» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society
Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Custom Search
This is a topic from the Current Politics and Religious Topics forum on inthe00s.
Subject: A question for the religious here
Written By: philbo on 04/19/07 at 5:04 am
Something in one of lterhune's responses in the Easter Bunny thread got me thinking: why is questioning someone's religious beliefs "offensive"?
Almost everything else one says (be it in politics or other held opinions) can be questioned, and debated, without causing offense - but suggesting that, for example, the Bible is a collection of fairy stories actually causes personal offense to people. Why is that?
This isn't intended as a debating point - I simply don't understand the rationale. Surely if one has faith (or maybe that should be Faith, with a capital F), and truly believes that a book really is the word of some god or other, then some non-believer's viewpoint should be so much water off a duck's back?
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: danootaandme on 04/19/07 at 6:10 am
I have found that people who become offended by questions of faith are usually(though they may not admit it) less educated in the actual tenets of the faith. The offended pose is a way of not having to engage in rational discussion. This is true for any subject.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: danootaandme on 04/19/07 at 6:53 am
Among theologians of all faiths there is always debate, with themselves, and other religions. Those most grounded in their own faiths do not take offence at the questions, they welcome questions as a way of expanding their own knowledge.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/19/07 at 8:52 am
This is strange.....a girl in my American Lit class was saying yesterday how she got offended in her "Women's Studies" class b/c the teacher said "Now, just remember, everyone, these are simply stories" when they were discussing "Eve's fall from grace." She even went so far as to write the teacher a note on the back of her final telling her how offensive she was and how she would have wished her a Merry Christmas, but that was the celebration of Jesus' birthday and since the Bible is 'just a story' she didn't figure the teacher celebrated it, unless she was a hypocrite. :o I just kept my mouth shut after a guy said "Well, to some people they are. Wouldn't it be offensive to THEM if she said 'these are not stories, these are reality'?" To which my teacher replied "Why the Hell was she teaching the Bible? I wouldn't do that unless I was teaching the 'Bible as Literature' class." To which the girl replied "I'm surprised they haven't been sued over that class because it's NOT just 'literature.'" The teacher wisely changed the subject ;D
Oh, and this was the girl who was talking in graphic detail to someone on her cell phone about her boyfriend's penis ::)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/19/07 at 8:54 am
Among theologians of all faiths there is always debate, with themselves, and other religions. Those most grounded in their own faiths do not take offence at the questions, they welcome questions as a way of expanding their own knowledge.
I agree. In fact, it was a Catholic priest who got me to question the Catholic faith. He would not only openly welcome questions, he would ask them at random so we could expand our knowledge as well.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: thereshegoes on 04/19/07 at 11:29 am
This isn't intended as a debating point - I simply don't understand the rationale. Surely if one has faith (or maybe that should be Faith, with a capital F), and truly believes that a book really is the word of some god or other, then some non-believer's viewpoint should be so much water off a duck's back?
No,because those who have faith want you to have it too!
I'm not joking here,from my experience (i was raised catholic btw),faith is not as individual as one may think,catholics consider everyone,including non-believers,a child of God,therefore is their duty to "spread the word" to those who still have not "found the light".
I had this argument with every religious friend of mine,how can you believe in The Bible? How can you believe in the Garden of Eden?They try their best to explain it to me,but i never got it .I guess what it comes down to is faith,you have it or you don't,if you do things are clearer it's not about proof,it's not see to believe,it all makes sense cause there's a higher being that you follow and that guides you through life,that makes you struggle to be better,to be good.
I don't condemn religion at all,in fact i have a lot of respect for most of them,cause they teach kindness and justice,sometimes they don't succeed,they have strange rules that don't make sense to me and atrocities are made in their name,but to me that doesn't make their preaching invalid.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: CatwomanofV on 04/19/07 at 12:03 pm
Something in one of lterhune's responses in the Easter Bunny thread got me thinking: why is questioning someone's religious beliefs "offensive"?
Almost everything else one says (be it in politics or other held opinions) can be questioned, and debated, without causing offense - but suggesting that, for example, the Bible is a collection of fairy stories actually causes personal offense to people. Why is that?
This isn't intended as a debating point - I simply don't understand the rationale. Surely if one has faith (or maybe that should be Faith, with a capital F), and truly believes that a book really is the word of some god or other, then some non-believer's viewpoint should be so much water off a duck's back?
That is a very good question, Philbo and one not easily answered. I think it could be because people are taught something for all their lives and then when someone questions those teachings, not only is that person questioning their faith, but also questioning their teachers (i.e. priests/ministers, parents, etc. etc.) "Are you saying that my parents who taught me this are liars? How dare you!" Maybe if people taught others that there are other viewpoints and some will question the beliefs, then maybe people wouldn't be so offended instead of insisting that theirs is only valid viewpoint.
Cat
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/19/07 at 1:44 pm
People who get offended when you question their religion tend to be closed-minded and insecure. They tend to have fewer intellectual resources with which to weigh questions of faith. It's black-and-white thinking. "Either I'm right and you're wrong, or you're wrong and I'm right, because we are talking about the absolute truth here!" That leaves no room for just a difference of opinion. The number of human lives lost to violence resulting from this mentality is incalculable.
You notice this with "fundamentalism" in both Islam and Christianity. Often religious fanaticism is bound up with political and ethnic tensions. This is especially true of Islam.
I remember asking Father Jack, the campus chaplain, how he felt about working with Moslem and Jewish groups. He said, "Life has to be lived, we have to get along with one another; haven't we seen the results of not getting along? Is that preferable?"
There is a sad phenomenon in America's politicized Christianity that reminds me of a high school clique. Replace "cool" with "righteous." The Republican--Evangelical complex has been marketed as an in-crowd of righteousness. Remember how hurt people got in high school when the in-crowd denied them access? Same with the "punk" clique in my high school. As usual the rule was: "No poseurs!" What was a poseur? Somebody who had the Mohawk but wasn't "for real." Deep down every "punk" was afraid he or she was a "poseur." I see something similar going on with American Christian fundamentalists. It's more of a clique or a club than a religion. That is, fundamentalism is a political movement, not a spiritual one. Perhaps a better analogy would be questioning whether a Cuban communist was "loyal to the revolution." You know, if you are not "in," you are "out," and that's somewhere you don't want to be!
::)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: quirky_cat_girl on 04/19/07 at 2:45 pm
It's very simple actually...when you hold something dear to you, regardless of what it is (faith in a religion/God, family members, spouses, culture, etc), and someone else makes a derogatory statement about it...isn't it only natural to get somewhat offended? I mean, if someone would start talking negative comments about someone's culture/race/family/etc....than it would only be natural to want to defend what you hold dear to you. It's not about being narrow-minded or insecure, not in the least bit, IMO. I consider myself to be someone who respects others enough to not degrade them or look down upon them just because they believe in something that I don't....but in return, I only expect the same respect from others (regarding my beliefs to the things that I hold dear to myself)....in that they don't say things that are totally offensive, etc. I can honestly say that I have never said anything negative here about any other religion or belief. I may not agree with it and that's fine...but it's not my place, or anyone else's to cut a person or their beliefs down.
Ok...I'm done now. ;)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: philbo on 04/19/07 at 3:55 pm
It's very simple actually...when you hold something dear to you, regardless of what it is (faith in a religion/God, family members, spouses, culture, etc), and someone else makes a derogatory statement about it...isn't it only natural to get somewhat offended?
Thing is, I didn't say anything about making derogatory statments, merely questioning: being insulting (about ones family, religion, etc.) is one thing, querying the validity of a particular belief is something else. In fact *not* applying to your beliefs any kind of critical thinking seems to me to be far more worrying (or even "offensive", if you like) to me. Cat may well have something when she ties this into where you get your beliefs from:
I think it could be because people are taught something for all their lives and then when someone questions those teachings, not only is that person questioning their faith, but also questioning their teachers (i.e. priests/ministers, parents, etc. etc.) "Are you saying that my parents who taught me this are liars? How dare you!"
In other words, to question belief when that belief comes from parents or other figures of respect is to call those people "liars"...
This fits pretty well with my second sentence: my parents are agnostic ex-Jewish (that's ex- at least as far as the religion goes) and kind of Christian (but tending towards atheist now) - the only thing they really instilled in me was the need to think rather than simply believe, so what I find most objectionable is people who refuse to think.
People who get offended when you question their religion tend to be closed-minded and insecure.
I have to admit that when I posed this question, I was thinking along the lines of "insecurity" as being a major factor - it seemed to be an obvious reason, that people react as though "threatened", when if they are secure in their faith there is no actual threat. But I'm not so sure, now.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: wildcard on 04/19/07 at 4:31 pm
People who get offended when you question their religion tend to be closed-minded and insecure.
I remember asking Father Jack, the campus chaplain, how he felt about working with Moslem and Jewish groups. He said, "Life has to be lived, we have to get along with one another; haven't we seen the results of not getting along? Is that preferable?"
In the end all that matters is how we live our lives while we are here.
Sticking with your intention of not creating debate, I think the simplest answer is, in areas where many people tend to have very strong viewpoints (i.e., abortion, religion, etc.), that feelings, upbringing, and life experience tend to override rational thought.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: annonymouse on 04/19/07 at 8:47 pm
it's all about what you're raised to believe. my family is christian, but we don't often go to church, so i've had time to actually think to myself rather than have all of those bible stories shoved down my throat. anyways, people tend to believe what ever they're brought up to believe. unless your parents were to suddenly tell you "it's not true" as they did in the case of good old saint nick, religious people will continue unchanged. they will teach what they have been taught to their children and we athiests will never be able to say to the christians "ha i told you so!" after we die and don't go to "heaven". we'll be dead. dead people can't talk. anyways, i don't really see the point in arguing with these people (although i have often gotten into arguements over the topic) they won't change. and if i ever have kids someday, my wife would be free to teach them whatever religion she wants. as long as i don't have to go to church, i'm fine.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/19/07 at 9:14 pm
I have to admit that when I posed this question, I was thinking along the lines of "insecurity" as being a major factor - it seemed to be an obvious reason, that people react as though "threatened", when if they are secure in their faith there is no actual threat. But I'm not so sure, now.
Religion is also snug with the authoritarian mindset. That's why conservatives tend to be more religious, and the more conservative a person is, the more authoritarian he or she tends to view God. You notice how conservatives are often anti-government but pro-church. They become anti-government when the government does not elevate their religious beliefs into a determining factor for law and custom. Of course, the GOP made this principle perverse when it marketed Christianity as its party clubhouse.
I mentioned communist dictatorships before. Contrary to what we were told in school, these dictatorships were anything but atheistic. The Party and the Great Leader supplanted the church and God. That's all. This isn't what Marx had in mind, but the best laid plans of mice and men...
If you tell a Unitarian God doesn't exist, he'll say, "Gee, you could be right, let's talk about it."
If you tell a Souhern Baptist God doesn't exist, he'll say, "Burn in hell, heathen!"
Insecurity creates a need for "something to believe." No, I don't mean, "Everybody needs something to believe, so I believe I'll have another beer." Insecure people want to attach their identities to something absolute and irrefutable. Hence the success of the Krishna Consciousness, Scientology, and Christian fundamentalism.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: annonymouse on 04/19/07 at 9:59 pm
If you tell a Unitarian God doesn't exist, he'll say, "Gee, you could be right, let's talk about it."
If you tell a Souhern Baptist God doesn't exist, he'll say, "Burn in hell, heathen!"
i miss the rantings of those southern babtists back in my former home in georgia. when brokback mountain came out, they even protested infront of a wallmart that the movie should not be sold.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/20/07 at 2:42 pm
I have a question:
Why is questioning the validity of someone's religious faith considered "offensive" yet questioning the validity of someone's non-belief in religious faith considered "acceptable"? I've seen time and time again where someone will make a statement about their feeling that religion X is not valid because of A, B and C and someone who believes in religion X takes offense and calls the statement "derogatory." Then, believer in religion X states their reasons why they feel the religion is valid, yet they don't feel that is offensive or derogatory. ???
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: annonymouse on 04/20/07 at 3:12 pm
I have a question:
Why is questioning the validity of someone's religious faith considered "offensive" yet questioning the validity of someone's non-belief in religious faith considered "acceptable"? I've seen time and time again where someone will make a statement about their feeling that religion X is not valid because of A, B and C and someone who believes in religion X takes offense and calls the statement "derogatory." Then, believer in religion X states their reasons why they feel the religion is valid, yet they don't feel that is offensive or derogatory. ???
i think the difference is that most athiests did once believe in god, while it's very rare that a person raised as an athiest becomes religious.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/20/07 at 4:28 pm
i think the difference is that most athiests did once believe in god, while it's very rare that a person raised as an athiest becomes religious.
Rev. Jerry Falwell always says his father was an atheist....BUT his mama was good Christian woman who showed young Jerry the true path! Aw jeez.....
"There's no way you come from my seed! When we get home, I'm gonna punch your mama right in the mouth!"
--Sherrif Beaufort T. Justice
"Smokey and the Bandit"
;D
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 04/20/07 at 7:30 pm
Rev. Jerry Falwell always says his father was an atheist....BUT his mama was good Christian woman who showed young Jerry the true path! Aw jeez.....
;D
I guess it is tough to post without being insulting to someone huh?
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 04/20/07 at 7:33 pm
Something in one of lterhune's responses in the Easter Bunny thread got me thinking: why is questioning someone's religious beliefs "offensive"?
Almost everything else one says (be it in politics or other held opinions) can be questioned, and debated, without causing offense - but suggesting that, for example, the Bible is a collection of fairy stories actually causes personal offense to people. Why is that?
This isn't intended as a debating point - I simply don't understand the rationale. Surely if one has faith (or maybe that should be Faith, with a capital F), and truly believes that a book really is the word of some god or other, then some non-believer's viewpoint should be so much water off a duck's back?
First of all, I have to question your motives for this "question". Second; why bring me into it & more importantly, why just give one example of the things you said, (insulting things)? This whole post is just a bashing post & you know it. It is hard to believe you are being sincere here, but I wouldn't expect anything else.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/20/07 at 9:21 pm
I guess it is tough to post without being insulting to someone huh?
If you're a fan of Jerry Falwell, I am sorry if I offend.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: philbo on 04/21/07 at 5:31 am
Why is questioning the validity of someone's religious faith considered "offensive" yet questioning the validity of someone's non-belief in religious faith considered "acceptable"? I've seen time and time again where someone will make a statement about their feeling that religion X is not valid because of A, B and C and someone who believes in religion X takes offense and calls the statement "derogatory." Then, believer in religion X states their reasons why they feel the religion is valid, yet they don't feel that is offensive or derogatory. ???
I have seen the same sort of thing many times over, and it was definitely part of the motive for starting this thread. Some of the answers given may give some enlightenment (I am afraid I am unable to offer any myself)
First of all, I have to question your motives for this "question". Second; why bring me into it & more importantly, why just give one example of the things you said, (insulting things)? This whole post is just a bashing post & you know it. It is hard to believe you are being sincere here, but I wouldn't expect anything else.
As I said in my first post, it was something you said in the "Easter Bunny" thread:
By the way, thank you for discussing things nicely (for the most part) and not offensive. I get tired of some posters who prove their points by insulting and calling names... this was a good one, thanks
I scanned what had come before in that thread, and could only assume that what you had taken as being "offensive" was my characterisation of the Bible as a book of fairy stories. Maybe in that instance I was wrong, and you were referring to somewhere else completely - I have been told since that there has been a load of ordure flying round, of which I was not aware when I started this thread.
If you think this whole post is just a "bashing", I suggest the problem may well be with your own outlook on life: how come nobody else has seen it that way?
And lastly, how can you have the temerity to complain about "insulting things" I have said while sending out PMs where the only content is the most puerile of insults? If you can't take it, don't try shoveling it out yourself.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Powerslave on 04/21/07 at 2:38 pm
Why is questioning the validity of someone's religious faith considered "offensive" yet questioning the validity of someone's non-belief in religious faith considered "acceptable"?
I'd say it comes down to the fact that a lot of religious people see non-belief as being far less acceptable than having a religious belief that may be different to their own. They see any religious belief as being better or more acceptable than having none.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: La Roche on 04/22/07 at 10:01 am
I'd say it comes down to the fact that a lot of religious people see non-belief as being far less acceptable than having a religious belief that may be different to their own. They see any religious belief as being better or more acceptable than having none.
Better to be a heretic than a heathen or a non-believer.
I say - Burn the priest.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: snozberries on 04/22/07 at 10:29 pm
Something in one of lterhune's responses in the Easter Bunny thread got me thinking: why is questioning someone's religious beliefs "offensive"?
Almost everything else one says (be it in politics or other held opinions) can be questioned, and debated, without causing offense - but suggesting that, for example, the Bible is a collection of fairy stories actually causes personal offense to people. Why is that?
This isn't intended as a debating point - I simply don't understand the rationale. Surely if one has faith (or maybe that should be Faith, with a capital F), and truly believes that a book really is the word of some god or other, then some non-believer's viewpoint should be so much water off a duck's back?
AMEN
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: John Jenkins on 04/22/07 at 11:46 pm
Surely if one has faith (or maybe that should be Faith, with a capital F), and truly believes that a book really is the word of some god or other, then some non-believer's viewpoint should be so much water off a duck's back?
Christianity is not intended to be a secret that Christians keep to themselves, but a belief system and a way of life that should be shared with others. The Great Commission that Jesus Christ gave to His followers was "to make disciples of all nations." So the expressions of non-believers' viewpoints should not be accepted by Christians as water off a duck's back because they are reminders that we are failing to carry out the Great Commission.
Do some Christians get carried away in their attempts to share their religion? Maybe, but I think more of us probably err on the side of not doing enough to share our religious beliefs. But I think that most of us are not offended by well intended questions from people who are open-minded and seeking the truth. And we welcome these questions.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/23/07 at 6:38 am
I'd say it comes down to the fact that a lot of religious people see non-belief as being far less acceptable than having a religious belief that may be different to their own. They see any religious belief as being better or more acceptable than having none.
I see what you're saying, but I've even seen some people get offended when people of other faiths question their beliefs.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: philbo on 04/23/07 at 8:16 am
But I think that most of us are not offended by well intended questions from people who are open-minded and seeking the truth. And we welcome these questions.
Thing is, when you come from outside and question a Christian's beliefs, it is very rare that they consider you open-minded and seeking the truth: sure, I'd love to know the truth, and I have a very open mind about most things... but there's just about nothing that comes from the Bible that I'd consider even remotely convincing. Which, although *I* consider myself open-minded, most Christians don't (especially after reading some of my parodies, it seems ;))
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/23/07 at 9:24 am
Christianity is not intended to be a secret that Christians keep to themselves, but a belief system and a way of life that should be shared with others. The Great Commission that Jesus Christ gave to His followers was "to make disciples of all nations."
Sounds a lot like fundamentalist Islam to me. Moslem fanatics are even more committed to converting all nations to Islam because the Koran says so. If Christians and Moslems don't learn to reconcile, it means ever more human misery for the future.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: La Roche on 04/23/07 at 10:09 am
Sounds a lot like fundamentalist Islam to me. Moslem fanatics are even more committed to converting all nations to Islam because the Koran says so. If Christians and Moslems don't learn to reconcile, it means ever more human misery for the future.
Brother will kill brother, spilling blood across the land, killing for religion, something I don't understand.
Ask the sheep, for the belief, do you kill on God's command?
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/23/07 at 12:56 pm
Christianity is not intended to be a secret that Christians keep to themselves, but a belief system and a way of life that should be shared with others. The Great Commission that Jesus Christ gave to His followers was "to make disciples of all nations." So the expressions of non-believers' viewpoints should not be accepted by Christians as water off a duck's back because they are reminders that we are failing to carry out the Great Commission.
Do some Christians get carried away in their attempts to share their religion? Maybe, but I think more of us probably err on the side of not doing enough to share our religious beliefs. But I think that most of us are not offended by well intended questions from people who are open-minded and seeking the truth. And we welcome these questions.
See, this is where I get confused.....Christians are supposed to "make disciples of all nations." What if those "disciples" don't want to become Christian? Why is it perfectly fine for a Christian to try and "convert" others but not alright for someone to try and "convert" a Christian?
And, most Christians I know DO get offended when others try to "share" their religion (or lack thereof) if it does not coincide with their beliefs....
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Ashkicksass on 04/23/07 at 12:59 pm
See, this is where I get confused.....Christians are supposed to "make disciples of all nations." What if those "disciples" don't want to become Christian? Why is it perfectly fine for a Christian to try and "convert" others but not alright for someone to try and "convert" a Christian?
And, most Christians I know DO get offended when others try to "share" their religion (or lack thereof) if it does not coincide with their beliefs....
So true! I had some missionaries come over to my house a while back. I told them that I would listen to what they had to say if they would listen to my beliefs too. One of them actually said "um, it doesn't work that way." ;D They've never been back.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Rice_Cube on 04/23/07 at 1:12 pm
So true! I had some missionaries come over to my house a while back. I told them that I would listen to what they had to say if they would listen to my beliefs too. One of them actually said "um, it doesn't work that way." ;D They've never been back.
One time some Jehovah's Witnesses came up to the door. I saw them and yelled to the family, "Hey, there's some black people at the door!" It wasn't meant to be racist or anything, it's just that they were black and they were at the door.
I'll never live that down.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Ashkicksass on 04/23/07 at 1:51 pm
One time some Jehovah's Witnesses came up to the door. I saw them and yelled to the family, "Hey, there's some black people at the door!" It wasn't meant to be racist or anything, it's just that they were black and they were at the door.
I'll never live that down.
Oh Ricey...
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: La Roche on 04/23/07 at 1:54 pm
See, this is where I get confused.....Christians are supposed to "make disciples of all nations." What if those "disciples" don't want to become Christian? Why is it perfectly fine for a Christian to try and "convert" others but not alright for someone to try and "convert" a Christian?
And, most Christians I know DO get offended when others try to "share" their religion (or lack thereof) if it does not coincide with their beliefs....
Ya know.. and Ash is gonna flip when I say this.. there are two Christian Groups that I've spoken to who will actually debate their and your beliefs and those are Mormons and Catholics.
The rest of them, on the protestant side I guess, tend to be very insular and very much of the opinion that "We're right, you're wrong, get with the playbook."
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Ashkicksass on 04/23/07 at 1:58 pm
Ya know.. and Ash is gonna flip when I say this.. there are two Christian Groups that I've spoken to who will actually debate their and your beliefs and those are Mormons and Catholics.
The rest of them, on the protestant side I guess, tend to be very insular and very much of the opinion that "We're right, you're wrong, get with the playbook."
Why would I flip about that? I have had a gazillion debates with Mormons...most of them pretty constructive.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: La Roche on 04/23/07 at 2:01 pm
Why would I flip about that? I have had a gazillion debates with Mormons...most of them pretty constructive.
You've mentioned before your issues with them.. although, of course after my latest genealogical research, you'll have to be more sensitive to such issues. ;)
I always invite them in, mainly because when my Dad was hitching he said Mormons always picked him up and gave him a place to stay etc.. then I found that they'd listen to my ideas if I listened to theirs.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Ashkicksass on 04/23/07 at 2:05 pm
You've mentioned before your issues with them.. although, of course after my latest genealogical research, you'll have to be more sensitive to such issues. ;)
I always invite them in, mainly because when my Dad was hitching he said Mormons always picked him up and gave him a place to stay etc.. then I found that they'd listen to my ideas if I listened to theirs.
Well, you can't paint them all with the same brush. There are good Mormons and bad Mormons just like with any other religion. Yes I have had run-ins with some bad ones, but for the most part they're good, clean living folk. In fact, best friend is Mormon and she totally kicks ass.
I'm not a fan of religion in general...but I don't have anything against any religions in particular. It's just not easy being in the minority - no matter what that minority is.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: La Roche on 04/23/07 at 2:06 pm
Well, you can't paint them all with the same brush. There are the good kind of Mormons and the bad kind of Mormons just like with any other religion. Yes I have had run-ins with some bad ones, but for the most part they're good, clean living folk.
I'm not a fan of religion in general...but I don't have anything against any religions in particular. It's just not easy being in the minority - no matter what that minority is.
Religion is euthanasia of the mind.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Ashkicksass on 04/23/07 at 2:09 pm
Religion is euthanasia of the mind.
I think that is a fair statement.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: La Roche on 04/23/07 at 2:15 pm
I think that is a fair statement.
Maybe a better way to put it would be Euthanasia of reason.
Once you go ahead and accept that you were created and that science is wrong then who's to say what else is wrong. Black is white, up is down, coke is pepsi.. who knows where it will end.
That's what makes me laugh, so many folks who consider themselves religious have this bizarre backwards assed concept in their minds that because their religion is right, everything else is wrong..
I mean, how does that work.
I eat with my fork in my right hand and my knife in my left. My Dad always used to tell me to have them the other way around.. does that mean he's wrong? No.. it just means he does things a little different.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Ashkicksass on 04/23/07 at 2:21 pm
Maybe a better way to put it would be Euthanasia of reason.
Once you go ahead and accept that you were created and that science is wrong then who's to say what else is wrong. Black is white, up is down, coke is pepsi.. who knows where it will end.
That's what makes me laugh, so many folks who consider themselves religious have this bizarre backwards assed concept in their minds that because their religion is right, everything else is wrong..
I mean, how does that work.
I eat with my fork in my right hand and my knife in my left. My Dad always used to tell me to have them the other way around.. does that mean he's wrong? No.. it just means he does things a little different.
I think it means he's left-handed. :P
Oh, and I totally agree with your other points.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: La Roche on 04/23/07 at 2:22 pm
I think it means he's left-handed. :P
Oh, and I totally agree with your other points.
Nooo.. the whole English table manners thing is different. I eat the barbaric American way.
And yeah, thanks.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: philbo on 04/23/07 at 4:41 pm
Maybe a better way to put it would be Euthanasia of reason.
'tis a perfect way of putting it: in order to have faith (especially in the Judeo-Christian God), reason and logic have to be put on the back-burner.
Brother will kill brother, spilling blood across the land, killing for religion, something I don't understand.
Ask the sheep, for the belief, do you kill on God's command?
I remember seeing Megadeth at Donington back in the 80s.. unfortunately, they were so bad then, I never got into the music at all.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: La Roche on 04/23/07 at 5:16 pm
'tis a perfect way of putting it: in order to have faith (especially in the Judeo-Christian God), reason and logic have to be put on the back-burner.
I remember seeing Megadeth at Donington back in the 80s.. unfortunately, they were so bad then, I never got into the music at all.
Poor Phil, you probably saw Dave after an unfortunate speedballing incident.. there were so many.
Dave Mustaine provides 95% of all my stock quotes.
Yes, reason and logic generally have to be pushed back and replaced with faith, which is.. for lack of a better word.. sad.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/23/07 at 8:44 pm
Nooo.. the whole English table manners thing is different. I eat the barbaric American way.
Choose your fastfood/take-out the right way, you can go for days without picking up a piece of silverware!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumright.gif
One time some Jehovah's Witnesses came up to the door. I saw them and yelled to the family, "Hey, there's some black people at the door!" It wasn't meant to be racist or anything, it's just that they were black and they were at the door.
I'll never live that down.
Well, the JWs are used to people trying to offend them! My crazy friend Sam used to invite them in like he was interested in their good news, then he'd start going off on them, "So you think you're the Chosen People, eh? I'll show you what happens when people go around thinking they're the chosen ones!" Then he'd pop in a video of holocaust footage. Some stunt like that. Eventually, they stopped showing up at his house. I know their are back JWs, but the ones I've seen have all been pasty white, we're talking Mayberry RFD here!
;D
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 04/25/07 at 10:18 pm
Christianity is not intended to be a secret that Christians keep to themselves, but a belief system and a way of life that should be shared with others. The Great Commission that Jesus Christ gave to His followers was "to make disciples of all nations." So the expressions of non-believers' viewpoints should not be accepted by Christians as water off a duck's back because they are reminders that we are failing to carry out the Great Commission.
Do some Christians get carried away in their attempts to share their religion? Maybe, but I think more of us probably err on the side of not doing enough to share our religious beliefs. But I think that most of us are not offended by well intended questions from people who are open-minded and seeking the truth. And we welcome these questions.
Exactly & well said.
There is a HUGE difference between asking questions and purposely attacking one's beliefs and calling it a "discussion" (I think this answers the org. posters question really well)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/27/07 at 9:01 am
Exactly & well said.
There is a HUGE difference between asking questions and purposely attacking one's beliefs and calling it a "discussion" (I think this answers the org. posters question really well)
I think the point is that some people take even innocent questions as an "attack."
And, again, why is questioning someone's belief seen as an "attack," but questioning someone's non-belief NOT? Someone saying "I don't see how can you believe in X" in a derogatory way is no better or worse than someone saying "I don't see how you can NOT believe in X" in a derogatory way, IMO. The condescension goes both ways, it's just seen as an "attack" when it pertains to the "religious" and "defense" when it pertains to the non-religious ::)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 04/27/07 at 7:08 pm
I think the point is that some people take even innocent questions as an "attack."
And, again, why is questioning someone's belief seen as an "attack," but questioning someone's non-belief NOT? Someone saying "I don't see how can you believe in X" in a derogatory way is no better or worse than someone saying "I don't see how you can NOT believe in X" in a derogatory way, IMO. The condescension goes both ways, it's just seen as an "attack" when it pertains to the "religious" and "defense" when it pertains to the non-religious ::)
Okay, fair enough. But when you say (or ask), "how can you believe in a book of fairy tales?" as opposed to "how can you believe in the Bible?" - then you are being an idiot, not a debater.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: philbo on 04/28/07 at 2:11 pm
OK, I'll bite: how can you believe in the Bible? How do you pick and choose the bits to live your life by, and the bits to ignore because they're "obviously not relevant any more"? How can you possibly believe that something so contradictory and prone to misinterpretation could possibly be the work of an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful creator? Calling that farrago a "book of fairy tales" may seem a bit too harsh for your tender sensibilities, but it is a positively glowing reference compared to what I'd *like* to say about it.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/28/07 at 6:56 pm
OK, I'll bite: how can you believe in the Bible? How do you pick and choose the bits to live your life by, and the bits to ignore because they're "obviously not relevant any more"? How can you possibly believe that something so contradictory and prone to misinterpretation could possibly be the work of an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful creator? Calling that farrago a "book of fairy tales" may seem a bit too harsh for your tender sensibilities, but it is a positively glowing reference compared to what I'd *like* to say about it.
"Farrago," the right word at the right time!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumleft.gif
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 04/28/07 at 8:04 pm
OK, I'll bite: how can you believe in the Bible? How do you pick and choose the bits to live your life by, and the bits to ignore because they're "obviously not relevant any more"? How can you possibly believe that something so contradictory and prone to misinterpretation could possibly be the work of an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful creator?
That would take a while to explain to you and I am certain that you wouldn't listen anyway. I think the whole thing is relevant. There only part that may not be so relevant is the change from the Old Testament to the New. In the Old, you obeyed or didn't go to heaven, in the New, since Christ came and paid the price for our sins, you can get to heaven. Other than that, it's all relevant.
There are scientists (many) who have set out to prove the Bible is untrue and came out of their quest believers. So much of it has been proven - more than you apparently know, (or want to know).
Calling that farrago a "book of fairy tales" may seem a bit too harsh for your tender sensibilities, but it is a positively glowing reference compared to what I'd *like* to say about it.
Lacking respect is more like it - I don't really have "tender sensibilities". I just think normal thinking and respectful people do not purposely say/write stuff as you did. And as for what you would "like" to say about it... all I can say is that you are one impressive guy! :o
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 04/28/07 at 8:07 pm
OK, I'll bite: how can you believe in the Bible? How do you pick and choose the bits to live your life by, and the bits to ignore because they're "obviously not relevant any more"? How can you possibly believe that something so contradictory and prone to misinterpretation could possibly be the work of an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful creator? Calling that farrago a "book of fairy tales" may seem a bit too harsh for your tender sensibilities, but it is a positively glowing reference compared to what I'd *like* to say about it.
...and by the way, you missed the point. My last comment answered your thread question & after you read my answer, you switched subjects! Let me refresh your memory:
"Okay, fair enough. But when you say (or ask), "how can you believe in a book of fairy tales?" as opposed to "how can you believe in the Bible?" - then you are being an idiot, not a debater"
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/28/07 at 10:18 pm
That would take a while to explain to you and I am certain that you wouldn't listen anyway. I think the whole thing is relevant. There only part that may not be so relevant is the change from the Old Testament to the New. In the Old, you obeyed or didn't go to heaven, in the New, since Christ came and paid the price for our sins, you can get to heaven. Other than that, it's all relevant.
There are scientists (many) who have set out to prove the Bible is untrue and came out of their quest believers. So much of it has been proven - more than you apparently know, (or want to know).
Lacking respect is more like it - I don't really have "tender sensibilities". I just think normal thinking and respectful people do not purposely say/write stuff as you did. And as for what you would "like" to say about it... all I can say is that you are one impressive guy! :o
Do you read Tim LaHaye?
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: danootaandme on 04/29/07 at 6:40 am
There are scientists (many) who have set out to prove the Bible is untrue and came out of their quest believers. So much of it has been proven - more than you apparently know, (or want to know).
There are some historic accuracies found within the bible, but that doesn't mean the stories of the characters within the background of the historical incidences are true. One should wonder why the bible is taught as the word of god, not the interrpretation of what the writers of the book gave as their understanding of what they believed the word of god to be. It is also troubling to me that the church in which I was raised(Episcopal) would have you read what they have decided was the word of god, without bothering to mention that the original texts of the bible from which they teach are non-existent, what now are considered original texts are actually copies that were passed down. You will not find the handwritten texts of Matthew Mark Luke and John etc,. One should also wonder why the christian religions do not stress the reading of the texts in the original languages, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Why such a stress on Latin as opposed to Hebrew? It does seem that any Jewish child at his or her Bar/Bat Mitzvah has a better understanding of the text than does the preacher at the nearest church.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: loki 13 on 04/29/07 at 9:08 am
I cannot say the Bible is book of fairytales, rather it's a book of metaphors and misinterpreted facts. People of
today make a misconception that the people of that time knew the world as we know it today. Take Noah's
story as an example, The people of that time thought their little corner of the world was the whole world, so
when a great flood occurred in that region, the whole world was flooded. Scientist know 40 days and nights of
rain is not enough to flood the worlds land masses but to them it was a world wide catastrophe. Two of every
species on the planet seems quite an undertaking, an impossible task, but two of the major species of that region
seem not only possible but probable.
All the plagues of the Pharaoh were given a plausible explanation and in the time of Moses, the people had no concept
of the term "year," yet the Bible states that they wandered the desert for 40 years; an explanation --- at the time of
the writting every full moon was deemed a "year," so 40 full moons is just over 3 years, seems more believable doesn't
it?
The people of the time didn't know of science or nature so Deity was the only explanation. We have a better knowledge
of science now so we don't need Deity for explanations. Just look through the Bible and and use science to explain what
may have happened.
e.g.:
Chariot Of Fire.....Comet?
Pillar Of Smoke By Day and Fire By Night.....Volcano?
Fire From The Sky Destroys Sodom and Gomorrah....Volcanic Rock and/or Meteor Shower?
Walls Of Jericho....Earthquake?
We cannot say the Bible is untrue but what they couldn't explain was either the Wrath of God or a Miracle.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: snozberries on 04/29/07 at 10:41 am
So much to comment on!
She even went so far as to write the teacher a note on the back of her final telling her how offensive she was and how she would have wished her a Merry Christmas, but that was the celebration of Jesus' birthday and since the Bible is 'just a story' she didn't figure the teacher celebrated it, unless she was a hypocrite.
I don't think it's hypocritical to celebrate Christmas... or Christmass as in mass marketing. Christmas has become more of a commercial holiday than a religious one. . . and before you get mad... if you come down on Christmas morning to a tree full of presents you sold out and Jesus' birthday has become nothing more than an afterthought. Deal with it. Tell the kids instead of gifts for you we are celebrating Jesus today and for his birthday present we are giving him all the money we normally spend on you. Yeah that would go over real well.
No,because those who have faith want you to have it too!
And, most Christians I know DO get offended when others try to "share" their religion (or lack thereof) if it does not coincide with their beliefs....
This is one of the problems I have with so-called religious people because its the people who screw up religion. There is a need to convert everyone to your side. My father is born-again evangelical so its not a visit with him trying to "Save" me what the hell do I need saving from? I'm happy, well adjusted and fairly kind so I think I'm doing okay but I get angry at the idea that my life isn't complete because I don't accept Jesus Christ as my Savior... what f@#$ing ever!
I think the hypocrisy of it all is what offends the most. I think that if there is a God - and I am not saying there is - but if there is and you beleive he is all knowing, all loving, all givning and, as I have heard he created man in his own image then isn't he responsible for how man is? I mean how can you hate, and it is hate another human being for being different.
How can you hate someone who doesn't believe in your God. Why is their vision of their God so bad?
How can you hate someone who differs in sexual orientation. I mean if God made a person and they are gay then wasn't it God who made them gay in the first place? Why is something someone has no control over so offensive to the religious right? Its not like homosexuals are a threat to anyone. You're either gay or your not. They aren't out there crusading to recruit you to their side- they just want to be accepted. And this whole family values crap is crap. Its the 21st century you'd think we would have advanced in our perceptions and attitudes by now.
I think churches are just buildings. They have become a common meeting place for those who want to share the same religious experience but I don't think that- if you have faith- the only way to show it is to meet for 1 - 4 hours once a week. Church should be where your heart is and if that's behind the wheel of your car Monday morning at 9am then that's where it is.
Ya'all need to start being tolerant of one another. That also means that we (the heathens) need to be tolerant of you too.
You are entitled to your beliefs and I let you have them. I only start arguing when it comes intolerance. I have yet to meet on of those religious fanatics who's willing to bend on accepting people as they are. Until they do I will keep up my crusade.
Religion is euthanasia of the mind.
Maybe a better way to put it would be Euthanasia of reason.
I like this can I use it?
Okay, fair enough. But when you say (or ask), "how can you believe in a book of fairy tales?" as opposed to "how can you believe in the Bible?" - then you are being an idiot, not a debater.
I think of the Bible, not as book of fairy tales per se, but I do see it as an anthology.
It is a collection of stories meant to illustrate a particular religious ideology. Until someone can prove what is written is actually the word of God then I don't know. Seems to me like religous writings vary in detail sometime so who is right? For me it's kind of like the history books we studied in school. Really, there is some truth in the books but is a very skewed point of view. There is an editor and the editor decides which stories to put in and which ones to leave out. By most accounts most people in history are white. The only black names in my history book were Harriet Tubman and MLK Jr. Slavery was mentioned in passing, usually two paragraphs. There was little mention of the Mexican American war or Chinese Immigrant labor and what about the Japanese Internment camps during WWII? You have to go to alternate texts to learn about diverese influences to history. Seems like you might have to go to other texts to get the whole story of "biblical times" too.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: La Roche on 04/29/07 at 1:50 pm
I like this can I use it?
Sure, just tell em Dave sent you, they'll know. I'm on the Christian Coalitions Most Wanted list.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: CatwomanofV on 04/29/07 at 2:45 pm
All the plagues of the Pharaoh were given a plausible explanation and in the time of Moses, the people had no concept
of the term "year," yet the Bible states that they wandered the desert for 40 years; an explanation --- at the time of
the writting every full moon was deemed a "year," so 40 full moons is just over 3 years, seems more believable doesn't
it?
We know why the Isrealites wander through the desert for 40 years-Moses didn't stop to ask directions. :D ;D ;D ;D
The people of the time didn't know of science or nature so Deity was the only explanation. We have a better knowledge
of science now so we don't need Deity for explanations. Just look through the Bible and and use science to explain what
may have happened.
e.g.:
Chariot Of Fire.....Comet?
Pillar Of Smoke By Day and Fire By Night.....Volcano?
Fire From The Sky Destroys Sodom and Gomorrah....Volcanic Rock and/or Meteor Shower?
Walls Of Jericho....Earthquake?
We cannot say the Bible is untrue but what they couldn't explain was either the Wrath of God or a Miracle.
You are right about that. Just about every civilazation usually created deities to explain the things they couldn't explain. You see this with the ancient Egyptians, Myans, Norse, etc. etc.
Cat
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/29/07 at 10:41 pm
Engineering a vessel large enough to accomodate two of every creature in the "Biblical" world and keep all their lives sustained for a period of many months would be an impossible undertaking to this day. What about food supply? What about disease?
Furthermore, you cannot biologically regenerate a species to great numbers in a genetically viable way with only one specimen of each sex. I mean, come on!
:D
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Powerslave on 04/29/07 at 11:53 pm
Engineering a vessel large enough to accomodate two of every creature in the "Biblical" world and keep all their lives sustained for a period of many months would be an impossible undertaking to this day. What about food supply? What about disease?
Furthermore, you cannot biologically regenerate a species to great numbers in a genetically viable way with only one specimen of each sex. I mean, come on!
:D
This is one of the arguments put forward by evolutionists when they take on the Creationists. Of couse having a single pair breeding is not enough to maintain the survival of any species; however, the Creationists would argue that in this case it would be, because it would be in line with God's plan in the first place. This method of reasoning is completely in line with Creationist thought, which is in essence a collection of circular arguments. It's also merely one of the flaws in literal translation of what is quite obviously an allegorical story based on an ancient Sumerian legend. Furthermore, Creationists believe the Ark was 450 feet long! That's bigger than the biggest wooden ship ever built. The displacement would be about half that of the Titanic. And Noah built this thing all by himself? Secondly, even allowing for the fact that extra water came down from Heaven itself to completely flood every piece of land on Earth in only forty days (and nights), no one ever explains where it all went 70 days later. It just disappeared! Where did it run off to?
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Red Ant on 04/30/07 at 12:07 am
Engineering a vessel large enough to accomodate two of every creature in the "Biblical" world and keep all their lives sustained for a period of many months would be an impossible undertaking to this day.
Not quite impossible:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/28/dutch.ark.ap/index.html
Granted it's 1/5 the size of the Ark by Bible specs, but it took one man, with some occasional help from his son, less than 2 years to build it out of materials that have been around for a very long time.
Pointing this out doesn't make me believe in the original Noah's Ark: I just find it an interesting news story that ties in with this thread.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/30/07 at 7:45 am
Okay, fair enough. But when you say (or ask), "how can you believe in a book of fairy tales?" as opposed to "how can you believe in the Bible?" - then you are being an idiot, not a debater.
BUT, Christians get offended if someone even says that in their opinion the bible is a book of fairy tales. Are they not entitled to their opinion just as you are? Why is it offensive to suggest that the bible is a book of fairy tales, but not offensive to say it's not? To someone who believes the bible IS a book of fairy tales, suggesting it's not makes you an idiot and not a debater....
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 04/30/07 at 7:57 am
So much to comment on!
I don't think it's hypocritical to celebrate Christmas... or Christmass as in mass marketing. Christmas has become more of a commercial holiday than a religious one. . . and before you get mad... if you come down on Christmas morning to a tree full of presents you sold out and Jesus' birthday has become nothing more than an afterthought. Deal with it. Tell the kids instead of gifts for you we are celebrating Jesus today and for his birthday present we are giving him all the money we normally spend on you. Yeah that would go over real well.
This is one of the problems I have with so-called religious people because its the people who screw up religion. There is a need to convert everyone to your side. My father is born-again evangelical so its not a visit with him trying to "Save" me what the hell do I need saving from? I'm happy, well adjusted and fairly kind so I think I'm doing okay but I get angry at the idea that my life isn't complete because I don't accept Jesus Christ as my Savior... what f@#$ing ever!
I think the hypocrisy of it all is what offends the most. I think that if there is a God - and I am not saying there is - but if there is and you beleive he is all knowing, all loving, all givning and, as I have heard he created man in his own image then isn't he responsible for how man is? I mean how can you hate, and it is hate another human being for being different.
How can you hate someone who doesn't believe in your God. Why is their vision of their God so bad?
How can you hate someone who differs in sexual orientation. I mean if God made a person and they are gay then wasn't it God who made them gay in the first place? Why is something someone has no control over so offensive to the religious right? Its not like homosexuals are a threat to anyone. You're either gay or your not. They aren't out there crusading to recruit you to their side- they just want to be accepted. And this whole family values crap is crap. Its the 21st century you'd think we would have advanced in our perceptions and attitudes by now.
I think churches are just buildings. They have become a common meeting place for those who want to share the same religious experience but I don't think that- if you have faith- the only way to show it is to meet for 1 - 4 hours once a week. Church should be where your heart is and if that's behind the wheel of your car Monday morning at 9am then that's where it is.
Ya'all need to start being tolerant of one another. That also means that we (the heathens) need to be tolerant of you too.
You are entitled to your beliefs and I let you have them. I only start arguing when it comes intolerance. I have yet to meet on of those religious fanatics who's willing to bend on accepting people as they are. Until they do I will keep up my crusade.
I like this can I use it?
I think of the Bible, not as book of fairy tales per se, but I do see it as an anthology.
It is a collection of stories meant to illustrate a particular religious ideology. Until someone can prove what is written is actually the word of God then I don't know. Seems to me like religous writings vary in detail sometime so who is right? For me it's kind of like the history books we studied in school. Really, there is some truth in the books but is a very skewed point of view. There is an editor and the editor decides which stories to put in and which ones to leave out. By most accounts most people in history are white. The only black names in my history book were Harriet Tubman and MLK Jr. Slavery was mentioned in passing, usually two paragraphs. There was little mention of the Mexican American war or Chinese Immigrant labor and what about the Japanese Internment camps during WWII? You have to go to alternate texts to learn about diverese influences to history. Seems like you might have to go to other texts to get the whole story of "biblical times" too.
I think you misread my comments. I'm asking those who get offended why they do. Personally, I DO get offended when people assume because I'm not "religious" and don't go to church that I'm automatically a "bad person." However, if someone asks me how I can't believe "the word of God" (and yes, I've been asked that as well ::)) it doesn't bother me. I've also had people ask me where my kids learned their manners since we don't go to church....because you know, us heathens are nothing but a rude bunch of idiots :D
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Powerslave on 04/30/07 at 4:25 pm
I think you misread my comments. I'm asking those who get offended why they do. Personally, I DO get offended when people assume because I'm not "religious" and don't go to church that I'm automatically a "bad person." However, if someone asks me how I can't believe "the word of God" (and yes, I've been asked that as well ::)) it doesn't bother me. I've also had people ask me where my kids learned their manners since we don't go to church....because you know, us heathens are nothing but a rude bunch of idiots :D
Yeah, that annoys me also, the idea that people can't be ethical or moral simply because they don't have a religious belief. Ethics, morality and the distinction between "good" and "bad" were already in place in human society thousands of years before Christianity, and even before the Jewish tribes wandered out of the desert and learned how to write. "Normal" social behaviour among humans -- nurturing and caring, working together, respecting one another, politeness, manners -- has nothing to do with religious belief. Anthropological studies of remote Central American jungle tribes, tribes with no discernable religious belief, have proved this. Ergo, you don't have to be religious to be a good person. Indeed, look at all the religious people, both past and present, who were incredibly evil.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 04/30/07 at 4:42 pm
This is one of the arguments put forward by evolutionists when they take on the Creationists. Of couse having a single pair breeding is not enough to maintain the survival of any species; however, the Creationists would argue that in this case it would be, because it would be in line with God's plan in the first place. This method of reasoning is completely in line with Creationist thought, which is in essence a collection of circular arguments. It's also merely one of the flaws in literal translation of what is quite obviously an allegorical story based on an ancient Sumerian legend. Furthermore, Creationists believe the Ark was 450 feet long! That's bigger than the biggest wooden ship ever built. The displacement would be about half that of the Titanic. And Noah built this thing all by himself? Secondly, even allowing for the fact that extra water came down from Heaven itself to completely flood every piece of land on Earth in only forty days (and nights), no one ever explains where it all went 70 days later. It just disappeared! Where did it run off to?
It's like you are saying, they will tell you, "with God all things are possible." So is there any point in Creationists even bothering to make their quasi-scientific arguments?
::)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Powerslave on 04/30/07 at 7:22 pm
No. The point is not that they argue that with God all things are possible, the point is they call it science. And it isn't.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/01/07 at 1:25 pm
BUT, Christians get offended if someone even says that in their opinion the bible is a book of fairy tales. Are they not entitled to their opinion just as you are? Why is it offensive to suggest that the bible is a book of fairy tales, but not offensive to say it's not? To someone who believes the bible IS a book of fairy tales, suggesting it's not makes you an idiot and not a debater....
That wouldn't offend me, but as I said/wrote; "Okay, fair enough. But when you say (or ask), "how can you believe in a book of fairy tales?" as opposed to "how can you believe in the Bible?" - then you are being an idiot, not a debater"
That is a totally different thing... it's called purposely rude & purposely offensive
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Mushroom on 05/01/07 at 5:44 pm
The reason most people get offended when people question their religion, is because the person who does it either tends to be trying to "convert" them, or in some way is attacking their belief.
Personally, I don't support the questioning of somebodies faith. No more then I support the questioning of their sexual orientation, their politics, or most other things. These are all very personal issues, and are subjective to the person in question.
Asking somebody "Why they believe the Earth was made in 7 days" is really not much different from asking "Why are you gay?" or "Why do you not support abortion?" It is just one of those questions that is not really appropriate, and is almost guaranteed to offend the person being asked.
After all, when you question somebody on their faith (unless it is the situation where you are sincerely asking for personal interest reasons) it is normally done in a way to make them doubt or reject their current faith.
I have asked Cat in here several question on her spirituality. But I have never tried to "question" it. And I never would, because I respect her beliefs, and do not think she needs to be "converted".
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/01/07 at 6:10 pm
The reason most people get offended when people question their religion, is because the person who does it either tends to be trying to "convert" them, or in some way is attacking their belief.
Agreed. This goes back to earlier point about faith. You cannot *prove* God exists. Therefore, it's not like asking, "How can you believe water boils at 100 degrees celsius?" It depends on how you question and who you question. If you ask in a jeering manner, the other person is automatically going to become defensive. Generally, the more *sophisticated* the adherent, the more he or she is open to questioning of faith.
Personally, I don't support the questioning of somebodies faith. No more then I support the questioning of their sexual orientation, their politics, or most other things. These are all very personal issues, and are subjective to the person in question.
Indeed. I don't want a gay man pinching my bottom because I am straight. I don't want an evangelical telling me the good news because I am agnostic. However, I have no problem with gays or religious people per se. It is behavior that counts.
Asking somebody "Why they believe the Earth was made in 7 days"
The universe was created in six days. On the seventh day, He rested.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/angel4.gif
That wouldn't offend me, but as I said/wrote; "Okay, fair enough. But when you say (or ask), "how can you believe in a book of fairy tales?" as opposed to "how can you believe in the Bible?" - then you are being an idiot, not a debater"
That is a totally different thing... it's called purposely rude & purposely offensive
How can you believe in the Bible?
???
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: jackas on 05/02/07 at 1:16 am
First of all, I have to question your motives for this "question". Second; why bring me into it & more importantly, why just give one example of the things you said, (insulting things)? This whole post is just a bashing post & you know it. It is hard to believe you are being sincere here, but I wouldn't expect anything else.
Harmonica? ???
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: karen on 05/02/07 at 3:32 am
Harmonica? ???
no..I think the l stands for Linda. I've seen comments in the song parody thread by or about the same person.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: philbo on 05/02/07 at 6:14 am
no..I think the l stands for Linda. I've seen comments in the song parody thread by or about the same person.
I've kind of assumed that she's this parody author. She does have a tendency to let an irrational and extreme hatred of all that's "liberal" get in the way of her parody-writing at times.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Mushroom on 05/02/07 at 10:00 am
Therefore, it's not like asking, "How can you believe water boils at 100 degrees celsius?" It depends on how you question and who you question.
And in reality, that is normally not a true statement. Water only boils at 100c at sea level, with an atmospheric pressure of 14.73 psia.
If the person is at the top of Mount Everest, it boils at about 60c. If they are the Medusa Thermal Vent (8,500 feet under the Pacific Ocean), water does not boil until it reaches 390c (since 33'=1 atmosphere of pressure, that means the pressure is 257.57 times the pressure at sea level).
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/02/07 at 5:04 pm
That wouldn't offend me, but as I said/wrote; "Okay, fair enough. But when you say (or ask), "how can you believe in a book of fairy tales?" as opposed to "how can you believe in the Bible?" - then you are being an idiot, not a debater"
That is a totally different thing... it's called purposely rude & purposely offensive
I read what you wrote. You're missing the point. It's a matter of semantics. If I think it's a book of fairy tales, why am I not entitled to say so? Why do I have to use the word YOU choose is "acceptable" to describe what I believe is a book of stories? Look at the definition of "bible":
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
Bi·ble /ˈbaɪbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.
2. Also called Hebrew Scriptures. the collection of sacred writings of the Jewish religion: known to Christians as the Old Testament.
3. (often lowercase) the sacred writings of any religion.
4. (lowercase) any book, reference work, periodical, etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable: He regarded that particular bird book as the birdwatchers' bible.
If I don't agree with ANY of those definitions, why use the word?
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/02/07 at 8:41 pm
I've kind of assumed that she's this parody author. She does have a tendency to let an irrational and extreme hatred of all that's "liberal" get in the way of her parody-writing at times.
You do have the tendency to let irrational and extreme hatered of all that's "conservative" get in your way of your message board posts.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/02/07 at 8:44 pm
The reason most people get offended when people question their religion, is because the person who does it either tends to be trying to "convert" them, or in some way is attacking their belief.
Personally, I don't support the questioning of somebodies faith. No more then I support the questioning of their sexual orientation, their politics, or most other things. These are all very personal issues, and are subjective to the person in question.
Asking somebody "Why they believe the Earth was made in 7 days" is really not much different from asking "Why are you gay?" or "Why do you not support abortion?" It is just one of those questions that is not really appropriate, and is almost guaranteed to offend the person being asked.
After all, when you question somebody on their faith (unless it is the situation where you are sincerely asking for personal interest reasons) it is normally done in a way to make them doubt or reject their current faith.
I have asked Cat in here several question on her spirituality. But I have never tried to "question" it. And I never would, because I respect her beliefs, and do not think she needs to be "converted".
EXACTLY!
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/02/07 at 8:46 pm
BUT, Christians get offended if someone even says that in their opinion the bible is a book of fairy tales. Are they not entitled to their opinion just as you are? Why is it offensive to suggest that the bible is a book of fairy tales, but not offensive to say it's not? To someone who believes the bible IS a book of fairy tales, suggesting it's not makes you an idiot and not a debater....
If you can't see why that is so offensive, then feel badly for you.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/02/07 at 8:49 pm
There are some historic accuracies found within the bible, but that doesn't mean the stories of the characters within the background of the historical incidences are true. One should wonder why the bible is taught as the word of god, not the interrpretation of what the writers of the book gave as their understanding of what they believed the word of god to be. It is also troubling to me that the church in which I was raised(Episcopal) would have you read what they have decided was the word of god, without bothering to mention that the original texts of the bible from which they teach are non-existent, what now are considered original texts are actually copies that were passed down. You will not find the handwritten texts of Matthew Mark Luke and John etc,. One should also wonder why the christian religions do not stress the reading of the texts in the original languages, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Why such a stress on Latin as opposed to Hebrew? It does seem that any Jewish child at his or her Bar/Bat Mitzvah has a better understanding of the text than does the preacher at the nearest church.
I noticed you gave words like Episcopal, Matthew and Bar Mitzah etc in caps, but not once for Bible or God...
(just wondering why)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/02/07 at 8:55 pm
I read what you wrote. You're missing the point. It's a matter of semantics. If I think it's a book of fairy tales, why am I not entitled to say so? Why do I have to use the word YOU choose is "acceptable" to describe what I believe is a book of stories? Look at the definition of "bible":
Imus' opinion is that a girl's basketball team is one of a bunch of nappy headed hos.
It's his opinion, so I guess that he shouldn't have been fired for saying that huh? Your logic here!
What is someone really loves their mom, really really loves their mom & someone comes along and calls their mom a fat lazy ho, (it's their opinion of course) so it's okay, huh?
It's the SAME thing, the SAME!
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/02/07 at 9:02 pm
Yeah, that annoys me also, the idea that people can't be ethical or moral simply because they don't have a religious belief.
Most people in the US beleive in God - yet, when polls asking thousands & thousanda of people the question "Do you have to believe in God in order to be moral people"? the HUGE majority said "NO". So I think you may have it in your head, (maybe as an auto-defense thing), that people are judging you and your ethics / morals because you do not have a religious belief when most people do not think that.
So many posters here think that Christians chase them and try to force their religion down their throats; I don't see it at all. I see more people trying to take Christianity away from the public by FAR & no"Bible thumpers" running me down.
I get annoyed that so many people cry/whine "victims" to make a poltical point.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/02/07 at 9:35 pm
And in reality, that is normally not a true statement. Water only boils at 100c at sea level, with an atmospheric pressure of 14.73 psia.
If the person is at the top of Mount Everest, it boils at about 60c. If they are the Medusa Thermal Vent (8,500 feet under the Pacific Ocean), water does not boil until it reaches 390c (since 33'=1 atmosphere of pressure, that means the pressure is 257.57 times the pressure at sea level).
+1 karma for another gotcha moment from Mushroom! And that's why religious zealots hate science. There are no absolutes. Sometimes water boils at 100c, sometimes it doesn't. Too many variables in even the simplists scientific principle!
;D
Most people in the US beleive in God - yet, when polls asking thousands & thousanda of people the question "Do you have to believe in God in order to be moral people"? the HUGE majority said "NO". So I think you may have it in your head, (maybe as an auto-defense thing), that people are judging you and your ethics / morals because you do not have a religious belief when most people do not think that.
So many posters here think that Christians chase them and try to force their religion down their throats; I don't see it at all. I see more people trying to take Christianity away from the public by FAR & no"Bible thumpers" running me down.
I get annoyed that so many people cry/whine "victims" to make a poltical point.
The politically active among the Christian Right have indeed been trying to "Christianize" this country for 30 years. They will tell you no different. When pundits from the Christian Right start spouting off, it's always about how liberal godless communist homosexual crossdressing secular progressive perverts are destroying the greatest country God ever gave man. "Cry/whine/victim" is a game at which they have few rivals!
::)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/03/07 at 12:26 am
The politically active among the Christian Right have indeed been trying to "Christianize" this country for 30 years. They will tell you no different. When pundits from the Christian Right start spouting off, it's always about how liberal godless communist homosexual crossdressing secular progressive perverts are destroying the greatest country God ever gave man. "Cry/whine/victim" is a game at which they have few rivals!
::)
They haven't said as much; you made that up. The fight is that liberals are trying to remove it - that is no lie & they will tell you no different.
...and you forgot baby killers in your "liberal godless communist homosexual crossdressing secular progressive perverts rant.... (although very untrue, you sound stunning)
The Christian bashing has been racing about since the left wing wackos pushed on us all that the Christians are evil because they voted for the right... that's the real issue - the one that irritates you, not that they are pushing religion on you, poor baby.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: philbo on 05/03/07 at 6:37 am
You do have the tendency to let irrational and extreme hatered of all that's "conservative" get in your way of your message board posts.
There's the difference: I do not "hate", and am rarely irrational. When I disagree and argue with a conservative, it never involves hate-filled generalizations tarring whole sectors of the population with one extreme brush. And I don't consider parroting an accurate statement with a couple of words changed to become an inaccurate one to be debate, either.
It's the SAME thing, the SAME!
Are you seriously suggesting that one person's belief that the bible (OK, if it makes you feel better, "Bible".. or any other collection of "holy" stories) is based on about as much truth as anything by the Brothers Grimm is the same thing as calling someone's mother a "fat lazy ho"? Though knowing my mother, I could see it making her laugh...
Most people in the US beleive in God - yet, when polls asking thousands & thousanda of people the question "Do you have to believe in God in order to be moral people"? the HUGE majority said "NO". So I think you may have it in your head, (maybe as an auto-defense thing), that people are judging you and your ethics / morals because you do not have a religious belief when most people do not think that.
According to this recent poll, 26% of people thought it was not possible to be a moral person and an atheist. I'd call that pretty sickening, myself. Basically, that's more than a quarter of the population of the US making the assumption that I cannot be a moral person, so no, I don't think it's only in Powerslave's head.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/03/07 at 8:18 am
If you can't see why that is so offensive, then feel badly for you.
Gee, this affected you so much you had to answer it twice. Why feel badly for me? Because I have a more open mind and can accept other people's opinions?
Imus' opinion is that a girl's basketball team is one of a bunch of nappy headed hos.
It's his opinion, so I guess that he shouldn't have been fired for saying that huh? Your logic here!
What is someone really loves their mom, really really loves their mom & someone comes along and calls their mom a fat lazy ho, (it's their opinion of course) so it's okay, huh?
It's the SAME thing, the SAME!
Using a "racial slur" against a person or people is MUCH different than calling a book "a bunch of fairy" tales. If you can't see the difference, then I feel sorry for YOU.
For example, I drive an Expedition, that I really really love. People have called it every name under the book and it doesn't offend me. That's their opinion. I'll try to defend my choice, but I don't consider it offensive.
Even closer to the topic: I LOVED the book "The Catcher in the Rye." A kid in my class said it was "the most poorly written piece of drivel he's ever been forced to read." Should I have been offended? It's a bunch of words on some paper....some are going to love it, some are going to hate it.....if someone's so easily offended they're going to get their panties in a bunch over it, I feel sorry for THEM.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/03/07 at 8:24 am
Most people in the US beleive in God - yet, when polls asking thousands & thousanda of people the question "Do you have to believe in God in order to be moral people"? the HUGE majority said "NO". So I think you may have it in your head, (maybe as an auto-defense thing), that people are judging you and your ethics / morals because you do not have a religious belief when most people do not think that.
So many posters here think that Christians chase them and try to force their religion down their throats; I don't see it at all. I see more people trying to take Christianity away from the public by FAR & no"Bible thumpers" running me down.
I get annoyed that so many people cry/whine "victims" to make a poltical point.
Of course you don't see it, you're a Christian. You're not the one people are trying to "convert." Part of the reason I no longer practice any religion is that I cannot stand the "you don't agree with my beliefs so you're *insert negative adjective*" attitude amongst most Christian groups. I was raised Catholic and they're notorious for this.....I've also "tried" other "Christian" churches and the common attitude towards me was "you're not Christian because you're Catholic." Heck, even my 11 year old was told by a friend that he's not "Christian" because he was baptized Catholic.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/03/07 at 8:38 am
They haven't said as much; you made that up. The fight is that liberals are trying to remove it - that is no lie & they will tell you no different.
...and you forgot baby killers in your "liberal godless communist homosexual crossdressing secular progressive perverts rant.... (although very untrue, you sound stunning)
The Christian bashing has been racing about since the left wing wackos pushed on us all that the Christians are evil because they voted for the right... that's the real issue - the one that irritates you, not that they are pushing religion on you, poor baby.
You've obviously never listened to Pat Robertson....here's a few of my documented favorites:
"We want...as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians by 1996." --Pat Robertson, Denver Post, 10/26/92
"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 1/21/93
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992
"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."--Pat Robertson, 1993 interview with Molly Ivins
"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."--Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986
"The mission of the Christian Coalition is simple," says Pat Robertson. It is "to mobilize Christians -- one precinct at a time, one community at a time -- until once again we are the head and not the tail, and at the top rather than the bottom of our political system." Robertson predicts that "the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political force in America by the end of this decade." And, "We have enough votes to run this country...and when the people say, 'We've had enough,' we're going to take over!"--Pat Robertson
"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.
And, my personal favorite, though not Robertson:
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."--Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93
A Christian nation where "hate is good"? Uhhh, thanks, but no thanks....
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/03/07 at 8:40 am
You do have the tendency to let irrational and extreme hatered of all that's "conservative" get in your way of your message board posts.
But, at least he uses more intelligent terms than "liberal whackos" to get his point across.....
and, what is hatered?
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: spaceace on 05/03/07 at 8:43 am
You've obviously never listened to Pat Robertson....here's a few of my documented favorites:
"We want...as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians by 1996." --Pat Robertson, Denver Post, 10/26/92
"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 1/21/93
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992
"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."--Pat Robertson, 1993 interview with Molly Ivins
"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."--Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986
"The mission of the Christian Coalition is simple," says Pat Robertson. It is "to mobilize Christians -- one precinct at a time, one community at a time -- until once again we are the head and not the tail, and at the top rather than the bottom of our political system." Robertson predicts that "the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political force in America by the end of this decade." And, "We have enough votes to run this country...and when the people say, 'We've had enough,' we're going to take over!"--Pat Robertson
"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.
And, my personal favorite, though not Robertson:
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."--Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93
A Christian nation where "hate is good"? Uhhh, thanks, but no thanks....
it's the notion that hatred is a good thing if it's done in the name of faith. No rules really apply if it's done in the name of God.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/03/07 at 8:45 am
it's the notion that hatred is a good thing if it's done in the name of faith. No rules really apply if it's done in the name of God.
Hypocrisy at it's finest......O0
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: spaceace on 05/03/07 at 8:47 am
Hypocrisy at it's finest......O0
Today is National Day of Prayer. I'm afraid to go to the bank because I'm going to be harassed.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: jackas on 05/03/07 at 8:51 am
Imus' opinion is that a girl's basketball team is one of a bunch of nappy headed hos.
It's his opinion, so I guess that he shouldn't have been fired for saying that huh? Your logic here!
What is someone really loves their mom, really really loves their mom & someone comes along and calls their mom a fat lazy ho, (it's their opinion of course) so it's okay, huh?
It's the SAME thing, the SAME!
The point is that you should be secure enough in your belief so that those comments don't bother you.
If someone called my mom a fat lazy ho it wouldn't bother me because I know it's not true. And if it was true, it wouldn't bother me because 1) how can I deny the truth and 2)anyone who would say something like that about my mother surely isn't someone I want to associate with...I would just blow them off.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/03/07 at 12:05 pm
The point is that you should be secure enough in your belief so that those comments don't bother you.
If someone called my mom a fat lazy ho it wouldn't bother me because I know it's not true. And if it was true, it wouldn't bother me because 1) how can I deny the truth and 2)anyone who would say something like that about my mother surely isn't someone I want to associate with...I would just blow them off.
So Imus should not have been fired because the girls / public what ever should not be bothered & they / public etc., should merely stop listening to him RIGHT? You used my mom example, but ignored Imus' etc., so - right? Imus was OKAY with what he said? In your book, he was okay.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/03/07 at 12:07 pm
it's the notion that hatred is a good thing if it's done in the name of faith. No rules really apply if it's done in the name of God.
OMG! That's utter nonsense - no believers believe that.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/03/07 at 12:21 pm
Using a "racial slur" against a person or people is MUCH different than calling a book "a bunch of fairy" tales. If you can't see the difference, then I feel sorry for YOU.
For example, I drive an Expedition, that I really really love. People have called it every name under the book and it doesn't offend me. That's their opinion. I'll try to defend my choice, but I don't consider it offensive.
Even closer to the topic: I LOVED the book "The Catcher in the Rye." A kid in my class said it was "the most poorly written piece of drivel he's ever been forced to read." Should I have been offended? It's a bunch of words on some paper....some are going to love it, some are going to hate it.....if someone's so easily offended they're going to get their panties in a bunch over it, I feel sorry for THEM.
I realize you think that was a good and smart comparison, but it was far from a one. The Bible is the Word of God to those who believe; their whole belief system; not some fictional novel - but it is who they are, what they are and hope to become. There's where the Imus thing comes in; SAME thing, only to some, more important. It was imus' opinion that they were nappy headed hos and it offended them, some say it went deeper than that & it hurt them without repair...... they don't have to listen to Imus' show. Imus' remark should be fine with you if you are fine with insulting and hurting Christians.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: jackas on 05/03/07 at 12:28 pm
So Imus should not have been fired because the girls / public what ever should not be bothered & they / public etc., should merely stop listening to him RIGHT? You used my mom example, but ignored Imus' etc., so - right? Imus was OKAY with what he said? In your book, he was okay.
I don't have a problem with what Imus said. Sure it was rude, but people say rude things all the time.
No, I don't think Imus should have been fired for his comments. I believe that if he had higher ratings or brought in more revenue for his stations he would not have been fired. I don't think it was his comments alone that got him fired. He basically wasn't a big enough asset for his employers to put up with his BS anymore.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/03/07 at 1:15 pm
I don't have a problem with what Imus said. Sure it was rude, but people say rude things all the time.
No, I don't think Imus should have been fired for his comments. I believe that if he had higher ratings or brought in more revenue for his stations he would not have been fired. I don't think it was his comments alone that got him fired. He basically wasn't a big enough asset for his employers to put up with his BS anymore.
They paid him for years for his BS. It was the hypocrasy of "rev" al sharpton and gang that got him fired.
As for the rest of that - good for you, be proud & call it all a progressive attitude!
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: spaceace on 05/03/07 at 2:06 pm
OMG! That's utter nonsense - no believers believe that.
I know of quite a few Christian radicals who believe that.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/03/07 at 5:16 pm
I know of quite a few Christian radicals who believe that.
I've been a pastor & been in the church for most of my life, (although not real recently), and I know thousands of Christains --- I have not met one single person like that, not one! Sure there are a few bad apples in every batch of people, every group; radicals every place - even radical Christain haters = but they are not the rule, if you know any at all, they are the exception.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/03/07 at 6:13 pm
I've been a pastor & been in the church for most of my life, (although not real recently), and I know thousands of Christains --- I have not met one single person like that, not one! Sure there are a few bad apples in every batch of people, every group; radicals every place - even radical Christain haters = but they are not the rule, if you know any at all, they are the exception.
Huh? You were a pastor? I'm intreeeeged!
???
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: snozberries on 05/03/07 at 8:17 pm
Huh? You were a pastor? I'm intreeeeged!
???
I'm scared.... I thought faith was supposed to bring peace....it appears Iterhune's a little edgy I would hate to hear the sermon from that pulpit?
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/03/07 at 9:18 pm
Huh? You were a pastor? I'm intreeeeged!
???
Yep! In a Christian church... to be more exact, I was the associate pastor; youth minister and children's education minister! It was fun; Bible in one hand, volleyball in the other - good job! I was also a chaplin in the Navy
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/03/07 at 9:21 pm
I'm scared.... I thought faith was supposed to bring peace....it appears Iterhune's a little edgy I would hate to hear the sermon from that pulpit?
It's "L" terhune, by the way
~ and edgy is not a bad thing, not always... and I like that you are scared... stay that way, maybe you could manage to be more respectful if you fear me! ;) - but I must say that post wasn't a good start!
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: spaceace on 05/03/07 at 11:09 pm
I've been a pastor & been in the church for most of my life, (although not real recently), and I know thousands of Christains --- I have not met one single person like that, not one! Sure there are a few bad apples in every batch of people, every group; radicals every place - even radical Christain haters = but they are not the rule, if you know any at all, they are the exception.
Oh my goodness a pastor and a soldier and a hypocrite. My you really have done it all. Sorry your opinion really doesn't mean that much to me dearie.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/04/07 at 12:20 am
OMG! That's utter nonsense - no believers believe that.
ehhhhhhnnnnttt...try again....I point you to my previous post, in particular the Randall Terry quote.....
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/04/07 at 12:33 am
I realize you think that was a good and smart comparison, but it was far from a one. The Bible is the Word of God to those who believe; their whole belief system; not some fictional novel - but it is who they are, what they are and hope to become. There's where the Imus thing comes in; SAME thing, only to some, more important. It was imus' opinion that they were nappy headed hos and it offended them, some say it went deeper than that & it hurt them without repair...... they don't have to listen to Imus' show. Imus' remark should be fine with you if you are fine with insulting and hurting Christians.
Oh, please. Like those girls have never heard the term "nappy headed hos" before or haven't been called worse. Heck, I'm white and I'VE been called worse than that. I refuse to believe that they were "damaged" by it. Was it uncalled for? Yes. Does he really think they're "nhh" or was it said in an attempt to be funny? The latter. BUT, would it have been less of an issue if he had been black? Yes....I truly believe that.
So now being African American is a belief system that someone can strive to attain? Hmmmm....I'll have to try that....maybe one day I'll go to sleep and wake up black.....sound ridiculous? So's saying that Imus comments are equal to calling the bible a "bunch of fairy tales"....
Sorry, still don't think they're even close.....one is a slur against a PERSON'S RACE, something they CANNOT change (well, unless they're Michael Jackson) the other is a INANIMATE OBJECT that has been changed over time (even devout Christians admit there were things "lost in translation") and Christianity is something you CHOOSE to believe, something that can and HAS been changed. You're not BORN "christian".....think about it.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/04/07 at 12:37 am
I've been a pastor & been in the church for most of my life, (although not real recently), and I know thousands of Christains --- I have not met one single person like that, not one! Sure there are a few bad apples in every batch of people, every group; radicals every place - even radical Christain haters = but they are not the rule, if you know any at all, they are the exception.
you obviously never met Harmonica....
And, I grew up in the Catholic Church, went to Catholic Schools and a Catholic College so I also probably know "thousands" of christians and I knew more than a few who thought like that.....
maybe you should analyze your own posts....you've made it clear that you HATE "liberals"....why? because you see them as "Christian haters" sounds to me like someone using Christianity (or the reaction to) as a basis of hatred......
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/04/07 at 3:19 pm
Oh my goodness a pastor and a soldier and a hypocrite. My you really have done it all. Sorry your opinion really doesn't mean that much to me dearie.
apparently it does! you send me mail & you reply a lot to my posts - nice try though.
PS Sailor, not soldier - and do I detect a bit of jealousy? Thought so!
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/04/07 at 3:23 pm
Oh, please. Like those girls have never heard the term "nappy headed hos" before or haven't been called worse. Heck, I'm white and I'VE been called worse than that. I refuse to believe that they were "damaged" by it. Was it uncalled for? Yes. Does he really think they're "nhh" or was it said in an attempt to be funny? The latter. BUT, would it have been less of an issue if he had been black? Yes....I truly believe that.
So now being African American is a belief system that someone can strive to attain? Hmmmm....I'll have to try that....maybe one day I'll go to sleep and wake up black.....sound ridiculous? So's saying that Imus comments are equal to calling the bible a "bunch of fairy tales"....
Sorry, still don't think they're even close.....one is a slur against a PERSON'S RACE, something they CANNOT change (well, unless they're Michael Jackson) the other is a INANIMATE OBJECT that has been changed over time (even devout Christians admit there were things "lost in translation") and Christianity is something you CHOOSE to believe, something that can and HAS been changed. You're not BORN "christian".....think about it.
you obviously do not get it...... I got that.
IMHO, I think it may be your moral compass being a bit off.. it's wrong, trust me. your defending it makes you look really --well, just hard core rotten
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: philbo on 05/04/07 at 3:37 pm
Yep! In a Christian church... to be more exact, I was the associate pastor; youth minister and children's education minister! It was fun; Bible in one hand, volleyball in the other - good job! I was also a chaplin in the Navy
A chaplin in the Navy? Didn't the moustache get wet?
you obviously do not get it...... I got that.
IMHO, I think it may be your moral compass being a bit off.. it's wrong, trust me. your defending it makes you look really --well, just hard core rotten
I don't think it's Mama_K's moral compass that's off... and it's painfully obvious that you can't see what it is she's getting at: the way I read it is that attacking what somebody is, and can't change (such as skin colour) is worse than it would be for something they have made a choice about (such as religion). It's a shame that someone with your exceptional intelligence never seems to understand when other people make any mildly tricky sorts of points, then tries to weasel out of an ad hominem by sticking "IMHO" at the start.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/04/07 at 5:18 pm
Bottom line - it's offensive to people who believe, so why defend the right to ask offensive questions? What is the big fat deal about asking, "why do you believe in the Bible"? (How hard is that?) Why defend asking it like this; "why do you believe in a book of fairy tales"? Is it tough, rough, hard, a chore to be decent when you KNOW that people ARE offended for WHAT EVER the reason is, huh? Faith is a personal thing, a big deal for millions and millions and millions of people in our country & to go on and on justifying the more piggish way of asking someone a question, (that obviously is not asked for real reasons, but rather making a statement of sorts), is just wrong. Do YOU understand that OPINON, or, is it me not understanding the opinions of others who need to so badly defend -to the end- their right to be offensive?
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/04/07 at 5:24 pm
A chaplin in the Navy? Didn't the moustache get wet?
Ah, humor!
Chaplain; w/an extra 'a'
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/04/07 at 5:28 pm
Yep! In a Christian church... to be more exact, I was the associate pastor; youth minister and children's education minister! It was fun; Bible in one hand, volleyball in the other - good job! I was also a chaplin in the Navy
Yes, I deduced the "Christian" part, but what church exactly? What denomination? Where did you study for your credentials and for how long?
I'm just wondering because...well, I'm just wondering.
???
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: philbo on 05/04/07 at 5:52 pm
Bottom line - it's offensive to people who believe, so why defend the right to ask offensive questions? What is the big fat deal about asking, "why do you believe in the Bible"? (How hard is that?) Why defend asking it like this; "why do you believe in a book of fairy tales"? Is it tough, rough, hard, a chore to be decent when you KNOW that people ARE offended for WHAT EVER the reason is, huh? Faith is a personal thing, a big deal for millions and millions and millions of people in our country & to go on and on justifying the more piggish way of asking someone a question, (that obviously is not asked for real reasons, but rather making a statement of sorts), is just wrong. Do YOU understand that OPINON, or, is it me not understanding the opinions of others who need to so badly defend -to the end- their right to be offensive?
When somebody can explain to me the difference between the Bible and any other book of fairy tales, then I might rethink how I ask the question. You want to be offended? Fine - that's your problem. I, for one, believe in freedom of speech. After all, you are quite happy to go out of your way to offend those people whose political viewpoints you disagree with, you repeatedly cast ridiculous aspersions, repeat lies and libel. Hypocrite (N.B. this is *not* an insult - it's a description)
Ah, humor!
Chaplain; w/an extra 'a'
No, "humour" w/an extra 'u'
;)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/04/07 at 6:43 pm
When somebody can explain to me the difference between the Bible and any other book of fairy tales, then I might rethink how I ask the question. You want to be offended? Fine - that's your problem. I, for one, believe in freedom of speech. After all, you are quite happy to go out of your way to offend those people whose political viewpoints you disagree with, you repeatedly cast ridiculous aspersions, repeat lies and libel. Hypocrite (N.B. this is *not* an insult - it's a description)
No, "humour" w/an extra 'u'
;)
I'm a very humerus person!
http://tosaweb.ncsd.k12.wy.us/faculty/lbell/Human%20Skeleton/Images/Humerus.jpg
:D
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/04/07 at 7:40 pm
Yes, I deduced the "Christian" part, but what church exactly? What denomination? Where did you study for your credentials and for how long?
It was a Non denominational Christian Church, (Hacienda Heights Christian Church), although I was originally baptized Methodist, (with Atheists parents). I attended Azusa Pacific Christian College for four years; (and Fullerton for two years for an English degree)
I'm just wondering because...well, I'm just wondering.
???
Now then, I have been frank about it, you can tell me why you are wondering - right?
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/04/07 at 7:42 pm
When somebody can explain to me the difference between the Bible and any other book of fairy tales,
Thank you, you have just modeled my point (and well too)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/04/07 at 8:11 pm
It was a Non denominational Christian Church, (Hacienda Heights Christian Church), although I was originally baptized Methodist, (with Atheists parents). I attended Azusa Pacific Christian College for four years; (and Fullerton for two years for an English degree)
Now then, I have been frank about it, you can tell me why you are wondering - right?
No, I will stay neutral here and let the talking come from the source.
APU mission statement:
http://www.apu.edu/about/evangelical
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/04/07 at 8:52 pm
No, I will stay neutral here and let the talking come from the source.
APU mission statement:
http://www.apu.edu/about/evangelical
What, you'd expect me to go to a local community college for this? By the way, smarty, that wasn't the mission statement for APU, this is the mission statement; http://www.apu.edu/about/mission/
You still really didn't answer the question! Sometimes you really have trouble answering things I ask, and I ask with sincerity too - go figure! I read your link, by the way, and all I gathered from it is that you wanted to use the information I gave you so that you could look it up and find a way to slam me, am I right (or will you actually answer?)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/04/07 at 9:21 pm
What, you'd expect me to go to a local community college for this? By the way, smarty, that wasn't the mission statement for APU, this is the mission statement; http://www.apu.edu/about/mission/
You still really didn't answer the question! Sometimes you really have trouble answering things I ask, and I ask with sincerity too - go figure! I read your link, by the way, and all I gathered from it is that you wanted to use the information I gave you so that you could look it up and find a way to slam me, am I right (or will you actually answer?)
"Azusa Pacific University is an evangelical Christian community of disciples and scholars who seek to advance the work of God in the world through academic excellence in liberal arts and professional programs of higher education that encourage students to develop a Christian perspective of truth and life."
So there it is.
Since you press me, I will just say I personally find your general attitude out of sync with stated Christian principles and lacking in the spiritual magnanimity with which I would expect one who claims to subscribe to said principles to conduct herself.
I also find it quite classist for you to slam community colleges. They are not institutions of academic prestige, but they serve a necessary and honorable purpose.
It would not be acceptable within the bounds of this forum for me to be quite as candid with you as you are provoking me to be.
Might I suggest you tone down the personal vitriol yourself?
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: lterhune on 05/04/07 at 11:11 pm
"Azusa Pacific University is an evangelical Christian community of disciples and scholars who seek to advance the work of God in the world through academic excellence in liberal arts and professional programs of higher education that encourage students to develop a Christian perspective of truth and life." So there it is.
That's better... that's the mission statement!
Since you press me, I will just say I personally find your general attitude out of sync with stated Christian principles and lacking in the spiritual magnanimity with which I would expect one who claims to subscribe to said principles to conduct herself.
So you didn't answer the question. And when I assumed that you wanted the information that I gave you to use against me in some judgmental attack to prove – gad knows what, (and looking at your attempt at an answer), I was right! -good guy!
I also find it quite classist for you to slam community colleges. They are not institutions of academic prestige, but they serve a necessary and honorable purpose.
Golly, you are so ready to jump on and be defensive about every line I write in every post - you don't even really read what I write - an open mind and slower pace would be considerate. I NEVER slammed community colleges, gad! If you needed me to clarify, that would be one thing, but your accusation is over-the-top! To reword it, I meant that I could not attend a community college because they do not offer majors in Christian Education. Holy Cow!
It would not be acceptable within the bounds of this forum for me to be quite as candid with you as you are provoking me to be. Might I suggest you tone down the personal vitriol yourself?
Pot calling the kettle black!
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: philbo on 05/05/07 at 2:34 am
Thank you, you have just modeled my point (and well too)
I thought as much... I'll take that as "no difference", then.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: snozberries on 05/05/07 at 9:49 am
It's "L" terhune, by the way
~ and edgy is not a bad thing, not always... and I like that you are scared... stay that way, maybe you could manage to be more respectful if you fear me! ;) - but I must say that post wasn't a good start!
sorry it looked more like an I than an L and ya know fear does not breed respect. I am scared because you get really angry yet you hold a position where you lead many people. Like most religious zealots I have met you are even less tolerant of us (athiests/agnostics) than we are of your kind.
Its sad because we live in doubt but you are supposed to be filled with all the peace that faith supposedly gives you yet you rant because some people don't regard the bible the same way you do. Its just a book for God's sake. Not the end of the world.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: annonymouse on 05/05/07 at 10:30 am
Oh, please. Like those girls have never heard the term "nappy headed hos" before or haven't been called worse. Heck, I'm white and I'VE been called worse than that. I refuse to believe that they were "damaged" by it. Was it uncalled for? Yes. Does he really think they're "nhh" or was it said in an attempt to be funny? The latter. BUT, would it have been less of an issue if he had been black? Yes....I truly believe that.
So now being African American is a belief system that someone can strive to attain? Hmmmm....I'll have to try that....maybe one day I'll go to sleep and wake up black.....sound ridiculous? So's saying that Imus comments are equal to calling the bible a "bunch of fairy tales"....
Sorry, still don't think they're even close.....one is a slur against a PERSON'S RACE, something they CANNOT change (well, unless they're Michael Jackson) the other is a INANIMATE OBJECT that has been changed over time (even devout Christians admit there were things "lost in translation") and Christianity is something you CHOOSE to believe, something that can and HAS been changed. You're not BORN "christian".....think about it.
i agree. it was uncalled for, but people are making way to big of a deal over. i'll bet if that show stayed on the air, it'd be getting more viewers than EVER!
and yes, many things have been lost in translation. kinda like the whole "no masturbation" story. that's not what it was really about.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: spaceace on 05/05/07 at 10:50 am
sorry it looked more like an I than an L and ya know fear does not breed respect. I am scared because you get really angry yet you hold a position where you lead many people. Like most religious zealots I have met you are even less tolerant of us (athiests/agnostics) than we are of your kind.
Its sad because we live in doubt but are supposed to be filled with all the peace that faith supposedly gives you yet you rant because some people don't regard the bible the same way you do. Its just a book for God's sake. Not the end of the world.
Thank you!!! Snozberries I could have said it more profound than you have. :)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: snozberries on 05/05/07 at 11:20 am
Thank you!!! Snozberries I could have said it more profound than you have. :)
No prob. Someone had to say it. 8)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/05/07 at 11:53 am
^ well, that's enough for me. I've had my fill. Now, may I be excused?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/hiding.gif
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: snozberries on 05/05/07 at 12:08 pm
^ well, that's enough for me. I've had my fill. Now, may I be excused?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/hiding.gif
Yeah you've taken a bigger beating than I have but I suspect I'm next
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/05/07 at 12:24 pm
Yeah you've taken a bigger beating than I have but I suspect I'm next
Oh yeah, she's sluggin' fer Jesus, don'tcha know!
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: jackas on 05/05/07 at 12:30 pm
Bottom line - it's offensive to people who believe, so why defend the right to ask offensive questions? What is the big fat deal about asking, "why do you believe in the Bible"? (How hard is that?) Why defend asking it like this; "why do you believe in a book of fairy tales"? Is it tough, rough, hard, a chore to be decent when you KNOW that people ARE offended for WHAT EVER the reason is, huh? Faith is a personal thing, a big deal for millions and millions and millions of people in our country & to go on and on justifying the more piggish way of asking someone a question, (that obviously is not asked for real reasons, but rather making a statement of sorts), is just wrong. Do YOU understand that OPINON, or, is it me not understanding the opinions of others who need to so badly defend -to the end- their right to be offensive?
I'm quite sure that you understand their opinion, you just don't agree with it.....and of course you don't have to. It's just a freedom of speech thing. Sure it is polite to form questions in a way that is less offensive, but that is not always going to happen and besides, who really wants to live in a society that is so damn perfect...nice and squeaky clean? By no means do I want to live in a society that is constantly offensive, but you need a little variation....that's what makes things interesting and what makes us all different....the right to act and speak how we choose. (within reason of course)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: CatwomanofV on 05/05/07 at 12:53 pm
sorry it looked more like an I than an L and ya know fear does not breed respect. I am scared because you get really angry yet you hold a position where you lead many people. Like most religious zealots I have met you are even less tolerant of us (athiests/agnostics) than we are of your kind.
Its sad because we live in doubt but are supposed to be filled with all the peace that faith supposedly gives you yet you rant because some people don't regard the bible the same way you do. Its just a book for God's sake. Not the end of the world.
http://emoticons4u.com/happy/1074.gif
Cat
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: loki 13 on 05/05/07 at 5:58 pm
One thing I'll never understand; through all the years of book burning and book banning, why was the Bible
never burned nor banned? The Bible is the most violent, sex driven book ever written. War, pestilence, famine,
and murder are abundant throughout the book and most of it at the hand of a supposed "Just and loving God."
Sex is also a large part of the Bible, deviant sex at that. Incest, homosexuality, pedophilia, gang rape and even a
little eating and drinking of human waste, yeah it's in there. :P
Not only has society never stood up to protest such a violent, sex filled book, they've incouraged their children to read it.
Instead they go after Catcher In The Rye, The Wizard Of Oz and Harry Potter, go figure. ???
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: snozberries on 05/05/07 at 6:19 pm
Anyone see Jesus Camp? It is the perfect documentary depicting what's wrong with religion.... of course the people belonging to that faith probably see it as positive portrayl. ::)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: spaceace on 05/05/07 at 6:21 pm
Anyone see Jesus Camp? It is the perfect documentary depicting what's wrong with religion.... of course the people belonging to that faith probably see it as positive portrayl. ::)
Haven't seen it yet. Of course I haven't been into horror flicks lately. :P
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: CatwomanofV on 05/05/07 at 6:40 pm
One thing I'll never understand; through all the years of book burning and book banning, why was the Bible
never burned nor banned? The Bible is the most violent, sex driven book ever written. War, pestilence, famine,
and murder are abundant throughout the book and most of it at the hand of a supposed "Just and loving God."
Sex is also a large part of the Bible, deviant sex at that. Incest, homosexuality, pedophilia, gang rape and even a
little eating and drinking of human waste, yeah it's in there. :P
Not only has society never stood up to protest such a violent, sex filled book, they've incouraged their children to read it.
Instead they go after Catcher In The Rye, The Wizard Of Oz and Harry Potter, go figure. ???
http://emoticons4u.com/happy/1074.gif
Cat
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Powerslave on 05/06/07 at 5:55 am
One thing I'll never understand; through all the years of book burning and book banning, why was the Bible
never burned nor banned? The Bible is the most violent, sex driven book ever written. War, pestilence, famine,
and murder are abundant throughout the book and most of it at the hand of a supposed "Just and loving God."
Sex is also a large part of the Bible, deviant sex at that. Incest, homosexuality, pedophilia, gang rape and even a
little eating and drinking of human waste, yeah it's in there. :P
Not only has society never stood up to protest such a violent, sex filled book, they've incouraged their children to read it.
Instead they go after Catcher In The Rye, The Wizard Of Oz and Harry Potter, go figure. ???
That's because the Bible was written by an infallible God. A cruel, vindictive, jealous, wrathful and destructive God who apparently later became a peace-loving and forgiving God later on, but an infallible one, nonetheless.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: philbo on 05/06/07 at 7:36 am
That's because the Bible was written by an infallible God. A cruel, vindictive, jealous, wrathful and destructive God who apparently later became a peace-loving and forgiving God later on, but an infallible one, nonetheless.
;D
And don't forget "ineffable"...
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: snozberries on 05/06/07 at 9:55 am
That's because the Bible was written by an infallible God. A cruel, vindictive, jealous, wrathful and destructive God who apparently later became a peace-loving and forgiving God later on, but an infallible one, nonetheless.
Gee and I thought the thing was just written by some guys who claimed to be there. . .
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/06/07 at 9:58 am
That's because the Bible was written by an infallible God. A cruel, vindictive, jealous, wrathful and destructive God who apparently later became a peace-loving and forgiving God later on, but an infallible one, nonetheless.
The Holy Trinity is a dysfunctional family. Think about it.
:P
;D
And don't forget "ineffable"...
I've been out with women like that!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/evil6.gif
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: philbo on 05/06/07 at 10:09 am
Gee and I thought the thing was just written by some guys who claimed to be there. . .
er... no, I don't think that's the claim. The Old Testament wasn't written down for many hundreds of years after being passed on as aural history; it is not known whether any of the New Testament was written by people who were actually there at the time, the earliest of the gospels being estimated at 70AD. It is fairly safe to say that the vast majority of it was written by people quite a long time after the events they describe.
Not that it really matters whether the person writing the text was there at the time, if it actually was dictated by God...
I've been out with women like that!
In both meanings of the word, I bet...
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: snozberries on 05/06/07 at 10:16 am
er... no, I don't think that's the claim. The Old Testament wasn't written down for many hundreds of years after being passed on as aural history; it is not known whether any of the New Testament was written by people who were actually there at the time, the earliest of the gospels being estimated at 70AD. It is fairly safe to say that the vast majority of it was written by people quite a long time after the events they describe.
Guess my sarcasm was a little too subtle.
I know that most of the accounts in the bible are writings from supposed oral histories and accounts. The problem with this is, anyone who's played the telephone game knows that details change with each account so how can anyone be sure about the accuracy of the bible?
Not that it really matters whether the person writing the text was there at the time, if it actually was dictated by God...
In both meanings of the word, I bet...
I also think the idea of someone claiming God spoke to him (so the red words are his direct quotes) is ludacris... even lterhune would balk if someone told her that God spoke them and now they have written a book about His message...
hey wait a minute... maybe that's how I can finally get published! ::)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/06/07 at 10:43 am
Guess my sarcasm was a little too subtle.
I know that most of the accounts in the bible are writings from supposed oral histories and accounts. The problem with this is, anyone who's played the telephone game knows that details change with each account so how can anyone be sure about the accuracy of the bible?
I also think the idea of someone claiming God spoke to him (so the red words are his direct quotes) is ludacris... even lterhune would balk if someone told her that God spoke them and now they have written a book about His message...
hey wait a minute... maybe that's how I can finally get published! ::)
Wha...?
God spoke to Ludacris?
http://us.ent2.yimg.com/musicfinder.yahoo.com/images/yahoo/def_jam/ludacris/ludacris.jpg
The new Moses? Yeah, I'm down widdat!
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: snozberries on 05/06/07 at 12:05 pm
Wha...?
God spoke to Ludacris?
http://us.ent2.yimg.com/musicfinder.yahoo.com/images/yahoo/def_jam/ludacris/ludacris.jpg
The new Moses? Yeah, I'm down widdat!
you know it dawg! http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/01/2ar15smilie.gif
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: philbo on 05/06/07 at 12:07 pm
Guess my sarcasm was a little too subtle.
Sorry...
I also think the idea of someone claiming God spoke to him (so the red words are his direct quotes) is ludacris... even lterhune would balk if someone told her that God spoke them and now they have written a book about His message...
hey wait a minute... maybe that's how I can finally get published! ::)
Possibly published or even elected president? Or maybe committed, who knows...
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Mushroom on 05/06/07 at 3:40 pm
er... no, I don't think that's the claim. The Old Testament wasn't written down for many hundreds of years after being passed on as aural history; it is not known whether any of the New Testament was written by people who were actually there at the time, the earliest of the gospels being estimated at 70AD. It is fairly safe to say that the vast majority of it was written by people quite a long time after the events they describe.
For the most part, reasonable people accept the fact that it is not perfect. Even most Jewish Scholars accept the fact that it is more of a history book then an actual religious document. And because in many cases it was oral history from thousands of years ago, it is not surprising that things became distorted over time.
Yet for all the attempts to prove it "wrong", skeptics also have to admit that they normally find enough information to show that the events described took place, even if not in the way that was later written down. And because their ancestors were a highly nomadic people, they tended to integrate not only the technology of other cultures, but their lore as well.
And quite often, plays and works of pure literature were incorporated into it. Both Job and Esther are commonly accepted as being pure stories, which were later integrated into the Scriptures because of the power of their message, not the historical accuracy of the stories themselves. Much like Revelations in the New Testament.
And with the exception of the letters from Saul (Paul), the Gospels are mostly written by people that came along much later. Matthew (the earliest Gospel) dates from 70-85 CE, and the others seem to date from anywhere between 70-140 CE. And it is interesting to note that these dates all fall after the expulsion of the Proto-Christians from the Jewish Synagogues (between 40-55 CE).
In fact, personally I tend to question a lot of the New Testament. Not in if it happened, but in how the "facts" are provided. During his life, Saul went from being a devout Pharisees to a borderline anti-Semite. It was his influence that led to the expulsion from Jewish society, and his followers are the ones that later wrote and finally codified what we now know as the New Testament. I find it most interesting that the surviving "Accepted Gospels" all go out of their way to blame the Jews for the Crucifiction, while also exonerating the Romans. And of course, Saul never let us forget that he was himself a Roman.
As the old saying goes, "History is written by the victors".
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Davester on 05/06/07 at 5:12 pm
In fact, personally I tend to question a lot of the New Testament. Not in if it happened, but in how the "facts" are provided. During his life, Saul went from being a devout Pharisees to a borderline anti-Semite. It was his influence that led to the expulsion from Jewish society, and his followers are the ones that later wrote and finally codified what we now know as the New Testament. I find it most interesting that the surviving "Accepted Gospels" all go out of their way to blame the Jews for the Crucifiction, while also exonerating the Romans. And of course, Saul never let us forget that he was himself a Roman.
As the old saying goes, "History is written by the victors".
There are certainly indications of intense turmoil, political and religious, in early CE, and of many who claimed to be saviors of one form or another. That makes sense when you realize how Roman occupation was so despised by many in those days. Many were desperate to find a leader who would organize and release them from their oppressors. At the same time the Greek and Roman gods were being seen as increasingly foolish and there was a need to replace these impotent concepts with something more resilient. A fresh imaginative concept needed to be created...
Out of that turmoil arose variations on earlier mythologies and many of these were meshed together and Christianity evolved. But all such writings were almost entirely creative fiction, plagiarized from earlier mythologies and creatively blended together to create the myth we know as Christianity. Remember, there was no expectation in those times for objective reporting; even today it is difficult to find quality journalists who stick with the truth...
In other news...
This is an interesting passage from Josephus Antiquities of the Jews xviii 3.3 (Quoted from Wiki). Too good to be true... ???
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
groove ;) on...
Edited to add: List of Messiah Claimants. My favorite is Simon bar Kokhba. To join his army, as a test of courage, you must cut off one finger from each hand...
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/06/07 at 5:27 pm
For the most part, reasonable people accept the fact that it is not perfect. Even most Jewish Scholars accept the fact that it is more of a history book then an actual religious document. And because in many cases it was oral history from thousands of years ago, it is not surprising that things became distorted over time.
Yet for all the attempts to prove it "wrong", skeptics also have to admit that they normally find enough information to show that the events described took place, even if not in the way that was later written down. And because their ancestors were a highly nomadic people, they tended to integrate not only the technology of other cultures, but their lore as well.
And quite often, plays and works of pure literature were incorporated into it. Both Job and Esther are commonly accepted as being pure stories, which were later integrated into the Scriptures because of the power of their message, not the historical accuracy of the stories themselves. Much like Revelations in the New Testament.
And with the exception of the letters from Saul (Paul), the Gospels are mostly written by people that came along much later. Matthew (the earliest Gospel) dates from 70-85 CE, and the others seem to date from anywhere between 70-140 CE. And it is interesting to note that these dates all fall after the expulsion of the Proto-Christians from the Jewish Synagogues (between 40-55 CE).
In fact, personally I tend to question a lot of the New Testament. Not in if it happened, but in how the "facts" are provided. During his life, Saul went from being a devout Pharisees to a borderline anti-Semite. It was his influence that led to the expulsion from Jewish society, and his followers are the ones that later wrote and finally codified what we now know as the New Testament. I find it most interesting that the surviving "Accepted Gospels" all go out of their way to blame the Jews for the Crucifiction, while also exonerating the Romans. And of course, Saul never let us forget that he was himself a Roman.
As the old saying goes, "History is written by the victors".
Karma +1. Well said, sir. You are gentleman and a scholar.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumright.gif
Not to nit-pick, but it's "crucifixion," unless the "fiction" part of it was a Freudian slip. You can always remember the spelling, "X" as in Christ, "X" as in cross.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: philbo on 05/06/07 at 5:46 pm
This is an interesting passage from Josephus Antiquities of the Jews xviii 3.3 (Quoted from Wiki). Too good to be true... ???
Too good to be true it is: there's barely a scholar left who thinks that Josephus wrote the passages which mention Jesus - accepted opinion is that they are later interpolations to (in the words of WS Gilbert) "add verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative"
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: loki 13 on 05/06/07 at 6:07 pm
I find it most interesting that the surviving "Accepted Gospels" all go out of their way to blame the Jews for the Crucifiction, while also exonerating the Romans.
It's written in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, that Pilate believed Jesus to be innocent of any wrong doing
and it was Jesus he wanted to be released not Barabbas. The Jewish rabble was too big and near riot when Pilate finally gave
into their wishes.
Everyone seems to forget who is ultimately responsible for Christ death. We were told from an early age that God has given
his only begotten son to die for the sins of man. According to the Bible Jesus sole purpose on the earth was to spread the
word of God before being punished for man's sins.
If God put his son on earth to die for man's sins, then God also had to put someone on the earth to kill him, it seems God
isn't happy unless someone is dying, believers tend to leave this part out. They don't want to believe God is responsible for
Jesus' death.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Davester on 05/06/07 at 6:08 pm
Too good to be true it is: there's barely a scholar left who thinks that Josephus wrote the passages which mention Jesus - accepted opinion is that they are later interpolations to (in the words of WS Gilbert) "add verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative"
Yeah, it is a little, uh, obvious, ain't it - the Antiquities passage..? I wanted to make that information available to our boardies...
Josephus really deserves a thread of his own. He's such a character. We can go into his apologist ramblings, his recurring "suicide pacts", his compromised position in Rome as the "guest" of the emperor writing "history", &etc...
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Davester on 05/06/07 at 6:19 pm
It's written in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, that Pilate believed Jesus to be innocent of any wrong doing
and it was Jesus he wanted to be released not Barabbas. The Jewish rabble was too big and near riot when Pilate finally gave
into their wishes.
There is no known custom in Roman law, according to the literature of the time, whereby a prisoner is released in honor of the Passover holiday. The notion of Pilatus honoring any Jewish institution with such a gesture (Pilatus generally held the Jewish people in utter contempt) has to be narrative license and posess a symbolic meaning...
Edited: Typo...
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/06/07 at 6:24 pm
There is no known custom in Roman law, according to the literature of the time, whereby a prisoner is released in honor of the Passover holiday. The notion of Pilatus honoring any Jewish institution with such a gesture (Pilatus generally held the Jewish people in utter contempt) has to be narrative license and posess a symbolic meaning...
"What is your name, Jew?"
"Brian."
"Bwian?"
"No, Brian."
"Centuwion, stwike him to the gwound!"
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Davester on 05/06/07 at 6:34 pm
"What is your name, Jew?"
"Brian."
"Bwian?"
"No, Brian."
"Centuwion, stwike him to the gwound!"
heh...
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us..?"
"Brought peace..?"
"Oh, peace - shut up..!"
"There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all..."
"Uh, well, one..."
"Oh, yeah, yeah, there's one. But otherwise, we're solid..."
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Powerslave on 05/06/07 at 8:34 pm
I also think the idea of someone claiming God spoke to him (so the red words are his direct quotes) is ludacris... even lterhune would balk if someone told her that God spoke them and now they have written a book about His message...
hey wait a minute... maybe that's how I can finally get published! ::)
You know that Muslims believe the Koran was dictated directly to Mohammed by God, don't you?
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Mushroom on 05/07/07 at 1:25 am
It's written in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, that Pilate believed Jesus to be innocent of any wrong doing
and it was Jesus he wanted to be released not Barabbas. The Jewish rabble was too big and near riot when Pilate finally gave
into their wishes.
That sequence of events comes even more into question when you look into the language used.
As Davester said, there is no factual evidence that such a pardoning was ever a tradition.
And things become even more questionable when you look at the name "Barrabas".
The common language in Judea at the time was Aramaic. And one effect of King James and his Bible was to convince people that Jesus spoke in "Thou" and "Thoust", when in reality he spoke in rather informal terms. In fact, one of the things he was often acused of was speaking of God to informallyt. The word most often used was not "Father", but is a term that we would more closely associate with "Dad" (or even "Daddy").
And anybody that knows Aramaic knows that Bar Abbas translates to "Son of the Father".
Hmmmm, makes you think, don't it?
Another interesting name is Judas Iscariot. Judas is often considered to be a scapegoat, and a way to shift the blame for the crucifixion (thanks for the spell check Max) from Rome to the Jews. Judas sounds remarkably like "Judea". And Iscariot sounds amazingly like "Sicarii", a very violent sect of Zealots from around 60-65 CE. The Sicarii were universally during the Jewish Revolt, even going as far as to destroying food stores in Jewish cities, forcing the occupants to fight the Romans or face starvation.
Such a name would incite converts from both sides. The Romans could feel good about joining, since Judea had long been a problem for Rome. And Jews would look at the name Judas Iscariot, and associate him with the hated Scarii (and other Zealots which lead to the destruction of the Temple).
Yeah, it is a little, uh, obvious, ain't it - the Antiquities passage..? I wanted to make that information available to our boardies...
Josephus really deserves a thread of his own. He's such a character. We can go into his apologist ramblings, his recurring "suicide pacts", his compromised position in Rome as the "guest" of the emperor writing "history", &etc...
Personally, I believe that that segment was added after the death of Josephus. However, interestingly the passage about John The Baptist not only sounds authentic, but it also differs greatly from the passages about him in the New Testament (John was not killed as part of a seduction, but to keep him from causing touble). I happen to own a copy of "The Complete Works Of Josephus", and often read through them. It is a rather fascinating book. And considering it was written barely 200 years after the Jewish Bible was canonized, it shows a lot of what was obvious oral traditions when relating the history in older eras.
Karma +1. Well said, sir. You are gentleman and a scholar.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumright.gif
Thanks Max. Actually, I quite often question things in The Bible, and it does nothing to reduce my faith. I simply accept the fact that the books were written by men, who are flawed and try to impress on later generations their own viewpoints. And knowing the history of the area helps me to understand more, beyond what is simply written down.
Quite often, I do regret the "estrangement" of Christianity and Judiasm. Before Saul took control of the Proto-Christian movement, it appeared that Christianity would become another sect of Jews, like the Essenes. Saul may have gotten his wish, but it also resulted in almost 2,000 years of pogroms and hatred.
I seriously doubt that Jesus would have wanted that.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/07/07 at 8:29 am
I also think the idea of someone claiming God spoke to him (so the red words are his direct quotes) is ludacris... even lterhune would balk if someone told her that God spoke them and now they have written a book about His message...
hey wait a minute... maybe that's how I can finally get published! ::)
Isn't that what Moroni claimed? He went up on a hill and god spoke to him?
God spoke to me once in Amsterdam.....he was in the form of a fish in a canal ;D
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/07/07 at 8:36 am
you obviously do not get it...... I got that.
IMHO, I think it may be your moral compass being a bit off.. it's wrong, trust me. your defending it makes you look really --well, just hard core rotten
See, this is the crap I'm talking about....simply because I have a different belief than you and don't ascribe to the same "faith" you do, MY moral compass is off and I'm just plain rotten? Sounds like the same garbage I get in my town about my kids being well behaved and people wondering HOW they learned to be since we don't go to church.....because you know, us "heathens" are just morally bankrupt ::)
I think you just couldn't come up with a valid rebuttal on the difference between something you CAN and CANNOT change. As I said, religion is something you CAN change (I'm proof of that), skin color is NOT. The priest who got me to start questioning my beliefs would not have been offended if someone called the bible a "book of fairy tales," (because someone DID in our religion class) he would simply question WHY they believed it was such....
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Powerslave on 05/07/07 at 8:55 am
That sounds like the basic difference between a true student of their religion, and a rote preacher of same.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: snozberries on 05/07/07 at 9:45 am
You know that Muslims believe the Koran was dictated directly to Mohammed by God, don't you?
I'm sure they do but my point still stands... if someone today says that God spoke to them and presented a text He wants us to follow; no one would take it on blind faith the way they do current religious text.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: CatwomanofV on 05/07/07 at 12:21 pm
That sounds like the basic difference between a true student of their religion, and a rote preacher of same.
Very true. We are given free will. I'm sure God, The Goddess, Allah, or any other name you want to use, wants us to use our minds rather than just becoming sheep and follow some guy (or woman). I think that is part of the reason why preachers use the term "flock" meaning they are sheep and not using their minds and free will. I know some prefer it that way. It is easier to control sheep than thinking people. I also believe that is why many religions put in scare tatics. They would less converts if people didn't think they HAD to convert/believe OR ELSE!
Cat
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Powerslave on 05/07/07 at 6:38 pm
I think that is part of the reason why preachers use the term "flock" meaning they are sheep and not using their minds and free will.
Don't forget that Psalm 23 reminds us that "the Lord is my Shepherd". It's ambiguous of course, but almost every religious utterance is.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/07/07 at 6:48 pm
You know that Muslims believe the Koran was dictated directly to Mohammed by God, don't you?
What Mohammed didn't realize was God was off the wagon and on a three-week bender when he dictated it!
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: Powerslave on 05/07/07 at 7:00 pm
Snozberry does have a point though. If I went out into the desert for a few weeks with no food or water, became delirious, found my way back and then declared that God had dictated a new set of rules to me, I'm pretty sure I'd be called a fool, not a Prophet.
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/08/07 at 7:50 am
Snozberry does have a point though. If I went out into the desert for a few weeks with no food or water, became delirious, found my way back and then declared that God had dictated a new set of rules to me, I'm pretty sure I'd be called a fool, not a Prophet.
Or Jim Morrison 8)
Subject: Re: A question for the religious here
Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 05/08/07 at 7:51 am
That sounds like the basic difference between a true student of their religion, and a rote preacher of same.
Yes he was. He actually started as a chaplain in the Army and was the first (and only) married Catholic priest I've ever met ;)