Worry!

[NoHall]

Actually, faith and logic are in fact mutually exclusive, as the bulk of Christian Conservatives still defer to biblical teachings in the face of oh say, the science of Human Evolution.

But there is still hope for the religious masses. After all, the church taught that the Earth was the center of the Solar System (even hounding poor Galileo to recant his science) for centuries before reversing their opinion on this subject.

How long will modern Christianity embarrass itself with it?s current stance on science (Evolution) before it reverses it?s opinion?

I give it about another decade or so.

Truth, as most Christians love to claim they have a monopoly on, is surprisingly flexible and ever-changing

Evolution and Biblical teaching are not mutually exclusive, either.

If you harbor any doubts about my stamina on these topics please visit the "Root Cause of Terrorism? thread. I can do this all day and night.

Now back to the topic at hand. What would my reference to messiahs cause you to conclude that I don?t believe they existed? I have no problem with the fact that Jesus or Buddha or Mohamed were real people. I challenge the notion that they are divine.

You claimed that a logical theist is defined by their god, not the other way around. The original challenge to that notion still stands- As no god or deity has ever shown up to define anything, I must conclude that your definition is based not on any god, but on a messiah- an anthropomorphic representative of what you believe to be god.

Big jump there.

YOU say that no deity has shown up to define anything; I say that he did. I don't believe that Christ was an anthropomorphic representative of God; I believe that Jesus is God, and that we were made in his image, which is quite the opposite of anthropomorphism.

 

[seacrestkristi]

Evolution and Biblical teaching are not mutually exclusive, either.
This woman seems so smart. I this interview. It really made me think yesterday. She said it so well in this interview TFT posted on your Madeline L'engle thread,NoHall
Here goes:

Q&A: Madeleine L’Engle on ‘Wrinkle in Time’ Movie
Madeleine L’Engle on God, ‘The Da Vinci Code’ and aging well
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Melinda Henneberger
Newsweek

May 7 - On Monday, ABC will air the first movie version of Madeleine L’Engle’s classic book, “A Wrinkle in Time,’’ which was originally published in 1962 by Farrar, Straus & Giroux. According to the author’s family, the project—in various incarnations—was 25 years in the making. L’Engle is 85 now and has published more than 50 books, including several volumes of reflections on faith. In a rare interview held in the apartment on Manhattan's West End Avenue where she has lived for decades, L’Engle talked to NEWSWEEK’s Melinda Henneberger about her God, her work and her competition.
NEWSWEEK: So you’ve seen the movie?
Madeleine L’Engle: I’ve glimpsed it.
And did it meet expectations?
Oh, yes. I expected it to be bad, and it is.
What are you working on at the moment?
A book about aging: enjoy it, you might as well. And it’s not all bad. I can say what I want, and I don’t get punished for it.
Such as?
Such as I sometimes think God is a s--t—and he wouldn’t be worth it otherwise. He’s much more interesting when he’s a s--t.
So to you, faith is not a comfort?
Good heavens, no. It’s a challenge: I dare you to believe in God. I dare you to think [our existence] wasn’t an accident.
Many people see faith as anti-intellectual.
Then they’re not very bright. It takes a lot of intellect to have faith, which is why so many people only have religiosity.
Have you read the Harry Potter books?
I read one of them. It’s a nice story but there’s nothing underneath it. I don’t want to be bothered with stuff where there’s nothing underneath. Some people say, “Why do you read the Bible?’’ I say, "Because there’s a lot of stuff underneath."
I ask about the Potter books because, like “Wrinkle,” they have Christian themes yet have been criticized by some Christians, for similar reasons.
Well, the Fundalets [fundamentalist Christians] want a closed system, and I want an open system.
What were the specific objections to “Wrinkle?’’
Oh, the Happy Medium, that terrified them. And Mrs. Which, who is not a witch at all but a wise old woman. I felt like I was really “in’’ because people were condemning it right away. But they were Christians, mostly, and that made me very sad.
Because “Wrinkle’’ is a Christian story, isn’t it?
So is "Winnie the Pooh." Is King Arthur a Christian story? Yes … One reason I stay in the Episcopal Church I was born in is it’s got the best language.
You know Andrew Greeley’s argument that a lot of people stay Catholic for the poetry?
If you want the poetry, the Episcopal Church is better. It has the great writers of the 17th century.
You’re such a prolific writer; what’s your routine?
I just write whenever I can, catch as catch can. I get too nasty if I don’t get enough time to write, so I have to take it.
Like a runner denied his runner’s high. So what are you reading these days?
I just read “The Da Vinci Code," which had some fascinating things in it. I liked that whole central section about Christianity when it postulates that Jesus was a very strong character and that he and Mary Magdalene were lovers and had a child.
So you don’t avoid best sellers on principle?
I usually let them hang around for at least six months, and if they’re still there, then I’ll read them. I’m reading a book on mathematics, too. I usually try to read two books at a time, one for fun and one to educate myself. “The Da Vinci Code” is fun.
Did you see there are several books coming out refuting “The Da Vinci Code”?
That’s silly. It takes too much energy to be against something unless it’s really important. Now if you’re against evolution, that’s important.
What are you against?
Narrow-mindedness. I’m against people taking the Bible absolutely literally, rather than letting some of it be real fantasy, like Jonah. You know, the whole story of David is a novel … Faith is best expressed in story.
If the Bible is not literally true, does that mean we don’t need to take it seriously?
Oh no, you do, because it’s truth, not fact, and you have to take truth seriously even when it expands beyond the facts.
So when you call the Bible a book of stories, you’re not diminishing it?
Anything but. Right from the beginning, from the story of Eve. Eve has gone on to be considered far worse than she is in the direct Bible story—and David far better. I love the story of Jonah; I think it’s very funny. And I like the story of Esther, as long as you stop about a quarter of the way through, before she turns into a real bloody girl.
I always felt sorry for Vashti, though—the first Mrs. Ahasuerus. All she did was refuse to dance.
Yes, she gets forgotten. But that was a very big thing she did, refuse to dance. Enormous.
A couple of the characters in “Wrinkle," have what you call a “compulsion’’ to do something, for reasons they can’t explain. Do you think we’re all a little psychic in that way?
Oh, yes. Society has taught us to repress it, but it’s there.
“Wrinkle’’ was rejected repeatedly before it was published. Were you confident then you’d have a breakthrough?
No, there was a period when I thought I never would. But I kept on writing because that’s what I had to do. I was compelled not to stop.
? 2006 Newsweek, Inc.

YOU say that no deity has shown up to define anything; I say that he did.

 

[Bob]

Logically you have faith? How many scientists were stoned or burned at Christian stakes trying to advance the scientific method? Why would Christianity be threatened by a greater understanding of our world? Why at this late date do courts struggle over Christians trying to force Creationism in public schools? How can you get around the evidence that man has created hundreds of ideas about the version of his/hers God. Where is the logic of I am the Way, the only true God. All the others over there are faked Gods. Logically, this sets up the scenario of hate and war over differences in beliefs. It's the history of man's world. Is it not ironic and illogical that most killing occurs over ethnic/religious differences. If the devil is the purveyor of evil, then are the abundance of religions the devil's work? Or man's work? How can you have faith in a system of beliefs that clashes with logic and reasoning. Could there be a reason for institutionalizing faith? Is power and money involved? What happens when you have a large organization that rules it's constituency through conformity and fear. Is this not the very definition of a cult?. Is not the only difference between a cult and religion the issue of mass acceptance? Do you call it blasphemy when someone criticizes your religion? Is not repetitive institutionalized worship stereotypical behavior? Whatever your opinion, it's OK to disagree as compromise is the strength of our country, but cause for damnation in the Bible. Compromise is a trait you cannot find in a theocracy. Does that worry you? Should my understanding of the world be as static as a 2000 year old book? Or should I have faith? What are we selling today? Everlasting salvation from death and eternal life. This stuff sells itself without a hint of logic!

 

[InletBchDweller]

Start gathering up the snake oil! CoCo's we need to be saved...(from ourselves and too much funn!).

The porch just might be finished by then....we can have the first annual revival here.

JUMBOS + DARGARITAS = NO WORRIES!!!!

 

[GIjo]

Are you sure about that?

I like this one:

:rofl: :rofl:

 

[NoHall]

Logically you have faith?
Yes, and so did Einstein. Would you say that he was irrational?

How many scientists were stoned or burned at Christian stakes trying to advance the scientific method?
No idea. I haven't burned a single one today. I also haven't killed any abortion doctors.

Why would Christianity be threatened by a greater understanding of our world?
I have never said (or even implied) that it would, at least in theory. How would an omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent/omnibenevolent being be threatened by knowledge? Of course, there are as many ignorant Christians as there are ignorant non-Christians, I'm sure, and they would certainly be threatened.

Why at this late date do courts struggle over Christians trying to force Creationism in public schools?
Becaue the term "creationism" covers a BROAD range of thought. Some creationists believe that the world is flat, and others believe in the big bang and a conservative view of evolution. Evolution is also pretty broad. I believe that species evolve, but not that humans evolved from chimps.

How can you get around the evidence that man has created hundreds of ideas about the version of his/her God?
I never tried to get around it, and I think that "hundreds" is conservative. I think there are as many versions of God as there are individuals.

Where is the logic of I am the Way, the only true God.
The same as the logic of Elizabeth II saying "I am the Queen." You don't accept the authority of Jesus saying that he was God, which is completely your choice. I happen to accept it. On an editorial note, I'm gonna quote one of my favorite authors, Frederich Buechner:
"He didn't say that any particular ethic, doctrine, or religion was the way, the truth, and the life. He said that he was. He didn't say that it was by believing or doing anything in particular that you could 'come to the Father.' He said that it was only by him--by living, participating in, being caught up by, the way of life that he embodied, that was his way.
Thus it is possible to be on Christ's way and with his mark upon you without having heard of Christ, and for that reason to be on your way to God though maybe you don't even believe in God."

All the others over there are faked Gods.
This wasn't something you got from me, so I can't address it.

Logically, this sets up the scenario of hate and war over differences in beliefs. It's the history of man's world. Is it not ironic and illogical that most killing occurs over ethnic/religious differences.
Ironic? Yes. But we would kill each other over politics or property lines or something else if it weren't for religious wars. (For the record, I cringe at anyone who does ANYTHING in the name of God. If I do something stupid, then I have to accept the consequences. Blaming God doesn't absolve me of that.)

If the devil is the purveyor of evil, then are the abundance of religions the devil's work? Or man's work?
Both. And I'll grant you that when we get into the problem of evil, it's a knotty business that I don't really understand.

How can you have faith in a system of beliefs that clashes with logic and reasoning?
I don't believe that they clash, and, if it matters, I went to great lengths in college to question every single thing that I grew up taking "by faith." I have no respect for "religious" people who answer a question with, "You just have to take that on faith." I believe that we were created in the image of a God who wants us to love him with all our minds, and I have yet to find an epistemological issue that has threatened my intellect. (Of course, you obviously think I don't have much intellect to threaten!)

Could there be a reason for institutionalizing faith?
HELL no. There is nothing--NOTHING!--Biblical about that. One of the reasons that the Jewish leadership was so bent on killing Jesus is that they believed that the Messiah was supposed to come in and kick the Romans' @$$. Instead he told them to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. My understanding is that our government is supposed to allow us freedom of religion, not endorse one over the other. (This is why I think they need to butt out of marriages altogether.)

Is power and money involved?
Of course. People are involved. You're asking a lot of generalized questions, and I have to answer that one personally. I'm a Calvinist (I might as well just draw a big red target on my chest, right?) and I believe in the total depravity of man. Power and money and everything else that is selfish and corrupt is going to sneak into everything we do. The church is portrayed as a hotel for saints, but it's just a shelter for sinners.

What happens when you have a large organization that rules it's constituency through conformity and fear. Is this not the very definition of a cult?
Not strictly. There's a laundry list that defines a cult (which includes conformity and fear) and there are also a lot of gray areas.

Is not the only difference between a cult and religion the issue of mass acceptance?
No. We'll look that up at some point, but your list is long and I want to get through it. I promise I'll give you a better answer at some point if it's important to you.

Do you call it blasphemy when someone criticizes your religion?
No. I call it individuality. (But I'll call you an SOB if you criticize me!)

Is not repetitive institutionalized worship stereotypical behavior?
You're gonna have to expand that. I'm not sure what you mean.

Whatever your opinion, it's OK to disagree as compromise is the strength of our country, but cause for damnation in the Bible. Compromise is a trait you cannot find in a theocracy. Does that worry you?
No, it does not worry me. There is a difference between compromise in society and internal compromise. The damnation of societal compromise in the Old Testament had a lot to do with survival. The New Testament has a lot to say about being willing to live and let live. Unfortunately, most Christians tend to skip over that part. There is a great deal of compromise in the Old Testament. Jesus' most condemning words were directed toward the religious leaders, and he was often criticized for hanging out with the bad kids.

Should my understanding of the world be as static as a 2000 year old book?
Static? Should my understanding of government be as static as the 200-year old Constitution? Or of the much older Magna Carta, which played into the creations of many good governing systems? That book is about people, and human nature has changed very little since the day Cain killed his brother out of jealousy.

Or should I have faith?
Not if it's blind, and CERTAINLY not if it contradicts the good sense that I believe God gave you.

What are we selling today?
I'm not selling anything, but I'll gladly take donations at the door...

Everlasting salvation from death and eternal life. This stuff sells itself without a hint of logic!
Only if you understand what you're being saved from and into...


Timmy and Bob--I'll gladly swing at anything you pitch. I only ask that you remember two things:

1. I am not an institution. I am an individual. When you say something along the lines of, "You believe it's okay to kill infidels," I have to answer that I haven't killed a single infidel all day long. I haven't had any rallies or started any wars or killed anyone because God told me to. In return, I promise not to blame you personally for all the evil done by non-Christians.
2. I have feelings. Please be gentle with them. I can take a little ribbing, but for financial reasons would prefer to not be martyred until after I've finished my master's degree.

 

[Smiling JOe]

With all this talk of Christianity, I have a question for you theologians. In Exodus 20:4-5 (Ten Commandments), God states,

4 ?You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea. 5 You must not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for any other gods. I lay the sins of the parents upon their children; the entire family is affected?even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me."


So if God is punishing future generations based on the actions of someone who died long ago, how can those future generations ever be "saved?"

On a similar note, verse 4 state that you we must not make idols of any kind. Why then do people buy these fish emblems? Are they and their future generations going to be punished? It does seem that in my experiences, many "Christian" care more about letting others know that they are saved, than they do about learning about God. In my opinion, the physical building of the church is as much an idol as is a cross. Some people may say that they are not idols, but symbols of Jesus. I guess that works in some cases, but according to the literal terms of the Commandments, I have to question it.

Any thoughts on these two questions?

 

[NoHall]

So if God is punishing future generations based on the actions of someone who died long ago, how can those future generations ever be "saved?"

I think it's about consequences, not salvation. A lot of what is in the Old Testament is largely seen as a list of "Don't do this or God's gonna getcha." Most of it is really more like an owner's manual. Change your oil or your block is gonna crack, right? Start sleeping around with everybody else's wife in the neighborhood, and you're gonna end up with a hole in your soul.

My understanding of the sins to the fourth generation is that it's consequences. An abuser was likely an abused child, for instnace. It's a warning that the messes you lay on your children cannot be swept under the rug.


On a similar note, verse 4 state that you we must not make idols of any kind. Why then do people buy these fish emblems? Are they and their future generations going to be punished? It does seem that in my experiences, many "Christians" care more about letting others know that they are saved, than they do about learning about God. In my opinion, the physical building of the church is as much an idol as is a cross. Some people may say that they are not idols, but symbols of Jesus. I guess that works in some cases, but according to the literal terms of the Commandments, I have to question it.

I think you're absolutely right about the car fishes, the idols, and the egos. As for the future generations, children live what they learn, right?


(Am I talking too much?)

 

[Smiling JOe]

(Am I talking too much?)

Not at all and your answers are interesting. Growing up in the Southern Baptists Church, the Sunday School Teachers didn't like me asking questions. I don't think they actually had the answers except for the direct translation of the King James Bible. The preachers always had a way of wiggling around the questions, too, and none of them ever gave challenging thoughts to my own questions, and I had a lot of them. I'll throw some more your way later on. I enjoy discussing religion as long as there is not a literal Bible thumper on the other end.

"Dear Lord, save me from your followers." -- bumper sticker on my friend's mom's car

 

[Uncle Timmy]

YOU say that no deity has shown up to define anything; I say that he did. I don't believe that Christ was an anthropomorphic representative of God; I believe that Jesus is God, and that we were made in his image, which is quite the opposite of anthropomorphism.

Actually, claiming man is made in god?s image is textbook anthropomorphism.

.......................And something I have always found odd. Why would god, a supposedly infinitely powerful being have an totally useless appendix?
Or canine incisors? Teeth that are only found in meat eating animals.

Evidently, god is a carnivore.

For that matter what would a deity need a digestive system for anyways?

Very, very weird -and one of the strangest religious beliefs.


But regardless, look at your response from the perspective of someone who does not believe in a literal interpretation of the bible- your response is completely predicated on biblical teachings -which is completely irrelevant to the person asking the question.

Can you explain how claiming man was made in god?s image isn?t anthropomorphic without referring to the bible?