^^ I thought that was a typo in Newsie2015’s post. Given the topic, I think “gas” was meant to be “gays.” I could be wrong, but I just saw the other word having no relevance to the conversation, unless I missed something.
I am happy to finally be able to agree with awc on something. I, too, had assumed a typo in post #209, just as I assumed a typo when reading post #102.
ETA: newsie seems to be a student poster asking on various threads for parental point of views.
I totally missed that possibility. Giving the benefit of the doubt, no one loses freedom when the culture becomes more accepting of gays. Freedom is lost when and if a school like Erskine is not permitted to have the policy it currently has or if anyone is no longer permitted to claim that the bible speaks on this issue. Of those in this thread who personally don’t support Erskine’s policy, most still concede that they have the right to it.
EVERYBODY on this thread has said that Erskine has that right. No one is arguing that they should be forced by law to abandon it. So … No fears of losing freedom necessary.
Consolation - I hope you will believe that I am asking not to be difficult, but because I really sincerely want to understand. Most of the time I thought I understood your point of view, even if I didn’t agree. But I am still scratching my head over this one. I can only see three basic possibilities.
-
there is no designer, everything that exists is random and unguided processes, including the unfortunate human situation that we get sick and die. Life is meaningless.
-
there is a designer, but the designer is either immoral, indifferent, or impersonal, and therefore the original design itself is imperfect and results in the unfortunate human situation (we get sick and die). Life is a cruel joke.
-
there is a designer, the designer is moral and good, and therefore the original design was good (a designer who designed the possibility for someone to be born, experience only pain and suffering, and die could not be morally good). If we find ourselves now with a flawed design, it must be the result of some separation or conflict with a moral designer (i.e. the Fall in the theological terms). Life is still possible through a reconciliation with the designer.
I know where pizzagirl stands, but I had assumed by your comments in the thread that you were religious (without believing the bible to be infallible) and therefore would have identified with the third possibility. So I couldn’t account for your reaction to what I said. I really just want to understand.
These debates alway remind me of what Carolus Linnaeus said when people asked what he’d learned about the Creator by cataloguing living things:
“He has an inordinate fondness for beetles.”
I think there is a fourth choice. There is a creator, who loves us. What happens is not the designer’s fault or desire. After 9/11 our pastor preached “where was God in those towers? God was falling down in the rubble, crying with the dying”. If you say the creator is therefore not omnipotent, ok, I guess I’ll accept that. I’ll also say that we humans are responsible for our own mess.
http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Fall-Temptation-Biblical-Studies/dp/0684825872
^ skieurope: Apologies, I forgot about staying on topic. Finished here.
Loukydad, Option #1 does not mean life in meaningless. We, as humans, infuse life with meaning.
I worry that sometimes places like this college, and people like you, fear that when people, like me, let go of the supernatural then chaos and nothingness will surely follow. I just don’t believe that.
@loukydad i am so sorry! I typed that post so quickly on my way out the door, i had no idea that my auto correct ruined the sentence.
Newsie2015 - no worries! I am sorry too. I am embarrassed I acted so defensively.
“1) there is no designer, everything that exists is random and unguided processes, including the unfortunate human situation that we get sick and die. Life is meaningless.”
I don’t get how “life is meaningless” flows from the first sentence. Our lives can be meaningful just because we touched other people. I don’t see why there needs to a designer / god / etc to make life meaningful.
And why do I need the promise of an afterlife to be good, not kill, steal, etc? I’m agnostic as to whether there is. I’d like to think I’ll be reunited with deceased relatives, etc. but who knows? But regardless, why do I need that to enforce being a good person here on earth?
^^I see a lot more than just 3 possibilities, LOUKYDAD.
As an aside, I find that a book which states that women have to marry their rapists has flaws. Really big flaws.
From various news articles and other things I found around the internet, it looks like Erskine teaches evolution.