8
*alter'n8; too much, too soon
Kindle Factor?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JPJ R, R, R, Plank: subsume, priv y
The ironic privatization of battle/ gov-mint, or piratization of theology.
FORMER HOME OF BEATINGAROUNDTHEBUSH.ORG >> HOME OF Political_Progress_For_People.blogspot.com >> >> >> Political Prodding and Probing People for Progress << << << >>> [[ For those NOT...BeatingAroundTheBush See links.]] <<< [[ EMAIL: LeRoy-Rogers at comcast net ]]
Beck: Jesus conquered death, he wasn’t victimized he chose to give his life, he did have a choice. If he was a victim and this theology was true, then Jesus would have come back from the dead and made the Jews pay for what they did. That’s an abomination.As his blog scripted it:
This is kind of complex, because Jesus did identify with the victims. But Jesus wasn't a victim, he was a conqueror. Jesus conquered death. He chose to give his life. Jesus didn't come back from the dead and make the Jews pay for what they did. That would have been an abomination.
Speaking of Labeling, I did not know I would go here. It is not a matter of Faith. It is a matter of evidence. Not that faith is wrong to have. But it must be based on evidence. Of course there is evidence for faith. But can you question faith? You can question evidence. But would you have faith in unquestioned evidence? Evidence can give you an answer, if you have a question. If you have faith in unquestioned evidence, can you question faith? If it is a matter of freedom, would anyone choose freedom from evidence? Would anyone choose freedom from faith?
Of course this is just a ramble. Unless one chooses to answer, whether you have faith in evidence or no evidence. Would anyone base their answers on a writer, actor, economist, lawyer? Just because a dog does not all of a sudden become a cat, does not mean that things don’t change, and not always for the better. But apparently with intelligent design, anyone can be anything, no matter their department or intelligence. There is now evidence for that.]
It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever wrote his script for him) is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy with respect to Darwinism. If we look at more recent history, the closest representatives you'll find to Darwinian politics are uncompassionate conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, George W Bush, or Ben Stein's own hero, Richard Nixon. Maybe all these people, along with the Social Darwinists from Herbert Spencer to John D Rockefeller, committed the is/ought fallacy and justified their unpleasant social views by invoking garbled Darwinism. Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools. I will not speculate as to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark Mathis.Faith in doubt and inquiry -