Why are conservatives so committed to passing legislation that contradicts their own conservative principles and their own competing bills?
Rep. Tony Randolph (R-35/Rapid City) has filed House Bill 1270, another one of those extremist right-wing “teach the controversy!” bills which is really about undermining science with creationism, climate change denialism, and other anti-intellectual pinings of religious radicals.
The text is deceptively simple:
No teacher may be prohibited from helping students understand, analyze, critique, or review in an objective scientific manner the strengths and weaknesses of scientific information presented in courses being taught which are aligned with the content standards established pursuant to § 13-3-48 [HB 1270, filed 2019.01.30].
Folks from the Randolph wing of wackiness have proposed similar bills over and over in Pierre. They’ve all failed, because enough sensible noses remain to smell the counterfactual creationism at their core or because folks reading the bills themselves realize they do nothing.
Contrary to the anti-teacher attitudes of Republican radicals, our K-12 science teachers already have all the knowledge, ethics, and academic freedom they need to teach science objectively and promote critical thinking. No additional law is needed to guarantee this good practice; HB 1270 thus epitomizes the opposite of the principle that true conservatives (like me?) espouse: government should take no action that is not absolutely necessary.
The only people trying to prohibit the teaching of certain issues are right-wingers like Randolph himself, who, along with five other HB 1270 sponsors, is also sponsoring HB 1108, which would prohibit the teaching of scientific information about gender prior to eighth grade. Since HB 1270 is not grade-specific, Randolph is supporting two laws that would contradict each other.
My Representative Drew Dennert is a co-sponsor of Randolph’s HB 1270: we’ll have to ask him what legal effect this bill is meant to have at tomorrow’s crackerbarrel, 10 a.m. at the Norther State University Student Union.
Cory lies again.
Conservatives don’t deny that climate changes. It has been changing since the day Earth was born.
‘
The scientific fact is that humans do not control climate change.
Jason, you carefully chose the word “control” there, huh?
Would you say it is a scientific fact that humans have no impact on climate change? If so, tell us so we may all laugh heartily at your folly.
The bill is not needed, as Cory says. The fact that these guys are putting in bills with completely opposite intent is an indication of how deceitful they are. That, by itself, is reason to kill this bill.
Another Republican solution in search of a problem!
Cory writes:
Our public education system has indoctrinated two full generations of Americans into believing the Bible isn’t true, the earth is billions of years old, and human beings are conglomerations of molecules that came together by chance somewhere in the vast recesses of deep time.
There’s plenty of scientific evidence to support traditional young-earth creationism. The government schools just don’t tell anyone about it. Follow the link to learn more:
https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/origins/creation-101-radiometric-dating-and-the-age-of-the-earth/
I studied mathematics and science education at South Dakota State University, graduated with academic honors in the class of 1993, and was eventually certified as a highly qualified teacher for more than a hundred core content assignments. I’d say the claim quoted above is at least debatable, but I’ll concede that point right now for the sake of a hypothetical discussion.
Some of the Founding Fathers initially opposed the Bill of Rights, arguing that it was unnecessary because the federal government was already limited to the powers explicitly stated in the Constitution. The counterargument was that the Bill of Rights was a necessary precaution to protect liberty in the future.
Regardless of whether any teacher is currently prohibited from objectively analyzing the scientific evidence, HB 1270 strikes me as a reasonable precaution against such prohibitions in the future.
Jason stumble and falls on his face again.
Ryan, good catch on Jason’s poor selection of the word “control” in using it for republican denial of climate change.
Kurt, your statement
is an interesting theory and naturally leads to further historical considerations.
Are you then saying that for earlier generations, public education and other sources, such as church and family, “indoctrinated” each following generation into believing the Bible is actually true? How would you compare the knowledge base of the earliest indoctrinators to the knowledge base of those indoctrinators of the last two generations? Which group do you think had learned more about our world, the earliest indoctrinators from say 2000 B.C. and following or the indoctrinators from two generations ago.
Why do you think this “indoctrination” process changed by reversing itself two generations ago? What happened that enabled and prompted people two generations ago to break away from the effects of hundreds or thousands of years of continuous indoctrination that the Bible was true, and begin efforts to indoctrinate new generations that the Bible is not true?
Kurt, do you believe that the vast majority of the world’s scientists are deliberately misunderstanding their studies when they state with apparent certainty that the earth is millions or billions of years old as a way to undermine young-earth religions?
Or do you think they are just not as good at science as folks who believe the earth is a few thousand years old and are simply mistaken?
In googling around about radiometric dating a bit, I’m sure you are aware that there are many sources out there suggesting that religious folks choose to believe this flimsy science to support their preconceived notions. It seems like the only people who find scientific evidence of a young earth are the ones who already believe in the young earth because of their religion. Do you know if there are any, or many, non-religious folks who will back up the “science” that puts evolution into doubt?
Kurt, I think you might be using evidence to serve your narrative – “Our public education system has indoctrinated two full generations of Americans into believing the Bible isn’t true” that actually shows that SCIENCE continues to bring into question elements of the Bible. Education is not against the Bible. Humans want answers, Science provides those answers — and where science fails, religion steps in. Science is not anti-Bible, it is pro-answers, answers that can be measured, proven, replicated.
Why can’t you accept that “science” of the Bible is outdated — just as most christians see some of the moral teachings of the Bible are outdated?
As for the plenty of evidence that proves young-earth creationism, I would argue that is religion trying to get people to not believe science. One thing young-earth creationism cannot answer is the starlight question: if the art his 6,000 years old, how did the light from all the stars get here? The Speed of light is a constant, and those stars are much further than 6,000 lightyears away, so how could that light have gotten here faster than possible? Your carbon/radioactive dating article is NOT showing earth is 6,000 years old, it is evidence that there are errors in current carbon dating that puts the earth age older than that. That has also been debunked.
Ryan wrote:
Would you say it is a scientific fact that humans have no impact on climate change? If so, tell us so we may all laugh heartily at your folly.
I have seen no credible Scientific evidence showing humans have an impact on climate change.
If you have, please do share it.
Humans do have an impact on their local environment. Examples are smog in large cities and pollution in China.
Short-term weather can be greatly altered by volcanoes which scientists believe led to the little ice age.
Here is a link for Interglacial temps.
I’m guessing Ryan and maybe one or two others will understand it.
Maybe Roger C can understand the graph on the page but I doubt it.
Nice link, Troll. No wonder you claim to understand it so well. Only you can see it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
Again, Jason is more interested in branding me as a liar than in discussing the issues. Had I thinner skin, I’d be disturbed at some people’s personal obsession with me.
I do not lie here, let alone lie “again”. I tell no lies. I may get some things wrong, but I seek to educate myself and the public, not deceive.
Randolph is far closer to lying than I am. He’s the one proposing a bill that hides its true intent. He’s the one pretending to be a conservative but proposing a bill that is unnecessary. And I’ll bet, if pressed, he’s the one who will say there is some “controversy” about scientific issues where there really is no controversy, only his wish that it weren’t true or his insecure and mistaken belief that scientific fact somehow calls into question the existence of God. That’s what all of these bills with this language are about: lying to the public, and lying to oneself.
Kurt, let’s be scientists. Show me evidence of this indoctrination at work. Show me one teacher in South Dakota who has worked or is working to convince children that the Bible is not true, or, more to the point of underlying concern, that in teaching science, teachers have taught anything that is incompatible with belief in then Christian God.
You’ll find no such evidence in any of my teaching.
Note that if Randolph is asking that we teach Kurt’s Biblical truths in our science classes, the the Weis Code will explicitly prohibit any such discussion in class and get creationist science teachers fired. The BIble is not a science book and thus is not germane to science class. The Weis Code says we should fire any teacher who discusses non-germane topics.
The Weis Code also demands neutrality, if not silence, with respect to controversial topics. Asked whether the Bible is true, the Weis Code will fire the Christian teacher who says, “Yes.” Teachers will be required to respond to questions about the BIble with a fearful shrug.
It seems to me letting extremist non-teachers like Randolph and Weis determine curriculum leads to nothing but confusion, contradiction, agnosticism, and increased unemployment among people who say anything substantive. Perhaps teachers really are better at teaching students without any guidance from the Legislature.
It’s been my experience that good teachers relish “teaching the controversy” when there is one. When a very small percentage disagree with the overwhelming scientific consensus, that’s not controversy. It’s denial.
Jason, I would encourage you to read Nasa’s Research on global warming. I tend to give that more credibility then your clearly well educated opinion. O, your response to Kurt beats anything I could write. In my time in high school and public universities, there was no mention of the Bible being right or wrong, fact or fairytale. At Augie, I did take several elective courses in religion. So, which version of the Bible should we teach Kurt..the one promoting kindness and understanding or the version you have adopted that promotes intolerance and bigotry? The Bible has no place in public schools.
I was trying to find this before. It legislators or commenters were home schooled or attended a Christian school, this might explain why they think the way they do. Go to Twitter and search for #ExposeChristianSchools or #ExposeHomeSchooling
There are some positive comments because there are some good Christian schools, mostly affiliated with mainline churches. There are lots of horror stories too, mainly affiliated with evangelical/fundamentalist or Roman Catholic churches.
RJ,
It’s very simple. Give me a link to credible scientific evidence that humans impact the climate.
So far I have had zero links given to me.
Let’s talk about interglacial temps RJ.
Please explain to us why you think we won’t have another ice age?
Kurt Evans- this is for you (from Sheila Kennedy’s blog today)- There has been a lot of outrage expressed in the wake of McConnell’s chutzpah, but I think Ed Brayton’s response at Dispatches from the Culture Wars is my favorite.
The man who refused to allow even a committee vote on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee for nearly a year so a Republican could appoint the next justice is accusing someone else of a power grab? The fact that he wasn’t immediately struck dead by lightning is powerful evidence that there is no god (or that god is a first-class jerk, take your pick). This is Trumpian-level lack of self-awareness and shamelessness. I can’t imagine how the man sleeps at night, other than on a pile of money.
At the very least Mitchie should have been smited with Drumpf’s jawbone. Since he wasn’t gives empirical evidence that god does not exist.
RJ, under no circumstances should Jason be encouraged. End of message.
I’m not talking to Jason. Hell, no!! Just to anyone interested. If Jason goes in the garage, leaves the car running and shuts the garage door, he’ll see (in miniature) how humans impact the climate.
Don’t answer me, Jason. You’re disgusting.
RJ, let me share some factual history describing my interactions with Jason on climate change issues. I will try to limit my personal opinions, but, if need be, I will speculate on what some facts appear to be and what the future might hold.
In a past thread I looked at links Jason posted in his effort to debunk studies finding a human impact on climate change. If I understood his position, he rejected the credibility of published research of 97% of scientists because his linked articles asserted that perhaps up to 7% of scientists’ research papers had not been accurately described in a summary about them. I recall no explanation why he challenged the credibility of the research by the remaining 90% to 97% of scientists who unanimously identified objective evidence of human activity affecting climate change (I suspect he would say he relied upon the 3% or more of research papers than he felt supported his contrary viewpoint). As best as I recall, Jason identified no personal educational background or knowledge that he claimed to have acquired that would enable him to independently evaluate the credibility of any scientific research on the human impact on climate change.
https://dakotafreepress.com/2018/10/16/curb-climate-change-buy-less-go-nuclear/
If you decide to go down that rabbit hole with Jason, I speculate that you will need research from some other source than the nearly 97% of scientists who disgree with Jason. I further suspect, however, that any research, no matter its source or credibility in the scientific community, that supports the idea of human contributions to climate change, will be deemed incredible by Jason. Thus, proceed at your own risk.
Well summed BCB. You are the hero of DFP.
Agreed, Debbo. BCB and I were at the same party many decades ago in Nemo, SD. I’ll bet we met. :) Just sayin’ … #RedWillowBand
You are too kind Debbo! At Nemo I walked the whole camp and met many young people from all over, so I wouldn’t be surprised if Porter and I met. It is amazing that either Porter or I survived the goings on next to the mountain in Nemo. I recall climbing to the top of the highest peak in the adjoining Twin Peaks range and dangling my legs over rocks.
https://donmoe.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/IMG_3265s-600×360.jpg
It’s a miracle I didnl’t stumble and fall to my demise – hmmm. . . . could that be that evidence in favor of Kurt’s or Randolph’s positions on inerrancy? (*obviously, my feeble attempt to stay on topic)
I love that area. I used to have a private camping spot just north of Nemo among very tall old pines. Beautiful.
As for the goings on at Nemo — I know nothing! (*obviously my even feebler attempt to stay on topic)
So a kid failed to learn 13 bible verses and his punishment was death by court appointed guardians because……god is love., I guess.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/7-year-old-boy-dies-court-appointed-guardians-punish-not-knowing-13-bible-verses/
What i remember of Twin Peaks is Sherrilynn Fenn and the log lady. Not much else.
No question Jason just can’t go to NASA.gov and help
out the planet…but to digress Nemo and the limestone canyons and ridge lines are spectacular, I was even married decades ago at a Nemo area ranch, but as a Rapid drainage basin person, hiking up on Steamboat Rock ect is definitely liable to wind your self up in deep intractable meadows of poison ivy. Too wet up there:)
You’re awesome, Leslie. ❤️😊
The anti-science agenda is in full swing in this thread.
Typical Trumpublican deflection, accusing the opposition of doing exactly the bad thing the Trumpublicans are doing.
Rep. Randolph has introduced a bill that on face is unnecessary but underneath, like its predecessor bills from Jeff Monroe, is an attack on honest science.
None of this discussion can move forward — much less be resolved — until there is agreement on what science, scientific fact, and scientific consensus mean (and how those terms are different from belief, faith, political positioning, and hokum). When did so many segments of society (and yes, I’m looking at you — the right) decide that science and scientists could be whole-heartedly dismissed? Maybe this is the effect of an informational society where “everything you ever need to know (and more) is at your fingertips, so all of us have the ability to call to question the conclusions of any expert.
Not enough of our society is trained how to understand and interpret quantitative information. This activity is a centerpiece of science literacy to which we should all strive—the future health, wealth, and security of our democracy depend on it. Until that is achieved, we are at risk of making under-informed decisions that affect ourselves, our communities, our country, and even the world.
– Neil Degrasse Tyson
Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of the things in the past that the physicists—at the time—didn’t understand … [but now we do understand.] If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller, as time moves on. So just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem. That’s simply the “God of the Gaps” argument that’s been around for ever.
_Neil Degrasse Tyson
This effort to micromanage schools and teachers is only part of what the GOP is up to regarding those dastardly teachers. The red states that were teacher strike sites because they were treating the public schools and children so poorly are now writing revenge legislation. .
Yes, they’re going to get those teachers back for daring to stand up for themselves, the children and schools. That’s West Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona. From the Minneapolis Strib.
In WV:
“teacher raises and funding for the health care system for state employees would be tied to provisions including:
• Increasing class sizes.
• Denying pay during future strikes.
• Support for “school choice” in the form of charter schools and a program to use public money for private and religious-school education.”
[GOP Gov says he will veto]
In OK:
” require any organized protest of 100 or more people at the State Capitol to pay $50,000 in advance to the Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, the state agency that provides bond funding for government office buildings.
make it illegal for any “board of education or school district employee … to strike or threaten to strike or otherwise close schools or interfere with school operations as a means of resolving differences with the board of education, the State Department of Education, the State Board of Education, the Legislature or any other public official or public body.”
And it seeks to deny pay to any teacher participating in a strike or related school shutdown while the striker is out and would have the person’s state Board of Education-issued certificate “permanently revoked.”
In AZ:
“H.B. 2002, would require the state Board of Education to adopt a “code of ethics” for teachers that calls for an explicit ban on politics in public schools.
Another bill, H.B. 2017, is aimed at preventing another strike and prohibits public schools from shutting down except during approved breaks, holidays or during a national or environmental emergency.
An accompanying bill would require the state’s attorney general to investigate a school district or employee accused of violating state law.
H.B. 1232 would prohibit payroll deductions for union dues for school district, local government and state employees — but it is worth noting, firefighters, police officers and other emergency workers would be exempt from the ban on payroll deductions.”
https://goo.gl/NFj2qv
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/woman-spots-a-rare-half-female-half-male-cardinal-in-her-yard/ar-BBT47oo?ocid=spartandhp
Now birds are getting gender confused. Blame wingnuts.
If Minnesota’s forests are going to disappear in 50 years with the state becoming prairie biome, what does the SDGOP think will happen to SD’s farms if pollution continues at or above current levels?
From the Minneapolis Strib:
Lee Frelich, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Forest Ecology and his associates.
“Summer climates will, in effect, shift south-southwest by 100 to 300 miles, depending on the scenario, Frelich said. “So Voyageurs National Park could [become] St. Cloud or northwestern Iowa.”
The worst case scenario? Said Frelich,” We could literally be the new Kansas.”
Then what will Kansas be, Arizona? And will the rest of the Great Plains be the same? Maybe a narrow 50 mile strip of SD on the Minnesota border will be arable. Maybe.
This is your children’s and grandchildren’s homes they’re talking about.
https://goo.gl/3nqNEA
Dang. The above comment is on the wrong post. Sorry.
I’d written:
“bearcreekbat” asks:
I’m a traditional Protestant evangelical, so obviously I’d say those who based their knowledge on the Bible’s teachings learned more about our world than those who rejected its teachings.
I think World War I and World War II disrupted the normal flow of Christian doctrine from one generation of Americans to the next by isolating soldiers from their extended families at relatively young ages and by leaving emotional scars that continued to isolate them after they returned home, even from their own children and grandchildren. As the culture at large drifted away from the God in whom we’re supposed to trust, our public education system did too.
I’d written:
Ryan asks:
I’d say some old-earth evolutionists are deliberately trying to undermine Christianity, and some of them are simply mistaken. I’m not sure whether a “vast majority” of them fall into either of those categories.
Yes. Many atheists will acknowledge the scientific evidence that casts doubt on macroevolution.
“o” asks:
If the Bible’s teachings weren’t true today, then they never could have been true in the first place. They wouldn’t be “outdated” either way.
You and I just discussed this in October:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2018/10/19/i-%e2%99%a1-amanda-bachmann-so-should-district-24/#comment-118013
When would you say it’s been debunked, and by whom?
Cory writes:
HB 1270 is about helping students analyze information in an objective scientific manner.
My high school biology teacher in Wessington Springs, Lowell Stanley, openly and aggressively sought to indoctrinate us in his atheistic worldview. He literally preached it to us in class on a regular basis. For the record, I liked him, and I’m not sure how this is relevant.
Would you say that includes your teaching here at Dakota Free Press?
Deb writes:
Actually it is. The scientific method has nothing to do with consensus, and many scientific breakthroughs have resulted from direct challenges to the prevailing consensus.
“RJ” asks:
There’s no version of the Bible that promotes bigotry, and there are many versions promoting kindness and understanding. We should teach the versions that exist.
“mike from iowa” quotes Sheila Kennedy quoting Ed Brayton:
It’s evidence that God is merciful. If He weren’t, we’d all be immediately struck dead.
Porter Lansing writes:
That comment is much more disgusting than any of Jason’s comments above.
“o” asks:
I’m not sure whether you regard libertarians as part of the right, but I’ve never decided science could be dismissed. I’ve only decided that some claims made by scientists can be.
It’s a success anytime you can disgust the highly unholy and fundamentally disturbed Kurt Evans. Stay away from the children, Evans.
No Kurt, we wouldn’t all be struck dead. Just phony wingnut kristians who profess their fear of god only to get elected then relegate the bible to the trash bi where it belongs for the next two years.
Yer god has no control over me and cannot hurt me or anyone else.
Upon reading Kurt’s response I have to admire Kurt for trying to address so many questions posited to him. One thing I have observed about Kurt is that for the most part he doesn’t fear having a discussions about the issues that motivate him.
A follow up question for Kurt – you opine
Assuming (but correct me if I am mistaken) that by “old-earth evolutionists,” you are referring to scientists who have concluded that the theory of evolution and the big bang theory are the most accurate explanations we currently have about the origins and history of our universe and of humans, what do you think is their motivation for “deliberately trying to undermine Christianity?”
“bearcreekbat” asks me:
I’d say it’s basically arrogance. They’re too proud to admit God has any power over them.
“mike from iowa” writes:
haha kurt, well referenced.
Kurt, all I ask anyone of you “believers’ is prove to me god exists. Why is that so hard to do? You put yer faith in a book that has been rewritten and misinterpreted over and over again without one single photo of or video recording of a deity.
I have deeply held beliefs. One, to paraphrase Ms Juanita Jean herownself, is you and people like you are nuttier than squirrel poop. Is that enough to send me to hell for all eternity? Let me know soon as I already have my next life planned in case I need to make plan changes.
Kurt, I am not sure how arrogance can motivate anyone to do anything. I can see how it undermines restraints against behavior, but only such behavior that they are already motivated to do before arrogance rears its head.
Here is a Trumpy example of what I mean. All presidental candidates have released their tax returns, but Trump does not want to release his. His “arrogance” leads him to conclude that he will not be harmed by refusing to release them because he is so great and so loved that the people won’t care. So he doesn’t release them. While his arrogance certainly contributed to his decision, it apparently had absolutely nothing to do with the reason or motivation he did not want to release his returns.
The same seems to hold true for the “old-earth evolutionists” who you contend are “deliberately trying to undermine Christianity.” Their arrogance, like that you attribite to mfi, might remove any fear of Godly reprecussions, but it is not the primary motivator for the act itself. Going beyond mere arrogance, or the thought that they can “get away with it” for whatever reason, what do you believe to be underlying reason for “deliberately trying to undermine Christianity?”
Evans calls mainstream scientists arrogant, attempting to shield his inability to moderate, assimilate and cogitate. Everyone can believe whatever religious dogma they choose. Evans needs to be agreed with. Ain’t gonna happen. Too kooky.
Porter, I think you’ve hit upon something that I find most difficult to understand about some Christians, and apparently Kurt is one. Why must they insist that the rest of the world agree with them? Why do they find it necessary to be The One Right Universal Answer?
I don’t say that sarcastically. If I disagree with Kurt, and I do, my belief system is not diminished by that disagreement, nor do I need to disparage his belief system.
Last, per the bible, it’s about “faith,” not “fact,” things unseen, matters of the heart and soul. If getting the “facts” right is critical, don’t call it “faith.” Call it “evidence.”
Debbo … Here’s much of Evan’s story, his motivation and need to be the one that “teaches” the rest of us.
Evans said he later tried to return to teaching in high schools but that schools may not hire him because a judge has found that he stalked Davis.
“I would go back to teaching, but I may not be able to do that unless I win this appeal,” Evans said.
https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/protection-order-issued-against-former-u-s-senate-candidate/article_7dfd4338-1bf5-5a3c-9820-1d22d8cf3c8e.html
smh 🙄🙄🙄
Yes, Kurt has talked about this on DFP in the past and swears it was just a misunderstanding. From his perspective.
I know he has. Why would he try to deceive us? Everything else he claims is rational. Taking the word of a convicted stalker over the word of a judge is everyone’s personal decision.
As for Drumpf’s tax returns, wingnuts are planning to run constant interference to prevent Dems from seeing those returns.
And, of course, Drumpf will accuse the Dems of being the obstructionists. His taxes are still being audited.
You have a good point Porter.
As we know Mike, tax returns can be provided regardless of audit status. Chinless Wonder McTurtle, #2 and the other GOP are frantically protecting their own traitorous hineys, trying to stay out of prison.
If the USA has a chance to thrive as a genuine democratic republic, they must face the music for their crimes. Plainly stated, they are criminals of the most nefarious kind. They’ve tried to sell their own country and it’s 300,000+ citizens to assuage their own psychopathic urges.
An Emoluments Clause investigation (The clause, which forbids government officials from accepting payments and gifts from foreign governments, raises the question of whether the president is allowed to continue collecting profits from a global Trump brand.) won’t end Trump’s Presidency, guilty or not guilty but it will bring his tax returns out in the open. That’s where his guilt or innocence will be investigated. It’s already in progress.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-emoluments-clause-what-does-it-mean-president-n771081
Kurt: “If the Bible’s teachings weren’t true today, then they never could have been true in the first place. They wouldn’t be “outdated” either way.”
Fair enough, but now we both seem to acknowledge that elements of the Bible are now and were wrong — even in the context of the time they were written. How do we then pick and choose which elements are to be held on to and which should be let go?
To me, this is always an issue of how we read the Bible. Is it a historical text, a scientific text, or is it a literary text? I tend to have more sympathy for organized religions who read the Bible as literature, full of simile, metaphor, symbolism, and theme. I get hung up when it is treated as scientific or historical text. I also get hung up when it is claimed to be absolute, Devine truth — except for when it is not.
You nuts can dance around it all you want – but a book either is or is not the word of god.
If you pick and choose pieces of the book to “believe”, you are either editing the word of god because you believe only some of god’s words…or you are allocating divinity to that which is not the word of god….either way, you gross me out.
Ever notice religious nuts never bother to swear their deity exists and they can prove it. Kurt is peculiar that way.
Kurt and John Q Public are free to believe in whatever they want to believe in. America is funny that way until right wing nut jobs gain control and decide their way is the only way. They lie about Muslim Sharia law being established in America’s towns while they remake the courts with religious nut jobs who have every intention of legislating your morals from the bench. This will be Mitch McCTurtle’s lasting legacy. I have no doubt Kurt Evans will jump aboard at the first convenient chance.
Renowned physicist Steven Weinberg said: “With or without [religion], you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
That leads my thoughts directly to Prissy Pussy Pency. That’s not because he’s a good person; he’s not. It’s because he uses religion as his excuse to act despicable. Imagine, he’s used most of his adult life to inflict as much suffering as possible on specific groups of people. That’s non whites and non males, with a special focus on tormenting LBTG folks. That is a twisted and sick, psychopathic, evangelical mind. I believe he still makes a tenuous claim to Catholicism, but his behavior is pure evangelical/fundamentalist.
Scottish philosopher James Mill stated: “Think of a being who would make a Hell, who would create the human race with the infallible foreknowledge and therefore with the intention that the great majority of them would be consigned to horrible and everlasting torment.”
One of the problems with the evangelical/fundamentalist theology is that it makes their god an evil, nasty SOB. Its It’s pretty hard to get around that, as the well-regarded James Mill explained.
Greetings to all of you from Minnesota—I don’t even know if I could tell you how I ended up here, but this comment thread was too compelling for me to leave without dropping a message.
@Kurt, I sincerely hate to be the next guy to harp on you, but I’m genuinely interested to hear if you’ve done any research on the article you’ve referenced. Can you find me any supporting work that isn’t directly tied to religion? I gave up after about 3 pages of “Answers in Genesis” and “institution for Creation Research” links.
I want to stress that I’m not even saying this to demean or depreciate Christianity, because for my question, it’s beside the point. Surely, someone as intelligent and confident in your understanding of Radiometric Dating and scientific research should be curious to seek further corroborating information from an unbiased, objective source. Your question about finding anything specifically debunking it, apart from being unfounded, is a fallacy.
One more thing. On the note of objectivity, your comment about the scientific method. Certainly, many scientific breakthroughs have occurred as a result of going against the status quo. If I’m not mistaken, the church was particularly cruel over history to dissenters based on their findings that led them to go against the grain? Additionally, the scientific method doesn’t rely on consensus, but what takes a theory to the top of the heap is replication and substantiation. If youre still around, I’m thrilled to read whatever other research you can show me that isn’t directly tied to Christianity/young earth.
I hope all of you have a great rest of your evening. Take care.
Debbos quotes are insightful. I have had similar thoughts, although less poetic. I wonder how religious folks reconcile not only eternal torment, but earthy suffering, beyond the too cute “god’s will” answer.
“bearcreekbat” had written:
Ryan writes:
If those were genuine compliments, then thanks.
“mike from iowa” writes:
According to the Bible, everyone already knows He exists:
https://biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&search=Romans+1:18-20
Any sinful attitude is enough to send a person to hell.
“bearcreekbat” writes:
I don’t see how it’s relevant to our discussion, but I’m wondering how you claim to know he concludes the people won’t care, as opposed to merely concluding the costs of releasing the returns would likely outweigh the benefits.
You’ve apparently misunderstood. I’m not saying human arrogance removes any fear of divine repercussions. The Bible says God has power and authority over us, and some people try to undermine Christianity because they’re too proud to admit that. In other words, I’m saying their arrogance is the primary motivator for the act itself.
Porter Lansing writes:
Millions of traditional Protestant evangelicals around the world agree with me.
Deb writes:
Christians believe by definition that “The One Right Universal Answer” is Jesus Christ, and Christ directly taught that most of the world wouldn’t agree with us. Your suggestions to the contrary are extremely deceitful.
The central teaching of the Bible is the historical fact of Christ’s resurrection from the dead, and getting that fact right is absolutely critical to the Christian faith.
Porter Lansing quotes a 2003 Associated Press article from the Rapid City Journal:
Porter editorializes:
I was never criminally charged or tried, much less convicted. Judge Rodney Steele helped South Dakota State University destroy my teaching career, my financial security and my social life after a brief, rushed civil protection order hearing, and it got worse from there:
https://www.mitchellrepublic.com/content/letter-dwu-should-hear-all-sides-issue
I’d written:
“o” replies:
Apparently you’ve somehow misunderstood. I’m not saying elements of the Bible were wrong.
I’d say it’s primarily historical and religious, with scientific and literary aspects.
Ryan writes:
Amen. People who simply deny the Bible is true are much less evil and destructive than those who misrepresent what it says.
Deb writes:
Mike Pence has his flaws, Deb, but I don’t believe he’s nearly the monster you make him out to be.
Evangelical theology makes God the ultimate standard of good and the very basis on which good and evil are defined.
Nick writes:
The scientific evidence in the article stands entirely independent of religion. I obviously can’t find young-earth creationist work that isn’t tied to young-earth creationism.
Another commenter (“o”) says evidence in the article has been debunked. I’m asking when and by whom. Your claim that my question is a fallacy is absurd.
Roman Catholicism was cruel to many of them. Modern science was born amid the rapid spread of traditional Protestant evangelicalism in the 1500s and 1600s, and it has deep roots in the conviction that beauty and order can be discovered in the universe because our loving Creator has put them here.
Ryan writes:
I wonder how atheists supposedly reconcile the belief that suffering is evil with the belief that there’s no ultimate standard by which good and evil are defined.
Not god’s will, it is god swill. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.
Christians believe by definition that “The One “Right Universal Answer” is Jesus Christ, and Christ directly taught that most of the world wouldn’t agree with us. Your suggestions to the contrary are extremely deceitful.”
Nope. I’m straight forward and direct. I don’t think you’re “extremely deceitful,” but your belief system doesn’t work. When you say something like “Christians believe” followed by a specific statement, you deliberately omit all the Christians who don’t believe as you do. It’s very convenient, but such omission distorts the actuality.
I said:
Last, per the bible, it’s about “faith,” not “fact” … If getting the “facts” right is critical, don’t call it “faith.”
You responded with 1 “fact”, the resurrection and ignored all the rest that you’ve insisted are facts. I don’t know if you deliberately dodged my statement, or didn’t understand. You believe certain things are true, like your 6000 year old earth and other statements you’ve made here. You seem to have at least implied that anyone who disagrees with your “facts” isn’t a real Christian. If that’s the case, then you are basing your belief system on facts, not faith.
Kurt, my admiration comment was sincere. I still am unclear what facts or logical argument has convinced you “arrogance” can motivate “deliberately trying to undermine Christianity.”
As for my reference Trump tax return, it was intended as a simple analogy. I assumed you would understand that I don’t know the man and I have no direct knowledge of his personal conclusions and claim none. So far his only public statements about the matter that I am aware of are that his attorneys told him not to release the returns because they are under audit.
It is a bit of a puzzle, however, why he tolerates this lengthy audit investigation whether he complied with civil and/or criminal tax laws with nary a tweet nor complaint, considering his reaction to the much, much, much shorter Mueller investigation of his compliance with civil and/or criminal campaign, conspiracy and obstruction laws.
As for the motivation of scientists who you describe as “old-earth evolutionists,” [or “OEE”] you indicated I apparently misunderstood.
If arrogance, which means “an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities,” does not remove fear of divine repercussions, that implies that arrogant OEEs do fear divine repercussions for “deliberately trying to undermine Christianity” And if an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities (arrogance) doesn’t remove that fear, then doesn’t that constitute a knowing admission they believe that “God has power and authority over” them?
Thus, it sounds like you argue their arrogance or pride perhaps motivates a desire to become martyrs and suffer God’s wrath? If so, what exactly is the motivation to become a martyr by falsely propagating something they do not believe in?
Deb writes:
Christians believe that Christ’s teachings about Himself are true, Deb, and your assertion that I deliberately omit some Christians when I say that is absurd. People who don’t believe in Christ’s teachings aren’t Christians.
Deb had written:
I’d written:
Deb replies:
You stated that, per the Bible, Christianity isn’t about fact. I understood the statement and directly refuted it.
That’s correct. I’m basing my belief system on facts, and my faith in Christ is a consequence of those facts.
I’d written:
“bearcreekbat” replies:
Of course not. There’s a huge difference between fearing something is true and admitting it.
If their arrogance motivated a desire to become martyrs, then the motivation to become a martyr would be arrogance. That isn’t what I’m saying though. I’m saying their arrogance motivates a desire to undermine Christianity, not a desire to become martyrs.
The resurrection is fact? You can prove this how? your timing is weay off if you wish to be a comedian.
Is there a biblical example of god’s “mercy?”
Okay, Kurt, since I apparently misunderstand some of your statements, I thought it best to ask for clarification in a couple areas.
You say, “There’s a huge difference between fearing something is true and admitting it.” You also say “they’re too proud to admit that . . . God has power and authority over us” and it is that pride or arrogance that you believe motivates them to “try to undermine Christianity.”
I have been using the term “admit” in the sense of believing something – admitting the truth of a fact or proposition to oneself, rather than making a public admission or statement declaring that internal belief. Are you using the term “admit” in the same or similar way?
If so, then doesn’t the whole idea of being “too proud” to admit what you describe about God necessarily mean they actually do know this about God but are for some reason motivated by arrogance or pride to deny or refuse to admit something they know to be true? In other words, is it your contention that these OEE scientists are acting in bad faith trying to deny what they know or spread a falsity?
If not, how do you conclude it is in any way arrogant or prideful to refuse to admit the existence ot truth of something they honestly do not know? And if they truly do not know something, how would it be arrogant to decline to admit what one does not know.
Thus, when you say they “try to undermine Christianity,” are you referencing indirectly or implicitly questioning Christianity by teaching the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, or other scientific theories that are inconsistent with biblical stories? Or are you refering to acts that openly and directly attack or challenge Christianity. I have assumed that you meant the former, but just to be clear – what exactly is the behavior that you refer to when you say arrogance motivates OEE scientists to “try to undermine Christianity?”
Kurt is quite clear. He’s got Christianity right and the billions who disagree with him are not real Christians. In addition, he apparently has nothing to learn from any of those fake, or terribly misguided Christians. But those who vehemently disagree with him are arrogant, not him.
Go figure.
Enjoy your religion Kurt. 👍
Whatever the hell is bugging Kurt, the Troll, Ryan, Pearson and a couple others, it is patently clear bcb has the anti-venom on hand and in sufficient quantities to quash dingbat outbreaks. Kudos also to Cory, Donald Pay, Debbo and several others too numerous to mention.
This is a perfect example of why legislation is needed and what Democrats want in America.
British police arrested a mother in front of her children for calling a trans activist a man in a Twitter argument, with a judge subsequently issuing an injunction banning her from referring to the person’s “former male identity”.
38-year-old Kate Scottow, of Hitchin, Hertfordshire, said she was “arrested in my home by three officers, with my autistic ten-year-old daughter and breastfed 20-month-old son present” in comments posted to the Mumsnet online forum, according to the Mail on Sunday.
“I was then detained for seven hours in a cell with no sanitary products (which I said I needed) before being interviewed then later released under investigation… I was arrested for harassment and malicious communications because I called someone out and misgendered them on Twitter.”
Police officers are said to have taken her DNA, fingerprints, and photograph, and continue to retain her laptop and mobile phone months after they arrested her on December 1st, hindering her university studies.
The Mail on Sunday say Hertfordshire Police have confirmed the arrest, telling the newspaper: “We take all reports of malicious communication seriously.”
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/02/10/uk-mother-arrested-in-front-of-children-for-calling-trans-person-a-man-on-twitter/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/amp/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html?__twitter_impression=true
This must be the other Jason posting. If so, please identify yourself as the other Jason so you won’t get dumped on. You sound too sensible to be the Troll Jason.
mike from iowa
Jason links Breitbart and Daily Mail both organizations have no credibility or integrity.
Thanks, Roger.
Mike and Roger, 1 incident in England that probably didn’t happen the way those 2 bogus sites claimed, certainly relates directly and has everything to do with SD’s bill. [Sarcasm off]