I am a Christian

[gwrober]

Very well put thread, HotChic. For those of us that aren't so good with expressing our thoughts, you represent well!

I don't know if the quote is genuine, but I've seen the Ghandi quote, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

That quote bothers me - mostly because once I started to truly believe, it was easier to see the falsities of others claiming the "Christian" standard/name but using it to further themselves in one way or another.

In our church we're currently studying "Walk Across the Room" - I think this thread is a very broad way to do that! :thumbsup:

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Isla
I think from now own, if anyone asks me what religion I am, I will just say, "I think I am holding the elephant's trunk".

Great answer. Seriously, I came to a similar conclusion. I think in this age of apparent and entrenched subdivision under stress, a policy of "don't ask and don't tell" might be the better one.

But this conflicts with the idea of living your life openly and honestly, which IMO is the better discipline, and moreover might give some offense to those who'd like to broadcast and celebrate their affiliation, so would in practice need to be tempered somewhat.

I'll have to think about it some more.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
I do not suppose I have ever shared with you some of my more difficult moments as a Christian, Paige; if I was a Christian when I met you I was a Christian in name only. There are times where I would like to believe, for the sense of love and belonging that I miss, the sense of spiritual fulfillment and purpose that I now lack. Of course, I can look back now and wonder how much of that I really felt and how much of that I *wanted* to feel. But that's another discussion.

I struggle with the idea of a hell, and I struggle with the theological structure and idea of a god that needs worship. I struggle with the idea that I need personal salvation for sin, for sin to me seems to be nothing other than living, and I cannot believe a god would create me that would cast me away from Him simply for existing. I struggle with the idea that billions of humans will be condemned to hell because they did not accept Christ as their savior, when many of them never heard the Gospel and the rest often heard it at the hands of evil men.

I do know, as I have told you, that the two happiest moments in my life were the time I accepted Christ as my savior and the day I gave up my Christian faith. I am not bitter towards Christianity; in truth, I envy your peace.

I find this to be a beautiful post; one that cries for an answer, and while a million answers might be conceived, one finds them lacking and wanting.

I want to tell you that I believe that the religion of Christianity as it is currently presented is not much in tune with what would be given by Christ. I believe that the current material often has more to do with the priest class and the entrenchment of the religion as a religion and a culture that likes to pat itself on the back than a quest for divinity.

I believe that the Bible may be valid in many respects, but in a way that is nearly impossible to understand through the general presentation, and that one has to look outside those narrow constraints to understand better.

But in truth, I don't have solid answers for you, and in what I hear there is much silence. So I recommend that to you -- try to quiet your mind, and listen to your heart. May it guide you and help you.

 

[gwrober]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: Alienwho
99% of Christians (or people in general, i should say) don't even know what speaking in tongues mean. Do people honestly think God 'enables' people to speak gibberish and then if you're lucky, have some random guy be able to translate it for you? Please. That is completely chaotic and out of control. I really don't think God would take pride in presiding over chaos, but what do I know.

Yeah, like I said earlier, "I can't blame anybody for thinking that. In some churches it's actively encouraged/pushed and honestly probably can be written off as an emotional or forced experience. Most of the churches I've attended regularly did/do not believe in it as a current-day spiritual gift."

In my personal, crazed upbringing, I always understood speaking in tongues differently. I've always understood it that no matter what language you spoke, someone who speaks a different language would understand you. No that you would necessarily speak gibberish, or suddenly a different language. But then, that's *my* perception....

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: 40sTheme

Originally posted by: Luthien

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: Luthien
Here is more than a hint for you hotchic since it isn't obvious to you for obvious reasons and is your very first sentence to boot and the one you missed in your list, lol, once again proving my point that you don't see the obvious.

"I believe in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I honestly believe the only way to heaven is repentance and a true belief in Jesus Christ."

South Park dramatization of the point: Kenny Going To Hell

Everyone before you through out all history and prehistory before Christianity existed is going to hell unless they believed your very first statement and all the generations to come. I know you don't think that is offensive which is as I said.

Just the fact that I believe something you don't is not (or rather, should not) inherently be offensive to you. Many people in the world believe differently from me, and I'm not offended. You obviously think very poorly of me based on your view of the world, and I'm not offended. Nor should you be by my thoughts.

Are you kidding? That is no different than spitting in my face and saying I should not be offended because it is your belief. Of course the many people in the world that don't believe what you believe don't affend you because right now your on your spiritual high horse and believe they are going to rot in hell forever so what they think doesnt matter anyhow. Gotta love peaceful religions founded in threats.

You obviously did not understand the purpose of the thread. It was not to say 'LOOK I'M A CHRISTIAN!', it was to clear up common misconceptions about Christians.
EDIT: And I do not hate atheists.

I don't think that's the nature of this thread at all.. I'd like someone more qualified to comment on Christianity to clear things up, not someone who calls herself HotChic. Christianity, as an institution, DOES NOT support gay marriage for the most part (for example) - HotChic's feelings are her opinions, not the true nature of christianity.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: Orsorum
I do not suppose I have ever shared with you some of my more difficult moments as a Christian, Paige; if I was a Christian when I met you I was a Christian in name only. There are times where I would like to believe, for the sense of love and belonging that I miss, the sense of spiritual fulfillment and purpose that I now lack. Of course, I can look back now and wonder how much of that I really felt and how much of that I *wanted* to feel. But that's another discussion.

I struggle with the idea of a hell, and I struggle with the theological structure and idea of a god that needs worship. I struggle with the idea that I need personal salvation for sin, for sin to me seems to be nothing other than living, and I cannot believe a god would create me that would cast me away from Him simply for existing. I struggle with the idea that billions of humans will be condemned to hell because they did not accept Christ as their savior, when many of them never heard the Gospel and the rest often heard it at the hands of evil men.

I do know, as I have told you, that the two happiest moments in my life were the time I accepted Christ as my savior and the day I gave up my Christian faith. I am not bitter towards Christianity; in truth, I envy your peace.

I find this to be a beautiful post; one that cries for an answer, and while a million answers might be conceived, one finds them lacking and wanting.

I want to tell you that I believe that the religion of Christianity as it is currently presented is not much in tune with what would be given by Christ. I believe that the current material often has more to do with the priest class and the entrenchment of the religion as a religion and a culture that likes to pat itself on the back than a quest for divinity.

I believe that the Bible may be valid in many respects, but in a way that is nearly impossible to understand through the general presentation, and that one has to look outside those narrow constraints to understand better.

But in truth, I don't have solid answers for you, and in what I hear there is much silence. So I recommend that to you -- try to quiet your mind, and listen to your heart. May it guide you and help you.

The question of a God that needs worship is a universal question in all religions. I only know Judaisms view on it. The question is if God is so powerful why would he need the prayer and the worship of man. The answer is he doesn't need it. All it is is a way for us to follow the word of God. If we serve Him properly, then we are doing what we're supposed to. God gives us opportunities to show that we want to do what He says we should do. When we humble ourselves before him in prayer we show that we accept His rule, and that we do He wants us to do. It gets a little more complicated and involved as you go deeper into the philosophical points, but that's pretty much the gist of it and what it boils down to.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: xaeniac
I applaud you for creating this on ATOT. Nice views. I am a Christian also. Vivat Jesus.

Ditto.

I cannot tell you how much I admire good strong Christian women like you. Funny thing is I thought you were by looking atcha. That is a good thing. Kinda that innocent, peaceful, sweet, gentle, caring, vunerable yet still with an inner strength look. I could go into that more but someone would twist it into something it isn't.

I might as well be the Devil's Advocate here and say that my mind is already doing dirty things to that statement.

- M4H

haha - nice! for some reason I find the dark, eastern european looks of jew girls far more appealing.. natalie portman.. yum!

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: athithi
You believe in 'speaking in tongues' but not evolution and that is because our scientists have been wrong before? By that same yardstick, I would argue that 'speaking in tongues' and other such religious acts have probably been disproved far more often, far more dramatically and with greater finality than just about any scientific rationale, leave alone evolution.

Mm, I don't really look at them on the same playing field, since one is a question common to mankind about origins and the other is just my personal private experience with something that doesn't/hasn't affected anybody else.

The mind of HotChic is still the same when dealing with either, isn't it? I am not debating that a personal experience is different from a public issue, but just pointing out the discrepancy in the processing of either information by the same individual. I don't mean to be rude, but this is nothing but selective reasoning. If I started speaking in tongues, the first person I would contact would be a psychiatrist. On the other hand, considering my very convenient interpretations of the divine, I would probably rationalize such a experience as my brain's way of handling a situation beyond my ken. I don't hold your religious experiences against you. To the contrary, I think it makes you more interesting and I am quite sure a much nicer person to boot. However, your disbelief in evolution cannot be rationally explained and I can only surmise that you have the same automatic belief in the non-existence of evolution that you have with the existence of your religious experiences.

Nevertheless, I would like to reiterate my point that religion is good. Faith in a supernatural, benevolent power is good. Sometimes, it is the only thing that keeps mankind good.

It is, and now that I'm not dead tired I'll give a better answer.

How can you disprove tongues when you have no way of determining which experiences with tongues are legitimate and which are not? You can disprove tongues a thousand times and never be sure you were testing a true experience instead of an emotional or induced one (something I've brought up several times).

My disbelief in evolution most certainly can be rationally explained. I don't believe that science has reached the pinnacle of research and that there is more to be learned, that the theories will be adjusted as those things are learned. What is irrational about that? If you believe that the theory as it stands provides a full and complete explanation, you have greater faith in it than do most scientists.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: athithi
You believe in 'speaking in tongues' but not evolution and that is because our scientists have been wrong before? By that same yardstick, I would argue that 'speaking in tongues' and other such religious acts have probably been disproved far more often, far more dramatically and with greater finality than just about any scientific rationale, leave alone evolution.

Mm, I don't really look at them on the same playing field, since one is a question common to mankind about origins and the other is just my personal private experience with something that doesn't/hasn't affected anybody else.

The mind of HotChic is still the same when dealing with either, isn't it? I am not debating that a personal experience is different from a public issue, but just pointing out the discrepancy in the processing of either information by the same individual. I don't mean to be rude, but this is nothing but selective reasoning. If I started speaking in tongues, the first person I would contact would be a psychiatrist. On the other hand, considering my very convenient interpretations of the divine, I would probably rationalize such a experience as my brain's way of handling a situation beyond my ken. I don't hold your religious experiences against you. To the contrary, I think it makes you more interesting and I am quite sure a much nicer person to boot. However, your disbelief in evolution cannot be rationally explained and I can only surmise that you have the same automatic belief in the non-existence of evolution that you have with the existence of your religious experiences.

Nevertheless, I would like to reiterate my point that religion is good. Faith in a supernatural, benevolent power is good. Sometimes, it is the only thing that keeps mankind good.

It is, and now that I'm not dead tired I'll give a better answer.

How can you disprove tongues when you have no way of determining which experiences with tongues are legitimate and which are not? You can disprove tongues a thousand times and never be sure you were testing a true experience instead of an emotional or induced one (something I've brought up several times).

My disbelief in evolution most certainly can be rationally explained. I don't believe that science has reached the pinnacle of research and that there is more to be learned, that the theories will be adjusted as those things are learned. What is irrational about that? If you believe that the theory as it stands provides a full and complete explanation, you have greater faith in it than do most scientists.

What about fossil evidence?
What about glacial evidence?
What about carbon dating evidence?

Seriously, HotChic - with all due respect, maybe you should read a few books on evolution so that you don't sound ignorant?

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: athithi
You believe in 'speaking in tongues' but not evolution and that is because our scientists have been wrong before? By that same yardstick, I would argue that 'speaking in tongues' and other such religious acts have probably been disproved far more often, far more dramatically and with greater finality than just about any scientific rationale, leave alone evolution.

Mm, I don't really look at them on the same playing field, since one is a question common to mankind about origins and the other is just my personal private experience with something that doesn't/hasn't affected anybody else.

The mind of HotChic is still the same when dealing with either, isn't it? I am not debating that a personal experience is different from a public issue, but just pointing out the discrepancy in the processing of either information by the same individual. I don't mean to be rude, but this is nothing but selective reasoning. If I started speaking in tongues, the first person I would contact would be a psychiatrist. On the other hand, considering my very convenient interpretations of the divine, I would probably rationalize such a experience as my brain's way of handling a situation beyond my ken. I don't hold your religious experiences against you. To the contrary, I think it makes you more interesting and I am quite sure a much nicer person to boot. However, your disbelief in evolution cannot be rationally explained and I can only surmise that you have the same automatic belief in the non-existence of evolution that you have with the existence of your religious experiences.

Nevertheless, I would like to reiterate my point that religion is good. Faith in a supernatural, benevolent power is good. Sometimes, it is the only thing that keeps mankind good.

It is, and now that I'm not dead tired I'll give a better answer.

How can you disprove tongues when you have no way of determining which experiences with tongues are legitimate and which are not? You can disprove tongues a thousand times and never be sure you were testing a true experience instead of an emotional or induced one (something I've brought up several times).

My disbelief in evolution most certainly can be rationally explained. I don't believe that science has reached the pinnacle of research and that there is more to be learned, that the theories will be adjusted as those things are learned. What is irrational about that? If you believe that the theory as it stands provides a full and complete explanation, you have greater faith in it than do most scientists.

What about fossil evidence?
What about glacial evidence?
What about carbon dating evidence?

Seriously, HotChic - with all due respect, maybe you should read a few books on evolution so that you don't sound ignorant?

I have, and I still find gaps in the theories that need explanation. (And just so you know, most of the time, articles published by the researchers are a less biased source of information than books). If you think science is complete and perfect right now, you're doing what everybody else at every other point in history has done - closed yourself off from the potential of new discoveries. Heck, you see revisions to the theories being published regularly, little bits at a time.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: athithi
You believe in 'speaking in tongues' but not evolution and that is because our scientists have been wrong before? By that same yardstick, I would argue that 'speaking in tongues' and other such religious acts have probably been disproved far more often, far more dramatically and with greater finality than just about any scientific rationale, leave alone evolution.

Mm, I don't really look at them on the same playing field, since one is a question common to mankind about origins and the other is just my personal private experience with something that doesn't/hasn't affected anybody else.

The mind of HotChic is still the same when dealing with either, isn't it? I am not debating that a personal experience is different from a public issue, but just pointing out the discrepancy in the processing of either information by the same individual. I don't mean to be rude, but this is nothing but selective reasoning. If I started speaking in tongues, the first person I would contact would be a psychiatrist. On the other hand, considering my very convenient interpretations of the divine, I would probably rationalize such a experience as my brain's way of handling a situation beyond my ken. I don't hold your religious experiences against you. To the contrary, I think it makes you more interesting and I am quite sure a much nicer person to boot. However, your disbelief in evolution cannot be rationally explained and I can only surmise that you have the same automatic belief in the non-existence of evolution that you have with the existence of your religious experiences.

Nevertheless, I would like to reiterate my point that religion is good. Faith in a supernatural, benevolent power is good. Sometimes, it is the only thing that keeps mankind good.

It is, and now that I'm not dead tired I'll give a better answer.

How can you disprove tongues when you have no way of determining which experiences with tongues are legitimate and which are not? You can disprove tongues a thousand times and never be sure you were testing a true experience instead of an emotional or induced one (something I've brought up several times).

My disbelief in evolution most certainly can be rationally explained. I don't believe that science has reached the pinnacle of research and that there is more to be learned, that the theories will be adjusted as those things are learned. What is irrational about that? If you believe that the theory as it stands provides a full and complete explanation, you have greater faith in it than do most scientists.

What about fossil evidence?
What about glacial evidence?
What about carbon dating evidence?

Seriously, HotChic - with all due respect, maybe you should read a few books on evolution so that you don't sound ignorant?

I have, and I still find gaps in the theories that need explanation. (And just so you know, most of the time, articles published by the researchers are a less biased source of information than books). If you think science is complete and perfect right now, you're doing what everybody else at every other point in history has done - closed yourself off from the potential of new discoveries. Heck, you see revisions to the theories being published regularly, little bits at a time.

Well, the flip side is cynicism that embraces another theory with NO PHYSICAL evidence. I'm currently in a philosophy of religion (mostly western religions) class and the conflict right now is not disproving evolution - it's melding the concept of evolution with creationalism. Because evolution is slowly being accepted as scientific law, not theory.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: athithi
You believe in 'speaking in tongues' but not evolution and that is because our scientists have been wrong before? By that same yardstick, I would argue that 'speaking in tongues' and other such religious acts have probably been disproved far more often, far more dramatically and with greater finality than just about any scientific rationale, leave alone evolution.

Mm, I don't really look at them on the same playing field, since one is a question common to mankind about origins and the other is just my personal private experience with something that doesn't/hasn't affected anybody else.

The mind of HotChic is still the same when dealing with either, isn't it? I am not debating that a personal experience is different from a public issue, but just pointing out the discrepancy in the processing of either information by the same individual. I don't mean to be rude, but this is nothing but selective reasoning. If I started speaking in tongues, the first person I would contact would be a psychiatrist. On the other hand, considering my very convenient interpretations of the divine, I would probably rationalize such a experience as my brain's way of handling a situation beyond my ken. I don't hold your religious experiences against you. To the contrary, I think it makes you more interesting and I am quite sure a much nicer person to boot. However, your disbelief in evolution cannot be rationally explained and I can only surmise that you have the same automatic belief in the non-existence of evolution that you have with the existence of your religious experiences.

Nevertheless, I would like to reiterate my point that religion is good. Faith in a supernatural, benevolent power is good. Sometimes, it is the only thing that keeps mankind good.

It is, and now that I'm not dead tired I'll give a better answer.

How can you disprove tongues when you have no way of determining which experiences with tongues are legitimate and which are not? You can disprove tongues a thousand times and never be sure you were testing a true experience instead of an emotional or induced one (something I've brought up several times).

My disbelief in evolution most certainly can be rationally explained. I don't believe that science has reached the pinnacle of research and that there is more to be learned, that the theories will be adjusted as those things are learned. What is irrational about that? If you believe that the theory as it stands provides a full and complete explanation, you have greater faith in it than do most scientists.

What about fossil evidence?
What about glacial evidence?
What about carbon dating evidence?

Seriously, HotChic - with all due respect, maybe you should read a few books on evolution so that you don't sound ignorant?

I have, and I still find gaps in the theories that need explanation. (And just so you know, most of the time, articles published by the researchers are a less biased source of information than books). If you think science is complete and perfect right now, you're doing what everybody else at every other point in history has done - closed yourself off from the potential of new discoveries. Heck, you see revisions to the theories being published regularly, little bits at a time.

Well, the flip side is cynicism that embraces another theory with NO PHYSICAL evidence. I'm currently in a philosophy of religion (mostly western religions) class and the conflict right now is not disproving evolution - it's melding the concept of evolution with creationalism. Because evolution is slowly being accepted as scientific law, not theory.

Did I say anything about accepting another theory, anywhere?

 

[slackerinabox]

Some nice quotes from the lovely bible:

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power...." Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1

"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing....If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

oh, and one from a former president:
"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." George H.W. Bush, as presidential nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27. 1

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: athithi
You believe in 'speaking in tongues' but not evolution and that is because our scientists have been wrong before? By that same yardstick, I would argue that 'speaking in tongues' and other such religious acts have probably been disproved far more often, far more dramatically and with greater finality than just about any scientific rationale, leave alone evolution.

Mm, I don't really look at them on the same playing field, since one is a question common to mankind about origins and the other is just my personal private experience with something that doesn't/hasn't affected anybody else.

The mind of HotChic is still the same when dealing with either, isn't it? I am not debating that a personal experience is different from a public issue, but just pointing out the discrepancy in the processing of either information by the same individual. I don't mean to be rude, but this is nothing but selective reasoning. If I started speaking in tongues, the first person I would contact would be a psychiatrist. On the other hand, considering my very convenient interpretations of the divine, I would probably rationalize such a experience as my brain's way of handling a situation beyond my ken. I don't hold your religious experiences against you. To the contrary, I think it makes you more interesting and I am quite sure a much nicer person to boot. However, your disbelief in evolution cannot be rationally explained and I can only surmise that you have the same automatic belief in the non-existence of evolution that you have with the existence of your religious experiences.

Nevertheless, I would like to reiterate my point that religion is good. Faith in a supernatural, benevolent power is good. Sometimes, it is the only thing that keeps mankind good.

It is, and now that I'm not dead tired I'll give a better answer.

How can you disprove tongues when you have no way of determining which experiences with tongues are legitimate and which are not? You can disprove tongues a thousand times and never be sure you were testing a true experience instead of an emotional or induced one (something I've brought up several times).

My disbelief in evolution most certainly can be rationally explained. I don't believe that science has reached the pinnacle of research and that there is more to be learned, that the theories will be adjusted as those things are learned. What is irrational about that? If you believe that the theory as it stands provides a full and complete explanation, you have greater faith in it than do most scientists.

What about fossil evidence?
What about glacial evidence?
What about carbon dating evidence?

Seriously, HotChic - with all due respect, maybe you should read a few books on evolution so that you don't sound ignorant?

I have, and I still find gaps in the theories that need explanation. (And just so you know, most of the time, articles published by the researchers are a less biased source of information than books). If you think science is complete and perfect right now, you're doing what everybody else at every other point in history has done - closed yourself off from the potential of new discoveries. Heck, you see revisions to the theories being published regularly, little bits at a time.

Well, the flip side is cynicism that embraces another theory with NO PHYSICAL evidence. I'm currently in a philosophy of religion (mostly western religions) class and the conflict right now is not disproving evolution - it's melding the concept of evolution with creationalism. Because evolution is slowly being accepted as scientific law, not theory.

Did I say anything about accepting another theory, anywhere?

You imply that you agree with creationalism, by this long winded post about you and jesus chillin on a beach together.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Some nice quotes from the lovely bible:

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power...." Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1

"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing....If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

oh, and one from a former president:
"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." George H.W. Bush, as presidential nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27. 1

You know that "Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica" isn't the Bible, right? And I probably don't have to tell you that Bush is an idiot.

Oh, and you do realize also that the quotes you have above are in a particular cultural context and are, given the period of the time, extremely merciful and the second one is in the best interest of women?

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: athithi
You believe in 'speaking in tongues' but not evolution and that is because our scientists have been wrong before? By that same yardstick, I would argue that 'speaking in tongues' and other such religious acts have probably been disproved far more often, far more dramatically and with greater finality than just about any scientific rationale, leave alone evolution.

Mm, I don't really look at them on the same playing field, since one is a question common to mankind about origins and the other is just my personal private experience with something that doesn't/hasn't affected anybody else.

The mind of HotChic is still the same when dealing with either, isn't it? I am not debating that a personal experience is different from a public issue, but just pointing out the discrepancy in the processing of either information by the same individual. I don't mean to be rude, but this is nothing but selective reasoning. If I started speaking in tongues, the first person I would contact would be a psychiatrist. On the other hand, considering my very convenient interpretations of the divine, I would probably rationalize such a experience as my brain's way of handling a situation beyond my ken. I don't hold your religious experiences against you. To the contrary, I think it makes you more interesting and I am quite sure a much nicer person to boot. However, your disbelief in evolution cannot be rationally explained and I can only surmise that you have the same automatic belief in the non-existence of evolution that you have with the existence of your religious experiences.

Nevertheless, I would like to reiterate my point that religion is good. Faith in a supernatural, benevolent power is good. Sometimes, it is the only thing that keeps mankind good.

It is, and now that I'm not dead tired I'll give a better answer.

How can you disprove tongues when you have no way of determining which experiences with tongues are legitimate and which are not? You can disprove tongues a thousand times and never be sure you were testing a true experience instead of an emotional or induced one (something I've brought up several times).

My disbelief in evolution most certainly can be rationally explained. I don't believe that science has reached the pinnacle of research and that there is more to be learned, that the theories will be adjusted as those things are learned. What is irrational about that? If you believe that the theory as it stands provides a full and complete explanation, you have greater faith in it than do most scientists.

What about fossil evidence?
What about glacial evidence?
What about carbon dating evidence?

Seriously, HotChic - with all due respect, maybe you should read a few books on evolution so that you don't sound ignorant?

I have, and I still find gaps in the theories that need explanation. (And just so you know, most of the time, articles published by the researchers are a less biased source of information than books). If you think science is complete and perfect right now, you're doing what everybody else at every other point in history has done - closed yourself off from the potential of new discoveries. Heck, you see revisions to the theories being published regularly, little bits at a time.

Well, the flip side is cynicism that embraces another theory with NO PHYSICAL evidence. I'm currently in a philosophy of religion (mostly western religions) class and the conflict right now is not disproving evolution - it's melding the concept of evolution with creationalism. Because evolution is slowly being accepted as scientific law, not theory.

Did I say anything about accepting another theory, anywhere?

You imply that you agree with creationalism, by this long winded post about you and jesus chillin on a beach together.

That's your assumption about Christians, not anything I said.

 

[slackerinabox]

Funny story - my sister, mom, and myself had a long conversation about Jesus and what he means. My mom is VERY religious, very educated in the bible, and her father and grandfather were both ministers. My sister was trying to go for the middle ground "Jesus is about love, about accepting your neighbors regardless of their faith and the bible is poetry, it shouldn't be taken literally." My mom stated that she's tired of liberals who don't really agree with the bible bending the words. God is VENGEFUL, the bible clearly states that there is only ONE PATH to salvation (which is accepting Jesus), Jesus DEMANDS that you give up ALL of your material wealth to go to heaven, the Bible clearly states that women are inferior, homosexuals are sinners, and that there is no middle ground. It also states taht you should have a child like faith - do not question, or you may face damnation.

My mom's point is that the bible is pretty blunt. You can agree or disagree, but don't try to mix hippy new age thoughts with the bible... That's post-modernism and the bible surely is not a post-modern text.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Funny story - my sister, mom, and myself had a long conversation about Jesus and what he means. My mom is VERY religious, very educated in the bible, and her father and grandfather were both ministers. My sister was trying to go for the middle ground "Jesus is about love, about accepting your neighbors regardless of their faith and the bible is poetry, it shouldn't be taken literally." My mom stated that she's tired of liberals who don't really agree with the bible bending the words. God is VENGEFUL, the bible clearly states that there is only ONE PATH to salvation (which is accepting Jesus), Jesus DEMANDS that you give up ALL of your material wealth to go to heaven, the Bible clearly states that women are inferior, homosexuals are sinners, and that there is no middle ground. It also states taht you should have a child like faith - do not question, or you may face damnation.

My mom's point is that the bible is pretty blunt. You can agree or disagree, but don't try to mix hippy new age thoughts with the bible... That's post-modernism and the bible surely is not a post-modern text.

I agree with your point here, but you also have to take into account the fact that there are several parts of the Bible that are sufficiently vague as to allow for more than one interpretation (women are inferior) or are completely contextual and often taken out of context. If we want to get into deep theology (which I'm fine doing via PM) you'll see that I'm definitely not the post-modern hippie type Christian in what I believe.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

Originally posted by: joshsquall
I really don't know how people can't believe evolution exists. Here is the basic definition:
As time progresses, the frequency of genetic variations which are more suitable for the population's environment will increase, while the frequency of genetic variations which are less suitable for the population's environment will decrease.
Basically, you live longer and can produce more offspring if you are better suited for your environment. It's not a myth or even a theory. It's logic.

What you don't believe in is evolution as the origin of man. You believe that men were placed on Earth with the exact same genetics that they currently have.

Micro evolution exists. Which is the ability to adapt to your current surroundings.

Macro evolution does not exist. This is the ability to evolve from one being into another, ie: monkey into human. If evolution exists, then I should be able to evolve into another being that I choose, yes?

No, that has nothing to do with evolution.

But for the love of god (and I know I'm too late), but please don't let this be an evolution thread. I know that's not what Hot Chic wanted here

please please please take it elswhere.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

Originally posted by: joshsquall
I really don't know how people can't believe evolution exists. Here is the basic definition:
As time progresses, the frequency of genetic variations which are more suitable for the population's environment will increase, while the frequency of genetic variations which are less suitable for the population's environment will decrease.
Basically, you live longer and can produce more offspring if you are better suited for your environment. It's not a myth or even a theory. It's logic.

What you don't believe in is evolution as the origin of man. You believe that men were placed on Earth with the exact same genetics that they currently have.

Micro evolution exists. Which is the ability to adapt to your current surroundings.

Macro evolution does not exist. This is the ability to evolve from one being into another, ie: monkey into human. If evolution exists, then I should be able to evolve into another being that I choose, yes?

Request: can we keep this in the realm of "I think" or "I believe" rather than in hard and fast statements? I'd prefer the thread to not degenerate into a evolution-creation thread. (Plus, assuming an evolutionary point of view, choice wouldn't enter into evolution.)

exactly

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Funny story - my sister, mom, and myself had a long conversation about Jesus and what he means. My mom is VERY religious, very educated in the bible, and her father and grandfather were both ministers. My sister was trying to go for the middle ground "Jesus is about love, about accepting your neighbors regardless of their faith and the bible is poetry, it shouldn't be taken literally." My mom stated that she's tired of liberals who don't really agree with the bible bending the words. God is VENGEFUL, the bible clearly states that there is only ONE PATH to salvation (which is accepting Jesus), Jesus DEMANDS that you give up ALL of your material wealth to go to heaven, the Bible clearly states that women are inferior, homosexuals are sinners, and that there is no middle ground. It also states taht you should have a child like faith - do not question, or you may face damnation.

My mom's point is that the bible is pretty blunt. You can agree or disagree, but don't try to mix hippy new age thoughts with the bible... That's post-modernism and the bible surely is not a post-modern text.

I agree with your point here, but you also have to take into account the fact that there are several parts of the Bible that are sufficiently vague as to allow for more than one interpretation (women are inferior) or are completely contextual and often taken out of context. If we want to get into deep theology (which I'm fine doing via PM) you'll see that I'm definitely not the post-modern hippie type Christian in what I believe.

Well, I wasn't trying to mock or put down post-modern hippie Christianity. I had a crisis of faith when I was 12. On Child Ministry Day (a cute day when the kids are supposed to give cute sermons), I gave a sermon on the inconsistancies between the old and new testament. My minister at the time was a great fellow, educated at Oxford, who actually sat down with me and talked about my feelings instead of just name calling. The concencus was that it's ok to take what you'd like from a religion - to follow the rules that make sense and shun the rest. I shun the death penalty, while the old testament supports it. I love f*gs! I work at the gay center, I can not support a religion that has any hatred toward them, so I shun that part of it as well. But I think we should love our neighbors. I think we should be respectful toward our neighbors. There's a lot of good in the bible - I embrace that. I just don't think I need to give some dude $20 a week to prove my embrace. Seriously, Jesus needs a better financial planner - he's always looking for a handout!

I also have troubles believing in a higher power when so much of life seems random. My sister lost 2 babies prematurely and, well, things like that make you question things. Hitler went on to live a relatively long life while these infants did not.. Why? Well, randomness.. If there was an order to things I think I'd see more justice, but this world is not just.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Well, I wasn't trying to mock or put down post-modern hippie Christianity. I had a crisis of faith when I was 12. On Child Ministry Day (a cute day when the kids are supposed to give cute sermons), I gave a sermon on the inconsistancies between the old and new testament. My minister at the time was a great fellow, educated at Oxford, who actually sat down with me and talked about my feelings instead of just name calling. The concencus was that it's ok to take what you'd like from a religion - to follow the rules that make sense and shun the rest. I shun the death penalty, while the old testament supports it. I love f*gs! I work at the gay center, I can not support a religion that has any hatred toward them, so I shun that part of it as well. But I think we should love our neighbors. I think we should be respectful toward our neighbors. There's a lot of good in the bible - I embrace that. I just don't think I need to give some dude $20 a week to prove my embrace. Seriously, Jesus needs a better financial planner - he's always looking for a handout!

I also have troubles believing in a higher power when so much of life seems random. My sister lost 2 babies prematurely and, well, things like that make you question things. Hitler went on to live a relatively long life while these infants did not.. Why? Well, randomness.. If there was an order to things I think I'd see more justice, but this world is not just.

I appreciate your thoughts on this, well said. I respect you a lot more for this one thoughtful post than for most the others that seemed more like flaming.

 

[Luthien]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Funny story - my sister, mom, and myself had a long conversation about Jesus and what he means. My mom is VERY religious, very educated in the bible, and her father and grandfather were both ministers. My sister was trying to go for the middle ground "Jesus is about love, about accepting your neighbors regardless of their faith and the bible is poetry, it shouldn't be taken literally." My mom stated that she's tired of liberals who don't really agree with the bible bending the words. God is VENGEFUL, the bible clearly states that there is only ONE PATH to salvation (which is accepting Jesus), Jesus DEMANDS that you give up ALL of your material wealth to go to heaven, the Bible clearly states that women are inferior, homosexuals are sinners, and that there is no middle ground. It also states taht you should have a child like faith - do not question, or you may face damnation.

My mom's point is that the bible is pretty blunt. You can agree or disagree, but don't try to mix hippy new age thoughts with the bible... That's post-modernism and the bible surely is not a post-modern text.

Excellent post!

 

[Pacemaker]

What it comes down to is if you look at the craziest 1% of any group that group will look like they are out there. Craziest 1% of Atheists.... wow that's crazy. Craziest 1% of Christians.... OMG crazy. The craziest 1% of any group is crazy beyond human comprehension.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Luthien

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Funny story - my sister, mom, and myself had a long conversation about Jesus and what he means. My mom is VERY religious, very educated in the bible, and her father and grandfather were both ministers. My sister was trying to go for the middle ground "Jesus is about love, about accepting your neighbors regardless of their faith and the bible is poetry, it shouldn't be taken literally." My mom stated that she's tired of liberals who don't really agree with the bible bending the words. God is VENGEFUL, the bible clearly states that there is only ONE PATH to salvation (which is accepting Jesus), Jesus DEMANDS that you give up ALL of your material wealth to go to heaven, the Bible clearly states that women are inferior, homosexuals are sinners, and that there is no middle ground. It also states taht you should have a child like faith - do not question, or you may face damnation.

My mom's point is that the bible is pretty blunt. You can agree or disagree, but don't try to mix hippy new age thoughts with the bible... That's post-modernism and the bible surely is not a post-modern text.

Excellent post!

Ah, at last we agree on something! Handshake and a happy end to the thread?