Quote :

"Haha, how foolish.... Str8Foolish thinks that being "better" is a matter of fact."

Hahaha one day you'll get out of your teens and your intellectual nuts will drop. Then you'll look back at posts like this and rub your forehead in shame.

5/9/2009 10:17:12 AM

I hereby declare Willy Nilly winner of this thread.

5/9/2009 11:09:33 AM

Quote :

"Go ahead and keep comparing actual history of reality with a bunch of fantasy and make believe."

The discussion you jumped into was about how a Christian God could permit certain things. I offered possible explanations for how an entity following those rules could exist. If you want to simply say, "There is no god," fine. But that particular line of discussion is not useful here, because you can't discuss whether a certain god's laws follow his/her/its own rules if you have already denied that said god exists.

Quote :

"Sure, but only if that person not only believed in a god, but also believed that that god is both human/male and sentient."

The use of that pronoun does not presuppose a human or a sentient deity. I call a male dog "he." Most people do, though maybe you consider that to be horribly sexist as well. Now, you may disagree that a Judeo-Christian god warrants that title (though it would presuppose that you were hypothetically allowing for the existence of one), but your current line of argument would need a bit more fleshing out than the woefully and demonstrably inaccurate, "It would only apply to humans."

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 1:33 AM. Reason : /]

5/11/2009 1:33:21 AM

Are you suggesting that non-believers are incapable of entertaining hypotheticals?

5/11/2009 5:46:57 AM

Not even remotely. But Willy Nilly, in particular, joined a conversation that included hypotheticals and isn't recognizing them.

"If God exists, why does He do X?"
"Well, maybe He does it because Y."
"That's stupid because God doesn't exist."

That's basically how the conversation has been going.

5/11/2009 12:13:57 PM

This argument is fucking stupid. Can we get back to talking about how much Jesus loved stress positions?

5/11/2009 12:32:52 PM

1. Every topic that has any religious subject will degenerate into a shit-throwing contest.
2. The way this topic was titled is directly inflammatory towards Christianity by calling out their hypocrisy. Look at all those extra question marks and exclamation points! I don't blame Christians for defending their case because of this.
3. Willy Nilly is a dick; he's condescending towards anyone that has religious beliefs because apparently he thinks that anyone who is religious is deluded and by extension not worthy of intellectual discourse.

5/11/2009 1:06:03 PM

Quote :

"he's condescending towards anyone that has religious beliefs because apparently he thinks that anyone who is religious is deluded and by extension not worthy of intellectual discourse."

Wrong and wrong. First of all, being religious doesn't mean you believe in a god. I'm not convinced that religion, per se, is a bad thing. Certainly there are good and bad religions -- perhaps more bad than good.... but certainly simply being religious doesn't mean you're necessarily deluded. However, I contend that there are no gods -- I have faith in complete godlessness. So to me, anyone who believes in a god or gods is at least somewhat deluded.

Also, not everyone that believes in a god or gods is problematic. It's just that the more specific the gods are (sentient, humanoid, male, etc.,) and the bigger the following, the more likely it is that people who follow those gods tend to be annoying or arrogant xenophobes that insist their's is the only way while they push it on everyone -- the abrahamic god, for example....

Lastly, even if you're the most annoying and arrogant god follower in the world, you could still be worthy of intellectual discourse.

5/11/2009 1:26:43 PM

How did this surprise the OP?

Seriously....

5/11/2009 1:57:34 PM

Quote :

"anyone that has religious beliefs because apparently he thinks that anyone who is religious is deluded and by extension not worthy of intellectual discourse"

It has nothing to do with worthiness; religious individuals are often incapable of intellectual discourse, due to their beliefs. For instance, it's impossible to have "intellectual discourse" about evolution or the origin of the universe with someone that believes it was all created by an intelligent being. Any scientific evidence that there might be for anything is obviously just part of God's plan, and he put it there to mislead us into thinking he had nothing to do with any of it.

The problem with you people is that you're willing to bend over backwards to defend your precious Christ character, but you won't actually take a step back to see how damn ridiculous it all is. You're more willing to trust a worthless book than to embrace reason, and it's pretty frustrating for those of us that are actually trying to get at the truth. Religion is not just holding us back socially, it's holding back scientific progress.

5/11/2009 2:26:22 PM

Quote :

"Any scientific evidence that there might be for anything is obviously just part of God's plan, and he put it there to mislead us into thinking he had nothing to do with any of it."

I've never heard someone use this argument in my life.

I've heard the god-lead/god-designed evolution arguments quite a few times, but never this one. I've heard people deny evolution outright, but usually those people just shuffle away or assert that scientists is evil liars when you mention evidence (even when I was a christian I wanted as little as possible to do with people like that).

You need to find some better christians, because it sounds like your usual debates are against idiotic Baptist fundies.

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .]

5/11/2009 2:32:05 PM

Quote :

"You need to find some better christians, because it sounds like your usual debates are against idiotic Baptist fundies."

You mean the Christians that actually read and believe the bible? The only reasonable Christians are the ones that have watered down the content of the bible to nothing more than "Jesus is a spirit within all of us that encourages peace and love, and he died for all of us so we're going to go to a happy place when we die, weeeeeee!" You know, the ones that have rejected the parts of the bible that are clearly out of line with modern day knowledge and values.

Hopefully, when those "intelligent" Christians realize why they've rejected the bad parts of the bible, they'll understand why I reject the rest of it. If one part of the book is clearly wrong, then why should you hold it above any other book?

5/11/2009 2:44:41 PM

Quote :

"it's holding back scientific progress."

How exactly is it holding scientific progress back?

Many moons ago sure, but today I would like to hear exactly how those damn stupid christians are holding back our scientific progress?

5/11/2009 2:45:32 PM

i don't think it is all that much, but I can't help but mention stem cell research

5/11/2009 3:06:43 PM

Quote :

"How exactly is it holding scientific progress back? Many moons ago sure, but today I would like to hear exactly how those damn stupid christians are holding back our scientific progress?"

Support for teaching intelligent design in science classrooms, opposition to stem cell research, but more than either of those, an overall unwillingness to accept scientific principles. As long as children are being taught by their parents that evolution is fake, God created everything, praying works, and God controls everything and is all-knowing, they're probably going to grow up believing all that, rather than gaining a true understanding of science. Many of those kids will realize that religion is pure fabrication; others will not, and their true potential will never be known. Scientific progress isn't just based on the current scientific community, it has to do with the upcoming generation of students.

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 3:24 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2009 3:07:31 PM

I take your point and I can see why you would think that.

Yes the upcoming generations of students are the important factor, but the current scientific community had to come from somewhere. Are you proposing that the % of 'religious nut' children is greater than the 'science' children % (and growing)?

I think the scale has tipped the opposite way and up and coming generations will be more and more science based than religious based. Hence religion isnt really holding our progress back anymore; its really just fading out.

5/11/2009 3:23:51 PM

Quote :

"Are you proposing that the % of 'religious nut' children is greater than the 'science' children % (and growing)?"

No, the % of 'religious nut' children is decreasing, without a doubt.

Quote :

"I think the scale has tipped the opposite way and up and coming generations will be more and more science based than religious based. Hence religion isnt really holding our progress back anymore; its really just fading out."

I agree. I'm simply suggesting that there is still a lingering element of religion that is holding back science, but it is happening less and less.

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 3:29 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2009 3:28:59 PM

i guess this is the right place to put this:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/white-house-to-declassify-holy-grail-torture-report-that-could-undercut-cheney/?ref=fp1

5/11/2009 3:38:40 PM

Quote :

"Support for teaching intelligent design in science classrooms"

I suspect that the minority of Christians support this practice, which is why it is not widely applied. Your problem seems to be with stupid people, not with Christianity.

Quote :

"opposition to stem cell research"

This is a bit more complicated, because while religion does inform the opposition it isn't necessarily the prime motivator. Respect for the sanctity of life is more or less universal, and the question of where life begins is largely outside the sphere of science. Furthermore, you can find plenty of Christians who favor stem cell research. Again, your problem is less with religion and more with stupid people.

Quote :

"The only reasonable Christians are the ones that have watered down the content of the bible to nothing more than "Jesus is a spirit within all of us that encourages peace and love, and he died for all of us so we're going to go to a happy place when we die, weeeeeee!" You know, the ones that have rejected the parts of the bible that are clearly out of line with modern day knowledge and values."

There is some middle ground between "literal interpretation" and "wholesale rejection of parts." There are those of us who believe, for example, that an entity capable of creating the universe is probably also capable of speaking figuratively, and there are those of us who understand that Jesus tossed out a lot of the older, more draconian rules of the Old Testament. That is, we reject certain parts that are clearly out of line because Jesus told us to, right there in the Bible.

5/11/2009 3:42:38 PM

Quote :

"That is, we reject certain parts that are clearly out of line because Jesus told us to, right there in the Bible."

Where in the Bible does Jesus categorically denounce the Old Testament?

And you say that God is speaking figuratively in the Bible, but how do you know that? Where does God indicate that he's speaking figuratively?

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 5:51 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2009 5:42:35 PM

i'm no biblical scholar and don't claim to be but: wasn't it somewhere with the "love thy neighbor" bit saying that it was to supersede the other commandments?

5/11/2009 5:44:58 PM

That doesn't begin to answer my question.

5/11/2009 5:59:41 PM

^^^ where does God say anything in the Bible?

[Edited on May 11, 2009 at 6:02 PM. Reason : ]

5/11/2009 6:01:55 PM

Quote :

"This is a bit more complicated, because while religion does inform the opposition it isn't necessarily the prime motivator. Respect for the sanctity of life is more or less universal, and the question of where life begins is largely outside the sphere of science. Furthermore, you can find plenty of Christians who favor stem cell research."

i know there are plenty of other discussions on stem cell research, but I think anyone who uses this line of reasoning should be brought to task on if they approve and support In Vitro Fertilization. Anyone who supports IVF has no right to oppose embryonic stem cell research. The few people who actually do admit to opposing IVF are the only ones that have a consistent stance.

Quote :

"wasn't it somewhere with the "love thy neighbor" bit saying that it was to supersede the other commandments?"

Nothing in the Bible itself says "X supersedes Y". It's just Biblical interpretation (i.e. rationalization) what says "yeah, well, because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, that just means that the newer idea overwrites the older one."

5/11/2009 6:18:03 PM

I traded my old testament for a new one.

5/11/2009 6:26:16 PM

Far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't either reject anything without evidence in the bible or wholeheartedly embrace every single word as the infallible truth is being a hypocrite. Of course, this is basically everyone.

The book itself is said to be the infallible word of god. Therefore, anything from the bible taken as metaphor or not followed (read: lots of things in the modern world, almost everything) is picking and choosing. Those of us who believe almost nothing from the bible, and absolutely nothing without factual evidence backing it up, are just picking and choosing less than the rest of you, who inevitably could never follow every law the bible commands. This is physically impossible anyway, since the bible contradicts itself so much.

I'd say most people don't actually live based on the rules they get from the bible anyway. They mostly tome to accept many of their own society's rules, and if those rules intersect some of those in the bible, so be it. I think it's more of a result of evolutionary necessity and learned behavior than anything else that, say, modern Americans don't run around stealing each others' things, murdering, raping, and generally being idiots and more of a coincidence than anything else that those rules are also posited in any holy book.

So, if you eat pork, have unclean thoughts, don't give away all of your possessions, judge others, covet, lie, etc, or believe in evolution or that slavery is wrong or that "7 days" was metaphorical, you may as well throw out the whole deal and live on the instincts you already have and the lifestyle you've come to as a (mostly) sane, useful member of society. Sure, some of those instincts and lifestyle choices might coincide with the bible, but I daresay 99% of you are in no way living the life the bible tells you to, nor should you do so.

5/11/2009 6:28:17 PM

Lets not make the dangerous assertion that everyone is better off without their faith. Religious values just as often clash with instinct. Join a youth ministry - you'll understand.

5/11/2009 7:34:15 PM

The girls that went to Young Life (the christian social club) at our high school were all the sluts from my school that drank and smoked cigs on the weekends.

5/12/2009 12:10:04 AM

Quote :

"Where in the Bible does Jesus categorically denounce the Old Testament?"

Never. But He does occasionally renounce specific parts, and from time to time these elaborate larger parts. For example, at one point Jesus tells Paul that it doesn't matter what goes into your mouth (at the very least, as far as food), it matters what comes out.

And in so doing, the dietary restrictions of the OT come off at a stroke. That's one of the more specific cases; at other points, I fully admit, interpretation involves a greater amount of extrapolation.

Quote :

"does God indicate that he's speaking figuratively? "

No. Like with most written works, it's not expressly stated that figurative speech is figurative speech. I merely claim to have made my best guess; in such cases, a guess which does not contradict either the Bible or apparent scientific knowledge. I attempt to reconcile the Bible with what I know of the natural world; so far, the different statements on each are reconcilable with each other as long as you allow that an entity capable of creating everything in the universe is capable of a fairly minor amount of figurative language.

I will be the first to admit that, taken to an extreme, most of the Bible can be taken so figuratively as to completely negate its claims. Unfortunately for me, there's not much I can throw in opposition to that. But at the same time -- and just as unfortunately to the atheists/agnostics -- there's not much than can be thrown in the other direction, either.

I don't attempt to prove the existence of God through anything in the Bible, I merely attempt to propose that the contents of the Bible are not necessarily contradictory to the existence of God.

Quote :

"Anyone who supports IVF has no right to oppose embryonic stem cell research. "

I can honestly say I don't understand this logic. I'm trying, but I can't see how support for the enabling of reproduction equates to the (supposed) termination of life.

Quite possibly I'm missing something here, but I don't understand it on any level. agentlion, please explain.

Quote :

"Nothing in the Bible itself says "X supersedes Y"."

Demonstrably untrue. There are passages in the New Testament that expressly state the obsolescence of rules in the Old Testament. The most obvious example involves food, as I mentioned above, wherein Jesus tells Paul he can eat pretty much whatever.

Quote :

"So, if you eat pork, have unclean thoughts, don't give away all of your possessions, judge others, covet, lie, etc, or believe in evolution or that slavery is wrong or that "7 days" was metaphorical, you may as well throw out the whole deal and live on the instincts you already have and the lifestyle you've come to as a (mostly) sane, useful member of society"

In the New Testament, we're given permission to eat pork as we wish.

God tells us we should give away our possessions. He doesn't say that doing so is an ironclad precondition for salvation. You'll notice that the saints of the various denominations that had sainthood generally gave them to people that made themselves poor.

God specifically says that one should not judge others. People do this, certainly; that doesn't mean they have Biblical backing for doing so.

And as I have said and repeated many times in this thread, an entity capable of creating the universe is likewise capable of:

1) Figurative speech
2) Adjusting rules for changing situations

5/12/2009 1:20:17 AM

Quote :

"I can honestly say I don't understand this logic. I'm trying, but I can't see how support for the enabling of reproduction equates to the (supposed) termination of life. Quite possibly I'm missing something here, but I don't understand it on any level. agentlion, please explain."

I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that in IVF you end up with more embryos than you use, and the rest of them are thrown away. Which is totes murder.

5/12/2009 1:26:20 AM

Ah. Perhaps I was under a mistaken impression regarding IVF.

Of course, even in that situation there is room for disagreement on exactly which point life begins. I'm not taking sides on the argument, but the question remains, and pinning the issue solely on Christianity is disingenuous at best.

5/12/2009 1:39:04 AM

Quote :

"if you eat pork, have unclean thoughts, don't give away all of your possessions, judge others, covet, lie, etc, or believe in evolution or that slavery is wrong or that "7 days" was metaphorical, you may as well throw out the whole deal and live on the instincts you already have and the lifestyle you've come to as a (mostly) sane, useful member of society. Sure, some of those instincts and lifestyle choices might coincide with the bible, but I daresay 99% of you are in no way living the life the bible tells you to, nor should you do so."

5/12/2009 6:15:58 AM

Quote :

"Like with most written works, it's not expressly stated that figurative speech is figurative speech. I merely claim to have made my best guess; in such cases, a guess which does not contradict either the Bible or apparent scientific knowledge. I attempt to reconcile the Bible with what I know of the natural world; so far, the different statements on each are reconcilable with each other as long as you allow that an entity capable of creating everything in the universe is capable of a fairly minor amount of figurative language. I will be the first to admit that, taken to an extreme, most of the Bible can be taken so figuratively as to completely negate its claims. Unfortunately for me, there's not much I can throw in opposition to that. But at the same time -- and just as unfortunately to the atheists/agnostics -- there's not much than can be thrown in the other direction, either. I don't attempt to prove the existence of God through anything in the Bible, I merely attempt to propose that the contents of the Bible are not necessarily contradictory to the existence of God."

With all due respect, this is a bunch of intellectually dishonest bullshit. Sure, any text can be reconciled with reality if you just arbitrarily designate the problematic parts as "figurative."

5/12/2009 6:38:19 AM

Quote :

"I can honestly say I don't understand this logic. I'm trying, but I can't see how support for the enabling of reproduction equates to the (supposed) termination of life."

right, two points on IVF and stem cells
1) IVF clinics create several embryos for each treatment - sometimes 10's or dozens. The doctors then select the healthiest one (or two or three, or..... 8) to implant into the woman. The remaining 10-20 embryos? Sometimes they are frozen in case the mother wants more later, but often, and always eventually, they are destroyed. Therefore, if you support IVF, you are explicitly supporting the creation of dozens of embryos (or "life", if you believe that life begins at fertilization) that will intentionally be destroyed/killed in order to create one new life.

2) As it stands, stem-cell researchers get their embryos for research from *drumroll* IVF clinics' trash cans! Stem-cell researchers have no need to "create life" and destroy it, as they are painted as doing, because IVF clinics have that process down to a science. Stem-cell labs simply get the discarded IVF embryos for research (always with the consent of the donor), instead of the IVF clinic destroying them. In the end, of course, the embryo is destroyed either way. With stem-cells, though, at least something positive could come from the trashed embryo.

5/12/2009 9:12:30 AM

Honestly, what's wrong with picking and choosing the parts of the Bible and trying to live your life by that code? I don't see Grummy trying to convert anyone, so whom is he hurting?

It's unfair to lump all Christians together with the Intelligent Design nutjobs and evangelical baptists. I know many that do in fact pick and choose and do in fact lead good and humble lives. What's wrong with this?

If you think that the fact that they believe in something that can't be proven is deluded and stupid, remember that next time you:

-cross your fingers.
-spend any time hoping for a good outcome to anything.
-wish someone good luck.
-grow your beard out for hockey playoff season.
-pick "lucky numbers" for the lottery.
-have any superstitions whatsoever.

It's silly to write people off because they have beliefs. Our actions define us. That's my opinion, at least.

5/12/2009 9:12:55 AM

Quote :

"Sure, any text can be reconciled with reality if you just arbitrarily designate the problematic parts as "figurative.""

The book is 2000 fucking years old, written and re-written countless times. It's 100% open to interpretation because it's RELIGION, not HISTORY.

5/12/2009 9:23:36 AM

Quote :

"How did this surprise the OP? Seriously...."

5/12/2009 9:28:17 AM

Quote :

"With all due respect, this is a bunch of intellectually dishonest bullshit. Sure, any text can be reconciled with reality if you just arbitrarily designate the problematic parts as "figurative.""

I don't understand why "figurative" is in quotes, as though it were some bullshit term beneath your dignity. Figurative language is used constantly, in written works and in speech. I don't understand why every other application of language in history is allowed to use it, but the Bible isn't.

It's not about arbitrary designation, it's about attempting to reach a greater understanding. Religion doesn't have to be about blindly following ironclad rules, although a lot of people on this board seem to think that. It can (and obviously I think should) be a process by which you grow and improve yourself as a spiritual animal, in part by constantly trying to better understand your deity, his words, and the history of your faith.

---

agentlion--

I suspect that most people who oppose stem cell research and support IVF are like I was until this thread: not particularly informed about the processes involved in the latter. It isn't hypocrisy when you're completely ignorant about something; it's just ignorance.

That said, I think you're probably right in that most people, having had the process explained to them, would end up being hypocrites.

5/12/2009 12:19:43 PM

Quote :

"I suspect that most people who oppose stem cell research and support IVF are like I was until this thread: not particularly informed about the processes involved in the latter. "

probably so, and that's why it's so endlessly frustrating when nobody in the press ever mentions it, especially not face-to-face. Seriously, there were so many interviews with Bush where he was asked about his positions on stem-cell research, and he went on his normal talking points, and not a single interviewer asked a follow-up or even attempted to fact-check in real time some of the claims he was making.

Quote :

" think you're probably right in that most people, having had the process explained to them, would end up being hypocrites."

and this is unfortunately probably true. I would be surprised if a significant number of people would change their positions on either topic to be consistent with each other, instead of rationalizing a reason to support their previous opinions.
I would actually bet that since anti stem-cell people have their heels dug in so far, more of them would change their mind on IVF instead of stem-cell research.

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 12:27:12 PM

Quote :

"How did this surprise the OP? Seriously...."

5/12/2009 1:33:47 PM

Quote :

"Honestly, what's wrong with picking and choosing the parts of the Bible and trying to live your life by that code? I don't see Grummy trying to convert anyone, so whom is he hurting?"

I would contend that it's better for the individual to abandon their faith and embrace reality. Maybe the bible does have some good lessons, and if you actually lived by some of the rules, you would be a better person. However, you really don't need to the bible in order to live a good life. Why tie yourself down with an old religious text? Why not become a better person through introspection, by depending on a set of principles that you yourself have developed? I think it's a far more rewarding experience than deferring to the Bible whenever an issue of morality comes up.

5/12/2009 1:38:43 PM

But if their belief doesn't affect you in anyway, why do you care? I contend again, live and let live.

You're not going to get rid of stupid people by getting rid of religion. The assholes that try to sneak religion into our schools are not representative of the entire religious community. Just like the people that crash planes in our building and blow themselves up. Don't delude yourself for a second to think that there would be no war, no terrorists, and no assholes trying to teach your children bullshit if there was no religion.

People took down the World Trade Center, not Islam. People pass retarded legislation about intelligent design, not Christianity. People are ultimately responsible for their actions, not their religion.

Quote :

"Why tie yourself down with an old religious text?"

Why not? How can anyone say absolutely what the best way to live by is? IMO, as long as you follow the Ethic of Reciprocity, you're doing something right. And since this is in the Bible, I don't have a problem with people following this rule and I especially don't have a problem with the people that cherry-pick the good stuff like this out of the Bible and ignore the 'God hates everything' parts.

5/12/2009 1:52:22 PM

Quote :

"But if their belief doesn't affect you in anyway, why do you care? I contend again, live and let live."

Quote :

"Why not? How can anyone say absolutely what the best way to live by is? IMO, as long as you follow the Ethic of Reciprocity, you're doing something right. And since this is in the Bible, I don't have a problem with people following this rule and I especially don't have a problem with the people that cherry-pick the good stuff like this out of the Bible and ignore the 'God hates everything' parts."

I don't claim to know what's best for everyone, but I do know my past experiences. I once considered myself a Christian, and I think the perspective I gained when I eventually lost my faith is a valuable thing. If I can convince one other person to come to the realization I came to, then I've done something positive.

5/12/2009 3:12:37 PM

Good luck. That's a very good cause worth fighting for.

5/12/2009 3:23:32 PM

It's the same as those that want to convert people TO a religion.

Personally I don't wish to stop anyone from being religious, that's a personal choice and while religion isn't for me, I can see how it is helpful for others. I only get defensive when I see groups attempting to legislate their religious ideas or supporting legislation for religious reasons.

5/12/2009 3:26:45 PM

Quote :

"In the New Testament, we're given permission to eat pork as we wish."

Sure, but most still support the restrictions on homosexuality, etc, that are present in the old testament. So if you say Jesus overwrote the old testament, why is it still considered part of the holy book, and why is it still followed (sparsely, and depending on who you are, but still followed)?

Quote :

"God tells us we should give away our possessions. He doesn't say that doing so is an ironclad precondition for salvation. You'll notice that the saints of the various denominations that had sainthood generally gave them to people that made themselves poor."

My understanding was that when god tells you to do something, you are supposed to do it. I don't see "give away some of your possessions," I see

Mathew 19:21 If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Luke 14:33 "So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions."

Quote :

"God specifically says that one should not judge others. People do this, certainly; that doesn't mean they have Biblical backing for doing so."

No, it means they are, as everyone does, picking and choosing. That's the main point of my comment - everyone picks and chooses. It's impossible (and insane) to try and follow every one of the bible's teachings. I follow some of them myself, just not because they came from the bible. Depending on which items you decide to choose, you could be a complete monster and still be following some of the laws of the bible.

Quote :

"And as I have said and repeated many times in this thread, an entity capable of creating the universe is likewise capable of: 1) Figurative speech 2) Adjusting rules for changing situations"

God is, but you are not capable of deciding which items he meant figuratively and which he meant literally. Why is it that "7 days" is figurative to people who see the overwhelming and obvious evidence of evolution, but Jesus rising from the dead, not to mention his existence at all, can't possibly be figurative? I don't know your own specific take on those, but I believe you are a believer in evolution and an old earth but also a believer in the literal resurrection.

5/12/2009 3:37:47 PM

Quote :

"Jesus overwrote the old testament"

mm-hmm.

Can't you just imagine Jesus furiously scribbling down notes, "overwriting" the entire Old Testament?

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 3:41:41 PM

Quote :

"So if you say Jesus overwrote the old testament, why is it still considered part of the holy book, and why is it still followed (sparsely, and depending on who you are, but still followed)?"

Because stupid people (a demographic that includes christian fundies) are typically hypocritical and bigoted assholes who don't grasp the concept of logical consistency.

5/12/2009 3:44:33 PM

Quote :

"I once considered myself a Christian, and I think the perspective I gained when I eventually lost my faith is a valuable thing."

And I was a confirmed agnostic for years, because that struck me as the most rational, logical thing. I stuck to that for a long time because I decided it was better to be miserable and "smarter" than the rabble than be happy and another delusional religious person.

Your past experiences are not the same as mine or anybody else's. And you are claiming to know what's best from everybody -- simply denying it won't change that.

Quote :

"So if you say Jesus overwrote the old testament, why is it still considered part of the holy book, and why is it still followed (sparsely, and depending on who you are, but still followed)?"

He didn't overwrite the whole thing; there are specific passages in the NT that refer to changing rules. I'll admit that at times it is vague as to which specific things are changed. Other times, it's quite clear, such as the removal of dietary restrictions.

Quote :

"My understanding was that when god tells you to do something, you are supposed to do it."

And so you are, but sort of the whole point of Christianity is that we're imperfect and God is willing to work with us on that. Your first passage is very clear: "If thou wilt be perfect..." It's better if you give away your possessions. It's a means to achieve perfection. But nowhere in the Bible is absolute perfection is the only way to get salvation.

Quote :

"God is, but you are not capable of deciding which items he meant figuratively and which he meant literally."

No, I'm not. But I'm capable of trying to figure it out and working with my best guess. As it happens, my best guesses lined up pretty closely with Eastern Orthodoxy, so I signed up with them.

With regards to why I and others don't believe in a literal creation but do believe in a literal resurrection...well, there are a few reasons. There's clear evidence against a seven day creation, but there is an absence of evidence for the Resurrection. The creation story isn't really all that important to the Bible or Christianity in general; it offers an answer to a nagging question and that's about it. The Resurrection, on the other hand, is central to the whole thing. It is foreshadowed by many of the things before it, as far back as the Old Testament, and it is the basis for what comes after.

5/12/2009 4:22:31 PM

^

Quote :

"And I was a confirmed agnostic for years, because that struck me as the most rational, logical thing. I stuck to that for a long time because I decided it was better to be miserable and "smarter" than the rabble than be happy and another delusional religious person."

Happy? Happy?
You weren't happy and you concluded that it was because of a lack of religion? What?

Quote :

"There's clear evidence against a seven day creation, but there is an absence of evidence for the Resurrection"

How about the fact that dead things are dead? You know?... dead?...as in, not coming back? How do you do it? You say that you once "knew better" than to delude yourself into believing total crap, but now you do? How? Neither Jesus, nor anyone else has ever died and came back to life. I mean, how the fuck do bring yourself to believe in "zombie jebus"? What other things do you believe? How about the walking on water? How about the fish and bread thing?... or the water into wine? Answer me.

Quote :

"As it happens, my best guesses lined up pretty closely with Eastern Orthodoxy, so I signed up with them."

This is all it is, isn't it? Just like I contend cddweller did, you basically chose to believe. You don't really believe -- you've just (for some really fucked up reason, intentionally,) deluded yourself into believing. And why? To be happy? To fit it? Really?

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 4:41 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2009 4:32:12 PM