Pat Robertson on Dover

| 110 Comments | 1 TrackBack

If the Dover situation was a joke, this would be the punchline. Pat Robertson says that by voting out the pro-ID school board, the people of Dover have lost their protection from God:

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”

Gee Pat, does that mean you won’t be there to try and pray away a hurricane like you pretended to do in Virginia? What a despicable cretin. Maybe you could call for the assassination of the new Dover school board president. But remember.…ID is not religious at all, it has nothing to do with Christianity or the religious right’s agenda, nothing whatsoevr. It’s just pure science from the word go. *eyeroll*

110 Comments

I take it we will be seeing a significant decrease in tornados across the plains of Kansas, now that they’ve accepted God into their lives, and earned His protection?

Robertson’s Offensive Fundamentalist Thought of the Month

It would be interesting to see what he says tomorrow after he’s realized that he’s gone too far again.

If God really is that petty, then Pat Robertson can keep him.

One wonders why god let them vote him out in the first place.

Tiax Wrote:

I take it we will be seeing a significant decrease in tornados across the plains of Kansas, now that they’ve accepted God into their lives, and earned His protection?

No, because as The Onion reported awhile back, a psychiatrist has found that God suffers from bipolar disorder.

Despicable hardly begins to describe what he said about these people. Even defenders of ID should be appalled by this excrable statement.

Frankly it’s about time the TV stations that agreed to carry that travesty of a show–the 700 Club–reconsider their decision. (But they won’t - too much money at stake.)

Also, to anyone who’s reading this - remember that “Operation Blessing” is Robertson’s charity (I assume he’ll be withholding any assistance to Dover should that disaster hit - wouldn’t want to interfere with God’s wrath now, would he?)

If you contribute to that charity, please consider some other worthy cause instead. There are plenty of other good, honest charities to choose from.

And how long before we get a “I misspoke” from him, I wonder? Would fit the ID defender’s pattern, after all.

I can’t believe some fundagelicals could be simple-minded enough to possibly believe such stupid prvidential threats from the likes of Pat Robertson. Ohhh…now he’s put a CURSE on Dover! Be afraid, be very afraid.

Frankly it’s about time the TV stations that agreed to carry that travesty of a show—the 700 Club—reconsider their decision. (But they won’t - too much money at stake.)

*sigh* Indeed. And the fundies complain about scientists being too materialistic.

it’s a double tragedy, as it reflects on the poor level of critical thinking common in this country (exhibited by those who keep sending folks like Robertson and Falwell their hard earned cash), and on an infrastructure (Media) that continues to prop up and maintain a pulpit for these morons simply for the cash themselves.

I’m not worried about anything God might or might not do to Dover since I don’t believe God exists - and even if he did, he wouldn’t pay any heed to what Robertson was spouting, that’s for sure.

But it is still a gross insult to the good people of Dover, even more so to those who, as Christians, voted their conscience on the matter. He deserves every piece of bad publicity he’s going to get from this.

Damn it Ed, you beat me to it. You must have some sort of alert system warning you when Robertson says stupid things. (Which would mean it goes off several times a day.) Both CNN and ABC covered this, but the stories are less than 1 hour old.

snex Wrote:

One wonders why god let them vote him out in the first place

God only controls the weather, earthquakes, the creation of life, the creation of the universe, and the end of the world. Asking Him to control how people vote would be asking too much of such a limited being.

Now, to be fair, Robertson did not curse Dover. He just said that God would no longer protect them. Rather like God removed his protection on 9/11/01 because of abortionists, homosexuals, and liberals. Though maybe that explains Katrina with all those gamblers, drunkards, and partiers. Though perhaps the gamblers are not that bad, as God has made bets with Satan in the past. Remeber Job was a good guy until God stopped protecting him; then he lost his cattle, servants, and children. Of course, he came out fine in the end because he received more cattle, more servants, and more children than before. I doubt the children lost matter much in Robertson’s world.

Dover, Pennsylvania, disaster assessment:

1) Hurricane activity? No. 2) Near major, active faults? No. 3) Near active volcanoes? No. 4) Risk of tsunami? No.

What wrath shall the christian god bring forth versus this town of blasphemers?

Speaking of ABC News stories, they’ve put another ID-related story under “Entertainment.” I spent a few minutes after reading this item looking for author Nancy Chandross’s e-mail address to point out that the Scopes trial was in TN not KS, and that Woodrow Wilson was involved in WWI not WWII. Sloppy writing!

What wrath shall the christian god bring forth versus this town of blasphemers

Death by boredom?

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 136, byte 136 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

What wrath shall the christian god bring forth versus this town of blasphemers?

I’m going locusts, or maybe really, really angry crickets.

What wrath shall the christian god bring forth versus this town of blasphemers?

Pepper Hamilton’s legal fees, maybe.

I bet if you were within 100 feet of the Discovery Istitute today, you could have heard the groan.

I LOVE it.

Hope Judge Jones watches the news.

No, because as The Onion reported awhile back, a psychiatrist has found that God suffers from bipolar disorder.

the god of the bible is undeniably a Malignant Narcissist. He exhibits grandiosity, and is willing to torture people for eternity in order to provoke adulation and worship.

What wrath shall the christian god bring forth versus this town of blasphemers?

Frogs. He hasn’t done frogs for ages..about time he made the little beggars earn their keep. Many sleepless nights in Dover next spring from all the croaking I predict(if you can hear it above all the wailing and the knashing of teeth form the old Dover board when the perjury proceedings start)…

They voted “God” out of office?

Don’t you mean they voted OxyContin out of office?

Or is Pat Robertson trying to tell us that OxyContin is God?

Hmmm…

Actually, Robinson simply speaks to the converted. Real scandal today is another screed by the NPR religion reporter, Barbara Hagerty, here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/[…]ryId=5007508

This is unbelievable junk about “biologists” being persecuted because … they don’t believe in the science of biology. It was a disgraceful, one sided montage of ID talking points.

Barbara Bradley Hagerty is a known quality – a right wing, anti-evolution reporter. Protests should, I think, be directed at Richard Harris, the NPR science reporter who has been given the Sagan award the “for improving the public understanding of science” by the Council of Scientific Society Presidents. Why give awards to members of an organization that is systematically spreading ignorance? As it says in the good book, you can’t serve God and Mammon. You can’t serve science and ID.

What wrath shall the christian god bring forth versus this town of blasphemers?

San Francisco Bay-area residents will discover that it’s a lovely, quaint little town with reasonable housing prices and a plethora of antique shops. (I’m assuming. Perhaps Dover is an unpleasant factory burg. It’s the only way they’ll be safe!)

what wrath will God bring? Well in eastern Pennsylvania the future will be large burly Amish men in 8 piece suits zipping thru town on inline skates yakking on cell phones.

the other possibility is gay frogs (too warm for gay penguins).

What wrath shall the christian god bring forth versus this town of blasphemers?

Maybe an interminable in-person speech by Pat Robertson.

the other possibility is gay frogs

Didn’t they break up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frogs_%28band%29

roger Wrote:

Actually, Robinson simply speaks to the converted. Real scandal today is another screed by the NPR religion reporter, Barbara Hagerty, here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?sto

This is unbelievable junk about “biologists” being persecuted because … they don’t believe in the science of biology. It was a disgraceful, one sided montage of ID talking points.

You can find some interesting things about Richard von Sternberg in the back logs of PT.

From your link, “He says – and an independent report backs him up – that colleagues accused him of fraud, saying they did not believe the Meyer article was really peer reviewed. It was.” ———- Does the “he says” qualifier apply to the second sentence? The way it is split off, it makes it sound like the reporter has access to information that is not in the public domain. The only evidence I have that the paper was peer reviewed is Sternberg’s say-so. Even if he did send it out to reviewers, I don’t who they were; real scientists or creationists. I don’t know what they said about the article, and what consideration Sternberg gave to their critique. An independent report? By whom? Did they have access to the confidential files? I guess there’s no point in a reporter filling us in on the details. We should just take her word for it.

Having read Meyer’s article, I know it contained a lot of really really bad science. Google on ‘Meyer’s Hopeless Monster’ if you haven’t read that yet.

steve reuland Wrote:

“God only controls the weather, earthquakes, the creation of life, the creation of the universe, and the end of the world.”

And he installs little inboard motors in bacteria. Did you forget?

“I saw the light” and its name was .……

seriously, we could hand out “recovering fundamentalist” t-shirts at pro-science rallys.

It’s amazing what a good slogan can do.

“the god of the bible is undeniably a Malignant Narcissist. He exhibits grandiosity, and is willing to torture people for eternity in order to provoke adulation and worship.”

There you go, judging God by the foibles of men…

Actually, the God of the New Testament is an incredibly patient and selfless Being. He exhibits His great love for those who despise Him, and patiently waits for them to understand who He really Is, instead of relying on some twisted charicature thrown out by the likes of Pat Robertson.

God is UNwilling to see people suffer for eternity, actually. He also DOESN’T want to see anyone perish. Which is WHY he sent Jesus, so you wouldn’t HAVE to perish.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16

Don’t you at least know THAT one?

Thanks Kevein we need more of that. It seems to me that religious leaders don’t take on massive errors of their peers for fear of starting a spat. Its easy to take some of the early reportage just a bit too seriously

Courtesy of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore

Gospel Truth

[…We hear bleating sheep] Shepherd: Here, stop that will you, get off her, she’s only a young one. Get off! Matthew: (singing) Oh when the saints, come marching in… (speaking) How’s that then? S: Hallo.… M: I believe you are Mr Arthur Shepherd. S: That’s right - shepherd by name, shepherd by nature. Lo! My flock are lowing. M: Allo allo. S: Ha ha ha ha. That’s rather good that one, I never heard that one before. M: Yeah, it’s a new one on me. […We hear a bleating sheep] S: That’s a new one on her. [bleating] Will you get off! M: Let me introduce myself Arthur. My name is Matthew. S: Allo Matthew. M: You may have heard of my colleagues, Mark, Luke and John. S: I know you lot, you’re celebrities, let me shake you by the hand. M: Certainly. S: Could I, err, touch your raiment? M: By all means. S: Thank you. M: All right. S: Best raiment I ever touched. M: Jolly good. Let me explain, Arthur, we are doing an in-depth profile of Jesus. S: Oh yeah? M: You may know him as the Messiah. S: No I don’t, no. M: What, you don’t know him? S: Yeah, I know him as Jesus - M: Oh, fine… S: Not that other thing. M: Oh, I see, right.… S: Er, which newspaper do you work for? M: I work for The Bethlehem Star. S: Ah. The wife and I take the Star actually. M: Oh, jolly good. S: Don’t think much of your racing tipster. M: Oh? S: I had three shekels on that camel in the 3:15 at Galilee, it’s still bloody running that one is. M: Well, I don’t work on that side of the paper myself. You know, I work on the more serious side, reportage. S: Oh, reportage, yeah, very serious work. M: Yes indeed. Um, as I was saying, Arthur, we are doing this in-depth profile of Jesus, and I gather that you were actually in on the very first moments surrounding the birth of the holy child. S: Yeah I was, yeah. M: That is marvellous. S: Oh good. M: Now what I’d like you to do, if you’re willing of course, is tell me what happened, in your own words. S: Well, it’s quite simple really. M: Oh, marvellous. S: Basically what happened was that me and the lads were abiding in the fields. M: Abiding in the fields. S: Mind you, personally I can’t abide these fields. M: No? S: No. I mean, look around you, they are unabidable fields. M: Yes. S: I say these are the most unabidable bleeding fields I’ve ever had to abide in. M: Yeah. I’ll abide by that. Oho, o-ho, oho.…. Umm, you were abiding in the fields, Arthur? S: Yeah, and we were watching our flocks by night. M: Watching our flocks by night, yeah… S: Yeah, ‘cos that’s when you’ve got to watch ‘em. M: Oh yeah? S: Yeah. That’s when they get up to all their rubbish. M: Oh right, yeah. S: Hot summer nights, the rams go mad. M: Yeah? S: Specially that one over there, he’s a filthy little bugger. [We hear bleating.] Will you cut that out?! Doing that in front of you, a holy man! M: Yeah, well, it’s only human. S: I may be a bit old-fashioned, but I don’t like to see one ram doing it to another. M: Oh yeah!… Cor blimey, he’s an enthusiast, isn’t he? S: Oh yeah, top marks for enthusiasm, zero for accuracy. M: It’s a bit distracting, isn’t it? S: Yeah, I’m sorry about all those ramifications going on down there. I’ve got no control over them. M: No, well, they’re only young once, aren’t they? S: Yeah, I think I’ll get my next lot from Gomorra. M: Oofh! [uproarious audience laughter.] Arthur, you were abiding in the fields - S: Yeah - M: …and you were watching your flocks by night. S: Yeah. M: Then what happened? S: Well much to our surprise, the angel of the lord flew down. M: That must have been a fantastic experience! S: Well it made a break, you know… a bit of a change just from abiding, him suddenly flashing down like that. M: How did you know it was the angel of the lord? S: Tell you what the give-away was, Matthew: it was this ethereal glow he was emanating. M: Oh. S: He was emanating this ethereal glow. M: Right. S: And as soon as I saw him emanating, I said Hello, Angel of the Lord. M: Yeah. Halo? S: Halo certainly, yeah. M: Yeah. S: Halo and goodbye, we said afterwards. He wasn’t there for long - he just delivered his little message, and he was off like a bat out of hell. M: Wings, I s’pose? S: Oh wings, I have never seen such a gorgeous pair on a man. M: Really? S: They were outstanding wings. All gossamer, shimmering there in the starlight. M: Oh, it must have been remarkable. S: It was - I noticed it. M: Yeah. What did he say to you, Arthur? S: Well, he sort of singled me out from the other lowly shepherd-folk like - M: How marvellous. S: - and he said: Unto ye a child is born - M: Yes. S: Unto ye a son is given. M: Yeah, what was your reaction? S: Total shock. I mean I wasn’t even married at the time. I thought, blimey, what was I doing this time last year, you know? M: Yeah, yeah. S: Could have been that little bird I met down the Shepherd’s Delight. M: Oh yeah. S: Yeah. But the angel of the lord, the angel of the lord went on to explain that when he said Ye, he didn’t mean me personal like, he meant Ye in the sense of the Whole World. Unto the Whole World a child is born, unto the Whole World a son is given. M: Yeah, he was using the Universal Ye. S: Was he? M: Yeah. S: Oh, I wouldn’t know that, cos I’m not educated. M: No, that’s what he was using though, the Universal Ye. S: Oh, good for him. M: Yeah, lovely use of it too. S: I’m sure. M: Yeah. S: And he went on to say, Ye shall find the child, lying in a manger, all meanly wrapped in swaddling clothes. M: Ooh, lovely language. S: He was very effluent. M: Yeah. I suppose your first reaction was to whip over there and have a peep. S: Naturally. We all dashed down the stable. But when I arrived I was in for a bit of a shock. M: Go on. S: I will. Cos when he said Ye shall find the child all meanly wrapped in swaddling clothes, I thought to myself, fair enough, it will be fairly meanly wrapped, you know, nothing flash, nothing gaudy - M: Yeah, right. S: But when I got there, it was diabolical. The meanest bit of wrapping I have ever seen. And what’s more, that kid was barely swaddled. M: Good lord. S: I say it’s the worst job of wrappin’ and swaddlin’ I’ve ever seen in me life. Terrible wrappin’, atrocious swaddlin’. M: Oh, how very distressing. S: It was alarming to behold. M: I’m sure it was Arthur. Now, Arthur, I want you to think back in time - S: I’ll do it now if you like. M: No, no, no. What I meant was think back now, to then. S: That’s what I meant. Think back to then, now. M: Right. Now then - What was the atmosphere like in the stable, on this joyous, historic occasion? S: The atmosphere in the stable was very, very smelly. M: Oh, - S: There were all these cows and goats and sheep and camel about - M: Yeah, no - S: …and they had no sense of occasion. M: No, no no… S: They were - M: Right, no, that’s a fascinating side-light, but what I was really after was, what was the atmosphere like amongst the members of the holy family? S: Oh, the personal atmosphere? M: Yeah. S: In one word - tense. M: Tense - you surprise me. S: Joseph, in particular. He was sitting in the corner of the stable, looking very gloomy indeed. M: : He might have been feeling a bit disgruntled, not being the real father. S: I think that was it. M: Yeah. S: I think he felt left out of the whole thing. M: Yeah right, right. S: Personally, I think this is why he done such a rotten job on the swaddling. M: Yes, yes. S: You know, he just couldn’t be bothered to swaddle. M: No, yeah. S: And, let’s face it, there had been a lot of tittle-tattle about his wife and the holy ghost. M: Oh, yes. S: I mean, rumours had been flying round Bethlehem. M: Yeah, right - S: As indeed the holy ghost must have been. M: Yeah. Was the holy ghost there? S: Hard to say. M: Yeah. S: He’s, er, he’s an elusive little bugger at the best of times. M: Yeah. S: And I didn’t see him, and I was very disappointed, because I felt very strongly at the time that he should have been there, M: Yeah, mmm S: You know, in his capacity as the god father. M: Yeah? Well, especially after his treatment of the Virgin Mary, making her an offer she couldn’t refuse. S: Yeah, making her an offer she didn’t even notice. M: Yeah. S: Hu-choo! M: Yeah! Anyway, Arthur, I gather later on in the evening, three wise men came by, am I right there? S: Three wise men arrived, yeah. M: Yeah? S: Three bloody idiots if ever I saw any. M: Yeah? S: In they come, call themselves Maggie. M: Three blokes come in and call themselves Maggie? S: Yeah, they peered round the stable door, said Hallo, we’re Maggie. M: How very embarrassing. S: We didn’t know where to look. M: No. S: And, er, they were bearing these gifts, you see. M: Yeah. S: Gold, frankincense, and [nasally] mhhhhhhhyr. M: That’s M, [nasally] hhhhhhhyr, H, isn’t it? S: I think so, yes. M: [nasally]: Very nice of them to have brought those along. [normally]: Very nice of them to have brought those along, eh? S: Well, I think the gold was probably welcome. But what’s a little kid going to do with frankincense and [nasally] mhhhhhhhyr? I ask you. M: I suppose you’re right actually. S: I mean, mhhhhhhhyr is that stuff what poofs put behind their ears, isn’t it? M: Yeah S: Over-perfumed, ointment muck. M: Yeah, right. S: But Jesus! He was so polite about it. I’ll never forget: he sat up in the manger, he adjusted his swaddling - M: Mmm S: He said Thank you gentlemen for these lovely prezzies. I hope you have a safe trip back, Merry Christmas!

I am not yet a minister, but I’m studying to be one. I am a member of a conservative, evangelical denomination (the Wesleyan Church).

Pat Robertson has displayed a profound ignorance of God’s Word. He has deplorably misrepresented God. One of my professors said that he’s not amazed that God doesn’t send His wrath on the world, but he’s amazed that God doesn’t send His wrath on the church. He said, “We shoot ourselves, and God, in the foot too many times.”

As an evangelical, I believe in intelligent design. This is not due to blind faith. The Bible tells us to test everything and hold on to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). I have done my homework. I have looked towards science and determined that the Earth is too perfect to have been created randomly. God must exist because the universe exists.

However, I can’t help but think of the Israelites of the Old Testament. They constantly rejected God, yet God was faithful in providing a redeemer who is Christ Jesus. It’s amazing how many times we tell others that God accepts you as you are (with a clear call to holiness and sanctification), yet we, in the same breath, say that you’re sin is too horrible, and you need not look to God at all.

God is not bipolar. God is not schizophrenic. God is holy and just. I do not always understand why he chose to send His perfect message through imperfect people. I may never know. But I know this fact; God did not come to earth to condemn us, but rather, to show us a way that we may be made new in Christ’s image. The image of the “good man” or the “good teacher” who many call Jesus is the image of the invisible God, and he has come to restore us to the state in which God called us to live. I believe that God’s heart is broken when we chose to reject Him and explore the limits of our human intellect. But unlike Roberson, I know that God is wanting us all to turn to Him and love Him as He loves us. If you mock Him, if you reject Him, He is still there waiting for you to return His love. Many in the Church may not preach this message, but it is true nonetheless. Won’t you simply trust and belive?

No

Kenny what would happen If you got Pat Robertson into a preaching match do you think he would listen? What if you got your whole organization to call him would that help? Why is it that Pat Robertson can get away with his nonsense ?

Kenny Wrote:

As an evangelical, I believe in intelligent design. This is not due to blind faith. The Bible tells us to test everything and hold on to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). I have done my homework. I have looked towards science and determined that the Earth is too perfect to have been created randomly. God must exist because the universe exists.

No, Kenny, you don’t believe in intelligent design. Intelligent design creationism proponents cowardly hide their belief that the intelligent designer is their Christian God. You believe your God was the creator and you do not hide your belief, so you don’t believe in i.d.

I.D. proponents lie when they say i.d. is science. Do you believe intelligent design is science?

I.D. proponents are actively deceiving others, denying that i.d. is not creationism in disguise, while trying to undermine science and education.

Why do you align yourself with cowards, liars, and worse by saying that you believe in intelligent design when you clearly don’t?

Kenny - you’ll find a very wide range of religious views on this forum. For myself, and for what that is worth, I believe that to “explore the limits of our human intellect” is something that is required of us, as far as we are able, by Matthew 25:14-30. Some may share this view but others will differ. That’s not really the issue here.

You may not be able to accept evolution because of your particular flavour of Christianity. That’s down to you. But you should be aware that there is a material difference between belief in God as creator of all things and the efforts of a few people to market “intelligent design” as science. Think of science as one of Caesar’s pennies, and you’ll be OK.

As an evangelical, I believe in intelligent design. This is not due to blind faith. The Bible tells us to test everything and hold on to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). I have done my homework. I have looked towards science and determined that the Earth is too perfect to have been created randomly. God must exist because the universe exists.

Are you willing to travel to Kansas and testify in the soon-to-be-trial there that ID is indeed evangelical Bible-based religious apologetics, and that IDers are simply lying to us, under oath, when they claim it’s not?

.. sorry Kenny didn’t mean to be rude. You choose to have faith - I just don’t. I have a lot of respect for Christians and others that come here to defend science, and can accept what it says about evolution. I suppose in that we have Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, FSM’s, others no doubt, as well as Atheists like me - well that is a bit of a bigger tent that the I.D people have. We can all agree on the fundamental tenets of science, and get on with life. If you push any one of those guys they’ll fall out with each other at the drop of a hat. The irony is that religion itself evolves - Christianity branched off from Judaism - Islam again later - then into catholics/ protestants - protestants into methodists baptists, - into snake handlers and so on. At every split there is a new version of ‘the Truth’ created - and nowadays thousands of variants of that truth in Christianity alone. Science doesn’t work that way. When competing ideas arise we put all our efforts to test them and to try to edge nearer the ‘real’ truth. Which we never claim to have 100%. Remember that when the Pilgim fathers and other colonists went to America for religous freedom - they weren’t fleeing atheists - they were fleeing their co-religionists. Which it was a good idea to seperate religion and the state in the constitution.

Kenny, science does not make claims about “God”. There is no scientific proof of “God” but this does not mean that science says that there is no “God”. Science just investigates the physical and natural. “God” and God’s ability and actions would fall under the metaphysical and supernatural. Totally different realms then what science can even investigate.

You say you believe in ID. Be very careful of how you talk because you align yourself with people you should not align yourself with. The people pushing the ID movement and manipulating the ignorant masses consistently lie and cause confusion to achieve their own ends. Add to this that they don’t even honestly say that the Intelligent Designer is their “God” to everyone but only with a “Wink Wink” to their flock. They take away from the glory of your “God” by saying “God” could not have set the universe in motion and have life and consciousness unfold without constant meddling. This would be like Ford or GM calling you up every day and saying “You know we messed up when we built your car. I need to make a few adjustments and add a few new parts to your car so you can get to work today”. ID proponents literally say “God could not have created life using a tool like evolution”

Let me quote the bible

Isaiah 55:8-9 Wrote:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

These people lie to the many people then claim they can know God’s thoughts.

Evolution may appear completely random to some. Evolution looks unguided to most. We can not predict where it will all lead with certainty. All this means nothing in the eyes of your God and it should not have to. A omniscient God would be outside of our time. A omnipotent God would not have to constantly tinker with the creation.

Now if you are a Young Earth Creationist then all I can say is that you are letting stories written by men tell you falsehoods about how your “God” created the world. I would say use the bible for inspiration and to strengthen your relation with your “God”. Learn about not only the stories in the bible but the history of how the bible was actually created over the last 5,000+ years and what the stories meant to the people of the times that they where created and what they can mean to people today. Allegory and metaphor are powerful tools. But never confuse “Truth” with “truth” and don’t equate allegory and metaphors with science.

Kenny, science does not make claims about “God”. There is no scientific proof of “God” but this does not mean that science says that there is no “God”. Science just investigates the physical and natural. “God” and God’s ability and actions would fall under the metaphysical and supernatural. Totally different realms then what science can even investigate.

You say you believe in ID. Be very careful of how you talk because you align yourself with people you should not align yourself with. The people pushing the ID movement and manipulating the ignorant masses consistently lie and cause confusion to achieve their own ends. Add to this that they don’t even honestly say that the Intelligent Designer is their “God” to everyone but only with a “Wink Wink” to their flock. They take away from the glory of your “God” by saying “God” could not have set the universe in motion and have life and consciousness unfold without constant meddling. This would be like Ford or GM calling you up every day and saying “You know we messed up when we built your car. I need to make a few adjustments and add a few new parts to your car so you can get to work today”. ID proponents literally say “God could not have created life using a tool like evolution”

Let me quote the bible. From Isaiah 55:8-9

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

These people lie to the many people then claim they can know God’s thoughts.

Evolution may appear completely random to some. Evolution looks unguided to most. We can not predict where it will all lead with certainty. All this means nothing in the eyes of your God and it should not have to. A omniscient God would be outside of our time. A omnipotent God would not have to constantly tinker with the creation.

Now if you are a Young Earth Creationist then all I can say is that you are letting stories written by men tell you falsehoods about how your “God” created the world. I would say use the bible for inspiration and to strengthen your relation with your “God”. Learn about not only the stories in the bible but the history of how the bible was actually created over the last 5,000+ years and what the stories meant to the people of the times that they where created and what they can mean to people today. Allegory and metaphor are powerful tools. But never confuse “Truth” with “truth” and don’t equate allegory and metaphors with science.

I appreciate your responses. I appreciate the respect in your responses. A few things: -Pat Robertson and I won’t ever get into a preaching debate. I know that he wouldn’t listen to me. I guess I get frustrated that people like Falwell and Robertson end up being the spokesmen for Christian thought, and many Christians, including myself, think that they are idiots who distort God’s Truth. -There is a difference between special and general revelation. I would like to think that proponents of ID are coming from the angle of general revelation, which simply states that creation points you to God. This does NOT say that creation points you to God in Jesus Christ, which is an example of special revelation. In other words, by looking at creation, you should come to the conclusion that God exists, but you may not be able to figure who He is personally. -As for the evolution of religion, you are right to an extent. Christianity is not Judaism evolved, but it is Judaism fulfilled. Catholics and Protestants differ over the application of Scripture and tradition. Protestant denominations differ slightly over interpretation, but our differences, which are few, tend to grossly overshadow our many similarities. Our school has Baptists, Metodists, Prebyterians, Wesleyans, and many other denominations, and we agree on most things. Islam, while claiming to be from Ishmael, the (we believe illegitimate) son of Abraham, is really a syncretistic religion and can only loosly claim that it is from Judaism. -Science also evolves. As we get more evidence, we are constanly checking old truths to see if they mesh with new evidence. The way that we understand this world is much different than it was two centuries ago, and it will be much different two centuries from now. And, we must readily admit that we will never know everything that there is to know. -Science is not necessarily opposed to religion. It is when it claims that there is no God. I have always loved science. Sadly, many Christians would rather condemn it then deal with seemingly problematic issues. This is surely a black mark on the Church, but it is changing. From what I’m observing through school and other areas, young Christians aren’t believing because their parents tell them to. They want to know if it’s real, and are finding that it is by asking tough questions. -I’m not a young earth creationist. There is overwheliming evidence that the Genesis 1 account of creation was a theological statement meant to combat the polytheistic creation stories of the time. It is unlikely that it was meant to be taken as a blow-by-blow, scientific description of how the world was made. The point was not that God created the earth in six days, the point was that God is the creator of things that people were worshiping as gods. -I do believe that God is outside of time.

Again, thank you for your respect. I realize that I’m somewhat of an outsider on your site, and I hope that you don’t see me as a rambling, loud-mouthed fool.

Kenny - Please visit as often as you like. I’ve found it extremely refreshing to hear your viewpoints. I only wish others so religiously-inclined would be as honest and open as you have. My apologies if my questions were a bit much for you.

Kenny Wrote:

Science is not necessarily opposed to religion. It is when it claims that there is no God.

Science not only does not make such a claim, it cannot make such a claim. Whoever told you different was either hopelessly misinformed or trying to deceive you.

At least Pat Robertson has had the humility to ‘fess up and admit that he didn’t actually write the Bible. And just to make this clear to any of his supporters that may have any other ideas he goes to some trouble to spell this out:

Q: “About five years ago, I came out to the rest of the world as a lesbian. I am in a committed relationship with another woman. I don’t understand why you say that homosexuality is wrong. Isn’t my happiness the most important thing? Isn’t that what God wants? I think that is what matters, not telling people what is right and wrong.”

Pat: “I didn’t write the Bible. I really didn’t. The Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by wonderful men like the Apostle Paul, like Moses, people like that, very highly respected people, and right down the line, they said that homosexuality is an abomination to God. The Apostle Paul said that nobody who is a homosexual is going to get into heaven. That doesn’t mean you have a tendency. It didn’t say nobody with homosexual tendencies is going to miss getting into heaven.”

for any of you sick perverts like me who actually get a twisted pleasure from reading his loopy insights you can find more here: Pat Robertson ‘Bring it on’ where he also answers such timeless questions as: “I stripped at a party - will my reputation ever recover?”. I notice on their replay section you don’t seem to be able to get his ‘God’s wrath on the Dover voters’ rant?

Pat Robertson is not only out of line but has no basis in which to speak. He does not live here in Dover. He has not seen what the incumbent board has been up to the past year. There are many reasons why the incumbent board lost and they all do not stem around Intelligent design. Pat has not seen the lies and the mudslinging the incumbent board has done. He has not seen the drug addiction, the “I do not recall” syndrome on the witness stand of the incumbent board. Here are a few reasons why we voted for a new school board. First, we moved into Dover in October of 2004. We moved into this district because of the Dover Eagle Marching Band under the direction of Mr. George Bradshaw, and because of the honors program. We did our research into all of the districts around here. It was the reputation of the Dover band that finally drew us here. We did not know anyone on the board. Therefore, we were able to vote with an open mind.

Mr. Buckingham started this whole mess. He refused to tell the public where the book “Of Pandas and People” came from. Knowing all along it was his doing. When you did not believe as he did, you were replaced only with someone who did. Qualified candidates presented themselves to fill vacant seats. Buckingham and his court would not have any of it. At public school board meetings, the public was not allowed to speak unless you believed in what the board was saying. This is a public school, hence public meetings. Tapes of meetings were destroyed. Since when do we destroy tapes of public school board meetings?

The teaching of intelligent design consisted of the superintendent walking into a classroom to read a statement and walking out. That is not teaching intelligent design. That is this board mandating what is being said in class. To teach you must also give the students time to learn, and to learn they must be able to ask questions. This was not done. It was one-sided, and that one side was the incumbent school board. Period.

Buckingham twice underwent treatment for drug abuse. Shortly after creating this mess, he leaves Dover. Now what message does that send? These people are supposed to be setting examples for our children. Instead, they have made a mockery of our town.

We do not know many of the candidates personally, so we were able to see the picture more clearly and not base our votes on friendships. We truly based our votes on the truth. It is time for the new school board to be sworn in and bring respect back to the board, negotiate a teachers contract fairly and without threats to the teachers. It is time our town begins to heal.

Does Mr. Robertson have all the facts? No. Therefore, he should stay out of our town. He has no right to say what he did. He owes us all an apology.

Oh, by the way, see you in church, Mr. Robertson. You can find us filling the seats at Calvary Lutheran on Sunday mornings. Services start at 9 a.m. if you would like to join us.

Jill R Dover PA

Kenny Wrote:

I would like to think that proponents of ID are coming from the angle of general revelation, which simply states that creation points you to God.

I think I should repeat what others have said, with reference to this particular point. I’ve seen many of my Christian friends make the same mistake. Stating “I support Intelligent Design” is _not_ the same thing as stating “I believe that God is intelligent, and He designed and created the universe.” It’s aligning yourself with a particular variety of anti-evolutionary thought, which claims that the scientific view of the world is inherently atheist, that science cannot _ever_ explain some aspects of biological life, and that the definition of science needs to be extended to include supernatural intervention; and which, worst of all, refuses to name the Designer as God, and pretends that its ideas are _solely_ based on science.

If, of course, you _do_ support the Discovery Institute’s view of the world and consider the likes of Behe and Dembski to be respectable scientists, then I’m afraid that you must expect a hostile reaction from us here at PT. But, from what you’ve written above, I hope that isn’t the case.

Posted by Kenny on November 17, 2005 06:35 PM (e) (s)

I appreciate your responses. I appreciate the respect in your responses. A few things:…

Kenny, Hi there, like you I also believe in God and was attracted to ID when I first came across it.

Unfortunately since then I have discovered that the main proponents (of ID) are dishonest in the extreme.

There is a document called “the Wedge” (which was published by the DI some years ago) that outlines a strategy for bringing creationism into the science class for religious reasons.

What do you think of someone who knows about (and supports) this and still says that, “ID is nothing to do with religion”?

There is a document called “the Wedge” (which was published by the DI some years ago)

A correction here; the Wedge Document was NOT published by DI. It was in fact intended to be a secret internal strategy document, known only to the DI illuminati. It was leaked to the Internet by an inside source, without the DI’s knowledge or permission. For several years, DI flatly refused to say anything about the authenticity of the document or the strategy it laid out. It was only when Meyer whined publicly that the doucment had been “stolen”, that DI indirectly acknowledged its authenticity. Since then, DI has written a “response” to the document, which, uh, doesn’t “respond” to anything, and doesn’t repudiate any of the stragey or motivations spelled out in the document.

In other words, in dealing with the Wedge Document, the DI acted like it does about everything else — it was dishonest, evasive, and lied through its teeth.

For those who may not have seen it yet, the entire Wedge Document is reproduced here:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/wedge.html

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Ed Brayton published on November 10, 2005 5:11 PM.

A Story from Kansas: Pandora’s box has been opened was the previous entry in this blog.

Come right up and get your Flying Spaghetti Monster plush doll! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter