The SimTropolis House of Worship

[SimRabbit 48]

racism???

Judaism is a race or a religion?

Most jews say they are just a religion like Christianity but why do they say this is an act of racism?

so if i kill a Christian or a Muslim i will be a racist?

Think before you speak.

[_Atticus 10]

Okay, so God punished those who did not follow his commandments in the Old Testament. I still don't see how that qualifies him as Adolf Hitler.

Originally posted by: The Bluejay

I am a firm believer that anyone who thinks God is loving requires therapyquote>

Have you heard of the New Testament?

-Pingangster

[The Bluejay 40]

Isn't it that book publishers included after several complaints by parents? XDI would reccomened the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, which throughly analyses both the Old and New Testament, and gives reasons why it shouldn't be used as base for morality and law, As SkiGeek said, I've gone off topic faster than Sarah Palin chasing mooses with guns, so I'll shut up now

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: The Bluejay

Isn't it that book publishers included after several complaints by parents? quote>

Okay, now that's funny.

Well done.

Transplanting of the last several posts in 3...2...1...

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Transplanting of the last several posts in 3...2...1...

quote>

 

Not bad timing there.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: The Bluejay

My apologies, I should have explained I meant actual species evolution - our neural presets that make us vulnerable to belief, even at the expenses of others or ourselves, going against evidence e.g Turin Shroud, Antisemitism...

My point is that surely this susceptibility to belief is harmful to a species survival chances and therefore should not have evolved?quote>

I think it was Michael Shermer who had a nice explanation for that one, putting it in terms of Type I and Type II errors.

Think of a primitive pre-civilised human hunter gatherer getting water from a river. There's a rustle in the bushes, what does she do? Her first choice is to assume the rustle is caused by something dangerous and run. However there may be nothing harmful there. This is a type I error, seeing a pattern where there isn't one.

Her other option is to assume the rustle is nothing dangerous and finish getting her water. The problem is if it is a predator she will most likely be killed and eaten. This would be a type II error, not detecting a pattern where there is one.

From the point of survival Type I errors favour survival more whereas Type II errors are likely to cause extinction of the population if the population is widely predisposed to those errors. So a tendency towards Type I errors is likely to become fixed in a population.

For that reason humans have a tendency towards type I errors. They are fantastic at detecting patterns, but are not very good at figuring out which ones are real and which aren't.

[Wizard of ID 1]

Originally posted by: The Bluejay

Such as the time when The Jewish people started worshiping the Golden Calf. God's repsonse we to get the people of the good tribe of Levi and tell them to pick up swords and kill people. I can't remember the specifics, but I think he made them kill either all the other Jews or everyone they foundquote>

I'm always grateful for the expert opinions of people who've never actually read the Bible.  Or you could try watching The Ten Commandments sometime.  As I recall, their punishment was to be led back out into the desert for forty years.

But there is a little matter you've overlooked -- if God gives life, He has the right to take it away again.  Just like if I can give you a job, I have a right to then fire you.  And religiously speaking, death is merely a transition in the eternities, so it's not that big of a deal anyway.

Can I give you a little word of friendly advice?  If you want to participate in debates about Christianity, you would do well to swot up on a little basic Christian doctrine.  I'm no great believer, but even I can see how uninformed your thoughts are.  They kinda say more about you than they do about religion, if you know what I mean.

As for Richard Dawkins (or, as South Park described him, "It's not enough to disagree with people, you have to be a total ***** to them"), this article from Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper made me laugh:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/5689155/When-it-comes-to-Richard-Dawkins-atheist-camp-Im-a-non-believer.html

if there's one thing to make my blood freeze, it's the thought of my child mutating into some kind of pedantic, humourless, eight-year-old mini-Dawkins.

Imagine trying to celebrate the little beast's birthday: "Many happy returns, Darling. Now blow out the candles and make a wish."

"Certainly not, Father. This is a futile custom. There is no evidence to support the notion that blowing out the candles on a Marks & Spencer Victoria sponge increases the likelihood of one's desires becoming reality." quote>

 

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Wizard of ID

Originally posted by: The Bluejay

Such as the time when The Jewish people started worshiping the Golden Calf. God's repsonse we to get the people of the good tribe of Levi and tell them to pick up swords and kill people. I can't remember the specifics, but I think he made them kill either all the other Jews or everyone they foundquote>

I'm always grateful for the expert opinions of people who've never actually read the Bible.  Or you could try watching The Ten Commandments sometime.  As I recall, their punishment was to be led back out into the desert for forty years.

...

 quote>

Exodus 32

The Golden Calf

 ¹ When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."

 ² Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." ³ So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. ⁴ He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods,  O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."

 ⁵ When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." ⁶ So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.

 ⁷ Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. ⁸ They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.'

 ⁹ "I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. ¹⁰ Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."

 ¹¹ But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "O LORD," he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? ¹² Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. ¹³ Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.' " ¹⁴ Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

 ¹⁵ Moses turned and went down the mountain with the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands. They were inscribed on both sides, front and back. ¹⁶ The tablets were the work of God; the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets.

 ¹⁷ When Joshua heard the noise of the people shouting, he said to Moses, "There is the sound of war in the camp."

 ¹⁸ Moses replied:

       "It is not the sound of victory,

       it is not the sound of defeat;

       it is the sound of singing that I hear."

 ¹⁹ When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking them to pieces at the foot of the mountain. ²⁰ And he took the calf they had made and burned it in the fire; then he ground it to powder, scattered it on the water and made the Israelites drink it.

 ²¹ He said to Aaron, "What did these people do to you, that you led them into such great sin?"

 ²² "Do not be angry, my lord," Aaron answered. "You know how prone these people are to evil. ²³ They said to me, 'Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him.' ²⁴ So I told them, 'Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off.' Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!"

 ²⁵ Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. ²⁶ So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him.

 ²⁷ Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " ²⁸ The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. ²⁹ Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

 ³⁰ The next day Moses said to the people, "You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin."

 ³¹ So Moses went back to the LORD and said, "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. ³² But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."

 ³³ The LORD replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. ³⁴ Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin."

 ³⁵ And the LORD struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.

quote>

That's good???

[Hudizzle17 1]

I'm an Atheist. Also fairly anti-religious. Especially, mostly, organzied religion.

I try to respect others' beliefs, but I do find it hard to every so often, especially when those beliefs are, in my opinion, completely insane. (I'd mention specifics, but for the sake of keeping things somewhat neutral, we'll just leave that a bit more open). I especially have issues with people who prosylitize their religions, and those who insist that you MUST believe in something in order to have a good life. I'm also not the biggest fan of extreme fundamentalism (of any religion, not just Christianity), especially when those fundamentalists try to mold society to conform to those views (Such as banning criticism, banning alchohol/dance/rock music, forcing people to wear religious clothing or articles, forcing people to go to church, or establishing an offical church of any state, displaying any religious symbols or articles in government spaces, banning anything that is considered offensive to that belief, preaching religion to the public when nobody asked for it, promoting their religious texts and beliefs in schools and other educational institutions, establishing religious law, etc). Pretty much your typical beliefs of Atheists and the like.

I put my trust in science than in what I deem to be, at least for the most part, fictional works of literature.

I've heard from a friend once a comparison of the formation of a planet to building a house, to try to justify there being a creator. I'm sure this would seem logical to religious people... to each his/her own, I suppose, especially since logic can sometimes seem subjective (For instance, people's definitions of wright and wrong, a dictator committing genocide who believes that's the only logical solution, etc), but comparing works of nature to a work of man really doesn't seem so logical. Yes, we are fairly advanced, and there are some amazing things out there that may seem perfect, but for me, it does not prove the existance ot a creator.

One of my views on religion is also centered around the fact that there have been, are, and probably will always be things that we as a species will not always be able to explain, especially the big questions, such as where we came from, why are we here, HOW did we get here, all that good stuff... And some people look around, and they come to certain conclusions that there must be a god or creator or some supernatural force intereacting with life... For instance, egyptians believing it was gods that moved the sun and moon across the sky, primitave Hawaiian cultures believing a god was responsible for the eruption of volcanoes, Greeks believing it was a god who caused lighting to come from the sky, and countless other examples... These people saw things in nature move about, and thought "wow... These things can't possibly be happening on their own.. there must be a being behind it who is doing it!" It's similar now, except it's mainly with the bigger, yet unanswered questions. A lot of people still insist that there is a creator behind these things, inlcuding some who believe the Earth was "created" by the hand of supreme deity, such as the case with some people here, and my friend who made the house-planet comparison a while back... But what is important to understand in my understanding of the world and nature, is that I don't believe that the planet just popped up on its' own out of nowhere, and with no supreme being doing it... That life just came out of nowhere, and man just popped out from monkeys, and that extreme circumstances of some events that may be considered "miracles" just happened that way... Well that last one yes, to some extent.. With all of that, though, I believe these things happen naturally, but it's HOW they happen naturally that a lot of people don't understand. The many thousands, millions, billions, and trillions of factors involved in determining how things happen. Even I can't explain it all, in this, but it makes sense to me. It's even overwhelming to think about it sometimes! But I find the ideas and theories of science of hoiw we got here VERY interesting, truly amazing, and especially awe-inspiring. Yes, there are a lot of unanswered questions, but I would rather not have those questions answered with a "god did it". When I look at the universe, it stuns me as to how vast it is, and to how little we really know about many things, but the journey to find those answers is really part of the journey of life. When I look, not at our own planet, but at the universe as a whole (though impossible, sicne we can't see the entire universe), the idea of a god, or gods, especially THE god of the world's three big religions, seems utterly nonsensical and ridiculous to me. There are at least 50 billion galxies in the known universe, with 100 billion stars, many more, as well as less in the smaller ones... Assuming there are at least double the number of galaxies in all of the whole univerese, then there are at least 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe! And around many of those stars, planets, many may have multiple planets, like our own Solar system, and who knows how many moons around each of them! The numbers are IMMENSE! Now surely there cannot be a god that goes around and watches over and babysits the entire universe. When I look at the big picture, how things happen, what happens, "god did it" just doesn't cut it.

This is surely cliche, but... We are all just little clumps of space dust sitting on a planet of rare occurrance, in a typical solar system around a typical star, in a typical galaxy in a usual galactic neighborhood, somewhere within a vast universe that we many never fully see or comprehend.

[Wizard of ID 1]

Sam, you missed what I wrote a little further down my previous post:

Originally posted by: Wizard of ID

But there is a little matter you've overlooked -- if God gives life, He has the right to take it away again.  Just like if I can give you a job, I have a right to then fire you.  And religiously speaking, death is merely a transition in the eternities, so it's not that big of a deal anyway. quote>

In answer to your question, I really can't say.  Like I said earlier, I'm no great believer myself.  But what I find interesting is the assumption that apparently forms the foundation of some criticisms that, in 2000 years of Christian theology, including some of the greatest philosophers the world has known, no Christian has ever thought of this one before.

I'm not trying to be rude, but there does seem to be this conceit in the presumed inherent intelligence of their opposition to Christianity, and conversely, the inherent obtuseness of religious belief; an assumption that their comments will be a revelation to Christians, to whom the bleeding obvious must be of unfathomable opacity.

I really don't think that's fair or clever.  Instead of puerile sniping, they might do well to actually figure out how Christians explain it.

Sam, I don't know whether you have any familiarity with the Bible or whether you simply looked that quote up online, and it's the first time you've actually looked at a Bible in years.  I fit into the latter category, and Bluejay's comments are so far out that I think he does too.  But I would never presume to start lecturing people who do study the Bible on the complexities of theology.

I've never read Pride and Prejudice, but I would never dream of trying to argue with Jane Austen fans about its social value and moral implications, because I know the best that could happen is that I'd end up revealing my ignorance.  I'm sure you'd feel likewise.  So I really don't understand why people feel they don't actually need to study the Bible to be experts on Christianity! 

[Meg 368]

another reminder: Discuss the issues and not each other.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Wizard of ID 1]

... all of which is tangential and of no interest to me.

My point is that much anti-religious criticism originates from people who know little about it. If you'd care to address that, I'll do my best to respond.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Wizard of ID 1]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Do you mean that for anyone to have an opinion on a religion they need to be a scholar or a member of said religion?quote>

No. 

That's the second time in as many posts that you've miscontrued my statements.  I resent it, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped.

[hym 358]

First, let's remember to discuss the issues and not each other.

Second, we all would be wise to remember that how something is perceived is not always going to be how we intended it to be perceived. It's a fact of life on a forum and everyone needs to give some leeway for the possibility of misunderstandings.

[remixedcat 2]

Cats are my religion!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Wizard of ID 1]

What I get -- loud and clear -- is the overt hostility of your attitude.

Why the moderators haven't PM'd you about ruining what up till now has been an admirably courteous topic (as they did me for a post that was less pugnatious than yours have been) is anybody's guess. But if you want a fight, you're going to have to find someone else, because I'm not interested.

On the other hand, if you'd like to moderate your tone considerably, to the point that I'm satisfied of your willingness to engage in a mutually respectful and gracious discussion, I'll think about joining you.  Under the present conditions, however, I am not remotely interested in "moving the conversation forward."

[Hudizzle17 1]

Originally posted by: remixedcat

Cats are my religion!quote>

Can't argue with that logic!

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Wizard of ID

what I find interesting is the assumption that apparently forms the foundation of some criticisms that, in 2000 years of Christian theology, including some of the greatest philosophers the world has known, no Christian has ever thought of this one before.quote>

Just because something has thought of before does not mean any given individual will be aware of it. Or that they won't be in denial of it or rationalizing it away.

puerilequote>

Ooh. I like that word.

It's always fun when people come up with fancy vocabulary.

they might do well to actually figure out how Christians explain it.quote>

Some people are uninformed. Others are quite informed and see great flaws with "how Christians explain it". One does not have to agree with someone to nderstand what they think.... the understanding is just likely to be different. The rub is that "understanding" the same way involves having faith. Which means surrendering to a god whose existence I have never seen any reason to accept. Sorry, but I can't do that.

Ultimately, there's just an irreconciliable difference in perspective. A Christian is going to believe Christian things because their religion compels them to do so. An outsider looking at it objectively is going to think it's utter hogwash because without faith it makes no sense.

Originally posted by: remixedcat

Cats are my religion!quote>

I can has eternal salvation? *shot*

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Wizard of ID

But if you want a fight, you're going to have to find someone else, because I'm not interested.

quote>

There will be no fights here, end of story.

Hym's advice was sound:

Second, we all would be wise to remember that how something is perceived is not always going to be how we intended it to be perceived. It's a fact of life on a forum and everyone needs to give some leeway for the possibility of misunderstandings.

quote>

Edit:

Originally posted by: remixedcat

Cats are my religion!quote>

I think my cats would like me to agree with you

[Wizard of ID 1]

Originally posted by: Duke87

puerilequote>

Ooh. I like that word.

It's always fun when people come up with fancy vocabulary. quote>

Why, thank you, kind sir!

I was born into a very poor family.  My mother couldn't afford food, so she fed me on old dictionaries instead.

what I find interesting is the assumption that apparently forms the foundation of some criticisms that, in 2000 years of Christian theology, including some of the greatest philosophers the world has known, no Christian has ever thought of this one before.quote>

Just because something has thought of before does not mean any given individual will be aware of it. Or that they won't be in denial of it or rationalizing it away. quote>

If the question were about some wildly obscure and deep doctrine -- say, transubstantiation or the precise moment of communion, or whatever -- sure.  The posts I was referring to at the time I wrote that comment went along the lines of "The god of the Bible has killed lots of people and therefore can't be a loving god."  While a perfectly reasonable point in itself, the implication of these posts (they're back on the previous page, if you want to read them) was that this is a flaw that must never have occurred to any Christian before.  Which is a bit silly.

I don't know how Christians answer that (I'm not entirely sure how I ended up fighting the Christians' corner, but it's not because I'm any great man of faith!), but I'm sure they have one; and that it's good enough to satisfy a couple of billion Christians the world over and for two thousand years.

The premise of the posts in question (that if the critic can't think of an explanation, none must exist, and therefore, anybody who disagrees with the critic must be irredeemably naive and brainless for not seeing it the critic's way) is, of course, a fairly ignorant one.  To maintain such a perspective, one must be either poorly educated or arrogant, which says rather more about the critic than it does about the subject.  Like I said above, most of those critics would feel hopelessly unqualified to debate the merits of Jane Austen unless they'd actually read at least some of her writing.  I just wish they'd apply the same sense of humility to the Bible, and I really don't understand why they don't.

Admittedly, Christianity itself in past ages has not always been especially enlightened with regard to the competition, but that hardly gives its critics of today an excuse!

Some people are uninformed. Others are quite informed and see great flaws with "how Christians explain it". One does not have to agree with someone to nderstand what they think.... the understanding is just likely to be different. The rub is that "understanding" the same way involves having faith. Which means surrendering to a god whose existence I have never seen any reason to accept. Sorry, but I can't do that.

Ultimately, there's just an irreconciliable difference in perspective.quote>

As you so rightly put it, that's the rub.  I'm not convinced it's entirely irreconcilable -- after all, a political conservative can utterly reject left-wing politics and ideologies, but that doesn't prevent him understanding how those ideologies inspire and motivate a liberal. 

But that does, of course, presuppose not only a fairly strong analytical ability, but more fundamentally, a desire to learn about the alternative points of view.  Since a characteristic of adults is that they aren't generally interested in learning unless they clearly understand how that learning will benefit them, that's unlikely to happen if they're relatively content with whatever ideology they currently subscribe to.

[chris0101 8]

I consider myself to be an agnostic and a freethinker. I believe that it is currently beyond humanity's ability to verify the truth about whether or not a god or gods created us. That said, I am a firm supporter of science and am quite dismissive of creationist myths. I am largely secular (ex: I don't go to church, attend religious ceremonies of any sort, and question so called "miracles" by organizations like the Catholic church). Science is the sum of our observations, hypothesis, and experiments that we have conducted. In a sense, science is our observation of reality of the physical world.

I firmly do oppose fundamentalist religions though not matter what religion it is. I am a freethinker and therefore believe that humans should have the ability to think freely, to question, to probe, and to doubt, provided that such thoughts, if they attempt to change society, are based on factual and empirical evidence. Sadly, fundamentalism has often opposed what I stand for. I do not feel that people who interpret their religious texts liberally or who view faith as a private matter are of any real threat. I may disagree with the fact that they cling to what I consider to be works of fiction, however, I tolerate it. I feel that people have the right to hold such beliefs, even if they do contradict what I view as reason. Furthermore, I firmly support separating state and religion. Given the questionable proofs that advocates of breaking down the barriers have, it appears to be logical. Decisions by government should be based on logic, history, and empirical evidence, not a religious faith which may very well be false.

In the past, religious individuals have attacked me claiming that I have no morals and that I am a psychopath of sorts. My reply - I abide by a humanist moral code. I abide by what myself and society consider to be morally acceptable. Ideas such as theft or murder being wrong are universal, that is, different cultures, completely isolated by each other have developed them, suggesting that it is a universal human belief system.

I am not a very spiritual person, believing that life is a merely a convenient and logical arrangement of chemicals and molecules. I view religion as an ethnocentric phenomenon and a way for more primitive societies to explain what was at the time, beyond their capacity to explain logically. Does this mean that I feel that now that we know that many of these explanations are indeed myths should be suppressed? No. I am a freethinker and a humanist. Suppressing such beliefs would cause hatred, psychological harm, and perhaps violence. I value information and the ability to think freely much more. I believe that alternative opinions and ideas should always be considered, provided that they are based on logic, evidence, and a desire for improvement.

I hold my beliefs with neither fanaticism nor blind faith. I do so on the basis of the best rational observations that humanity has and will continue to refine them as our ability to understand the universe (or multiverse) improves. I value independent, object thinking, and view it as essential to the human mind. Information is very important to me, and life is a long learning process to me, which it will always be. Knowledge can never be complete and therefore thought must always be refined. I do the best to prevent any ideological bias from contaminating my thoughts. I have not completely dismissed the idea that religion is false, however, I believe that the evidence currently is overwhelmingly in favour of contrary explanations. I make no efforts to convert others to my belief system. If others arrive at the same conclusions that I do, it is because they have come to the conclusions through independent and informed thinking. For all of these reasons, I consider myself to be agnostic.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

I guess I'm not really that religious, although I used to go to Sunday School, a Church of England secondary school, I was married in church, and I attend for weddings and funerals. I believe in the Big Bang rather than God making the universe.

But everybody to their own!

[_Atticus 10]

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

 I believe in the Big Bang rather than God making the universe.quote>

I'd just like to point out that these two explanations are not mutually exclusive. Just like belief that God created humans and the theory of evolution are compatible.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: pingangster

Just like belief that God created humans and the theory of evolution are compatible.quote>

Only if you don't insist on taking the bible literally.

[Airtime&Gravity 0]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

I didn't vote for McCain either. However, there is a big difference between a preacher speaking of the Biblical prohibition against homosexual conduct, and anti-Semitism. Belief in the Bible doesn't make one a hatemonger.

Parsley in particular is a fraud who preaches a heretical brand of 'Christianese', meaning it sounds and acts vaguely like Gospel but isn't. The problem with his ilk isn't what they're right about, but what they're wrong about.

quote>

Poor wording on my part, so thanks for pointing it out.  You're right in the sene that there is nothing wrong with believing in the Bible.  However, problems do arise with what you do with youre beliefs.  If you interperet the Bible as saying homosexuality is an abomination, then that is what you believe.  I wouldn't agree, but again, that is my belief.  However, if you are opposed to homosexuality and tell a gay that "God hates you" or "you're demonic", then you have a problem.  Really, be nice to others, isn't that a major point of the Bible? 

At least Hagee to my knowledge hasn't called all Muslims demonic like other evangelicals, but saying a religion is violent by taking a few verses out of context doesn't work in an arguement.  According to the Bible(Mthw 10:34), Jesus came to spread the sword and not peace.  Now if I just said that, it paints a violent picture of Christanity, but if you read the entire section it is in, it deals with persecution of Christians.  Same goes for the verses regarding the laws in the OT, although I believe only one of those laws is still believed by some Christians.

Also, the late Jerry Fallwell said/did some of the things I thought John Hagee did, so I stand corrected.  Still, John Hagee isn't a person I'd want to be around with.

Parsley on the other hand, yeah, I'll agree with you there, although, most evangelicals/fundamentalists preach "Christianese" to me.  Then again, I'm very laid back when it comes to religion.  I'm Catholic, not religous though, and I can just try to lead a good life and help those in need.  Respect my beliefs and the beliefs of others, and I'll respect yours.

-----------------------------------------------

While I am not religious, I am still Christian(Catholic), and I do believe in science.  This is because in order to believe something, I need to see proof, or in the case of scientific theories, evidence.  Even though religion doesn't offer much like that other than what is in a holy book, I still believe in God.  Mainly because as you study science(I'll use biology as an example), you realize that it is so complex for there not to be a God.  From the big bang to evolution and natural selection, a higher power had to be there to guide things as they happened.  If you are one of those who believe in the whole God snapped his fingers six times, then good for you, but believing in science and God are compatiable. 

[mayor_brando 8]

My religion is science. If something doesn't have proof (scientific evidence), then I don't think of it as being true, although there are some exceptions. I was baptized Episcopal, which is the American version of the church of England. However, I grew up in a very unreligious family, therefore I don't know much else about my religion. I've only gone to church once or twice in my life, because it was boring and it didn't make much sense to me. I don't really believe in any religion because none of it has any proof. However, I do like to think there is an afterlife and that we don't just die.

[Wizard of ID 1]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: pingangster

Just like belief that God created humans and the theory of evolution are compatible.quote>

Only if you don't insist on taking the bible literally.

quote>

You reckon?  For the sake of argument, I've just read the opening chapter of the Bible, that deals with the Creation of the world.  All I can find on the Creation is:

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 

God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created man in his own image,

       in the image of God he created him;

       male and female he created them.

quote>

How is that incompatible with Evolution?  The Bible isn't attempting to state how God created life, simply that he did.

Bear in mind, the Bible's primary purpose is religious.  It isn't -- it never was never intended as -- a scientific textbook.  People who insist upon treating it as such (whatever side of the debate they come from) are guilty of misrepresentation.

I do think, however, that critiques of Christianity based on Biblical/scientific dissonance are missing the point.  I've met plenty of Christians who believe in Evolution.  Christianity is not about putting forward an alternative explanation of the earth's origins -- actually, I think most of the Christians I've met really didn't care a whole lot one way or another about the origins of the universe, and considered it all rather irrelevant.

Christianity is far more to do with developing an harmonious lifestyle, with an emphasis on caring for the socially disadvantaged.  The biggest debates of Christianity are about what exactly that means, and how best to achieve it.  Since the exact method by which God created the Earth, or whether Noah actually existed, or whether Moses genuinely led an Israelite exodus from Egypt -- none of that helps them achieve that harmonious lifestyle, so it rarely amounts to more than a passing interest.

And yes, I know you can always find some loony fundamentalist who makes a huge song and dance about the origins of the earth's existence, or for whom the literal existence of Noah's ark is the alpha and omega of the Bible.  Noisy though they may be, I wouldn't have said they're representative of Christianity.  I can just as easily find you some atheistic fundamentalist, for whom Noah's literal existence is the be-all and end-all of Christainity -- but I would say he doesn't know what he's talking about either.