söndag 9 augusti 2009

On evolution (hopefully for the last time) - The art of deception

Dear Rory

I know I know, I share your sentiments and I agree with you 100%.
And I never spoke about Darwinism, only about evolution as principle.
Catholic Dogma is still focused on the horribly mad creationism. But they try their best to look modern by accepting the principle of evolution, but only that far. It is still a creationism with merely a dash of evolution thrown in to be able to include dinosaur bones etc in the mythology. That's what John Paul II was up to.
Catholicism has been fundamentally anti-science since Copernicus, and still is, very much so!
If only Europeans and Latin Americans knew that there is a religion which was always pro-science and pro-truth. We need to tell them!

Love
Alexander

2009/8/9 roryyoung15

We're on the same page! Unlike Catholicism, in Zoroastrianism it IS a sacred principle which is why I abandoned the former and was drawn to the latter. Forgive me, I went off on a tangent. I get very nervous when discussing the Catholics Church and in particular the Popes because Parviz is very wrong; they are not stupid, they are very clever - and totally dedicated; and I assure you they are real enemies of what we all here believe!

Ushta, Rory

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> I know.
> But this was not my point.
> My point was that if even The Catholic Pope has accepted Evolution as
> principle (true) then there is ni point in any Zoroastrians going on about
> the issue anymore.
> We have always believed in Evolution, it is even a sacred principle to our
> religion!!!
> Ushta
> Alexander
>
> 2009/8/9 roryyoung15

>
> >
> >
> > Again. Yes, he did speak out FOR Evolution, but his stements were NOT made
> > "EX-CATHEDRA" meaning that it is NOT church doctrine. And there are very
> > large numbers of Conservatives in the Catholic Church who do not accept
> > Evolution or the Big Bang. I have had many arguements with them. Some accept
> > evolution except with man. Others accept evolution completely and believe
> > that man gained an immortal soul when the first man gained a free will.
> > But... there are many who simply do not accept it at all and as explained,
> > although the Vatican may accept it, it has not been made a part of doctrine
> > by any pope whilst using the "formula" for an "infallible" declaration and
> > therefore Catholics are not obliged to accept it and many don't.
> >
> > Ushta,
> > Rory
> >
> > --- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com , Alexander Bard
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I know, and that's precisely my point.
> > > Pope John Paul II spoke out FOR evolution and even for the big bang
> > before
> > > he died.
> > > This is precisely why this is now church doctrine.
> > > The opposition to all kinds of evolutionary theory in Christianity now
> > comes
> > > from the American Evangelicals. All other branches of Christianity have
> > > accepted evolution as a principle for creation.
> > > Ushta
> > > Alexander
> > >
> > > 2009/8/9 roryyoung15
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Alexander,
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you 100% on evolution. However, with regards the Catholic
> > > > church you have been deceived. Such a position has never been
> > "Ex-Cathedra".
> > > > In order for anything to become doctrine the Pope has to announce it;
> > as
> > > > Bishop of Rome, as head of the church, as successor of Peter, to the
> > whole
> > > > church and state that it is truth.
> > > > Popes are very careful NOT to make Ex-Cathedra statements. Especially
> > on
> > > > such issues as they would alienate large numbers of practising
> > Catholics. By
> > > > making a statement, even including words such as "sacred" they appear
> > to be
> > > > making it an article of faith but educated Catholics know that these
> > are not
> > > > "infallible" statements and they are therefore not obliged or ordered
> > to
> > > > accept them.
> > > > Ushta, Rory
> > > >
> > > > --- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com
> > 40yahoogroups.com>, Alexander Bard
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agre with Dino.
> > > > > Even The Catholic Church - the possibly most conservative of all
> > > > Abrahamic
> > > > > institutions in the world - has accepted and even endorses Evolution
> > as a
> > > > > sacred principle.
> > > > > I don't ever want to hear Evolution questioned again. It is bordering
> > on
> > > > > idiocy. Gladly we have no such propaganda here on Ushta. And neither
> > > > should
> > > > > we, the CYCLE of existence is sacred to us, our scriptures are packed
> > > > full
> > > > > of celebrations of the cycle of existence, Evolution in other words.
> > > > > Ushta indeed
> > > > > Alexander
> > > > >
> > > > > 2009/8/7 Special Kain
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Zaneta and friends,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Evolution is an empirically reproducible fact. The theory of
> > evolution
> > > > is
> > > > > > something entirely different. So please don't confuse them: there
> > is
> > > > > > evolution (1) and there is the theory of evolution (2). Most
> > theories
> > > > of
> > > > > > evolution work perfectly well without assuming that there was The
> > > > Almighty
> > > > > > Creator or The Flying Spaghetti-Monster.
> > > > > > What does this tell us? Anyone who is ever making up a conflict
> > between
> > > > > > creationism and evolutionism is a complete idiot who has never
> > gotten a
> > > > firm
> > > > > > grip on the notion of evolution anyway. Creationists nurture their
> > > > ignorance
> > > > > > through erasing evolution as an empirically reproducible fact and
> > > > discussing
> > > > > > the theory of evolution only. Evolutionists simply shrug their
> > > > shoulders and
> > > > > > go about their business.
> > > > > > Please visit the TalkOrigin Archive for further infotainment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ushta, Dino
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- Zaneta Garratt ** schrieb am *Fr, 7.8.2009:
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > Von: Zaneta Garratt
> > > > > > Betreff: RE: [Ushta] Re: Pascal's wager
> > > > > > An: ushta@yahoogroups.com
> > 40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > > > > > Datum: Freitag, 7. August 2009, 0:24
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * * * * * * *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Hi Parviz, Even if you do believe in Dawin's theory of
> > Evolution-why
> > > > > > could Ahura Mazda as Creator not be behind the organisation of
> > > > Evolution
> > > > > > which is what some modern Christians believe . As for me, I am not
> > sure
> > > > > > about evolution as it is just a THEORY, so if it is true or not, I
> > do
> > > > not
> > > > > > know, but, if it is true, then Ahura Mazda must be behind it as a
> > > > > > Creator-Power in the beginning, Kindest regards from Zaneta (and
> > about
> > > > the
> > > > > > Jinn, I do not know whether they exist or not either but I
> > definately
> > > > > > believe in angels!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > *To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
> > > > > > From: solvolant@yahoo. com
> > > > > > Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:11:44 -0700
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: Pascal's wager
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * * * * *Dear Mehran,
> > > > > > In our books we have Ahoora "That which has existence" and we have
> > > > Mazda
> > > > > > "That which has the power to Think". I believe in Ahoora and Mazda,
> > > > Ahoora
> > > > > > Mazda, or Mazda Ahoora. I do not believe in a big old man in the
> > skies
> > > > who
> > > > > > sits there designing and making creatures such as sparrows and
> > humans
> > > > with
> > > > > > a pre-thought- out design. I have evolved from an ape, God did not
> > > > design me
> > > > > > in my present shape and MAKE me the way I am from scratch. That is
> > > > > > the difference between what you believe in and what I believe in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Parviz Varjavand
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- On *Wed, 8/5/09, MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi > > yahoo.com
> > > > >*wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: Pascal's wager
> > > > > > To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
> > > > > > Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 9:36 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Parviz
> > > > > > dorood
> > > > > > I have studied *GhorAn/Koran, *Motahari's books, sharia'ti's books,
> > ...
> > > > > > but I did not find them in line of my beliefs. I am perplexed, why
> > are
> > > > you
> > > > > > insisting in calling such beliefs a Moslem one. Did not you study
> > > > Sassanid
> > > > > > books that are written some hundreds of years before EslAm? Did not
> > you
> > > > > > study *haft hAt* some thousands of years before EslAm? Please read
> > and
> > > > > > then write.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Nik-o shAd bAshid*
> > > > > > *KhodA negahdAr,
> > > > > > MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.*
> > > > > > *Kerman_Iran*
> > > > > > **
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- On *Thu, 8/6/09, Parviz Varjavand *
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Parviz Varjavand
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: Pascal's wager
> > > > > > To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
> > > > > > Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:28 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mehran,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The BOOK that dictates exactly the way you like to think is called
> > the
> > > > > > Koran, so why do you not go become a Muslim and leave us alone.
> > > > > > (I was impolite to you because you were impolite to Alex. It is too
> > bad
> > > > > > that you do not recognize how impolite you are to others at times).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- On *Tue, 8/4/09, MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi > > yahoo.com
> > > > >*wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: Pascal's wager
> > > > > > To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
> > > > > > Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 8:35 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Alexander
> > > > > > dorood
> > > > > > I sent you more than 20 evidences that prove the believe in a wise
> > > > creator,
> > > > > > before creation and after the end of creation from gAthA. But you
> > call
> > > > them
> > > > > > nonsense, without any logic reasoning. I do not sell any story to
> > be
> > > > bought
> > > > > > by any one including you. You just put your favourite words in
> > mouth of
> > > > > > ashoo Zartosht, and I try to say well dear Alexander write your own
> > > > words in
> > > > > > your own book.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Nik-o shAd bAshid*
> > > > > > *KhodA negahdAr,
> > > > > > MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.*
> > > > > > *Kerman_Iran*
> > > > > > **
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- On *Wed, 8/5/09, Alexander Bard *
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Alexander Bard
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: Pascal's wager
> > > > > > To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
> > > > > > Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 1:36 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exactly, Clint!!!
> > > > > > There is not a single word about this carpenter that mehran talks
> > about
> > > > all
> > > > > > the time in The Gathas.
> > > > > > Simpy because Zarathushtra was wise enough not to have opinions
> > about
> > > > > > things he did not know.
> > > > > > I believe THAT is the right approach for us as Zoroastrians. Stop
> > > > making up
> > > > > > nonsense and instead spend our time and energy on finding out what
> > > > really is
> > > > > > asha.
> > > > > > The reason Iäm not buying Mehran's story, at all, is because Mehran
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > > talking about a carpenter. He is talking about the universe as if
> > it
> > > > was a
> > > > > > atble deisgned bu Santa Claus and not by any carpenter.
> > > > > > It takes something far bigger than a mere carpenter to create a
> > > > complete
> > > > > > universe. The metaphor of the carpenter is just so poor, so
> > limited, so
> > > > > > unimaginative.
> > > > > > Not Mehran, but the metaphor. So itäs not an insult, it's just a
> > > > > > questioning of a poor idea, a bad metaphor.
> > > > > > Ushta
> > > > > > Alexander
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2009/8/4 wagnerian1 > > > > http://us.mc325.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wagnerian1@>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ushta,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is wise to remember that words like "carpenter", "maker",
> > "creator",
> > > > > > etc. are all metaphors for something entirely bigger and more vast
> > than
> > > > we
> > > > > > can imagine, and to get bogged down in literalism in a situation
> > where
> > > > words
> > > > > > fail is frankly theologically dangerous. Science, and by that I
> > mean
> > > > careful
> > > > > > observation and application of the scientific method, will tell us
> > how
> > > > the
> > > > > > Universe is made, and how it runs. We can be awed by the beauty of
> > it
> > > > all,
> > > > > > and how it works so well...but we cannot forget the parts that
> > don't
> > > > work so
> > > > > > well either, parts like two-headed babies and other birth defects,
> > or
> > > > the
> > > > > > tooth-and-claw suffering of the food chain that in a perfectly
> > designed
> > > > > > world might not be so brutal. This leads me to believe that Ahura
> > Mazda
> > > > as,
> > > > > > like the Freemasons would say, The Grand Architect of the Universe
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > > quite the kind of image, or Icon even, that allows for the
> > complexity
> > > > of the
> > > > > > Universe. There's something not yet grasped, something not yet
> > > > understood
> > > > > > and maybe never will be, that is more useful in describing Ahura
> > > > Mazda's
> > > > > > role concerning the Cosmos. Since Zoroastrianism doesn't dictate
> > such
> > > > > > imagery, but only asks us to continue to refine our theology, then
> > > > maybe as
> > > > > > our nascent community begins to increase and diversify we will make
> > a
> > > > useful
> > > > > > and Spenta contribution to the language and symbolism of theology.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Clint
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com<
> > > > http://us.mc325.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Ushta@yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > Special Kain wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's one difference, dear Mehran. While we actually can track
> > down
> > > > the
> > > > > > local carpenter, none of us has ever seen The Greater Carpenter who
> > is
> > > > > > mysteriously hiding behind the clouds far, far away. And while the
> > > > carpets
> > > > > > that we can buy were made some time ago, nature is "work in
> > progress"
> > > > and
> > > > > > always "under construction" .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ushta, Dino

2 kommentarer:

liebera sa...

What are scientists Children of the knowledge Primal seed of cosmical machine Schemes and terms from sky laboratories Investigation‘s brought by Creator‘s wit
Physical aspect and lace of metaphysic
Supreme touch urges to create
Science wit knows sense of moving
But Divine can’t be proved by theme

Dear Alex, here is a trifle example my creation and tribute to VACUUM. I’m an author of great amount of poems that are close to your ideas, especially to NETOCRACY. And I want you to be acquainted with them. Please, give me your i-mail, where I can send you in privacy (not for all other net users) I’m real fabric of different ideas and thoughts. It’s very important for me!!! I’m very responsive person! Send your answer on ‘prototype2004@gmail.com”.
I’ll be waiting for your news!

liebera sa...

ARMY OF LOVERS’ CLONES are as French résistance. French communist Michael romances with positive lad from positive French Gestapo. Local stripper Sarah is busy worker. Female Polizei is in jealousy. Unhonest Owner of Milk Factory is only one negative person. There is no blood and horrors in the story that is the result of mobilistic philosophy. Do you want Whole Clip script, Alex? And what about the Romanovs and The communists who live in complete peace or BWO, VACCUUM and ARMY OF LOVERS members as heroes of fancy tales?

PS there may be some silliness in my first commentary. I was shy that time. It’s my explanation…