Hitler and Darwinism: D. James Kennedy has been scorned and mocked for his documentary on the links between Darwinism and Hitler. UD has an interesting summary of quotes on the subject, and the comments are good too. See this article too.
Evolution: How and why DNA similarities between chimps and humans are overstated and overvalued.
Intelligent Design at Wikipedia: Turns out, moderator politics have prevented ID supporters from keeping their pro-ID arguments on wikipedia. So much for openness.
Generational Conflict: Read about the rift between Pastor Chuck Smith, founder of the Calvary Chapel family of churches, and his Pastor Son. Mirrors the rift between the traditional and Emerging church
Christian Sex: EO has a great article on Christian principles of sex. My favorite? "Equipment belongs in the factory, not in the bedroom. If you need battery-operated tools to enhance your sexual experience you have a problem."
Christian Democrats: Yep, they’re trying to come out of the secular closet with faithfuldemocrats.com. I’m just not sure their party wants them. And judging by their poor use of scripture, I don’t think I want them either ;)
Seeker, The fact that you actually support an idiot who opposes vibrators is telling. Many women are INCAPABLE of orgasming without clitoral stimulation. Vibrators accomplish that. Further complicating things is your disgust with oral stimulation, another excellent way to help a woman orgasm. So what are we left with? Seeker, in opposition to women's orgasms. Will Christianity's idiocy never cease?
The fact that you actually support an idiot who opposes vibrators is telling. Actually, if you read Joe regularly you would realize that he is quite intelligent. Seeker, in opposition to women's orgasms. For a guy who prides himself on being smarter than others, you amaze me with your consistent illogic, non-sequiturs, and erroneous conclusions based on your anti-faith bias. Your logic is truly captive to your passions, rather than to reason. Pity.
Sam, I think you are mistaken about women and orgasm. They may need things like "clitoral stimulation", but that can be done naturally with the fingers. But Joe isn't condeming vibrators for women who have this "problem," but rather, if you need something external like porno or sex toys to get aroused, there is something wrong with your relationship – you have probably strayed away from sex as relationship into sex as personal pleasure separated from relationship.
It's nice to see that Wikipedia is sticking to their announced plan to hold to high standards of scholarship and accuracy. ID doesn't make the cut — is that a surprise?
It's nice to see that Wikipedia is sticking to their announced plan to hold to high standards of scholarship and accuracy. If the backers of ID aren't allowed to present their own case, then what you have is a straw man in the name of "scholarship" – whether or not you find their ideas sound is no reason to disallow them from presenting them in their own words. What you have here is not scholarship, but censorship – those in power deciding who can represent themselves and who should speak for them.
So what you're saying Seeker is that the quackery involved in Intelligent Design ought to be represented on the front page, not the reality about its total lack of evidence? That's like saying that the eugenics wiki ought to be written by the people that support it, rather than the people who understand eugenics to be a horrible interpretation of Darwin's theory. And Seeker, don't add words to Joe's disdain for vibrators. He looked at a real problem – women who can't orgasm via vaginal stimulation ALONE – and said that women using vibrators was wrong. That's clearly him opposing the idea that women should care about orgasming. There's other evidence in that article that he opposes it as well.
So what you're saying Seeker is that the quackery involved in Intelligent Design ought to be represented on the front page Not at all. But it is customary to let an movement or organization define itself in it's own words, followed by rebuttals, rather than having the main content provided by detractors, followed by a footnote from the originators. Again, your demeaning tone displays your unwillingness to debate with respect and reason.
Seeker,
The fact that you actually support an idiot who opposes vibrators is telling. Many women are INCAPABLE of orgasming without clitoral stimulation. Vibrators accomplish that. Further complicating things is your disgust with oral stimulation, another excellent way to help a woman orgasm.
So what are we left with? Seeker, in opposition to women's orgasms. Will Christianity's idiocy never cease?
The fact that you actually support an idiot who opposes vibrators is telling.
Actually, if you read Joe regularly you would realize that he is quite intelligent.
Seeker, in opposition to women's orgasms.
For a guy who prides himself on being smarter than others, you amaze me with your consistent illogic, non-sequiturs, and erroneous conclusions based on your anti-faith bias. Your logic is truly captive to your passions, rather than to reason. Pity.
Sam,
I think you are mistaken about women and orgasm. They may need things like "clitoral stimulation", but that can be done naturally with the fingers.
But Joe isn't condeming vibrators for women who have this "problem," but rather, if you need something external like porno or sex toys to get aroused, there is something wrong with your relationship – you have probably strayed away from sex as relationship into sex as personal pleasure separated from relationship.
It's nice to see that Wikipedia is sticking to their announced plan to hold to high standards of scholarship and accuracy.
ID doesn't make the cut — is that a surprise?
It's nice to see that Wikipedia is sticking to their announced plan to hold to high standards of scholarship and accuracy.
If the backers of ID aren't allowed to present their own case, then what you have is a straw man in the name of "scholarship" – whether or not you find their ideas sound is no reason to disallow them from presenting them in their own words.
What you have here is not scholarship, but censorship – those in power deciding who can represent themselves and who should speak for them.
So what you're saying Seeker is that the quackery involved in Intelligent Design ought to be represented on the front page, not the reality about its total lack of evidence? That's like saying that the eugenics wiki ought to be written by the people that support it, rather than the people who understand eugenics to be a horrible interpretation of Darwin's theory.
And Seeker, don't add words to Joe's disdain for vibrators. He looked at a real problem – women who can't orgasm via vaginal stimulation ALONE – and said that women using vibrators was wrong. That's clearly him opposing the idea that women should care about orgasming. There's other evidence in that article that he opposes it as well.
So what you're saying Seeker is that the quackery involved in Intelligent Design ought to be represented on the front page
Not at all. But it is customary to let an movement or organization define itself in it's own words, followed by rebuttals, rather than having the main content provided by detractors, followed by a footnote from the originators.
Again, your demeaning tone displays your unwillingness to debate with respect and reason.