Someone at the paper suggested we start a religion blog. Everyone thought it was a good idea, and people started looking at me.
I tried to hide.
Then I did what was in essence a religious blog (though i still dont like the word religion) the other day, and the response was a bit surprising.
A lot of it was hostile, but there were more responses to that than there were even to the Lowes stuff.
So what do you all think?
Any ideas for how it would look?
Posts
34 comments:
Do you get paid by the number of responses or something? Why should that matter?
Do you get paid by the number of responses or something? Why should that matter?
>>>>>>
I don't get paid at all really. This is on my own time.
Responses are an indication that people are reading. Thats the only reason they matter.
Personally, I don't come here to read your opinions or anyone else's opinions on religion. There are plenty of other sources for that. I come here to read about issues facing the city. My guess is that if you started a religion blog it would go over about as well as the Idea blog.
You have a good thing going here. Don't try to spread yourself too thin or water it down with other topics. There are plenty of topics to discuss that relate directly to the city.
I completely ignored the religion post. Did you get more individual posters on that thread or just 4 or 5 people that just like to argue religion and kept posting over and over again.
"Personally, I don't come here to read your opinions or anyone else's opinions on religion. There are plenty of other sources for that. I come here to read about issues facing the city. My guess is that if you started a religion blog it would go over about as well as the Idea blog.
You have a good thing going here. Don't try to spread yourself too thin or water it down with other topics. There are plenty of topics to discuss that relate directly to the city.
I completely ignored the religion post. Did you get more individual posters on that thread or just 4 or 5 people that just like to argue religion and kept posting over and over again."
DITTO!
I say stick to the issues. Why waste all that journalistic integrity on something that is as personal as religion. Everybody thinks differently when it comes to religion, and it would just cause arguments.
I read it all and find it interesting.
Don't take the personal attacks too personally. You are the only one who has a name here that they can direct it toward.
Keep up the good work.
Maybe give religion a rest until after Easter. Everyone has their own opinion, for sure, and it might be a relief to not have to read them for a while.
:)
Signed anonymous for a reason.
"So what do you all think?
Any ideas for how it would look?"
That's a tough one.
Too bad religion stirs up some people as much as it does. Seems if it's a religion blog people could either choose to read or
not to (like everything else on the net)...but, that won't happen. Some people just like to fight.
I enjoy a good debate, but, a fight? I learned a long time ago, that I generally could win the fight, but lose the person.
Not sure where I'm goin' w/this, but, all in all, it is your paper, and your blog. (people should remember that)
Can't take these blogs for granted. It gives the regular people a voice that we didn't have until recently. I probably wouldn't do it if it was me...
but, I do enjoy your writing.
Soon, the Almighty God will have the last word, and lots of us are going to be sorely disappointed...
:(
you asked.
btw, i'm stayin' anonymous for a reason too!
Thanks
I think i got what i asked for :)
I dont really want to do a religion blog . If i did it would be a totally separate deal, and i doubt i have time.
Ill stick to city business, and city related activities, ..
maybe just Easter, Christmas .. .and of course solstice :)
then there is cinco de mayo ...
jj
Thanks
I think i got what i asked for :)
I dont really want to do a religion blog . If i did it would be a totally separate deal, and i doubt i have time.
Ill stick to city business, and city related activities, ..
maybe just Easter, Christmas .. .and of course solstice :)
then there is cinco de mayo ...
jj
Good idea.
"then there is cinco de mayo "
You mean that holiday that those illegal aliens are trying to corrupt our pure American culture with?
There must be a secret hidden meaning in the name Cinco de Mayo, otherwise they would say it in English.
We shouldn't have to learn spanish to celebrate these Mexican holidays.
I think it is celebrated in April some time, but I just don't know.
That's probably too controversial too.
Here is one for those who appreciate the abstract.
Today scientists have seen and measured the explosion of a star that is 7.5 billion light years away. That means the gamma ray and light radiation has taken 7.5 billion years to travel the distance from there to here for us to see it.
The age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
This star blew up 3 billion years before the earth was formed. In the time it took for the radiation to cross the distance, the earth was formed, the dinosaurs were alive and went extinct and people happened and became educated enough to be able to use instruments to observe the occurrence.
What if were weren't watching?
read your bible! The Earth is only six thousand years old.
You people who believe in science , or should I say witchcraft, will all burn in hell.
wow two extremes on the age of the world thing.
the bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old. you cant find it cause it isn't there.
bible scholars are divided, but most say that the bible just doesnt say how old the world is.
you get into problems when you try to use the bible to answer questions that the book does not address.
on the 7.5 billion years thing. einstien theorized that the speed of light has changed, dont recall if its gotten slower or faster, but he did think it was possible that it had changed slowly over a long period of time.
im just not convinced that the billions of years idea is any more scientific than 6,000.
both involve some faith :)
but personally, i don't accept the 6,000 year old theory at all.
any attempt at dating the age of the earth, or universe, is subjective and based on conjecture.
we don't know and i dont think we can know.
:)
What if were weren't watching?
if we weren't watching, would it still have happened ?
"You people who believe in science , or should I say witchcraft, will all burn in hell."
If you really were trying to reach people, you could've left that part out, and we still wouldv'e understood that you disagree.
Just a thought.
"on the 7.5 billion years thing. einstien theorized that the speed of light has changed,"
Negative. There are religious people who want to claim the speed of light has changed in order to support this "theory" or that one about how old they want to say the earth is. They present no basis for this other than that is the way they feel and their proof is their faith and not scientific theory or evidence. In contrast to Einstein.
When Einstein stated E=M*C^2, what he really stated was E=M. C^2 was put in as a constant, in order to make the named units of energy match closely to the named units of mass. He regarded it as a constant. It is the basis of his theory. As one approaches the speed of light, it is time, in proportion to your velocity relative to the speed of light that changes. Ie:, the theory of relativity.
"if we weren't watching, would it still have happened"
If we hadn't seen it, we hadn't seen it.
Didn't mean it didn't happen.
It would not be part of the human experience, would not be documented, and would not be able to be "proven" by human observational history.
If humans did not exist, then you would not be able to ask the question and others would not be able to wonder if it happened or not. Nothing matters without people and there is no space, time, mass, light, or understanding (as we know it (get it?)) without them.
Beresht,: "In the beginning", is a human story about the creation of humans and the world around us that we experience. Heaven would have to be an experience perceived by us. We would have to be aware to experience it.
And no, I'm not going to hell.
The other critical thing in the human experience is education.
If we see things in the present and evidence of other things in the past, but cannot understand them (or won't even try), then we might as well be apes or fish.
Bereshit
They present no basis for this other than that is the way they feel and their proof is their faith and not scientific theory or evidence
>>>>>
This is true for most people ... as for the people i know personally, the most scholarly and studious are christians..
a lot of what people claim is science is not science //
its real easy to deny evidence then claim it doesnt exist because you denied it :)
"its real easy to deny evidence then claim it doesnt exist because you denied it :)"
Yeah. There's too much of that.
It is interesting to see the Vatican's position on archeology, genetics, evolution and God's creation.
"This is true for most people ... as for the people i know personally, the most scholarly and studious are christians"
I know some too. As well as some of the most frustratingly narrowminded pinheads are also christians. Takes all kinds.
As well as some of the most frustratingly narrowminded pinheads are also christians. Takes all kinds.
>>>>
I guess every group has its lunatic fringe :)
Maybe im too think skinned, but it bugs me when people assume that people of faith are just simple blind people following whatever some leader says.
Faith is not some magical thing that you just think for no reason.
j
Easter marks the intercession of Christ with God, permitting salvation to all who will accept, not just the chosen people, and marks the transition from judgment to grace.
It is good news.
"its real easy to deny evidence then claim it doesnt exist because you denied it :)"
That sounds like exactly what christians do to keep from having their belief system destroyed by science. The scientific method is constantly evolving, and if something is proven wrong, then scientists will admit it and move on. Christians on the other hand, just try to make excuses why there belief is still valid. We have skulls and bones from several early stages of man, yet christians still think we were created axactly as we are now. Anything that proves they are wrong just gets labeled as "theory" as if that's a bad word, and they ignore it and hope it will go away. Meanwhile, they have ZERO proof on their side.
Wanta know what the Vatican says about it?
"new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution” 1996, Pope John Paul II)"
"In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so."
Of course they would say that and we would expect them to.
What that means is (paraphrased):
Those who would say that evolution came about without divine intervention are going beyond that which can be proven with science.
Those who say that creation came about without evolution are not paying attention to scientific knowledge and are going beyond that which is stated in religion.
An easier version: God made evolution.
Or easier yet: keep an open mind.
We have skulls and bones from several early stages of man, yet christians still think we were created axactly as we are now.
>>>
No you dont, the missing link is still missing. The girl from Africa, "lucy" who is many thousands of years old, her skeleton is no different than a modern one.
You keep saying you have evidence for evolution but you dont ...
>>>>>>>
Anything that proves they are wrong just gets labeled as "theory" as if that's a bad word, and they ignore it
>>>>
Thats what happens with anyone who dares question evolution ...
You athiest are more narrow minded and judgemental than any right winger i know :)
.......
and hope it will go away. Meanwhile, they have ZERO proof on their side.
We have lots of proof ... while there is still NO proof that one species evolved into a different species.
You are the one ignoring proof.
i gave some general proofs on the other post, and they were just dismissed as junk ....
who is being narrow minded here ?
"While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage."
From the same article at the Vatican website.
You are both being narrowminded.
One, the Catholics accept evolution, what is the problem? Are their views radically different from other Christians?
Two, we shouldn't ignore things around us and things which obviously happened in the past.
Three, science is not exact, but it is way better than backwoods crackpot tent revival theories.
Four, you either get faith or you don't, but we have the freedom of free will and freedoms to believe whatever religion we wish (or not)in America. Let's respect that.
Five. The Bible is full of allegory and symbolism and there is absolutely nothing in the bible that refutes anything scientists have found to date concerning the evidence of the creation of the universe or mankind.
Chill. If you both listen, you might learn something.
"The girl from Africa, "lucy" who is many thousands of years old, her skeleton is no different than a modern one."
Not true. Australopithecus afarensis "Lucy" bones are 3.2 million years old and clearly not human.
Neandertal man, from 100,000 years ago used tools and had fire, but had different DNA from man and they were not human either.
Although previously considered extinct, neandertal man and early man probably lived side by side, as they do now in Ark City.
It is believed that Australopithecus could be an ancestor of both man and neandertal man.
Although previously considered extinct, neandertal man and early man probably lived side by side, as they do now in Ark City.
Is someone building a scenario to support racism here?
I'm sure that was meant as a joke. Only someone looking for racism would see racism in that.
I wrote it.
It is a joke. Nothing to do with race. All races of man are man and all races of man are equal in all ways. Women too.
Pretty shallow to see it as race.
Makes me wonder if anyone understands the other stuff.
Maybe that is the problem.
Too many neandertals and not enough men.
It was a joke.
BUT if different "kinds" of people have evolved, could one not make the argument that one is superior to the other?
Just asking.
Is that you Charles?
He's the only one I ever see on here trying to see racism where none exists.
"BUT if different "kinds" of people have evolved, could one not make the argument that one is superior to the other?
Just asking."
You are confusing species with race again.
Yep. Most primates are not as smart as most people I know (another joke) and the neandertal man probably was different from man in intelligence and such, and there may have been other parallel strains of evolution of things similar to man that we don't know about.
It was thought that neandertal man was a predecessor to man, but DNA testing indicates otherwise. The only remnants of neandertal man were from very primitive times when both neandertal man and humans lived as some humans do now in the rainforest and jungles, and it isn't possible to judge intelligence from that. They both had tools and fire, so they might have been similar, but nobody knows.
They are extinct (except in Ark City), so we will never know.
This is boring, so any further race related posts are on your own.
Post a Comment