[ploesj]

earth is here because of a big series of coincidences. i can imagine that's a bit hard to live with, people always try to make things more special and spectacular.

i don't believe in any divine intervention though. halelujah for coincidence.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by swa(y)

not that id put to much thoought into it, but the oldest book of the bible, the book of job (no0, its not gensis, genesis is just chosen to be the first book in the book of books known as the "holy bible" because it talks about creation, job has been proven to be the first written book of the bible) talks about an reallly large reptillian creature with a super long tail.

if yr interested ill find the actual passage for ya.

however, i think divine intervietion/creation in the sense most christians like to think of it is totally bogus and stupid.

evolution/adaption isnt and opinoin/theory...its a proven fact.

just think about viruses.....

enough said.

Yeah, I was going to mention that bit in Job. It doesn't explicitly mention dinosaurs but the description of the beast, Behemoth I believe, could easily pass for a dinosaur.

And yes, I think creationists could potentially get more pathetic and stupid if they tried really, really hard.

[MellySingsDoom]

Originally Posted by swa(y)

not that id put to much thoought into it, but the oldest book of the bible, the book of job (no0, its not gensis, genesis is just chosen to be the first book in the book of books known as the "holy bible" because it talks about creation, job has been proven to be the first written book of the bible) talks about an reallly large reptillian creature with a super long tail.

That's the giant snake of Gehenna, as quoted in the Book of Dubya.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

And Einstein, who refined Newton's Laws, also believed in God. But, it's also easy to infer that both, as men of science, intelligently rejected literalist fundamentalist agendas.

who wouldn't?

[amyvega]

sorry to bump this, but over the past year I've gotten to know a few christians who are rather intelligent people and not the fundamentalist idiots I usually make them out to be.

Could it be that the Fallwells/Grahams/700 Club's of the world ruin it for everyone else?
Don't Catholics believe in science? It just makes me sick that anybody who is considered religious is automatically forced into a category with small minded nutjobs that we all despise. Granted, I only know a FEW religious folk who are pro gay rights and pro choice, but certainly there's more out there than we think?

//sorry to be off topic a bit but i've had like 70 glasses of wine and i found this thread again

[ZEROpumpkins]

lol @ Americans

Well, the stupid ones anyway.

[HECKLER SPRAY]

I'm still an atheist, thank God.

[davenotdead]

http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm

this search took me 0.13 seconds...i dont necessarily agree with the author, but well, its funny the question went this long unanswered...

[amyvega]

Originally Posted by ZEROpumpkins

lol @ Americans

Well, the stupid ones anyway.

don't get too excited, there's quite a number of evangelicals in australia too...

[sellouteater]

this thread looks oddly familar hmmmm

edit: http://sonicyouth.com/gossip/showthread.php?t=13630&

[truncated]

Originally Posted by amyvega

sorry to bump this, but over the past year I've gotten to know a few christians who are rather intelligent people and not the fundamentalist idiots I usually make them out to be.

Could it be that the Fallwells/Grahams/700 Club's of the world ruin it for everyone else?
Don't Catholics believe in science? It just makes me sick that anybody who is considered religious is automatically forced into a category with small minded nutjobs that we all despise. Granted, I only know a FEW religious folk who are pro gay rights and pro choice, but certainly there's more out there than we think?

//sorry to be off topic a bit but i've had like 70 glasses of wine and i found this thread again

Tough to say. To me, the mere adoption of a religious creed suggests a narrowed perspective. If you claim to subscribe to a faith-based ideology (for the sake of this argument, "religious" or idol-worshipping), you're agreeing to abide by and lending credence to all tenets of its philosophy. Therefore, altering your observance of those rules to accommodate your own principles, or injecting what you feel to be logic (e.g. rejecting more extreme Catholic views on sacredness of marriage, what have you), is hypocritical, self-serving, and presumptuous.

In a way, I respect religious "fundamentalists" more, because their "faith" doesn't waiver, and they've adopted the attitude that if you're going to sign up for something, you're not going to do it half-assed, you're going to respect the ideology in its original authorship, and you're not going to alter your mentality or behavior with the temptations of modernity or moral convenience. They may be utterly insane and completely illogical, but they're stickin' to their guns, man!

Anyway, what this means in short is, yes, I blanketly judge the religious, because I'm an ass like that.

[pantophobia]

Originally Posted by truncated

Tough to say. To me, the mere adoption of a religious creed suggests a narrowed perspective. If you claim to subscribe to a faith-based ideology (for the sake of this argument, "religious" or idol-worshipping), you're agreeing to abide by and lending credence to all tenets of its philosophy. Therefore, altering your observance of those rules to accommodate your own principles, or injecting what you feel to be logic (e.g. rejecting more extreme Catholic views on sacredness of marriage, what have you), is hypocritical, self-serving, and presumptuous.

In a way, I respect religious "fundamentalists" more, because their "faith" doesn't waiver, and they've adopted the attitude that if you're going to sign up for something, you're not going to do it half-assed, you're going to respect the ideology in its original authorship, and you're not going to alter your mentality or behavior with the temptations of modernity or moral convenience. They may be utterly insane and completely illogical, but they're stickin' to their guns, man!

Anyway, what this means in short is, yes, I blanketly judge the religious, because I'm an ass like that.

i understand that logic, i mean the most strict are the most faithful to the gospel, but many of their leaders be it pastors or government officials break any commandment they want when it suits them, especially adultery which seems to be the most popular broken commandment of the religious right

it's interesting to look at my parents are proclaimed catholics, but they very lapsed catholics who never go to church unless it's for a wedding or a funeral (which for my dad is becoming common place considering many firefighters don't have long life spans), and also while they don't like abortion, they do believe in the right for a woman to choose, and they respect my own personal views on religion but still have a strong faith, and doesn't seem to waiver.

it's a very unique outlook, but but while their is a certain honesty in sticking to the word of the gospel, i have much more respect to those who are able to see past many of the tenants of something that written some two millennium ago and look to morality based on human rights which more often then not that people who preach to the book have certainly ignored when it suited their needs

[truncated]

Originally Posted by pantophobia

i understand that logic, i mean the most strict are the most faithful to the gospel, but many of their leaders be it pastors or government officials break any commandment they want when it suits them, especially adultery which seems to be the most popular broken commandment of the religious right

it's interesting to look at my parents are proclaimed catholics, but they very lapsed catholics who never go to church unless it's for a wedding or a funeral (which for my dad is becoming common place considering many firefighters don't have long life spans), and also while they don't like abortion, they do believe in the right for a woman to choose, and they respect my own personal views on religion but still have a strong faith, and doesn't seem to waiver.

it's a very unique outlook, but but while their is a certain honesty in sticking to the word of the gospel, i have much more respect to those who are able to see past many of the tenants of something that written some two millennium ago and look to morality based on human rights which more often then not that people who preach to the book have certainly ignored when it suited their needs

I agree with that re: fundamentalists, which is why I personally can't take a very consistent stance on the issue. But, and no offense to your parents intended, while I may respect their morality and principles, I simply don't see the point in labeling oneself as a member of a religious faction if he/she observes its rituals in an "obligatory" fashion.

The most generic thing I can say is, the human factor will make any facet of "religion" inconsistent and contradictory. I'm not sure if I find someone who retains logical moral tenets of a religion while discarding more extreme and less sensible aspects respectable, or deluded. I'm genuinely curious as to how someone benefits by adopting the label, without following its rules.

I apologize for going off-topic in this thread.

[Hip Priest]

Originally Posted by truncated

I agree with that re: fundamentalists, which is why I personally can't take a very consistent stance on the issue. But, and no offense to your parents intended, while I may respect their morality and principles, I simply don't see the point in labeling oneself as a member of a religious faction if he/she observes its rituals in an "obligatory" fashion.

The most generic thing I can say is, the human factor will make any facet of "religion" inconsistent and contradictory. I'm not sure if I find someone who retains logical moral tenets of a religion while discarding more extreme and less sensible aspects respectable, or deluded. I'm genuinely curious as to how someone benefits by adopting the label, without following its rules.
I apologize for going off-topic in this thread.

Perhaps I can explain a small amount from a Christian point of view.

At its centre, Christianity should be about the teachings and actions of Jesus - nothing else is as important. If we take that idea as true, then it is essential to say that The New Testament contains, mainly via the writings of Paul, elements that go against the teachings of Jesus. (Paul was described by Thomas Jefferson as the 'first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus', and CG Jung expressed things admirably when he said that 'Paul hardy ever allows the real Jesus of Nazereth to get a word in')

'Christian Fundamentalism' (which I suppose I would class myself a part of) is all about love, tolerance and what I might awkwardly term 'non-aggresive appropriate evangelism'. The people who get labelled as 'Christian fundamentalists' are in fact ususally exactly the opposite - they are often people who abandon the teachings of Jesus at every opportunity.

There is a real split developing within the Christian world, and the cause is that many Christians make a two-fold error; firstly using the teachings of Paul as a rod to beat everyone else, and secondly insisting on the nonsensical (and un-CHristian) idea that the Bible is inerrable.

That's not to say that other writings cannot add to our understanding of Jesus (for example, there is some wondeful stuff to be found in the apocryphal Gospels and Acts, the Nag Hammadi scrolls or in people like Mother Julian of Norwich), but if something appears to alter or modify Jesus' word, then it should be treated with extreme caution.

Originally Posted by pantophobia

...i have much more respect to those who are able to see past many of the tenants of something that written some two millennium ago and look to morality based on human rights which more often then not that people who preach to the book have certainly ignored when it suited their needs

There is much in the New Testament, especially the writings of Paul, that is influencd by personal and cultural experience of the time. It is not only desirable, but essential that this is realised.





So basically, I was trying to say that the whole teachings of a religion should indeed be followed properly or not at all, but people should be careful that they know what those teachings really are.

[truncated]

Once again, the voice of wisdom speaks, and Hip Priest clarified everything. Excellent points.

[pantophobia]

Originally Posted by truncated

But, and no offense to your parents intended, while I may respect their morality and principles, I simply don't see the point in labeling oneself as a member of a religious faction if he/she observes its rituals in an "obligatory" fashion.

well it has to do with taking a certain solace in a higher state of being. regardless of any modern thought, there is a comfort in times of grief, it's even been pr oven in surveys that those that identify themselves as religious are much happier and less grief-stricken then those who don't see themselves as religious,

i have talked to my parents about this subject, and it's more the fact that my parents can find contentment and even clarity when a loved one passes or when times become otherwise unbearable to handle

[truncated]

Originally Posted by pantophobia

well it has to do with taking a certain solace in a higher state of being. regardless of any modern thought, there is a comfort in times of grief, it's even been pr oven in surveys that those that identify themselves as religious are much happier and less grief-stricken then those who don't see themselves as religious,

i have talked to my parents about this subject, and it's more the fact that my parents can find contentment and even clarity when a loved one passes or when times become otherwise unbearable to handle

Fair enough, if it works for them. I just can't personally identify with it. As SC alluded to, the problem arises when someone attempts to hoist their beliefs on others, or effect policy in relation to them.

[amyvega]

supposedly there's a book out there titled '1000 Ways the Bible is meant for you to be a capitalist' (it could be 100 Ways...i may have the title off a bit)

Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I've tried googling w/no luck...

[amyvega]

Originally Posted by truncated

Tough to say. To me, the mere adoption of a religious creed suggests a narrowed perspective. If you claim to subscribe to a faith-based ideology (for the sake of this argument, "religious" or idol-worshipping), you're agreeing to abide by and lending credence to all tenets of its philosophy.

I totally agree, but it's funny how some people read into verses differently than others. And in my experience, they read into the bible what is more convenient for them

[HECKLER SPRAY]

The secret of a good sermon is to have a good beginning and a good ending, then having the two as close together as possible.