Thursday, May 14, 2009
|
|
'Angels & Demons' Director Ron Howard Denies 'God The Creator'; Cast Defend Movie's 'Truth'
|
|
Posted by:
Greg Hengler at
2:13 PM
|
Ron Howard on Charlie Rose (5-13-09): "The deeper you delve into the mysteries of creation, the more you're denying the importance of God the Creator."
Angels & Demons stars Tom Hanks, Ayelet Zurer, and director Ron Howard appeared on Charlie Rose last night to discuss the “facts” rooted in their new movie. Compare the claims made by the A&D cast (see video clip) with those made by the publisher of Movieguide, Dr. Ted Baehr, who saw the film and refutes the movie's portrayal of Christianity and the cast's accusations on Charlie Rose.
Here is a sample from Baehr's column today:
For example, although (unlike the book) the movie's dialogue has some positive statements about faith in Jesus Christ, the person making many of these statements turns out to be the real villain, a mad clergyman who also is one of the most conservative Christians depicted in the story. Furthermore, when confronted by these various statements about Jesus Christ, the hero keeps his agnosticism. In fact, the movie's ultimate impression is that Christians throughout history are mostly a bunch of well meaning but bumbling fools with a few really bad guys and hypocrites included in the bunch. Also unlike the book, the assassin henchman of the mad clergyman in the movie is not a rabid Muslim as he is in the novel, but a very lapsed Catholic. He is not killing for Allah, but for money. [Emphasis added]
One of the biggest lies fostered by both the book and the movie, however, is the lie that science and religion are always at odds. In making this point, the movie clearly takes the side of an atheist definition of science that denies the existence of God. For example, the movie alleges that the Catholic Church executed four scientists for their scientific beliefs or theories. It also alleges that the church condemned the astronomer/philosopher Galileo as a heretic because of his view that the earth revolved around the sun. Both of these allegations are false! Baehr concludes with this: You don't have to murder somebody to know that it's wrong to murder. And, you don't have to read or see "Angels & Demons" to realize that Dan Brown and Ron Howard are grinding an ax, not only against the Catholic Church and Bible-believing Christians, but also against Jesus Himself.
|
|
|
All that responsibility-for-your-actions stuff. How oppressive. |
|
no one needs jesus to tell them that they need to be personally responsible. No one, that is, but christians, who apparently wouldn't have the common decency to be personally responsible without the threat of eternal damnation. Gosh, I don't need to worry about what will happen to be after I die. I'm more concerned that if I don't act responsibly, it will have a much more immediate impact.
what I love about the religious right is they truly have no morals except for what they think will happen to them in the afterlife if they don't behave. Yet, even that doesn't seem to have an impact on bad conduct. Heck, catholics go to confession after they've acted badly. When fundy christians act badly, they cry that they are imperfect and ask for god's forgiveness, which of course he gives, so, bad conduct, no biggie.
how about no bad conduct in the first place? Do you really need 'jesus' to tell you how to behave?
and if you don't like ronnie howard (or andy griffith for that matter, he's actually as leftie as ronnie is), don't go to his movies, don't watch the interview on Charlie rose. I wouldn't watch Hannity or O'reilly if they were the only thing on tv. why watch anything that obviously curls your hair. |
|
You couldn't have turned out a better kid than this? I'll bet he really didn't grow up in Mayberry.
Actually, this doesn't sound like a movie I would ever pay to see. Unfortunately, many will. |
|
|
Mayberry was fiction. Griffith is a lib IRL. |
|
|
we have no morals, we don't go to confession when we only act badly, we go to confession when we have not done any wrong also, just part of our faith.that shouldn't pi*s you off too much, seeing we do that in private, we don' flaunt all of our beliefs in your face. AS far as needing Jesus telling us how to behave use yourself as the example for that,you need Jesus. |
|
Ayelet Zurer, the actress who portrays the character Vittoria Vetra in Angels and Demons, said the following at the movie premiere in Rome.
“We were hoping that there would be no nuns throwing tomatoes at us.”
It is shameful that anyone would subject women who dedicate their lives to God to such profoundly ignorant and hateful scorn.
Many people involved in the production of this film are anti-Catholic and their protestations to the contrary are hollow.
(This above quote is from the “Angels and Demons Movie special.”)
http://milledrive.com/videos/25221/Angels_And_Demons_2009__ Movie_Special.html |
|
"Maine, Mayberry was fiction."
No, you don't say! |
|
Opie and Richie were such nice kids, what happened?
You know, I just read something in a Voice of the Martyrs devotional..that these enemies of the Cross aren't so much mocking those of us who are Christians as they are attacking Jesus because if they didn't they'd have to face up to their own moral failings. They can't take responsibility for their own lives so they attack Christians. Yet in the end, hear this Lon,
you lose as long as you continue to scoff and mock God.
People don't willingly go to their own deaths for a myth..and some of the martyrs over the centuries, up to and including the present have
endured horrible torture and death. They KNOW
that they know that Jesus Christ is Lord and
He's Alive.
These producers, actors and actresses can mock, and insult all they want but there will come a day when they will stand before God and answer for that. I hope and pray they repent..Ron Howard is so talented it's a shame to see that God given talent wasted on mocking the One who
gave him that gift. |
|
"we don' flaunt all of our beliefs in your face. "
|
|
"you know, I just read something in a Voice of the Martyrs devotional.."
So naturally I believe it.
We let these people vote? |
|
|
quit reading lonny's mail, that was adressed to him, but while I'm here i don't flaunt my faith in your face, I know when I see a hopless cause, your not worth saving mello, unless you repent. |
|
"For example...It also alleges that the church condemned the astronomer/philosopher Galileo as a heretic because of his view that the earth revolved around the sun.
Both of these allegations are false!"
Hengler, you're dead wrong.
The only reason that Galileo wasn't condemned as a heretic was because he recanted under the threat of death! Had he maintained his belief he would have been killed!
Bruno didn't recant and was burned at the stake. Bruno was charged with the Arian heresy, which, though not a scientific principle, did challenge Church dogma and that was sufficient to execute him.
Here's where a really big liar will argue that the Church didn't actually kill Bruno because the execution was performed by secular authorities. (who, of course, would be charged with protecting heretics should they refuse to carry out the execution) |
|
"I know when I see a hopless cause, your not worth saving mello, unless you repent."
Wanker. |
|
|
You don't need Jesus to know you're responsible for your own behavior. You just don't care. |
|
You made one typo:
"Compare the claims made by the A&D cast"
should says ADD cast. |
|
|
what a snappy comeback, you ought to try and get a job at msnbc, you match the crap that they put out very well. |
|
Now, take your sky pixie and shove off. |
|
|
like you would know the truth,even if it crawled up your leg and bit your a*s. Still looking in other peoples urinals for your thrills? |
|
|
i never heard god called a sky pixie before. you are very intelligent for a liberal. |
|
Truth? You mean based on evidence? Not on some book of sky-pixie fairy tales?
And, for the sake of His Noodly Appendages, learn how to spell.
(And think, for that matter.) |
|
Big Sky..oh, that you would keep your religion to yourself. But you don't, do you? You insist on pushing for legislation that is not based on the constitution, but on your faith, your bible. Equal protection applies to all orientations, but your bible insists being gay is a sin. We don't run our govt on sin,but we do run it on the constitution. So, spare us the 'religion is private' crap.
And Tea Party...Opie and Richie were fictional characters, likely created by left wing Hollywood types (since Gary Marshall created Happy Days, I know that to be a fact). So fictional that such people really didn't ever exist IRL. Never heard either of those shows preach religion, either.
"They can't take responsibility for their own lives so they attack Christians." Tea, I'm not attacking you. Ron Howard isn't attacking you. Ron and I seem to both be very moral, law abiding people. If I break the law, I don't expect jesus to clean up after me by 'repenting' my sins. But the funny thing is I don't break the law, not because the bible says something or other, but because there is right, there is wrong, there is law, there is crime. Why is it that fools like Chuck Colson exist, who commit heinous crimes against our society, yet they find jesus in prison and all is fine?
"People don't willingly go to their own deaths for a myth..and some of the martyrs over the centuries, up to and including the present have
endured horrible torture and death. They KNOW
that they know that Jesus Christ is Lord and
He's Alive." Yes, I bet they do. But they also go to their deaths for Allah. Who's right? I think that all are just delusional.
You don't have to go to the movie. |
|
Is it safe to get in this cow-dung?
Why's the whore preening here once more? He came looking for his mommy; the only vagina in the world ever caught holding him? Beat it under-garment-sucker. This is a clean site. |
|
|
|
"Tea, I'm not attacking you. Ron Howard isn't attacking you. Ron and I seem to both be very moral, law abiding people."
Both Opie and you would claw over Gomer's affections, eunuch.
Save us the time and trouble. Eat a snot and save the lecture. |
|
|
you don't like my religion? have I ever told you to believe what I believe? People are against gay marriage that are not of my faith, or any faith, you believe one way I believe the other. Yes our government is not run on sin and sinning, it should be we wouldn't get all the lies and deception and theft we get from our hard working politicians , would we? |
|
is the fact that they would drop the radical Muslim assassin character, probably out of sensitivity.
If you're making a movie where religion is not portrayed in the best of light, you should at least have the cajones to be an equal opportunity offender.
|
|
"Gosh, Mellwhore Pyle, Gomer's son.
"Tea, I'm not attacking you. Ron Howard isn't attacking you. Ron and I seem to both be very moral, law abiding people.""
And when, exactly, did I say that?
Go on, look it up.
Then grovel, you worm.
(Not toooo long before you get VERY friendly with 'em.)
|
|
|
does not have the balls to put a muslim in a bad light cause they know there would be riots, theaters would be bombed, opie and hanks would be on a hit list, thats why they ridicule Christians and Catholics, no worries ,no guts. |
|
ron doesn't live in hollywood, he lives in CT, has been married more than 30 years to the same woman.
as far as muslims are concerned, 24 just did a plot twist where the bad guys framed a muslim guy, and have in the past made muslims the bad guys. 24 guys are still alive.
you people are just grasping at straws. Don't see the friggin movie if you think it disparages catholics. |
|
against the same-sex sodomites will eventually force them back into the closet.
Society will be far better off once it recognizes that there is no rational reason to elevate the practices of same-sex sodomy to an institution.
Does anything make less sense? Here we have practices that produce death, despair, destruction, mental, physical and spiritual sickness and there are actually people who are so ignorant that they want these practices accorded the same honor as human coitus from which all human life springs.
The fact that the same-sex sodomites are immune to the use of reason in this discussion is sufficient evidence to support all claims against the practice of same-sex sodomy. These practices have already destroyed the free will and intellect of many of its practioners. |
|
|
thanks for your approval for me to not see this hollywood piece of crap. Like I care where opie lives, how long he has been married to one woman or not, you who live in the make believe world of people magazine might care, those of us that work hard don't have time or care what hollywood bimbo or bimbette is doing this or doing that. |
|
|
way to go girl you actually made a post without blaming Bush, good girl here is a treat, now play dead. |
|
Galileo had many powerful friends in the church hierarchy, including a Pope, who he lectured to on more than one occasion. He was beloved and admired by many bishops and Cardinals, including Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, who became Pope Urban VIII.
Galileo was never condemned to death, and this is not because he recanted his views, for he never did this. The church was never dogmatically opposed to Galileo’s heliocentric theory for as Gassendi rightly stated in 1642, an earth-centric solar system was not officially an article of faith. The church told Galileo that he wasn’t allowed to teach his theory without proof, which he still lacked. This included a ban against publication, until he could prove the theory. Galileo was given multiple warnings before the church took action.
Galileo and Kepler had a healthy correspondence and sharing of ideas. When Kepler continued to insist that Galileo send his proof, Galileo terminated the correspondence. Why? Because he refused to publicly admit, even to Kepler, that he couldn’t yet prove his theory.
And, Galileo was never locked away in a dungeon. He lived under house arrest in both a bishop’s palace and a wealthy friend’s home.
John Paul II said,
“The Galileo case has been a sort of a 'myth,' in which the image fabricated out of events was quite far removed from reality.” |
|
|
Then go spend YOUR money on it. I'm all for that sort of wealth redistribution. |
|
|
How many movies present characters who come to the realization that faith is the right answer? Should atheists protest these movies?... do they? Republicans believe in freedom for everyone, unless you disagree with them. |
|
Some of the stuff you say is really ridiculous, but usually I don't inquire because I know you have been touched in the head... but I am really curious about this one:
"The fact that the same-sex sodomites are immune to the use of reason in this discussion is sufficient evidence to support all claims against the practice of same-sex sodomy. These practices have already destroyed the free will and intellect of many of its practioners."
what in God's name are you talking about??? |
|
|
It's not a documentary, so why are you expecting the movie to adhere to historical fact? |
|
|
This isn't about Republicans. Get a clue; CHRISTIANS express their reaction to an anti-christian piece of film junk. Did anybody need your approval? |
|
Your fine post about Galileao didn't draw any challengers. You nailed it perfectly.
|
|
es
Yet due to the stupidity and gullibility of the American people, millions think they are.
He even won an Academy Award in the “Best Documentary Feature” category.
Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his Sci-Fi film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Yet, people think it is a documentary.
In his book, “The Da Vinci Code,” Dan Brown claims in a preface that it is a fact that the ‘Priory of Scion’ is a group that has existed for centuries and has included luminaries such as Leonardo Da Vinci. This is a lie, yet tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, believe it.
The left has demolished the line between fiction and documentary. |
|
I thank you for your kind and generous words.
|
|
|
christ rose from the dead. far more stupid than believing a mike moore movie. |
|
|
"Did anybody need your approval? " More importantly, does anyone need yours? You guys seem to think that if you whine loud enough, the rest of us will somehow "see the light" and throw away our science text-books. The fact of that matter is that if movies were truly based on history, the Christian would play the villain far more often. |
|
|
What proof did the Church have that the Sun orbited the earth, being that the discounted Galileo's modest theory for lack of proof? |
|
|
You Christian fanatics are so adorable. You remind me of the Muslims when someone dared to print a cartoon that didn't portray Islam in the best light. It strange that you guys hate the terrorists so much, you guys really have a lot in common. |
|
They had what they believed to be “proof,” and said “proof” that was more than a millennia old. For more info on the development of scientific thought, please pick up a book on the history of science.
As man and science progress, what seems to have been proof in one age is often shown to be nothing of the sort. To us today, it may even seem silly or absurd. However, man and science do not discard what is believed to be proven, or if you prefer, accepted, for another theory that lacks proof.
To judge fourteenth century men by modern standards, based upon the accumulated volume of knowledge since then, is immature. |
|
This is why Jeramy is here casting his weak aspersions at religion.
He won't deny this. Jeramy, being the typical little homosexual lady-bug, is furious at divine truth. God is the authority on all right and wrong, good and evil. Jeramy wants to live in sin and still be judged good. All homosexuals do. Because God has judged them abominable; He must be cut down to their size. That's if only they could do something.
However; they've never had any power at all; only verbal abuse in public places.
Even if God were as weak as they are; He is the final authority. They hate to be corrected. Therefore they hate religion, which convicts them of sin.
God is infinitely greater than ALL of His immense creation; and we're servants of God. Jeramy isn't. The guilty dwarf wants God out of the way. He fantasizes on that idea.
Making Jeramy and his pals spill this hatred everywhere they go. All because God sees their frustration and shame. The truth drives Jeramy to paranoia.
. |
|
He's partly correct; about us.
". . . millions believe that
christ rose from the dead. far more stupid than believing a mike moore movie."
We are more than millions. True.
Millions upon millions, for the span of 2,000 years believe, KNOW, Christ is resurrected from the dead. It's the firm basis of our faith. Have we been proved stupid? Not at all; we see stupid souls who don't believe; they're pathetic.
When He taught His disciples Jesus emphasized one thing over all others. We must have such great faith it would move a mountain. Such a tall order! The reason being; we would all be called in time, to believe in the impossible; and we do. This is what Jesus meant: You are to testify without any shadow of a doubt, to the resurrection of the Son of God. He did rise from the dead; and ascended into heaven. If somebody says that's stupid, we pity the fool. We are in the millions of millions! But he won't enter the kingdom of heaven.
|
|
You can't hold a 14th century person to modern day standards when it comes to scientific facts, but you can condemn people of any era as closed-minded when they ignore the self evident. Galileo showed, beyond reproach, that the "celestial sphere" (which included all the planets in our solar system and the stars beyond) was not static as was implied by a heliocentric system. He showed this by plotting the course of three stars with respect to Jupiter and showing that Jupiter appeared to "move" within the celestial sphere. In a heliocentric model, everything orbits the earth and would therefor seem to move as one giant sphere from the perspective of anyone on earth. The relative motion between Jupiter and the stars does not fit this model. Anyone who had the courage to look into Galileo's telescope could have verified these findings. He had proof for all who were interested. The church wasn't interested.
In my studies of scientific revolutions, the keepers of the current paradigm always fight the change out of fear of losing power and influence. Such has been the tale of the Church since its inception. |
|
|
I am not a homosexual, but that couldn't matter less. Tell me, are you wearing a garment made of two materials? Have you ever grown to crops right next to each other? Have you ever worked on the Sabbath? If you answered yes to any of these, God says your abominable. |
|
|
I don't hate any of you by the way. Everytime I come to this site, I have a giant smile on my face. It's a guilty pleasure of mine to point and laugh at yahoos. I think its crazy that people like you actually exist, it boggles my mind. 'dem dinasuar bones are the devil tryin' to trick ya' ...right??? |
|
jeramy writes: Friday, May, 15, 2009 12:06 AM
Dreadnaught
I don't hate any of you by the way. Everytime I come to this site, I have a giant smile on my face. It's a guilty pleasure of mine to point and laugh at yahoos. I think its crazy that people like you actually exist, it boggles my mind. 'dem dinasuar bones are the devil tryin' to trick ya' ...right???
Arch says
How do you know that the dinosaur bones were not created already in place in an instant of suspended time?
If an omnipotent being created the universe with a giant bang out of nothing, then who are you to say what could explain dinosaur bones layered in with rock sediment? YOu must have a very closed and insignificant mind jeramy. |
|
The universe was created, or came into existence, somewhere between 15 and 20 billion years ago. The earth itself is about 4 billion years. Dinosaurs walked the earth on the order of millions of years ago. I can provide evidence for each of these facts, if I so wish.
Listen, I don't have a problem with faith. Personally I have faith as well, just not in the conventional sense. What I DO have a problem is with people (like Deadnut) who say "homosexuality is abominable because God says so". There are several things wrong with these sort of people. First of all, FAITH is a relationship between you and whichever deity you choose to worship. Anyone who judges others because they don't live up to the standards of his/her faith, clearly doesn't understand faith ("judge not lest ye be judged"). Second, anyone who claims homosexuality is wrong because it said so in the BIBLE better not wear material sown of two fabrics, plant different crops int he same field, or work on the Sabbath... for, in biblical times, these actions were met with similar punishment as homosexuality.
Some of the best people I have known have been religious Christians, and they would be appalled at what is said by people claiming to be Christian on this site. |
|
|
Homosexuality is wrong in itself, as is incest, murder, gossip, self-righteousness. The Bible is just the first documentation of that, and not as condemnation but to show how we fall short of God's standards. A lot of evangelicals got off track getting caught up in those details. All of us, from Mother Teresa to Ivan the Terrible, fall short of God's glory. All of Christianity, every doctrine, points to God's grace. Focus on that. |
|
Before He created man.
Please, Jeramy
If there's a mistake here, you share some of the blame.
I'm quite joyful hearing you aren't perverted. The way I figured you for gay is obvious. You stick up for gay marriage; a misnomer and a farce. It's quite a relief to discover I'm wrong about your love proclivities. (It shouldn't happen to a soul.)
I know I speak for God when I tell you and others, He anxiously asks you believe in Him. If you don't, no one is joyful; nobody wanted you to be lost.
I'll see if further on, when I read what you contribute; there'll be a clue to your arrogance and hatred for God and His servants. Maybe I'll see what it is you need. Ciao; take a breather now. |
|
"I know I speak for God"
ROTFL! |
|
no one in their right mind would choose to practice acts of same-sex sodomy. |
|
"no one in their right mind would choose to practice acts of same-sex sodomy."
Even so, you don't get to decide. Except for yourself.
And you know you do... |
|
". . . are you wearing a garment made of two materials? Have you ever grown to crops right next to each other? Have you ever worked on the Sabbath? If you answered yes to any of these, God says your abominable."
That seems simplistic if you believe you're interpreting the Law of Moses. I gave Jeramy credit for some wisdom; at least a trace of it.
God intended the Mosaic Law for NO other than His chosen people. The Hebrews. It included circumcision. The way He showed His abhorrence of homosexual sins is obviously the universal law; applicable to all men at large. He didn't have to write it in stone.
You must ask yourself; WHY has God once & for all declared His hatred for those offenses? After all, don't men have free will?
He did it because it goes counter to the natural end man is created for. In their nature God created them man and woman. Christ speaks this truth, "For this shall man leave father and mother, and cleave to a wife;" God so made man. All which deviates constitutes a repudiation of HIS will. Clothes of two fabrics are merely a part of Mosaic Law. Shellfish too, it's a dangerous thing to eat in desert heat; it taints so quickly. God ordered these things as a protection; which is also what circumcision provides; protection against infections and disease.
The so-called slavery Gays laugh about isn't a case like we knew it, it was indentured servitude. This is why there were strict arrangements under God's law to protect the "slave" from injustice.
We can't use any provision of the Mosaic Law as a wedge to defeat His Will when it was absolutely declared.
For instance; Christians still observe the sabbath day of rest. The Church who is HIS authority in the world, does it Sunday, the first day. This is fitting, since JESUS is resurrected from the dead on the first day. |
|
And it means exactly nothing.
If the effort put into 'explaining' what a bunch heat-addled desert dwellers meant were put into something useful...
OTOH, it keeps deadnut out of trouble. |
|
Definitely; we speak for God in HIS Holy Church.
Every truth I say here is God's, not man's. I know this because it was given us by Christ's apostles; we are THEIR Church.
Jesus Christ taught the apostles the WHOLE divine, TRUTH. His Church learned every doctrine from His apostles. If anybody disagrees, it won't be with moi.
It is with them, and with JESUS, God made Man. |
|
|
|
|
I haven't seen the movie and probably won't for several months, but have a question for you non believers. If you do not believe in creation, and believe people have evolved from apes, where did the apes come from? This is some thing I can't find an answer for. Please help me out. Thank you!!!! |
|
"If you do not believe in creation, and believe people have evolved from apes, where did the apes come from?"
Our species, Homo sapiens sapiens, evolved from Homo heidelbergensis, which evolved from Homo ergaster, which evolved from Homo habilis, which evolved from Australopithecus afarensis, which evolved from Australopithecus anamensis, which evolved from Ardipithecus ramidus. That whole sequence took about 5 million years, a quarter of a million generations.
All of this information is available in basic textbooks and a number of sites on the web. I can't imagine why you couldn't find an answer if you really made an honest attempt. |
|
|
Just keep in mind, Deadnut is someone who is still fighting down the memories of what Father O'Malley did to him as an altar boy... |
|
[I ?]
"fighting down the memories of what Father O'Malley did to him as an altar boy..."
This brand of "humor" is typical of guttersnipes. I could easily follow suit.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Priests I knew, or know now; are HOLY MEN. They can sin, as any mortal does. But my experiences at the altar have all been holy ones. I'm nor ashamed of anything, Mr. Degenerate / |
|
Munko Bunko neglects to speak of a missing link, between his 5 million generation-long ape trail to where we are since the first men lived on earth. Without further ape-travel. Why would he fail to inform you that his "information" --nice as it paints scientists, is missing a link between our ape "cousins" (DNA) of primeval times?
Because it inconveniences him/them. They ASSUME some other explanation could exist.
BUT, never God.
Faithful men and women don't assume anything. We know
God reveals what took place. A man was made from the clay of this material world; the first man. From his living body the mother of all the living, Woman, was made. GOD made the missing link, Adam. He made a man from the existing proto-type, an hominiod ape; who would never have evolved into an Adam at all, if God were not the Creator.
The author of Genesis, His prophet, was told man came from the earth. God gave the earth-life a soul. All life on earth prior to Adam can metaphorically be seen as CLAY. The makeup of all living creatures is carbon-based, (I seem to recall)--which is mineral. Clay is mostly mineral and water.
The human SOUL, breathed by God into Adam, is pure spirit. Like Himself; immortal. We know it because God reveals it to us.
Do we expect scientists to believe that? No; unless they are men of faith; which until recent centuries they were. We can thank the "Enlightenment," for having changed them so pathetically. (They're all so proud of that enlightenment.)
|
|
"Munko Bunko neglects to speak of a missing link, between his 5 million generation-long ape trail to where we are since the first men lived on earth."
The sequence I gave is complete; no gaps or "missing links."
"Faithful men and women don't assume anything. We know God reveals what took place."
You assume that he did that; you weren't actually there. You assume that you're being told the truth by people who stand to profit from your belief.
"The human SOUL, breathed by God into Adam, is pure spirit."
You don't have a soul; there's no such thing. It's all a fantasy made up by primitive people to justify the priest's control of the tribe.
|
|
Bob Munck is able somehow, to disagree. He makes this up:
"The sequence I gave is complete; no gaps or "missing links."
The sequence is something you read in text-books. Which is all theory. Is it complete? You can't prove it; and there's always been controversy over the "missing link."
A Google search: "missing link"
". . . will sustain all I've said about the "evolved from apes" dishonesty. Just investigate missing link, for which Bob has offered no "information." Better yet, Bob should do it.
|
|
This is fun. At Answers.com is the definition most popularly known,
RE: Missing link
1. A theoretical primate postulated to bridge the evolutionary gap between the anthropoid apes and humans. Not in scientific use.
2. Something lacking that is needed to complete a series.
We're not supposed to realize Munck and many others called scientists personify what "not in scientific use," means? IT'S THEIR DENIAL.
Indeed there is a missing link between us and anthropoid "ancestors." The "missing link" they purport is ancestor both to the apes and to early man has been searched for by paleontologists and all the sciences. They've hoped against all hope to discover the one thing that will vindicate their self-esteem. They can't find it. I say they never will. |
|
It explains the knuckle-dragging stupidity...
The fact is that he is ignoring he words of his own Holy Father, John Paul II....
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
"...In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points..."
"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
Now, there's a lot of tap-dancing in there, but the fact is that Catholicism accepts evolution as true...
|
|
"This brand of "humor" is typical of guttersnipes. I could easily follow suit.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Priests I knew, or know now; are HOLY MEN. They can sin, as any mortal does. But my experiences at the altar have all been holy ones. I'm nor ashamed of anything, Mr. Degenerate"
Me- What I am ashamed of is that we've let the Church sheild Pedophiles, and haven't treated the Catholic Church the way we treat NAMbLA- as a criminal conspiracy.
Again, I would invite you to rent the documentary "Deliver us from Evil", about how your "Holy" Church moved a known pedophile priest from one parish to another in Northern California, where he continued to engage in the same behavior. |
|
"The sequence is something you read in text-books. Which is all theory."
A "theory" is the most solid and substantiated form of scientific concepts, as compared to "postulates," "hypotheses," and W.A.Gs. For something to make it to the level of a theory, there have to be a number of observations and facts that are in agreement with it. For example, the evolutionary sequence I gave has a complete set of fossil remains that validate it.
"Indeed there is a missing link between us and anthropoid "ancestors."
No, there isn't. The term "missing link" was used to describe gaps in the sequence 50-100 years ago, before the findings that filled in the gaps.
Of course, the "missing links" will never be found so as to satisfy the stubbornly ignorant. They may declare that there's a gap between A and C, but then when B is discovered, they declare there are now TWO gaps, between A and B and B and C.
Dreadnaught, your level of ignorance is quite appalling; arguments like "it's only a theory" have been abandoned by all but the most moronic young-earth creationists. We have no "proof" that gravity exist, only a theory backed up by a very large number of observations. |
|
Yes; the truth without assurance from God is always unknown or almost known.
I don't demean a scientist for doing as much as his science deems truthful. He isn't God. You're apparently finished after the scientist has spoken.
We are NOT apes or ape-men gone through stages. We're men. I believe in God. You can do whatever you please, Bob Munck. Keep on trying to defeat the truth according to our Father. |
|
Euge the anti-catholic cretin says:
" . . . rent the documentary "Deliver us from Evil", about how your "Holy" Church moved a known pedophile priest from one parish to another in Northern California, where he continued to engage in the same behavior."
I'll rent my own films, if you don't mind. God has a place for all renegades; including a priest who can't be trusted. Or a bishop not up to the job. We leave these worries to HIM.
God; in whom we believe; can overcome scandals. He won't care what a mule like you thinks of His Church. There are no other churches. There is no other God. There are plenty of chicken-shits like you.
Who needs your approval? Who asked you for a documentary? Why can't you think for yourself instead of slavishly supporting the opinions of another bigot? Don't bother to tell me. You actually don't matter. |
|
"I don't demean a scientist for doing as much as his science deems truthful. He isn't God. You're apparently finished after the scientist has spoken.
We are NOT apes or ape-men gone through stages. We're men. I believe in God. You can do whatever you please, Bob Munck. Keep on trying to defeat the truth according to our Father."
Me- there really isn't much to be said after the scientists have spoken, is there? The real problem you funditards have is that your view of the world (We all were created in the Invisible Sky Pixie's image 6000 years ago, and it got messed up when the first two people listened to a talking snake) is contradicted by SCIENCE (there were thousands of primitive humans, through the wonders of natural selection, we arrived at our current form quite by accident and entirely on our own after millions of years.)
The problem you guys have with Evolution is that it postulates a humanity without a need for a God. |
|
"I'll rent my own films, if you don't mind. God has a place for all renegades; including a priest who can't be trusted. Or a bishop not up to the job. We leave these worries to HIM."
Me- Well, I can see how this movie would shatter your world view. A large part of the film focuses on the victims of this monster. These are otherwise good people who will never trust your church or believe in your God again. So exactly how does it further your God's plan to turn children against him?
Further, the film talks about Bishop O'Mahoney, who is now CARDINAL O'Mahoney, and how he was more interested in protecting the Church than the congregations. heck, even Joseph Seig Heil Ratzenberger was up to his eyeballs in this filth, and he's the Pope now. (Seriously, with one billion Catholics, could you NOT find one who didn't used to be a Nazi?)
DN- God; in whom we believe; can overcome scandals. He won't care what a mule like you thinks of His Church. There are no other churches. There is no other God. There are plenty of chicken-shits like you.
Me- Well, then, he's neglecting his job, if he lets stuff like this go on. Come on, he turns Mrs. Lott into a pillar of salt just for looking over her shoulder, but He lets Ratzenbag and Mahoney prosper?
DN- Who needs your approval? Who asked you for a documentary? Why can't you think for yourself instead of slavishly supporting the opinions of another bigot? Don't bother to tell me. You actually don't matter.
Me- Wow, it's fun to watch a Catholic Funditard squirm when confronted on how evil his church truly is. The sad part about this is that the molestation of children, as bad as it is, isn't even the WORST thing your church has ever done. |
|
Alot of talk but never a dull moment. In the movie, we see the best and worse in mankind. Easier to believe an intelligent force created our world, then to think it all happened by dumb luck/accident.
Big mistake for Pres., Obama to speak at N.D. Univ,. Those Catholics have compromsed their values. They demean their Pro'life stand to invite and honor Obama, who has a 'kill the unborn' attitude! How smart is that? The Catholic deciders are sending the wrong message and give the impression that it's ok to be pro- choice and in fact, one is to be honored regard-less, sick! |
|
"You're apparently finished after the scientist has spoken."
No, science is never "finished;" like Zeno it moves ever closer to the truth but may never reach it. Religion, on the other hand, firmly believes that it STARTED square on the truth and need never move. When it is ultimately forced to move, by things like the discovery of the moons of Jupiter, it makes a frantic leap to the new position and then pretends that it never moved at all. Religion will never be as close to the truth as science; it isn't even facing in the right direction. |
|
Bob Munck writes: Saturday, May, 16, 2009 10:34 PM
dreadnaught 9:30 PM
"You're apparently finished after the scientist has spoken."
No, science is never "finished;" like Zeno it moves ever closer to the truth but may never reach it. Religion, on the other hand, firmly believes that it STARTED square on the truth and need never move. When it is ultimately forced to move, by things like the discovery of the moons of Jupiter, it makes a frantic leap to the new position and then pretends that it never moved at all. Religion will never be as close to the truth as science; it isn't even facing in the right direction.
Arch says
With that comment, you show your feeble limitations. "Science may never reach the truth"
Religion on the other hand has known the truth since ancient of times and will be there in the end laughing at those silly limited scientists for eternity! |
|
"Religion on the other hand has known the truth since ancient of times"
Truths like "the world is flat" and "the Sun rotates around the Earth."
"and will be there in the end laughing at those silly limited scientists for eternity!"
Those limited scientists seem to know some pretty basic things that religion didn't. How exactly could your god be mistaken about simple and obvious concepts like that? You'd almost think that the things he supposedly said were actually made up by primitive people living in a desert. |
|
People are fallible. That is a truth. And why scince keeps evolving. Scientists are people, and therefore capable of being wrong.
There are many more truths that you consistently ignore, like the sanctity of life. The history of capitolism being the only system that works. The fact that the government taking from one to give to another does not work. You ignore all of these facts because you don't like them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't watch it. The real entertainment is watching the preening, self-aggrandizing idiots making a fortune off trash and calling it art and themselves artists. Of course they could not do it without the help of all those stupid enough to pay for watching it. |
|
I don't plan to watch "Angels and Demons", because I thought that "The DaVinci Code" was kind of dull.
That,and the original novel plagarized it's concept from a psuedo-historical book called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". It was so ludicrous that my Medival Studies professor actually took up a whole lecture ridiculing it.
But then again, the BIble is equally if not more ridiculous.... |
|
"People are fallible. That is a truth. And why scince keeps evolving. Scientists are people, and therefore capable of being wrong."
Of course. That's why science has a huge number of built-in methods to discover and correct human error. That's essentially what the "scientific method" IS: an extensive set of cross-checks, corrections, and validations to reduce the effects of human frailty as much as possible.
In contrast, religion has no such mechanism; it is built on human arrogance. Religion holds onto ideas like a bulldog, long after they're shown to be wrong. It has to be dynamited to move it from an established position.
"There are many more truths that you consistently ignore, like the sanctity of life."
"Sanctity" is a religious concept; there is no such thing.
"The history of capitolism being the only system that works."
It sound like you heard this from some right-wing blowhard and accepted it without the slightest bit of thought. In fact, other systems have worked for centuries and even millennia, much longer than capitalism has. Feudal systems have been the norm for most of the last 2,000 years. Egypt prospered under the Pharaohs and an economic system based on chattel slavery for as much as 3000 years, as did China under a dynastic system. The right-wing claims that some or most of the countries of Europe are socialistic, but the people are healthy, happy, and have a higher standard of living than we do; surely their system is "working." |
|
"Wow, it's fun to watch a Catholic Funditard squirm when confronted on how evil his church truly is."
This is the tail-end of his loony bigot screed. Too stupid to even offend.
When have I squirmed? Who's a fundy? I have no fundamentalist worries. I also can tell truth from falsehood; what you peddle as bigotry. Don't flatter yourself; you've been no problem to me.
Where was I "confronted"--? You spread a lot of slime. That's a typical day in the life of a fly.
You and your fool cohort are mere flies on the counter of this blogsite. And you think leaving a fly-speck is confronting the Catholic Church? What a joke!!! Lol!!
". . . the molestation of children, as bad as it is, isn't even the WORST thing your church has ever done."
I'll let Lonny know you think his son's homosexuality is wrong. Evil. (I'll tell him you have FUN, denouncing buggers!)
Those weren't pedophiles, Hypocrite.
They were GAYS, buggering adolescents. Something Lonny looks upon with approval. You're disappointing another troll! |
|
". . . religion has no such mechanism; it is built on human arrogance. Religion holds onto ideas like a bulldog, long after they're shown to be wrong."
Good try, Bob. "Love one another as I have loved you," is wrong. It's arrogance; but we know it isn't arrogance motivates you. Don't we? Why were so many brilliant men fooled?
William F. Buckley was, of course a bulldog. He would have had a ball reducing you to tears; he was a fervent Catholic.
It has to be dynamited to move it from an established position. |
|
|
Someday those of you who don't believe in God, will die and meet your Maker and shake your fist at Him and say, "I don't believe in You!" but He says in His word that "every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord." Do it now, before it's too late.... |
|
"Now or later Someday those of you who don't believe in God, will die and meet your Maker and shake your fist at Him and say, "I don't believe in You!" but He says in His word that "every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord." Do it now, before it's too late...."
Me- You know what, if the only thing your God is truly concerned about is how much we kiss his cosmic backside, he really is kind of petty.
Seriously, do you judge your friends, co-workers, etc on what they do and how they live their lives, or how much they suck up to you and tell you how wonderful you are? No one likes a brownnoser, not even the people on the receiving end of the brownnosing. |
|
Are you really going to claim that the Clergy Abuse scandal wasn't so bad because the victims were adolescents? The point of the matter is that between a 12 year old altar boy and a 40 year old priest, the latter REALLY is the one who ought to know better.
Now, I'm sorry if this soils your happy memories of taking one up the Rectory with Father O'Malley, but the fact is that it was wrong, period, whether you want to call it pedophilia, ephebophilia or homosexuality.
But, yeah, as bad as that is, the burning of heretics (read, anyone thinking for himself) and witches (women killed because of a bad translation), the oppression of science, the holy wars and crusades and inquisitions and support of fascism, all make your "Holy" church a contemptable institution. |
|
"Love one another as I have loved you," is wrong. It's arrogance;"
I didn't say all the ideas were wrong, though that's more of a credo than a statement of fact. "The Sun rotates around the Earth" was one of the examples I gave, and of course geocentrism is a form of arrogance. The church certainly held onto it with bulldog tenancy.
So why doesn't your god understand orbital dynamics?
"William F. Buckley was, of course a bulldog. He would have had a ball reducing you to tears; he was a fervent Catholic."
I saw Buckley debate once; him and one of my Religious Studies professors against Norman Mailer and a PolySci professor, sponsored by the YAF. Buckley was maddening; he talked s.o.o.o s.l.l.o.o.o.l.l.y.y and with so many ah...um...ah..ahs. And when he finally got something out, it always seemed like an attempt to say something clever rather than substantive. (That was true of Mailer, too.)
I realize he's thought of as an intellectual in conservative circles, but let's face it, you don't have much to compare to. |
|
But its not the church or religion we give an
answer but Jesus Christ the Son Of God who loved us so much he took our place on the cross and became the Son of man, so the son's of man may become the son's of God.
I don't follow Jesus because of the fear of hell.
For that would be living a lie and Jesus is not fooled by our attempt's to make him our fire
escape. I follow him because I see his love for
me and I cannot help but love him back. Read the
red words of Jesus himself in the new testament.
For he does not allow us any wiggle room, but one of two conclusions. Jesus was a lunatic or he is the Son of God.
I have found him to be the faithful and true
Son of God during my 54 years on this earth.
|
|
Do these idiots consider themselves smarter than everybody? Apparently so. I suggest to Ron Howard and the rest of his cast start to studying religion and civilization and learn what it has accomplished.
I also have a real problem with authors and their sycophants who believe their own tripe. Dan Brown and his following are not the first to fall for this, and as the world devolves into ignorance there will be more. |
|
Opie - Pa and Aunt Bea would be ashamed.
What a "fraud" you must have been to get the part of Opie. |
|
where I saw it, full house, sold out. All day.
It has already made over $100 million worldwide, about $50 million here in the states weekend one.
Stop telling people what they should see. |
|
"Sun rotates around the Earth" was one of the examples . . . and of course geocentrism is a form of arrogance. The church certainly held onto it with bulldog tenancy. Doesn't your god understand orbital dynamics?"
Capital G God, Sir.
He is the "design" behind intelligent design; you may eventually realize that without God, there wouldn't be dynamics; or even orbits. There wouldn't be a sun; or a Bob Munck. For a man who knocks arrogance, your bad attitude inspires others to act unworthily. BUT; I tend to forgive men of good will, despite our disagreements. It's because Christ is our Lord. He forgave even those who hated Him.
Also worth mentioning: Buckley was altogether dazzling in print. I never saw him live. On TV, I had the impression he was leaning sideways all the time to spare the pesky hemorrhoids.
|
|
elitist, and anti-semite, but other than that, a great guy.
there is no god. |
|
Actually, not racism. Accused of anti-semitism. It was never proved. Such is the world we live in.
Many false accusations are tossed at men of good will. The pharisees accused Jesus of healing the sick and the lame by the power of a devil. We know that was preposterous.
Buckley even dismissed a hard-line conservative, Joe Sobran, at National Review.
For making anti-semitic remarks. |
|
There is a God. He reigns over all Creation. |
|
|
The National Review's record during the civil rights years was appalling. I don't think any other publication that aspires to an intellectual tradition has such a large part of its history that must be excised. |
|
"I saw it, full house, sold out. All day. It has already made over $100 million worldwide, about $50 million here in the states weekend one."
So much for the bad economy.
"Stop telling people what they should see."
OK, Lonny. You stop telling people marriage is for two homosexuals or lesbians. It's not. |
|
"National Review's record during the civil rights years was appalling. I don't think any other publication that aspires to an intellectual tradition has such a large part of its history that must be excised."
You made up your mind.
Keep saying it. It doesn't matter. Buckley was a great man. |
|
"Capital G God, Sir."
If he doesn't like it lower case, let him correct it.
"you may eventually realize that without God, there wouldn't be dynamics; or even orbits."
So why did he think that the earth was flat and the sun revolves around it? |
|
"The central question that emerges…is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race"
The National Review, August 1957
game, set, match. Just in one quote about racism.
And gay marriage is a civil right. You don't have to like it anymore than you like Angels and Demons. |
|
Lonny beat me to it. I said the National Review's record was appalling, and dreadnaught dodged, saying, "You made up your mind." Well, yes I did: I made up my mind after reading what they published.
As Lonny's quote demonstrates, they were not content to hide behind standard buzz words like "states rights," as many other conservatives did. No, they came right out and said that it was all about white supremacy and black inferiority.
Don't forget, when AIDs first burst into public consciousness, William Buckley suggested that homosexuals should be tattooed on the buttocks as a public health measure.
There is a lot of evidence that Buckley never actually read very deeply in history and political philosophy, or anything else, he just knew how to pull out quotes from great thinkers, and to use a big word when a true intellectual would use a simpler one. Add to that the easily observed fact that he and his wife were blatant social climbers, and you get a distasteful character with an undeserved reputation. |
|
buckley was brilliant were people who were not so much. Total preener, I bet closet gay since he only had one kid, and lived an effete lifestyle. Yeah, he was 'catholic', but he went after Gore Vidal (who has always been out) with such a vengeance, well, you know how those closeted gay folks are.
He wouldn't have been a TH blogger. Vanity Fair maybe, NYTimes, not something as trailer park as TH. |
|
You're badly behind in reading comprehension if the quote you give here looks racist to you.
And; Munck Baby:
". . . did he think that the earth was flat and the sun revolves around it?"
No Son. God wasn't being consulted in debate proceedings. We don't know His infallible thoughts.
Human beings had certain points of view. They weren't trying to upstage science. Their authority simply reached into secular life. It won't ALWAYS serve a good purpose. In due time, this was corrected. God operates with infinite precision, but not always immediately.
That partly explains what you & I developed into, from the most minute state in the first phases. You started to exist in the twinkle of your father's eye. But even then, you had an identity; God knew Bob.
This is sure to go over Lonny's and Vlad's heads. You follow me, don't you? |
|
". . . when AIDs first burst into public consciousness, William Buckley suggested that homosexuals should be tattooed on the buttocks as a public health measure."
What about it? Wasn't he right?
The truth is, Buckley had a smashing wit. The only writer I can compare him to that way was Peter Ustinov. They had effervesence in the English language. A tattoo on the butt of Lonny's son makes good sense. It could save lives someday. Lol! |
|
". . . did he think that the earth was flat and the sun revolves around it?"
No Son. God wasn't being consulted in debate proceedings. We don't know His infallible thoughts."
But it says those things in the christian bible, several different times, in different ways and different contexts. Are you saying that there's stuff in the bible that your god had nothing to do with, and it is WRONG? What else is wrong in the bible? I'd bet "most of it." |
|
Hahaha! Vlad is jealous of talented people!!! Who would have thunk it?
To this majestic troll, William Buckley was only a fake. He wrote terrific books; but Vladimir Tragon is really in the direct line of Dostoevsky; won't use a big word when HE-- a true intellectual, would use a simpler one!
You see, Vlad is a marvelous intellectual! He has a doctorate from the University of Mars!!! This genius; an indisputable authority on civilization, thinks Buckley was "a distasteful character with an undeserved reputation."
Are you now writing your 24th book, Oh smart one? All about good taste?
|
|
You're so quick to gloss over what I say to you, because you have no answer. First we ponder why God acts in a certain way.
I think you gave it your hard volley in "orbital dynamics" and got a net-ball. You thought you were putting me away. YOU, who accuse God of "arrogance." So, here you expect to tackle the Bible; a simple matter for your worldly ego.
I could humor you. The Bible is no dark mystery to me. Let's give you a few minutes to catch your breath! |
|
"I think you gave it your hard volley in "orbital dynamics" and got a net-ball."
Well, no, you didn't actually answer my question. Why did your god think that the earth was flat and the sun rotated around it?
The christian bible says that, and it's wrong. What else in the bible is wrong? |
|
Professor Vlad Estragon, flattering Lonny says:
"As Lonny's quote demonstrates,"
NYET! STOP--
It demonstrates Lonny can't understand English. Read it again.
THEN YOU >>>"they were not content to hide behind standard buzz words like "states rights," as many other conservatives did."
The Constitution is "buzz words" --? Now we know you're out of your depth, Volodya.
"No, they came right out and said that it was all about white supremacy and black inferiority."
EXCUSE ME?
In the quote it says-- IT MEANS that for the period in discussion, the white citizen was ADVANCED, where African Americans had yet to advance. Not a thing about superiority. It seems unjust today, but in southern states, poor black men still worked as shine-boys and railway redcaps. Citizens from the white community went to college and became movers and shakers. Or at least dentists & bankers. The advanced class, not race.
Was this just? Not in all cases; but if you're willing to work it means the more you advance. Unless you can score points on the basketball court; for which Lew Alcindor was destined. He turned into Hakeem Abdul Jabbar, or some such advanced name.
|
|
Catch your breath first, Bob.
"Why did your god think that the earth was flat and the sun rotated around it?"
I absolutely answered you. GOD, who created those whirling things; knows all about them. MEN only scratched the surface of those designs recently.
The Holy Bible doesn't say God couldn't understand what an arrogant kid like yuz understands. The verses in Scripture weren't a schematic of the universe; but a layman's description of the solar system and its mysteries.
The Bible is about God Himself. He wouldn't have been understood in 7,000 BC, explaining orbital dynamics to His prophet. (But His creation and all its marvels are clear as crystal for God.)
The Bible tells us our responsibilities as creatures; and about our salvation. You ascribe another kind of lesson to be drawn; because you're --sad to say, very ignorant.
|
|
"The verses in Scripture weren't a schematic of the universe; but a layman's description of the solar system and its mysteries."
But it's wrong. Why would he have described it incorrectly? What else did he describe incorrectly? If he couldn't even get "earth and sun" right, how can he possibly be right about "heaven and hell?"
"He wouldn't have been understood in 7,000 BC, explaining orbital dynamics to His prophet."
It's no harder to understand "the earth rotates around the sun" than it is to understand "the sun rotates around the earth." Why did he lie?
"because you're --sad to say, very ignorant."
Sounds like it's your god who is very ignorant; he didn't understand the simplest, most basic things. Aren't you embarrassed to have a god who can't even make it to "smarter than a 5th grader" |
|
"it's your god who is very ignorant; he didn't understand the simplest, most basic things. Aren't you embarrassed to have a god who can't even make it to smarter than a 5th grader.
That's not the way an intelligent observer would put it. Einstein never said anything like it. But;
YOU, who accuse God of "arrogance," had no qualms, after reading 25 or 30 books; about relegating ME-- just as important to God as YOU, --making me the object of your scorn. I don't have to DEFEND God from a bow-wow like Bob.
I don't care. To me a Bob Munck is fairly ordinary. And when you expose him in a sentence or two as a phony-- that's what I've done; his temper starts to flare up. He can't take it. |
|
According to Lonny, Vlad and and other q u e e r s,
"gay marriage is a civil right. You don't have to like it anymore than you like Angels and Demons."
Even if I liked it, there is no right like that.
Homosexuals can't marry. They can ACT as if married. Tom Hanks acts all the time. But contrary to what the script says; he's not an angel. He's not even a historian. |
|
I have one question.
If God is so stupid, then how did He create the universe in a big Bang? You know, something out of nothing? Munk cannot explain that one so he is lesser than the ancient prophets who were spot on when they described the big bang as God speaking into existence the entire universe. Astrologers and physicists have consensus on that fact. Right Bob Munk? Simply rewind the expanding and finite universe back to the point of creation and there you have it! |
|
"I don't have to DEFEND God from a bow-wow like Bob."
It's more that you CAN'T. You haven't even tried to answer the question about why your god is so badly mistaken about very basic facts.
"And when you expose him in a sentence or two as a phony-- that's what I've done;"
Really? In what way have you done that? What you've exposed is your own inability to deal with contradictions between your religion and observed facts. I would think it would be fairly upsetting to you that he makes mistakes in exactly the way primitive desert-dwellers would make them. That's a pretty good indication that they made him up. |
|
"If God is so stupid, then how did He create the universe in a big Bang?"
He didn't. The observable four-dimensional universe was created by two branes clashing together in the higher-dimensioned universe, sometimes called the "multiverse."
"Astrologers and physicists have consensus on that fact"
Astrologers? I don't think astrology includes any theories on the creation of the universe.
|
|
It's clear enough. Bob Munck doesn't have any intention of bowing out. (Even though he's a bow-wow.)
He determined long ago. God cannot exist; He hasn't got my approval. And I'm never going to give it!
This is what we call in Chess the impasse. Bob Munck won't think about it. Let's tell him "Run along, Bob. We believe in God. You can believe in Munck the bow-wow. Ciao, Bao-wao--!" |
|
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, May, 19, 2009 12:27 AM
arch 12:09 AM
"If God is so stupid, then how did He create the universe in a big Bang?"
He didn't. The observable four-dimensional universe was created by two branes clashing together in the higher-dimensioned universe, sometimes called the "multiverse."
"Astrologers and physicists have consensus on that fact"
Astrologers? I don't think astrology includes any theories on the creation of the universe.
Arch says
Ah! You fell for it! (Laughter)
You tried to explain something before the Planck time which is entirely impossible by all reputable scientists and logicians.
Astrologers are as accurate as the physicists when it comes to predicting anything before Planck time. Theologians have had it correct since ancient times. You should know that!
Can you prove there is a multiverse? (Laughter) |
|
Astrologers are all bow-wows too.
But Chinese fortune cookies! Now; they mean a lot! |
|
"It's clear enough. Bob Munck doesn't have any intention of bowing out"
All you have to do is explain why your god was so wrong about such basic facts, and I'll drop the subject. |
|
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, May, 19, 2009 12:51 AM
dreadnaught 12:43 AM
"It's clear enough. Bob Munck doesn't have any intention of bowing out"
All you have to do is explain why your god was so wrong about such basic facts, and I'll drop the subject.
Arch says
Munk. Did you know that God still loves those who get AIDS? Even though they hate Him! That is what this is about right? You got AIDS and blame it on God right? |
|
"You tried to explain something before the Planck time which is entirely impossible by all reputable scientists and logicians."
I'm glad you've learned to spell "Planck" correctly, but now I suggest you look up the term "Planck time." It's a unit of time, a duration, not a point in time. Saying "before the Planck time" is like saying "before the microsecond." One Planck time is equal to 5.4E-44 seconds.
"Astrologers are as accurate as the physicists when it comes to predicting anything before Planck time."
You meant to say "astronomers" in your previous post, didn't you?
"Can you prove there is a multiverse?"
Yes, indeed. We can directly sense three space-like dimensions and one time-like dimension of it. Look around. |
|
Munk.
Or is it that you are searching for someone who can logically explain or convince you God is real?
Well truthfully I cannot prove the existence of God in human terms. That is the hard part for people of all stripes to accept as it must be accepted like a little child accepts an explanation from his human father about a subject too complex for human understanding. That is what is meant by faith. You must accept the truth of The Creator's being on pure faith from the heart. Only in that way can you be saved from eternal death of non belief. God said as written in the Bible, " I Am the truth and the light and the way. No one comes to the Father but by ME" Check it out Bob Munk! What do you have to lose? |
|
"the existence of God ... must be accepted like a little child accepts an explanation from his human father about a subject too complex for human understanding."
So essentially the christian god is the equivalent of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. That's what I thought.
"What do you have to lose?"
Rationality. |
|
arch 12:46 AM
"You tried to explain something before the Planck time which is entirely impossible by all reputable scientists and logicians."
I'm glad you've learned to spell "Planck" correctly, but now I suggest you look up the term "Planck time." It's a unit of time, a duration, not a point in time. Saying "before the Planck time" is like saying "before the microsecond." One Planck time is equal to 5.4E-44 seconds.
"Astrologers are as accurate as the physicists when it comes to predicting anything before Planck time."
You meant to say "astronomers" in your previous post, didn't you?
"Can you prove there is a multiverse?"
Yes, indeed. We can directly sense three space-like dimensions and one time-like dimension of it. Look around.
Arch says
Wrong Bob. The Planck instant is the first increment of time beginning with the big bang as reasoned by astrophysicists. The clock cannot be rewound any further than that hence we are limited on what can be scientifically proven by physical laws as there is nothing to be a reality before the Planck instant. Think of it like this. We are limited by the physical universe we exist within to be able to comprehend or prove anything before it existed. Those are the facts Bob. Pure and simple. Logic 101. |
|
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, May, 19, 2009 1:22 AM
arch 1:17 AM
"the existence of God ... must be accepted like a little child accepts an explanation from his human father about a subject too complex for human understanding."
So essentially the christian god is the equivalent of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. That's what I thought.
"What do you have to lose?"
Rationality.
Arch says
What is rational about being stuck in a universe that is finite and expanding with no chance of ever discovering the actual cause or before?
One can still be rational and believe in what cannot be ever explained by the scientific method. I being one example. Why fight what you cannot ever know? Do you understand the meaning of HOPE, Faith, and Love? These are thing that cannot be proven with the scientific method either |
|
"Wrong Bob. The Planck instant is the first increment of time beginning with the big bang as reasoned by astrophysicists."
You used the term "Planck time." Look it up; it's the time taken to cross one Planck length at the speed of light.
"The clock cannot be rewound any further than that hence we are limited on what can be scientifically proven by physical laws as there is nothing to be a reality before the Planck instant."
Nothing is EVER "scientifically proven;" the concept of "proof" does not exist in science.
arch, you've seen my resume; you know what my background is. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?
It's 1:45AM; I'm gone. |
|
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, May, 19, 2009 1:45 AM
arch 1:32 AM
"Wrong Bob. The Planck instant is the first increment of time beginning with the big bang as reasoned by astrophysicists."
You used the term "Planck time." Look it up; it's the time taken to cross one Planck length at the speed of light.
"The clock cannot be rewound any further than that hence we are limited on what can be scientifically proven by physical laws as there is nothing to be a reality before the Planck instant."
Nothing is EVER "scientifically proven;" the concept of "proof" does not exist in science.
arch, you've seen my resume; you know what my background is. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?
It's 1:45AM; I'm gone.
Arch says
Don't run away just when it is getting fun Bob!
You have no relevant answers to what is impossible to know. I do not respect any intellect that cannot argue with an open mind! Don't be one of those Bob! You know exactly what point I am making and you refuse or are terrified to confront it. Until later, Bob! |
|
|
Suck, for the resident athiest to be on God's Time Table. |
|
bible thumpin' inbreds like Arch and Dread get schooled on science by Bob... and they still don't get it.
But let's take their argument at face value. Everything that is in all of creation is God's handiwork. An eternal omnipotent being who rules a vast universe.
Yet we are to believe that such a being is so insecure and petty, that he's concerned about whether the insignfigant microbes on one planet pray to him or how they have sex? That he's going to take the time to create a realm of eternal torment for the ones who don't pray the right way or have the right kind of sex?
However, he's unconcerned his own clergy is molesting little boys.
That seems, well, kind of silly. |
|
Mr. Munck seems to have difficulty understanding that man was placed on earth to learn and to unearth (pun intended) the mysteries of God. If Adam had known all that God knows when he was cast out of the Garden of Eden he would have exited the garden in a BMW.
That's the point. God has placed us here on earth to learn and make our way through life. He certainly has given us the blueprint for how to be happy and how to live worthy to return back to him, but if he had made it easy and automatic, how would we grow from that experience?
I am much smarter and wiser than my 19 year old son because I have had much more experience with life. If God had just given man all of the knowledge He has when He placed us here on earth, then what's the purpose of being here?
Look at how much more we know in 2009 than we knew in 1909? We now all drive cars, fly in airplanes, talk to a loved one on the other side of the world through communications that were unheard of a century ago.
I could provide for my teenager's clothes, cell phone, car, ipod, and etc. if I so choose. I prefer instead to require him to work for those things and am a believer that he becomes a better person, of stronger character, and more appreciative because of it. I think God, who is our Father, treats us similarly.
In short, I don't think God told us that the sun rotated around the earth or whether the earth rotated around the sun. I think he wanted us to figure that out ourselves, which we have.
|
|
We aren't the inmates running the asylum, we're the students teaching something to this professor. Munck the Mighty Mind /
His analogy:
"the existence of God ... must be accepted like a little child accepts an explanation from his human father about a subject too complex for human understanding."
In fact, we're the children of God. Whereas, Munck the child rants at God; Munck is the juvenile who knows everything. Quote: ". . . Essentially the christian god is the equivalent of Santa Claus, et al,."
The Christian's ___Father___ is God; who loves us, His children. That's His essence, God is love.
Children rejecting and denying Him are the equivalent of rebellious devils. That's the reason for damnation. If you don't want Him for a Father; He won't force you. You can go then, with those who also rejected His authority; Satan et al. He wanted you; you chose hell instead. |
|
"His analogy:"
That was actually arch's analogy, in his post at 1:17 AM. |
|
"Yet we are to believe that such a being is so insecure and petty, that he's concerned about whether the insignfigant microbes on one planet pray to him or how they have sex?"
I agree, and it points up an interesting observation: the scientific atheists and the Christian fundamentalists have more in common than it seems on the surface. Both of them insist on a literal understanding of the words of the Bible. From there, they move into their well-crafted arguments on what did or did not, or what could or could not, happen. They get very heated and assertive, but underneath all of it is the assumption that the words in the Bible must be taken as literally true. Once you move away from that assumption, as millions of faithful Christians have, both sides look pretty silly. |
|
"difficulty understanding that man was placed on earth to learn and to unearth (pun intended) the mysteries of God."
Who says?
Science IS solving the mysteries of the universe. The problem the religious fanatics have with it is that science has not found any need for the presence of a supernatural being. The evolution of plants, animals, and people, the formation of the planets, stars, and galaxies -- all can be explained without resorting to a god or gods. That's why you hate and reject so much of science.
"In short, I don't think God told us that the sun rotated around the earth or whether the earth rotated around the sun"
Yeah, he did. He told you the sun rotates around the earth -- which is wrong -- in the bible. If the bible isn't the way your god tells you things, what is it?
The bible contains things that are utterly incorrect. How do you know that there aren't other things that are wrong? As I said above, if your god can't get the sun and the earth right, he probably didn't get heaven and hell right either. Maybe one or both of them don't exist, or maybe they're otherwise identical, but in one people drive on the left and in the other they drive on the right. |
|
"difficulty understanding that man was placed on earth to learn and to unearth (pun intended) the mysteries of God."
Who says?
Science IS solving the mysteries of the universe. The problem the religious fanatics have with it is that science has not found any need for the presence of a supernatural being. The evolution of plants, animals, and people, the formation of the planets, stars, and galaxies -- all can be explained without resorting to a god or gods. That's why you hate and reject so much of science.
"In short, I don't think God told us that the sun rotated around the earth or whether the earth rotated around the sun"
Yeah, he did. He told you the sun rotates around the earth -- which is wrong -- in the bible. If the bible isn't the way your god tells you things, what is it?
The bible contains things that are utterly incorrect. How do you know that there aren't other things that are wrong? As I said above, if your god can't get the sun and the earth right, he probably didn't get heaven and hell right either. Maybe one or both of them don't exist, or maybe they're otherwise identical, but in one people drive on the left and in the other they drive on the right. |
|
|
god apparently reposted my comment. |
|
say they are born again? Doesn't that mean until they were 'born again' they were nothing?
Rational thought (as in 2+2 = 4) would thus say that until a human is 'born' he or she is nothing.
The day that I see fundy christians advocating universal healthcare for newborns, regardless of ability to pay, is the day I will believe that I will be convinced that they care about children as anything other than a political tool. And as a control of women...they hate single moms, they won't let her have an abortion, though, and they don't help the single mom. Seems that the point is that the single mom never have sex, just as it is with gay people. They concede (many of them) that gays are born gay, they just have to never act on it. All about fundy nutters of all religious stripes (fundy american christians, taliban, fundy jewish folks) want women under control. Payback bigtime for eve and that serpent. LOL |
|
INCORRECTLY, Bob says:
"As I said above, if your god can't get the sun and the earth right, he probably didn't get heaven and hell right either."
You're using another false premise. Books & passages in scripture are inspired by God and true. But not a definition of all God knows. They're a sense of what He reveals.
What He KNOWS would overwhelm any book or books; He would certainly swamp everything ___you think___ science knows.
The proper premise is this:
God revealed a measure of what He omnisciently commands; to His prophets. They wrote it in places figuratively. They aren't, each time, --for taking literally.
We can see this in the way Christ saw the biblical story of Jonah and the whale. Jesus is God, omniscient.
Jesus Christ said to them; "They demand a sign. The only sign I shall give is the "sign of Jonah."
Jesus describes the book PRECISELY as what it is: Non-literal. Meant only as a SIGN of something else. In this instance the resurrection of Jesus after three days in the tomb. Jonah was a sign. Many other metaphors, passages in scripture --signify; they aren't meant as Munck imagines, to swallow whole.
". . . in one people drive on the left and in the other they drive on the right."
Whatever??? drivel Bob is trying to say; he doesn't know what he's talking about. |
|
"Books & passages in scripture are inspired by God and true."
No, some of them are false. The earth ISN'T flat.
"They aren't, each time, --for taking literally."
So "the sun goes around the earth" is a parable, metaphor, or non-literal interpretation of "the earth goes around the sun." Your god is really, really bad at constructing analogies.
"Jesus describes the book PRECISELY as what it is: Non-literal. Meant only as a SIGN of something else. In this instance the resurrection of Jesus after three days in the tomb. Jonah was a sign. ... they aren't meant ... to swallow whole."
Nothing in the bible is meant literally? How do you know the whole "life after death" thing isn't a parable for something else? If Jonah and the whale didn't really exist, maybe Moses and Jesus didn't either.
If some things in the bible are non-literal and not true, how do you know everything in the bible isn't non-literal and not true? How can you use passages from the bible as authority for anything? They might be one of those non-literal ones. |
|
"Science IS solving the mysteries of the universe. The problem the religious fanatics have with it is that science has not found any need for the presence of a supernatural being. The evolution of plants, animals, and people, the formation of the planets, stars, and galaxies -- all can be explained without resorting to a god or gods. That's why you hate and reject so much of science."
I see nothing incompatible with science and religion. The advances we've made in the sciences have been great. I don't claim to undersatand how God created the universe, but I'm of the mind that he may have used science to do it. And, as impressive as your resume is which you continually tout, He is the master scientist.
You can use science to discount the existence of God, but there are many, many scientists who would disagree with you.
"The bible contains things that are utterly incorrect. How do you know that there aren't other things that are wrong?"
My personal belief is that there have been some errors in the many translations of the Bible. You can pick out verses that may, on the surface, look like they don't make sense, which is why I believe a personal relationship with God is so important. If we listen, ponder and pray, we can come to understand His words, and how they apply to our lives.
No one is forcing you to believe as I believe, so I'm not sure I understand why you seem to be so offended that I do.
|
|
This one is on the money;
"The fool says in his heart, There is no God."
Despite knowing no matter what we say, Munuck is going to scorn it --he's that fool;
"Nothing in the bible is meant literally? How do you know the whole "life after death" thing isn't a parable for something else?"
I know. Jesus Christ said so; and even raised the dead back to life. Much of what HE speaks in parables can be proved. We also know; EVERYTHING isn't a Sign, a lot's literal. (He prophesied: "Even if a man rises from the dead, they will not believe." That could be you; yet you still have time.)
|
|
Continued:
"If Jonah and the whale didn't really exist," (Bob.)
We don't know; he may have been real. The BOOK is the sign.
"Maybe Moses and Jesus didn't either."
We're certain. Both existed; and the first prophesied the coming in time of the second. Moses promised us the Redeemer; and Christ is the real Passover Lamb, Our Holy Redeemer.
Moses is a very accomplished prophet of God. The Law of Moses is historical fact. Even if you don't care for it. Therefore, we know Moses lived, and was Israel's greatest prophet. (You can't make up those things, Bob!)
"If some things in the bible are non-literal and not true, how do you know everything in the bible isn't non-literal and not true?"
We consult CHRIST, through the Church He founded. He sent her the Holy Spirit to protect her from errors in faith and morals.
"How can you use passages from the bible as authority for anything? They might be one of those non-literal ones."
YES; that can happen. For instance today's Bible-thumping evangelicals and their ilk. (They botch up the texts.) You trust only the Catholic Church. Then, the proper meanings explained there, of Scripture. We love the Holy Spirit. He's never off the mark. |
|
Would you take this back? It's wrong.
"some things in the bible are non-literal and not true,"
That's wrong.
Passages are always true in their own way. A verse not to be understood literally; if it's God's word,
STILL is the truth.
There is metaphor, paradox, parable, mystery and PLAINLY true. God reveals, but faith is a requirement as well. That's why skeptics always go away disappointed. |
|
...and you makes your choice.
"Non-literal. Meant only as a SIGN of something else. In this instance the resurrection of Jesus after three days in the tomb. Jonah was a sign. Many other metaphors, passages in scripture --signify; they aren't meant as Munck imagines, to swallow whole."
Ever notice how the people who are most adamant about the words of the Bible can quickly take up "metaphor" or "open to interpretation" when it suits them?
St. Paul says "sodomists" are sinners, so homosexuals are sinners and that's the end of it. St. Paul also says that women should be silent in church . . . but if you have sopranos in your choir, well, that line is subject to interpretation, see, you have to understand the environment that Paul was writing in, etc. etc. |
|
"We're certain. Both existed; and the first prophesied the coming in time of the second. ... The Law of Moses is historical fact. ... Therefore, we know Moses lived, and was Israel's greatest prophet."
Proves nothing. A thousand years from now there may be a Yoda's Law. Both of them may have been popular fictional characters that turned up in stories told by wandering storytellers and later were captured in a book.
"We consult CHRIST, through the Church He founded."
And he talks to you? You hear a voice? Or are you making it all up in your head? All you have is a book, and no way to know which parts of it are literal and which are parable.
"Passages are always true in their own way."
In what ways are "The earth is flat" or "the sun rotates around the earth" true?
"That's why skeptics always go away disappointed."
Amused, not disappointed. |
|
"Passages are always true in their own way."
In what ways are "The earth is flat" or "the sun rotates around the earth" true?"
In a different way. The point is; we are under no obligation to interpret that as literal.
That's why skeptics always go away disappointed.
"Amused, not disappointed."
I feel no disappointment at your troubles with the revealed truth. God doesn't coerce our belief. He allowed other men like yourself to remain in darkness; and to me and others He gives light. That's why I can offer you good counsel. If you persist in impudent questions I'll keep counseling. |
|
A darkened soul; unable to see:
"Proves nothing. A thousand years from now there may be a Yoda's Law."
There we have another lame response; the Law of Moses "proves nothing." The Jews are on earth without any particular reason, except they met at a fictional temple, to worship a negative idol. According to this genius.
that turned up in stories told by wandering storytellers and later were captured in a book."
Don't think they could be real and historical; denial is better than having hopes of a life everlasting. Yeah; Bob is content with negative thinking; the worms await, etc.,
So much so, he'll deny history and the survival of truths beyond all hope. He'd just rather turn to dust. "[they] may have been popular fictional characters. Because I say so, that's why!" Christ even prophesied of this sad sack:
"Even if a man rises from the dead, they will not believe."
|
|
Me: "In what ways are "The earth is flat" or "the sun rotates around the earth" true?"
Dread0: "In a different way."
IN A DIFFERENT WAY? That's about the most meaningless thing I've heard. Why in the world do you think you can get away with spouting nonsense like that? You need to spend a couple of years arguing with Jesuits.
"The point is; we are under no obligation to interpret that as literal."
So how would you interpret it? Are you also under no obligation to interpret "Thou shall not kill" literally?
Me: "Proves nothing. A thousand years from now there may be a Yoda's Law."
Dread0: "There we have another lame response; the Law of Moses "proves nothing."
No, dummy, the existence of a law named after him doesn't prove that he existed.
As a result of this dialog, it's my estimate that being religious costs you about 30 IQ points. And you started on the low side. |
|
"He'd just rather turn to dust."
Nope, much, much more than that. My will states that my ashes will be taken to the outer tip of the first operating space elevator, 50,000 miles above the earth, and released over a 24-hour period at the time of the equinox. That way I'll rain down gently on Mars, Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, and maybe even Saturn. Look for little specks of me in your breakfast cereal one bright spring day. |
| | |