Proof of Creationism (ID)

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

One thing is a personal belief system that helps the individual explain the meaning of life and gives some sense of purpose. This may be Christianity, Gnosticism, Krishna or whatever.
Still, it's another thing entirely for an evangelical elite to move into the sphere of regional and national government and base policy-making on their own interpreted morality.
.

The most concise point that you've ever posted on this site.

And I agree - there is no doubt that there is an intent upon the evangelical wing to bring religion-based policies to bear at federal/national level.

And just in case you don't have a present picture of him to update your wall: Yow. That bathing suit isn't helping matters. Arnold needs to hire Hanz and Franz to put him on a serious diet.

I have to acknowledge, the Soviet One Party system did practise a more popular form of democracy than what we've been witnessing over here. The way it worked was everyday people could be Party Members so they could become politically involved.
The British, however, don't have any popular power at all and it's a cold, harsh fact. For example, you can see how Blair totally ignored the huge demonstrations against the Iraq War which was a fundamental national issue and there was huge opposition. Yet, on all occasions Blair simply did as he (the Great Leader) pleased. That relates to all spheres as well.
The definition of democracy is "sovereign rule of the demos" (or population). It means everyday people having their say on all sorts of issues, national and regional. It's about everyday people taking decisions as to what kind of society they wish to live in.
If you're going to have so-called indirect democracy with political parties representing groups of voters then there needs to be a wide range of parties. A choice merely between Bush and the Clintons isn't wide enough a choice to do the job.


OK. Seems like this thread has meandered with one of the poster's wandering thoughts onto world politics again. But I can't let this post go without some commentary.If you are, as in your previous posts, touting communism as a better alternative, you picked the wrong issue when you depict democratic leaders as feathering their own nests. At least they're accountable and can be exposed as corrupt. Go to China and see what the undemocratic "State" leaders own there. And what people there can do about it. Nothing.Values are definitely changing, as they have throughout history. But your citing of rising crime seems to conflict with the facts. Crime in the US for example is on the decline in most cities.

For me, I have no axe to grind against any religion if it's a personal matter and if the said religion is kept aside from politics. Sometimes I've maybe taken a dig at religion but this is really linked more to the political side of religion (or inspired by it). Maybe it's the same with Dawkins but he went too far down the path of trying to scientifically demonstrate life was merely an accident.
The thing about the Bible is this: It's a book that must be interpreted by the reader. There appear to be many cases where Jesus interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures and weighed up one passage against another. For example, the Lawmakers were taking passages so literally, they were saying if a guy is found flat on the gutter covered in blood on the Sabbath, don't help him as it's breaking the commandments about work on the Sabbath. So, Jesus would point out another passage that showed compassion was more important than laws or that the Sabbath was made for men and not men for the Sabbath e.t.c. e.t.c.
I guess the fundamentalist Christians are the new Pharisees and Lawgivers of our day since they tend to pounce on any old verse that suits their aims. I think it's impossible to read such a book and take every aspect literally without interpreting the information. Even St Paul and Peter had major disagreements over good works vs pure salvation which proves the Clerical elite back then were discussing texts as a whole.
"“I always said that you should not have your religion interfere with government policies or with the policies of the people,” Schwarzenegger was quoted as saying in The Toronto Star. The former actor was in Canada at the end of May for a three-day trade mission.
“I am a Catholic and a very dedicated Catholic, but that does not interfere with my decision-making because I know that stem-cell research, the way we are doing it in California ... is the right way to go and will save, very quickly down the line, lives and cure a lot of these illnesses,” said Schwarzenegger, referring to embryonic stem cell research."



The most concise point that you've ever posted on this site.

And I agree - there is no doubt that there is an intent upon the evangelical wing to bring religion-based policies to bear at federal/national level.

For me, I have no axe to grind against any religion if it's a personal matter and if the said religion is kept aside from politics. Sometimes I've maybe taken a dig at religion but this is really linked more to the political side of religion (or inspired by it). Maybe it's the same with Dawkins but he went too far down the path of trying to scientifically demonstrate life was merely an accident.
The thing about the Bible is this: It's a book that must be interpreted by the reader. There appear to be many cases where Jesus interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures and weighed up one passage against another. For example, the Lawmakers were taking passages so literally, they were saying if a guy is found flat on the gutter covered in blood on the Sabbath, don't help him as it's breaking the commandments about work on the Sabbath. So, Jesus would point out another passage that showed compassion was more important than laws or that the Sabbath was made for men and not men for the Sabbath e.t.c. e.t.c.
I guess the fundamentalist Christians are the new Pharisees and Lawgivers of our day since they tend to pounce on any old verse that suits their aims. I think it's impossible to read such a book and take every aspect literally without interpreting the information. Even St Paul and Peter had major disagreements over good works vs pure salvation which proves the Clerical elite back then were discussing texts as a whole.
"“I always said that you should not have your religion interfere with government policies or with the policies of the people,” Schwarzenegger was quoted as saying in The Toronto Star. The former actor was in Canada at the end of May for a three-day trade mission.
“I am a Catholic and a very dedicated Catholic, but that does not interfere with my decision-making because I know that stem-cell research, the way we are doing it in California ... is the right way to go and will save, very quickly down the line, lives and cure a lot of these illnesses,” said Schwarzenegger, referring to embryonic stem cell research."


You obessed with Schwarznegger??
A lot of your posts refer to either/or Arnie, Madonna, Star Trek.

Hey fscyclist...I've read through some of the thread...and I have an apology to make. For some reason I was getting you mixed up on the thread with someone else. Apart from some differences in opinion on Dawkins and the probability of certain theories being accurate...we were basically arguing for the same point. No offense intended. I actually agree with most of your cycling opinions BTW.