|
Post by kmc on Aug 23, 2005 12:12:48 GMT -5
We instinctively imagine that there is an inviolable frontier separating humans from animals.There IS an inviolable frontier that seperates humans from animals. It's called the Moral Law, and it is not "instinctively imagined". It is as real as the guilt you feel when you've wronged someone. It is as real as the indignation that you feel when you contemplate the events of September 11. It is as real as the revulsion that rises up within you when you consider something like beastiality (oh, but hey, we're just animals too, right?) or necrophilia or any number of things that blatantly disregard it. It is precisely what makes the vast majority of people shudder to think that they may be "99% chimpanzee and 1% man" regardless of their adherance to any particular ideology of creation, including evolution. Oh but wait...the only ORIGINAL thought you offered was "Makes you look at Cheeta’s (sic ) antics with very different eyes …"... In which case I would say, no, I still think of the "Cheeta" as a "big cat" who would eat me if he was hungry enough. Then of course I am bound to asscociate the "Cheeta" with that lovable Chester Cheetah whose image emblazoned on each and every package of Cheetos never fails to elicit a smile from yours truly. But whether moral law comes from God or from the higher evolution of our brain is the question, and says nothing of whether ID should be taught in our nation's schools.
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Aug 23, 2005 12:15:58 GMT -5
Oops. Don't I feel foolish now? Okay, I admit that I had never heard of Cheeta, and so I apologize to Phil for a.) assuming he'd misspelled Cheetah and b.) trying to be such a snarky smart-ass.
Cheeta is a lousy artist.
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Aug 23, 2005 12:22:42 GMT -5
But whether moral law comes from God or from the higher evolution of our brain is the question, and says nothing of whether ID should be taught in our nation's schools. Well, I wasn't exactly speaking to whether or not Intelligent Design should or should not be taught in schools...I was responding to Phil's cut-and-paste parade of anti-God rhetoric. I don't believe I've taken a stand on the ID debate in this forum as of yet. As for the question of where the moral law comes from...I would, of course, say that it is a manifestation of God. You would disagree. And nothing either one of us could say would change the others' mind, so if you don't mind I'll be happy to agree to disagree.
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Aug 23, 2005 12:24:02 GMT -5
If it is true that Pat Robertson is a model self-promoting politician, how horrendous is it that a man with continuing serious political aspirations there actually thinks that advocating the murder of a duly elected foreign head of state is a likely means of career advancement He's an asshole...an asshole who's using the media to propagate his message. That describes about 98% of everyone in the media.
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 23, 2005 12:49:49 GMT -5
I believe what Robertson did is what we call "issuing a fatwa". I think we should investigate the 700 Club for terrorist activities. The War on Terror must be fought on all fronts, against all enemies, at home or abroad.
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Aug 23, 2005 12:58:43 GMT -5
Allow me to chime in with my 2c towards Phil's observation, and JAC's counter-argument.
I am with Phil inasmuch as our "1% man" certainly makes us far more similar to the chimp than we are willing to admit. I am not totally in agreement that our "Moral Law" is "inviolable", as JAC suggests, and I am personally convinced - - say, just as convinced as observing that "rain gets you wet" -- (meaning, 100% convinced) -- that humankind, cheetahs, chimpanzees, flowers, pine trees, bacteria, slime molds, snail darters, shrimp, whales, viruses; in short -- any and all forms of Life on earth -- are all, each and every constituent -- every last pond-droplet teeming with microbial life -- every last homeless man, woman, and child -- every starving Ethiopian -- every last member of any indigenous tribe -- every Muslim - every Christian - every leaf on every tree ---> all of these things are merely PARTS OF ONE SINGLE ORGANISM.
THAT is inviolable. "MOral Law" is hardly inviolable, as it gets broken each and every day. Perhaps man's will might be considered inviolable - look no further than our countless generations of unflagging belief (whether that of a terrorist or a Christian) to see that. Look no further than our own opinions. There you have "inviolability", and we'll oft stick by it to the death. You'll pry my beliefs from my cold dead fingers, as it were.
Look no further than all the DNA of all Life on this planet to see that It is all One singular, vast, complex organism composed of many inter-related parts.
Man's Downfall began - - the moment we thought of ourselves as "seperate" in any way, shape, or form from the Rest of Creation, if you ask me.
Hence began the age-old myth of man's fall from grace.
And here we are in the middle of it, dumbfounded as always.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 23, 2005 13:17:34 GMT -5
If it is true that Pat Robertson is a model self-promoting politician, how horrendous is it that a man with continuing serious political aspirations there actually thinks that advocating the murder of a duly elected foreign head of state is a likely means of career advancement Agreed! Fortunately, there are many people in this country and others who aspire to offices they will never hold.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 23, 2005 13:18:33 GMT -5
If it is true that Pat Robertson is a model self-promoting politician, how horrendous is it that a man with continuing serious political aspirations there actually thinks that advocating the murder of a duly elected foreign head of state is a likely means of career advancement He's an asshole...an asshole who's using the media to propagate his message. Isn't that what most assholes do to spread their message?
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Aug 23, 2005 13:24:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 23, 2005 13:29:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Aug 23, 2005 13:35:07 GMT -5
Just saw this earlier post of kmc's and wanted to respond to it, to clarify my position..... What I think is being missed is the consideration that this is not really a matter of where ID should be taught, but of whether ID should be taught at all. Certainly, a significant percentage of Americans believe in Judeo-Christian creationism/ID, but then again, a large percentage of children under the age of 6 believe in Santa Claus, and noone would propose the creation of a class to present a competing theory on where Christmas presents comes from. I'm not really advocating teaching any "Judeo-Christian" creation myth. I never said anything about the Biblical creation story. What I do think would be appropriate and, in fact, very valuable, would be to offer philosophy classes in which religion and theology were seriously studied. This would entail engaging with multiple religions, not just christianity, and considering not only their creation myths, but also religious examinations into the meaning of life, the purpose of mankind, what happens after death, the nature of god, etc etc. I think that religion offers us one of the finest glimpses into mankind's enduring effort to answer all "the big questions" - and as such belongs in any educational system which has a broader mission beyon "just the facts". I'm not advocating any of these things be taught as truth, of course. But you're missing an enormous part of man's quest for self-understanding if you just shut the door on faith altogether. One of my biggest regrets about my education now that I study philosophy at a graduate level is my lack of familarity with basic theological principles - it's something I'm scrambling to fix. My position on this has absolutely nothing to do with anti-evolution fundamentalists who want "equal time" for "scientific" creationism (I would never teach "scientific" creationism anywhere in a high school, for one thing) and everything to do with my wanting philosophy to be a serious high school subject. That's not pandering to anyone - except maybe out-of-work philosophy phds who want jobs!!! Cheers, M
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Aug 23, 2005 13:43:34 GMT -5
Fair enough. I don't mind the teaching of ID as long as it is taught within a larger context, as part of some sort of philosophy/theology class. What I do mind is the explicit teaching of ID as a viable counter-theory to the theory of evolution.
After all, had the President come out in support of expanding our nation's secondary education with theological/philosophical classes, I would be all for it. However, that is not what is being proposed.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Aug 23, 2005 13:48:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Aug 23, 2005 14:01:17 GMT -5
As a matter of fact, I think it goes without saying that many of the same people calling for the teaching of creationism in our schools would destest the idea of it being presented in the same light as, say, Hindu creationism. Could you imagine if, as part of a philosophy class in an American high school, the teacher required the reading of Bertrand Russel's "Why I Am Not A Theist" as part of a larger discussion on the nature of God's existence?
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 23, 2005 14:08:48 GMT -5
As a matter of fact, I think it goes without saying that many of the same people calling for the teaching of creationism in our schools would destest the idea of it being presented in the same light as, say, Hindu creationism. Could you imagine if, as part of a philosophy class in an American high school, the teacher required the reading of Bertrand Russel's "Why I Am Not A Theist" as part of a larger discussion on the nature of God's existence? Does this sort of outrage not happen on ALL extreme ends of the belief spectrum? How is it any different for parents to be upset about their children being taught ID or creationism in schools vs being upset about their children being taught about transgenderism? Or homosexuality to kindergarteners? Why is it considered tolerance when something that goes against traditional moral values is taught, but intolerance when an understanding of traditional judeo-christian values is taught?
|
|