Broadband Politics - Latest Comments in Bad theology

Re: Bad theology

Richard Bennett — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:57:08 -0000

Cool.

Re: Bad theology

Wesley R. Elsberry — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 02:10:38 -0000

I used to keep saltwater aquaria, and one of my favorite denizens was a blenny I had caught near Beer Can Island at the north end of Longboat Key. I eventually had him trained to swim into my hand to be fed. He would accept being petted, and I could even remove him from the tank for thirty seconds or so at a time without getting upset. So I could ask visitors, Here, want to pet my fish?

Re: Bad theology

Richard Bennett — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 18:25:03 -0000

There's very little evidence that whoever or whatever designed us did a good job. If he/she/it had, I doubt that I'd be wearing glasses, taking Claritin, struggling with lower back pain and sciatica or peeing Morse code. You've got to do better than that if you want to plug a designer into this random universe.

Re: Bad theology

Dog tired — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:35:29 -0000

Wait...what does God being a God of love have to do with not supporting intelligent design? So if God loves, he doesn't design? I don't see the correlation. If he loves us, then he designs things well...and that He has done!

Re: Bad theology

Richard Bennett — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 19:40:06 -0000

I think the distinction the Rev. is making is like the difference between a father's love for his children, an unconditional love, and a wife's love for her husband, one that's premised on the ongoing right to tinker. A loving God is not a meddling God, and that has all sorts of implications for the doctrine of Free Will and all that other religious stuff. It makes perfect sense to me.

Re: Bad theology

Sigivald — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:02:36 -0000

The intelligent design movement belittles God, he told reporters before the event. It makes God a designer, an engineer. The God of religious faith is a god of love. He did not design me.

That's a complete non-sequitur from "god of love" to "did not design me", as if the two are somehow mystically incompatible for unstated (unstatable?) reasons.

I agree that ID is Purest Bunk, but that's a terrible argument against it, theologically or otherwise.

(And theologically, ID is more satisfyingly compatible with Genesis 1:27 than his posited God-guided evolution... at least that's what I'm assuming his alternative is, given that that seems to be the other allowable doctrinal position of the Catholic Church on the matter. I'm not aware of the Church denouncing the idea of God simply creating man directly.

But then, I'm an atheist anyway.)