Of the Science vs Creation feud of the week, the more aggressive opponents of them vs them ("oppose themselves" like Hatfields vs McCoys) seem to be Athiests vs Evangelicals. Athiests are more aggressive about having no God than Evangelicals are about having no Evolution. Time magazine reports a third camp emerging which would bridge the gap, as US would do in a mid-east crisis; spearheadead by a scientist supposedly enlightened to the trinity by discovering 3 converging waterfalls frozen together.
My take is none of such for me thanks:
- any god that can be destroyed ought to be destroyed
(mind not "high" things, of a God on "high")
- creationists should go on to made of created/made
(as it is written "as in Adam[in them created] all die")
- science has it's findings altered, to get gov't grants
- if faith has to be protected from truth, it's already dead
- frozen in time trinity of frozen chosen isn't moving on
Rather let us all move on, go on unto perfection
2006-07-27
01:13:18
·
4 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality