• Convert Me, Please II November 09 - 5:40 am

I will stay in Christian mythology because that is the one I’m most familiar with. No offense meant to various pagans, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Wicca’s, Zoroastrians, etc.

No seriously, if I offend anyone I shan’t do it by accident unless they are so thin skinned that anyone can insult them by accident by not referring to Him/Her/Them/It/Nothingness/andwhateverIforgot. Trust me, if I mean to offend you, you’ll know.

Now that the disclaimer is over, proceed if you have faith. I won’t try to convert you to agnosticism because, frankly, I don’t care. Here is an open invite to proselytize me. Only catch is I have no faith and will question everything.

I assume you are Christian and I have questions:

Why does Jesus/God love doubting Thomas more than me? He proved his resurrection to Thomas but not to me. If I could put my hands in the wounds, maybe I’d believe as much as Thomas but we’ll never find out will we.

If in your answer you reference Him caring for a sparrow that falls please tell me why the sparrow cares. Whether it cares or not, it is dead. He made no difference in the sparrow’s life. One can argue he created the Sparrow, but so? Whether the sparrow cared or not made no difference in its brief life, and God’s inaction made no difference in its death.

Best leave the sparrow out of it.

If you go with the footprints thing I’ll ask if your belief is a good crutch then.

There must be a good answer. I know I can’t be the first with this question in 2,000 years. (Maybe I’m the first not burned alive for asking it, but I’m sure the question must’ve been asked anonymously before.)

You can see why I’m asking for only those with faith. If your faith cannot withstand having obvious holes questioned, do not reply.

Blue Berry: What the Sam Hill is wrong with your keyboard?
As for Thomas, he was one of Jesus' 12 disciples, and that is why Jesus met with him after He rose from the dead. I don't KNOW that Jesus necessarily loves those guys more than He loves you, but if you read the first part of the book of Acts, then you know that they saw Him leave Earth to return to Heaven. Jesus will not return and be on Earth again until the end of the world as we know it. And speaking of Thomas, remember that Jesus said to him, "Blessed are those who have not seen, but have believed".
Now: As to one good reason to believe in Jesus as Risen Savior and Lord, and not as just a philosopher or whatever, consider this: While people have given their lives for things that they sincerely believe that isn't true, NOBODY (as far as I know) has ever given his life for something he knew to be a lie. Peter, James, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Andrew, Thomas and all the rest KNEW whether or not Jesus really spent 40 days talking and interacting with them, AFTER He had been crucified and AFTER that Roman soldier jabbed his spear into Jesus' pericardium, none-too-gently. Judas, after betraying Jesus, committed suicide; John supposedly lived to be old, after being exiled to the island Patmos for a while, but the other disciples of Jesus were all told that they would be killed unless they stopped saying that Jesus rose from the dead. And none of them stopped saying that Jesus rose from the dead.

Now: As to one good reason to believe in Jesus as Risen Savior and Lord, and not as just a philosopher or whatever, consider this: While people have given their lives for things that they sincerely believe that isn't true, NOBODY (as far as I know) has ever given his life for something he knew to be a lie

Two problems with that reasoning: one, the fact that the apostles had visions of Jesus being resurrected and believed them to be true doesn't mean that they actually occured.

Two, many people have knowingly died for lies. They are called spies, soldiers, and politicans.

Besides: I don't think it's possible to convince somebody against their will. After all, faith is defined as believing without evidence - once there's evidence, you don't need faith. Does anybody need to be convinced of gravity?
Somebody can be interested in the dogmas and details of a specific faith, but all the details and explanations in the world can make faith appear.
If somebody is antagonistic anyway, and doesn't want to be convinced, but trying to be smartass asking questions (I'm not saying Blue Berry is!) to sincere believers, then it won't help either side. (This isn't the same as somebody asking in a friendly tone a simple believer about the obvious contradictions in order to get the believer thinking a bit. Believers who don't question their faith themselves and see things differently at 20 than at 12 need to grow up first.)

Constanze: I suggest that you re-read the last parts of the Four Gospels and the beginning of the Book of Acts. The early apostles did not say that they 'had VISIONS of Jesus being resurrected'; they claimed that Jesus was Actually, Physically PRESENT with them. Would you tell someone that you have visions of posting things here at NitCentral, or would you say that you actually DO post things here at NitCentral? And I do not believe that groups of people can have identical, simultaneous hallucinations.
Second point: The soldiers, spies and politicians probably DO believe that their country is in the right, even if someone else has been lying to them. Which puts them in the category of people who die for something that they sincerely believe, which may or may not be true.

many people have knowingly died for lies. They are called spies, soldiers, and politicans.

I'd say a lot more of the first and second than the third.

Id say the first and second die for the lies of the third.

The central question, visions aside, is whether or not you (a person) believes that Jesus resurrected; it is fairly clear that they did at that time.

Just as it is so fairly clear that Muhammad fully believed that an angel had told him the Koran. The belief thing is a point in Christianity's favor but it is not a slam dunk.

MikeB,

I was talking from an outsider's point of view. If you're trying to convince somebody who doesn't already believe that the Bible is true (or simply talking to somebody who views it critically as the work of humans, not inspired letter by letter), then the appearances of the resurrected Christ can be explained away as visions. I didn't mean that the witnesses thought of them as visions; but then people had a very different mindset in those days when magical things and wonders were commonplace. Remember the story of the healings: the onlookers ask Jesus who had sinned, the sick girl herself or her parents, because most people believed at that time that disease was a punishment by God. Viruses and bacteria were unknown.

The comparison as for whether my posts to Nitcentral are real or imagined: there is a clear record on the net that I dialed in, connected to the site, and left an entry in the database. Yes, the database can crash (as it did), and then the record is lost. Then the only evidence would be my own memory, which is faulty and subjective. Unless I made my own copy on my PC. But then I have proof that I wrote sth., but not that I was successful posting it. I may believe I posted an entry, but because the server was blocked, it didn't reach the site and got lost. But then there's objective proof of no entry in the database, even though I'm sure I did.

As for mass hallucinations being improbable: that argument has been trotted out again and again, without looking at evidence of so-called mass hysteria, recorded from the middle ages till modern times. Cases of mass hysteria, mass halluciantions, and the power of peer pressure to persuade people to see things everybody else see has been recorded, studied in experiments and documented by sociologists and psychologists.

As for soldiers, spies, politicans: Apparently, I ddin't make myself clear. I didn't mean those soldiers that were lied to. I didn't mean that every person who belongs to one of the above dies for a lie. I meant that over the course of history, there have been many cases where people have known the truth and reality were very different from what was told to the public, but went ahead anyway, often times dying for it. Because they believed in the greater good, or that the public wouldn't be able to understand, or whatever else rationalisations are used under such circumstances.

The central question, visions aside, is whether or not you (a person) believes that Jesus resurrected; it is fairly clear that they did at that time.

Some people believed it at that time, not everybody. And I don't agree that that's the central question of Christianty. Rather, it raises the question: what happens to your personal christian faith if modern research shows much of what the average church-goer believes to know about Jesus is wrong? What if a video was brought back that shows he didn't rise - would you stop believing in him? Or would you see other aspects of his message as important?

I disagree. The other aspects of his message are secondary to the salvation message, which relies on the death and resurrection of Christ. I believe in the non-existence of such a video.

Well I think Constanze was hypotethically speakign of if we could go back in time to the death of the supposed christ and see if he came back from death or what happened. What would that do to the whole concept of christianity.

Right now I don't believe in the divinity of jesus. I believe if he existed he was just as mortal and human as you and me. That his magical abilities where really just being a very smart person but limited by the standards of his time. And that if he was executed by the romans he did what every mortal did and die and thats it. The rest is public relations.

If there was proof one way or the other that would be cataclysmic to someone's belief system. If it was proven by time travel or whatever that jesus did come back from the dead and ascend and it wasnt just a group hallucination/wishful thinking issue, and that all his miricles where not just misinterpretations, mistranslations or misrepresentations over the years that would be the one thing that would make me or others like me a believer.

However if there where the reverse shown. That jesus was either just this guy you know, or didnt even exist, that would be a rather big chunk out of the cornerstone of the church don't you think.

It is this lack of difinitive proof one way or the other that much of the faith of the followers or non-believers hang on. To me there just isnt enough proof that being a believer will improve my life, or supposed afterlife, to such a degree that i should do so.

Well I think Constanze was hypotethically speakign of if we could go back in time to the death of the supposed christ and see if he came back from death or what happened. What would that do to the whole concept of christianity.

Arthur C. Clarke has an interesting (fiction) book out called The Light of Other Days, where scientists build a device that can see into the past. It touches on that subject.

However if there where the reverse shown. That jesus was either just this guy you know, or didnt even exist, that would be a rather big chunk out of the cornerstone of the church don't you think.
Unfortunately, I don't think it would make that much of a difference. People still believe in John Edward, Sylvia Browne, and contribute to several TV evangelists even though they have been shown to be frauds.

I disagree. The other aspects of his message are secondary to the salvation message, which relies on the death and resurrection of Christ.

So you believe in the "exclusive" interpretation of Christianity, which focuses on the resurrection because it "proves" that Jesus was God's son; that therefore, his death on the cross forgave original sin; and that therefore, only the people who believe in him will enter Heaven, the rest go to Hell, regardless of what live they've lifed.

However, there are other interpretations around which stress the important part of the Christian teaching is the "Love thy neighbor" (and enemy, even!) command. Since scripture and historic interpretations run all ways, you and I can find endless cites for both positions (and some other interpretations, too).

Well I think Constanze was hypotethically speakign of if we could go back in time to the death of the supposed christ and see if he came back from death or what happened. What would that do to the whole concept of christianity.

Yes, thank you. That was what I was trying to say, a hypothetical video. (Since a German Author, Andreas Eschbach, wrote a book some time ago, "The Jesus video", which proposes a guy traveling back in time to film the cruxification with his video camera. They also made a movie from it, but I missed the film on TV, and haven't gotten around to reading the novel yet. I don't expect much accuracy from a normal author, though, seeing how the previous "undiscovered-secret-manuscripts-conspiracy" novels by Dan Brown and similar have been shown to have no root in real history.)

Of course, a video in itself won't convince somebody who's deadset. A video can be explained by either camp as forgery, manipulation, Hollywood trick, etc. If somebody wants to believe, even a team of scientists verifying the data and respectable journalists watching the scene won't make him sway that Jesus rose. Likewise, a non-believer will not automatically convert even if he sees Jesus leaving that tomb. (Some may, but there's no guarantee).

I can only recommend again reading Peter DeRosa's "Great Myth" book. In his foreword, he sums up what the average (English/European, not fundie American) Christian churchgoer believes, and announces his intention to dispute each of these aspects, warning his readers that they shouldn't read further if they don't want their beliefs challenged, or think for themselves about the impact these things have on their faith.
("Und abermals krähte der Hahn" tries similar, but you'd need to understand German to read it.)

Of course, it must be more difficult for the much more literal, anti-modern Christian movement in the states to learn about this then for the european Christians.
But the things Christians need to believe in have changed considerably over the years. 400 years ago, it was necessary to believe that the Sun went around the Earth, in order for some of the OT miracles to work (and because the old Church fathers and authorities had said so.)
Today, catholic and protestant christians are allowed to believe that the Earth goes around the Sun, and that people and animals evolved. (Aside: this makes me wonder why those fundies who believe in taking the Bible literally enough to believe in Creationism don't also believe in the geocentric universe. Because they know everybody would laugh about them and disprove them? But Creationism is equally laughable from a scientist's POV, and equally easy to disprove. Is it because Americans went to the Moon that heliocentrism is accepted?)

Influx,

Arthur C. Clarke has an interesting (fiction) book out called The Light of Other Days, where scientists build a device that can see into the past. It touches on that subject.

Thanks for the info. I'll try and get that book.
"Contact" (the book), while not touching on the Jesus-resurrection-question, does address very interesting the "Is there a purpose" and "Did somebody make the universe" question, with not only an intelligent scientist, but also not foaming-at-the-mouth fundies arguing for the Christian side, and how contact with aliens, and their message, would change people's conception about life, the universe (and everything.)

I liked the basic plot of "Contact," assuming the movie version is accurate; I did wish that Christianity had a better representative than Matthew McConnaughey, but what the hey?

I think that "love your neighbor" is an important part of Christian theology, but I see it rather as two mutually exclusive events, something that flows naturally out of Christ's resurrection.

costanze: Aside: this makes me wonder why those fundies who believe in taking the Bible literally enough to believe in Creationism don't also believe in the geocentric universe. Because they know everybody would laugh about them and disprove them? But Creationism is equally laughable from a scientist's POV, and equally easy to disprove. Is it because Americans went to the Moon that heliocentrism is accepted?

What does Creationism have to do with a geocentric universe? The reason fundamentalists believe in Creationism is because that's what the word in the Bible says. Now, I admit that I've never read the entire thing, but does it say anywhere in there that the earth is the center of everything? I know that there's mention of a light in the sky for day and night (Sun and the Moon) so I guess you could read geocentrism from that, but is it explicitly stated as Creation is?

There are two miracles in the OT which don't fit into a normal heliocentric worldview: one, a prophet/king (I think Josua?) holds up his hand, and the sun stands still for an entire day (so the Israelites can kill enough of their enemies); another one is when a different prophet needs a sign, and the sun jumps 10 degree of arc in the sky (forward or backward.)

The story of creation in Genesis isn't told explicatly as true, unless you believe every story in the Bible (even the OT) is literally true, instead of there being fables, parallels and other literary devices in the OT, too.

I'd have to look up (which would take some time) on what references exactly the Pope and his advisors based their assurance of the geocentric worldview during the Galileo trial, but these men at that time weren't stupid. The Jesuits were dedicated to learning and thinking. They only went wrong because they thought the authorities and their interpretation of the Bible were more important than evidence of your own eyes (through the telescope). (In a book I recently browsed, the author said this one of the first tenents of the scientific method: evidence can be observed by any commoner, it doesn't need an authority. This is why the ability to repeat an experiment everywhere is so important. In a way, it's also ultimately democratic, whereas Churches tend to be too autocratic. Despite Jesus emphasis on treating all people equal, some are more equal than others.)

If you believe the OT is literally true everywhere, there are some other embarrassing science errors, such as the four corners of the Earth (when it's round); or one of the patriarchs breeding goats/sheep with striped fur by placing striped reeds in front of them during their mating; or misidentifiying animals during the kosher/non-kosher lists. (If you want to know more, there's a skeptic's annotated Bible on the Net somewhere where these things are pointed out.)

Okay, four corners of the Earth? That's a common metaphor even today.

The breeding thing ignores the fact that this was a direct result of God intervening to help Jacob out; of course, it might jive with modern breeding knowledge.

Also, the very point of a miracle is that it goes against the norm; thus, I think miracles and heliocentrism don't necessarily go against each other.

Influx I've read that book. Its the one where the megacorp tries to invent tunnelling wormholes to improve telecommunications and unfortunately discovers how to look into the past, anywhere and anytime and then markets it to the general public. Rather interesting and kinda scary if such technology did become common.

About your second point. True that is one of the hallmarks of belief and faith. Either you got it or you don't.

I'm not comfortable with the exclusion theory of either you belief in the divinity and resurrection of jesus and you go to heaven or you dont and you go to hell. By that narrow view no matter how much good a person does or how much they help and love their fellow human if they do not believe and accept the resurection then they are doomed to go to hell, yet someone who has done nothign but rape, pilalge and despoil can accept the resurection and salvation is theirs. At least that is the way it seems like to me. And I've had several people try and explain it both form within the CT and other christians. (The CT views are rather more narrow of course)

Constanze I don't think a miricle needs to be in alignment with helio or geo centric solar system model as a miricle is like MikeC pointed out somethign beyond the normal mortal ken.

"Contact" (the book), while not touching on the Jesus-resurrection-question, does address very interesting the "Is there a purpose" and "Did somebody make the universe" question, with not only an intelligent scientist, but also not foaming-at-the-mouth fundies arguing for the Christian side, and how contact with aliens, and their message, would change people's conception about life, the universe (and everything.) constanze

Well, there are foaming-at-the-mouth fundies; they blow up the first Machine. But I see your point.

I liked the basic plot of "Contact," assuming the movie version is accurate MikeC

It's been a while since I read Contact, but I believe the biggest differences between the book and the movie are that Ellie doesn't go alone in the book (the logic behind this and the changes they made for the movie are pretty interesting, actually), and that the society depicted in the book is more gender-equal, with women playing in the NBA (and serving as President). So... FYI, I guess.

Well, there are foaming-at-the-mouth fundies; they blow up the first Machine. But I see your point.

I meant in the discussion that Ellie has with an intelligent spokesman for Christianity, where she raises the question of why God didn't put an easily verifiable proof into the Bible (say, the value of Phi to the first 50 decimals, which the Israelites at that time couldn't have known, but which would be pretty good proof some centuries later).

I saw the movie first and was impressed with Jodie Foster (as always), and then I read the book and was even more impressed (though it's terribly thick - 600 or 800 pages?). The book raises even more interesting questions, discusses concepts, and doesn't focus that exclusivly on Ellie (making the possibility that it's only a hallucination of hers less likely).

That's a common metaphor even today.

But metaphors aren't allowed when taking the Bible literally. Why isn't the Creation story a metaphor, then, making men out of clay?

The breeding thing ignores the fact that this was a direct result of God intervening to help Jacob out; of course, it might jive with modern breeding knowledge.

But it's not labelled as miracle as in the other cases - God simply tells Jacob to put the reeds there, as if this automatically will ensure striped babies (like in the old superstition of a pregnant mother sleeping with a football under her pillow will make her bear a son). And it does contradict modern breeding knowledge, or even common sense.

Also, the very point of a miracle is that it goes against the norm; thus, I think miracles and heliocentrism don't necessarily go against each other.

Well, if I have to look up the anti-Galileo arguments for geocentric world-view, you'll have to wait some time... Or can somebody else with a better memory/index system (Luigi?) provide them?

I'd have to look up (which would take some time) on what references exactly the Pope and his advisors based their assurance of the geocentric worldview during the Galileo trial, but these men at that time weren't stupid. The Jesuits were dedicated to learning and thinking. They only went wrong because they thought the authorities and their interpretation of the Bible were more important than evidence of your own eyes (through the telescope).

Galileo was not on trial for claiming that the earth went around the sun. He was on trial for publishing it in Italian for popular consumption, rather than in Latin in a scientific journal, without either providing proof or clearing it with the Church first. The Jesuits (including Copernicus)were previously aware of his claims and corresponded regularly with him.

His punishment was little more than a couple of months of house arrest (He was becoming too ill to travel anyway.) and promising not to publish any more unauthorized statements.

Wait, wait, who SAYS the Bible cannot use metaphors? It obviously does. Is that a falling star or Satan we're talking about? Was Jesus just talking about a building when he said the builders have rejected the cornerstone? I believe the Bible, like any good piece of literature, uses a proper amount of metaphors and literal speaking. I do think that it is difficult for man to sometimes ascertain what is a metaphor and what is not.

God told Jacob...and don't you think He would help his man out a little bit? If He can create the Earth, I think He can do a little tinkering with breeding here and t here.

Galileo was not on trial for claiming that the earth went around the sun. He was on trial for publishing it in Italian for popular consumption, rather than in Latin in a scientific journal, without either providing proof or clearing it with the Church first. The Jesuits (including Copernicus)were previously aware of his claims and corresponded regularly with him.

His punishment was little more than a couple of months of house arrest (He was becoming too ill to travel anyway.) and promising not to publish any more unauthorized statements.

That's the sanitized version. The one I know of is that Galileo asked for permission beforehand from a high-ranking clerical he knew, whether he could publish about the heliocentric view that was being discussed, and he received permission for it, an intelluctal exercise, as long as he didn't claim that Kopernicus was right. That's why Galileo dressed the thing up as hypothetical dialogue; unfortunately, the defender of the geocentric view comes across as an idiot, and the reader concludes that Kopernicus is right.

Because of the success of his book, Rome changed its tune, and Galileo was pulled in front of the inquisition. He was threatened with torture (or maybe actually tortured) and tried to defend himself by pointing out the hypothetical nature of the dialogue, and the permission he'd received earlier, both to no avail. (Some sources say his accusers hadn't read or understood his book). It didn't help that some of the people he'd talked to earlier had died in the meantime.

In the end, Galileo had to humble himself in front of the inquisitonial court, retract and deny all his writings, and promise to never write again. Only after this and because of his high age was he released from the dungeon to his own home.

As for not publishing in scientific journals... come on, you know quite well there weren't any around at that time.

As for not providing proof ... Proof wasn't important at that time. It was the authorities that counted. Once the authorities had decided that the Bible indicated that the Sun went around the Earth, everybody saying different was blasphemous. Proof didn't matter.

Wait, wait, who SAYS the Bible cannot use metaphors?..

I said that metaphors aren't allowed if the Bible is taken literally. If some of the stories are metaphors, why not others like Creation?

Also, while "four corners of the Earth" may be metaphoric, anybody who's really lifted up by an angel to see the world would notice that it's round, and should remark on it.

God told Jacob...and don't you think He would help his man out a little bit? If He can create the Earth, I think He can do a little tinkering with breeding here and t here.

I didn't say God couldn't do it. I said that if a miracle suspends the rules of science, it should be announced in advance and called a miracle. Like parting the Reed Sea or similar. Not telling Jacob what to do as if this is an ordinary procedure for breeding.

If God changes the rules for his favorites all the time, then we might as well give up science and any attempt to make sense, because we never know when the rules will change, or how. (And before you say yes to giving up science, think of the implications for your everyday life. Do you want no TV, no PC, no modern medicine, no cars..., because all these are outgrowths of depending on universal, unchanging rules.)

MikeC, going back a bit, and apropos of mostly nothing, the portrayal of Palmer Joss in the movie they made of Contact is hardly anything like his portrayal in the book; he comes across as *much* less of an airhead in print. Also there are several more religious characters around (and a few that represent non-Christian religions), some of whom are fairly stock, but most of whom do give a much more nuanced treatment of the issues raised.

here and here in more detail are the Wiki articles about Galileo (the first thing I could find quickly at work).

They mention Psalms 93 and 104, and Ecclesiastes 1:5 speak of the motion of celestial bodies and the suspended position of the earth. , but I haven't looked these places up.

But even someone who does "take the Bible literally" recognizes that metaphors must be used. Again, it's Satan, not an actual falling star. It's Jesus, not some capstone. In these cases, the metaphors are obviously part of the story. Creation is much more dicey.

I didn't say give up science. That's ridiculous. But if God literally came to me as He did to Jacob and said breed some animals this way, I probably wouldn't say "Yo, God, that violates science! What are you thinking?" Because I would recognize that God, being God, could bend the rules. I would, not, however, breed animals however I wanted thinking that God would bend the rules.

TomM: Galileo was not on trial for claiming that the earth went around the sun. He was on trial for publishing it in Italian for popular consumption, rather than in Latin in a scientific journal, without either providing proof or clearing it with the Church first. The Jesuits (including Copernicus)were previously aware of his claims and corresponded regularly with him.
His punishment was little more than a couple of months of house arrest (He was becoming too ill to travel anyway.) and promising not to publish any more unauthorized statements.
Luigi Novi: Whoa. That’s a tad bit nicer a version of events than what I have. This is the second time since 2002 that someone has asserted such a version of those events so different from what I’ve read on it. That time, it was Matt Pesti, which isn’t surprising, but I was surprised to read this from you, Tom.

According to Scientific Blunders A Brief History of How Wrong Scientists Can Sometimes Be by Robert Youngson, when news of Galileo Galilei’s telescopic findings reached Rome, the theologians, focusing on the Bible’s statement that the stars were made by God to provide light for mankind, declared Galileo’s telescope a fraud. They called Galileo a blasphemer, an imposter, a heretic and an atheist. Because of the dogma that that the Bible was literally true, Copernicus’ book De revolutionibus orbitum coelestium, which Galileo cited, was placed on the Index liborum prohibitorum. Galileo was formally commanded never to teach that the Earth moved.

Horrified, Galileo wrote to Father Castelli, suggesting that the Bible was intended as a moral guide, not a scientific treatise. Big mistake. It was not believed to be the business of a layman to comment on the nature of divine scripture, so the Inquisition called him forth, and on threat of imprisonment, he was ordered to renounce his heresy (they didn’t order him to renounce the word "fact" and replace it with "theory"), and refrain from ever teaching or defending the principle of heliocentricity.

He was silent on the Copernican question for 16 years, until 1623, when the Pope died and was replaced by Urban VIII, who was very favorable to Galileo. Encouraged, Galileo wrote a satirical book called Dialogues on the Two Chief World Systems, featuring a Copernican scientist named Salviati, an impartial and witty scholar named Sagredo, and an absurdly stupid Aristotelian named Simplicio. The book was Galileo’s way of pointing out why Copernican theory was correct, and Aristotlelian teaching of the solar system was all wrong, but the Cardinals were furious and convinced the Pope that he, the Pope, was the basis for Simplicio (he wasn’t). Galileo, frail and infirm at nearly 70 years of age, was summoned to the Inquisition in Rome, accused of heresy. For four months he was examined and risked "rigorous examination" (the euphemism for torture). After four months of this, he was summoned and kept for three days behind closed doors. There were no outside witnesses of what happened, and Galileo was sworn to secrecy, but we know that people in his situation faced five stages: First, they were officially threatened in court. Second, they were taken to the torture chamber door where the threat was repeated. Third, they were taken inside and shown the instruments of torture. Fourth, they were undressed and bound upon the rack. Fifth, they were tortured. We also know that after these three days, he was found to have developed a hernia—a common and well-known consequence of torture.

He recanted, and was forced to kneel with his hand on the Bible and curse the Copernican principle, promise never to put into words or writing anything to promote Copernican ideas, and to denounce anyone who did.

He was imprisoned for the rest of his life, and denied the right to receive visitors or teach. Many of his manuscripts were burned.

Far worse was what happened to Giordano Bruno (1548-1600). At trial, he refused to recant, so Pope Clement VIII ordered that he be sentenced as an "impenitent and pertinacious heretic." He was burned at the stake.

Ditto about Galileo. I was taught the version Luigi posted basically in college history. In high school history he got a bit of a footnote about his heresy.

..Horrified, Galileo wrote to Father Castelli, suggesting that the Bible was intended as a moral guide, not a scientific treatise....

I think he said that "Bible teaches men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens move". Unfortunatly, the Church stood on the belief that the Bible not only talked about spiritual truth, but was true in all disclipines of study. Today, even Rome has recognized that the Bible isn't a historic record, a guide to biology, to astronomy, to medicine, etc. It's only the fundies who still cling to that unfortunate idea.

I didn't say give up science. That's ridiculous. But if God literally came to me as He did to Jacob and said breed some animals this way, I probably wouldn't say "Yo, God, that violates science! What are you thinking?" Because I would recognize that God, being God, could bend the rules. I would, not, however, breed animals however I wanted thinking that God would bend the rules.

But one of the basic assumptions of Science is that the universe is ordererd, that it follows certain rules (because God made it?), and that people/menkind has the brains (God gave them?) to figure out and understand these rules. If the rules are constantly being changed - if God is playing with a stacked deck, if you're trying to play poker, but suddenly the rules change to chess - then it's no use trying to figure it out.

But one of the basic assumptions of religion is that a divine being can produce miracles, that God can work outside of certain rules, and that supernatural events sometimes break the rules. If the rules can never be changed, then there cannot be miracles or supernatural events and thus there is no religion.

Christianity is a religion that believes that a man was crucified and rose again. Occasionally, it goes against (as we should expect it to) the "norm."

But one of the basic assumptions of religion is that a divine being can produce miracles, that God can work outside of certain rules, and that supernatural events sometimes break the rules.

Then why do so many people regard the Bible, a religious book, as a guide to how life on Earth developed (a subject of science)? Miracles are outside the rules of science, but how do you determine which accounts in the Bible are miracles (like Parting the Reed Sea), and which are "real" science, like the Genesis story? If Jacob's breeding is a miracle (because we know it wouldn't work without supernatural intervention as told), why isn't Creation a miracle, but taken as factual story by the fundies?

If normal people today don't follow Jacob's account on breeding, but the normal rules science discovered, if we don't treat people's medical problems the way OT and NT tell us, but with modern medicine as science has found out - why is it not possible for "Christians" to accept Evolution as result of science findings? Why not let genesis be a metaphor, a miracle, or similar?

Well, first of all, I think Creation is a miracle any way you look at it.

Secondly, I suppose Genesis could be a metaphor in terms of things like days really being extended time periods, etcetera.

I would look at it as this; no, we don't follow Jacob's breeding or OT medicine, but we can assume that God worked miracles in these cases. We could also assume that God, being God, could have performed Creation however He wanted as well even if it goes outside modern scientific principles (miracles). That's obviously not good enough from a scientific perspective, but from a perspective of faith, I'm clear as a bell.

MikeC,

If I understand you right (apologies if I don't), then you accept evolution as result of scientific research, as you accept heliocentric view and all the other stuff science has worked out; and you believe that God sometimes work miracles where the normal rules are suspended, that the Bible talks in metaphors at certain points, and that the message of the stories (that God created things) is more important for the faith then the question of how exactly it works.

But then, you won't bring in ID or creationism in a science setting, right? And you can't explain how or why some people still confuse the Bible and faith with science and proof, rules etc.?

Because that's what I'm trying to understand. Not the normal people who can keep the different aspects clear, but people who have had a minimum of education and should know better, but who simply are dead-set on believing their mistaken interpretation of the Bible in some things like ID/creationism, but not on other things like geocentrism. Seems to me if you want to go along with one crazy idea, you should get the whole set, so to speak.

I would not bring in ID into a science setting. However, there is a difference between "I cannot use science to support Biblical Creation" and "I cannot believe in Biblical Creation." Because I believe in certain tenets of Biblical Creation as absolutely essential for the Christian faith. I don't think it's necessarily a crazy idea; if you can believe in a God, a Trinity, and a Resurrection, then why carp over "scientific inaccuracies?"

I think what I'm gettign from Constance is how do the people who support teaching ID/Creationism/etc... in schools (such as Kansas) as if it where pure, factual, empiracal, or whatever you want to call it, science and not a part of religious faith. When they see the results of science and such around them everyday.

Basically how they can accept some parts of science and not all of it (ie heliocentric vs geocentric, spaceflight, medicine etc...) especially when science contradicts or strays into areas the bible didnt cover.

Personally i think she is trying to understand something that cannot be explained. Sort of like trying to unravel a plate of spagehtti.

Sort of like trying to unravel a plate of spagehtti

Do not underestimate the Flying Spaghetti Monster and His Noodly Appendage!

But metaphors aren't allowed when taking the Bible literally. Why isn't the Creation story a metaphor, then, making men out of clay?

.......

Because that's what I'm trying to understand. Not the normal people who can keep the different aspects clear, but people who have had a minimum of education and should know better, but who simply are dead-set on believing their mistaken interpretation of the Bible in some things like ID/creationism, but not on other things like geocentrism. Seems to me if you want to go along with one crazy idea, you should get the whole set, so to speak.

No one, except biblical "debunkers" has ever insisted that every individual word of the Bible was meant to be understood in it most literal sense, but, rather, that it be understood in its most natural sense. Poetic passages, for example, are always understood to be metaphorical.

The problem occurs when a troublesome passage agrees with what we believe that the common man at the time believed to be the natural laws, but disagrees with what Science now claims. The possible explanations are: (1) It was written from a perspective which while not, strictly speaking, scientifically accurate, is still fairly clear and truthful ("The sun rose."); (2) Although some listeners might have taken it literally, it is actually metaphorical ("The four corners of the Earth"); (3) A miracle was involved (The Red Sea); or (4) Science is wrong. In my opinion, explanation (4) should be the last resort. All too often, however, it is the first

Both Flat-Earthism and Creationism have (erroneously, in my opinion) opted for explanation (4) in reconciling certain verses of the Bible to the world. Flat-Earthism has mostly died away because it is fairly easy to show directly that the Earth is a sphere hanging in Space, and so only the most hard-core Luddites still deny that fact.

On the other hand, the origins of the Earth, and of the life upon it, are not demonstrated directly, but rather they are inferred from ongoing processes* and certain assumptions necessary to Science. If miracles are possible, even if rare, it is not out of the range of the conceivable that one or more of the assumptions of Science is flawed, and therefore the conclusion is wrong.

*The ongoing processes can be just as hard to deny as the round earth. That is why Creationists will often make a distinction between "micro-evolution" -- that selective breeding can change major characteristics of a population (which is exactly what Jacob was doing with the sheep and goats, even if his genetics was faulty) -- which they accept, and "macro-evolution" -- that one "kind" of creature can evolve from a similar but distinct "kind" -- which they don't.

RE: Galileo. Mea Culpa

I'd recently read a fictional account of the trial. I knew that the author always meticulously researched his subjects and in the book, he made it clear where he was deviating from that research.

The problem is that to satisfy certain other plot elements, he decided to go with a minority-held perspective on the events and didn't make it clear that it was not necessarily the best perspective. I should have considered that possibility and double-checked his research before paraphrasing his conclusions.

TomM thats ok. Believe me I should know about goofing up sometimes. :-) Wanna share the book title you got that from? Always interested in new reads.

As for your four examples. I'll agree that some of the bible was probably observations of what was going on and put into the best possible words by the people's understanding of the time.

Forgive me oh gracious FSM and his foloower ScottN. I did not mean to impugn the FSM or his great and magnificient noodly appendage. (NOw theres a phrase you probably never thought you'd read.)

MikeC

...Because I believe in certain tenets of Biblical Creation as absolutely essential for the Christian faith. I don't think it's necessarily a crazy idea; if you can believe in a God, a Trinity, and a Resurrection, then why carp over "scientific inaccuracies?"

For the faith /religious part, it doesn't matter whether it's scientifically possible or not. The story of God becomes Man, God creates Man etc. are "Myths", that is, stories that haven't been proven to be literally true, and don't need to be, since they tell a deeper (metaphorical, if you like) truth.

But a lot of people drag Bible passages into the field of science and insist that Bible is correct on scientific matters, and refuse to look at the evidence where it's plainly wrong (because if the Bible is an inspired book, every letter dictated by God, then surely, it must be right in every instance).

R: ...Basically how they can accept some parts of science and not all of it (ie heliocentric vs geocentric, spaceflight, medicine etc...) especially when science contradicts or strays into areas the bible didnt cover.

Yes, that's what I was getting at.

TomM,

The problem occurs when a troublesome passage agrees with what we believe that the common man at the time believed to be the natural laws, but disagrees with what Science now claims. The possible explanations are: (1) It was written from a perspective which while not, strictly speaking, scientifically accurate, is still fairly clear and truthful ("The sun rose."); (2) Although some listeners might have taken it literally, it is actually metaphorical ("The four corners of the Earth"); (3) A miracle was involved (The Red Sea); or (4) Science is wrong. In my opinion, explanation (4) should be the last resort. All too often, however, it is the first

Both Flat-Earthism and Creationism have (erroneously, in my opinion) opted for explanation (4) in reconciling certain verses of the Bible to the world. Flat-Earthism has mostly died away because it is fairly easy to show directly that the Earth is a sphere hanging in Space, and so only the most hard-core Luddites still deny that fact.

Who are Luddites? Is that a certain faith?

As for (4) science being wrong because an (earlier) interpretation of the Bible goes against it - science can only be proven wrong by the scientific method, not because some book (no matter who claims it's of divine origin) says so. Therefore, (4) should never be an option.

I think (4) should be "the old interpretation was faulty, because we humans have insufficient understanding, and our interpretation can be flawed".

BTW, since we are Nitpickers here - it's the Reed Sea, not the Red Sea. (A persistent transcription error in the english-speaking world).

Who are Luddites? Is that a certain faith?

From Wikipedia:

The Luddites were a social movement of English workers in the early 1800s who protested – often by destroying textile machines – against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution that they felt threatened their jobs. The movement – which began in 1811 – was named after a probably mythical leader, Ned Ludd. For a short time the movement was so strong that it clashed in battles with the British Army. Measures taken by the government included a mass trial at York in 1813 that resulted in many death penalties and transportations.

The English historical movement has to be seen in its context of the harsh economic climate due to the Napoleonic Wars; but since then, the term Luddite has been used to describe anyone opposed to technological progress and technological change. For the modern movement of opposition to technology, see neo-luddism.

Constanze--

I know that my posts in this thread are full of easily picked nits. Remember that they are an attempt to explain the indefensible. They are in response to your confusion about the beliefs of those "who simply are dead-set on believing their mistaken interpretation of the Bible in some things like ID/creationism, but not on other things like geocentrism." Beliefs which I don't share, but which I think I understand to some limited degree.

TomM,

thanks for your explanations sofar. I misunderstood your point (4), but now I think I get what you meant.

I know that my posts in this thread are full of easily picked nits..

That's why I put a smiley there, I didn't want to attack you or anything.

I agree with you somewhat, Constanze, on the not "proven" to be true part, but I think there is a danger to go too far. If the Bible can be reduced to a series of metaphorical deeper truths, then what is true and what is not true? Does mankind have original sin or is that a metaphor? Did Christ come to save us or was that a metaphor? I think true faith requires certain absolutes and truths.

I think true faith requires certain absolutes and truths.

The thing about science is, it doesn't go away if you stop believing in it.

...I think there is a danger to go too far. If the Bible can be reduced to a series of metaphorical deeper truths, then what is true and what is not true? Does mankind have original sin or is that a metaphor? Did Christ come to save us or was that a metaphor?

Maybe you want to think on those things some more...

"The thing about science is, it doesn't go away if you stop believing in it."

I'm not following you here. Because I believe in God, I've stopped believing in science?

...I think true faith requires certain absolutes and truths.

Well, that's where we obviously have different standpoints. Probably because I no longer follow the exclusive view of Christianty, but the inclusive one, and see the more metaphorical message, esp. when also considering other religious texts.

An interesting quote in that context:

On a theological basis, one of the differences between Judaism (as a religion) and Christianity is that belief is extremely important in Christianity. One must BELIEVE to participate in the religion, and that's about all one need do. Moral behaviour is preferred, of course, but one who behaves immorally but than repents and comes to BELIEVE is forgiven and accepted. Christianity thus modelled itself as a religion for the world, where anyone can join by professing BELIEF.

Belief is almost irrelevant to Judaism. Abraham is not told to BELIEVE in God, but to walk with God. What is important to Judaism is action, not belief. Doing the right things for the wrong reasons is viewed as sinful (or at best, ambiguous) in Christianity; but in Judaism, doing the right things for the wrong reasons still means you've done the right things. Thus, being Jewish is not about believing in God, but about doing the right things. full article here

For me, the important part about Christianity (the inclusive one)(although I'm not of jewish heritage) is doing what Jesus said - loving another - not believing first (the exclusive view) (and then badgering people, as too many evangelicals do).

"The thing about science is, it doesn't go away if you stop believing in it."

I think what Influx meant that, unlike religion, science doesn't require faith. You don't need to believe in electrons for the light to get on when you press the switch. You don't need to believe in the flying Spaghetti Monster or gravity, things will still fall down if you drop them.

What happens to your faith if some of those absolutes and truths are changed is something very different then if you suddenly stopped belieiving in electrons.

I gotta go with COnstanze on this. Too many "christians" I've run into act like believing the way they say you should is the most important part of being a good person not how you act. Thats why I don't get how a person like say Hitler would get into heaven if he converted and believed on his deathbed. (Which is a true statement I was told by a local preacher a while back, Church of Christ Denomination) According to some it doesnt matter how good a person you are. You could be a mother theresa but if you don't believe you will burn. Personally belief without the actions is more meaningless and burn worthy then the actions without the belief.

"Personally belief without the actions is more meaningless and burn worthy then the actions without the belief."

Epistle of James: "What is faith, then, without works?"

Jesus saved His biggest condemnations for those that believed but did not act (or I guess didn't believe or act)--the Pharisees. So Christianity does take action extremely seriously and I would be the first to say that I need to work on my actions more in my Christian walk. I would look at the redemptive quality of Jesus as actually being quite hopeful not ponderous: you are not condemned by any one, unforgiveable action. That's not to say that you can run around and use Christianity as an insurance policy, but if you make a true conversion, it's open to you (like the thief on the cross).

However, I disagree on the belief/action thing. I believe that you need the belief, but true belief brings action. Does that make sense?

Okay, I see the point more about science. I guess I was being defensive and seeing the quote as a commentary on me rather than being general. Sorry. I would say, though, that from a Christian's perspective, God does not go away either.

OK so then what about those people who belong to other religions who do not accept or believe in the christian christ? Such as muslims, hebrews, buddists and wiccans? Even though they do good works and devoutly believe in their deity of choice they are goign to hell by the narrow vision of christ is the only way to heaven. Or are there seperate heavens for each religion? or is christianity the only religion that is the real one and all the others are false? If thats true then how do you know it is true? Isnt it also rather judgemental to say that and christians are not supposed to judge arnt they? Isnt a lot of allegedly "christian" behavior really rather judgemental? (especially that of the christian taliban)

These are just some of the things that bother me about christianity in specific and religion in general.

I believe from my reading of the Bible that there is only one god (God, Yahweh) and that the only way to God is through His Son, Jesus. Thus, as good and fine as people may be on their own, it is not enough to obtain salvation, which can never be done through works thanks to man's inherent sinfulness.

The "non-judging" thing is typically a reference to Jesus' "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone" command, which is usually taken out of context. It was used to refer to hypocrisy and being unforgiving, not the concept of judgment as a whole (after all, judgment is a major theme of the Bible). I would say that yes, many Christians do go too far in being judgmental/hypocritical. However, I do not think it is judgmental to say there is only one god/one way to heaven because from my perspective, that's what God Himself said.

Note, I'm not trying to be a jerk here--you asked me what I believed and I'm saying it. I'm not expecting you to believe it, but I'm saying that for me, this is what I believe God has said. This actually explains a lot of Christians' (and religious people in general, I guess) actions. If they sincerely believe that non-believers are lost and in trouble, they will go to great lengths to reach out to them.

No problem MikeC. I am glad to have an honest discussion with you and appreciate and recognize you are not trying ot be a jerk. I am not trying to be a jerk either just try and investigate different opinoins/ POV on religion and this sort of issues. I have tried to have conversations/discussions about this with others but usually either they degenerate down into shouting matches (my exfriend was famous for this, anythign even remotely negative or questioning about religion and he would start yellign and screamign at the top of his lungs while my ex girlfriend would just stop talking and tell me to shut up and keep repeating that until I did, both rather childish actions) or people are already in enough agreement with myself that its not worth it. So if I ask or say somethign that sounds jerkish I'm not attempting to do so just it is the way I see or understand things.

Now about the reaching out thing. So if a person is already happy with their life and comfortable either with their lack of belief or with their belief in another deity it is the christian duty to attempt to convert the person? Even if they don't want it? How far should you as a christian go? There are many instances throuhgout the history of christianity into the modern day by force.

Now about the christianity is the only way to heaven. Which christianity? Catholic? Protestant? Which denomination of protestant? How do you know that you are right about this? I mean the only proof of this is the church and the christian bible(to differentiate it from the torah) (and which version of that do you go with? King James, NIV, RSIV, or one of the others? and on the bible what makes one more valid over another?, also what about the inconsistencies within the bible? Do you even believe there are inconsistencies in the bible or is it inerrant?) isnt it? The basis of belief is faith right? So how much faith is required to get into heaven? 100%, 50% or will 10% do? And just what exactly will one do when they get there? I've been told you will do the works of god, but isnt that the angels job? Not everyone will get to be an angel will they? Also the inherent sinfulness of humans. What exactly caused humans to be inherently sinful? The whole eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? From what I understand it sounds like the god(s) at the time where upset that humans ate from the tree and gained as much knowledge as the god(s) (Since this was written before the trinity concept it does sound like there are more than one deity as the deity involved refers to itself in plural most of the time. Also didn't jesus die to absolve humanity of the orginal sin? If not then what sin(s) did he die for?

I better stop here for now. As you can see there are quite a few thigns i question about religion. Most of which did help lead me away from belief in religion.

Ok and another thing here. What is it that makes christianity so different than say Islam? (narrowing the field to just this one for the purpose of the discussion) Both religions believe in a single all powerful deity, both have extremists and both extoll virtuous and good behavior from their followers. True the methods are slightly different but the main message is still essentially the same isnt it? So what makes christianity the one true choice? Or should I say what is it about christianity that makes it the one true religion as I have heard it referred to. Why do so many christians believe that christianity is the only religion that people should have? And like I touched earlier which version of christianity is the "real" one? (I could do a slim shady joke here but will refrain) And how can you tell? Aside from the bible it isnt like there is any id card or definate sign that god dealt people. Or does god/jesus have a mark like satan does?

Plus about Satan. He is just a fallen angel. So why fear or ascribe so much power to him? Angels are further down the food chain then cherubim or archangels and they arnt even close to jesus or the big guy himself. God can perform miricles, god can create universes, why can't he just wave his hand and put the ol smackdown on satan? Satan is the temptor or trickster right? So he has no real power unless people wish to do so right? So what proof does he exists and it isnt just a metaphor for normal human emotions and drive? Behaviors that do not follow or go with what the church approves of? Have you heard/read the riddle of epicurus (one of my favorite, I have a framed printout hanging over my desk) if not:The Riddle of Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

So why call him god? What do you have to say about this?

Please remember I am not trying to be a jerk or antagonistic as I could be presenting these questions in a more overtly antagonistic manner, but am trying to get the opinion/point of view of MikeC or anyone else who wishes to jump in on this. Please I am not trying to fish for trolls or flames as this is an enjoyable mature discussion and would like to keep it as such. I do not get this very often when it comes to religion. Also as this is the Convert Me please thread feel free to calmly, maturely, and reasonably use this time to testify as to your beliefs to me. I sincerely doubt that anyone will change their beliefs as a result of this discussion but throuhg knowledge and understanding does come peaceful coexistence.

I will respond more later, but I want to address the Riddle of Epicurus thing.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

It's a complex answer. I would say He is certainly able, but not willing in a way.

Why is he not wililng?

Because to remove evil would be removing free will and it would basically be bringing the last judgment, which God is patiently reserving.

I would compare it to a father and his naughty child. The child is misbehaving.

Is the father ABLE to punish the child? Sure.
Is the father WILLING to punish the child? Not at this time.
But WILL the father punish the child? Yes.

Now about the christianity is the only way to heaven. Which christianity? Catholic? Protestant? Which denomination of protestant?

We are told that the only way to Heaven is through the Grace of God provided through the agency of sacrifice made by Jesus. We are not told that Christianity is the only way in which we can access that Grace, but we are commanded to evangelize the world.

There may or may not be other ways to get to heaven. The Bible was written with explicit instructions for one sure way, and its exclusivity may not kick in until a certain point in the process, when we are baptized in "the Holy Spirit and fire."

The only unforgivable sin is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," which seems to mean a deliberate rejection of Salvation. (I'm not sure, however, that you can truly reject (as opposed to deny) something that you have never experienced as true, so this may only apply to believers.

The Church is not a particular building or organization, denomination, etc. It is all who believe the gospel, regardless of the fact that cultural, political, and doctrinal differences that have divided us have infiltrated even our religious institutions.

How do you know that you are right about this? I mean the only proof of this is the church and the christian bible(to differentiate it from the torah) (and which version of that do you go with? King James, NIV, RSIV, or one of the others? and on the bible what makes one more valid over another?

Well, if the path to Heaven that is expounded in the Bible is for those who do believe in the gospel as set forth in the Bible, it doesn't matter that it is not conclusively corroborated elsewhere. (I do believe that there is some corroboration outside the Bible, but not enough to hold out as "proof" to an unbeliever.)

also what about the inconsistencies within the bible? Do you even believe there are inconsistencies in the bible or is it inerrant?) isnt it?

Yes, there are inconsistancies in the Bible, but not as many as many debunkers claim. Some of the more well publicized "inconsistancies" are due to an extremely literal understanding, chosen against a common sense understanding of idiom and/or metaphor specifically to debunk the Bible. Others are due to a tendency of the Biblical authors to speak in hyperbole. Everything is the blackest black, or the whitest white. Cain could do no right, Abel could do no wrong. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Most of the real inconsistancies are due to the nature of the authorship. As Israel's understanding of God, and His covenants evolved, the different prophets focused on different issues and explained similar situations differently in light of their individual concerns.

The basis of belief is faith right? So how much faith is required to get into heaven? 100%, 50% or will 10% do?

The amount of faith you have to begin with does not matter, as long as you nurture it.

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.(Matthew 13:31-32)

Plus about Satan. He is just a fallen angel. So why fear or ascribe so much power to him? Angels are further down the food chain then cherubim or archangels and they arnt even close to jesus or the big guy himself.

Because the Bible is really not all that explicit about the organization of things up in Heaven, we really don't know what the "hierarchy table" looks like. Also we use the word "angel" to mean two different things. It can refer to the members of one of the (traditionally seven) levels in the table, but it is often used more generically to refer to a member of any of the levels.

"Satan" means "Adversary," and in the book of Job it is the title of a being (an "angel" in the more general sense) in Heaven very close to the Throne, whose "job" it was to test Job's faith and loyalty.

The "Serpent" of the book of Revelations is generally assumed to be a rebellious "angel" who is now God's adversary. And often assumed to be the same Satan as in the book of Job.

But most of what we "know" about Satan comes from non-canonical sources.

Ok I'm at work right now so must be brief. Interesting analogy MikeC about the riddle. So god does nothing about evil on the day to day or suffering of humans so that humans can rise above the challenges and show their true mettle? That way they will be ready for the final test at the end of days, whenever that is. But what about the suffeirng of children and evil done to children? How about suffering of people through no real fault of their own? The whole good thigns happen to bad people, bad thigns happen to good people problem. Also what is the source of evil anyhow? Didnt god create the universe and everythign? and is he omnipotent? If he is omnipotent and created everythign then he must have created evil as well. Or is evil somethign that existed outside of god? If it existed(exists) outside of god then he must not be omnipotent.

I mean as a father if my child is suffering i find out why he is suffering and then remove the cause of the suffering. Say my son has a splinter, I pull the splinter because i love and care for my son I dont say it will make you a better person to bear that burden. By removing the splinter I am not imposing my will on my son or removing his free will either.

More later gotta run.

But to remove suffering is to remove evil. To remove evil is to remove free will. To remove free will is to remove humanity.

The source of evil, from a Christian perspective, is the original sin as described in Genesis 3. God allows evil (and created it, I guess), but has the power to resolve it, which as described in Revelation, he certainly will.

Ok interesting. I will ask this thouhg what is evil? Sounds like a simple question doesnt it. But I have been called evil just for not believing, I have been called evil for supporting samegender marriage I've heard same gendermarriage called evil. Evil is a word that gets a lot of mileage, especially recently. Some christians have even gone so far as to say listening to the wrong music or books is evil (look at any anti harry potter site and you'll find some examples) so what exactly is evil? If it is actions then I will agree stopping people from acting is removing free will. But which actions are evil and which are merely somethign that the church or religion (I tend to use the two terms interchangeably, sorry for any confusion) in general doesnt agree with?

But you said suffering here as well. Suffering is somethign differnt than evil (at least IMO). Say suffering from disease and illness. If god wanted to he could say you are born you live for 80 years and then just die. No disease, no pinmjples, no illness, just born and live and die. How would that remove a person's free will? I am sure most people who have a cancer would not choose to suffer throuhg the disease. So why permit disease and suffering from them especially innocent children?

I am at work so cannot access anythign religious (The boss left early so its a free day from here on out) But the original sin is the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (IRC) whereby humans (adam and eve) became as knowledgeable as the god(s) as to good and evil. Why is that a sin? Wouldnt a god want his subject to know the difference between good and evil for themselves if he wanted them to have free will or would he prefer them to be sheep and led?

Now to discus TomM's points.

Ok from the top. I have been told by several different "christians" that the only way to get to heaven is to be a christian (and a couple of them said that only if you are the "right" kind of christian at that) which is why I asked that the way I did. So if a person was not christian per se but believed and accepted the life of jesus and his death and rebirth as factual and real they would be saved?

So most of the errors in the bible are caused by different writers writign at different times exploring the same themes or ideas? Or the editors when they took the various scrolls and writings and compiled them into one book placed related ideas and themes into different places? So things like cain and abel's wives or who cain went to go live with after murdering abel are just poor writing skills? (The family tree goes adam, eve, then abel, cain, and seth. Who married the daughters of man. Who where the daughters of man if they where not adam and eve's daughters which would be an incestuous relationship?) Also who was cain afraid of being killed by when he got marked? His family but he just got exiled from them to wander the land (or land of nod) The various names for god. was that different writers and local dialects or different aspects of the same god or just translation errors? Either way it does seem to bring the divinity of the book down a few pegs to me.

Now MikeC says that it is the original sin that got humanity shafted but you say that the bible doesnt give a reason it is just taken for granted that humans are sinners. Interesting. So humans are sinners just because we are. So why would we be? Is it because god created us that way? Why would he do such a thign?

Ok so Jesus died for all sins up to that point committed by anyone for any reason for anything? But for it to be an atonement a person has to accept jesus and his death/rebirth otherwise the atonement does not/did not occur for them and they don't get salvation. So a person in the modern day who does not accept the salvation of christ is paying for sins from over 2000 years ago?

So I'll go downt his road. What is sin? Is it like evil where it is a specific thought or action or is it somethign outside of humanity althogther. I know we went down this on moral relativism a bit but that kinda went nowhere fast. Or is sin somethign that jusrt one particular religion disagrees with. I am sure we've all heard of the seven deadly sins and such, but sin in a religious view can be much more subtle and pervasive. Some churches have labeled many of the same things i mentioned under evil with mike a sin as well thereby doubling the nastiness of the action or thought.

Ok so in the book of Job Satan is actually working for God and Heaven. Sort of a quality control inspector to go tempt prophets and humanity and such to see if they'll fall. But the waters are muddied I'll agree as to what because thats old testament.

Oh and to give somethign besides a eadache let me share with you how I define evil and sin.

Evil is the harming of another person, creature or the world throuhg your actions thoughts and inactions. It is measured on a sliding scale and can be somethign as minor as calling someone a cname, filching a pen from work or kicking a cat to somethign as major as murder, stealing the last bite of food from a starving old lady or dumping toxic waste in a city's drinking water supply. No one can do anythign without doing somethign good or somethign evil. the trick is to try and get the good side to balance or exceed the evil side. Good being the flip side of evil. Note that a deity does not involve itself in this nor does religion. Good and evil do not require them as it just involves harm. Harm being relative to ones current position and condition. There are very few absolutes in life as everythign is relative to ones condition and position.

A sin is somethign even less absolute and more tenuously defined. A sin is a behavior that is against your moral and ethical code. It is somethign relative to each person's belief system and individual attitudes. So in general it is a useless designation that i try to seriously avoid.

So most of the errors in the bible are caused by different writers writign at different times exploring the same themes or ideas? Or the editors when they took the various scrolls and writings and compiled them into one book placed related ideas and themes into different places? So things like cain and abel's wives or who cain went to go live with after murdering abel are just poor writing skills? (The family tree goes adam, eve, then abel, cain, and seth. Who married the daughters of man. Who where the daughters of man if they where not adam and eve's daughters which would be an incestuous relationship?) Also who was cain afraid of being killed by when he got marked? His family but he just got exiled from them to wander the land (or land of nod) The various names for god. was that different writers and local dialects or different aspects of the same god or just translation errors? Either way it does seem to bring the divinity of the book down a few pegs to me.

Although many Christians believe that the stories of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel are historical, many others can accept it as myth or fable, teaching a moral truth with a sacred story tha need not be literally true. Either belief is not a defining characteristic of Christianity.

Ok from the top. I have been told by several different "christians" that the only way to get to heaven is to be a christian (and a couple of them said that only if you are the "right" kind of christian at that) which is why I asked that the way I did. So if a person was not christian per se but believed and accepted the life of jesus and his death and rebirth as factual and real they would be saved?

The Gospel message of the Person and Mission of Jesus is the only defining characteristic, for orthodox Christians (in which I include all mainstream Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, as well as the Evangelical, Pentacostal, and Fundamentalist denominations). In addition, there are other groups (the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, etc.) who revere the message of Jesus, but disagree on Who and What He is/was. They also consider themselves to be Christians. I cannot say, as some more exclusivists do that they are not Christians. although I believe that their understanding is flawed, I do not doubt their sincerity or their faith.

Nor am I so arrogant as to claim to understand all of God's thoughts. As I said, the Bible provides the gospel message as a sure way to Heaven. It does not make the claim that it is the only way.

Now MikeC says that it is the original sin that got humanity shafted but you say that the bible doesnt give a reason it is just taken for granted that humans are sinners. Interesting. So humans are sinners just because we are. So why would we be? Is it because god created us that way? Why would he do such a thign?

I did not claim that "God created us that way." I believe that there is a point to the Adam and Eve story whether or not it is the literal truth. God created us with Free Will. Because of that, at every possible decision, there is the possibility of making a bad choice, even an evil choice at times.

Choices have consequences. Although it would have been fairly easy to resist temptation when we were as God originally created us, for some of those temptations, it would have been necessary to rely on His instructions and training to make the right choice. The more often you make bad choices the easier it is to give in to the next temptation. (It works the similarly for good choices). But also there are consequences to others besides yourself, and because of previous evil there may be decisions to make where there is no good choice. (Think of Sophie's Choice, where Sophie had to choose which of her children to let the Nazi officer kill. If she did not choose, he would kill both of them.)

Sin (or Original Sin, if you will) is the current state of affairs due to the consequences of generations of evil decisions, and is not something God set out to create or derives pleasure from.

Evil is the harming of another person, creature or the world throuhg your actions thoughts and inactions. It is measured on a sliding scale and can be somethign as minor as calling someone a cname, filching a pen from work or kicking a cat to somethign as major as murder, stealing the last bite of food from a starving old lady or dumping toxic waste in a city's drinking water supply. No one can do anythign without doing somethign good or somethign evil. the trick is to try and get the good side to balance or exceed the evil side. Good being the flip side of evil. Note that a deity does not involve itself in this nor does religion. Good and evil do not require them as it just involves harm. Harm being relative to ones current position and condition. There are very few absolutes in life as everythign is relative to ones condition and position.

It is my understanding (and ScottN can correct me if I'm wrong) that the Jewish understanding of wrongdoing is very similar to this. That is why, in Jewish philosophy, one can only ask forgiveness of the person one has wronged.

In Christian philosophy, however, every sin's primary evil is that it drives a wedge between mankind and God, and especially between the sinner and God. This goes back to the idea that because of Original Sin, our consciences are not strong enough to resist evil without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So if we make a choice that drowns out His voice, we are taking steps that may lead to greater evil.

That is why the primary atonement must be reconciliation with God, as this is the only thing that allows us to rebuild our lives and our other relationships.

In many ways, the Christian life is very much like a 12 step program.

That is why, in Jewish philosophy, one can only ask forgiveness of the person one has wronged.

This is correct. In fact one of the prayers for Yom Kippur states that

---

Quote:

For transgressions against G-d, the Day of Atonement atones, but for transgressions of one human being against another, the Day of atone until they have made peace with one another.

Gates of Repentance, the New Union Prayerbook, copyright 1984

---

My apologies TomM I meant what you said about the bibleis what you said. Or somethign like that. I think you see what I said. (maybe trying a deep thought discussion right now is not sucha good idea)

But anyhow. Interesting stuff. The jewish idea of human on human harm needing to be atoned for did help influence my own definition of harm/no harm and forgivness. To me if I wrong you it doesnt matter what deity or other person i beg forgiveness from I have still wronged you and until i go to you nothign will clear that stain.

About choices my email tagline is a dumbledore quote followed by an obiwan quote.:"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."
--Dumbledore Chamber of Secrets
You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
Obi-Wan
Which I agree each choice builds momentum but it is never too late to change the direction of that momentum as it is within each of us to choose to do good or evil, without outside influence to me at least. Also the obiwan quote describes to me how each religion can claim tobe the true one. dependign on the choices you make leads you to your point of view.

But so far i still havent heard how somethign can be determined to be a sin or evil against god or if it is somethign that just is against the church/religion. Some chruches recognize and accept homosexuals some act like they are the very servants of satan themselves? Both claiming that they have the reasons for their behavior in the bible. So how is it some churches can look at the same bible and come to the different conclusion about what is sin and what is evil? Isnt there supposed to be one christ and one god? didnt that god create everythign fair and foul? And if he doesnt enjoy evil why did he harden the heart of pharoh after pharoh had already agreed to let moses take his people and go before the plagues. did god have these plagues on hand and just wanna let go with them like a kid with a new toy? Also when moses was goign to the promised land god hardened the heart of the cannites(?) and caused them to do battle with moses after moses had already promised safe passage throuhg their land and that he had no beef with them. why let innocent people suffer from disease and illness and be cripples? And if there have been generations of evil decisions havent there been enough good decisions to balance them out?

Yeah the book of mormon and the Jwitness do take some different approaches to thigns but what makes them misguided? And by misguided does that make them less "worthy" than "regular" christians or what doe sthat place them in the spectrum?

and backing up a bit at what point does evangelicalizing go from speaking about your faith to pushing your faith on someone? I have had the experience of sitting in a mcdonalds and having someone sit next to me and start talking to me about this or that religious thing and when i go no thanks im good they get all huffy and just say well i'll pray for you (generally they are recent assimilees to the milford ct churches)I mean why does a polite no thanks turn into a personal insult it seems like? And how can a chrsitian justify trying to get their religious codes enshrined in the law books? Isnt that pushing your religion on another person? Why do so many christians have such a beef about letting nonchristians or people who dont agree with their personal view of christianity live their life the way it makes them happy?

I mean I am an aethiest. I am proud to say I have been free and clear of religion for almost 5 years total now. Yet in my heart i know i am still agood person i am trustworthy (one of only a handful of peopel who can make bank runs for the dealership or drive the viper) and have decent ethics and morals (at least in general and by reasonable standards). Yet when many christians hear or see that one word aethiest they automatically think i am some kind of scummy evil trash that has no qualms agaisnt raping pillageing and commiting the worst sins in the newest ways (my exgirlfriend is definately one of those who think that way). Why is that? An aethiest is basically a person without a theism. I don't belive. So what. What makes that such a personal affront to you? (not you personally but you get the drift) Same way with homosexualaity or swinging or any of the other life choices that do not personally affect you sitting right there but so many christians bust a nut to try and get made illegal or stamp out or otherwise have a cow over. What is the big deal? SO what if by your belief system im gonna burn in hell and you think you are doing something good by trying to save me. By my belief system Im not worried cause there is no hell and all you are doing is being an annoyance if you come at me unasked for or at best like this an intersting and somewehat enlightening discussion when i willingly seek it out.

I am sorry for this being so long and i know crudy spelling but I've enjoyed a few adult beverages tonight and tucked the wife and kids in bed and had an unsettled mind. But I hope I've been clear enough tonight to make enough sense for you to understand what I'm saying. If not ask me to translate it and if i have any brain cells working tomorrow I'll try and do so. :-) Lets hope this year is a much better one than last year and may whatever deity you believe in have mercy upon you.

ONe more thing before i leave for my own rest. I sit here and think and ponder and reflect upon the recent past, the shadows whisper to me for all my choices, all my actions. Was this right was that right, did i do more harm than good there. It is not somethign I am alone in doing I am sure.

But I do not have the crutch of saying god okayed this, or i did what my faith called for me to do. I have to stand and face my shadows and either put them to res

ONe more thing before i leave for my own rest. I sit here and think and ponder and reflect upon the recent past, the shadows whisper to me for all my choices, all my actions. Was this right was that right, did i do more harm than good there. It is not somethign I am alone in doing I am sure.

But I do not have the crutch of saying god okayed this, or i did what my faith called for me to do. I have to stand and face my shadows and either put them to rest or they will not let me rest. I have to look and judge my actions based solely on the results and what harm I caused or what help i performed. I have no security blanket to hide under. But isnt that what religion mainly is? A security blanket one can throw over their shadows to mute their whispers? Isnt the message do not despair in this world for if you behave according to the mandate of your religion and persevere and work and toil you will be rewarded in the next world? That doesnt sound like a fair bargain to me really. I put out all this with nothing in return upfront ,no real proof other than the faith and words of a 2000 year old book that there is this reward, and the only way i can find out if i made the cut or if the reward is as good as its been made out to be is when i die. Not a great sales tactic. I wouldnt want to buy a house or a car like that.

Hey, R, the weekend was stacked for me, so I will respond to your posts...probably tomorrow. I'm not ignoring you, just tired.

No problem MikeC. I realize a lot of people had more entertaining and fuller weekends than I did. It was just another day for me mostly. I went to work, came home, relaxed and reflected. Then moved on. Spent sunday watching movies and playing with the kids. I just got a bit verbose there is all. And for somereason it double posted but chopped part of the one off. I dunno. Anyhow hope you had a fun and safe weekend.

But so far i still havent heard how somethign can be determined to be a sin or evil against god or if it is somethign that just is against the church/religion. Some chruches recognize and accept homosexuals some act like they are the very servants of satan themselves? Both claiming that they have the reasons for their behavior in the bible. So how is it some churches can look at the same bible and come to the different conclusion about what is sin and what is evil?

That is the $24,000 question. If we knew the answer to that, perhaps we would be able to assure world peace.

Isnt there supposed to be one christ and one god? didnt that god create everythign fair and foul? And if he doesnt enjoy evil why did he harden the heart of pharoh after pharoh had already agreed to let moses take his people and go before the plagues.

Our understanding of God and His purposes has evolved and is still less than perfect. The Israeltes before Babylon saw God as the Author of everything, with no rivals, and so everything supernatural came from Him. Post-Babylon Judea understood an adversary, called Satan, to be the source of evil temptation. Thus in 2 Samuel 24, which was written before the Babylonian captivity, we are told that 1. Now again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."
2. The king said to Joab the commander of the army who was with him, "Go about now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and register the people, that I may know the number of the people."
but in 1 Chronicles 21, written after the return from Babylon, the same incident is transcribed 1. Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.
2. So David said to Joab and to the princes of the people, "Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan, and bring me word that I may know their number."

Our understanding of temptation and evil are more evolved today. We understand the psychological underpinings of most temptations. Neither do we attribute "natural evils" to the direct intervention of either God or Satan (except in insurance contracts).

Yeah the book of mormon and the Jwitness do take some different approaches to thigns but what makes them misguided? And by misguided does that make them less "worthy" than "regular" christians or what doe sthat place them in the spectrum?

I did not say that they are "misguided." I said that their understanding is flawed. It is true. My understanding is flawed. All human understanding is flawed. It all goes back to your earlier question of why can two people (or groups) read the same Bible and draw opposite conclusions.

and backing up a bit at what point does evangelicalizing go from speaking about your faith to pushing your faith on someone? I have had the experience of sitting in a mcdonalds and having someone sit next to me and start talking to me about this or that religious thing and when i go no thanks im good they get all huffy and just say well i'll pray for you (generally they are recent assimilees to the milford ct churches)I mean why does a polite no thanks turn into a personal insult it seems like? And how can a chrsitian justify trying to get their religious codes enshrined in the law books? Isnt that pushing your religion on another person? Why do so many christians have such a beef about letting nonchristians or people who dont agree with their personal view of christianity live their life the way it makes them happy?


I can see two reasons for this. One is the belief that there is no other way to Salvation. Evangelism is literally a matter of life and death, not for the evangelist, but for the evangelized. Most of those who strongly feel called to evangelize with this as their primary reason study and go off to foreign lands because they realize that what they do for the people they evangelize is a stronger testimony than what they say to them.

The other reason is not exclusive to Christianity, but is rather common to the addictive personality, especially the reformed addict. You see it with the person who just quit booze, cigarettes, overeating, or drugs just as much as with Christians, except that the others each have one behavior they look for in someone in order to reform them, and with Christians, all behaviors are fair game.

-------

But I do not have the crutch of saying god okayed this, or i did what my faith called for me to do. I have to stand and face my shadows and either put them to rest or they will not let me rest. I have to look and judge my actions based solely on the results and what harm I caused or what help i performed. I have no security blanket to hide under.

Ultimately this is true of all of us. Despite the claims of many Sunday School teachers, the Grace of God does not change the past or wipe away our bad choices. It makes it possible to live with those choices and to become the kind of person who can make better choices in the future.

I spent much of the weekend re-watching the DVDs of the sixth season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the first few episodes of season seven. The Scoobies accepted the Willow who repented of her actions and supported her decisions, but neither she nor they could forget that she came within a hair's breadth of destroying the world, nor that if the temptation should become strong enough again that she still could.

Very interesting answers TomM. I agree I wish we could get that $24k question answered too.

So the understanding of the bible and christian beliefs and motivations etc.. is an evolving and changing process? What once was good or evil may change as time goes on and the church changes the understanding of things? I've run across some christians who feel that the word of god and the bible is unchanging unmutable and what was written shall be the way it is for now and all times. So how can those two be reconciled or is that under the 24k question again?

True about the reformed addict thing. I've had a couple cousins go throuhg the AA system (1 willingly, 1 at a judge's order) and get very annoying towards any of the rest of us who might enjoy a nice adult beverage at a reunion or family gathering. To me though I feel like I've already been saved by escaping religion. Oh well to each their own. Now if only the fundies would go with that too.

Sorry about the misguided comment. No you did not call them that, another "christian" I have dealt with did and I misapplied that within context of our discussion without attribution. And I'll give you that human understanding of many thigns are flawed. But the physical world can be described by science and the scientific method, religion cannot. By seperating the two it would make thigns a bit better IMO. Religion deals with the who and some of the why (as in motivation of people/societies), while science deals with the how, what, where and some of the why (as in cause and effect)

Your last commetns I'll go with defiantely. I will agree that religion when used in moderation can help a person deal with their lives and the world around them, but it shouldnt be a blinding force keeping a person from facing the way thigns are or what they did. Or used as a crutch to keep goign on doing the same things without learning. It goes back to the choices thing we discussed earlier. People have the ability to choose to do good or evil, just which do they choose.

It was just another day for me mostly. I went to work, came home, relaxed and reflected. Then moved on. Spent sunday watching movies and playing with the kids.

You know, some people might consider that a little bit of Heaven in itself... ;)

Okay, my responses.

"So if a person is already happy with their life and comfortable either with their lack of belief or with their belief in another deity it is the christian duty to attempt to convert the person?"

I believe so, because from the Christian's perspective, that other person is in serious trouble without God. For a Christian, it would be like seeing somebody blissfully walking towards a cliff. That person is doing great right now and is having a good time...but he's walking towards a cliff.

"Do you even believe there are inconsistencies in the bible or is it inerrant?)"

I think it is inerrant, but should be interpreted with a modicum of common sense.

"So how much faith is required to get into heaven?"

As much faith as it takes for a person to accept that Jesus is God and died/rose again for his or her sins.

"And just what exactly will one do when they get there?"

Glorify God. Rule over angels. The Bible is somewhat vague on this subject, probably because the activities described make no sense from an earthly perspective and in fact seem dull. It's like someone saying he's going to Mars to play zingzag. That has no impact on you because you have no idea what that means.

"Also didn't jesus die to absolve humanity of the orginal sin? If not then what sin(s) did he die for?"

Jesus died for all sins, including original. I view original sin as a cancer that is passed down through everyone, although this highly debated even within Christian circles.

"What is it that makes christianity so different than say Islam?"

Well, they're two entirely different religions with similar trappings. Christianity believes that salvation is obtained through accepting Jesus, Islam believes that the Five Pillars of Islam need to be followed.

"So why permit disease and suffering from them especially innocent children?"

I view this as the result of a world infected with original sin, like when poison seeps into soil. The curse on the world as a result of sin, as described by God in Genesis, is death and sickness. This will be eventually wiped out in the Second Coming.

"Why is that a sin? Wouldnt a god want his subject to know the difference between good and evil for themselves if he wanted them to have free will or would he prefer them to be sheep and led?"

Complicated question. I view it as mainly a disobedient decision--God had one rule, which Adam and Eve broke. However, since God is omnipotent, he would have known that Adam and Eve would have sinned as well. Not being omnipotent, I can only say I am not sure on this.

"So how is it some churches can look at the same bible and come to the different conclusion about what is sin and what is evil?"

Because people aren't God and they don't have one mind. I look at Catcher in the Rye and I see a book. Mark Chapman decides to kill John Lennon.

"By my belief system Im not worried cause there is no hell and all you are doing is being an annoyance if you come at me unasked for or at best like this an intersting and somewehat enlightening discussion when i willingly seek it out."

But this ties back into the cliff analogy. You believe there is no cliff, but I believe that there is. Thus, I want to help you. I don't believe this excuses being obnoxious or bothersome or several other actions I see extremist Christians performing, but I think I can, say, witness to you briefly (within reason) or invite you to my church or something without totally infringing on your personal space.

"Yet when many christians hear or see that one word aethiest they automatically think i am some kind of scummy evil trash that has no qualms agaisnt raping pillageing and commiting the worst sins in the newest ways"

I don't think that. I look at all people and see someone who needs Jesus. Many atheists I know are actually quite "good" people that I respect a great deal. But one analogy I have heard is jumping the Pacific. You can be the best long jumper ever, but you're not going to jump the Pacific Ocean. I believe that's the way with God. You can be very very good and moral, but you're still a sinner.

So the understanding of the bible and christian beliefs and motivations etc.. is an evolving and changing process? What once was good or evil may change as time goes on and the church changes the understanding of things? I've run across some christians who feel that the word of god and the bible is unchanging unmutable and what was written shall be the way it is for now and all times. So how can those two be reconciled or is that under the 24k question again?

Yes, I believe that our understanding does evolve. That does not mean that what is good or evil changes.

Marriage is an example of a good, and divorce as its associated "evil," that the Bible itself uses to illustrate the point.

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?" tempting him.

And he answered and said unto them, "What did Moses command you?"

And they said, "Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away."

And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
Mark 10:2-12

"What we do not know is where unmarked paths lead or how they were or were not affected by God's Grace. They simply are not indicated on the map."

I see your point here and this is certainly a very difficult issue for most Christians. I don't want to presume to speak for God and say that I understand exactly what He will do. But my general interpretation of the Bible suggests that the unmarked paths are at the very least, extremely dangerous. There are people who are sincerely dedicated to every creed and religion. Does that mean, by the logic expressed here, that every religion is okay if one is sincere about it? I realize that's a gross over simplification, though of your statement. Let's just say that this is a difficult issue for believers (although I take John 14:6 very literal.)

I see your point here and this is certainly a very difficult issue for most Christians. I don't want to presume to speak for God and say that I understand exactly what He will do. But my general interpretation of the Bible suggests that the unmarked paths are at the very least, extremely dangerous. There are people who are sincerely dedicated to every creed and religion. Does that mean, by the logic expressed here, that every religion is okay if one is sincere about it?

No. The only thing we know is that the One Path marked on "the map" is safe. We do not know that any others are. That is why it would be irresponsible not to at least warn anyone on the other paths.

But everyone must make the journey alone, taking whatever path seems right to him. It's a free-will thing.

I'm just saying that we don't know that they are all lost on their alternative paths. Sadly some of them are lost. But others -- I just don't know.

Let's just say that this is a difficult issue for believers (although I take John 14:6 very literal.)

As do I. I believe that it is only by God's Grace through the agency of Jesus' sacrifice that we are saved. I believe that the primary plan for imputing that grace to us is spelled out in the Gospel message. I just don't claim to know that that is the only plan for imputing the grace

TomM MikeC I thank you for goign down that path before me ;-) But what I was going to say is from my POV I don't see a cliff. What I see is a plain path goign forward ending in nothingness. I do not know for sure any more than I suspect many christians do what lies on the other side. Given that noone has gone over and come back or spoken to anyone still here there isnt any real proof of what exists after death. Personally I see it as game over. the biochemical processes that make you who you are ,the random neuron firing the chemical and hormonal shifts all end. The body decays and you are gone, nothing left but memories. Some people have told me this is a depressing POV but I say it makes me appreciate my life all the more knowing that I get one trip throuhg and there is no reset,rewind, restore or reload. To my way of thinking the world is so much more special and impressive without a god or designer because of all the random bits of science that had to work together, fall into place or otherwise combine in the right way to make me and you and everythign else here. And yes while so far we havent met any martians or wookies or golgolfrinchans there is nothign saying they arnt out there, somewhere, just not where we've looked or listened.

But yes I don't see a problem with a person goign hey my map (to use your bible analogy) says you're heading for a cliff. Depending on how and when you do it it isnt invading anyone's personal space or free will. But if that person says my map don't show a cliff or I'm not using a map or in general thanks but no thanks and you keep goign that is invading a person's personal space and getting offensive. At least to me.

So you are both pretty much in agreement that a person's free will to do something that would result in the destruction of their soul is their right but you have a right to at least hold out your hand to them in case they change their mind? That is definately somethign i would agree with, but I would also say that it is the right of the person to refuse your hand and continue onward, and that you should respect their wishes to do so. Unfortunately it seems many people have a problem with respecting or otherwise acknowledging this. (Unfortunately in modern society respect and politeness are in very short supply on all sides)

OK Now MikeC I suppose the word different was not the right one for the concept I am trying to get here. What is it that makes christianity so much more special, better or otherwise more worthy of being the number one choice for the general public and the world? Each religion makes similar claims about how their religion is the one chosen one what makes christianity's claims better or different? Why should I believe christianity instead of islam or buddha or hebrew or Aten of the anceitn egyptians or whatever else anyone is broadcasting?

And about john 14:6. I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus and am not even certain about the mere existence of a person of that name at that time period. (however I know three jesus christs in the cincinnati area, one works construction too) And as for the bible as I've stated before I don't believe in the divinity of that book either, historicalness, humanity of it yes divine inspiration or anythign else no. It is no more divine to me than huck finn. And this in christian eyes makes me a lost soul, right?

I thank you for agreeing that an aethiest can be a very good person (even if we are going to hell in the end ;-) )while here on earth. I have had way too many "christian" people (especially the exgirlfriend) take a rather more negative view (usually blaming the aethiest ,me, if anythign bad happened in the area) of being an aethiest.

I'm not sure I understand your narnia example TomM. By fighting for the truth even though a person doesnt know the truth they still wind up saved because the sacrifice of the one has saved them? So using myself as an example by trying to do more good than evil and helping more than hurting I am still in the good even though I deny the existence of the one or does the denial counteract the goodness. Or am I just blowing in the wind here?

OK I think thats all I got goign on right now. Intersting points about the free will/cliff thing. Maybe someday I'll look throuhg my notes/bookmarks on inconsistancies but not tonight.

Oh and thanks Influx. I guess I dunno. Its just the way me and the wife like things. Spend time with the family and occasionally friends or family or both. We don't have a large circle of people as we go for quality over quanitity. Its just normal to us. Kinda sad that what we call normal is abnormal for so many people.

Oh I had some thoughts today for ScottN. (assuming he hasnt been blown, flooded or burned away. California has such entertaining weather.) We've heard so much about the christian fundies and muslim fundies but we rarely hear anythign about hebrew/jewish fundies. Why is that? Is there less disagreement in the hebrew faith or doctrine? Is each synagogue given some leeway to interpret things? Or is the hebrew faith more relaxed shall we say about the fundamentals? Or less relaxed as in everyone already knows what is fundamental and there is no problem with non-believers having their beliefs as long as you have yours? Just some thoughts.

There are Jewish fundamentalists, but evangelism is not part of Jewish doctrine.

In addition, conversion is a long, time consuming, difficult process, involving lots of study -- you can't just say "I believe", be baptized and be "saved" (apologies to MikeC if I've oversimplified).

I'm not sure I understand your narnia example TomM. By fighting for the truth even though a person doesnt know the truth they still wind up saved because the sacrifice of the one has saved them? So using myself as an example by trying to do more good than evil and helping more than hurting I am still in the good even though I deny the existence of the one or does the denial counteract the goodness. Or am I just blowing in the wind here?

You are trying to read a little too much into it there. I'd admitted that in that example, Lewis may have over-simplified the theological question, and possibly asserted something which he could not back up.

That example was mainly in response to Mike's statement "But one analogy I have heard is jumping the Pacific. You can be the best long jumper ever, but you're not going to jump the Pacific Ocean. I believe that's the way with God. You can be very very good and moral, but you're still a sinner."

I interpreted that statement (perhaps a little too stongly, though perhaps not if I understand his response at 6:14) to mean that he takes verses like John 14:6 to mean the Christian path to be the only path. The Narnia reference was just to show that there have been respected Christian thinkers who were willing to admit that they are not as sure as Mike seemed to be.

For myself, while I do not believe that John 14:2 means that the Book of Mormon is true, I am willing to admit that it is at least possible that the LDS interpretation of that verse may have a grain of truth in it.

Oh I had some thoughts today for ScottN. (assuming he hasnt been blown, flooded or burned away. California has such entertaining weather.) We've heard so much about the christian fundies and muslim fundies but we rarely hear anythign about hebrew/jewish fundies. Why is that? Is there less disagreement in the hebrew faith or doctrine? Is each synagogue given some leeway to interpret things? Or is the hebrew faith more relaxed shall we say about the fundamentals? Or less relaxed as in everyone already knows what is fundamental and there is no problem with non-believers having their beliefs as long as you have yours? Just some thoughts.

I'm not Scott (obviously ), and I'm sure he'll correct me if I go astray, but there is an old proverb: "Put three Jews in a room and you'll get four opinions."

In general, there is no central authority in Judaism. Each synagogue is completely autonomous, and the "professional Jews" (the rabbi, the cantor, etc.) are employees of the congregation.

[Note: The rest of this discussion mainly concerns the Ashkenazic branch of Judaism -- from Eastern Europe. There may be differences in the Sephardic Branch, originally from Moorish Spain and more recently from Africa and Asia. I don't know enough about this branch to talk about them.] The Equivalent of the conservative movement in Christianity (whose extreme is militant Fundamentalism) would be the Orthodox movement.

Most Orthodox in America and Europe, because of their history (The Holocaust and numerous pogroms before that) feel that the best way to survive is to not "rock the boat" with the local authorities, so you don't see very many "militant" groups of Orthodox. The Zionist movement -- the real one in the 20th century [which was mainly secular and liberal], not the conspiracy theory version many anti-Semites raved about for five or so centuries before that -- was about as strong a militant group as you ever saw.

The exception is in Israel, where the Orthodox have a strong voice in the Knesset. They have tried (and often succeeded) to incorporate much of the "Holiness Code" of Leviticus into the civil laws. Not just the kosher food laws or the Sabbath laws, but as many as they can get away with. Also, since the "Holiness Code" stresses a separateness from their neighbors, they have passed laws that exempt themselves from certain obligations or grant them priveleges if the live separately. This sometimes causes resentment and unrest, as illustrated in this recent news story.

I believe Christianity to be "correct" for several reasons. The primary one, of course, is that I have faith in it. It's hard to explain without having gone through the personal experiences in my life that developed my faith.

Also, compared to many other religions, Christianity stresses a personal relationship with its god, as opposed to mere blind worship. The idea of a god/man that lays down His life for you is very meaningful and unique for me.

I could give you several more "minor" reasons but those are the big two.

Ok I see now what was going on with your Narnia example.

Thank you TomM, ScottN for the commetns about the jewish religion. Very interesting. I have heard that proverb before. But about the Zionist/jewish conservatives/fundies. They still don't seem to be as offensively aggressive about thigns as the Christian fundies. I mean from the news article it seems like they are wanting to make the changes in their house and leave other peoples alone, while the ct wants to change everybodies house. At least mainly here in america. (If you understand what I am saying)

MikeC. I guess this goes back to how religion is a personal experience for each person individually and it is dangerous to try and apply it to a broad group of people. For me much of my life experiences led me to distrust and disbelieve in religion.

"MikeC. I guess this goes back to how religion is a personal experience for each person individually and it is dangerous to try and apply it to a broad group of people. For me much of my life experiences led me to distrust and disbelieve in religion."

That, of course, is true. I believe that I cannot "convert" you; I can witness to you and explain why I believe, but if you're going to be "converted," then that is God working in your life through whatever. I became a Christian basically after hearing somebody speak that really moved me (this, of course, is an ultrasimplification of a process of events). A lot of people heard the same speech and probably meant nothing to them.

I could give you several more "minor" reasons but those are the big two.

Just wondering -- did you put "minor" in quotes as an allusion to the 13 miners being trapped in the explosion, with the expectation that there would be a "miracle" rescue?

The families that initially were shouting "Miracle!!" obviously are now having doubts about their faith. It was another personal tragedy that finally got me to realize that most of it is BS.

I doubt that Mike did that. I suspect the quotes were because while they are important reasons to him, they might seem "minor" to someone else, and they essentially pale in comparison to the big two.

Sorry to put words in your mouth, MikeC, please feel free to correct.

Scott's reasoning is correct.

My faith actually became stronger after personal tragedy. When my dad died unexpectedly, it sucked. There was nothing more painful than watching my mom cry and being unable to do anything about it because I was crying too. But I feel like that drove me closer to God, not away from it.

But I have definitely seen people do the exact opposite. And there have been things that happened to me that seem shockingly minor compared to that tragedy that shook my confidence and faith temporarily.

Well when my dad died i had already started turning away from religion but I will admit that was one of the things that definately helped push me onward.

Yeah I was listening to the news when they talked about the miners in WVA. I hate it when rumors like that start then turn out so bad. It has got to be horrible for the families involved, but many of them probably grew up in the hills and lost family members to the mines before. A certain love hate relationship exists I am sure.

I'd like to point out that the obsession with evangelism because of Hell and approaching Armaggedon seems (today*) to be a specifically American thing. When I grew up as Protestant in Germany, Hell was never one of the important points. (I can't recall it ever being mentioned outside of Catholic Church history - kind of "look what they believed in, and used to make people afraid; we don't need to make people afraid anymore" thing.)
This meant that evangelism and converting people wasn't important either.

Still today, you can go to a church service in one of the protestant churches in Germany (I haven't been to Catholic mass lately, so I'm not sure, but I think they have basically the same topics) for weeks on end, and the sermons won't mention hell or Armaggedon, but what a Christian should do in this world: (And that's not fag-hating or converting, either) not looking at people as how much they are worth, but seeing people as humans, and everybody is important, so Christians can't stand and watch when the elderly, the handicapped, the sick and weak are pushed to the edges of society in name of effectivity, Christians have to stand up and speak out against unbridled capitalism and the consequences. Christians have to stop the exploitation of the third world and poor countries (no matter what their religion is, but because of fairness). Christians are called to watch over, not rule over, the creation, so no destroying nature. Christians have to reach out and show love by being nice to people in the neighborhood who are isolated.

Those are the usual sermon topics during the year. I didn't know about Armaggedon at all until I stayed in America for one year and went to one of the typical churches there (including the Bible lectures on how Rock music is satanic, and how the Earth must've been created. Impressive brain-washing, but I was only a teenager at that time, with no access to other information.)

So it's quite possible for Christians to not believe in Hell and therefore, the necessity for evangelism as much as following Jesus' command of being nice.

* I put the disqualifier of "today" in because I know quite well that until last century, the Roman Catholic Church was also obsessed with hell, damnation and converting all those poor heathens overseas who would go to hell otherwise. But today, Rome has recognized (they may not have apologized officially for it, but at least it's a step forward) the awful harm it did to the natives with their missionaries, and to the people scaring them with Hell, and, although they haven't officially declared it, they have stopped talking all the time about Hell, or how everybody needs to be converted.

As for holy people being an inspiration or proof to the truth of the message - there are holy people who did a lot of good works in other religions, too. Mohatma Gandhi, who showed the world what "turning the other cheek" really means, was a Hindu, and drew his strength from that belief.

Cyncially speaking, one could conclude that holy people only prove that humans have a deep desire to believe in something, and that, if they do believe, that belief then gives them power to move mountains and withstand things. But that doesn't mean the things they believe in are true, only that their belief is sincere in itself.

After all, people have died over the centuries for various beliefs, some of them proven wrong today, some of them competing and contradictory. But the persons who died were sincere in their beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less is proven.

"typical churches there (including the Bible lectures on how Rock music is satanic)"

I've had the pleasure of attending three different churches, and I can't recall ever hearing those lectures. Perhaps they weren't typical?

Interesting commetns constanze on belief. A dangerous person is a person who has a belief is a comment I've heard made before.

So the churches over in europe are not as hell bent on hell and assimilation and evangelicalization. Why would you suppose that is? Just a factor of the average european being more exposed to various cultures? Or just somethign about how Europe has had a much more explosive or dangerous history with religion or rather religion gone wild? (ie the holocaust, holy roman empire, inquisition, etc...)

And about the rock music. I am not sure when you where here but I have seen a few lectures on how rock music is dangerous over the past decade, maybe a dozen total. And I've mentioned how several churches have a beef with rock music stations in this area. So while it may not be a common theme in every church it is a part of many churches and groups pogroms. Just the other day I got told to watch what station I leave the radio in a car on the lot on as some lady got in and the radio was on the local rock station and she griped about us having that pornographic music station on our cars.

Well, maybe because in the past centuries the Catholic Church in Europe was hell-bent on hell and converting and sending out missionaries. So for most Europeans (or at least, Germans - Italy, Spain and Ireland still have strong catholic population), they know quite well what a theocratic regime is like, they only need to look back a couple centuries.

It might also be related to the general enlightment that happened in Europe (though it needed some centuries to really spread, and there certainly is still a too broad level of population that's sadly under-educated and superstitious here, too.)

About the rock music: it was only one or two Bible studies that mentioned that aspect, and it may have been something specific to that time - I was there from summer 1989 till summer 1990 - but the "satanic messages heard when playing backwards" is a claim I haven't heard since coming back, or before. I was really surprised hearing about something that had never once been mentioned at home. But without other information, I believed their claims, though I couldn't check it out for myself - my walkman and my tape recorder only had fast backward mode, not "listening-for-hidden-messages" backward speed.

Likewise, the whole Armageddon stuff; matching events and people to John's prophecy; and creationism were topics that weren't (and aren't) important topics to normal people or normal church-goers, or normal religion classes over here, and therefore, floored me when I first encountered them there.

There are the Sunday-morning-only Christians, and there are those Christians who read from the Bible every single day. And some of us, like myself, are somewhere between the two. In any case: to ANYONE who claims to be a Christian, and is Christian enough to read from the Bible, SOME of the time:
(1) Hell is real, because the Bible talks about it.
(2) The Great Tribulation, the Battle of Armageddon, and everything else pertaining to The Last Days Of The End Times, WILL happen, SOMEDAY, because the Bible says it will happen.
(3) Jesus DID say to 'go and make disciples of all nations'.
Now: IMO, on Judgement Day, a lot of us will be surprised at some of the people who make it into Heaven, and a lot of us will be surprised at some of the people who are sent to Hell. Jesus said that 'not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord', ...' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Also: when I write out the date, whenever I can I write out the full four digits of the year, and I write the year twice as large as the rest of the date. This is because of all the people who spent 34 years saying that there would not be a Year 2001. I also wish that everyone would have to write, 100 times to be Confirmed and 200 times to be Ordained, that 'The Bible Does Not Say that God will ever do anything to prevent the United States/Humanity/whoever from doing anything in space'. Another required sentence would be that 'The Bible Does Not Say that God did not create life elsewhere'.
And there is a huge difference between 'making disciples' and using the Great Commission as an excuse to abuse people.

For completeness sake, I want to mention to my previous post about churches over here: At least in the 50s, the Catholic still taught children about going to Hell because of their sins.

Also, there are some Protestant areas in Germany which are as puritan and strict as the Catholics in other areas. Probably I was lucky in growing up as Protestant in Catholic Bavaria (the bavarians are most relaxed about catholicism, anyway - their main logic is "because everybody goes to Hell, because nobody can lead a sinless life, seeing as how everything one does is a sin somehow; then we might as well enjoy life while we can"); and growing up in a liberal city (not in the countryside, which is always more morally strict and uptight); and having a non-bigot mother and cool religion teachers and priests.

MikeB

In any case: to ANYONE who claims to be a Christian, and is Christian enough to read from the Bible, SOME of the time:
(1) Hell is real, because the Bible talks about it.

The question isn't whether the Bible talks about it or not - the Bible talks about many things, many of which are no longer relevant for our society. Many words, meanings and context have evolved. What we think of today when talking about Hell probably wasn't what people thought of at the time the Bible was written.

More here

(2) The Great Tribulation, the Battle of Armageddon, and everything else pertaining to The Last Days Of The End Times, WILL happen, SOMEDAY, because the Bible says it will happen.

That's circular logic. Besides, someday I will die, and everybody else probably will die someday, too. The question is whether to spend time waiting for Armageddon or do something to change this world. (Martin Luther is famous for his saying in relation to this: "If I knew that the world would end tomorrow, I would still plant an apple-tree today.")

(3) Jesus DID say to 'go and make disciples of all nations'.

Again, the question isn't that he didn't say it, but of priorities. Is it more important to convert people to belief, or to practice Jesus message of love by making the world a better place, with fairness and justice and a social system where nobody's left to starve?

Now: IMO, on Judgement Day, a lot of us will be surprised at some of the people who make it into Heaven, and a lot of us will be surprised at some of the people who are sent to Hell. Jesus said that 'not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord', ...' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

So let's wait until Judgment Day.

Also: when I write out the date, whenever I can I write out the full four digits of the year, and I write the year twice as large as the rest of the date. This is because of all the people who spent 34 years saying that there would not be a Year 2001.

Huh? And that has do with anything else ...what? You lost me a bit there.

I also wish that everyone would have to write, 100 times to be Confirmed and 200 times to be Ordained, that 'The Bible Does Not Say that God will ever do anything to prevent the United States/Humanity/whoever from doing anything in space'. Another required sentence would be that 'The Bible Does Not Say that God did not create life elsewhere'.

I don't know who says stupid things like these, but I agree they should write some sensible stuff. Hopefully it will help...

And there is a huge difference between 'making disciples' and using the Great Commission as an excuse to abuse people.

What "Great Commission"? And yes, we probably agree that badgering people is a bad idea (or showing up at the funeral of a gay boy who was beaten to death... to tell the mourners that they will burn in Hell for being gay, too, and beliving that is a work of love.)

I can't find the right board now, but some time ago somebody asked the question whether it was possible to read the Bible like a literary text, without thinking of it as divinly inspired and dictated word by word.

here is a website that makes the comparisons easier, and has some explanatory comments.

Ok MikeB the bible also says that giants and magic and evil spirits are all real. So what makes us believe in hell and not those still? Or do many christians still believe in those?

I gotta go with Constanze on the armageddon thing. Why worry about that if you have no decision or choice in how your vote is going to be handled? Not to mention if it is going to happen there is no mention of when not to mention that some people think it already has. Besides a person has to still live the best they can until they die.

Yes but there is a difference in the how and motivations behind the making of those deciples. Conversion at the point of a sword or a gun as we've already seen many times throughout history is not a conversion it is the planting of the seeds of rebellion. Also it isnt exactly good public relations for your god to go into a village and start killing or assimilating by force the occupants. becoming an occupying force or to treat the inhabitants like scum just because they are heathens and beneath you. Remember much of the science and culture and technology of the world was invented by nonchristians when christianity brought us such wonderful thigns as the inquisition, the dark ages and the crusades. To be fair though a great deal of the renessaince was funded or supported by the church after a few power struggles rebellions and they scented which way the winds where blowing.

Yeah I'll wait for this judgement day. Probably be quite surprised if it happens. Thouhg in my personal opinion I feel like I should be getting an E-ticket.

I also have to wonder what the way you write the date has to do with anything. I personally write it 1/6/06 (which BTW has anyone else noticed that this year will have a date of 6/6/06 in it? wonder how the CT feels about that?) in my usual scrawl. And what people for 34 years? I'm not sure I know what you are referring to either there.

I take it that you are a bit upset with the way some people are ordained? I too would like to see a bit more training or even liscencing required for preachers. Right now in the states it seems like all you have to do is even look at a bible study course and you can hang your shingle out as a preacher. I say a liscence since many people use their preachers as counselors, mediators and other professional people they should know enough babout their own business (the bible and the way of their religion) to be able to lead and help people. Maybe not have to know psychology or other stuff but at least be able to know their own religion and bible as well as how it relates to the world around them.

From wikipedia:The Great Commission is a tenet in Christian theology emphasizing mission work and evangelism, particularly (but not exclusively) emphasized by evangelicals. It has been a primary basis for Christian missionary activity in general. The most familiar version of the Great Commission is recorded in Matthew 28:18-20, in which Jesus is recorded as saying:

"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (KJV)
The commission from Jesus suggests that his followers have the duty to go, teach, and baptize. Although the command was given directly only to Christ's apostles, Christian theology has typically interpreted the commission as a directive to all Christians of every time and place.

Some people take that a bit farther than others do though. Even though it says teach them some people read that as convert or badger or otherwise convert by any means necesary.

Constanze: Interseting philosphy about thing there. Sort of a since you're already on the bus ride to hell might as well enjoy the inflight movie deal? Cool. I guess.

"Again, the question isn't that he didn't say it, but of priorities. Is it more important to convert people to belief, or to practice Jesus message of love by making the world a better place, with fairness and justice and a social system where nobody's left to starve?"

I will comment more later, but these aren't two mutually exclusive things. One can convert and love; evangelize and make the world a better place too...kind of like what Jesus did himself, actually.

I will give you that MikeC but unfortunately many christians particulary among the evangelicals do not seem to see them as complimentary.

Seeing it only worthy to love someone after they have converted, and by evangelizing to people whether they ant it or not will make the world a better place etc...

Also, while Hell is correctly described as being vaguely mentioned if not at all in the OT, it is quite gingerly described in the NT--to wit, the rich man in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, not to mention Revelation.

Ok all. While I am not abandoning this, I do have a few things on my plate right now that may or may not interefere in things online. While the weather is decent I have to be busy.

This discussion has been very interesting and has managed to maintain the degree of maturity and intelligence required for actual dialogue instead of just shouting at one another. I thank you all for that.

Some interesting points and insights have come up as well as a few other thigns I may persue later. So I'll check back when I can if anyone wants to continue this.

Well peace to all.

Ok the boss has said take some time and chill before heading for home so. Here I am once more.

With this thought. In the past few several individuals appear to have come to the agreement that conversion at the point of a sword is no conversion whatsoever. That it actually is more harmful/insulting to your religion than helpful. So how does that differ from forcing others to live according to your moral codes by getting the laws changed to reflect the "christian" moral beliefs? I am of course referring to the various morality laws concerning nudity, sex, sexual activity, marriage, alcholohic consumption, and other behaviors.

Now I will agree that children should be protected and excluded from certain activities that are either unhealthy for them or downright dangerous (ie alchohol) but what a consenting adult, or two consenting adults do should not be of anyone's concern but theirs unless they violate other laws (ie public lewdness involving sex acts in public, involving underage people, or rape).

By getting the laws changed that is forcing others to live their lives by the same rules that you do, regardless of whether they believe in the same god as you do or not.

For example the christian moral stance against same gender marriage is firmly and totally rooted in the "christian" interpretation of the bible and has no reflection or bearing on the real world actions of two people who love each other. Nor does the "christian" POV appear to recognize that a homosexual is just another person like you or I in all regards except how they get their sexual pleasure. I am referring to "christian" in general and not saying all christians feel that way but the way the general consensus appears.

So by what right or priviledge does making the general secular laws reflect the moral laws of the christian faith differ from converting a person at the point of a gun or sword? The end result is that a nonbeliever is still forced to live the lifestyle of the christian faith even if they are not forced to kneel or go to your church. And who says that the "christian" morals are the ones that are so superior that they should be the ones made into law. I ahve used the circumscision example before as well as if we are usign religion as a basis for our laws why not bannign pork products or women showing any skin at all? Doesnt the examples of the middle east show how permitting too much religion to enter into government can be dangerous?

I know I strayed a bit too much into the political aspects of this but unfortunately in todays amerika we are not able to seperate the political aspects of religion from the religious aspects of religion.

conversion at the point of a sword is no conversion whatsoever. That it actually is more harmful/insulting to your religion than helpful.

My sig on another forum (Slashdot): "People who need the government to enforce their religion must not have much faith in the power of its message."

But there is a difference between:

"People who need the government to enforce their religion"

and

"People who want the government to enforce their religion"

Example: I don't NEED the government to enforce a pro-life stance. I am confident in it. I want it to, though, because I believe abortion is morally wrong.

Either way MikeC you are still having the government enforcing your religious moral code. And why would that be an ok thing to force your religion on another person who may not agree with your relgion, want your religion or otherwise even like or appreciate your religion?

To use your abortion example. I am pro-choice. There are 6 billion people on this planet already. There are instances where an abortion would be more beneficial to all the people involved (and no the embreyo is not a person yet in my eyes) than forcing a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy. Say a woman gets pregnant as the result of a rape. I have talked to some women who said that if they couldnt get an abortion they would kill themselves rather than go through a rape pregnancy. I say let people have access to the morning after pill. I say let there be abortion clinics available. Of course education on pregnancy prevention should be a basic mandatory (no exceptions allowed for any reason) part of everyday school health classes. Including all the options, results and effects of the various options.

So how would forcing one of those women to have a pregnancy be "christian", harmless or otherwise ok? How would that morally be any different than taking a sword or a gun and putting it to their head and saying you will worship the christian god or be punished? How is forcing your "christian" morals on another person by law or by force any different than raping someone? Why is it ok to get the law to force your religious morals on someone but not ok to have the church go out and put a gun to someone's head and tell them they must obey your god? Or is that ok? What gives christian's the right to have their morals enforced by law above any other relgion or secular group? What makes christian morals so much better or special than any other moral or ethical code?

Also MikeC I think that abortion is a bad example of people trying to have religion enforce a religious belief because pro-lifer's belive that destroying an embreo (at any stage) is the same as the murder of a developed born human; hence they are aginst it. I disagree on that, but can respect where it comes from because who isn't aginst the murder of a human being?

Having the government enforce your religion is more like the types of people who want the government (even the local governments) to outlaw certan movies, books & TV shows (even on cable) because hey do not like them. Or the people who don't want condoms and birth control to be avalable easly to people because they want unwanted pregnancy and STDs to be a consiquence of unprotected sex to scare young poeple into waiting until marrage. Also people who feel that letting gays marry (or have civil unions) should be illegal simply because they disagree with what gays do.

"So how would forcing one of those women to have a pregnancy be "christian", harmless or otherwise ok? How would that morally be any different than taking a sword or a gun and putting it to their head and saying you will worship the christian god or be punished? How is forcing your "christian" morals on another person by law or by force any different than raping someone? Why is it ok to get the law to force your religious morals on someone but not ok to have the church go out and put a gun to someone's head and tell them they must obey your god?"

If you truly believe that abortion is murder, then that is exactly how one should act. It is no more nonsensical than having laws against killing a four-year old.

Ok MikeC I can understand if a person believes it is murder then I agree. Personally I wish there where more options available but science and technology just arnt there yet. So women should have every option possible made available to them.

But you still did not answer my question. How or why is it right to have your religious morals forced by law upon another person who does not agree or share in your vision of how things are. I do not feel that the embreyo is a person until about the 5th month or so, (or at which point the fetus is viable outside the womb.)until then it is just a mass of cells that has the potential to become a human but is no more human than a blister on my big toe. So I see no moral problem with a woman having an abortion before then regardless of her reasons (which may or may not be casual or shallow but are hers. one of my exgirlfriends had an abortion because she found out she was pregnant after we had already broken up and gotton involved (engaged on her part) to other people so I have had some experience in dealing with this.

But as Brian so correctly pointed out abortion is not the only issue that inivolves this pushing of religion on others by law. Same gender marriage which is harmless and helpful to society according to many is seen by the christian taliban as the worst sort of crime a person can commit. Censorship, the removal of sexual education from schools (which I think should be a mandatory part of the curriculum) as well as other issues of science. Why is it alright to get the law to punish, prohibit or otherwise promote the christian religious POV on these issues and not another religious POV or the secular view? Why is it alright to get the law to do this but to try and do a direct conversion is wrong?

And finally why is it whenever i try and take a break from the internet because things look like they are getting busy for me i wind up right back where i started from and thigns are not busy again? ;-)

And on a related subject. Why do so many christians see threats or get so hostile to thigns like same gender marriage or a non-believer living their life the way that makes them happy? I mean it seems like to many christians a person living their life the way they wish to but not in a christian manner is a personal insult and threat to christianity, regardless if that person does anything actually threating or against christians or christianity in general.

To a Christian (and disclaimer: I am talking about "seeing threats" or "getting hostile," not specifically legislating against), it is threatening in a way because it illicit behavior. To use an imperfect analogy, it would be like sitting there, watching somebody drink arsenic. It's not hurting the watcher and the drinkers are having a good time. But the person watching knows it to be bad for them. That's a ridiculously simple analogy, but that's one reason why Christians act the way they do. Now, I frequently think they act the WRONG way in response to that belief, but that's just me.

Ok I may not be in the best of mental balances to be here right now thanks to WCPO's bonehead (*&()^)^)(*(.... anyhow.

There is a difference thouhg between drinking arsenic and letting two people who love each other love each other. Arsenic is generally a poison and kill you (althouhg there are people who ahve built up a tolerance to it). So yes it is ridicuously simple but if a person wishes to "harm" (which in your example is real harm in the samegender marriage example is only a perceived harm) themselves, they are an adult in good mental standing, and the only people involved are other consenting adults then they have the right to do so and have at it. You have the right to point it out and say somethign but that is as far zS you have the right to do.

That is why I pointed out that I was not necessarily for legislation. My comment was about why Christians had a problem with it.

Ok right I understand your point. Sorry about being a bit peevish in my last I have an atomic temper and you caught some fallout on you. (dry cleaning will get rid of that though)

Seeing a threat or harm is a difficult thing as what is harmful can be a matter of perception. I do agree that people do many unintelligent things in their lives and that harming yourself by drugs or behaviors or whatever can be unwise and should not be done. But a government cannot legislate against idiots otherwise they wont have any constituents. But I can see your explanation as to why some may react that way and thank you for your stand concerning legislation.

Also goign back to the matter of perception, each person perceives things in a differnt way with different filters. I personally see some thigns as nonthreatening while someone else may see the same action/belief as threatening. So this is apparently back to that 20k question. How do we manage to get people to seperate the real harm from the perceived harm and let everyone live their life in peace.

OK, how many of you support Alcoholic's Rights Rallies and Pyromaniac's Pride Parades? Alcoholism and pyromania are disorders/dysfunctions/whatever that affect people's behavior. So are homosexuality, lesbianism, transsexuality, bisexuality, necrophilia, beastiality and the desire to have sex with a person who isn't old enough to be capable of sex. Are you a 'hater' or a 'bigot' if you don't want to indulge alcoholics and pyromaniacs?

Putting aside the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a "disorder," there is a difference between supporting and tolerating. I don't support a gay right's rally, but if they want to have a parade, go ahead, I'm not going to scream and protest.

Well, a pyromanic affects other people if he sets everything he sees on fire (which is my "laymen's definition" of pyromaniac.)

By contrast, a gay guy doesn't force everybody he sees to have sex with him.

If a parent or spouse or a worker in an important position is alcoholic, his behaviour can affect others. That's why prohibition was repealled, and drinking is allowed, but drunk driving not.

Homosexuality, transexuality, bisexuality are all genetic conditions like redhair or heterosexuality not disorders or illnesses. Most of the people who fall under those categories are no different than any other person who just wishes to live their life in peace and happiness. Unfortunately just because of their sexuality and whom they have as a partner intolerant bigoted and hateful narrow minded trolls wish to degrade, denigrate and beat down these people.

And I do support homosexual rights rallies parades or gatherings as they have every right in the world to do so in this country just like the christian taliban and other hate groups have every right to their rallies and parades. Freedom of speech doesnt mean I have to like your speech just let you speak it.

NBow as for alcholoism, pyromania, and the other issues you tried to lump in with homosexuality are all conditions that a person has an ability to control either throuhg treatment and medication or personal willpower. They are not a genetic imperative like homo or heterosexuality is.

Homosexuality is also treatable and curable. Maybe not in EVERY case, but there ARE straight people who USED TO BE gay, but have been cured of it. And where is the evidence that homosexuality is caused by genetics?

Sumguy, I regret to inform you that modern psychology and psychiatry very much disagrees with you on the issue of the so-called "treatability" of homosexuality.

At any rate, an interesting point occurs to me in your initial comparison to alcoholism, and this is that we *don't*, in fact, ban alcoholics from doing things. We can stop you from operating motor vehicles while drunk, we can take away your license to do it, but the mere fact of being an alcoholic does not legally prevent you from doing anything. (We don't, for example, criminalize the sale of alcoholic beverages to alcoholics. Though in some places one can be prosecuted for selling to someone who's already intoxicated. But that's a crucial difference.)

You actually raise an interesting distinction when you mention ex-gays, though I think I'm interpreting it in terms you didn't mean. No, these people do not fulfill the social role of homosexual... but overwhelming evidence indicates that they have not stopped having same-sex attractions, either.

In all seriousness, if you are comparing alcoholism to homosexuality--I believe that AA programs state that people will always be an "alcoholic," but can manage to keep it under control. Would this be equivalent to homosexuals that refrain from "fulfilling the social role of homosexual"?

Also, board is getting hella big.

OK, how many of you support Alcoholic's Rights Rallies..........

Well we do have St Patrick's day and Mardi Grass celebrations.

Also, both the failure rate and the suicide rate for the "conversion therapy" programs is so high that they are not only considered ineffective, but highly dangerous. This is especially so in programs where people (usually teenagers) are committed against their will.

For further discussions of "conversion therapy" and especially the discredited "Love in Action" program see the following boards:
Religious Musings --> Homosexuality Part 8
Political Musings --> GLBT Issues Board 6
Political Musings --> GLBT Issues Board 7

MikeC, if you accept that comparison (which I actually do not, but Sumguy brought it up), then I'd say that would be a bit parallel. With the caveat that many more (virtually all, in fact) people fail the ex-gay programs than relapse as members of AA.

Umm not meaning to be a party pooper here but sumguy's attempt to derail this thread have apparently suceeded. This is the please convert me thread and not the GLBT issues thread. Can we relocate this there please.

And as for the replies I'll just say this the others here beat me to the punch sumguy.

Yeah, Matt, I wasn't totally accepting the comparison, just running with the logic as presented.

And agree with R.

And Todd, I will respond tomorrow to your points.

OK now back to the topic of conversion. After long and due consideration of all that has been said and discussed here. I am am still left with the question of what is it about christianity that makes it so much more special, better or important for me to choose to dedicate my life and limit my behavior to the christian doctrine over any other or no religion at all.

I mean I could go through all that has been said and replace god and jesus with budda or allah or great maker or flying spagetti monster and it wouldnt change the meanign of the prayers just who they are directed at. Sort of a spiritual chain letter. At least from what I understand and see in my opinion.

But it does seem to me that we come back to the same thing each and every time that the discussion goes around. And that quote from Obi Wan seems to sum it all up. "You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." So what makes everyone get so foaming at the mouth defensive about their particular religion? What makes which religion or not a person is any big deal? What makes having a religion such a big deal and make so many people act like they are all that just for having religion? Like religion is some kind of special club that only members of a certain class can be in.

I dunno but so far this has been an interesting discussion and has given a bit of food for thought. And aside from the recent disruption a rather mature and reasonable discussion.

I mean I could go through all that has been said and replace god and jesus with budda or allah or great maker or flying spagetti monster and it wouldnt change the meanign of the prayers just who they are directed at.

I guess the commandments of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would include a command against tomato sauce or ketchup that other religions don't have...

But kidding aside, once people grow up from their childhood faith and have a look at other religions (and the history of their own church and its dark parts), then it either boils down to "I still believe this is the only true way (because the Holy Book says so/ I feel it is)". Or you come to the conlusion "Other religions have valid points/truth, too/try to answer the same basic human questions; but this one is my spiritual home because I was raised in this belief".

The second approach is the one I have. Similar to feelings about my country: my own country and its culture aren't per se better than all the others (there are certainly many issues that should be improved!) - but it's the one I grew up in. If coincidence had led me to be born in another country, that culture would seem normal to me. Of course, human rights are still the basic foundation underneath, and I certainly criticze countries which don't reach a certain minimum level of it, and wish they would change.

Similar, I feel tolerant to other religions in regards to different expressions of truth, but not to fundies, destructive cults and the like.

I heard somewhere that, back in the '50's or '60's, somebody published a series of pamphlets titled, "The Fundamentals", and that THAT is what Christian Fundamentalism is all about.

So why should we not feel tolerant to people who believe in the fundamentals of their religion?

No, the American fundamentilism is older then the 50s. It's an reaction to the discoveries of Biblical sciences in Europe, esp. Germany, at the end of the last centuries. While European christians took a step forward, and Religion stepped down from it's false throne of knowing everything about the world, instead letting science explain worldly things, and re-evaluated their approach to the Bible, no longer taken things literally or as dictated, but as human-produced work with flaws - the American Christians were (for some reason) frightened by this and dug themselves in to their current position.

About feeling tolerant: every truly faithful person believes in the "fundamentals" of their religion. That's not what the "Fundamentalists" are about to which the term usually is applied.

I'll have to come back later, I've got to go now.

The famous philosopher Karl Popper once said that tolerance stops in regards to intolerance. Because intolerance seeks to destroy, tolerance can't tolerate it.

Similar with regard to fundamentalism, both the specific US Christian Fundamentalisim, as well as fundies from other religions: it's a method of closing people's minds by promising answers for everything, instead of making people think and make decisions for themselves. It uses strict authority to forbid most things, to keep people in line, it focuses on an us-vs-them mentalitiy to bond the believers together, it focuses on the rewards in the afterlife instead of improving this world, it uses hate-speech towards people of other opinions.

All these characteristics are harmful towards people. Young people brainwashed into taking an oath of celibacy when they have no idea what it entails, feel guilty when they slip up (and are likely to get pregnant or catch a STD). People are prevented from marrying because of some rule. Gay bashings. Blowing up abortion clinics. Killing young girls who had premarital sex. And so on. All of these are signs of religious fundamentalism of one kind or another, and not good for people.

And that's why we shouldn't be tolerant.

Normal people grwo up, re-evaluate their faith, learn to use their mind, and integrate their faith into a normal life. Fundies cling to old-fashioned, outdated, disproven notions to stop using their brain, to not take responsiblity for their own life, to feel smugly superior that they will get to heaven when everybody else burns, and that even while heckling others, they are doing a work of love, instead of doing something that would really help.

OK, let's look at some of the things you mentioned. Fornication does happen. It does sometimes result in an unwanted pregnancy, and it does sometimes result in people getting STDs. There are Bible verses that say that fornication is a sin. So am I a bad person if I say to someone, "You shouldn't do that."? How would you suggest that we prevent teenagers from fornicating? Or do you say that we should ASSUME that they ALL WILL? (I didn't.) And of course we shouldn't HATE - ANYONE - but should we cut out those portions of the Bible that say that homosexual behavior is a sin? If we only accept the parts that we like, is it really a Bible at all? As for blowing up abortion clinics, I never have and don't know anyone who has, but is anyone in the building at 3 o'clock in the morning? Human life is sacred; inanimate objects are not sacred. How many babies' lives can I save, WITHOUT killing or injuring anyone else, if I DO blow up an abortion clinic at 3 o'clock in the morning, when nobody's in the place? (Nobody, that is, except the dead bodies of innocent human beings who were aborted.) (And, no, I am NOT planning on doing this.) I disapprove of killing young girls who had premarital sex. And, when I get to Heaven, I will NOT enjoy thinking about the people who got sent to Hell. Instead, I will probably be doing a lot of saying, "Gee, it's too bad so-and-so couldn't be here.". So, do I fit your definition of a 'fundamentalist', or am I just a weirdo?

...There are Bible verses that say that fornication is a sin. So am I a bad person if I say to someone, "You shouldn't do that."? How would you suggest that we prevent teenagers from fornicating? ...

First, the Bible is against "adultery", that is, cheating on marriage, not against sex in general. The jewish culture doesn't have this body-hating Manichean view that snuck into Christian ideology through the back door. (When I read the Bible as teenager, I always figured that unmarried people could have as much sex as they wanted, and of course, only the married women weren't allowed to fool around. If a married guy visits an unmarried prostitute, he isn't cheating on his wife. Because the OT part of the Bible was written for a patriarchal society, so cheating meant infringing on another men's honor. Unmmarried women - no husband - no problem).

I suggest to educate young people that:
- they should take care of their body, and be reasonably proud of it (no vain body-builders with empty heads, but no dressing-in-the-dark-because-naked-bodies-are-sinful, either)
- that sex (not fornication) is something wonderful and beautiful for both partners, not there only to make babies, but to feel good feelings. Therefore, it's important to take your time about (with the right atmosphere, not on the backseat of the car, feeling guilty), and make sure your partner feels also good about it, and have it as part of a meaningful, good, relationship (marriage isn't absolute, but one-night-stands aren't a sign of an healthy attitude, either).
- to take precautions against STDs like condoms
- because the planet is overpopulated, and because it's a sin against the children to bring them into the world if you aren't able to care for them (by having a stable relationship, enough time and money, good health of the mother-to-be, and being mature enough) - if you aren't ready yet to get /make pregnant, take measures, so if one night you slip up, you don't end up with a whole lot of problems.

...Or do you say that we should ASSUME that they ALL WILL? (I didn't.)...

Did you have a girl at all? (Yeah, maybe a cheap shot.)
So what does one example proove, if most teenagers behave otherwise? I'm not assuming that all (male) teenagers are automatons driven by lust, unable to exercise self-control or restraint. I'm simply assuming that most of the teenagers are human, still unsure of themselves, screwing up things in general a lot of the times because they're trying to find their way. And because ONE slip-up, ONE moment of caving in, can have bad consequences. That's not the same as saying all teenagers are horny all the time and give in to their impulses all the time.

I mean, look at adults and food. It should be much easier to avoid some foods like french fries or chocolate then sex (in terms of "drive"), and adults should have more self-control then teenagers who are still learning. But for most adults, it's awfully hard to give up french fries and chocolate for ever. They try diets for a short time and fail in the long term. That doesn't mean they're animals, or that it's impossible to try. It means to look at how normal people act, and accept that as reality, not how saints and angels and exceptions behave.

And of course we shouldn't HATE - ANYONE - but should we cut out those portions of the Bible that say that homosexual behavior is a sin?

Because there are lots of sins in the Bible. Look at the NT parables, e.g. when Jesus says that calling your brother an idiot is almost like murder. When Jesus was asked by the rich young man, he said to keep the commandments, to love God, and give the money to the poor. Not hectoring other people what they shouldn't do, but being a good person yourself.
Zompist speculates that many fundie groups concentrate on being against gays because only a minority of people are gay, so it's safe to hate them. What about the rich? But that would target too many of the believers and church members. What about protecting the enviroment? Fair trade?
In one of Jesus stories, he talks about Judgment Day, and how people will stand on his right side because they were nice to him, and people will stand on the left side because they were bad to him, and nobody will remember meeting him. Then Jesus explains "You fed the hungry and housed the homeless and visited the prisoners, and every time, you helped me." That's what a Christian is called upon to do.

Remember also that Jesus said to "love your neighbor as you love yourself." This requires first, that you really love and accept yourself - not feel permanently guilty for small sins. And it means to love your neighbor, even if he's gay. (Yes, you'll probably bring up the "love the sinner, hate the sin" difference. But the "sin" of the gays doesn't harm you.)

As for blowing up abortion clinics, I never have and don't know anyone who has, but is anyone in the building at 3 o'clock in the morning? Human life is sacred; inanimate objects are not sacred. How many babies' lives can I save, WITHOUT killing or injuring anyone else, if I DO blow up an abortion clinic at 3 o'clock in the morning, when nobody's in the place? (Nobody, that is, except the dead bodies of innocent human beings who were aborted.) (And, no, I am NOT planning on doing this.)

First, if I accept your "logic" behind this, I'll go ahead and blow up the next bank, because banks cause lots of trouble and death. And all the factories involved in weapons manufacture - these kill people, many of them innocent. Also the training centers (like the "School of Americas" in the USA, run by the CIA) where torturers are trained. (I'll be busy for some time.)
What about places were people are exectured? Some of them are innocent, but the governor doesn't want a retrial. Can I blow them up, too?

Secondly, blowing up the clinic doesn't solve the problem. That's why I said "using the brain" in my earlier post. If you want to prevent abortions:

- prevent conception by being realistic (see above): educate teenagers how they get pregnangt (many think a kiss is enough, so once they've lost, they may as well go ahead. Or they think they can't get pregnant by coitus interruptus, or some special position.) And distribute condoms and pills.
- Instead of telling women they will end up in hell, provide alternatives: hospitals where women can give birth and the baby can be put up for adoption, all unobserved and quiet; welfare for unwed, single mothers who have decided to keep their child (in other words, instead of punishing abortion, reward keeping the child alive)
- and lastly, accept that there are always exceptions: when the mother has serious medical troubles; the child is severely retarded, and the parents know they can't cope; the mother has been raped and can't cope with carrying it to term (although adoption should be offered), etc.

In short, don't make it an issue of either-or what people should do, but make it an issue of helping both people, the mother and the unborn child, without damning the mother for whatever decision she takes. (Don't forget to provide real counseling, where a sympatheic person listens and tries to help a mother make a difficult decision.)

Thirdly, there are fundies who bomb the clinics not at 3 AM but during daylights, and contracts with rewards have been put out to kill doctors who do abortions. (If the fundies, like the Catholics, hadn't declared themselves to be against them, period, they could prevent many more and give counseling and help. But now, both sides see things as an absolute issue - either you are for abortions, then everything is allowed, or you are against, then no exception can't be made. But we're dealing with real people, and real problems, which aren't black and white.)

I disapprove of killing young girls who had premarital sex.

Well, that's nice and generous of you. Not all Christians or fundies do.

And, when I get to Heaven, I will NOT enjoy thinking about the people who got sent to Hell. Instead, I will probably be doing a lot of saying, "Gee, it's too bad so-and-so couldn't be here.".

Unless you end up elsewhere... (Reminds me of the old joke about a guy - if you like, Pope John Paul II - who died and went to Heaven. St. Peter welcomed him. Then, for lunch, they had cold porridge. Next day, the same. Day after, again. So on the fourth day the guy says to St. Peter "When will get some real food, instead of cold porridge?" Says St. Peter "Oh, you know, with only the two of us around, it's not worth the trouble to cook a real meal.")

So, do I fit your definition of a 'fundamentalist', or am I just a weirdo?

Well, weirdo fits in most cases, anyway.

Do you mean because you didn't say YES to every point of my off-the-cuff list of examples you aren't? Look at the part about thinking, growing up, evaluating your faith.

Has your faith ever been shaken? Do you believe literally in the Bible, and that it was dictated letter by letter? Did you ever question what your pastor told you? Do you think the Bible and your pastor /Church/Faith has the answer to every question already there spelled out, without needing to consider details or ambiguity?

And besides, if you're proud to "believe in the fundamentals" of your religion, what does my opinion of your standpoint matter? If I say YES, will you consider using your brain and questioning your faith? If I say NO, will you sleep alright at night?

To save time and due to the fact that I am not wanting to dig myself deeper right now into somethign I'll just say ditto on what constanze said for the most part.

All I'll have to say about the love thing is look at the latest cyclical from the pope as for a slight change in the catholic understanding of love eros/agape thing.

And weird is as weird does.......

I haven't read it, but from what I can tell from Press reports, it's one of those, "Erotic Love is good, as long as it doesn't distract the Christian from his true purpose" things. Everything in Moderation.

Which is a lot better and more open than the old sex is only for procreation so better not do it at all unless you are trying for kids credo they used to have.

Constanze - While only adultery is mentioned in the Ten Commandments, fornication IS classified as a sin by the Bible. Married people should have sex only with their spouse; not-yet-married people should not have sex with anyone until they are married; sex is reserved for those who have already made a life-long commitment to each other.
As for the planet being overpopulated, I have heard that if every living man, woman and child were given a two-foot-by-two-foot square to stand in, you could fit them ALL into an area the size of Jacksonville, Florida. And that if you gave each group of 4 people a typical 4-person suburban house, you could fit them ALL into an area the size of Texas. I don't know for certain that either of these is true, but IF Earth IS overpopulated, then there are 2 solutions: (A) Colonize space; or (B) Set up a global dictatorship for the purpose of dictating which people are allowed to have children and which people aren't allowed to have children. Now, who gets to do the selecting?

...fornication IS classified as a sin by the Bible. ...

So is not feeding the hungry, or housing the homeless.

As for the planet being overpopulated, I have heard that if every living man, woman and child were given a two-foot-by-two-foot square to stand in, you could fit them ALL into an area the size of Jacksonville, Florida.

How long can you stand in 2ft x 2ft square? Are you serious?

And that if you gave each group of 4 people a typical 4-person suburban house, you could fit them ALL into an area the size of Texas.

Because people not only need a typical house, they need food and energy and so on.

Every habitat has a certain density of population it can sustain. If the resident population exceeds that limit, starvation occurs. The habitat may be destroyed through overgrazing so completly that it will take many generations before anything grows again.

While we don't know the density size for the human population, we are growing too fast unchecked.

I don't know for certain that either of these is true, but IF Earth IS overpopulated, then there are 2 solutions: (A) Colonize space; or (B) Set up a global dictatorship for the purpose of dictating which people are allowed to have children and which people aren't allowed to have children. Now, who gets to do the selecting?

I wonder where you come up with these two absurd choices. Did somebody tell you (the same source the above "relations" came from?) these solutions are the only ones, or did you "think" them up yourself?

First: it's a good, SENSIBLE idea to start controlling things now before it's too late because they've run unchecked. (Similar reason to act NOW to preserve the enviorment: even if not everything about global warming has been proven to the last digit, it's better TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY.

Secondly: if we can't get a grip on our multiplication rate, colonizing space won't solve a darn thing, because we're just taking our problems with us. At the end of the 80s, the worldwide population was fast approaching a quadratic curve, meaning every 20 years or so, the population would double if things kept going. (I haven't looked up the current numbers; China with it's 1-child program has managed to slow it's growth rate and has gone from 1 billion to 1.1 billion instead of the expected 1.3 billion, but India hasn't done anything towards planning yet, and has gone from 700 million to 1 billion in 20 years.)

Thirdly: No reasonable person suggests a global dictatorship, or a selection of which people can "breed". (Many adults in the industrialized countries can't naturally reproduce, anyway.)
Instead, the poorer countries (which is where most of the growth rate is happening, contributing directly to the poverty of the families there) need education for the women (about how to prevent birth, and why it's better to have 3 healthy children instead of 9 malnourished ones) as well as condoms and pills and similar.

But the USA under Bush has cut off their financial support for these UN programs, because as radical fundie Bush doesn't want to promote condoms, even if they could save many lives in AIDS-plagued Africa, and help the families to plan the children responsibly. But of course it's easier to stand on principle than actually do some thinking, or look at how people in other countries are living. (They aren't Americans, so who cares if they die? It's not shown on TV, either, so it doesn't happen, right?)

While only adultery is mentioned in the Ten Commandments, fornication IS classified as a sin by the Bible.

I didn't mention it in my last post, because I couldn't remember who said it, but what the heck: there's an anecdote about a prominent christian - maybe C.S.Lewis - who was asked by a friend when he lit up a cigar if there shouldn't be an Eleventh commandment Not to smoke. The Christian replied "As long as I have so much trouble keeping the first Ten, I see no need to add another one."

In other words - as I already said in my post from yesterday - Jesus told the young rich man to keep the 10 commandments, which boiled down to love God and love your neighbor, and as encore, give your money to the poor.

Note the lack of obsession with sex life there. Because concerning yourselves with other people's sex life is not the way to Heaven, according to the Bible.

I also mentioned Jesus story of the Day of Judgement, when people are divided according to their good deeds, not their bad ones. No mention of sex, either. He never says "Go tell everybody to stop having sex."

Set up a global dictatorship for the purpose of dictating which people are allowed to have children and which people aren't allowed to have children. Now, who gets to do the selecting?

So, if turn this logically around, you think everybody who is married (so it isn't "fornication" - I think that's a very ugly word, full of self-hate, for something as wonderful as the sex act) - can and should reproduce, and nobody is allowed to interfere, or tell them it wouldn't be a good idea, right?

So every marriage where the husband is an alcoholic; where the women is suffering from one of the many illnesses that make pregnancy dangerous; where all the time and money is spent on caring for an elderly/handicapped relative; where the money isn't enough for an apt. to raise kids in; where only the woman has a job, and can't afford to loose it (with the harsh labor laws the US has)....
in all of these cases you are against condoms or other methods of prevention? Like the Vatican?

I'm again struck by the intelligence and compassion displayed by people standing on fundamental principles, following Jesus example, who said about eating grain on Sabbath that "the law was made for man, not man for the law."

"...fornication IS classified as a sin by the Bible. ...

So is not feeding the hungry, or housing the homeless."

Is there some reason that these concepts are mutually exclusive? I'm not advocating sex laws or anything of that nature, but I think sensible birth control/abstinence methods (through a realistic but not extreme sex education program) will do a lot to curb both fornication and overpopulation, which will decrease the amount of hungry and homeless people. (Note: I am not saying cut traditional charity programs.)

Is there some reason that these concepts are mutually exclusive? I'm not advocating sex laws or anything of that nature, but I think sensible birth control/abstinence methods (through a realistic but not extreme sex education program) will do a lot to curb both fornication and overpopulation, which will decrease the amount of hungry and homeless people. (Note: I am not saying cut traditional charity programs.)

No, it isn't. But most fundies seem obsessed with sex life (of other people) and disregard the rest. And many fundies are against any form of birth control unless it's abstinence. Would you allow condoms and the Pill? If yes, that's what I was advocating, too.
If no, only abstinence - your program won't work.

I would stress abstinence more than anything else, but I would explain birth control methods such as condoms. I would not provide birth control.

Then you are more interested in you personal, religious morals than actually helping people. If you don't provide birth controls like free condoms or free pills, most of the poor people won't be able to afford them / most teenagers will be too embarrassed to buy them (forget them), so when abstinence fails, they still face the risk of STD and pregnancy.

If I provide them with free condoms or free pills, will they actually use them? Or will they be too embarassed or forgetful there as well?

I don't think that "embarassment" is a good enough reason to provide free birth control. Education can only do so much. If you don't want to or forget to take sexual educations recommendations, that is not the teacher's fault.

I never said not to help the poor. And any government official is only human, so any government official will make some mistakes, somewhere. And besides, how do any of us know whether a program should be stopped and replaced by a better program?

And any government official is only human, so any government official will make some mistakes, somewhere.

Yes, no argument from me, there, but what's this got do with my points?

And besides, how do any of us know whether a program should be stopped and replaced by a better program?

Because we know that education and distribution of condoms work, and that abstinence-only programs (although they may be quite popular on TV and for the Bush people) don't. Those self-help organisations that work in different countries often try different approaches in different areas and see which works best, and then use it more widespread, with adaptations for the local people and tradition.

Well maybe if sexual behavior is de-embarrassing. Ie the religious nuts stop worrying about whos doing what with whom and start accepting that people are sexually active if they wish to be regardless of their teachign or beliefs (and some of the most religious teens think that oral sex isnt sex so they are still being abstinent so your abstinance only program isnt working there) then maybe when people are finally comfortable with the fact that sex exists that there is nothing wrong with enjoying oneself with someone they care about and taking the appropriate precautions to prevent pregnancy thigns will be better.

While only adultery is mentioned in the Ten Commandments, fornication IS classified as a sin by the Bible. Married people should have sex only with their spouse; not-yet-married people should not have sex with anyone until they are married; sex is reserved for those who have already made a life-long commitment to each other.

I thought I posted this over the weekend, but it did not show up. (I guess I forgot to click the second "Post Message button before closing the window. I hate when that happens). Anyway--

You claim that the Bible (as opposed to the leadership of your religion) makes these claims. Can you cite one or two passages where this claim is made? Other than the seventh chapter of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (which actually talks abouts the obligations of married couples to one another, and mentions, in passing, that it is better to marry than to burn -- and does not cover the details of your claim.

The only other (apparently) pertinent verses that I can find are the ones in Leviticus 18-20 which forbid sexual relations with certain blood relations, in-laws and others (including the infamous "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"). Although some of these forbidden fruits are unmarried, it is incest, not fornication, that is seen as the sin.

MikeB - I never said not to help the poor.

No. But if the christian fundies put only half of the time they're currently spending on their Anti-Sex campaigns into helping the poor; and if they spent only half the effort and political pressure they're currently spending on Anti-Gay legislation, censorship on movies, the Abstinence movement... etc. onto eradicating the causes of poverty, things would look much better in the US, the richest country in the world, with the most advanced industrialisation, (and a high rate of Christians), yet at the same time, with the highest povery rate and the lowest rate of government programs.

But of course I understand where this comes from. Hectoring people about sex all the time, and that it's a sin to go to the beach topless, or see naked breasts in a moive, makes most people feel guilty, and guilty people don't rebel against authority, or start questioning and back-talking about other issues.

Also, since a part of the American population and a very large part of the Christians (almost all fundies) are still in the last century (see the Creationism debate), they still believe in the long disproven "Poors are poor because they're lazy, if they would get off their butt and work like I do they would get money like I do". This allows the middle class people to feel comfortabel with being well-off, instead of looking at how the system keeps the poor people down through a complicated networks of reasons and disadvantages. It also plays nicely in the Calvinistic idea of predetermination of an all powerful God: because God plays favourites, and because God influences and controls everything, somebody who's rich is because God has chosen him and blessed him, and somebody who's poor isn't in God's good book, so helping him would be going against God and would be no use, anyway, because he'll never get anywhere against God's will.
see also here how welfare really works

This twisted version of the Bible and NT message allows of course the crassest exploitations to take place. Already the middle class needs two incomes (husband and wife) to keep their level (why - because the average wages haven't risen in the last two decades as much as inflation and costs of living did. The CEOs, of course, more than doubled their wages and income.)
Quote The wealthiest 1% of the population doubled their share of the pie in just 15 years. In 1973, CEOs earned 45 times the pay of an average employee (about twice the multipler in Japan); today it's 500 times. (see the figures yourself here - Scroll down to "Where the gains go"

Despite this, they ignore that people working for 3 or 4 $ an hour can work their butt off without getting anywhere - poor people have two jobs, each 8 hours/day or more, plus driving time, yet still can't afford to pay basics like health care, let alone save some money for later.

So the fundies and Christians of course never say outright they don't want to help the poor (because they dimly remember that might be wrong), they just devote their entire time and energy to anti-sex battles and the Creationism debate, because that's most important.

Also, running a soup kitchen or similar is a wonderful gesture: it doesn't cost much, doesn't discomfit anybody, you get the warm glow of doing a good deed, and because you don't change any of the causes, there will be a steady supply of poor people. So why get unpopular with the establishment if you can do little gestures as exclusive action? (Note: I'm not advocating closing down the soup kitchens. But soup kitchens are the first step, not the only one. The next step needs to be long-term development, which I hardly hear anything about.)

I keep thinking of the many third-world-shops run by church groups over here that started in the 60s, as a way to directly help the people in those countries. The german fair trade association, gepa, grew out of this church-based iniatives. Today, the fair-trade chocolate, coffe, tea is even available at the normal supermarkets, not only at the special shops. Still, my local protestant church has a sale by volunteers every 2nd sunday after service of chocolate, coffee and stationary.
Also, my city switched a few years ago all public mess halls and students cafeterias and so on to using the fair traded coffee, although that meant that a cup of cofee now costs 1 Euro instead of 0.50 as before. But people are educated about how important it is to grant people an income they can live on, instead of paying the lowest price the market allows, cheating the farmers at the end out of their hard work.
Is any of that kind going on big style in the US? Cause I never noticed or heard about it much.

As for local poverty, the protestant Church (also, I think, the Catholic, though I don't follow their proclamations that closely) in Germany has issued papers and declarations to the politicans several times about the current climate towards handicapped, old people, unemployed, how bad it is to cut social help etc.

TomM,

You claim that the Bible (as opposed to the leadership of your religion) makes these claims. Can you cite one or two passages where this claim is made? ...

Thank you for that question. I, too, wondered where that comes from, but since I don't know the Bible by heart, I thought I might be wrong.

But then, it probably all rests on only one verse (probably from Paul), interpreted in a specific way (ignoring the context). Since the Catholic Church based the Papal office on only two verses, the fundies can do that as well.

I'm sure that Mike's claim hinges almost entirely on "It is better to marry than to burn," which is why I specifically discounted that verse.

Out of curiosity, why do you discount the verse? Paul seems to be suggesting that marriage is the only proper arena for sex. Is it because of its vagueness (depending on the translation, I have seen the verse run the gamut) or because it comes close to just being Paul's personal opinion?

It may be the translation that I have, but it appears that the Bible touches on fornication in chapter 6 of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. In mine, 1 Corinthians 6:18 actually says "Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself."

costanze: because God plays favourites, and because God influences and controls everything, somebody who's rich is because God has chosen him and blessed him, and somebody who's poor isn't in God's good book, so helping him would be going against God and would be no use, anyway, because he'll never get anywhere against God's will.
That would be funny if that weren't so sad. Especially since it seems to completely contradict Jesus' teachings.

MikeC: Is it because of its vagueness (depending on the translation, I have seen the verse run the gamut) or because it comes close to just being Paul's personal opinion?
Couldn't all of his letters really be his personal opinion?

Remember, the version I have is from 2000, so it's a very "modern" translation. Who knows how much it's changed from the past?

Out of curiosity, why do you discount the verse?

Perhaps "discount" is too strong a word. It is just that while the verse is not inconsistant with Mike B's claim, it is not, in itself, proof of that claim. All it claims is that celibacy is the best estate for someone dedicated to God's service, and marriage is a good alternative.

If Miss New York is selected to be the new Miss America, and Miss Tennessee is the first runner-up, those facts alone don't prove that Miss Ohio is ugly.

Here's where the rubber meets the road: Do you try to live the way that God wants people to live, or is your god a god that you have created in your own image?

We all create god in our own image. No one has the true scoop on what any deity is. And the only way you have of knowing what your "god" wants you to live like is the bible (whichever version you have which may or may not agree with anyone elses) and either your own personal interpretation or the interpretation that your church or other religious group has given you.

Do you try to live the way that God wants people to live, or is your god a god that you have created in your own image?

You can live the way you believe God wants people to live as long as you leave other people alone to do the same for themselves. If you think some verses in the NT literally command you to cut off those parts of your body that tempt you, go ahead. But don't make it a law for everybody who looks at a woman to be castrated.

I never said that. I don't know of any Christian clergyman (or activist) who proposes that people LITERALLY cut off their hands or gouge out their eyes in order to avoid sin. What I'm saying is, anyone who claims to be a Christian, should get a good, generally-accepted translation of the Bible and read from it fairly regularly, and SHOULD NOT go through saying, 'This part counts, that part doesn't'.

Yeah, simply read one translation* without any further instruction or explanations about the society where the book was written, the events that influenced it, the neighboring cultures and their stories. And certainly don't let anybody influence you by explaining the likely background of Isaac's sacrifice, for example. Or the inspirations from other sources of the 7-day Genesis story (Babylonians), the Flood story (Gilgamesh epos and others) etc.

* No need to point out the difficulty of any translation, much more one from a language and culture of some thousand years ago, either. Since most Americans don't have enough experience with foreign languages, they can't fully understand the problems associated with it, and anyway many fundies already think that only KJV /their favourite translation is the only true one, because God loves only the English-speaking people.

Don't let anybody confuse you by pointing out the history of how some passage, like Noah cursing his grandson when his son saw him naked, was interpreted previously to support slavery of blacks, because then you might see how far off interpretations can be twisted.

Ignore somebody who points out that while the OT part, the Jewish Bible, has explicit and sometimes strict instructions on how to punish people, it's because it was meant as law book. Likewise, it was meant as history book of the subjective history of the Jewish people, not an objective account as we expect today, therefore God is against the people living in the country he promised the Jews, and commands the Jews several times to mercilessly kill their enemies.
While the gospels were meant to convert people to Jesus, so they contain his parables and stories of the miracles he did as proof of his divinity, but nothing at all on instructions on how Jesus wanted his church to be structured, or how to deal with civic issues like marriage and divorce, slavery, punishment of criminals etc., because Jesus wasn't interested in details or the practical life, he was a prophet, so he talked big. (And because the gospels were intended for conversion, not a report to the police, they aren't neutral eye-witness accounts.)

And don't forget to close your eyes so you don't notice all the contradictions of different parts, which would otherwise require you to make a judgment which general worldview is taught by the Bible, and should therefore serve as interpretation guide. Contradictions like Jesus saying that "Love thy neighbor" is most important, and that Samaritans are neighbors (today, that would be Moslems and terrorists and gays), but saying elsewhere that "Nobody comes to the Father then through me". So either the most important part of Christianity is the universal Love- message, in which case pagans would be saved, too, if they lifed a life of love (like Gandhi); or only the baptized who believe in Jesus are saved, even if they are murderers and hypocrites, but not pagans, even Gandhi.

Yes, just embrace the whole Bible and read it without instructions.

I don't know of any Christian clergyman (or activist) who proposes that people LITERALLY cut off their hands or gouge out their eyes in order to avoid sin.

It's usually not the eyes or hands that are the sinful part, and at least one famous early Church father did cut off the offending parts (I think Augustinus, but haven't checked).

And since there are people who take the Bible literally enough to handle snakes, or deny medical treatment to rely on prayer (Christian Scientists) or think the true sign that the Holy spirit has come over you is speaking in tongues (since Americans mostly don't know foreign languages, this would be impressive), why stop at castration?

Tongues as is used in modern society has little to do with the biblical application of it, which was being able to speak in a foreign language. In Pentecostal churches, it's just gibberish.

Interpretations of passages, such as Noah's curse of Canaan (which are flawed on so many levels), are not evidence that the original passage is flawed.

And I don't see those sentences as contradictions. Love your neighbor is a command. Nobody comes to the Father except through Jesus is a statement. If you are in Jesus, you must love your neighbor.

Tongues as is used in modern society has little to do with the biblical application of it, which was being able to speak in a foreign language. In Pentecostal churches, it's just gibberish.

But they think their interpretation is valid. How can you show that it's not, besides asserting that you consider it gibberish? Because you don't understand it? Maybe it's one of the languages that has become extinct? Maybe it's one of the about 1.200 languages that are spoken all over the globe today, but you don't understand it, and therefore, think it's gibberish? (For the record, personally I, too, think they are way off the mark in claiming that's the only true sign of the spirit, and I think most cults where people talk in tongues are indeed speaking gibberish. But it'S hard to prove if you accept other interpretations of the Bible at the same level as valid.)

Interpretations of passages, such as Noah's curse of Canaan (which are flawed on so many levels), are not evidence that the original passage is flawed.

I didn't say that the original passage was flawed. I said that interpretations can be seriously flawed, and have been all over the map in the past, so how can you be sure your interpretation is the correct one? If you aren't sure, why is sombeody who is stressing a different aspect of the Bible than you are not a "correct" Christian or wrong, compared to your opinion/interpretation?

And I don't see those sentences as contradictions. Love your neighbor is a command. Nobody comes to the Father except through Jesus is a statement. If you are in Jesus, you must love your neighbor.

I tried to explain the contradiction with regards to salvation of those who haven't heard of Jesus, but love their neighbors nevertheless. If you think the priority is on Jesus statement that he's the only way, then non-believers can't be saved, and loving is less important then prosetylizing.

If you think the priority is on Jesus command to love, then you need to show love yourself first, and not hector everybody else about their sex life, or whether they believe in Jesus or not.

If you think belief is most important, it's enough if a person professes to belief in Jesus, even if his actual behaviour towards other causes harm (e.g. a company boss exploits his workers by paying low wage and no health care and forbidding unions and damages the enviorment; a politican attacks others with words; a governor signs executions instead of granting pardons in questionable cases.)

If you think love is more important, you will stand up and adress the people who harm others to change the system and their own ways.

This is a fascinating thread, it's been a real pleasure to read the well thought out arguments on a subject which I also grapple with. I am an atheist, or at least that is the easiest category to myself into. I beleive, vaguely, in something. That's as far as it goes.

The problem with religion and the various faiths therein is the people. I don't mean a Christian is a problem, I believe that God (or whatever) is something or someone who is so complex it is not for us, at our stage of developement to understand him/her (I will refer to God as him, just to keep things simple) or his methods, or his wishes. Yes, there is the Bible. Written by men for humanity. Liable to mis-interpretation, literal interpretation, lack of vocabulary/understanding. I will believe in the Bible as a piece of beautiful, poetic writing (the bits I hear, anyway, at Christmas) and as historical evidence of how people lived, I can even believe that there was a person called Jesus who may or may not have performed actions that were interpreted as miracles. But that is as far as I will go.

I beleive in something, I believe in a moral code and I will try to live what I (and others) would consider a moral life. I will not believe that there is a God who is in the least bit interested in what I, as an individual, do. I believe that when I die, I will cease to exist, which is a terrifying thought, one which I cannot begin to imagine, but there it is. I do not want to believe in a Hell, I think the foundation of Hell is to give everyone a moral code, like "Don't do that, or even if no one stops you, you will get punished when you die". But even if everyone lived by my creed, there would still be arguments since what I consider a moral life and what others consider a moral life would be completely different.

Two things to consider :

1. The Catholic church (correct me if I'm wrong) preaches against contraception. So that's condoms out the window, and STDs/AIDS/unwanted pregnancy in the door. Brought about by religion. Is this not an evil act?

2. The Passover. God told the Hebrews to mark the lintels of their doors with the blood of a lamb. Why? Even a complete stranger walking through town would have been able to tell the diference between the Egyptians and the poor, oppressed slaves, and if God knows each and every person, why would he need the blood of a lamb to tell him, "Stop, there are believers in here?". At best, it smacks of blood sacrifice and at worst, implies that God is fallible.

Just a couple of things that are bothering me at the moment, not mean to be argumentative, just open for musing on.

Oh, one last thing. Suffering may be meant for people to grow, to develope. Using the analogy of a father pulling a splinter out of a child, implies that the child is unable to do so. If the father refused, might the child then learn how to take the splinter out himself? Wizard's second rule : "the greatest harm comes from the best intentions". Which isn't to say that we should now leave all our children to suffer untold agonies from septic splinters, just that it might be an explantion as to why God does not banish evil, stop all suffering etc.

Hello, LadyBlack, and welcome. Are you new here, that you came here one morning, one lonely monday morning... (Okay, it's early afternoon over here for me, but who pays attention to details on a nitpicker's board? )

2. The Passover. God told the Hebrews to mark the lintels of their doors with the blood of a lamb. Why? Even a complete stranger walking through town would have been able to tell the diference between the Egyptians and the poor, oppressed slaves, and if God knows each and every person, why would he need the blood of a lamb to tell him, "Stop, there are believers in here?". At best, it smacks of blood sacrifice and at worst, implies that God is fallible.

I would have to ask somebody who studied theology, but my first guess is that, like Isaac's story later, this is a mythological story that marks a transition of some kind.

I do know that normal theologicans believe that the story when God asks Abraham to sacrificie Isaac to test his faith and obedience is really the story of why the Israelites don't sacrifice people, but animals instead.

In early development of religion, as observed in many cultures (religious belief develop in several stages again and again, but take different directions. Like many regions have national dresses, but each looks different), only humans could be sacrificed to the God(s), because a human life was the most valuable thing that could be given. But the Isaac story dramatically points out the problem with that: the person that God wants (usually determined by casting lots*) may be the only child, on which the whole future rests ("Your descendants will be as plentiful as the stars in heaven", but Abraham and Sarah were already too old for another son if Isaac were killed). Not only is it hard for a parent to see his beloved child killed, it's also bad for the future. So the story tells why God is content with animal sacrifice.

*The Koran has a nice story on how this works, apparently: when Mohammed preached among the Arabs, the Thar - blood revenge - still was common. The blood "cried out" for revenge, and the only possible solution was taking another life from the opposite tribe. This is of course, self-perpretrating. Mohammed wanted to know the blood price - the money that could be paid instead, to stop the bloodshed. In order to do so, his nephew was put on one side, and 10 female camels, white and of good breed, on the other side, and the lot was cast. The lot fell on the boy. But this didn't mean that Allah wanted the boy to be killed - it meant to add another 10 female camels, because the price was too low! They repeated this until they got to 110 camels, when the lot finally fell on the camels, and thus the price for a human life was determined.

Today, we would consider this cheating, but Mohammed got his point across that killing somebody else only leads to new problems, and accepting money in compensation works, too.

The OT "Eye for an Eye" comes from a similar background: in early society, the only punishment for breaking laws - which were given by God, and were always crimes against society itself, not against a specific person - was taking the offenders life, preferrably by stoning, so that the whole community, but not one individual, would be guilty of the killing. The OT introduced a graded system: if somebody knocked out your eye, you couldn't escalate and demand two eyes, you only had the right to demand one eye. Or even better, the price for the doctor and compensation for the pain, which was so-and-so much silver pieces.
If you stole something or lied, and thus sinned against community and God, it was not always necessary to stone you, but lesser punishments were also possible.

So among the contemporary societies, and from the jewish society, the OT shows how moral laws evolved over time, adapting to higher civilsation.

Using the analogy of a father pulling a splinter out of a child, implies that the child is unable to do so. If the father refused, might the child then learn how to take the splinter out himself? Wizard's second rule : "the greatest harm comes from the best intentions". Which isn't to say that we should now leave all our children to suffer untold agonies from septic splinters, just that it might be an explantion as to why God does not banish evil, stop all suffering etc.

Though the usual explanation is the free will. If you constantly interfere with two children fighting each other - maybe by putting them in seperate rooms - they will be peaceful, but they haven'T learned how to deal with the problem itself, you just have imposed your will over theirs.

Hello Constanze

No, I'm not new, I usually wander around the sci-fi threads though, but I was caught by the "Convert me please" tag line, and then arrested by the discussions. But thanks for the welcome anyway!

Does God not impose his will? I hold the opinion that we can't know his will as yet, but in terms of religion, in the sense that we are supposed to pray, to live a good life or else, is this not obeying God? To me, standardised prayer and the church is a kind of ritual that may become....outdated as time goes on, but it will be faith that will remain. Almost like church gets in the way of hearing God, that each of us should find our own way to communicate with him and to resolve our ideas about whether we are sinning against him or not. Is this not free will in its ultimate form? I'm struggling with the fact that he seems to ask us to obey him in some things and then say, "No, you don't have to obey because you have free will. But if you don't obey, I will punish you".

In essence, we would develope into beings on the same level as God, and then we would not need him. Then, I can believe that he would be interested in me. "In action, how like a god".

The point about the lamb (and I've been confusing, I know) was that why did God need any kind of symbol at all, to be able to tell the difference between the slaves and the Egyptians? Or are you saying that he was giving them a reasonable excuse to slaughter the lamb to see if they would obey him? Like Isaac and his son, except, as you say, it WAS a lamb, therefore they shouldn't have had a problem with killing it? Or perhaps a kind of pact...see, we're back to bargains made in blood again, and I'm uncomfortable with that because we may as well go back to the Greeks and their love of sacrificing animals to their gods.

I'll leave it there, and go think some more....

Remember, LadyBlack, Hakadosh Baruch Hu did not do the Slaying of the Firstborn by himself, but sent the Angel of Death, in his stead. The Angel is not perfect, and could make mistakes.

I'm struggling with the fact that he seems to ask us to obey him in some things and then say, "No, you don't have to obey because you have free will. But if you don't obey, I will punish you".

Well, some people believe that bad things are indeed a punishment from God, as children believe their parents punish them by house-arrest or spanking.

However, there's also the view that evil in this world is just the consequences of our actions, not as punishment, but as kind of action=reaction thing. Not that we can necessarily see how much our own actions or inactions influence things, because we usually don't know what influence we have on people we meet, who in turn react to other people, and these to others.... or react to people that treated them one week, ten years ago...

In fictional stories, as omniscient author, you can show what happens as consquence of being unkind, of not standing up to evil, of giving a helping hand, speaking an open word and all the other things we do and don't do. But in everyday life, you don't know.

If you like, you can also think of string-puppet with its strings cut, walking off on its own. There are still some areas a puppet should not walk, because they are dangerous - fires, for example, but that's not punishment, that's a natural consequence of the action. It's not the same as forcing the puppet to perform every move because God is pulling the strings.

And free will means we can't blame God or the demons/angels for making bad choices. A 10 year old who makes mistakes can say that he doesn't have enough experiences. A 15 year old can say that he had trouble with his parents/school/was beaten/was traumatized/had a bad neighborhood... any excuse. But a 25 year old, you expect to take responsibility for his own life and not blame on what happened previously. If something went wrong in his childhood and he's a jerk because of that, an adult person who recognizes that is capable of trying his personal best to change himself into a better person, instead of staying a jerk. And a 25 or 30 year old who has never looked at himself and noticed if he's a jerk isn't very much grown up, I think (there are too many people running around blaming their parents and/or thinking they are wonderful despite being jerks.)

The point about the lamb (and I've been confusing, I know) was that why did God need any kind of symbol at all, to be able to tell the difference between the slaves and the Egyptians? Or are you saying that he was giving them a reasonable excuse to slaughter the lamb to see if they would obey him? Like Isaac and his son, except, as you say, it WAS a lamb, therefore they shouldn't have had a problem with killing it? Or perhaps a kind of pact...see, we're back to bargains made in blood again, and I'm uncomfortable with that because we may as well go back to the Greeks and their love of sacrificing animals to their gods.

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't expressing myself clearly, either. I don't think the reason for the lamb's blood was that God wouldn't know the Jews otherwise - though if I remember correctly, he says that he will send his Angel of Death down to do the deed, and maybe that Angel is only following orders like a robot, not going by a namelist.

But I think the real reason is some deeper meaning. That's why I compared it to the Isaac story, which sounds strange for God'S behaviour on the surface, but makes sense once you look at its purpose of teaching a transition.

As I said, I would have to ask somebody - I didn't study theology - for the deeper meaning. My guess at the moment is that by spilling the lamb's blood, the Israels kind of bought themselves free. Later in the desert, they had the lamb that took all the sins of the tribe upon it and was killed. And this was continued with Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice stand-in for all humanity. One life as pay for another life, so to speak.

Or perhaps a kind of pact...see, we're back to bargains made in blood again, and I'm uncomfortable with that because we may as well go back to the Greeks and their love of sacrificing animals to their gods.

It wasn't a special love - it was just better than sacrificing people to the Gods.

In the Illias, there's the part where Menelaos angers Artemis by hunting her deer, so she sends no wind to the ships, and the priests figure out she want his daughter Iphigenie to repay the sin, and then she'll send wind again. The immediate reaction of the Greeks is "We stopped doing that, that's barbaric, we'll sacrifice bulls instead." But when this doesn't work to bring wind, an argument breaks out. Iphigenie hides in the tent of some of the nobler Greek heroes who vow to protect her with their own life, but when she sees that the common rabble gets ready to storm the tent, and that friends would fight against friends, killing all the heroes, she steps out and volunteers to die. At the last moment - similar to Isaac - Artemis removes Iphigine to her temple on Taurus and replaces her with a deer.

Other cultures didn't use animals: The Aztecs (I think?) believed that every night, the sun died and went into the underworld, and battled there so it could rise again, and in order to win the battle, human blood was necessary, so hearts were ripped out and offered to make sure that the sun would rise. Yes, from today that's cruel, but like every religion, it's a form of trying to influence a cruel, baffling, mysterious enviroment so you and your people can survive.
Today, we have science that tells us that the Sun will "rise" for the next 5 billion years, but some thousand years ago, people didn't know that.

In ancient Britian (and probably elsewhere), a young boy was chosen as "Corn King" every 7 years. He feasted for a few weeks, and then was killed in a ritual way on a certain date to ensure fertility of the land and the crops.
Today, we know about how to use fertiliser (and even then, crop yields can still be influenced by weather and the ground and many other things), but back then, the people needed to be sure, because one bad harvest would've been devastating.

There's also an interesting report here about why the Jews later stopped even the animal sacrifice.

The Moslems have also adapted the practice - the lamb that is slaughtered at the end of Rammadan is meant not for one person, but for a whole family or extended circle, and the meat is to be shared with the poor. If there aren't enough people around, you are commanded to invite some over.

Of course, one of the practical aspects of animal sacrifices was to feed the priests - not all of the animals were burnt every time, only some parts.
Later, rural pastors had small gardens belonging to the local church so they could live on that.

ScottN,

Doh for me that you used one sentence while I remember that after several paragraphs... thanks.

What exactly does Hakadosh Baruch Hu translate to? I've only heard the "usual" names- Tetragramm, Adonai.

Here's a quote from the report above:

Biblical historian Richard Friedman says, "Modern readers often think that sacrifice is the unnecessary taking of animal life, or that the person offering the sacrifice was giving up something to compensate for some sin or to win God's favor. But in the biblical world, the most common type of sacrifice was for meals. The apparent rationale was that if people wanted to eat meat, they must recognize that they were taking life. They could not regard this as an ordinary act of daily secular life. It was a sacred act, to be performance in a prescribed manner, by an appointed person (a priest), at an altar."

Similar to saying grace/thanks that a meal isn't something granted automatically.

constanze, literally translated, "The Holy One, Blessed be He". It's a way to avoid writing His name.

Here's a NitC discussion on writing His name.

Regarding tongues, but in the NT, the person speaking tongues could be understood by the person they were speaking to. It had a point. It wasn't just words that nobody could understand. I guess it was harsh to say "gibberish," but it just doesn't seem to connect to how the Bible portrays tongues.

I went to a church that did the tongues thing a long time ago when i was shopping around. I thought the person was having a seizure or somethign as they where flailing around on the floor and making all kinds of wierd grunting and nonsense noises. When I saw that people where excited and happy about it and not rendering first aid I got up and left right then and there.

Oh and greetings LadyBlack as well. Interesting ideas. Any thoughts on anything else?

I think the "toungs" are belived to be Angelic in nature.

BlackLady: Catholic (well, Christian for that matter) teachings on sex also condemn fornication and preaches that all humans are called to chasity. One cannot get STDs from following Catholic Sexual teachings. If the Church is not teaching this message clearly and prominantly, then it is the Church's fault. If humans choose to ignore the church's teachings on sex, they do so at their own risk. Theologically speaking, most teenagers are both above the age of innocence and have been confirmed, so their faith and actions are in their own hands. The problem is not the church, the problem is a society that holds gradification of lustful and material (No normal society makes kids wait through four years of college to get married or until "my career is established") desires without regard to the consquences as the greatest good.

So the angels in heaven speak in gibber? No wonder no one can understand god.

So you think people should just get diseases and die if they dont bow down and kowtow to the church and keep it in their pants? Whatever they get is their own fault and their own problem because someone who is spiritual, has religion and plays by the religious rules is more worthy than someone who doesnt. How's your purity of essence?

The problem is not the church, the problem is a society that holds gradification of lustful and material (No normal society makes kids wait through four years of college to get married or until "my career is established")

So you are in favour of marrying kids as soon as they have their firmung - at age 11? This was done in the Middle Ages, and some cultures still do it, but civilised societies consider that people should be 18 to be adults. The sexual drive and desires start earlier, however, and according to Church teachings, kids are adult with the firmung.

Catholic (well, Christian for that matter) teachings on sex also condemn fornication and preaches that all humans are called to chasity. One cannot get STDs from following Catholic Sexual teachings.

Which means that sex is only allowed for two reasons - and only in the marriage - : to make children (which reduces the women to birthing machines); or if the husband is burning with desire and about to commit a great sin by adultering, the wife is allowed to have sex, which is only a minor sin.

If one of the partners is unable to procreate, the Catholic Church does not allow marriage! E.g., in the middle of the 90s, a man in a wheelchair in Brasil wanted to marry his nurse. He could still have had sex (necessary to consumate the marriage and make it valid), but they couldn't have produced kids. This would have meant the sex would have been "only" for fun = lust, as the Church calls it, which isn't allowed under current teaching, so the man didn't get permission from Rome to marry.

Once a couple has reached the desired size of family, or the woman is in menopause, the Catholic Church wants them to stop having sex and life together chaste like brother and sister.

And, even if children result from it, sex is always "Dirty", and a lesser sin. If you happen to feel good during it, that'S not pleasure, but lust, and a bigger sin.

I think that's very repressed towards sexuality and the human body, and degrading towards human people, where sex is more then two animals going into heat to make children, but a part of expressing love and affection in a good relationship.

Regarding tongues, but in the NT, the person speaking tongues could be understood by the person they were speaking to. It had a point. It wasn't just words that nobody could understand. I guess it was harsh to say "gibberish," but it just doesn't seem to connect to how the Bible portrays tongues.

I was going by one Church I met several years ago where the members claimed that tongues were the only reliable sign of having the spirit and thus being a true christian, but meant "understandable languages" not gibberish. Speaking a real foreign language without studying it before would be quite an accomplishment, while speaking gibberish is rather close to mental health problems.

"If you like, you can also think of string-puppet with its strings cut, walking off on its own. There are still some areas a puppet should not walk, because they are dangerous - fires, for example, but that's not punishment, that's a natural consequence of the action. It's not the same as forcing the puppet to perform every move because God is pulling the strings."

Well, I was thinking in particular of when people die, they are supposed to go to Hell, even if they have lived a good and virtuous life. It was mentioned earlier int his thread that if people are not Christians, they can't go to Heaven - which I coudl deal with, in the sense that if you don't believe in it, you don't go there, but then they go on to say, "Ah, but you are going to Hell". I remember that bit from "The Mists of Avalon" where Uther Pendragon is found by Irvaine weeping over the fact that that his king has died. He says how incredibly kind this man was, how like a father he was to Uther, and Uther had had to leave the funeral because the Priests were saying that his king was now burning in Hell. As a sales pitch, it ain't doing so good!

I guess we should all be greatful for the fact that we don't sacrifice in that same way to the church! As an unbeliever, I wonder if I would be in more danger or less danger of being the first 'goat'.

Ah, when I say 'love', I mean that the Greeks kind of sacrificed animals at the drop of a hat. I mean, I know some of the books I read are only based on historical fact, and the authors weren't actually there, but there are enough of accounts written back then to know that sacrifice was an important part of those people's lives. For example, in "Fire from heaven", Agamemnon promises 12 horses to Posieden in return for helping the Greeks breach Troy, and when Odyseus is caught stealing them from the Trojans (because the horses were starting to become like gold during the war), Priam's ransom is 12 horses from the Greeks, which are then sacrificed. 12! But yes, I see that they were indeed doing what they could to make things go in their favour.

Hello R, what would you like to discuss?

Hello Matt, so the Catholic church desires that we should not have children? I'm now confused! The particular example I was thinking of was soemone in a Catholic marriage, not allowed to use contreception, but subject to her husband's desires. She now has several kids, that she can't cope with because the husband has decided he can't be bothered to help look after them. Or be in the same home as them. Just want to make that clear, because I still argue that lack of contraception leads to unwanted pregnancy. It wasn't her choice, necessarily, to have more children. And how about countries where AIDs is rife? Should only the healthy marry? I guess there the Church would argue for Chastity, I'm just not sure that that would work.

Ahah, thank you ScottN, nice summary!

Right, I must go. I don't think I've given this enough thought, but I must go do some work! I'll be back...

Well there's been quite a few points raised on this board so take your pick as to what to discus. Dealer's choice...

And I'll agree that the attitudes toward sex and sexuality that the church has is unhealthy from a psychological perspective leading to the molesting priests and other psychological issues with the priests. Not to mention it is like constanze said insulting, degrading and repressive towards women by reducing their choices to lie down and take it (but not enjoy it and make sure they pop out a kid) or become a nun.

anonbookreader: Martin Luther King and Gahndi both taught pacifism. Are they responable for every one of their followers who were killed?

So, if people refuse to use condoms or decide to have random sex partners, is the CDC responable for them getting AIDS?

Last week, I had an irregular sleep schedule, forgot to take my vitamins, and went into high density public places. I caught a cold. Is the Campus Health Center responable because I didn't take their advice?

Your health is in your own hands, if you choose not live to live in a beneficial manner, you suffer the consquences, and that has no moral judgement attached. It's a fact.

Of course, it should be noted that tending to the sick is a corporal act of mercy, and that many churches run care centers for AIDS victims, but I doubt that will mean much to you.

Constanze: I belive our Creator intended Men and Women to have sex and bear childern in their late teens. I also belive that our Creator commands people to only have sex when married. But then again, I've come to the conclusion that much about college is unnatural.

And what exactly is the "firmung?" Puberty? Adolescense?

The Catholic Church (I again, I must note I am not Catholic, but versed in their Theology) would argue that Children are a gift from God, and not a random biological process. It would also argue that lust must not be allowed to overshadow marital love. Of course, that's besides the point, as my point is that unmarried people who do not have sex do not get AIDS, and that premartital sex is okay as long as you don't use a condom, is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Lady Black: Hello,
The Catholic Church would argue that with the help of God, no burden is too large, nor is any child unwantted. If the church possesed the resources, it would probably assist the women, and the husband should be ostricised until he fufils his duties.

Chasity is not unreasonable. Chasity is one of the restraints that society is built on. The Secular world promotes safe sex right? That includes limiting sex only to people whom you know the sexual history of, and who have been tested for HIV, who are willing to use protection, and whom you have been in a monogamous relationship with. That too is also a restraint upon sex. Why is that reasonable but chasity unreasonable?

Well I for one am not saying that chastity is unreasonable, but it should and must remain a personal choice. If a person chooses to have sexual relations then they shoul dbe given the facts and opportunities and all the available options instead of the narrow minded uptight prudish view that sex is only for procreation and is a sin and all that other BS.

Chasity is do-able.

I'm 42 and still a virgin.

(Just my 2 cents)

Matt,

And what exactly is the "firmung?" Puberty? Adolescense?

No, I was thinking of the two rites the Catholic Church has: First communion, at the age of around 9 years, and what we call "Firmung" (confirmation of Faith) around 11 years. After that, the Catholic Church considers them Adults.
(The protestants have one act of confirmation of faith - Konfirmation - at age 14, where children are asked to confirm their baptising, and that they want to be Christians. After that, they are considered adults in religous matters, which fits nicely with the German laws that at age 14, children can decide about what religion they want to have or not to have.)

So, if people refuse to use condoms or decide to have random sex partners, is the CDC responable for them getting AIDS?

What is the CDC? And why should it be responsible?

The Catholic Church explicitly forbids any method of contraception, so I'm holding them responsible for the results, because they ignore that not everybody is a saint (see that part in Paul's letter, where he specifically refers to those who can, and those who can't.) Most normal people can't live their lives without sex. That's why they marry in the first place, instead of taking vows of chastity, after all. But if pregnancy threatens every time you want to have "marital love"...

Your health is in your own hands, if you choose not live to live in a beneficial manner, you suffer the consquences, and that has no moral judgement attached. It's a fact.

But the benefical method is NOT to avoid sex or suffer pregnancy. The benefical method is to use responsible family planning, and not have children if you can't do them justice. The responsible method is also (as has been pointed out) when one spouse is infected with AIDS or STD to take precautions, instead of demanding impossible chasitity, because otherwise, the other spouse and, in case of the mother, the pregnang baby, will also be infected.

anonbookreader: Martin Luther King and Gahndi both taught pacifism. Are they responable for every one of their followers who were killed?

I'm getting lost here. To whom are you responding, and with which argument?

I belive our Creator intended Men and Women to have sex and bear childern in their late teens.

You mean, age 16 and above? So why did the Creator give children the sexual urge much earlier? Why does puberty start between 11 and 13 (it's not finished later, yes)? Why, in fact, give them an around-the-year sexual urge at all, when animals only go in heat a few times a year for reproduction? Maybe because sex in humans is for more than simply making babies?

But then again, I've come to the conclusion that much about college is unnatural.

Well, I don't know your colleges. Maybe you think teaching Theology and Bible science and making people think for themselves is also unnatural, since the Creator wanted them on their knees and worshipping only all the time?

The Catholic Church would argue that Children are a gift from God, and not a random biological process.

Apparently, they're still stuck in the Middle Ages. Science will tell you different. One sperm plus one egg equal fertilisation. Why does God give children as a gift to girls who were raped? Raped by their own fathers? To women who will die when they get pregnant because of other diseases? To women who have been infected with AIDS by their husbands, and now will pass it onto the baby?

It would also argue that lust must not be allowed to overshadow marital love.

You seem to have some very strange defiinitions of lust and love. So love isn't overshadowed if the woman is constantly thinking "I hope I don't get pregnant, because I can't cope with the children I already have." So it's love if the women shan't feel anything pleasant, and the men either, if he can manage that. Because any pleasure during sex is "lust", according to the Catholics.
The same goes for petting and stroking and snuggling - all lust, not love.

Of course, that's besides the point, as my point is that unmarried people who do not have sex do not get AIDS,...

Wow. You must have missed all scientific information on AIDS in the last two decades. There are several other ways besides sex to get AIDS. And the virus doesn't check to see if the couple having sex is already married, and then stops.

and that premartital sex is okay as long as you don't use a condom, is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Yes, you're far off base there. So wait, premarital sex is okay, but using a condom is not, according to your moral??? Or do you mean Premarital sex without penetration is okay - which would normally require a condom - so petting, coitus interruptus and oral sex are allowed? You're confusing me here.

Of course, it should be noted that tending to the sick is a corporal act of mercy, and that many churches run care centers for AIDS victims, but I doubt that will mean much to you.

Tending to those who already have AIDS is the least I would expect of a truely christian Church. But it doesn't amount to real caring for your neighbor if the principles (The condom is always sinful) are held higher then the prevention of suffering (protecting those that aren't infected yet).

The Catholic Church would argue that with the help of God, no burden is too large, nor is any child unwantted. If the church possesed the resources, it would probably assist the women, and the husband should be ostricised until he fufils his duties.

One loud laugh. Do you know how many resources the Catholic Church has? Yes, with the help of God you give people unnecessary burdens. After all, the people who decide these questions are old, unmarried men who never had to cope with the daily troubles of a marriage or raised children. So they clearly know what they're talking about when they decide what's love, and lust, and what burden is not too big too carry.

Chasity is not unreasonable. Chasity is one of the restraints that society is built on.

What? Are you serious? If everybody were chaste, there is no society in two generations. No real society is built on chastity, in history or present. Monks and nuns take the vow voluntarily, and as the sad examples of the Priests show, many can't cope for their whole life.

The Secular world promotes safe sex right? That includes limiting sex only to people whom you know the sexual history of, and who have been tested for HIV, who are willing to use protection, and whom you have been in a monogamous relationship with. That too is also a restraint upon sex. Why is that reasonable but chasity unreasonable?

Do you truly not see the difference between restraining a bit and stopping at all forever? Again, I compare it to food. It's one thing to stop eating ice-cream for two weeks, but another thing to never eat it again in your life. That's what chastity means.
And if you're talking about love: for normal persons (not the one-night-stands who have problems, too) sex grows naturally from a monogamous relationship. You gt to know another person, you snuggle up, you embrace, petting develops, and sooner or later, you discover the wonderful feelings of sex. Putting on a rubber because you can't afford children at the moment is not the same as saying "Get away from me, we are chaste" every time your wife comes snuggling up.

LadyBlack,

Well, I was thinking in particular of when people die, they are supposed to go to Hell, even if they have lived a good and virtuous life. It was mentioned earlier int his thread that if people are not Christians, they can't go to Heaven - which I coudl deal with, in the sense that if you don't believe in it, you don't go there, but then they go on to say, "Ah, but you are going to Hell"...

That is one interpretation, but not the only one. Modern Theologicans interpret Hell no longer as a place of burning flames, but simply as being away from God, which makes much more sense. It's not a punishment, but your decision: you don't want to be together with one person, you don't have to.

...As a sales pitch, it ain't doing so good!

Many people are scared into Heaven because they are afraid to burn in Hell, and then go on to pester their loved ones so they will all be together in Heaven. (I did when I was 17 after visiting a fundie Church in the US. My family and friends found my preaching when I came back quite bothersome, but here, everything is more calm, so I came to my senses again.)

For example, in "Fire from heaven", Agamemnon promises 12 horses to Posieden in return for helping the Greeks breach Troy, and when Odyseus is caught stealing them from the Trojans (because the horses were starting to become like gold during the war), Priam's ransom is 12 horses from the Greeks, which are then sacrificed. 12! ...

I don't know "Fire from Heaven", but several times in the Illias and Odyssee, they promise to offer a "Hekatombe" = a hundred bulls. That's quite a lot.

John,

Chasity is do-able.

I'm 42 and still a virgin.

(Just my 2 cents)

You mean you've never met a nice girl you liked, or you were never able to convince a girl to like you? I mean, have you been tempted? (You don't need to answer if you think that's too personal, I just wonder.)

Besides, the argument isn't whether some people can life chastily. It's whether it's a sensible solution for the majority, and the evidence of the past bears out that it doesn't work for most people.

He's saving himself for Marina Sirtis

Ouch John my condolences........

CDC: Center for Disease Control

I've met plenty of pretty girls that I thought I liked, but they never returned the emotion.

They always come up with some lame excuse.
(You lack sufficient education, you don't have enough money for my tastes, etc)

The only girl who THOUGHT she liked me was psychologically & mentally challenged.

Also...she was very unattractive.

I've been tempted plenty of times, but never fallen.

I belive our Creator intended Men and Women to have sex and bear childern in their late teens.

Does that really sound like a good idea to you? People getting married and having kids at 16 when they are still in High School, and can barely make enough to pay for an old junker car while working at the 7eleven.

John A Lang, it's do-able for you but what about the rest of us? Just because you were able to do it doesn't mean that all of us could wait in the fact on temptation or would want to for that matter.

COnstanze: Thanks for the clarification on Confirmation.

The Center for Disease Control is the American Agency responable for telling people about safe sex. If the Catholic church is responsible for people ignoring it's advice, then the CDC must be responable for people ignoring it's advice.

If you teach pacifism, and pacifism gets people killed, is the pacifist responable.

Look, AIDS didn't become an epidemic by dirty needles and blood transfusions. The vast majority of AIDS cases came through unsafe sex.

I said the Catholic church does not teach that pre-martital sex is okay, as long you don't use a condom.

College is unnatural, at least in this country, because Young Adults are expected to spend a large portion of their formative years away from their community. It is my opinion that learning is a lifetime process and you still have much to learn from your parents, for the rest of your life in general, but especially in your late teens.

You are confusing chasity with celerbracy. The former is appropiate sexual activity for one's relationship status (For example, a husband and wife who are having sex are chaste, a unmarried person who is not having sex is chaste. An adulturer is unchaste) The latter is lack of sexual activity, period. Please inform me if your criticisms relating from that difference in terms are still valid.

Brian F: I'm taking a biological and social standpoint. Economically in 2006, yes, it's impossible. Biologically and socially, it makes sense to have kids when 1. you have the most energy, 2, you are most virile and fertile, 3. you have the most living relatives around. It may make economical sense to have kids in your mid 30s, but biologically your body is beginning to wear out and your older relatives are too old to help out and will need care of their own soon. Life is filled with trade-offs.

I would argue that when God was designing the Human race (you know what I mean) he wasn't planning for four years of high school, four years of college, two years of grad school, three years of professional school, 5 years of working et cetra.

The thing is the church and the christian taliban fight and interfere in the message of the CDC. They try to form groups and oppose the access of people to effective means of brith control. So the ignorance and the unavailability of such programs is the fault of religion.

No the pacifist is not responsible the person who does the killing. (probably in the anme of their god, religion is the second biggest reason in the history of the world for war) A pacifist posses no threat and as they do no harm they do not deserve death.

Yes I'll agree that learning is a lifetime experience. However while you can learn alot from your parents you cannot learn everything required to be competitive or capable in a highly technological and scientific world. It might have worked back when high tech was a horse and buggy but with microproccessors and technology prevalent everywhere that kind of ignorance about the world cannot be acceptable. Also by not getting out and broadening your horizens that stifles independent thought, open minds and leads to the very narrow and intolerant superstitions and ignorance the christian taliban likes in their sheep.

Late teens are not as mature or responsible psychologically to be ahving children of their own so that is why they need the help of their family. Males are virile and capable of producing sperm until they die. True not as many or as frequent but they are still capable. And with modern medical advances people are able to live full productive and healthy lifestyles for much longer spans than when the ignorance of the church prevailed over people's medical lives. Now all we have to do is avoid letting the christian taliban setback all the medical progress that has been made.

No when humanity evolved it wasnt with the thought of college or the modern world in mind as evolution is a mindless biological process.

Oh and one thign i forgot to say earlier. John I find it hard to believe that in 30 some years (since you where a teen) that you hadnt found someone you connected with that strongly.

I mena I was told in high school by one of the jocks i was goign to die a virgin because of how little luck i had with females (I got turned down 44 out of 42 tries for the senior prom. Being a sci/comp geek didnt help the old image)

But gettng out into the world and away from the petty immaturaty of high school and getting into college I found several mrs right nows and finally the mrs right who is still with me.

Well good luck and dont give up.

Don't you mean "Ms" right nows?

Or maybe not.

Maybe I shouldn't pursue that.

R, it can depend also on the kind of experience that you had in your early years. If you equate sex with pain, degredation and a feeling of being completely used, believe me, chastity does not come hard. I'm getting close to having 30 years under my belt without having found anyone for that long with whom I feel a strong connection. Oddly enough, as soon as I know someone is 'not' available, I do tend to fall in love with them, but as they are then due to get married/are married/are not attracted to me in any way, I waste my time being obsessed with them.

Constanze - Aha! Your comments on Hell - thank you. That makes much more sense, and goes with the more comforting "If you don't believe you should be in Hell, you won't be". So a place away from God, that would be 'Hell' for a Believer, but not for an aethiest, and satisfies my sense of justice. Kind of 'if I make the commitment, I get the reward'.

Matt - OK, so my example with the husband and wife was mis-leading - I see what you're saying, but the additional problem is that I feel the husband in this case (as Constanze pointed out) used the Catholic belief in order to not use contraception, and the wife was left with the burden. His entire attitude seemed to be that being ostracised wasn't a biggie for him, but it was a bit late by then. His wife is not even particularly religious (I know it can be argued by the church that if she were, then her burden would be easier to bear) but in her trying to accommodate her husband's wishes (through threat of violence, lack of support and because she was brought up to believe that her husband's wishes should be important) she is now on her own with the kids.

R, I'd like to throw a thought into the mix from Terry Goodkind. His philosophy is based on the teachings of Ayn Rand, which can be extremely controversial - I'm not advocating we should follow her teachings, just that she brought up an interesting concept. Say you have a country of pacifists, like in the old days, in things like "Star Trek" and so on. This is the ideal we should all strive for, yes? No more killing, no more war. So this country, having declared that it wishes to live in peace, to devote its time to meditation etc., starts to do so without being a burden on anyone else. Along comes another country and says, "We quite fancy that bit of land" and attempts a take over. Should everyone in the world be expected to fight on behalf of that country, or should we expect them to fight for themselves? If they declare their willingness to lay down their lives for their beliefs, should we stand by and allow them to be conquered, killed or put into...well, slavery (but I'm sure a nice PC word could be found for it...Voluntary Servitude?)?

My instinct says, "Protect them" whilst the rest of me says, "They should fight for their own freedom, their beliefs, yes, even die for them if necessary". But would I do the same thing? If I were told to something at the end of a gun that went against my nature, I don't know that I would. I'm not particularly directing this at you in terms of the subject matter, but as something to discuss.

MikeC Yea :-) I should have said miss or mz or ms or whatever as we where all single consenting adults and the only one I've married is my wife.
And it don't matter a gentleman doesnt give details but will discuss generalities.

LadyBlack. I know what you mean about that. My wife was raped when she was a teenager and it took her some time to begin to enjoy sexual relations. She basically had to learn to trust and relax and open herself again, in more ways than sexual too though. My own personal experiences with relations with the female didnt begome positive or really "responsive" (wink wink nudge nudge, I got told I was a nice friend, i was gay or so many varient of no that i could write a book on it.) until college but they where not really negative either. My family was supportive and caring and didnt make me think sex was bad or nasty or evil but something that people who loved and cared about each other did to help cement and reinforce the relationship. And I am 33 years old lost it at age 21 and have never not been in a relationship in that entire time.

Standing up for your beliefs can be one of the hardest thing to do with your life. I believe that a person should strive to hold their beliefs, and ideals and way of life without imposing those upon another, but should not allow another to impose their beliefs upon themselves. (one of the reason I do not get along well with the christian taliban). That if they truely believe in the path of peace the way many buddist monks do then if they lay their lives down for their beliefs I will honor them, but I would most likely intercede on their behalf in your example against the aggressor. A warrior for peace is still a warrior.

An aggressor nation who invades another just for economic, religious, or territorial gains is the ones who have dishonored themselves and forfiteted the right to be left in peace. This is why situations like current us policy is rather troubling to me.

Invading afghanistan was a good thing for the most part in that it removed the taliban who was evil and oppressive, like most theocracies are, who did support and assist alqueda. Unfortunately it was also a bad thing because the US military cannot be everywhere in the country at the same time and the various local warlords are scrapping with each other to get in charge of the country.

Invading Iraq was not as good because while Saddam did oppresse and kill his people which was evil and bad, he was not a threat to the us or the world as he had no effective military, no international pull, no ties to al queda or terrorist organizations.

Sorry to drag politics into this but to many people their political beliefs and their religious beliefs are too tightly intertwined. Or their politics are their religion....

So personal beliefs can be difficult to reconcile with national or other's beliefs. What a person has to do is find what things they will bend on and which things they cannot. Things which are harmful to self, beloved or humanity as a whole are things I would be less willing to bend upon. But my definition of harm is different than many others.

Take homosexual marriage. I personally do not see it harmful in any way shape or regards. The christian taliban starts foaming at the mouth calling it the worst evil harmful thing and the cause of all sorts of crime and end of the world.

This is one of the problems I have with extremist religious belief. I do not like to fight and do not look for battles but if a battle finds me then i will stand firm and defend myself and those i love. I know this from direct experience. The extremeists look for battles where there are none.

Oh and one other thing I should have mentioned but didnt. I believe that marriage is as special and important and meaningful as you the participants make it. This is why when I was looking for a wife I wanted to make sure that we where as compatible as possible in as many ways as possible including sexually. Sort of a shareware marriage attitude.

I mean that is one reason why some marriages end in divorce they save themselves, they dont know what is goign on or anything about the other person really and when they ahve to live with them they discover they are not even remotely as compatible as they thought when the shine wears off. My wife and I lived for 2 years together as husband and wife before we went and got our papers and will be togther the rest of our lives. paper or not.