AGNOSTIC Accountability Groups Starting Up

[kranky]

Originally posted by: MindStorm
The reason why we don't bitch about the Koran being taught is because it's not nearly as widespread as the Bible being forced upon us in school. If more and more people and trying to preach the Koran, as much as the number of other mindless Christians, then yes, we'll start bitching about the Koran too. But the fact is that the followers are smaller in number, and are more respectful and tolerant of different beliefs.

Secondly, separation of church and state prohibits religion in the school - I don't care how much you try to twist it to fit your views, religion doesn't belong in school. Supreme Court rulings have set that precedence, and only if other judges would follow it.

In the Byron, CA school district, seventh-grade students were required to adopt a Muslim name, chant and pray to Allah, dress as Muslims, learn verses from the Koran, and use a dice game to simulate a jihad. Many in the community downplayed any controversy, saying it was just learning about different cultures.

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Has anyone had a similar experience?????

Absolutely! Me.

I'm going to venture a guess that you might be Catholic based on your use of the word "Parishoners", though I could obviously be mistaken. I was raised Catholic and my father is an ordained Deacon in the Roman Catholic church (went to Seminary and deaconate training...etc). The more I read of the Bible, the more inconsistancies I saw between what I remembered being taught as a Catholic and what the Bible actually said. I went to a Priest about this, but he couldn't help me to reconcile so I asked to be allowed to go through the catacuminate (study for non-Catholics who want to convert). He didn't want me to at first, but finally allowed it. I think that the class was something like 2 or 3 hours once a week for either 12 or 16 weeks (it's been almost 20 years, so I can't remember for sure). In the end I found that I had learned correctly from the beginning and that I simply couldn't reconcile what I read in the Bible with much of what the Church taught and I left.

I get married to a woman who was very involved with her church. She was Episcopalian. It was ok... it was very much like the Catholic Church except without praying to saints and the Pope etc. Unfortunately, as I stayed there longer I found that I had jumped from the frying pan and into the fire! This church didn't even believe (for the most part) that the Bible was actually the Word of God and regularly disregarded whole sections and only taught out of what they believed... all the while holding the Bible up during Mass and proclaiming "The Word of The Lord". After they ordained the first homosexual priest (which goes against Biblical teaching) I was out of there.

I was basically unchurched for a couple of years, and then my wife and I went on the Church Hunt. Going to different churches and trying to find one that actually said that they believed in the Bible and then acted like it . And I don't just mean restrictively. The Bible doe NOT say that any drinking or dancing are sin. It does NOT say that working on Sunday is sin. I does NOT say that people of different races/ethnicities should be seperate, but goes into detail that all are equal to God. It took a while to find a church that actually obeyed the Bible very closely and didn't hold to unbiblical traditions. Ultimately, it meant going to a non-denominational Bible church that was centered on the Bible, Family and Missions. There have been problems from time to time at the church, as there will be with any organization where humans are present. The church has a good solid constitution though and the beliefs of the church are spelled out very, very well.... it takes a 100% unanimous vote of all members IN WRITING to change any statement of theology. This particular church has stood firm for almost 40 years...

Joe

I was not Catholic, I went to a non-demonational church that was "Bible based." The problem with these types of churches, IMO, is that they seem to do more of this twisting of verses to apply to their own causes. At least in an established church, like the Episcopalian, there are set rules that are consistent, although as you pointed out there is deviation these days.

I need to go back to work now. More on this later.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: MindStorm
The reason why we don't bitch about the Koran being taught is because it's not nearly as widespread as the Bible being forced upon us in school. If more and more people and trying to preach the Koran, as much as the number of other mindless Christians, then yes, we'll start bitching about the Koran too. But the fact is that the followers are smaller in number, and are more respectful and tolerant of different beliefs.

Secondly, separation of church and state prohibits religion in the school - I don't care how much you try to twist it to fit your views, religion doesn't belong in school. Supreme Court rulings have set that precedence, and only if other judges would follow it.

In the Byron, CA school district, seventh-grade students were required to adopt a Muslim name, chant and pray to Allah, dress as Muslims, learn verses from the Koran, and use a dice game to simulate a jihad. Many in the community downplayed any controversy, saying it was just learning about different cultures.

How dare they try to educate their students about different cultures!!

 

[Jzero]

I don't have a problem with Christianity, I have a problem with the organization.

Has anyone had a similar experience?????

QT

Totally. It's not that I became disillusioned with churches, I just never liked them. I disliked people always trying to influence my belief system just because they [mis]interpreted this scripture or that song lyric. I disliked the fact that if I just didn't feel like showing up one week, people would try to lay the guilt trip on me. I hated the showmanship that so many people exhibit - did they go to church for their own spiritual benefit, or just so that they could show off for their neighbors how holy they could act?

When I met my girlfriend who shares strikingly similar ideologies, when we first talked about this subject, the best way I could describe it is that I am "Spiritual, but not religious." My "religion" is nominally Christianity. I espouse a lot of views that have been called heretical. I do not evangelize unless someone asks me to share my beliefs with them. I do not criticize the beliefs of others - whether they agree with me or not.

It's YOUR religion, and if you aren't hurting anyone and it makes you happy, then go with it. But give me the same benefit.

don't want to come to college unprepared because some fundalmentalist superintendent replaced AP Biology with Creationism Part I of a 10 Part Series class.

Somehow I don't think this would ever happen.
I do think you are somewhat mislead as to what "Separation of church and state" refers to. The government can not adopt an "official" religion. That does not mean that legislators cannot draw upon their religion in their lawmaking, nor does it mean that religion must be hidden from schools.

 

[Netopia]

Secondly, separation of church and state prohibits religion in the school ....

Have you read history? The founding Father's wanted the Government to not get involved in controlling religion, NOT the other way around! Why do you think they had a Chaplain for Congress? Why do you think they PAID missionariers to preach the Gospel to Indians? Why do you think that to this day they have Chaplains in the Military?

BTW.... "Seperation of Church and State" was coined by Thomas Jefferson in his governing of the Commonwealth of Virginia and was later hijacked and applied to the Federal Government. It appears nowhere in the constitution.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

The problem with these types of churches, IMO, is that they seem to do more of this twisting of verses to apply to their own causes.

Wow... that's pretty interesting from my perspective. Not because I don't believe that it happens, but because my Pastor has historically hammered that Christians need to stop reading and interpretting the Bible in order to support their own beliefs and start reading the Bible to understand God and then conform our beliefs and actions to what is true.

I've been told before that I'm in a pretty unusual Church... maybe I should be even more thankful than I already am!

Joe

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Netopia

The problem with these types of churches, IMO, is that they seem to do more of this twisting of verses to apply to their own causes.

Wow... that's pretty interesting from my perspective. Not because I don't believe that it happens, but because my Pastor has historically hammered that Christians need to stop reading and interpretting the Bible in order to support their own beliefs and start reading the Bible to understand God and then conform our beliefs and actions to what is true.

I've been told before that I'm in a pretty unusual Church... maybe I should be even more thankful than I already am!

Joe

Here's a question. How do do you know that intrepretation of Bible is true, how can anyone be sure? Because, as you know, we really don't know what the authors 2000 yrs ago were really trying to convey.

 

[LeeTJ]

sign me up if it's not too late.

 

[Netopia]

Here's a question. How do do you know that intrepretation of Bible is true, how can anyone be sure? Because, as you know, we really don't know what the authors 2000 yrs ago were really trying to convey.

In truth and with absolute surety, I cannot. I can however look at the culture that it was written in (i.e. sheep and shepherds and their relevence in the culture they were being written from/to) and do my best to figure out what the significance of what was being said. Other things I feel are straightforward, like don't commit adultery or don't murder.

My own interpretation has changed in many areas over time. It's very important and yet very hard to not get married to the idea of "I'm right" and instead try to think "I think I'm heading in the right direction, but I'm willing to stop and turn aside if I'm not". Putting one's pride and self-assurance on the shelf is not something that comes quickly or easily.

The other thing I had to come to grips with is that there are different levels of what's important. If another Christian and I both believe in the person of Jesus, his nature (manGod), his death and resurrection.... then we are in ultimate agreement about what is most imortant. If he, let's say, has a problem with secular music... that's his conscience and his decision but it doesn't make him bad or wrong, just different. There are the meat and potato issues and the side dishes that are interesting for discussion but of no eternal consequence.

Joe

 

[Revolutionary]

I have a couple of thoughts that will probably draw fire from both sides, but here goes. I'm not trying to be controversial or throw a punch, so please, I beg you, don't just "react" to what I have to say, but do feel free to criticize if you can.

First, the whole stem-cell thing. I think it is both inaccurate and an injustice to say that only religious people, in this case Christians, are uncomfortable with the idea of stem cells. I agree that the promise they hold for medical science is potentially incomprehensible: but then, the same was said (and true) for many of the human experiments conducted by the Nazis upon Jews. (Speaking of Jews, the dude who wrote about Christians not even believing the Bible because they don't slaughter animals: you should read a little more closely -- Christians aren't supposed to sacrifice animals). Anyway, there are LOTS of people who protest it because they are simply uncomfortable with the idea of creating a life, much less a human life, for the purpose of destroying it. Perhaps destruction is not the word we use, we merely "arrest development..."

Second, the number of Christians in the USA. I think I can probably speak to this more accurately than anyone in this forum. In college, I participated in a first-ever political study with a professor in which we created a survey research "measurement" of "religious affiliation." This was a coefficient weighting assigned to an individual survey respondent based upon a number of questions that were correlated to demonstrate an overall strength of religious commitment. In other words, beyond nominally asking people to identify themselves as Protestant, Catholic, or Non-denominational, or Other, we asked them to quantify their church attendance, to quantify the amount of time per week they spent in non-church-service religious activity, to describe their religious heritage (ie, is their current faith different from that of their parents or grandparents), and other more accurate questions regarding their religious commitment (the survey, without going into detail, was not religiously administered -- the questions were added to a nationally conducted survey on political topics and conducted by the Pew Center for Political Research; the questions were part of the demographic information section, and thus could also be correlated to economic and other demo data, as well as to the political affiliation data). We found that few people in this country actually qualify as devout Christians (less than 20 percent). A larger chunk, as would be expected, were marginally committed (church twice a month, that kind of thing). I leave it to your interpretations as to whether that is good or bad, but please let it inform your opinion of "Christians in the country control/force/oppress X." That kind of generalization just doesn't stand up to the data. It may be your experience that some Christians you know "control/force/oppress X," but that is VERY different from the former, generalized assertion and constitutes a bigoted, prejudiced attitude. Aside: Interestingly, far more of the middle-ground Christians claimed Democratic Party membership than Republican.

Third, Creationism. It seems to me that everybody talking about this topic thus far is victim of a very popular false-dilemma argument. Creation OR Evolution is not the dichotomy. Naturalism vs Creationism is the real issue. Evolution is merely a scientifically measurably mechanism and not a theory of origin, and it can just as easily be incorporated as a mechanisms into either Original school of thought. There are many of us Christians, myself passionately included, who are unable to deny the scientific evidence and conclude not only that evolution is real, but also that the Universe is extremely old. (Any Christian who believes Romans 1:20 should also realize that its correlatives are true, and then take a good long look at the fossil record -- PM me if you want to know what I mean.) Evolution eventually brings one back to the first organism, the first RNA, the first protein, the first amino acid, the first organic molecule... ad infinitum to the First Thing. And I do mean the first "Thing," big-T, the first anything. For a naturalist, it starts at the Big Bang. But, even Steven Hawking is uncomfortable with current Naturalist theories of origin, because they leave too big of a door open on the other side of BOOM, where darkness and mystery still reign. An old-earth Christian (as we call ourselves) also considers the big bang a legitimate event, but it is not the First Thing. God remains the First Thing. Let me say that not buying "Creationism" as it is popularly packaged is not a good reason to discount Christianity. Its not a compromise to put Genesis into context, understand the intent of the author, and to conclude that there didn't necessarily have to be a literal 7-day creation event and a literal couple called Adam and Eve in order for God to have created the Universe. Nor is it a compromise to suggest that humanity is still special in God's sight, as he indicates that it is, despite our descent from less evolved organisms. Nor is it a compromise to say that I am even MORE awed by God's grace, because out of all the conceivable worlds in the Universe, and out of all of the conceivable races, the Mighty Creator of All reached across the vastness of unfathomable time and infinite space, and became a man like me. Frankly, an insistence on a young earth, a 7-day creation, and a literal interpretation of Genesis sullies the deal for everyone involved.

Fourthly, venom. There is a lot of it being spewed in here. We're human and prone to rage, so that's all well and good. But be sure to ask yourselves why you are really so angry, those on either side. Not the ready reason that is easy to give to strangers on a forum. The tough answer, the deep, unresolved conflict that you can't quite enunciate but neither can you ignore. Is it because for the other to be right is for you to be wrong, and you are simply uncomfortable with the implications? Is it because the arguments the other makes are too close to your own doubts, and your shibboleths cannot take another assault without your world falling apart? Is it because you still can't forgive that father, mother, boy, girl, teacher, Pastor, uncle, sibling, etc who stuffed their ideas down your throat and caused you so much personal pain that you seek them in everyone who has the same ideas, trying to patch the wound?

Lastly, I think it was Petrek that made a very relevant observation. Those of us who claim to know God really have had experiences with Him. We are deeply aware both of our own souls and of Him. Frankly, there's no point in arguing with either A) someone who has experienced God, or B) someone who hasn't and insists that you can't. Its like trying to argue with a Mexican that there's no such thing as Spanish. But I think many of you who are really curious, conscientious agnostics, and not evangelical atheists out to increase the ranks, need to ask yourselves this question: Have I ever had a really spiritual experience? Am I actually aware of my soul? Do I know its there? Start from there. If you're sure you haven't and never could, that's okay. Good luck to you and I hope your right. I'll be okay in either case. If you have, if you are certain that there is a soul in there, wanting to be expressed, then I suggest you spend a lot of time trying to hear what it has to say.

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ
sign me up if it's not too late.

It's never too late.

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Here's a question. How do do you know that intrepretation of Bible is true, how can anyone be sure? Because, as you know, we really don't know what the authors 2000 yrs ago were really trying to convey.

In truth and with absolute surety, I cannot. I can however look at the culture that it was written in (i.e. sheep and shepherds and their relevence in the culture they were being written from/to) and do my best to figure out what the significance of what was being said. Other things I feel are straightforward, like don't commit adultery or don't murder.

My own interpretation has changed in many areas over time. It's very important and yet very hard to not get married to the idea of "I'm right" and instead try to think "I think I'm heading in the right direction, but I'm willing to stop and turn aside if I'm not". Putting one's pride and self-assurance on the shelf is not something that comes quickly or easily.

The other thing I had to come to grips with is that there are different levels of what's important. If another Christian and I both believe in the person of Jesus, his nature (manGod), his death and resurrection.... then we are in ultimate agreement about what is most imortant. If he, let's say, has a problem with secular music... that's his conscience and his decision but it doesn't make him bad or wrong, just different. There are the meat and potato issues and the side dishes that are interesting for discussion but of no eternal consequence.

Joe

Well how much of the truth does God really want. I mean if all he wants is for you to confess the Jesus is your personal savor then even the Jehovah's Wittnesses meet that criterion, even though they deny the deity of Christ, they refer to Him as "a god." But again, most mainstream Christians consider the JWs to be apostate because so much of their doctrine is "wrong."

What about the gnostics of the 1st Century (I think they were in the 1st Century). They believed in a completely different view of the nature of Christ, but they didn't deny is deity, are they saved.

Finally, as you might know, 1st Century politics dictated the NT and OT Cannons in what is now the Bible. Before there were only a collection of Gospels and letters etc. Many books have been excluded from the Bible as we know, for one reason or another. Might they have so truth, and why should we have faith in the opinions of people, deciding which books are considered God-inspired. This is yet another objection I have to the way Christianity is in its present state.

 

[Revolutionary]

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic

Originally posted by: Netopia

Here's a question. How do do you know that intrepretation of Bible is true, how can anyone be sure? Because, as you know, we really don't know what the authors 2000 yrs ago were really trying to convey.

In truth and with absolute surety, I cannot. I can however look at the culture that it was written in (i.e. sheep and shepherds and their relevence in the culture they were being written from/to) and do my best to figure out what the significance of what was being said. Other things I feel are straightforward, like don't commit adultery or don't murder.

My own interpretation has changed in many areas over time. It's very important and yet very hard to not get married to the idea of "I'm right" and instead try to think "I think I'm heading in the right direction, but I'm willing to stop and turn aside if I'm not". Putting one's pride and self-assurance on the shelf is not something that comes quickly or easily.

The other thing I had to come to grips with is that there are different levels of what's important. If another Christian and I both believe in the person of Jesus, his nature (manGod), his death and resurrection.... then we are in ultimate agreement about what is most imortant. If he, let's say, has a problem with secular music... that's his conscience and his decision but it doesn't make him bad or wrong, just different. There are the meat and potato issues and the side dishes that are interesting for discussion but of no eternal consequence.

Joe

Well how much of the truth does God really want. I mean if all he wants is for you to confess the Jesus is your personal savor then even the Jehovah's Wittnesses meet that criterion, even though they deny the deity of Christ, they refer to Him as "a god." But again, most mainstream Christians consider the JWs to be apostate because so much of their doctrine is "wrong."

What about the gnostics of the 1st Century (I think they were in the 1st Century). They believed in a completely different view of the nature of Christ, but they didn't deny is deity, are they saved.

Finally, as you might know, 1st Century politics dictated the NT and OT Cannons in what is now the Bible. Before there were only a collection of Gospels and letters etc. Many books have been excluded from the Bible as we know, for one reason or another. Might they have so truth, and why should we have faith in the opinions of people, deciding which books are considered God-inspired. This is yet another objection I have to the way Christianity is in its present state.

First, the scripture being alluded to here actually says "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is LORD and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." And it really is that simple. But the key word, to respond to your first two points, is the word LORD. It is the old testament Hebrew word that the the Jews used to describe Jehovah, and it basically means almighty God. JWs are clearly excluded. Most gnostics are in trouble here, too. They believe (yes, there are still plenty of gnostics) that Jesus was all God and merely took the shape or illusion-form of a man. They used the term "cloaked" to describe his humanity. They don't actually believe that he died, and hence, don't believe that "God raised him from the dead." Clearly it is ultimately up to God as to who is saved and who is not, but Christians generally function in the antithesis: we know we don't want to be that, in these cases, JW or gnostic.

As for point 3, there's no way to trust in the preservation of the scriptures without presupposing God's grace. Can't be done. If you believe that the scriptures are God's word and that he is interested in preserving them through the ages, then you have faith that it has been done and that the word you are receiving is what HE wants you to receive, and not what some dude in the first century wanted you to receive. And faith is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God. You have to want it, seek it, ask for it, or need it, in order to have it. To many cerebral sorts, this presents a circular logic (you must presupposed God in order to believe the Bible). To that we say: yeah, so? The bible is not intended to be a proof of God. God has never undertaken to prove himself, because he knows a fundamental truth about human beings: we are more convinced by rhetoric (ie, the weight or impact of an argument) than we are by logic (the coherency and structure of an argument). If you don't believe that to be true, then you haven't lived long enough, known enough people, or studied enough history. And beyond that, faith has never been about being convinced. We know we can't understand it all. But when you are moved to believe something from outside of yourself, then you know you simply must believe. And it is that movement that you cling to, not the evidence.

This is actually a crucial point to understanding why Christians are persistent in soliciting your faith. We're not trying (or at least, we shouldn't be) to convince you logically that faith is the most reasonable choice. Ultimately it is, but you have to have it to understand that; without it, it seems quite foolish. But, we believe that the Holy Spirit is out there, working in people's lives, bringing them closer to faith, and that its our jobs, as Believers, to "close the deal." In biblical terms, this is "reaping the harvest." And we often don't know whether or not faith has been stirred in a person without really getting to know that person. However, (and this is certainly all right) some people just cast a very broad net and hope to folks in whom that faith has been stirred. And those people are thankful. Unfortunately, those in whom no faith is present tend to get annoyed. Sorry. We only hope that someday you'll be thankful, too.

 

[Netopia]

Revolutionary.... very good post!

QTArrhythmic

,

Christianity is a faith, a relationship and lastly a religion. Regardless of the group of people one is meeting with, ultimately they must be at peace and in agreement with themselves and God through whatever knowledge and personal understanding they have. Lastly they should be a part of a greater community made up of generally like minded but still fallible humans. We see dimly now... we do the best with what we can... as I've said before, The Lord doesn't judge us on how much we know, only on how much we do with what know.

If you are looking for a religion where everyone is in complete agreement on all things religious, you won't find it in mainstream Christianity... The Lord left us too much leaway for that.

Joe

 

[AreaCode707]

Valsalva, did you used to be Elledan?

 

[element]

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
Sign me up. Do I get a membership card?

No cards, no dues.

What? You mean you're not out to brainwash people in order to steal their money? What kinda religion is that? Are you honest, forthright and reasonable or something? You don't fit in with the rest of the thieving, canivving, back stabbing, lying, insane crowd. What planet are you from and how do I get there ASAP?

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Valsalva, did you used to be Elledan?

Interesting question!

 

[LeeTJ]

for me personally, the stem cell research thing is not a christian issue. it's a moral issue. the "god" i believe in has no requirements or instructions with regards to the stem cell research, it is up to man to decide what should or should not be done.

here is my basic reason.

1. i don't accept the premise that these biological bodies are "god" imbued. AFAIC they are closer to that of monkeys and other mammals than they are to god.

i believe that christians mislead themselves into believing that our bodies are the "temple" of god. yes, i intentionally used a quote to make my point. obviously there is a lot of so called "evidence" in the bible to support such a premise. again, "evidence" is in quotes for a reason. biblical quotes are not "EVIDENCE". the bible is NOT the "word" of god. the "word" of god as discussed in John 1:1 is the greek word "logos" which we call "truth". Truth cannot be encompassed in a "bible" or any book.

so what is "EVIDENCE" for anything? how can you prove anything? it's difficult. ultimately you have to make some assumptions, build theories around those assumptions and work towards proving that end.

a. Physical universe is "real" and examination of the physical universe will yield ultimate truth.

b. Physical universe is NOT real, it is all a figment of god's imagination and ultimate truth can only been achieved by understanding the "truth" or "evidence" revealed to us from GOD.

both are hypothesis or premises that we begin at.

here are my hypothesis or premises.

1. GOD is ULTIMATE reality. he encompasses all things. Whethor or not the physical universe is real is IRRELEVANT, either way, same result.
2. In the beginning, before the creation of any free will beings, God existed, complete, perfect and whole. all was exactly as God desired it. every molecule, every atom, every iota of existence was completely an extension of God's will. Then God created Free will beings. beings with the ability to make choices. this changed the substance of the universe.

anyway, that's the basis of my beliefs.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: HotChic
Valsalva, did you used to be Elledan?

Interesting question!

Yeah, but Elledan was still posting while Valsalva was.

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: HotChic
Valsalva, did you used to be Elledan?

Interesting question!

Yeah, but Elledan was still posting while Valsalva was.

Nah. Look at the way they write, they're two different ppl.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: HotChic
Valsalva, did you used to be Elledan?

Interesting question!

Yeah, but Elledan was still posting while Valsalva was.

Nah. Look at the way they write, they're two different ppl.

You used the same excuse when I accused you and Valsalva of being alter egos. It's not hard to change your voice when writing. People keep multiple accounts all the time.

But I don't think Elledan and Valsalva are/were the same. Elledan was always acting like he was a robot or at least not human.

I'm still out on Val and QT. The two of you play yes-man to each other often enough to make me wonder.

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: HotChic
Valsalva, did you used to be Elledan?

Interesting question!

Yeah, but Elledan was still posting while Valsalva was.

Nah. Look at the way they write, they're two different ppl.

You used the same excuse when I accused you and Valsalva of being alter egos. It's not hard to change your voice when writing. People keep multiple accounts all the time.

But I don't think Elledan and Valsalva are/were the same. Elledan was always acting like he was a robot or at least not human.

I'm still out on Val and QT. The two of you play yes-man to each other often enough to make me wonder.

No. We are two different ppl as well. Great minds think alike.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: QTArrhythmic

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: HotChic
Valsalva, did you used to be Elledan?

Interesting question!

Yeah, but Elledan was still posting while Valsalva was.

Nah. Look at the way they write, they're two different ppl.

You used the same excuse when I accused you and Valsalva of being alter egos. It's not hard to change your voice when writing. People keep multiple accounts all the time.

But I don't think Elledan and Valsalva are/were the same. Elledan was always acting like he was a robot or at least not human.

I'm still out on Val and QT. The two of you play yes-man to each other often enough to make me wonder.

No. We are two different ppl as well. Great minds think alike.

And so do yours!
*rimshot

 

[element]

On stem cell research, for the religious that are opposed to it, if God didn't want us to persue it, it could be argued that it is up to "him" to stop it by making it fail or not having allowed the human race to discover it in the first place. So who is anyone to say God didn't intend for us to use it?

 

[QTArrhythmic]

Originally posted by: Revolutionary

First, the whole stem-cell thing. I think it is both inaccurate and an injustice to say that only religious people, in this case Christians, are uncomfortable with the idea of stem cells. I agree that the promise they hold for medical science is potentially incomprehensible: but then, the same was said (and true) for many of the human experiments conducted by the Nazis upon Jews. (Speaking of Jews, the dude who wrote about Christians not even believing the Bible because they don't slaughter animals: you should read a little more closely -- Christians aren't supposed to sacrifice animals). Anyway, there are LOTS of people who protest it because they are simply uncomfortable with the idea of creating a life, much less a human life, for the purpose of destroying it. Perhaps destruction is not the word we use, we merely "arrest development..."

Yes but the vast majority of ppl who are against the developement of this technology are religious, and what bothers me is that these religious assertions are loosely based on verses that seem to be spun out of context. Example: "I knew you before you were born" Pslphs? (I think) passage is frequently referenced too mean that God is against stem-cell research because it comes from fetal tissue. These 1 or 2 loosely intrepreted verses in the WHOLE bible have an huge ideological effect that might have and may impact the health of generations.

Speaking about your comment on the Jews, I think this is a gross nonparallel example. In the case of the holocost, 6 million plus ppl were murdered, plain and simiple. Obviously, the humans are not animals and using human beings like you or I for medical experimentation is wrong in the absence of the Bible. But this is a far far cry from a few verses being intrepreted to mean that you shouldn't use a embryo's that was disgarded from an in vitro ferility clinic to save a person's life.
[/quote]

Second, the number of Christians in the USA. I think I can probably speak to this more accurately than anyone in this forum. In college, I participated in a first-ever political study with a professor in which we created a survey research "measurement" of "religious affiliation." This was a coefficient weighting assigned to an individual survey respondent based upon a number of questions that were correlated to demonstrate an overall strength of religious commitment. In other words, beyond nominally asking people to identify themselves as Protestant, Catholic, or Non-denominational, or Other, we asked them to quantify their church attendance, to quantify the amount of time per week they spent in non-church-service religious activity, to describe their religious heritage (ie, is their current faith different from that of their parents or grandparents), and other more accurate questions regarding their religious commitment (the survey, without going into detail, was not religiously administered -- the questions were added to a nationally conducted survey on political topics and conducted by the Pew Center for Political Research; the questions were part of the demographic information section, and thus could also be correlated to economic and other demo data, as well as to the political affiliation data). We found that few people in this country actually qualify as devout Christians (less than 20 percent). A larger chunk, as would be expected, were marginally committed (church twice a month, that kind of thing). I leave it to your interpretations as to whether that is good or bad, but please let it inform your opinion of "Christians in the country control/force/oppress X." That kind of generalization just doesn't stand up to the data. It may be your experience that some Christians you know "control/force/oppress X," but that is VERY different from the former, generalized assertion and constitutes a bigoted, prejudiced attitude. Aside: Interestingly, far more of the middle-ground Christians claimed Democratic Party membership than Republican.

Aside from political parties, I think it is very well known that most of the influence in the more conservative agenda stem from some religious background. We can think as the influence of Christian values as a background noise that covers part of voting block, irrespective of whether or not those ppl are devote Christians or how many times they go to church, wouldn't you say. I mean we have a Christian president that says his mentor is Jesus Christ. That's fine with me, but you can't tell me there is not a strong Christian influence in the US gov't.

Third, Creationism. It seems to me that everybody talking about this topic thus far is victim of a very popular false-dilemma argument. Creation OR Evolution is not the dichotomy. Naturalism vs Creationism is the real issue. Evolution is merely a scientifically measurably mechanism and not a theory of origin, and it can just as easily be incorporated as a mechanisms into either Original school of thought. There are many of us Christians, myself passionately included, who are unable to deny the scientific evidence and conclude not only that evolution is real, but also that the Universe is extremely old. (Any Christian who believes Romans 1:20 should also realize that its correlatives are true, and then take a good long look at the fossil record -- PM me if you want to know what I mean.) Evolution eventually brings one back to the first organism, the first RNA, the first protein, the first amino acid, the first organic molecule... ad infinitum to the First Thing. And I do mean the first "Thing," big-T, the first anything. For a naturalist, it starts at the Big Bang. But, even Steven Hawking is uncomfortable with current Naturalist theories of origin, because they leave too big of a door open on the other side of BOOM, where darkness and mystery still reign. An old-earth Christian (as we call ourselves) also considers the big bang a legitimate event, but it is not the First Thing. God remains the First Thing. Let me say that not buying "Creationism" as it is popularly packaged is not a good reason to discount Christianity. Its not a compromise to put Genesis into context, understand the intent of the author, and to conclude that there didn't necessarily have to be a literal 7-day creation event and a literal couple called Adam and Eve in order for God to have created the Universe. Nor is it a compromise to suggest that humanity is still special in God's sight, as he indicates that it is, despite our descent from less evolved organisms. Nor is it a compromise to say that I am even MORE awed by God's grace, because out of all the conceivable worlds in the Universe, and out of all of the conceivable races, the Mighty Creator of All reached across the vastness of unfathomable time and infinite space, and became a man like me. Frankly, an insistence on a young earth, a 7-day creation, and a literal interpretation of Genesis sullies the deal for everyone involved.

Okay. If its not a compromise that Christian account of the Genesis creation was made to fit modern observations than why that others issues in the Bible are so strictly adhered too. In other words, why is the Genesis account stretched when other areas of the Bible are not stretched. The issue here seems like consistency-- it the only reason Genesis in not being taken literally because the scienific evidence doesn't work with it; so you modify it to fit-- what else in the Bible do you modify....and I though "nothing is to be added nor taken away from this book."

Fourthly, venom. There is a lot of it being spewed in here. We're human and prone to rage, so that's all well and good. But be sure to ask yourselves why you are really so angry, those on either side. Not the ready reason that is easy to give to strangers on a forum. The tough answer, the deep, unresolved conflict that you can't quite enunciate but neither can you ignore. Is it because for the other to be right is for you to be wrong, and you are simply uncomfortable with the implications? Is it because the arguments the other makes are too close to your own doubts, and your shibboleths cannot take another assault without your world falling apart? Is it because you still can't forgive that father, mother, boy, girl, teacher, Pastor, uncle, sibling, etc who stuffed their ideas down your throat and caused you so much personal pain that you seek them in everyone who has the same ideas, trying to patch the wound?

I'm not mad. Do I sound mad? I'm not .

Lastly, I think it was Petrek that made a very relevant observation. Those of us who claim to know God really have had experiences with Him. We are deeply aware both of our own souls and of Him. Frankly, there's no point in arguing with either A) someone who has experienced God, or B) someone who hasn't and insists that you can't. Its like trying to argue with a Mexican that there's no such thing as Spanish. But I think many of you who are really curious, conscientious agnostics, and not evangelical atheists out to increase the ranks, need to ask yourselves this question: Have I ever had a really spiritual experience? Am I actually aware of my soul? Do I know its there? Start from there. If you're sure you haven't and never could, that's okay. Good luck to you and I hope your right. I'll be okay in either case. If you have, if you are certain that there is a soul in there, wanting to be expressed, then I suggest you spend a lot of time trying to hear what it has to say.

You talk about experiences with God. I'm not sure I understand fully. Maybe you mean that when you read the Bible or something, you got a pleasant feeling that permeated you body. This might not be God, this might be Serotonin, Noepi and Dopamine in your brain that change the action potential firing frequency in your cortex, changing the Long and Short term potentiations, to feel these sensations.