Congressman calls evolution lie from ‘pit of hell’

[Johnny Tremain]

They "Poped up"? Are we discussing Catholicism now?

Since you brought up Mitt's religion, allow me to point out that Mormons don't believe that the world was created in seven days, or in seven thousand years, but in seven "periods of time", and thus don't have to dismiss evolution and fantasize about humans and dinosaurs co existing in order to support their beliefs.

I think "smart money" has it he/she is anti-papist.

We gave the black-folk a president--some say it was "their turn".
Time for a Mormon now.

 

[Dr.Who]

Oh, well, so his medieval ideas on those subjects don't necessarily mean he won't be a good Congressman, do they?



Oh. Maybe they do.

link

When I hear that someone is saying things that crazy it often turns out that their words are taken out of context and made to sound crazier than they really are. I guess I would have to read the full text of his speech.

I believe in evolution and embryology and the Big Bang but ALSO believe that there are plenty of instances of them being used to steer people away from the truth of God. I so not believe that the Earth is only 9000 years old and find the reporters generalization that fundamentalists hold this view rather than the more accurate statement that some fundamentalists hold this view to be evidence that the report might not be unbiased.

So is he crazy? He just might be as this seems to be common among politicians. All the more reason for all of us to realize that creating a system in which a few hundred representatives control our lives is just as crazy. It is crazy of all of US to live in a country where people on the science committee can be cuckoo and people who claim to want to fundamentally remake the economy but hold socialistic views can be elected Pres.

 

[Pandora]

I know what the bible means...point it still makes no sense.

Clean and unclean makes no sense? I am unsure what you mean

 

[Gipper]

The last pope did not dismiss Evolution as well...but they are not on the science boards.

Well...we know that we can always count on the scientific community getting things right....just look at their finding on climate change....

 

[PLC1]

When I hear that someone is saying things that crazy it often turns out that their words are taken out of context and made to sound crazier than they really are. I guess I would have to read the full text of his speech.

I believe in evolution and embryology and the Big Bang but ALSO believe that there are plenty of instances of them being used to steer people away from the truth of God. I so not believe that the Earth is only 9000 years old and find the reporters generalization that fundamentalists hold this view rather than the more accurate statement that some fundamentalists hold this view to be evidence that the report might not be unbiased.

So is he crazy? He just might be as this seems to be common among politicians. All the more reason for all of us to realize that creating a system in which a few hundred representatives control our lives is just as crazy. It is crazy of all of US to live in a country where people on the science committee can be cuckoo and people who claim to want to fundamentally remake the economy but hold socialistic views can be elected Pres.

Perhaps not crazy, but holding beliefs that have been disproven scientifically is not rational. If he is not rational, now can he be counted on to make rational decisions about other things?

At the very least, he should not be on the science committee.

 

[Dr.Who]

Perhaps not crazy, but holding beliefs that have been disproven scientifically is not rational. If he is not rational, now can he be counted on to make rational decisions about other things?

At the very least, he should not be on the science committee.

Maybe there should not be a committee for irrational politicians to be on in the first place.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Clean and unclean makes no sense? I am unsure what you mean

With Leprosy
Without Leprosy

 

[PLC1]

With Leprosy
Without Leprosy

A "clean animal" as described in the Bible means one that doesn't have leprosy?

 

[Johnny Tremain]

A "clean animal" as described in the Bible means one that doesn't have leprosy?

Un-cloven hoof--would be my guess.
Or cud-chewers.

 

[PLC1]

Un-cloven hoof--would be my guess.
Or cud-chewers.

Probably. The ancient keepers of animals seem to have had a bias against animals with cloven hooves. I've never heard the leprosy idea before.

But, "cloven" just means split in half, like the hooves of pigs, sheep, and cows. Cows chew cuds. Pigs were seen as "unclean" by the ancient Hebrews. Just which animals were seen as "unclean" is not clear, at least not to me.

But, then, I like pork roast, beef, and leg of lamb pretty much equally.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Probably. The ancient keepers of animals seem to have had a bias against animals with cloven hooves. I've never heard the leprosy idea before.

But, "cloven" just means split in half, like the hooves of pigs, sheep, and cows. Cows chew cuds. Pigs were seen as "unclean" by the ancient Hebrews. Just which animals were seen as "unclean" is not clear, at least not to me.

But, then, I like pork roast, beef, and leg of lamb pretty much equally.

A Holiday Ham is a nice treat.

Regarding unclean-- http://bible.cc/leviticus/13-45.htm

 

[PLC1]

A Holiday Ham is a nice treat.

Regarding unlean-- http://bible.cc/leviticus/13-45.htm

Yes, it is, but one you must forgo if you're Jewish (and serious about it).

That has to do with unclean humans, who are indeed infected with leprosy and were therefore to be avoided. Unclean animals are another matter.

 

[dogtowner]

in case you actually want to know....

Although the lists aren't exhaustive, He reveals guidelines for recognizing animals that are acceptable for food.

God states that cud-chewing animals with split hooves can be eaten (Leviticus 11:3; Deuteronomy 14:6). These specifically include the cattle, sheep, goat, deer and gazelle families (Deuteronomy 14:4-5

). He also lists such animals as camels, rabbits and pigs as being unclean, or unfit to eat (Leviticus 11:4-8




). He later lists such "creeping things" as moles, mice and lizards as unfit to eat (verses 29-31), as well as four-footed animals with paws (cats, dogs, bears, lions, tigers, etc.) as unclean (verse 27).

He tells us that salt and freshwater fish with fins and scales may be eaten (verses 9-12), but water creatures without those characteristics (catfish, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, mussels, clams, oysters, squid, octopi, etc.) should not be eaten.

God also lists birds and other flying creatures that are unclean for consumption (verses 13-19). He identifies carrion eaters and birds of prey as unclean, plus ostriches, storks, herons and bats.

Birds such as chickens, turkeys and pheasants are not on the unclean list and therefore can be eaten. Insects, with the exception of locusts, crickets and grasshoppers, are listed as unclean (verses 20-23).

lepers (human ones) were long seen as unclean. not sure if critters can get it or not.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Yes, it is, but one you must forgo if you're Jewish (and serious about it).

That has to do with unclean humans, who are indeed infected with leprosy and were therefore to be avoided. Unclean animals are another matter.

I think there were some half-way decent and logical (for the times) reasons why people did all these things.
People still say--"this is so messy--looks like a pig lives here".
Perhaps trichinosis was involved.

 

[PLC1]

Here is the result of a search of Johnny Tremain's site of the phrase "unclean animals"

http://biblez.com/search.php?q=unclean+animals

.

All animals whose hoofs are not completely divided or that don't chew their
cud are unclean for you. Whoever touches them is unclean. ...

He must not eat anything found dead or torn by wild animals,
and so become unclean through it. I am the LORD. ...

so, no roadkill, or its ancient equivalent.

Hmm.. don't chew their cud, or don't have hooves completely divided. That leaves out cows, pigs, goats, sheep, practically every farm animal, doesn't it?