment. gota type three pages worth of book. ready?

[ELVIS]

The second time I watched The Passion I read the entire gospel of Matthew and immediately put the movie on...

It's very powerful watching it in context...

The theater in my mind made me reflect on the whole book of Matthew as if it were part of the movie...

[academic punk]

Who put Jesus on trial?

In the 1960s archaelogists made a rather startling discovery. The name Pontius Pilate was found inscribed in the city of Caesrea, the seat of Roman rule in Judea. It was the first physical confirmation outside of literature that one of history's most notorious characters existed. Pilate was governor of the Roman province of judea, samaria, and idumaea from 26 to 36 CE and the port city of Caesarea was his base. Most likely as military governor he would have traveled to Jerusalem during assover week to lead the troop build-up in the city at a time when the city was crowded, anti-Roman sentiment high, and insurrection was considered more likely. Pilate seriously offended Jews of the day by bringing Roman shields and flags into Jerusalem. Theyc ontained idolatrous images offensive to the Jews. After ten years in Judea, Pilate was eventually dismissed and recalled to Rome after failing to contain a local uprisiing.

BUT IT WAS PILATE WHO HAD ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OVER AFFAIRS IN JERUSALEM WHEN JESUS WAS ARRESTED, AND HE HELD THE FATE OF JESUS OR ANY OTHER CRIMINAL IN HIS HANDS. The question pf who tried, convicted and ultimately executed Jesus is more than a hitorical "Parlor game" or religious "Bar argument". In fixing the blame for Jesus execution on the Jeqwish people as a whole lies the awful seed of Christian anti-semistism, or what Peter Gomes in THE GOOD BOOK terms "Christianity's original sin".

After his arrest at Gethsemane, Jesus was actually tried - or interrogated - twice. The first interrogation took place in the house or palace of Jerusalem's high priest, the highest ranking Jewish authority of the day. Another Gospel glitch here, though. Two Gospels don't name the high priest. Matthew calls him Caiaphas. But in John, Jesus is said to be taken first beforea high priest named Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. Annas questions Jesus and then sends him to Caiaphas, the true high priest. In John, there is no account of Jesus being questioned by Caiaphas.

The Jewish council, or Sanhedrin, questioned Jesus on a number of counts. IN Mark, flase wittnesses are brought agianst him. While they don't agree on Jesus specific crimes, they cheifly accuse him of plotting to destory the Temple. Whe the high priest asks jesus point-blank if he is the Messiah, Jesus replies in Matthew and Luke, "YOu have said so." In Mark, "I am". THAT'S ENOUGH FOR THE HIGH PROEST, WHO DECLARES THAT JESUS HAS COMMITTED "BLASPHEMY", A CRIME PUNISHABLE UNDER JEWISH LAW BY STONING. BUT THE ACTUAL POWER OF LIFE AND DEATH STILL LAY IN THE HANDS OF ROME'S REPRESENTATIVE. So off they all went to Pilate for a second trial that conformed with traidiiotjs of Roman justice.

more to follow...

[academic punk]

Originally posted by ELVIS
The second time I watched The Passion I read the entire gospel of Matthew and immediately put the movie on...

It's very powerful watching it in context...

The theater in my mind made me reflect on the whole book of Matthew as if it were part of the movie...

I agree it's powerful, IF oyu already are fmailiar with the sotry. If you're a newcomer - let's say we just pluck a Hindu kid out of Aceh, who has no familiarity with the Bible, he won't have a clue what's goin on.

all right, part II...

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah, but what about THE LIFE OF BRIAN? Equally brilliant and moving!

http://www.trondheim-filmklubb.no/film/tfk/v2000/bilder/lifeofbrian2.jpg

[academic punk]

The men who brought Jesus to Pilate brought along a laundry list of charges: Jesus is a subversive. he opposes paying taxes to the emperor - which was exactly the opposite of what Jesus had said. He is stirring up resistance in Rome. IN ALL OF THE GOSPELS, PILATE IS PORTRAYED AS INITIALLY RELUCTANT TO PASS JUDGEMENT IN A CASE THAT APPEARS TO HIM TO BE A LOCAL ARGUMENT AMONG JEWS. In Matthew, Pilate's wife even tells her husband that in a dream she has been told that Jesus is innocent. In Luke, Pilate tries to send Jesus to Herod, the Jewish ruler of Galillee, but Herod sends Jesus back. MANY COMMENTATORS, JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN, HAVE DETECTED AN OVERLY "APOLOGETIC" TONE TOWARD PILATE IN THE GOSPELS, SHIFTING THE "BLAME" FOR JESUS EXECUTION TO BOTH THE JEWOSH AUTHORITIES ANBD IN A LARGER SENSE THE THE JEWISH PEOPLE. THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE FACT THAT THE GOSPEL WRITERS, WHO WERE CONFRONTING ROMAN PERSECUTION, DID NOT WANT TO FURTHER ALIENATE THE ROMANS.

This might be a purely academic issue if not for the fact that centuries of Christians preaching the Jews were "Christ-killers underlie the modern history of ant-semitism. IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1959 THAT POPE JOHN XXIII REMOVED THE PHRASE "PERFIDIOUS JEWS" FROM A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRAYER SAID ON GOOD FRIDAY, AND BEFORE HIS DEATH HE COMPOSED A PRAYER ASKING FORGIVENESS FOR THE CHURCH'S ANTI-SEMITISM, WHICH HE CALLED A "SECOND CRUCIFIXION". AT A VATICAN CONFERENCE IN 1962, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OFFICIALLY EXONERATED MOST OF JESUS JEWISDH CONTEMPORARIES AND ALL SUBSEQUENT JEWS OF KILLING GOD, OR DEICIDE.

IN SPITE OF THE GOSPEL "SPIN" ON JESUS DEATH SENTENCE, AND PILATE'S HANDWASHING, THE ROMAN PILATE WAS ULTIMATELY REPSONSIBLE FOR JESS EXECUTION. He may have been reluctant, not so much out of goodness and disinterest in a Jewish matter. What forced his hand WAS THE THREAT OF POLITICAL PRESSURE FROM ROME. When Jesus was accused of treachery againbst Rome, Pilate could not simply overlook the charge. Doing so would have endangered his own political neck. It is ultimately on this charge of claiming kingship, a direct challenge to the emperor, t5hat Pilate sentenced Jesus to death. Jesus was condemned and executed as a nationalisitc frredom-fighter who threatened Rome, not for claiming to be the Messiah. And though the Gospels report that Pilate turns Jesus over to the Jewish crowd, his execution was clearly carried out by Roman soldiers, a fact confirmed by the roman historian Tacitus (55-117CE) who wrote in discussing christians, "Christ, the originator of their name, had been condemned to death by Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius".

THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW REFERNECES TO JESUS DEATH OUTSIDE BIBLE SOURCES.

[ELVIS]

Is the source in any way linked to Catholicism ??

The Catholic reference causes me to question the credibility...


I believe the following...

Jesus had a large following who correctly proclaimed him King Of The Jews...

The Jewish authorities took this in a literal sense, and saw it as a crime, "an intolerable political offense"...

Caiaphas asked Jesus whether he was the Messiah. The mere fact that he asked this indicates that the claims of his followers were known...

Also, Jesus threatened the Temple, by his actions against the moneychangers. The authorities saw this as a lawful offense...


This is my understanding


:elvis:

[academic punk]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Is the source in any way linked to Catholicism ??

The Catholic reference causes me to question the credibility...



:elvis:


I'm not sure I follow what you mean by that. The source is historical - the Bible in context of its history, if that's what you mean.

The relevenat sections are to what we were talking about earlier: how the gospels were written by followers of jesus who still lived under romasn government - so instead of risking charges (and mayeb een death), they "smoothed over" a few facts and tried to absolve pilate - the romans as much as possible.

also, Pope John XXIII's revision (revision's not quite the right word) of the Church's position on the passion and the jews culpability for it. (the Pope does qualify as a Catholic source, right?)

[ELVIS]

Yes he does, but his word means nothing to a true Christian...

I only wondered because of the Catholic references...

I truly believe in my heart that Catholic doctrine is exactly what Jesus was against when he scourned the religious leaders of his day...

[academic punk]

that's true:

whenever you give alms, do not sund a trumpet.

whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your father who sees in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

[ELVIS]

Amen to that!

That is the truth...

I pray that you follow what you just said...;)


Amen

[academic punk]

I hope I do too!

amen

[ELVIS]

It's not easy, trust me...;)

[academic punk]

and it's funny: my birthday commences in - eek! - eighteen minutes - and I was thinking earlier while I was making my dinner that I really had a very special, blessed year. Praises indeed. I can only hope for more of the same.

(and hope I earn it, that's the hard part!)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Yes he does, but his word means nothing to a true Christian...

I only wondered because of the Catholic references...

I truly believe in my heart that Catholic doctrine is exactly what Jesus was against when he scourned the religious leaders of his day...

Clarify for me if you would, please.

Are you saying that Catholics, or even the Pope for that matter, are not " True Christians " ?

:confused:


Seriously?

[academic punk]

Originally posted by ELVIS
It's not easy, trust me...;)


You would know, sir!

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Clarify for me if you would, please.

Are you saying that Catholics, or even the Pope for that matter, are not " True Christians " ?

:confused:


Seriously?

Unfortunately, yes...



Unbiblical Catholic traditions:

Purgatory

Praying to Mary and dead saints

Kneeling and praying to images

Confession to a priest

The Mass and sacraments as necessary for salvation

The Eucharist

Transubstantiation

Penance

Worship of Mary

Holy water

Celibacy of the priesthood

The Rosary




You do the research and tell me...

I already have...

These teachings are blasphemous and have nothing to do with the Bible...

[academic punk]

oh, boy...this is gonna get ugly...

can't we all jst wish me a happy birthday? sheesh.

[LoungeMachine]

Nah, A/P

Don't worry, Happy Brithday

The fact that ELVIS is so blind he can't see the irony and hypocrisy in that post is my cue to skeedaddle...

It's scary actually, when you couple it with his view that there are NO good muslims in the world, and that they're all evil.

Get in Line with ELVIS, or spend eternity in Hell. No matter how good a human life you live....

[ELVIS]

No...

Get in line with the truth!

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by academic punk

can't we all jst wish me a happy birthday?

Happy Birthday!


:elvis:

[academic punk]

Thanks!

now where's my geritol and wheelchair!

you kids and your rock and roll...

[ELVIS]

Haha!


:D

[FORD]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Sounds like the plot of a bad Mel Gibson movie to me......;)

Still haven't seen it. Now that it's finally out on DVD, it's probably worth a rental though.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
Still haven't seen it. Now that it's finally out on DVD, it's probably worth a rental though.

I suggest you read Matthew and then view the movie...

You won't regret it...


:elvis:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I suggest you read Matthew and then view the movie...

You won't regret it...


:elvis:

I hear if you eat 'shrooms, and put on Dark Side of The Moon and turn the sound down the music follows the movie exactly:cool:

[ELVIS]

I heard that too...

So what ??

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by FORD
Still haven't seen it. Now that it's finally out on DVD, it's probably worth a rental though.

I've seen it at the checkout line in Larry's Market, but I'd rather order a copy through the mail, delivered in brown paper, so my neighbors don't know I'm watching it.:cool:

[LoungeMachine]

I jus have to figure ELVIS is going to blow an F-ing GASKET when The Davinci Code is released in the Theaters.......


Mary was preggers w/ Jesus' Baby........The Holy Grail. The Blood of Christ.

They were married

She's in the Last Supper

Their decendents live in France to this day.

Holy shit he's going to explode

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I heard that too...

So what ??

It's The Wizard of Oz that DSOTM follows, silly rabbit:D

[ELVIS]

Whatever dude...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Is the source in any way linked to Catholicism ??

The Catholic reference causes me to question the credibility...


I believe the following...

Jesus had a large following who correctly proclaimed him King Of The Jews...

The Jewish authorities took this in a literal sense, and saw it as a crime, "an intolerable political offense"...

Caiaphas asked Jesus whether he was the Messiah. The mere fact that he asked this indicates that the claims of his followers were known...

Also, Jesus threatened the Temple, by his actions against the moneychangers. The authorities saw this as a lawful offense...


This is my understanding


:elvis:

More than that, Jesus exposed them as the controlling hypocrites that they are. Few people in those days would have openly challenged the words of the religious leaders, even if they were blatantly doing things opposed to the teachings of Moses and/or other prophets.

Jesus not only kicked their asses, but boldly stated that He was doing so as the Son of God. Ooops... guess whose position as religious authorities just got shut down.

Do you believe these mean old farts in the Temple, or do you believe the Son of God who you have personally witnessed healing sick, crippled, blind, and maybe even a dead person here and there? A guy who doesn't need a boat to get across the Sea of Galilee? How the Hell does the Religious Right compete with that?

They can't. So they had to kill him.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Nah, A/P

Don't worry, Happy Brithday

The fact that ELVIS is so blind he can't see the irony and hypocrisy in that post is my cue to skeedaddle...

It's scary actually, when you couple it with his view that there are NO good muslims in the world, and that they're all evil.

Get in Line with ELVIS, or spend eternity in Hell. No matter how good a human life you live....

I guess Elvis is the only good Christian in the entire world. Heaven's gonna' be very lonely when they find you stumped over on the toilet.

Let me ask you a theological question Elvis: Does the works you do on earth matter (i.e. donating to charity, volunteering, etc.) matter in the grand scheme of things? Or is it merely about accepting the word of Jesus?

For instance, will Mother Theresa go to hell, while Ted Bundy go to heaven if he accepts the word of God moments before the electricity is turned on?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I hear if you eat 'shrooms, and put on Dark Side of The Moon and turn the sound down the music follows the movie exactly:cool:

You know, even without the 'shrooms, there's something to that.

[Warham]

There's a saying in the scriptures Nick,

'Faith without good works is dead.'

In other words: You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?

I'm with Elvis on the Catholic traditions, and I can talk. I was Catholic for 22 years. The only reason I go around a Catholic church anymore is to attend weddings and baptisms.

[BigBadBrian]

Pass the popcorn.

Warham and Elvis are doing quite nicely on this one.

academic punk is also doing quite well.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

But Creationism is still bullshit.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
More than that, Jesus exposed them as the controlling hypocrites that they are. Few people in those days would have openly challenged the words of the religious leaders, even if they were blatantly doing things opposed to the teachings of Moses and/or other prophets.

Jesus not only kicked their asses, but boldly stated that He was doing so as the Son of God. Ooops... guess whose position as religious authorities just got shut down.

Do you believe these mean old farts in the Temple, or do you believe the Son of God who you have personally witnessed healing sick, crippled, blind, and maybe even a dead person here and there? A guy who doesn't need a boat to get across the Sea of Galilee? How the Hell does the Religious Right compete with that?

They can't. So they had to kill him.


Verily...:cool:

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
FORD's positions of Biblical matters are inconsistent. He believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and believes in Old Testament prophecy, but yet for some reason denies other scriptures in the Old Testament, even when Jesus himself referred to them as being holy writ.

How can you be sure that anything Jesus read in the old testament is still in there today? It was heavily censured and edited for polical gain by everyone who could get their hands on it for the last 2000 years. Come on now.

[ELVIS]

That's not true...

Cite me an example...

[Nickdfresh]

Nevermind! You weren't talking to me.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Let me ask you a theological question Elvis: Does the works you do on earth matter (i.e. donating to charity, volunteering, etc.) matter in the grand scheme of things? Or is it merely about accepting the word of Jesus?



I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

Rom.12:1


God knows our hearts, and God will judge our hearts. He knows the motives behind things like donating to charity and volunteering...

If we are saved by grace through faith, that grace will result in good works...

It is through faith that we access the power of grace to do what God requires of us...


:elvis:

[ELVIS]

Good works come as a RESULT of receiving grace through faith...

The order cannot be changed, and this is an essential point of Christianity....

No man can do anything to earn God's favor or approval....

Only Christ is approved by God...

As His life is given to us by grace, we then (and only then) will be able to do works that are truly good from God's perspective...

Only then will we stand approved before the Father...

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
How can you be sure that anything Jesus read in the old testament is still in there today? It was heavily censured and edited for polical gain by everyone who could get their hands on it for the last 2000 years. Come on now.

If Jesus is the Son of God, and cited Old Testament scripture as the be-all, end-all of God's word, I'm certainly sure God would make sure his word would remain intact for all future generations to read. In other words: mankind will not be able to change the scriptures, God will work through men to insure not one word would pass away.

If you have no faith in Christ, you won't have faith in the scriptures.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But Creationism is still bullshit.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2005/02/17/faith.20050217-sbt-MICH-D4-Carbon_dating_backs_.sto

By RICHARD N. OSTLING
Associated Press Writer

Evidence of biblical kingdom of Edom
Some archaeologists are convinced that pottery remains and radiocarbon work in Jordan were from a site that was part of the Edomite state.

The Mideast's latest archaeological sensation is all about Edom.

The Bible says Edom's kings interacted with ancient Israel, but some scholars have confidently declared that no Edomite state could have existed that early.

The latest archaeological work indicates the Bible got it right, those experts got it wrong and some write-ups need rewriting. The findings also could buttress disputed biblical reports about kings David and Solomon.

Edom was a rugged land south and east of the Dead Sea in present-day southern Jordan. The Bible reports that Edom had kings before Israel (Genesis 36:31, 1 Chronicles 1:43) and that they barred Moses' throng after the Exodus (Numbers 20:14-21) and later warred with David (2 Samuel 8:13-14, 1 Kings 11:15-16).

Traditional dating puts David's rule from 1012 B.C. to 972 B.C., followed by son Solomon through 932 B.C. By looser reckoning, their monarchy emerged around 1000 B.C. (The exodus came long before.)

The doubters figured the Bible erred because the earliest discovered remains from Edom and nonbiblical references dated back only to the eighth century B.C. Such thinking ignored the old archaeological warning that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Sample skepticism:

# The Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992) says "Edom was probably not a political unity" in Moses' time, and for three or four centuries afterward, which also rule out war with David.

# Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University contends in "The Bible Unearthed" (2001, co-authored with Neil Asher Silberman) that archaeology made it "clear" there were "no real kings and no state in Edom" before the eighth century because earlier large settlements and fortresses were lacking.

# University of Arizona archaeologist William G. Dever states in "Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?" (2003) that the Edom region "remained largely nomadic" until perhaps the seventh century B.C. when a "semi-sedentary tribal state emerged."

Dever, for one, acknowledges that the chronology has been thrown centuries earlier and thinks the "revolutionary" findings support the Bible's credibility concerning Edom and the kingdom of David and Solomon.

(Dever remains dubious about the biblical history of the earlier Exodus, dismissing conservatives who cite the towns on Moses' route named in Egyptian records.)

The Edom dig is described in Antiquity, a British archaeological quarterly, by Russell Adams of Canada's McMaster University; Thomas Levy of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues in Britain, Israel, Germany and Jordan.

They report that pottery and radiocarbon dating of organic materials from a major copper mill in Jordan show settlement in the 11th century B.C. and perhaps earlier. An impressive fortress site, 80 yards square, dates to the 10th-century era of David and Solomon.

This doesn't explicitly support the Bible's references to Edom, Adams says, but does prove that the Edomites thrived in the 10th century, and that lends credibility to the biblical chronology. Dever has examined pottery from the site and is convinced that some is Israelite, indicating David's kingdom engaged in international trading.

In addition, Adams says, early settlement in Edom corroborates archaeological work at the major Tel Rehov site in northern Israel by Amihai Mazar of Hebrew University and others. This team reported in Science magazine in 2003 that radiocarbon dating of olive pits and charred grain from the site dates between 940 B.C. and 900 B.C. That fits snugly with Solomon's biblical kingdom and the Pharaoh Shishak's invasion five years after Solomon died (1 Kings 14:25-6).

Most senior archaeologists' dating relates various remains with Solomon's kingdom, but they have recently been challenged by Finkelstein's "low chronology," which seeks to shift dates downward by as much as a century. That would undercut the Bible on David and Solomon and support "minimalist" skeptics.

Apparently, science cannot conclusively settle this dispute. At a radiocarbon summit in England last year, both sides stuck to their chronological schemes.

[ELVIS]

Nice...;)

[Nickdfresh]

Intelligent Design: Creationism’s Trojan Horse
A Conversation With Barbara Forrest

Barbara Forrest with studentsBarbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, La., is co-author of the new book Creationism’s Trojan

Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (Oxford University Press). Written with Paul R. Gross, who holds a Ph.D. in general physiology, the book explains the Religious Right’s strategy for working “intelligent design” creationism into America’s public schools.

Forrest, a member of Americans United’s National Advisory Council, recently discussed the book with Church & State, and an excerpt from the interview ran in the February issue. The complete interview is below. For more information about the book, visit Forrest’s website at www.creationismstrojanhorse.com.

In your new book, Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, you focus on The Wedge strategy pioneered by Phillip Johnson. For those not familiar with it, what is “The Wedge” strategy and what it its ultimate goal?

The Wedge strategy is the intelligent design movement’s tactical plan for promoting intelligent design (ID) creationism as an alternative to evolutionary theory in the American cultural mainstream and public school science classes. The movement’s 5-, 10- and 20-year goals are outlined in a document on the Internet entitled “The Wedge Strategy.” Informally known as the “Wedge Document,” it was a fundraising tool used by the Discovery Institute to raise money for its creationist subsidiary, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), which was established in 1996 and is now called the Center for Science and Culture. According to the Wedge Document, the strategy is designed to defeat “Darwinism” and to promote an idea of science “consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” The ultimate goal of the Wedge strategy is to “renew” American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian values.

The intelligent design creationists who are executing this strategy collectively refer to themselves as “the Wedge.” Phillip Johnson, the architect of the strategy and the group’s de facto leader, invokes the metaphor of a wood-splitting wedge to illustrate his goal of splitting apart the concepts of science and naturalism. A fundamental part of the Wedge strategy is the rejection of naturalism as unnecessary to science. Of course, the only alternative to naturalism is supernaturalism. But ID proponents avoid this word when speaking to mainstream audiences, substituting thinly disguised euphemisms such as “non-natural.” They believe that such semantic subterfuge will enable them to skirt the constitutional prohibitions against promoting religion in public schools. They have not always avoided mentioning the supernatural, however. In the movement’s early years, when Johnson brought together the Wedge’s younger members, they had to build a base of religious, political, and financial support. This required revealing the true nature of their program. The CRSC’s early website announced that new developments in the sciences were “raising serious doubts about scientific materialism and re-opening the case for the supernatural.” This was a clear signal to potential supporters that the CRSC was open for business as a religious organization dedicated to opposing evolution.

Science, however, is a naturalistic enterprise. Scientists cannot appeal to supernatural explanations because there is neither a methodology for testing them nor an epistemology for knowing the supernatural. Science has a naturalistic methodology, known less controversially as “scientific method.” That simply means that scientists seek natural explanations for natural phenomena. Science also has an epistemology, namely, the use of human sensory faculties to collect empirical data about the world and the use of our rational faculties to draw conclusions and construct explanations of this data. This is the only successful way to do science, and the pragmatic success of this naturalistic methodology is the only reason scientists use it. There is neither a conspiracy by scientists to prohibit “alternative explanations” nor an arbitrary commitment to naturalism, as ID proponents charge. Scientists use this naturalistic methodology because it works. Period.

Yet ID proponents argue that science need not be naturalistic but can -- indeed must -- appeal to an intelligent designer, i.e., a supernatural being, in order to explain the natural world adequately. In short, since the ID movement cannot really influence the way science is actually done (even the scientists among them do not use the concept of ID in their professional scientific work), they want to influence the way science is understood by the American public and by policymakers. But the idea they are promoting is nothing more than a return to the pre-modern concept of science in which the religious beliefs of its practitioners shaped their explanation of the natural world.

What is the relationship between advocates of The Wedge and the older school of creationists who promote a literal reading of the Bible and think Earth is only 6,000 years old? Wedge advocates like Johnson and Michael Behe say they reject young-Earth creationism, yet many young-Earthers seem to have endorsed the Wedge strategy. What is going on here?

There is a marriage of convenience between young-Earth creationists (YECs) and ID creationists. The fundamentalist YECs insist on the literal interpretation of Genesis, which includes the view that Earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old. Most ID proponents are evangelicals who allow a little more room for biblical interpretation than fundamentalists do. They are not literalists but accept modern scientific evidence that Earth is several billion years old. This is a source of conflict between the two groups, but YECs have had their day in court (quite a few of them, in fact) and have lost every time. They know that they have no hope of getting their own views into public school science classes. Phillip Johnson knows this, too, but he also needs the YECs’ political support. And there are YECs in the ID movement such as Paul Nelson, a philosopher, and Nancy Pearcey, a Christian writer and commentator. Both are longtime CRSC fellows. YECs and ID proponents are united by their social and political conservatism, so Johnson has tried to construct a “big tent,” a coalition of YECs and ID creationists, hoping to use the strength of their combined numbers as a political force. The YECs have gone along, grudgingly at times, eager to profit from the Wedge’s hoped-for success at getting ID into public schools. For them, ID is now the only game in town.

But the strategy and arguments ID proponents use are the same ones the YECs have always used. ID terminology is somewhat more scientifically sophisticated and religiously sanitized, but not so much that YECs cannot recognize its true identity as creationism. In chapter 9 of Creationism’s Trojan Horse, my co-author and I catalogue the parallels between ID and the “creation science” of well-known YECs Henry Morris and Duane Gish. For instance, Both Morris and Gish have stated that in promoting creationism, discussions of the Bible should be strategically avoided. Johnson says exactly the same thing. One of the “evidences” Morris and Gish offer for their antievolutionism is the supposed absence of transitional fossils. Philosopher/mathematician/Christian apologist William Dembski, the chief Wedge intellectual, makes the same charge in Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design, where he hits all the same antievolutionist notes that YECs traditionally do. We list a number of such similarities in our book and could have included even more.

Despite occasional carping by the YECs about ID’s not being biblical enough, they carefully avoid criticizing it too harshly and sometimes publicize their alliance with it. Young-Earther Ashby Camp, writing for the Creation Research Society’s Creation Matters, has said, “If the science establishment can be forced to acknowledge the scientific case for intelligent design, theism will become part of the ‘post-Christian’ cultural air. . . . If ID is successful in changing the culture, the presumption against the supernatural will be eliminated.” YECs clearly think they have something to gain from this partnership. However, there are signals from within ID ranks that they do not hold their fundamentalist allies in high esteem. One of the Wedge Document’s goals is for seminaries to “increasingly recognize and repudiate naturalistic presuppositions.” Dembski and his Wedge colleague Jay Wesley Richards, in a 2001 book they co-edited, Unapologetic Apologetics, seek to “transform mainline seminaries in particular and the secular academic world in general.” But they consider fundamentalism a problem: “One obstacle is fundamentalism, which assumes all conceptual problems facing Christianity are easily resolved. . . . Fundamentalism prevents us from doing the quality work that’s needed to deserve the respect of the secular academic world.” Yet Wedge members do not hesitate to appear in public with their fundamentalist allies. The YEC/ID political marriage will likely last as long as both sides think there is hope of some headway in furthering the ID agenda.

Advocates of intelligent design argue that their ideas are not necessarily religious. Yet it would seem that if humans were intelligently designed, the designer must have been God. In light of this, how do ID proponents argue that their ideas are not religious in nature?

ID creationists contend that the work of an intelligent designer can be empirically detected in nature, but they evade questions about the designer’s identity and the mechanisms through which it works by insisting that detecting its activity does not require knowing its identity. They argue that ID is based on cutting-edge science. Yet even ID proponents with legitimate science credentials have never produced one iota of original scientific data to support these claims. Biochemist Michael Behe never invokes ID in any of his professional publications. He surely would do this if he really believed that ID is a genuine scientific theory. In his role as an ID proponent, he claims that biological structures such as bacterial flagella are “irreducibly complex,” meaning that their parts could not have been assembled over time by natural selection and that the absence of one part would by definition make the entire structure nonfunctional. Yet he admits that his definition of irreducible complexity is flawed and has not so far produced a promised revision of it. Dembski, who has no science credentials, claims to have developed a test for detecting intelligently designed complexity in biological systems, but he has never made a successful attempt to show how it works and ignores requests to produce data that might enable others to do it. So despite their argument that ID is not religious, it certainly is not science.

As to whether ID is religious, we can go straight to the horse’s mouth to verify this. Fortunately, members of the Wedge themselves have made the task very easy by confirming unambiguously on numerous occasions that ID is fundamentally a religious belief. Insisting that their concerns are scientific and educational, they complain that their motives are irrelevant to the merits of their arguments. But in the absence of scientific accomplishment, the ID movement rests only on its proponents’ religious motives and goals, revealed through their own pronouncements. As early as 1992, Dembski stipulated that when he spoke of an intelligent designer, he was referring to a “supernatural intelligence.” The “Wedge Strategy,” written between 1996 and 1998, states that “the proposition that human beings are created in the image of God” has been under “wholesale attack” by people like “Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud.” It states further that “the cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating.” So much for the Wedge’s non-religious motives. Furthermore, according to this document, “Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.” Once materialism is dead, the Wedge hopes to reinstate a “broadly theistic understanding of nature.” So much for non-religious goals. The Discovery Institute has tried to downplay the significance of this document, but it is the Wedge’s own statement of their strategy, and they are stuck with it. And contrary to their posturing as a secular, scientific organization, they have continued to provide a great deal more evidence of ID’s religious identity.

Phillip Johnson confirmed that ID is a religious belief in 1996, the year the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture was established, when the Wedge had to make its religious identity known in order to attract support. Johnson stated, “My colleagues and I speak of ‘theistic realism’-- or sometimes, ‘mere creation’ -- as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology.” He clearly wants people to see ID as an idea that can supplant naturalistic science with divine revelation: “If life is not simply matter evolving by natural selection, but is something that had to be designed by a creator who is real, then the nature of that creator, and the possibility of revelation, will become a matter of widespread interest among thoughtful people who are currently being taught that evolutionary science has shown God to be a product of the human imagination.” He referred to the Wedge’s religious goals in a 2001 speech before an audience of supporters when he explained that Wedge leaders founded the ID movement to explain the evidence for “a Creator” and to “unify the religious world.” In an interview that same year, Johnson predicted that “with the success of intelligent design,” people would understand that “the Christians have been right all along -- at least on major elements of the story, like divine creation.” That realization, according to Johnson, would forestall the argument that Christian ideas have “no legitimate place in public education, in public lawmaking, in public discussion generally.”

Yet despite Wedge members’ claim that ID is a scientific alternative to evolution, they don’t dare carry this charade too far. In order to maintain their standing with conservative religious supporters -- and fend off fundamentalist criticisms that ID is not sufficiently biblical -- they have to show that ID is indeed biblically based. But they also want to avoid divisive arguments over the age of Earth, etc., so they simply substitute the Book of John for the Book of Genesis. Johnson says that the biblical basis for ID is John 1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. / The same was in the beginning with God. / All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” Johnson appeals to this minimalist account of divine creation instead of Genesis, which invokes a literalist interpretation of the Bible that many ID proponents do not share and introduces a source of contention into the “big tent.”

In a 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone, Dembski confirmed the foundation of ID in John 1 when he assured readers that “Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” And in Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, the 1999 book in which Dembski explains ID for his Christian audience, he makes it clear that “divine Logos” is God’s own language, “the Word that in Christ was made flesh.” He seals the connection between the concept of divine creation and ID as “Logos theology” when he asserts that “God speaks the divine Logos to create the world.” He even specifies in this book about ID that God must be male!

There is a wealth of such statements. So Wedge leaders’ argument that ID is not religious is a complete sham. ID proponents use it with mainstream audiences for public relations and legal purposes. It does not reflect the true essence of ID creationism.

Is there a conflict between what ID backers tell the public through the media and what they say before conservative Christian audiences?

There is a noticeable conflict, but it is studied and deliberate. When speaking to a mainstream audience and to the media, ID proponents must pretend that ID is a secular, scientific theory. In short, they actually have to deny the religious foundation of their own ideas. Philosopher of science Robert Pennock, who has written extensively about ID, says, “When lobbying for ID in the public schools, Wedge members sometimes deny that ID makes any claims about the identity of the designer. It is ironic that their political strategy leads them to deny God in the public square more often than Peter did.” Moreover, Wedge members are now disavowing their own terminology because the term “intelligent design” has become a liability for them. They are doing this for two reasons. First, because of the Discovery Institute’s successful public relations campaign to make “intelligent design” a household word, more people now also recognize it as the religious concept of creationism. Second, the Wedge is waging an unrelenting campaign to get ID into public school sciences classes in some form. They have come close to doing that in Ohio, where they succeeded in getting the State Board of Education to adopt a creationist lesson plan. So they are now using euphemisms to refer to ID in an attempt to craft a workable legal defense should there be a lawsuit in Ohio or elsewhere. They claim not to be promoting the teaching of “intelligent design,” but rather the teaching of the “controversy” over evolution, or the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolutionary theory, or “arguments against evolution.”

But when speaking to what the Wedge Document calls their “natural constituency, namely [conservative] Christians,” ID creationists express themselves unambiguously in religious language, as I have shown above. They know that they cannot afford to do too good a job of disguising their true religious loyalties, since only by maintaining their conservative Christian base can they also maintain their political momentum -- and their major funding sources, virtually all of which are religious organizations and individuals such as Howard Ahmanson.

Intelligent design supporters often portray it in the media as some new, ground-breaking idea. But isn’t it true that the argument from design is an old, discredited idea that actually pre-dates Charles Darwin? What are the origins of what is now called intelligent design?

The argument from design is indeed very old and illustrates how pre-scientific people constructed explanations of the cosmos that reflect their own experience as intelligent agents. Thomas Aquinas used it as one of his arguments for God’s existence, noting that many natural objects function as though they are aiming toward “the best result.” Thomas reasoned that since an object lacking intelligence cannot do this without external guidance from an intelligent being, there must be such a being by whom unintelligent things are purposefully directed. The idea of intelligent design is also central to William Paley’s 1802 book, Natural Theology, where he presents his famous watchmaker analogy. Although ID proponents, particularly Dembski, deny that ID is natural theology, the resemblance between what Paley said in 1802 and what Dembski says today is striking. Reading Paley is like reading works by ID creationists in many ways.

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics published “Of Pandas and People,” a popular ID volume. The name of this group sounds innocuous. What did your research turn up about the Foundation?

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) is a publishing company headquartered in Richardson, Texas. The founder and president is Jon A. Buell, whom the FTE website describes as an “author, editor, and lecturer.” Although the website is registered under the organizational name, William Dembski is the administrative contact, and the FTE mailing address is actually Dembski’s. FTE has been an integral partner in the Wedge strategy since Phillip Johnson first organized the Wedge in the early 1990s. FTE also holds the copyright to the creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People, which it markets to teachers and tried unsuccessfully to have adopted by the Plano, Texas, school district in 1995. It also co-sponsored the ID movement’s first conference in 1992, which its website touts with overblown rhetoric as “a historic event” that was “soon felt at even the top levels of science in America.” FTE published the conference proceedings and sells other “educational resources” on its website; these include all the major ID books. Dembski is the FTE’s “Academic Editor.” FTE’s true mission is to put materials into the hands of parents, students and teachers that promote a conservative Christian worldview. One of its most recent efforts is described in a fundraising letter in which FTE promotes its book, Sex and Character, apparently attempting to cash in on rising interest in abstinence education in public schools, or, as FTE puts it, to “increase the cleansing tonic we are sending into the classrooms of our country’s youngest citizens.”

Your book contains a lot of information about the Discovery Institute. What is this organization, and what tactics does it use to promote the spread of ID in public schools?

The Discovery Institute is a conservative think tank in Seattle, Washington. Its founder and president is Bruce Chapman, a former member of the Reagan administration. The organization has several interests centering around transportation and other issues in the Pacific Northwest, but it functions primarily as the headquarters of the ID movement. Although it purports to be a secular organization, its religious moorings are clearly recognizable. Patricia O’Connell Killen, a religion professor at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma whose work centers around the regional religious identity of the Pacific Northwest, recently wrote that “religiously inspired think tanks such as the conservative evangelical Discovery Institute” are part of the “religious landscape” of that area.

Discovery Institute’s most important subsidiary is its creationist arm, the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), established in 1996 as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture in order to advance the Wedge strategy. Chapman calls the center “our No. 1 project.” Although the CSC website advertises lucrative fellowships of up to $50,000 a year for “support of significant and original research in the natural sciences, the history and philosophy of science, cognitive science and related fields,” none of the center’s fellows has ever produced the scientific research which the Wedge Document says is to form the foundation of the Wedge strategy.

Instead of producing original scientific data to support ID’s claims, the Discovery Institute has promoted ID politically to the public, education officials and public policymakers. In 2000, the Wedge held a congressional briefing in Washington, D.C., to promote ID to lawmakers. ID creationists have tried to influence the content of state and local science standards, the content of state-approved science textbooks, and even the No Child Left Behind Act. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania inserted a sense of the Senate resolution into the bill calling for students to be taught why evolution “generates so much continuing controversy. The resolution was actually a pro-ID subterfuge designed to bolster the Wedge’s claim to have congressional support for their efforts. Few of the senators who voted to support the “Santorum amendment” actually could have recognized the resolution for what it truly was, however. Pro-science organizations succeeded in having the resolution removed from the bill, but Wedge supporters on the conference committee preserved it in the bill’s legislative history. The item is not federal law, but just as its author Phillip Johnson planned, it is constantly cited by ID supporters as providing federal sanction for their pro-ID agenda.

ID proponents are the first creationists to establish such high-level political influence in the nation’s capitol. Sen. Santorum is their most vocal supporter there, but there are others. Reps. John Boehner and Steve Chabot of Ohio and Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, along with Santorum, have signed letters supporting the Discovery Institute’s interpretation of the Santorum amendment. One of those letters was sent to the president and vice-president of the Ohio Board of Education; the other was sent to the Texas Board of Education.

Discovery Institute’s efforts have caused problems in a number of states, notably Kansas, Montana, Texas and Ohio. (Only 10 states have not had problems with ID.) And there are two additional de facto Wedge subsidiaries. Access Research Network (ARN), headquartered in Colorado Springs, serves as a clearinghouse and marketer for ID books, videotapes, etc. The Intelligent Design Network (IDnet), which does a great deal of the footwork with state and local boards of education, is headquartered in Kansas but has extended the Wedge’s reach through branches in New Mexico and Minnesota. IDnet operatives also worked closely with Science Excellence for All Ohioans, which spearheaded the highly publicized effort to insert ID into the science standards in Ohio.

Discovery Institute also employs staff at its Seattle headquarters whose main task is to advance the Wedge strategy through an aggressive public relations campaign. One of their most disturbing public relations coups was convincing PBS to sell a creationist video, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, as a science film in its online store for two years. Fortunately, but only after misleading unsuspecting customers for all this time, PBS has stopped selling the video. But the Wedge public relations campaign continues. Apparently unhappy with unfavorable media coverage, Discovery Institute now features a weblog, “Evolution News & Views.” Rob Crowther, CSC director of communications, explains this initiative: “We’re going to use this blog [to] inform, analyze, and expose how the news media cover -- and fail to cover -- the scientific controversy over Darwinian evolution…. We not only plan to offer critiques and corrections to major news stories, we will also offer behind-the-scenes glimpses at journalists and how they operate when they report on this issue.” The media must be quaking in their boots.

The Center for Science and Culture has also announced the establishment of the “CSC Discovery Society,” which its website bills as a “select grassroots mobilization force designed to support the work -- and disseminate the message -- of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.” Members are assured that they will be supporting “cutting-edge research that challenges Darwinian evolution and validates the intelligent design of life and the universe.” The $300 annual membership fee may help keep the Discovery Society very select.

You teach at the university level and your coauthor, Paul Gross, has a Ph.D. in general physiology. Based on your knowledge of higher education in America, is intelligent design commonly taught in university-level biology courses as a serious alternative to Darwinian theory?

No. Respectable university science departments teach evolution because it is the only scientific theory that explains the development of Earth’s life forms. The Wedge does have a following in academia, however. The cultivation of support in higher education is one of the most active parts of their strategy. I don’t think it is a stretch to say that they have faculty supporters on every university campus in this country, including at Ivy League schools. Some, such as Alvin Plantinga at Notre Dame and Frank Tipler at Tulane University, are high-profile figures in academia.

There are certainly religious schools that teach ID. Biola University and Oklahoma Baptist University are listed on the Access Research Network website as “ID Colleges.” In addition, the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, which began as a student organization at the University of California at San Diego, helps establish student IDEA clubs on university and high school campuses. The Intelligent Design and Undergraduate Research Center, ARN’s student division, also cultivates followers at universities. Campus youth ministries play an active role in bringing ID to university campuses through lectures by Wedge leaders Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe and other ID figures. But this activity takes place outside university science departments. No science program worth its salt is going to teach ID.

At a number of public universities, including the University of California at Berkeley and the University of New Mexico, sympathetic faculty have slipped ID courses under the radar as freshman seminars, honors courses and other courses outside required curricula in which instructors have wider latitude regarding course content. I predict that this will increase, and university administrators should be paying closer attention to what college students are getting in such classes. This is a question of professional competence. Students should not pay the price for dereliction of duty by instructors who are either not qualified to teach classes purporting to be about science or have subordinated scientific integrity to personal religious loyalties.

Scientists publish the results of their research in peer-reviewed journals that are subject to rigorous scrutiny from other researchers working in the field. How do ID proponents disseminate their ideas? Are there peer-reviewed ID journals?

The major vehicle for the dissemination of ID is the roughly three dozen books its proponents have published and marketed aggressively. The Wedge strategy called for publication of 30 books by 2003, and that deadline was almost met. It probably has been met by now. Wedge members also write numerous op-eds and magazine articles and have made masterful use of the Internet. Two issues of Touchstone magazine have been devoted to ID. Christianity Today, which I had always considered a credible magazine, has unfortunately given ID a very high profile. Focus on the Family, in addition to co-publishing the creationist videotape Unlocking the Mystery of Life, which features the major Wedge leaders, publishes pro-ID articles on its website and in its Citizen magazine. Focus on the Family employee Mark Hartwig is also a CSC fellow, a connection which has helped to publicize ID extensively. James Dobson often features ID proponents on his Focus on the Family radio program.

ID creationists have published what they call “peer-reviewed” ID journals, but their peers consist of their own network of supporters. Origins and Design, which was formerly Origins Research, a publication by the creationist Students for Origins Research, was published by ARN for a number of years but is now apparently defunct. Dembski publishes Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, an electronic journal featuring articles by supporters of his online organization, the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID). But the publication standards of Dembski’s on-line journal are a bit lax. The editorial board consists of Dembski’s close associates. Most of the articles are by Wedge members and ID supporters, some of whom are only students. The articles are posted to ISCID’s discussion forum, which Dembski calls an “archive.” Once an article meets “basic scholarly standards” and is accepted into the archive, it is considered suitable for publication upon approval by one (it used to be two) of ISCID’s 58 fellows, who constitute the editorial advisory board. Describing standard procedures of scientific peer review as geared toward censorship, Dembski recently loosened his on-line journal’s publication standards even more for the sake of “novelty and creativity.”

ID proponents have long sought to stifle criticism that they publish no genuinely scientific, peer-reviewed articles on ID. They recently got a little help from a friend. A pro-ID article by CSC program director Stephen C. Meyer was published in a legitimate science journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article, a review essay which presents no original ID research, is a revised version of a 2001 article on the “Cambrian explosion” that was first posted on the Intelligent Design and Undergraduate Research Center website. A later version also appeared in the book Meyer co-edited, Darwinism, Design and Public Education. The editor, Richard v. Sternberg, a creationist himself who left his position shortly after the article appeared, published it without allowing the journal’s associate editors to review it. The Biological Society of Washington Council has since repudiated the article and vowed that proper review procedures will henceforth be followed. The Wedge claimed a similar victory when an article by Michael Behe and David W. Snoke was published in Protein Science. But the paper has been critiqued by qualified scientists, who point out that “it contains no ‘design theory,’ makes no attempt to model an ‘intelligent design’ process, and proposes no alternative to evolution.” Neither article gives the Wedge the credibility they claim. As far as publishing original scientific data to support ID is concerned, their scorecard is still blank.

To many people, this may seem like an esoteric debate over obtuse scientific questions. Why should parents be concerned? How will the outcome of this debate affect our children?

The debate is esoteric only in the sense that it involves science, which most Americans understand poorly despite their love of technology. But even though the average American’s scientific literacy is rather low, there are aspects of the issue that parents can and should understand. Americans insist that education is one of their chief priorities, but the United States is the world’s only industrialized country in which people are still fighting over evolution. Even developing countries are not doing this. Americans look like fools to the rest of the world.

The Wedge’s primary target audience is politically and religiously conservative people who hold the mistaken view that evolution threatens their moral and religious values, believe that ID is a real scientific theory and will support anyone who shares that view. Their secondary target is sincere but scientifically uninformed people who fall for ID proponents’ argument that all sides of an issue deserve a hearing. Desiring to encourage “critical thinking,” they are susceptible to the Wedge’s proposal that schools balance evolution with “teaching the controversy,” or “the strengths and weaknesses of evolution,” or “evidence against evolution” -- all well-known Wedge euphemisms for ID. But to teach ID in any of its guises is to balance truth with lies. There is no scientific controversy about the fact of biological evolution. There is only the fake controversy the Discovery Institute manufactured to advance its political and religious agenda. ID proponents know that few people in their audiences are willing or able to do the research that exposes ID as the sham it is. (Hence the need for books like Creationism’s Trojan Horse.) The unavoidable conclusion is that Wedge strategists are exploiting their audiences’ fears, religious loyalties and gullibility. This shows little respect for the people they convince to petition school board officials on behalf of ID.

Parents should be concerned about the resurgence of creationism as ID because it threatens the quality of their children’s education. It diminishes their chances for competing in the job market, making informed choices as consumers of medical care and making responsible contributions as citizens. Not the least of people’s concerns should be the enormous amounts of time and money being wasted on this issue. Science is one of the weakest areas of American education, and the resistance many teachers face when teaching evolution discourages them, especially those who are under prepared, from bothering with it. Parents should support teachers and insist that schools offer quality science instruction. If a school’s science instruction is good, it’s a pretty good bet that everything else is, too. Every day and every tax dollar spent fighting creationists, paying the costs of inevitable lawsuits, etc., is a day and a dollar not spent on decently educating children, and that should make parents fighting mad.

Creationists have for years labored to undermine the teaching of evolution in the public schools. What is different about this new ID strategy? In what ways is it more sophisticated?

First, I want to stress that there is virtually nothing different about ID in terms of its identity as creationism. The “new” ID creationists use virtually the same arguments, employ the same tactics, and have the same agenda as the earlier “creation scientists.” That is clearly documented in our book.

The difference is that the creationists at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture are more aggressive and more politically connected and sophisticated than earlier creationists. The core group in the Wedge has the luxury of devoting themselves to these efforts, unlike their opponents, who do not have the benefit of wealthy benefactors to bankroll clerical staff, expensive advertising campaigns and political networking, as Wedge members do.

Finally -- and I cannot stress this point strongly enough -- Americans who value their Constitution and religious freedom should be concerned about the larger problem of which ID is a prominent symptom. Americans need to know about the darker side of the Wedge strategy, which few people except its supporters have seen. ID is more than just creationism’s Trojan horse -- it is a stalking horse for the Religious Right’s effort to steamroll its way into American education and public policy. The core of this issue is really about power -- who controls education and thus the minds of children, and who controls the policy that shapes American culture and public life. ID proponents share the Religious Right’s dislike of secular education. They also share its theocratic vision for our country. Their most vocal supporters include powerful Religious Right leaders: James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, Beverly LaHaye and D. James Kennedy.

The vision Wedge strategists have for American culture is not pretty. In addressing their conservative Christian audience, both Phillip Johnson and William Dembski promote a disturbing religious exclusionism and anti-secularism. Johnson has made comments that could be interpreted as anti-Muslim. Referring to Americans’ fear of “these Muslim terrorists” after September 11, he paints a picture of American professors who are “afraid of what the Muslim students will do” on their campuses. Commenting that he never thought “our country would descend to this level,” he implies that Muslims worship a false God: “We once knew who the true God was and were able to proclaim it frankly.” Dembski favors reviving the religious transgression of heresy even for fellow Christians. He recognizes the question his view might provoke: “Can’t we all just get along and live together in peace?” His answer should have all Americans worried: “Unfortunately, the answer is no.”

© Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 518 C Street NE, Washington, DC 20002
Telephone (202) 466-3234; Facsimile (202) 466-2587; E-mail: americansunited@au.org

http://www.natcenscied.org/

Nicer!;) :D

And if you believe in "Creationism", you are nothing but a bakward hick in my opinion! Flame away fundimetalists! All you have is selective pseudo-science.

The issue is clear, it is not about being a believer (as I am in some sense), it's about a premeditated stragtegy to Christianize society using supterfuge and lies!

[DrMaddVibe]

Putting any creedence in what a Philosophy professor has to say about Creationism or Darwinism is like asking Hagar to sing "Bottoms Up".

Sure he could do it, but it doesn't have any substance!

That last post was just bullshit!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Putting any creedence in what a Philosophy professor has to say about Creationism or Darwinism is like asking Hagar to sing "Bottoms Up".

Sure he could do it, but it doesn't have any substance!

That last post was just bullshit!

Yeah right? And when our stupid, superstitious kids grow up and fall behind the rest of the world in the sciences (which already laughs at our 19th century debate taking place at the dawn the 21st century), tell me all about the post WHICH YOU DID NOT EVEN READ! Much like the "Scopes Trial." I am not saying Evolutionary concepts are perfect and account for everything. But I refuse to let my future children be taught scientific premises okayed by the (edited, and selectively propogandized by mankind) Bible! This is nothing but an evangelical conspiracy and it's (Intelligent Design) the height of BULLSHIT!

That Philosophy professor represents the thoughts of science. If you want a technical read out, click on one of the many links to see how real scientists debunk these pretenders.
Where's DAVEISKING when I need him?:rolleyes:

Scopes (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm)

[DrMaddVibe]

You are saying that evoloution is perfect by standing by your last post.

Are you sure you're name isn't Kip or Napoleon?

Philosophy is a broad subject and majors in it are resolved to teaching it. I'd rather talk to an accomplished writer like Neil Peart or M. Scott Peck before absorbing the bullshit and preconcieved notions of a classroom jockey!

You blabbered about carbon dating in your first post like it was gospel and I posted a link showing how carbon dating proved what the Bible had stated and now you have a problem with it.

Instead of tapdancing on the edge of a razor espousing how correct your thoughts and beliefs are...stick to one side!

[FORD]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Putting any creedence in what a Philosophy professor has to say about Creationism or Darwinism is like asking Hagar to sing "Bottoms Up".



How about Cherone?

He could sing "Bottoms Up".

It would mean something entirely different, but at least he'd be singing it.

Which is also true of right wingers talking about Christianity - they mean something far different than the original.

BTW, what the fuck is a "Discovery Institute" and who the Hell let them into this state? :eek:

[DrMaddVibe]

Leave it to you to bring up that ass pirate!

FoLIARrd, you stopped being relevant when you wrapped yourself in Dean!

[academic punk]

IS THIS THREAD STILL ALIVE????

holy shit. no pun intended.

[ELVIS]

Nick, that article is nothing more than a very wordy denial of Jesus Christ, God, and anything supernatural...

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
Which is also true of right wingers talking about Christianity - they mean something far different than the original.



That's just plain stupid...

It may be somewhat true regarding some politicians and false teachers, but not real conservative Christians...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
That's just plain stupid...

It may be somewhat true regarding some politicians and false teachers, but not real conservative Christians...

That's just plain stupid......

It may be somewhat true......


God damn your a dolt.:rolleyes:

What's the point of flip flopping, arguing, AND misquoting ALL in the same post?

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
How about Cherone?

He could sing "Bottoms Up".

It would mean something entirely different, but at least he'd be singing it.

Which is also true of right wingers talking about Christianity - they mean something far different than the original.

BTW, what the fuck is a "Discovery Institute" and who the Hell let them into this state? :eek:

Yeah FORD, I'm sure abortion-activist, gay-activist left-wingers talking about Christianity are following the will of God.

What does the Bible say about those subjects and does it back up what the left believes in?

[Nickdfresh]

What does the Bible say about slavery? What does it say about democracy? It says nothing regarding abortion and is in fact ambiguous regarding homosexuality. The Bible was written by men that contradict themselves.

I will not have dictate a science curriculum! NEVER! Teach in Sunday schools, but never in a public school!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
You are saying that evoloution is perfect by standing by your last post.

Are you sure you're name isn't Kip or Napoleon?

Philosophy is a broad subject and majors in it are resolved to teaching it. I'd rather talk to an accomplished writer like Neil Peart or M. Scott Peck before absorbing the bullshit and preconcieved notions of a classroom jockey!

You blabbered about carbon dating in your first post like it was gospel and I posted a link showing how carbon dating proved what the Bible had stated and now you have a problem with it.

Instead of tapdancing on the edge of a razor espousing how correct your thoughts and beliefs are...stick to one side!

Where do you get off posting in a thread as a pious Christian you fucking vile hypocrite Ms.PussyVibe?! Weren't you telling me a short time ago how grate the tsunami was for killing all those Indonesians? Why don't you actually try reading the Bible you so faulty logically try to assert as the absolute "truth?" Ask yourself "what would Jesus do?" I doubt he would celebrate the death of hundreds-of-thousands. You're exactly the redneck, bumkin I had in mind when I posted this thread. Pious Christian? LMAO FUCK-YOU CUNT! You're as evil and heartless as they come douchebag! And your worthless piece of shit article proves nothing! It was written by a journalist trying to feign nonbias! OH yeah! Evolution is all wrong because some biased, Evangelical agendaists again lied to prove their point. Yeah, now I absolutely believe in Creationism...er...Intelligent Design! LOL

Here, try to muster your ninth-grade education to figure out this article you phoney, hypocritical ignorant piece of shit:


LA TImes (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-morrison19jan19,0,2213642.column)

January 19, 2005

I wrapped up my little visit to the Museum of Creation and Earth History in Santee and walked into the gift shop in time to hear a customer assuring the clerk that the Smithsonian in Washington has actual pieces of Noah's ark but won't admit it and won't let anyone near them.

Keep in mind I'd just seen "proof" that the Earth is no older than about 10,000 years, that man and dinosaurs coexisted before a flood that not only created the Grand Canyon but put the final score at humans (Noah and kin) 1, dinosaurs 0. After all that, the bit about the Smithsonian nearly sent me into a faint. I needed someone to deliver a couple of "quick, snap out of it, girl" taps with a copy of Scientific American.

Santee is a long way from Los Angeles, in a lot of ways. I saw more Bush bumper stickers there in an hour than I had in all of last year in L.A. It's closer in spirit to Cobb County, Ga., where stickers applied to biology textbooks declared that evolution is a theory, not a fact. Or, they did until last week, when a federal judge told the school board to unstick them because they endorsed religious beliefs.

The Santee museum has been making the creationism argument for 33 years, with low-tech exhibits bearing the touching, dorky earnestness of middle-school science projects — plastic butterflies, blue-painted fake stalactites, piped-in music from some De Mille biblical epic. When I was there, a gaggle of schoolgirls was taking earnest notes in front of an exhibit on Noah's ark. In the artist's rendering of life below decks, the ark looked an awful lot like the dining room at Musso & Frank, except the booths were occupied by ostriches and bears.

What confronted the Georgia judge is not Santee's brand of quaint creationism but a more sophisticated, neo-creationism creep that's moving through school boards and state legislatures across the country. The forces behind it are emboldened by another four years of a president who is on the record as saying: "On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth." They're emboldened by the bogus logic that declares that wanting WMD is just as dangerous as having WMD, so wanting Genesis to be science is just as good as making it so.

The sweaty hallelujah chorus of the 1925 Scopes "monkey trial" is out of the picture. The talk now is about "Intelligent Design." ID says chance alone can't account for everything in creation, and that's where a higher intelligence — meaning God, though the ID forces may not use the word — comes in. ID is a canny tactic, a wedge into the realm of science, in which the Bible is an encoded science text. If IDers can put their argument on an equal footing with science, they figure they'll skip nimbly around the Constitution's church-state wall without having to wear themselves out trying to knock it down.

Really, it's a backhanded compliment to science that religion tries to co-opt its vocabulary. Santee's museum has its Institute of Creation Research. (Americans respect words like "institute" and "research.") ID materials show lab beakers, not Bibles. ID also takes a science word like "theory" and deliberately twists its meaning, equating the empirical research that backs up a scientific theory with any fleeting idea that finds a roost in more than one brain. Like the theory that the Smithsonian has a secret stash of ark bits.

Science and faith should always be at odds. Science starts with the smallest bits of evidence, collecting facts and data to figure out the principles that make them all work together. Faith starts with unshakable belief in itself. Cross those wires and you get oxymorons like creation science.

There was a man in the last century who practiced top-down science with harrowing consequences. His ideology came first, and science had to fit it. He denounced the important genetic studies of Mendel as the work of "enemies" — not exactly the language of science. He insisted, among other things, that wheat plants could bear rye seeds. His notions sent real scientists to exile and execution and condemned whole populations to starve. He wasn't a scientist himself but he played one at the Kremlin. His name was Trofim Lysenko, and his ideology was communism.

Teaching creationism is flat out against the rules in California public schools. The school board in Vista, not far from Santee, tried to get away with stealth creationism more than 10 years ago but got booted out before it could do any damage. Kansas' pro-creationist state school board also tried to expel evolution but was voted out four years ago, before it had enough time to do more than mau-mau small changes in the geology section of a children's textbook.

Now Kansas is getting another bite at the apple of ignorance, with a new pro-creationism school board. And the battle is joined in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Montana, Missouri and Mississippi.

Jack Krebs is a veteran of this war. He teaches high school math and serves on the Kansas state science standards committee, which fought creationism once before. "Watch out," he says, "it could be in anybody's backyard tomorrow. You could be next."

Where have I heard that before? Oh yes, Kevin McCarthy, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" — and now the scary real-life sequel, "Invasion of the Brain Snatchers."

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
What does the Bible say about slavery? What does it say about democracy? It says nothing regarding abortion and is in fact ambiguous regarding homosexuality. The Bible was written by men that contradict themselves.

I will not have dictate a science curriculum! NEVER! Teach in Sunday schools, but never in a public school!

Ambiguous about homosexuality? I think you better read the part where Lot is in Sodom and Gamorrah again, Nick.

Unequivocal Condemnations
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm

Putting these texts to the side, we are left with three references, all of which unequivocally condemn homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 states the principle: "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: "If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
Such an act was considered as an "abomination" for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the spilling of semen for any procreative purpose -- in coitus interruptus (Gen 38:1-11), male homosexual acts or male masturbation -- was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. (Female homosexual acts and masturbation were consequently not so seriously regarded.) One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing total annihilation through overpopulation.

In addition, when a man acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised. It was a degradation, not only in regard to himself, but for every other male. The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females. And the repugnance felt toward homosexuality was not just that it was deemed unnatural but also that it was considered un Jewish, representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life. On top of that is the more universal repugnance heterosexuals tend to feel for acts and orientations foreign to them. (Left-handedness has evoked something of the same response in many cultures.)

Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of scripture.
Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of scripture. The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts. (That may seem extreme, but there are actually some "Christians" urging this very thing today.) It is unlikely that any American court will ever again condemn a homosexual to death, even though Scripture clearly commands it.
Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Roman 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemns are heterosexual, and are acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which is foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychological understanding of homosexuals as person whose orientation is fixed early in life, persons for whom having heterosexual relations would be contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.
In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were "straight," and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was "straight." He had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. there are people who are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant). For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.

Likewise the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships of consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS around the world are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since non-promiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.

And Paul believes that homosexuality is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is "natural" is therefore relevant to the case.

[Warham]

The only reason I bring it up is because of FORD's comment.

I'm not a gay-bashing Christian and am tolerant of gays. I do not condone their lifestyle, but I refuse to pass judgement on them. I will not say that they are going to hell if they are gay. That is for God to decide. Same as those who have an abortion.

My only belief in this regard is that God is against the gay lifestyle by giving the passages above.

There's an old saying: love the sinner, hate the sin.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Ambiguous about homosexuality? I think you better read the part where Lot is in Sodom and Gamorrah again, Nick.


Maybe I was mistaken, an easy thing to do since the Bible contradicts itself so often:

Biblical Contradictions



Here is a short and incomplete list of Biblical contradictions which were obtained from postings in internet newsgroups. Unfortunately I did not record who posted them or if they have a web site with a longer and more complete list. If you like this page you might also like Contradictions of the Gospel and this List of Biblical Contradictions at www.infidels.org



If the Bible was divinely inspired, then why would it have so many really obvious contradictions?



Theological doctrines:

1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17/ Jer 15:6
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28
6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8
7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12
8. God is all powerful
Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
God is not all powerful
Judg 1:19
9. God is unchangeable
James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19
God is changeable
Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/
Ex 33:1,3,17,14
10. God is just and impartial
Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25
God is unjust and partial
Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12
11. God is the author of evil
Lam 3:38/ Jer 18:11/ Is 45:7/ Amos 3:6/ Ezek 20:25
God is not the author of evil
1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13
12. God gives freely to those who ask
James 1:5/ Luke 11:10
God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving
them
John 12:40/ Josh 11:20/ Is 63:17
13. God is to be found by those who seek him
Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17
God is not to be found by those who seek him
Prov 1:28
14. God is warlike
Ex 15:3/ Is 51:15
God is peaceful
Rom 15:33/ 1 Cor 14:33
15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious
Jer 13:14/ Deut 7:16/ 1 Sam 15:2,3/ 1 Sam 6:19
God is kind, merciful, and good
James 5:11/ Lam 3:33/ 1 Chron 16:34/ Ezek 18:32/ Ps 145:9/
1 Tim 2:4/ 1 John 4:16/ Ps 25:8
16. God's anger is fierce and endures long
Num 32:13/ Num 25:4/ Jer 17:4
God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute
Ps 103:8/ Ps 30:5
17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings,
sacrifices ,and holy days
Ex 29:36/ Lev 23:27/ Ex 29:18/ Lev 1:9
God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings,
sacrifices, and holy days.
Jer 7:22/ Jer 6:20/ Ps 50:13,4/ Is 1:13,11,12
18. God accepts human sacrifices
2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39
God forbids human sacrifice
Deut 12:30,31
19. God temps men
Gen 22:1/ 2 Sam 24:1/ Jer 20:7/ Matt 6:13
God temps no man
James 1:13
20. God cannot lie
Heb 6:18
God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits t deceive
2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9
21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him
Gen 6:5,7
Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him
Gen 8:21
22. God's attributes are revealed in his works.
Rom 1:20
God's attributes cannot be discovered
Job 11:7/ Is 40:28
23. There is but one God
Deut 6:4
There is a plurality of gods
Gen 1:26/ Gen 3:22/ Gen 18:1-3/ 1 John 5:7

[Warham]

Nick, we are talking about homosexuality. The Bible doesn't contradict itself anywhere on the subject.

If you want to spend years going over the others one by one, I'll be happy to.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Where do you get off posting in a thread as a pious Christian you fucking vile hypocrite Ms.PussyVibe?! Weren't you telling me a short time ago how grate the tsunami was for killing all those Indonesians? Why don't you actually try reading the Bible you so faulty logically try to assert as the absolute "truth?" Ask yourself "what would Jesus do?" I doubt he would celebrate the death of hundreds-of-thousands. You're exactly the redneck, bumkin I had in mind when I posted this thread. Pious Christian? LMAO FUCK-YOU CUNT! You're as evil and heartless as they come douchebag! And your worthless piece of shit article proves nothing! It was written by a journalist trying to feign nonbias! OH yeah! Evolution is all wrong because some biased, Evangelical agendaists again lied to prove their point. Yeah, now I absolutely believe in Creationism...er...Intelligent Design! LOL

Nick, I've never even stated I'm a christian here. It bears no relevance to a DLR website forum! Just like your precious Tsunami relief thread(which some douchebag had to lock up!)and how you got shown the light as someone that truly HATES America. You posted NOTHING in regards to the Florida hurricane batterings but whoa...you made up for that because it's some foreign nation that dresses in rags and supports Bin Laden!

Keep on daydreaming Kip or Napolean. The more you try to paint someone in a corner the more desperate you become.

[Nickdfresh]

I wasn't on the site during the Hurricanes, if I had been, I would have done something or expressed remorse (seeing as my brother & his family, my uncle as well as his family live in Florida.

Again, most Indonesians do not support Bin Laden, over 70% had a favorable view of the US.

I don't know who Kip is, unless you mean the grate musician Kip Winger, and I AM Napoleon!

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah FORD, I'm sure abortion-activist, gay-activist left-wingers talking about Christianity are following the will of God.

What does the Bible say about those subjects and does it back up what the left believes in?

The 18th chapter of 1 Samuel makes it very clear that David, the future king of Israel was in a homosexual relationship with Jonathan, the son of Saul. And remember that David was not in the royal line of succession, but was personally tagged by God Himself to be the king. So if God chose a bisexual man to be the leader of His "chosen people", one can assume that God isn't a homophobe.

Most objection to homosexuality on "biblical grounds" has to do with misinterpretation of ancient Old Testament stories such as Sodom & Gommorrah (Genesis 19)

In fact, there is no representation of a consensual homosexual relationship anywhwere in that story. You have these angels coming to visit Lot, and you have the residents of the city saying "Yo Lot! Send your friends out here, so we may know them".

Now from this point, it all becomes assumption on the part of the reader

1) Though the word "know" is often used as a metaphor for "sexual intercourse" in the Bible, is that meaning explicit in this case?

2) Are the genders of the angels specified? Do angels even actually HAVE genders? Or sexual equipment, for that matter?

3) Assuming the angels were male and the residents of Sodom DID mean they wanted to fuck the angels, and the angels were obviously not consenting, then wouldn't the question be one of attempted RAPE??

Who could blame God for being pissed off at a bunch of goons trying to rape His employees?

And one question that has never been answered..... Exactly what did the Gommorrah-ites do anyway? :confused:

[academic punk]

IS THIS THREAD STILL ALIVE???!?

Holy shit...

pun intended.

[Warham]

The Gay 1090s B.C.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?
James Patrick Holding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Our subject here is a Web writer named Jeramy Townsley, but the arguments he offers on this subject are not unique to him, so while we will use his material as a basis, his name and identity is not of the highest relevance. The subject here is the question, "Were David and Jonathan gay lovers, according to the Bible?" Townsley says of arguments in this regard, "while not quite compelling, [they] leave open the strong possibility that they were involved in an homosexual marriage."

How is the case made? The first point is from 1 Samuel 18:21:

And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain.
This verse, coming as it does after the following:

And Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife: only be thou valiant for me, and fight the LORD'S battles. For Saul said, Let not mine hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him. And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be son in law to the king? But it came to pass at the time when Merab Saul's daughter should have been given to David, that she was given unto Adriel the Meholathite to wife. And Michal Saul's daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him.
...one would immediately suppose that the "twain" or two are Merab and Michal. The words "the one" are admittedly a KJV addition for clarity, but this is apparently all the door Townsley needs to let his case in:

The actual translation of this phrase is somewhat controversial, being literally translated "You will become my son-in-law through two." In this instance, the correct interpretation of this verse is crucial, because it radically shapes our view of David and Jonathan's relationship, since Scripture only indicates that David had any kind of relationship with two of Saul's children: Jonathan and Michal. Some translations interpret this verse as meaning that Saul "said for the second time," or that David has a "second opportunity" to become Saul's son-in-law. These interpretations, however, are strained, and the Hebrew does not easily lend itself to mean either of these. Most standard translations clearly interpret the verse to mean that David will become Saul's son-in-law for the second time...
Townsley hereafter takes a page from the Skeptical School of Quoting the English Versions to Prove Your Point, in the service of suggesting that it means that David "will become his son-in-law for the second time" (where Jonathan was the first). But there are a few social surds Townsley needs to consider before he gets too excited. To begin, had such a marriage indeed taken place between Jonathan and David, that means that Jonathan would have either become a member of David's house, or David would have become a member of Jonathan's house. Since Saul does not want David in power, as is quite clear, and would also presumably want Jonathan to have the throne after him, there is no way Saul would have permitted either scenario. There would be no threat if a daughter became part of David's house. So a marriage between these two is politically absurd to begin with.

Second, the passages after this tell a differing story: "And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune with David secretly, and say, Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king's son in law. And Saul's servants spake those words in the ears of David. And David said, Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king's son in law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed?" Would Saul need to send his servants to persuade David of this, or would David ask if it was a light thing to be the king's son-in-law, if he already was?

Finally, 18:21 itself, and the word "twain," can mean "in both" but can mean in a "second". It is in fact the Hebrew word for the numeral two. What Saul is saying here is that David will be his son-in-law in the second daughter offered. There is no call for an idea of a "first marriage" here, other than a wish to see something in the text that is not there.

Next in service, it is noted:

The first offer Saul made to David for a wife was Merab, but she married Adriel of Meholah instead (18:19). The only other covenant made between Saul's family and David was between David and Jonathan in 18:3, which is not a covenant of business or politics, but of friendship/love ("ahbh"). Moreover, this relationship is described in very strong emotive language, starting in 18:1.
We can stop right here and give Townsley an F in Ancient Near Eastern society, because "strong emotive language" is just par for the course for these people in all of their relationships. Townsley knows correctly that platonic relationships as such did not exist in this time, but he's either uninformed of, or ignoring, more relevant data. We present here material previously used in our item on the alleged homosexuality of Jesus:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To put it bluntly, such arguments view intimate relationships through jaundiced Western eyes. Put your head on the breast of another man today here in America, and the jokes will fly. But in the ancient East, not so; and even today, such affectionate displays are typical on that side of the world, and well-publicized (remember all the news clips of Arab and Middle Eastern leaders kissing each other on the side of the face?), which is probably why we don't hear these sorts of verses brought up in service of homosexual Bible characters, except by the incredibly underinformed.

Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 65), a native of the East early last century, bore with some patience the misinterpretations of modern Westerners (he named Robert Ingersoll particularly) who read the Bible through their eyes and tastes and missed certain points about what was being said and done. The particular instance of John 21:20 represents a custom "in perfect harmony with Syrian customs. How often have I seen men friends in such an attitude. There is not the slightest infringement of the rules of propriety; the act was as natural to us all as shaking hands. The practice is especially indulged in when intimate friends are about to part from one another, as on the eve of a journey, or when about the face a dangerous undertaking. Then they sit with their heads leaning against each other, or the one's head resting upon the other's shoulder or breast." By the same token, Easterners will use "terms of unbounded intimacy and unrestrained affection" to one another: "my soul," "my eyes," "my heart." Paul's holy kiss (Rom. 16:16, etc) is no more of a homosexual exchange.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We therefore rank Townsley in the "underinformed" category any time he cites non-sexual, affectionate behavior as meaningful for his case. Yet this he does in spades, going back to 1 Samuel 18:1-4 and finding a "love at first sight" citation:

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
Townsley admits that there is no linguistic similarity between this and language in Gen. 2 which refers to "becoming one flesh," but he insists that "there is a striking similarity in concepts between the son leaving the parents to join to a spouse, and the two becoming one." Is there? We ask, in whose imagination, other than Townsley's? As noted above, such a linkup would have been political suicide for Saul, David, and/or Jonathan, and this language is no different (indeed, far tamer) than that which Rihbany describes among close, non-homosexual friends. (We may note that commentators regard Jon here as passing over his royal insignia -- in effect, his right to the throne -- to David, and those who see a sexual encounter here may note that only one person seems to be getting undressed!) And lest anyone make much of that "loved" bit, it is the same word used to say that the Lord loved Israel (Deut. 7:8, 1 Kings 10:9, 2 Chr. 2:11, 9:8, Hosea 3;1), so that horse can go right back into the barn without even being saddled. The same word is often used, as Townsley notes, of relationships that would clearly have a sexual component (just look through Song of Songs!) but it implies, as agape does, a more practical concern. (Townlsey notes these cites, but does not tell us that the word is used of the relationship between God and Israel, which smacks rather of a cover-up!)

To his credit (and with better sport than Skeptics) Townsley admits that the evidence here is "persuasive" to him, but "not conclusive," also admitting that he knows of no "other extant Hebrew literature of that era that refers to a gay marriage," and whether "Saul would have seen David and Jonathan's covenant as one of legal marriage." (Not that all "covenants" were marriages anyway; it is the same word used to refer to God's promise not to destroy the world again after the Flood, and to God's agreement with Abraham.) On the lack of mention of sexual activity between the two, it is countered that "very few Old Testament relationships which are clearly marriage relationships have subsequent descriptions of sexual activity" (actually, they do, in the form of children!; and Townsley only says this, with no accounting at all) and suggests that 2 Samuel 1:26 ("I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.") may be just such a reference, which means that all of Rihbany's people must be having sex with each other as well. One might add that "love" is certainly not the same as sex, and one might suggest that a caring, non-sexual relationship can be immensely satisfying -- one wonders how much of our modern, sex-crazed mindset Townsley has absorbed and wrung out on the text!

In sum: The idea that Jon and Dave are homosexual partners is little but a fantasy composed by those desiring to find justifications in the text to "do their own thing".

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
The 18th chapter of 1 Samuel makes it very clear that David, the future king of Israel was in a homosexual relationship with Jonathan, the son of Saul. And remember that David was not in the royal line of succession, but was personally tagged by God Himself to be the king. So if God chose a bisexual man to be the leader of His "chosen people", one can assume that God isn't a homophobe.

Most objection to homosexuality on "biblical grounds" has to do with misinterpretation of ancient Old Testament stories such as Sodom & Gommorrah (Genesis 19)

In fact, there is no representation of a consensual homosexual relationship anywhwere in that story. You have these angels coming to visit Lot, and you have the residents of the city saying "Yo Lot! Send your friends out here, so we may know them".

Now from this point, it all becomes assumption on the part of the reader

1) Though the word "know" is often used as a metaphor for "sexual intercourse" in the Bible, is that meaning explicit in this case?

2) Are the genders of the angels specified? Do angels even actually HAVE genders? Or sexual equipment, for that matter?

3) Assuming the angels were male and the residents of Sodom DID mean they wanted to fuck the angels, and the angels were obviously not consenting, then wouldn't the question be one of attempted RAPE??

Who could blame God for being pissed off at a bunch of goons trying to rape His employees?

And one question that has never been answered..... Exactly what did the Gommorrah-ites do anyway? :confused:

Yep, angels can take gender. If you read Genesis 6:1-4, you'll read that a select group of angels came down prior to the flood and mated with select human females, a clear violation of God's divine law. Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 also mention these unions. It's a major reason the flood happened, and is the basis for stories of god-men such as Hercules, etc. throughout ancient times. You'll also notice that no angel that has ever been named has a female name.

No matter how you spin it, the Bible CLEARLY states in the Old Testament that same gender on same gender sexual intercourse is NOT to happen.

Not only did the men of Sodom want to know the angels (men) visiting lot, they were willing to rape them. Two no-no's in God's eyes. I'm sure this may have been standard activity in the cities, since Abraham's pleas to God to save the city if there were ten good men in the towns were denied.

[Warham]

Further reading on Genesis 6, angels and women, and the flood...

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I wasn't on the site during the Hurricanes, if I had been, I would have done something or expressed remorse (seeing as my brother & his family, my uncle as well as his family live in Florida.

Again, most Indonesians do not support Bin Laden, over 70% had a favorable view of the US.

I don't know who Kip is, unless you mean the grate musician Kip Winger, and I AM Napoleon!

Great, your relatives must be trailer trash like you described me as...after all we both live in Florida! If you had talked to them you'd know that there is a severe need for support right here, but you didn't!

I could care less where you get your facts about US support as they are very flawed. It's quite apparant that you've never stepped foot on the soil of any Indonesian nation or Middle East and almost every island in-between. You would know different.

Once again your effort to berate me proved how desperate you'll become to try to get your opinion across.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Great, your relatives must be trailer trash like you described me as...after all we both live in Florida! If you had talked to them you'd know that there is a severe need for support right here, but you didn't!

When did I say ALL Florida residents were trailer trash? In fasct not all people that live in trailers are trash, even though my brother and his wife own two houses. We have trailer parks here in NY. It's more about attitude than regional living accomodations.



I could care less where you get your facts about US support as they are very flawed. It's quite apparant that you've never stepped foot on the soil of any Indonesian nation or Middle East and almost every island in-between. You would know different.


MY FACTS? You saw one fucking guy with a Bin Laden shirt on, and you cheered the death of thousands as a result. Have you been to Indonesia? I haven't. I'm not going to talk about the Middle East.



Once again your effort to berate me proved how desperate you'll become to try to get your opinion across.

I'm am berating you because you say horrible things without the least thought.

[DrMaddVibe]

Nick I NEVER cheered any deaths.

[academic punk]

I did. Hurrah for Hitler's Fall!

[FORD]

Originally posted by academic punk
I did. Hurrah for Hitler's Fall!

Too bad he didn't take the BCE down with him :(

[Figs]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
See You Bumkins?



yes

[Loki]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
**Yawn**

Don't worry Elvis, science is firmly on my side.

haw haw. we immortals didth the creating. place thine trust in chareltons and puppeteers. huzzah.

[ELVIS]

:confused:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Loki
haw haw. we immortals didth the creating. place thine trust in chareltons and puppeteers. huzzah.

But you never really said HOW YOU created the universe oh trickster. Faith and explanation are two different things.

A combination of the two merely is mythology.