But this isn’t the issue. I’ve been writing about left creationism for years, and arguing that Christian creationism is less damaging because despite its non-scientific origins at least it’s largely based on fundamental truths that have been vindicated by science.
For example, is it better to teach one’s children that sodomy is prohibited by God, or that it’s natural and good stuff “because gay penguins”?
I’m not a Creationist, but if I had to choose between left theology and Christian theology for my kids, I’d go for the latter every time. I’m pretty sure most people feel the same way, which is why so many non-believers still haul their kids into church every Sunday.
Even so, it’s a losing battle. Christianity was as “true” as anything in its time, but it’s been superseded by its bastard progressive faith. We really need a new religion very badly.
24 comments
I’ve been writing about left creationism...
WTF? Do you mean evolution?
...at least it’s largely based on fundamental truths that have been vindicated by science.
Citations for this load of BS, please.
I’m not a Creationist, but if I had to choose between left theology and Christian theology for my kids, I’d go for the latter every time.
Sounds to me like your are a creationist.
For example, is it better to teach one’s children that sodomy is prohibited by God, or that it’s natural and good stuff “because gay penguins”?
Short answer - yes.
Even so, it’s a losing battle.
Something we agree on at last.
We really need a new religion very badly.
Cthulhu is ready to welcome you with open tentacles.
I like how he admits he does not care about truth.
"For example, is it better to teach one’s children that sodomy is prohibited by God, or that it’s natural and good stuff “because gay penguins”?"
It's probably best to tell the best objectively supported truth ... but the poster does not care about truth so he will lie to children because he thinks it's better for them.
Or the
Truth has proven to get us further as a civilization then anything else. Despite what you've been told your religion has not been the driving force behind health and societal benefits.
Bullshit rationalizing like this doesn't work when S.E. (I play an Atheist on TV) Cupp tries it either
The definition of sodomy includes oral heterosexual sex, which most men try to get their girlfriend/wife to try at least once. There's nothing in the bible against it.
The only thing non-believers who haul their kids into Church every Sunday teach them is how to be hypocrites, which is why so few do it.
Actually, I think humanity has progressed to the point where it doesn't need religion at all. Certainly not one developed by nomadic Bronze-Age desert-dwellers, or even one invented by a mediocre science-fiction writer.
Christian creationism is less damaging because despite its non-scientific origins at least it’s largely based on fundamental truths that have been vindicated by science.
Name one.
is it better to teach one’s children that sodomy is prohibited by God, or that it’s natural and good stuff “because gay penguins”?
It's natural if your son is gay. As for whether it's a sin, that's between you and your god. But for the rest of us in the real world, it is natural. And as long as both parties involved are consenting adults, who cares?
But "sodomy is a sin against God, therefore creationism" isn't a valid argument.
I’m not a Creationist
Yeah right.
Christianity was as “true” as anything in its time, but it’s been superseded by its bastard progressive faith reality.
Fixed that for you.
WTF is "left creationism" or "left theology"?
For example, is it better to teach one’s children that sodomy is prohibited by God, or that it’s natural and good stuff “because gay penguins”?
The latter, moron. What's so difficult about "some boys love other boys"?
Wow this is fundy but a very strange kind of Fundy. He's not a Christian Fundy and not claiming it or any religion is true. No he's saying that we need a religion any religion to prevent people from doing things he thinks are icky.
His message is "Christianity is dying so we need a new super restrictive religion to take it's place." That is new.
I’ve been writing about left creationism for years, and arguing that Christian creationism is less damaging because despite its non-scientific origins at least it’s largely based on fundamental truths that have been vindicated by science.
Where has it been vindicated?
It's better to teach your kids the things that have EVIDENCE to support them. How else will they ever learn how to distinguish truth from falsehood? Think of life as a court of law. In court, you have to show evidence for a claim. Life is like that. I would be very leery of trusting a juror who doesn't understand that.
Creationism ..... No evidence. No truth.
I just want to call attention to the fact that Bill here doesn't seem to actually believe that anything in the Bible is actually aligned with reality, or at least, he doesn't seem to be motivated by a belief in such. Rather, he seems to be blatantly arguing that we need to pretend a particular religion is correct.
> Cthulhu is ready to welcome you with open tentacles.
Can anything so unearthly and blasphemous to thought be understood to have an opinion? I think you've got the Great Old Ones' High Priest mixed up with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
For example, is it better to teach one’s children that sodomy is prohibited by God, or that it’s natural and good stuff “because gay penguins”?
The latter, because the former is incorrect and bigoted.
For example, is it better to teach one’s children that sodomy is prohibited by God, or that it’s natural and good stuff “because gay penguins”?
@creativerealms: not ENTIRELY new. There's a certain class of authoritarian conservative who, if given the choice between an oppressive conservative theocratic state and an open, all-inclusive secular liberal one, will pick the theocracy every time, even when the governing religion is an 'enemy' faith--as long as it keeps segments of society that they hate in check, they're all kool and the gang with it. See: Theodore Beale, fschmidt.
Creationism isn't vindicated by science, it's claims of credibility have been diminished over time, ever since Hutton came across Siccar Point. I'd rather have children taught what's grounded in reality with evidence to support it than mollycoddling beliefs held dear just because it would lead to hurt feelings amongst the parents. This would leave them better equipped to trust science and think for themselves, thus enabling a new generation to expand upon the knowledge of today, instead of continuing the same pointless debates over what the sky fairy wants, with nothing more than gut feeling to go on.
"I’m pretty sure most people feel the same way, which is why so many non-believers still haul their kids into church every Sunday."
Some of those that attend church will accept evolution. Accepting evolution doesn't mean you have to abandon religion.
"We really need a new religion very badly."
No we don't. We need people to think critically for themselves, instead of relying upon the tenets of a particular code of faith to do it for them.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
