kallend 2,027 #176 June 16, 2004 QuoteQuote Honest question: What happens if you go into court and have to give sworn testimony on the witness stand, and they place a bible before you, tell you to put your hand on it, raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you GOD? I'd be interested to know what the answer to this is. I served on a jury last year (Murder trial at the Old Bailey) and as an atheist was wondering what would happen when it came to be sworen in. It turns out that in the UK each court as a a copy of each of the major religious texts, and can get copies of almost anything at short notice. Each of these comes with a version of the oath tailored for the particular religion, mainly just changing the name of the book/text and deity. That takes care of the different religions. There is also a version that has no reference to any religion and you don't need to hold onto any book. I was slightly surprised that out of 12 jurors, 10 took the non religous version. Most of the witnesses did the same. Which only goes to show that having an established church and compulsory religious education in the public schools does not lead to a more devout population. The advocates for religion in schools in the USA should take careful note. The best thing that ever happened to religion in the USA was having it disconnected from government.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kerr 0 #177 June 16, 2004 Quote Oath for an atheists is "I do solemnly swear and affirm" as opposed to "I swear, by almighty God". There’s no legal distinction between the two types of evidence. Yeah, that's what I remember. So what does happen in the US? I assumed that there would be something similar? Is that not the case? -- Kerr Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #178 June 16, 2004 Remember that religious education in UK schools is a very multi faith affair. It focuses on comparative religion and includes teaching about all the main religions. It's also worth noting that most UK schools have a very broad religious attendance. Given the colonial imigration we've had here over the past century there are about as many other faiths in the country as their are practicing Christians. I don't think you could say the same about American schools. It's perhaps one reason why religious education is such a non-issue over here. Evolution didn't factor into the equation. It was simply a matter for the biology class as it's not considered to be anything to do with religion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #179 June 16, 2004 QuoteDo you also argue about the law with judges, medicine with physicians, theology with bishops, and call them big headed if they disagree with you? Sure. Every day. I'm married to an OB/GYN Physician. Seriously, though. I think, no matter how smart you are and no matter how much education you've obtained, you're arrogant to think that something doesn't or can't exist just because you can't figure it out or can't prove it under a microscope. You don't know and can't prove where something came from so you assume that it just came from nowhere and by itself. That's not logical to me. I just accept that there are things we don't know yet. That doesn't mean we stop trying to learn. It also means, however, that we don't assume we know and can't be questioned just because we've obtained a PHD from some school. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #180 June 16, 2004 To those that truly believe, no explanation is necessary, to those that can't believe, no explanation is possible. Its otherwise known as faith.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #181 June 16, 2004 QuoteTo those that truly believe, no explanation is necessary, to those that can't believe, no explanation is possible. Its otherwise known as faith. I'm somewhere in the middle. My faith leads me to ultimately believe, however, I also believe very much in the search for knowledge. Otherwise, it's just "blind faith." There's plenty out there to explore and learn concerning our existence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #182 June 16, 2004 My favorite cheese is Feta. It's good with gyros. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #183 June 16, 2004 QuoteMy favorite cheese is Feta. It's good with gyros. Mmmmm.....gyros are good! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mardigrasbob 0 #184 June 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteMy favorite cheese is Feta. It's good with gyros. Mmmmm.....gyros are good! God is not a sandwich Religious writers often speak of the soul’s “hunger” for the divine. This is a figure of speech, of course. The soul isn’t really hungry; it doesn’t want to eat God like a cheeseburger. But if we really do crave God, why don’t we have a word for this craving? Why don’t we use that word to describe our desire for a cheeseburger, instead of doing the opposite? We can do without a unique word for “spiritual hunger,” but we can’t do without one for physical hunger. I find this very interesting. www.godchecker.com/godflash/index.php?news-2003-07-01 -------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #185 June 16, 2004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,997 #186 June 16, 2004 >The Bible isn’t a science book. The story doesn’t present the creation of >the universe in a scientific manner. Agreed. It is a book on morals. It belongs in a class on morality or theology. Trying to put it in a science course is like trying to study differential equations in a theology course. >It is an alternate theory to what is being taught, however. It has its place. Yep. In a theology course. It is no more valid to teach in biology as it is to teach Star Wars in a history course. (Hey, it said "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away . . . .") >Vegetation came next. All this is going on during the initial expansion of" > the infant universe. Other planets and stars were also being formed and > set on their paths. Yep. And if you teach that the earth formed first and life began before any stars were formed, and you teach that as science, you're going to screw kids up. >As for the 7 days issue, I believe this was written to be somewhat > comprehensible to the people of the time. I don’t know how long a day is >for God. Everywhere else in the Bible, a day is a day. You can decide that you want to interpret "day" to mean "billions of years" in just that one place and no other, but again, that's Pajarito's Alternate Interpretation of the Bible(tm) not anything based in what was actually said. >I try not to deviate from the Bible. You do so at every opportunity! You decide on your own which laws to take seriously and which to discard because they are old, inconvenient and meaningless to you. You intentionally misinterpret sections of genesis to conform better to what you choose to believe. (i.e. "it wasn't really a day" "god really didn't create woman out of a rib, that's just a story") And I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. You have every right to take from the Bible that which you think is valid, and reject the rest as old or outdated or whatever. However, that is your personal decision; please allow everyone else the same freedoms you claim for yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,997 #187 June 16, 2004 >But if we really do crave God, why don’t we have a word for this craving? > Why don’t we use that word to describe our desire for a cheeseburger, >instead of doing the opposite? Because if you had a specific word for it, you'd have to define it, and everyone's relationship with god is different. No one definition would work. But we all feel hunger in the same way because we are programmed from birth to feel it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #188 June 16, 2004 Man....you are the "master" of deception and taking things out of context. I'm impressed. I don't believe you're reading everything everything I write. I don't have time right now to respond but I will soon. Also, are you speaking to me in your responses? If so, why do you use my name in the third person? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrunkMonkey 0 #189 June 16, 2004 Roast Rabbit Ingredients: 2 cut up fryers (rabbits cleaned and prepared for cooking) 1 onion (chopped into 1/2 to 1/4 inch pieces) 2 cloves of garlic (peeled & pressed) 6 Tablespoons Olive Oil Salt & Pepper 1 batch of sauce (below) 8-10 carrots (washed and quartered) 10-12 red potatos (new potatos are best) SAUCE 1 can cream of mushroom soup 1 can cream of celery soup 2 soup cans of water 1 soup can of red wine 1 cup sliced (fresh) mushrooms 3 Tablespoons worchestershire sauce 1 Tablespoon table mustard Salt & pepper Directions: Saute onion and garlic in olive oil. Add rabbit and quickly brown lightly. Salt & pepper to taste. Place browned pieces and onions/drippings from pan to a cover casserole dish (I used a roasting pan). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,997 #190 June 16, 2004 >Man....you are the "master" of deception . . . Ha! Do you feel deceived? >I don't believe you're reading everything everything I write. Oh, I am. I'm just not coming to the conclusions you want me to come to. >Also, are you speaking to me in your responses? If so, why do you >use my name in the third person? Same reason I use my name in the third person when I talk about "Bill's Theory of Perceptual Homeostasis.(tm)" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #191 June 16, 2004 What you said: QuoteYep. And if you teach that the earth formed first and life began before any stars were formed, and you teach that as science, you're going to screw kids up. What I actually said: QuoteThe heavens were created first. The Earth was also created in this process (I’m thinking something like “The Big Bang”). Next light and energy were provided as it pertained to Earth (The Sun) and land masses were formed from the ocean as well as a breathable protective atmosphere. Vegetation came next. All this is going on during the initial expansion of the infant universe. Other planets and stars were also being formed and set on their paths. The Earth’s rotation was set in correlation with the Sun and Moon. Water, air, and land animal life were then created. Man and woman were created last in God’s spiritual image. They were given dominion over the Earth. The last day was set aside to be holy and a day of rest. Biblical reference: http://www.carm.org/kjv/Gen/Gen_1.htm What you said: QuoteEverywhere else in the Bible, a day is a day. You can decide that you want to interpret "day" to mean "billions of years" in just that one place and no other, but again, that's Pajarito's Alternate Interpretation of the Bible(tm) not anything based in what was actually said. What I actually said: QuoteAs for the 7 days issue, I believe this was written to be somewhat comprehensible to the people of the time. I don’t know how long a day is for God. I believe that he created time and space as a place for us to exist. Similar to how he also created the protective and breathable atmosphere around the Earth so that life on Earth would be possible. I believe that he can control time just like anything else he created. I think he could have literally created the framework for the universe in 7 days and/or I also think he could have done it over the course of millions of years. There is both figurative and literal language in the Bible. Paul wrote of one day to God being like 1000 years. Of course, the context of that passage has no bearing on creation. I’m just saying that it’s not necessarily as absolute throughout the Bible as you’re trying to make it out to be. I think what I was saying, though, was that I really didn’t know. QuoteYou do so at every opportunity! You decide on your own which laws to take seriously and which to discard because they are old, inconvenient and meaningless to you. You intentionally misinterpret sections of genesis to conform better to what you choose to believe. (i.e. "it wasn't really a day" "god really didn't create woman out of a rib, that's just a story") And I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. You have every right to take from the Bible that which you think is valid, and reject the rest as old or outdated or whatever. However, that is your personal decision; please allow everyone else the same freedoms you claim for yourself. What I actually said concerning Biblical law: QuoteThe commands of the Old Testament are divided generally into moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The moral law (e.g., the 10 commandments) remain in effect and few people would question that. The ceremonial law (sacrificing 2 oxen, etc.) was fulfilled in Jesus' sacrificial death and the New Testament teaches that it is not binding anymore. The civil law (stoning for adultry, etc.) was specifically that of the nation of Israel. That’s not “picking and choosing” which laws to follow or not based on what I prefer. That’s following the instruction of the writers themselves. I don’t “intentionally” misinterpret anything in the Bible. I’m not saying that I don’t make mistakes but I try not to. I don’t think anyone can argue, however, that there is both figurative as well as literal language in the Bible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #192 June 16, 2004 Quote I firmly believe that the most ardent athiest will get on his knees when faced with his own mortality. it is ignorant arrogance to assuming everyone lacks conviction in their belief simply, because you believe differently. I know lots of atheists (many whom have shaken death's hand and said "no thanks not yet") who would/will do no such thing. I also have met several atheists getting shot at in 'foxholes' right now in Iraq, they arent thinking of converting anytime soon.... never underestimate another’s strength or convictions with only the strength of your belief as basis. I'm not about to blow myself up for Allah, but quite a number of Islamic radicals believe God wants just that from them. I somehow doubt they suddenly think of Yahweh when they go....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #193 June 16, 2004 you do realize your religion does a whole lot of illogical supposition to make its creation myths fit into verifiable natural 'laws'? sorry 7 days is 7 days. (oh wait you've got God's footnotes too right? ) other wise why do you only rest one day of the week? Trying to say that "oh this is figurative but this is literal" are nice justifications, but your still propping up your myths with your person beliefs, all with no factual basis whatsoever. A good bit of the catholic church has been devoted to philosophical explanations for all the biblical holes for hundreds of years.. Supposition is a lovely philosophical method but is no substitute for verifiable evidence based on factual observations. Would you jump a parachute built on supposition (from a text with numerous errors and contradictions about the real world), and not on tested, scientifically verified design?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,997 #194 June 16, 2004 "Yep. And if you teach that the earth formed first and life began before any stars were formed, and you teach that as science, you're going to screw kids up." (my quote) --------------------- 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. . . . 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. . . . 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. ---------------------- Now, since Genesis 1:14-16 comes after Genesis 1:1-11, god created the earth first, then created life, then created the stars. So if you are going to teach what's in the bible, you have to teach that god created the earth first, then life, then the stars. Or you can ignore what the bible literally says and teach your interpretation instead. My interpretation is that ALL of that is a story intended to teach morality and has no more scientific validity than wine that literally, actually turns into blood during mass. There is no problem with believing in either interpretation, and both would be fine topics for a theology class. >That’s not “picking and choosing” which laws to follow or not based on what I prefer. You discard entire sections of the bible, and reinterpret sections as not literal or not meant to be followed, as you see fit, per your own interpretation of what god wants. An orthodox jew would claim you were ignoring god's own laws; he does not discard god's words when they are inconvenient. A baptist minister might think your claim of "well, it might be seven days or millions of years" would be borderline heresy. A Muslim would claim that you're missing the point; humans were first created in heaven. A Hindu would claim that's all wrong, thousand-headed Purusha was divided and became the seas, the land, the animals, the air. And they have every much right to their opinions as you have to yours. Furthermore, their opinions are as valid as yours. And again, all those would be great things to debate in a theology class. But whether life evolved from more basic biotic and prebiotic life forms, came from Purusha's sacrificial oblation, or "because god made it" is not a topic to cover in a biology class. Biology is a science, and in science we talk about theories we can test and prove, not about what you happen to believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #195 June 16, 2004 Quoteyou do realize your religion does a whole lot of illogical supposition to make its creation myths fit into verifiable natural 'laws'? sorry 7 days is 7 days. (oh wait you've got God's footnotes too right? ) other wise why do you only rest one day of the week? Trying to say that "oh this is figurative but this is literal" are nice justifications, but your still propping up your myths with your person beliefs, all with no factual basis whatsoever. A good bit of the catholic church has been devoted to philosophical explanations for all the biblical holes for hundreds of years.. Supposition is a lovely philosophical method but is no substitute for verifiable evidence based on factual observations. Would you jump a parachute built on supposition (from a text with numerous errors and contradictions about the real world), and not on tested, scientifically verified design? You're as bad as Billvon. I believe what I said concerning that was that "I don't know." I admit there are things beyond my comprehension. That doesn't mean that some of those things aren't real. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #196 June 16, 2004 but you assume the answers whiloe admitting lack of knowedge? because your book says so, and since you believe your book to be "the divinely inspired word of God" it is never wrong? seems ignorant to me, If i wish to understand things man cannot teach me, i dont look to man (or his literature) for answers. Everything that is real will one day be understood. Much of what "is beyond comprehension" to the layman is understood by those in their specific scientific field, and can be demonstrated by anyone how takes the time to educate themselves in that field. None of the things you claim are "beyond comprehension" from the Bible can be proven or demonstrated on any level. As a moral guide the bible is a good start for most raised in western cultures. As any sort of factual source to explain the physical universe, it is greatly lacking. It only has any semblance of consistency at all due to careful and continual editing and reinterpretation. I can claim rain is God’s tears and the wind is his breath, but that doesn’t make it anymore true than the earth being formed in 7 days or that the universe exists on the back of elephants standing on turtles… I would LOVE to see the Christian reaction if they were told their children were going to be taught ALL the world’s creation myths on an equal basis in public schools. Some of them read quite a bit better than your biblical accounts, so you might lose a few more followers to the more beautiful, less culturally oppressive mythos. Most Christians get livid when you point out the basis for their belief is simply a myth, like any other, with the same level of veracity….____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #197 June 17, 2004 QuoteThe soul isn’t really hungry; it doesn’t want to eat God like a cheeseburger. Than how do you explain the eucharist. I find it interesting that a supposedly monotheistic religion has the trinity and symbolizes canabalism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,997 #198 June 17, 2004 >I find it interesting that a supposedly monotheistic religion has the >trinity and symbolizes canabalism. And has as its symbol an ancient instrument of torture and execution. Keep in mind that christianity was adapted from a lot of earlier pagan religions; a lot of the symbolism, festival dates, arrangement of deities (i.e. the trinity, the saints) are adaptations of things people were already comfortable with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #199 June 17, 2004 "Place browned pieces and onions/drippings from pan to a cover casserole dish (I used a roasting pan)." How long for and at what temperature? I'm guessing about 1 1/2 hours at around 130 deg C (260-ish fahrenheit). Sounds good!.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #200 June 17, 2004 I DO NOT take credit for finding this article. It was brought up to me by someone else. I think it is interesting and is a good summary for the original topic of this thread concerning The Pledge of Allegiance. My favorite quote from it is, "The purpose of "separation of church and state," as William McLoughlin has said, was not to establish freedom from religion but to establish freedom for religion." 'Under God' Michael Newdow is right. Atheists are outsiders in America. BY SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT Article Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next Page 8 of 15 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 2,997 #186 June 16, 2004 >The Bible isn’t a science book. The story doesn’t present the creation of >the universe in a scientific manner. Agreed. It is a book on morals. It belongs in a class on morality or theology. Trying to put it in a science course is like trying to study differential equations in a theology course. >It is an alternate theory to what is being taught, however. It has its place. Yep. In a theology course. It is no more valid to teach in biology as it is to teach Star Wars in a history course. (Hey, it said "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away . . . .") >Vegetation came next. All this is going on during the initial expansion of" > the infant universe. Other planets and stars were also being formed and > set on their paths. Yep. And if you teach that the earth formed first and life began before any stars were formed, and you teach that as science, you're going to screw kids up. >As for the 7 days issue, I believe this was written to be somewhat > comprehensible to the people of the time. I don’t know how long a day is >for God. Everywhere else in the Bible, a day is a day. You can decide that you want to interpret "day" to mean "billions of years" in just that one place and no other, but again, that's Pajarito's Alternate Interpretation of the Bible(tm) not anything based in what was actually said. >I try not to deviate from the Bible. You do so at every opportunity! You decide on your own which laws to take seriously and which to discard because they are old, inconvenient and meaningless to you. You intentionally misinterpret sections of genesis to conform better to what you choose to believe. (i.e. "it wasn't really a day" "god really didn't create woman out of a rib, that's just a story") And I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. You have every right to take from the Bible that which you think is valid, and reject the rest as old or outdated or whatever. However, that is your personal decision; please allow everyone else the same freedoms you claim for yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,997 #187 June 16, 2004 >But if we really do crave God, why don’t we have a word for this craving? > Why don’t we use that word to describe our desire for a cheeseburger, >instead of doing the opposite? Because if you had a specific word for it, you'd have to define it, and everyone's relationship with god is different. No one definition would work. But we all feel hunger in the same way because we are programmed from birth to feel it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #188 June 16, 2004 Man....you are the "master" of deception and taking things out of context. I'm impressed. I don't believe you're reading everything everything I write. I don't have time right now to respond but I will soon. Also, are you speaking to me in your responses? If so, why do you use my name in the third person? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #189 June 16, 2004 Roast Rabbit Ingredients: 2 cut up fryers (rabbits cleaned and prepared for cooking) 1 onion (chopped into 1/2 to 1/4 inch pieces) 2 cloves of garlic (peeled & pressed) 6 Tablespoons Olive Oil Salt & Pepper 1 batch of sauce (below) 8-10 carrots (washed and quartered) 10-12 red potatos (new potatos are best) SAUCE 1 can cream of mushroom soup 1 can cream of celery soup 2 soup cans of water 1 soup can of red wine 1 cup sliced (fresh) mushrooms 3 Tablespoons worchestershire sauce 1 Tablespoon table mustard Salt & pepper Directions: Saute onion and garlic in olive oil. Add rabbit and quickly brown lightly. Salt & pepper to taste. Place browned pieces and onions/drippings from pan to a cover casserole dish (I used a roasting pan). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,997 #190 June 16, 2004 >Man....you are the "master" of deception . . . Ha! Do you feel deceived? >I don't believe you're reading everything everything I write. Oh, I am. I'm just not coming to the conclusions you want me to come to. >Also, are you speaking to me in your responses? If so, why do you >use my name in the third person? Same reason I use my name in the third person when I talk about "Bill's Theory of Perceptual Homeostasis.(tm)" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #191 June 16, 2004 What you said: QuoteYep. And if you teach that the earth formed first and life began before any stars were formed, and you teach that as science, you're going to screw kids up. What I actually said: QuoteThe heavens were created first. The Earth was also created in this process (I’m thinking something like “The Big Bang”). Next light and energy were provided as it pertained to Earth (The Sun) and land masses were formed from the ocean as well as a breathable protective atmosphere. Vegetation came next. All this is going on during the initial expansion of the infant universe. Other planets and stars were also being formed and set on their paths. The Earth’s rotation was set in correlation with the Sun and Moon. Water, air, and land animal life were then created. Man and woman were created last in God’s spiritual image. They were given dominion over the Earth. The last day was set aside to be holy and a day of rest. Biblical reference: http://www.carm.org/kjv/Gen/Gen_1.htm What you said: QuoteEverywhere else in the Bible, a day is a day. You can decide that you want to interpret "day" to mean "billions of years" in just that one place and no other, but again, that's Pajarito's Alternate Interpretation of the Bible(tm) not anything based in what was actually said. What I actually said: QuoteAs for the 7 days issue, I believe this was written to be somewhat comprehensible to the people of the time. I don’t know how long a day is for God. I believe that he created time and space as a place for us to exist. Similar to how he also created the protective and breathable atmosphere around the Earth so that life on Earth would be possible. I believe that he can control time just like anything else he created. I think he could have literally created the framework for the universe in 7 days and/or I also think he could have done it over the course of millions of years. There is both figurative and literal language in the Bible. Paul wrote of one day to God being like 1000 years. Of course, the context of that passage has no bearing on creation. I’m just saying that it’s not necessarily as absolute throughout the Bible as you’re trying to make it out to be. I think what I was saying, though, was that I really didn’t know. QuoteYou do so at every opportunity! You decide on your own which laws to take seriously and which to discard because they are old, inconvenient and meaningless to you. You intentionally misinterpret sections of genesis to conform better to what you choose to believe. (i.e. "it wasn't really a day" "god really didn't create woman out of a rib, that's just a story") And I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. You have every right to take from the Bible that which you think is valid, and reject the rest as old or outdated or whatever. However, that is your personal decision; please allow everyone else the same freedoms you claim for yourself. What I actually said concerning Biblical law: QuoteThe commands of the Old Testament are divided generally into moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The moral law (e.g., the 10 commandments) remain in effect and few people would question that. The ceremonial law (sacrificing 2 oxen, etc.) was fulfilled in Jesus' sacrificial death and the New Testament teaches that it is not binding anymore. The civil law (stoning for adultry, etc.) was specifically that of the nation of Israel. That’s not “picking and choosing” which laws to follow or not based on what I prefer. That’s following the instruction of the writers themselves. I don’t “intentionally” misinterpret anything in the Bible. I’m not saying that I don’t make mistakes but I try not to. I don’t think anyone can argue, however, that there is both figurative as well as literal language in the Bible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #192 June 16, 2004 Quote I firmly believe that the most ardent athiest will get on his knees when faced with his own mortality. it is ignorant arrogance to assuming everyone lacks conviction in their belief simply, because you believe differently. I know lots of atheists (many whom have shaken death's hand and said "no thanks not yet") who would/will do no such thing. I also have met several atheists getting shot at in 'foxholes' right now in Iraq, they arent thinking of converting anytime soon.... never underestimate another’s strength or convictions with only the strength of your belief as basis. I'm not about to blow myself up for Allah, but quite a number of Islamic radicals believe God wants just that from them. I somehow doubt they suddenly think of Yahweh when they go....____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #193 June 16, 2004 you do realize your religion does a whole lot of illogical supposition to make its creation myths fit into verifiable natural 'laws'? sorry 7 days is 7 days. (oh wait you've got God's footnotes too right? ) other wise why do you only rest one day of the week? Trying to say that "oh this is figurative but this is literal" are nice justifications, but your still propping up your myths with your person beliefs, all with no factual basis whatsoever. A good bit of the catholic church has been devoted to philosophical explanations for all the biblical holes for hundreds of years.. Supposition is a lovely philosophical method but is no substitute for verifiable evidence based on factual observations. Would you jump a parachute built on supposition (from a text with numerous errors and contradictions about the real world), and not on tested, scientifically verified design?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,997 #194 June 16, 2004 "Yep. And if you teach that the earth formed first and life began before any stars were formed, and you teach that as science, you're going to screw kids up." (my quote) --------------------- 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. . . . 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. . . . 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. ---------------------- Now, since Genesis 1:14-16 comes after Genesis 1:1-11, god created the earth first, then created life, then created the stars. So if you are going to teach what's in the bible, you have to teach that god created the earth first, then life, then the stars. Or you can ignore what the bible literally says and teach your interpretation instead. My interpretation is that ALL of that is a story intended to teach morality and has no more scientific validity than wine that literally, actually turns into blood during mass. There is no problem with believing in either interpretation, and both would be fine topics for a theology class. >That’s not “picking and choosing” which laws to follow or not based on what I prefer. You discard entire sections of the bible, and reinterpret sections as not literal or not meant to be followed, as you see fit, per your own interpretation of what god wants. An orthodox jew would claim you were ignoring god's own laws; he does not discard god's words when they are inconvenient. A baptist minister might think your claim of "well, it might be seven days or millions of years" would be borderline heresy. A Muslim would claim that you're missing the point; humans were first created in heaven. A Hindu would claim that's all wrong, thousand-headed Purusha was divided and became the seas, the land, the animals, the air. And they have every much right to their opinions as you have to yours. Furthermore, their opinions are as valid as yours. And again, all those would be great things to debate in a theology class. But whether life evolved from more basic biotic and prebiotic life forms, came from Purusha's sacrificial oblation, or "because god made it" is not a topic to cover in a biology class. Biology is a science, and in science we talk about theories we can test and prove, not about what you happen to believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #195 June 16, 2004 Quoteyou do realize your religion does a whole lot of illogical supposition to make its creation myths fit into verifiable natural 'laws'? sorry 7 days is 7 days. (oh wait you've got God's footnotes too right? ) other wise why do you only rest one day of the week? Trying to say that "oh this is figurative but this is literal" are nice justifications, but your still propping up your myths with your person beliefs, all with no factual basis whatsoever. A good bit of the catholic church has been devoted to philosophical explanations for all the biblical holes for hundreds of years.. Supposition is a lovely philosophical method but is no substitute for verifiable evidence based on factual observations. Would you jump a parachute built on supposition (from a text with numerous errors and contradictions about the real world), and not on tested, scientifically verified design? You're as bad as Billvon. I believe what I said concerning that was that "I don't know." I admit there are things beyond my comprehension. That doesn't mean that some of those things aren't real. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #196 June 16, 2004 but you assume the answers whiloe admitting lack of knowedge? because your book says so, and since you believe your book to be "the divinely inspired word of God" it is never wrong? seems ignorant to me, If i wish to understand things man cannot teach me, i dont look to man (or his literature) for answers. Everything that is real will one day be understood. Much of what "is beyond comprehension" to the layman is understood by those in their specific scientific field, and can be demonstrated by anyone how takes the time to educate themselves in that field. None of the things you claim are "beyond comprehension" from the Bible can be proven or demonstrated on any level. As a moral guide the bible is a good start for most raised in western cultures. As any sort of factual source to explain the physical universe, it is greatly lacking. It only has any semblance of consistency at all due to careful and continual editing and reinterpretation. I can claim rain is God’s tears and the wind is his breath, but that doesn’t make it anymore true than the earth being formed in 7 days or that the universe exists on the back of elephants standing on turtles… I would LOVE to see the Christian reaction if they were told their children were going to be taught ALL the world’s creation myths on an equal basis in public schools. Some of them read quite a bit better than your biblical accounts, so you might lose a few more followers to the more beautiful, less culturally oppressive mythos. Most Christians get livid when you point out the basis for their belief is simply a myth, like any other, with the same level of veracity….____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #197 June 17, 2004 QuoteThe soul isn’t really hungry; it doesn’t want to eat God like a cheeseburger. Than how do you explain the eucharist. I find it interesting that a supposedly monotheistic religion has the trinity and symbolizes canabalism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,997 #198 June 17, 2004 >I find it interesting that a supposedly monotheistic religion has the >trinity and symbolizes canabalism. And has as its symbol an ancient instrument of torture and execution. Keep in mind that christianity was adapted from a lot of earlier pagan religions; a lot of the symbolism, festival dates, arrangement of deities (i.e. the trinity, the saints) are adaptations of things people were already comfortable with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #199 June 17, 2004 "Place browned pieces and onions/drippings from pan to a cover casserole dish (I used a roasting pan)." How long for and at what temperature? I'm guessing about 1 1/2 hours at around 130 deg C (260-ish fahrenheit). Sounds good!.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #200 June 17, 2004 I DO NOT take credit for finding this article. It was brought up to me by someone else. I think it is interesting and is a good summary for the original topic of this thread concerning The Pledge of Allegiance. My favorite quote from it is, "The purpose of "separation of church and state," as William McLoughlin has said, was not to establish freedom from religion but to establish freedom for religion." 'Under God' Michael Newdow is right. Atheists are outsiders in America. BY SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT Article Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
