RELIGION: Christians, serious question. [Archive]

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 06:39 AM

Here's the best explanation I can give, and honestly ... if any other "Christian" gives a more specific answer I would say they're just speculating.

We don't know. Just in the same way that proponents of the "Big Bang Theory" can't give a clear explanation of what exactly happened at the "Big Bang" or how something came from nothing, none of us "Christians" can give an informed answer because simply, we weren't there.

There is speculation that in Job 40:15-24 there is a description of a dinosaur, but as I said ... It's speculation. Sadly, the Bible isn't a picture book so we can't see what exactly they saw.

The Bible says that God created everything, then he created man, and then the rest of the story happened. While the Bible describes "7 Days" the literal interpretation of 7 days is up for debate. In my eyes God could have done it all in less than a blink, or billions of years. With the definition of eternity being "a state to which time has no application; timelessness." and it being believe that Gods existence is in "Eternity" who is to say what form of time model He used.

My explanation of the aging we see through rocks and soil and fossils would be "If God can create Adam and Eve as full grown adults, why can't He create the Earth the same way with aged characteristics?".

Ultimately it has to do with faith. Whether it be in creation or Big Bang, both require faith. Faith is defined as "A strong belief or confidence in something that can not be sensed". Sense would be "Hearing, Seeing, Feeling, Tasting, or Smelling", and when it comes to creation ... we don't have any of those things for sure ... When it comes to Big Bang, it's the same thing, we just simply don't know, and in all honesty ... If we could completely figure out God ... How great would He be?

That's my incredibly long explanation that only touches lightly on what your question was, but ultimately ... that's the deepest explanation anyone can give you honestly.

.Andy

Sep 30, 2009, 06:41 AM

Their anti-abortion stuff looks serious...

(http://www.truechristian.com/abortionists.html)
And over the top at the same time :). As iBlue said it's hard to distinguish what creationists believe from parody.

How would a day go by on MacRumors without a Christian bash thread, veiled or not.
Go on then. Put the christian basher in his place. Did dinosaurs and humans live together? Is the world 6000 years old? Or are these anachronistic christian beliefs that the majority of modern christians jettisoned in favour of science.

Ultimately it has to do with faith. Whether it be in creation or Big Bang, both require faith. Faith is defined as "A strong belief or confidence in something that can not be sensed". Sense would be "Hearing, Seeing, Feeling, Tasting, or Smelling", and when it comes to creation ... we don't have any of those things for sure ... When it comes to Big Bang, it's the same thing, we just simply don't know
Although in the case of the big bang we can see and hear it. That's what we use radiotelescopes for. The big bang theory came out of the evidence. And as you point out such evidence doesn't require faith.

MBHockey

Sep 30, 2009, 06:56 AM

And over the top at the same time :). As iBlue said it's hard to distinguish what creationists believe from parody.

Go on then. Put the christian basher in his place. Did dinosaurs and humans live together? Is the world 6000 years old? Or are these anachronistic christian beliefs that the majority of modern christians jettisoned in favour of science.

Although in the case of the big bang we can see and hear it. That's what we use radiotelescopes for. The big bang theory came out of the evidence. And as you point out such evidence doesn't require faith.

Yeah, but that's the whole trick. Convince people into thinking they are bad for not blindly believing something by giving it a cute name like "faith" and making it the crux of the religion. It's actually quite brilliant because by its very definition it can't be disproved. It's just shocking that so many people don't see through it.

People can have whatever beliefs they want, but when it flies in the face of actual evidence it really reveals how ignorant most religious people are.

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 06:57 AM

[SNIP]
Although in the case of the big bang we can see and hear it. That's what we use radiotelescopes for. The big bang theory came out of the evidence. And as you point out such evidence doesn't require faith.

There's a very big difference between what and how. Who's to say that God didn't cause the Big Bang and all the evidence we see of a "Big Bang" isn't simply evidence of what happened after God began creation? We simply don't know.

edesignuk

Sep 30, 2009, 07:00 AM

There's a very big difference between what and how. Who's to say that God didn't cause the Big Bang and all the evidence we see of a "Big Bang" isn't simply evidence of what happened after God began creation? We simply don't know.But we do know it all happened a long, long, long, long time before us [humans], Earth, and most other things existed.

Didn't god slap it all together in 7 days?

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 07:00 AM

Yeah, but that's the whole trick. Convince people into thinking they are bad for not blindly believing something by giving it a cute name like "faith" and making it the crux of the religion. It's actually quite brilliant because by its very definition it can't be disproved. It's just shocking that so many people don't see through it.

People can have whatever beliefs they want, but when it flies in the face of actual evidence it really reveals how ignorant most religious people are.

I couldn't agree more, those whom ignore facts are nothing but ignorant. At the same time, there are a lot of people that would love to place the word "evidence" on something that is mere speculation, or on something that doesn't exactly prove the entirety of their theory, see my above post.

djellison

Sep 30, 2009, 07:02 AM

Sense would be "Hearing, Seeing, Feeling, Tasting, or Smelling", and when it comes to creation ... we don't have any of those things for sure ... When it comes to Big Bang, it's the same thing, we just simply don't know,.

The remnants of the big bang can be both heard (via the cosmic microwave background radiation) and seen (via mapping the intensity of that radiation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation Furthermore the conditions of the big bang can be replicated in particle accelerator facilities. We can look back, literally, in time and observe astronomical phenomenon that are almost the entire way back to the moment of the big bang - http://www.universetoday.com/2009/04/27/most-distant-object-ever-seen/

If you want to go to the theological place where any and all evidence for a geological and biological history of the Earth was 'put' there by a 'God' then the discussion is over. There is no debate to be had beyond that point. That's just blind faith and is neither debatable or defensible.

It's like going to the greatest theatrical production of all time, and sitting there with a woolly hat pulled over your eyes and your fingers in your ears. You miss everything -and you look kind of silly.

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 07:03 AM

But we do know it all happened a long, long, long, long time before us [humans], Earth, and most other things existed.

Didn't god slap it all together in 7 days?

The Bible says that God created everything, then he created man, and then the rest of the story happened. While the Bible describes "7 Days" the literal interpretation of 7 days is up for debate. In my eyes God could have done it all in less than a blink, or billions of years. With the definition of eternity being "a state to which time has no application; timelessness." and it being believe that Gods existence is in "Eternity" who is to say what form of time model He used.

I hope that gives a little insight as to my point of view. I agree, it all happened a long, long, long, long time before us, but while discussing something in the concept of "eternity" our concept of time would be relative.

iBlue

Sep 30, 2009, 07:03 AM

There's a very big difference between what and how. Who's to say that God didn't cause the Big Bang and all the evidence we see of a "Big Bang" isn't simply evidence of what happened after God began creation? We simply don't know.

(curious) Do you know if something of that nature has ever been described in the bible? I don't mean Genesis because that seems to focus on earth, though I imagine that would be the place to talk about it. Is there any clear reference to other planets? Surely god isn't just an earth god.

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 07:06 AM

The remnants of the big bang can be both heard (via the cosmic microwave background radiation) and seen (via mapping the intensity of that radiation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation Furthermore the conditions of the big bang can be replicated in particle accelerator facilities. We can look back, literally, in time and observe astronomical phenomenon that are almost the entire way back to the moment of the big bang - http://www.universetoday.com/2009/04/27/most-distant-object-ever-seen/

If you want to go to the theological place where any and all evidence for a geological and biological history of the Earth was 'put' there by a 'God' then the discussion is over. There is no debate to be had beyond that point. That's just blind faith and is neither debatable or defensible.

It's like going to the greatest theatrical production of all time, and sitting there with a woolly hat pulled over your eyes and your fingers in your ears. You miss everything -and you look kind of silly.

I completely agree, but I have a hard time looking at all of that evidence ( which believe me, I have thoroughly read many times ) and eliminate the possibility that an intelligent designer had something to do with it.

.Andy

Sep 30, 2009, 07:07 AM

There's a very big difference between what and how. Who's to say that God didn't cause the Big Bang and all the evidence we see of a "Big Bang" isn't simply evidence of what happened after God began creation? We simply don't know.
But now you're shifting the goalposts. My post was in reply to your equating of faith in god with faith in the big bang. This is false. The big bang theory came out of tangible evidence first and foremost which satisfies your own hearing and seeing criteria for not being faith.

As you rightly point out a god or gods could have created the big bang. However there is absolutely no evidence to suggest a christian god did this over any other manner of gods or even an elephant. There is dogma however which is a terribly unreliable source of facts. Shoehorning such a criteria as a god into the big bang is purely unnecessary speculation. It just isn't required to explain anything. Nor is it even a scientifically testable hypothesis.

Jaffa Cake

Sep 30, 2009, 07:10 AM

Didn't god slap it all together in 7 days?I think it was six, and then She had the Sunday off. Maybe did a bit of gardening or something.

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 07:11 AM

(curious) Do you know if something of that nature has ever been described in the bible? I don't mean Genesis because that seems to focus on earth, though I imagine that would be the place to talk about it. Is there any clear reference to other planets? Surely god isn't just an earth god.

That's a very good question, and a question I have talked much with people who get into the whole possibility of alien life discussion. People are quick to say "The Bible doesn't talk about aliens therefore they don't exist", well ... The Bible doesn't talk about Hefewizen beer, but I sure am enjoying one at that moment. For someone to assume that an exclusion of information is proof for non-existance is simply idiotic.

To specifically answer your question, the Bible does refer to The Sun and the fact that the Earth orbits it ( which is completely contrary to the beliefs of the time ) and some planets. But I would venture to say that the information that is of true importance to us is provided in the Bible, and while I would have loved more information ... we got what we truly need, and a little of what we want, but not the in depth explanation of the cosmos that I would love.

MBHockey

Sep 30, 2009, 07:14 AM

I couldn't agree more, those whom ignore facts are nothing but ignorant. At the same time, there are a lot of people that would love to place the word "evidence" on something that is mere speculation, or on something that doesn't exactly prove the entirety of their theory, see my above post.

What kind of proof do you want for the big bang? A video of it happening?

Why is the bar for evidence set so much higher for religious people when it comes to things contrary to their faith, but they have no trouble blindly believing ridiculous tales from an antiquated text?

Do you really think your idea of God kick starting the big bang isn't speculation?

arkitect

Sep 30, 2009, 07:16 AM

the Bible does refer to The Sun and the fact that the Earth orbits it ( which is completely contrary to the beliefs of the time ) and some planets.

It does? Would be interesting to know exactly where…

Only mention I know of is Joshua and the sun standing still or somesuch bollocks.

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 07:17 AM

But now you're shifting the goalposts. My post was in reply to your equating of faith in god with faith in the big bang. This is false. The big bang theory came out of tangible evidence first and foremost which satisfies your own hearing and seeing criteria for not being faith.

As you rightly point out a god or gods could have created the big bang. However there is absolutely no evidence to suggest a christian god did this over any other manner of gods or even an elephant. There is dogma however which is a terribly unreliable source of facts. Shoehorning such a criteria as a god into the big bang is purely unnecessary speculation. It just isn't required to explain anything. Nor is it even a scientifically testable hypothesis.

.Andi, I agree. Many Christians would sit here and try to battle you with facts and babble, but that's not me. All I can say is that you're absolutely correct that our scientific evidence does not prove a God, at the same time ... it does not disprove a God. Ultimately there will be no way to prove or disprove God, this is why we have this age old debate, but I choose to believe, and you choose not to. I completely respect your decision, and I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

I'm not the typical "Christian" that grew up in church and believes everything that is shoveled into their gullet. I became a Christian at 14 after deeply searching this information myself. I am always open to converse about it, and even be proven wrong ... to be otherwise would be ignorance. At the same time, over a decade after choosing this path, I choose to believe what I believe until I am proven wrong .

iBlue

Sep 30, 2009, 07:19 AM

That's a very good question, and a question I have talked much with people who get into the whole possibility of alien life discussion. People are quick to say "The Bible doesn't talk about aliens therefore they don't exist", well ... The Bible doesn't talk about Hefewizen beer, but I sure am enjoying one at that moment. For someone to assume that an exclusion of information is proof for non-existance is simply idiotic.

To specifically answer your question, the Bible does refer to The Sun and the fact that the Earth orbits it ( which is completely contrary to the beliefs of the time ) and some planets. But I would venture to say that the information that is of true importance to us is provided in the Bible, and while I would have loved more information ... we got what we truly need, and a little of what we want, but not the in depth explanation of the cosmos that I would love.

Well I'm not a believer and it's based on much much more than exclusion of information, but I'm not up for delving into all that at the moment. I was curious about that so thanks for answering.

edesignuk

Sep 30, 2009, 07:20 AM

At the same time, over a decade after choosing this path, I choose to believe what I believe until I am proven wrong .All very reasonable, and I'd glad you are the way you are about your faith. But, I am curious, how could you be proven wrong? Since the existence of god can neither be proved or disproved, surely there's nothing else that could sway you?

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 07:28 AM

Well I'm not a believer and it's based on much much more than exclusion of information, but I'm not up for delving into all that at the moment. I was curious about that so thanks for answering.

I would love to hear your reasons, not because I want to persuade you otherwise or anything, but because I believe it's always healthy to hear opinions that differ from your own. Feel free to PM me or whatever, I promise my room mate can't PM you anymore, haha.

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 07:34 AM

All very reasonable, and I'd glad you are the way you are about your faith. But, I am curious, how could you be proven wrong? Since the existence of god can neither be proved or disproved, surely there's nothing else that could sway you?

Off Topic: It's really funny, because I used to always picture your words coming out of Vince Vaughn's mouth with his voice and now I can't help but imagine them coming out of V's mouth with his voice.

On Topic: I am always open for a logical debate, I love debating. I will never dismiss true evidence at the sake of defending my faith. Facts are much greater than faith, that is the simple truth. As you said though, I believe in something that is very hard to provide solid evidence to disprove an existence of a God. I guess I kind of see it as erring on the safe side. ;)

iBlue

Sep 30, 2009, 07:42 AM

^ Probably closer to V's voice (at least accent-wise, though V is verrray posh) but e is more likely to say the sort of things Vince Vaughn does. :D

I would love to hear your reasons, not because I want to persuade you otherwise or anything, but because I believe it's always healthy to hear opinions that differ from your own. Feel free to PM me or whatever, I promise my room mate can't PM you anymore, haha.

:D

Well I'm not a fervent debater really because I tend to just get flustered articulating myself and then decide it's not worth the effort. To be very pithy in my explanation, I don't believe simply because nothing seems to add up in any logical sense. There are so many things I don't even know where to begin. I know that sounds like a cop-out but this IS my pithy explanation after all.
It isn't just Christianity, I think all religion is a big pile of crapola causing more problems than it solves. I disagree with it all on general principle. It isn't something I need or want in my life.

I tend to get very snippy with religious people who get in everyone's face about it and I'm glad that you don't seem to be that type. I think being that way does a disservice more than anything else.

Mac Rules

Sep 30, 2009, 07:50 AM

I completely agree, but I have a hard time looking at all of that evidence ( which believe me, I have thoroughly read many times ) and eliminate the possibility that an intelligent designer had something to do with it.

I appreciate your point of view here, I've often pondered this myself, and obviously the Watchmakers Analogy makes a compelling argument for the existence of a "designer". However, perhaps through my pessimism with life, I prefer the Chaos Theory ideas the prefect analogy of which lies in the "Infinite Monkey" Argument.

I believe that the point of view you hold, is in part, due to a fear that we all hold, in that we don't want to feel insignificant, as if are being was nothing more than a series of chances through billions of years, but ultimately I think thats just the way the cookie crumbled.

Any thoughts?

Watchmakers Analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy)
Infinite Monkey Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem)

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 07:59 AM

^ Probably closer to V's voice (at least accent-wise, though V is verrray posh) but e is more likely to say the sort of things Vince Vaughn does. :D

:D

Well I'm not a fervent debater really because I tend to just get flustered articulating myself and then decide it's not worth the effort. To be very pithy in my explanation, I don't believe simply because nothing seems to add up in any logical sense. There are so many things I don't even know where to begin. I know that sounds like a cop-out but this IS my pithy explanation after all.
It isn't just Christianity, I think all religion is a big pile of crapola causing more problems than it solves. I disagree with it all on general principle. It isn't something I need or want in my life.

I tend to get very snippy with religious people who get in everyone's face about it and I'm glad that you don't seem to be that type. I think being that way does a disservice more than anything else.

I'll try to put the voice with the attitude to the name now, and I'm assuming you have a Californian accent due to a comment on saw on another thread saying you grew up in LA. Okay ... Now that all the stalkerish stuff is handled ... haha.

My girlfriend is the exact same where that she avoids confrontation like the plague, and would rather not debate out of fear of not being able to keep up.

I agree. I am honestly mostly disgusted with the way most "Christians" act. If I were to sit back and base my faith ( or my decisions thereof ) completely on what people that stood under the banner of "Christianity" did, I would have dismissed it years ago. They kill people in the name of "Jesus" they hate people in the name of "Jesus", they do so many horrible things in the name of "Jesus" ... why would I ever want to associate myself with that guy? In all honesty, it's because from what I know, these people are greatly misrepresenting him based on their own agenda, isn't that what most people do anyway? How many girls have heard a guy say "If you loved me, you would do this ...". Under the guise of love they convince a lady to do something they normally wouldn't have ... But does their behaviour truly depict love simply because that's the banner they operated under?

I chose to examine this "Jesus" through what is written about him ... Not only in the Bible but in the works of scribes of that time, most Josephus. From those explorations I had to decide "Is this a guy who has developed a philosophy from which I want to design my life?" ... and my answer was yes.

Do I blame people for hating God and Jesus and everything Christian based off of what people have done under that banner? By all means no! I completely agree, and it truly sickens me to see the misrepresentation, but that's the world I live in.

I'm a very atypical Christian, and receive great criticism for the friendships I have with people that I apparently shouldn't have friendships with like homosexual people, and alcoholics, and so many other things ... but I try to live my life the way I see Jesus lived his life ... With love for everyone. Yet, most Christians choose to seclude their love for only those they want to experience it ... and it's sad.

When it comes to the people that shove everything in peoples face, I can do nothing but shake my head and roll my eyes. If someone came to me and was trying to shove the importance of water down my throat I would most likely die of thirst before believing them. I honestly can not stand people that shove their beliefs down peoples throats and won't live with an open mind ... it's ignorance.

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 08:05 AM

I appreciate your point of view here, I've often pondered this myself, and obviously the Watchmakers Analogy makes a compelling argument for the existence of a "designer". However, perhaps through my pessimism with life, I prefer the Chaos Theory ideas the prefect analogy of which lies in the "Infinite Monkey" Argument.

I believe that the point of view you hold, is in part, due to a fear that we all hold, in that we don't want to feel insignificant, as if are being was nothing more than a series of chances through billions of years, but ultimately I think thats just the way the cookie crumbled.

Any thoughts?

Watchmakers Analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy)
Infinite Monkey Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem)

I would say, who wouldn't prefer a chaos theory! I know I would. It seems like the easiest theory to swallow, that through a grand amount of chances something predictable, or "good" happens. It seems much harder to believe that there is some big man in the sky that made this all happen. Yet, when I do the calculations in my head, the chances are soooo great with the "Infinite Monkey Theorem", that I simply find it easier to believe in the "Watchmakers Analogy".

djellison

Sep 30, 2009, 08:07 AM

To specifically answer your question, the Bible does refer to The Sun and the fact that the Earth orbits it ( which is completely contrary to the beliefs of the time ) and some planets.

This is news to me - given the Cathloic Church and its behaviour towards Galileo when he went to the Vatican and tried to convince them that Copernicus got things right. Only 360 years later did the Vatican say they might have got it wrong and that actually Galileo got it right.

The bible explicitly states "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved" "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved" and "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" - These are contraindications to the known structure of the solar system.

I would be interested to see what elements of the Bible explicitly state the Earth and other planets orbit the sun, given that the Catholic Church, a body that derived it's very existence FROM the Bible, found a man guilty of being a heretic for saying the very same thing.

nbs2

Sep 30, 2009, 08:07 AM

Not really a fair question. Depending on who you talk to, you will get a different answer. My view is likely different from most others, but in line with some. Can I claim it to be the only and absolute truth? No.

You really need to drill down into specifics if you want an answer. But, I suppose the most accurate one would be that it hasn't been revealed to us (anybody who claims the answr is in the Bible is either a moron or lying) as it is not necessary for our salvation.

The role of religion, as Paul's writings seem to indicate, is to draw man spiritually closer to God. It is not to answer every question that we may have about how the world works. Those things will be revealed in their due course, but for now we should be focused on the issues that affect us and those around us spiritually.

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 08:08 AM

While I would love to stay here and continue this conversation ( truly no sarcasm intended ), I must go to sleep ( as it is 5:08 here on the West Coast ). Therefore, if there is another comment that I see after posting this I will quickly respond but I must go to sleep. Anything further I will gladly pick up again tomorrow or continue through PM. Thank you so much for the questions and challenging me, and I hope to be back for more soon.

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 08:12 AM

This is news to me - given the Cathloic Church and its behaviour towards Galileo when he went to the Vatican and tried to convince them that Copernicus got things right. Only 360 years later did the Vatican say they might have got it wrong and that actually Galileo got it right.

The bible explicitly states "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved" "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved" and "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" - These are contraindications to the known structure of the solar system.

I would be interested to see what elements of the Bible explicitly state the Earth and other planets orbit the sun, given that the Catholic Church, a body that derived it's very existence FROM the Bible, found a man guilty of being a heretic for saying the very same thing.

While the Catholic church has the same foundation as Christianity, they have built some wild things on that foundation that Christianity has no desire to have anything to do with.

Apart from that, I would love to see where in the Bible it says what you say it does ... Not because I'm trying to call you out, but because in all honesty I want to learn more, and maybe I missed something. Thanks - Eric

arkitect

Sep 30, 2009, 08:15 AM

While the Catholic church has the same foundation as Christianity, they have built some wild things on that foundation that Christianity has no desire to have anything to do with.

I am lost, again, so Catholics aren't Christians?
:confused:

djellison

Sep 30, 2009, 08:25 AM

when I do the calculations in my head, the chances are soooo great

What chances, and what odds? I'd be interested to see what events or things you find so unlikely that you have invoked a creator of some sort.

Example...what are the odds of tossing a coin heads, ten times in a row?

1024:1 . VERY long odds. But if you have a few hours, you can do it. Derren Brown did it on UK TV once.

What if you wanted 50 heads in a row?

It's 1,125,899,906,842,624:1

Say it takes you 30 seconds to toss a coin 10 times.

It would take about 1.070 billion years. WOW.

BUT - if you had all the people of the world doing it, continuously - it would take less than 2 months.

I'll conjecture that it's the formation of life itself that inspires you to think of a creator. I apologise if I'm wrong - but it's a common belief. Let's run the same sort of maths :

Let's say the chance of any one cubic cm of pre-biotic oceanic mush spontaneously forming something self replicating that can evolve into life is a trillion trillion to one, on any one day. That's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 :1. You've got a thimble of this rich organic goo - on it's own - we're talking, well, 1/365'th of that value, in years, for it to occur. Still many trillions of times the age of the entire universe.

There's about 1.3 Billion cubic km's of water

A cubic metre of water contains 1,000,000 cubic centimetres.
A cubic km of water contains 1,000,000,000 cubic metres
And the oceans contains 1,300,000,000 of those.

So - we have 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic centimetres - all sat there randomly with a chance of life forming.

With those odds - it doesn't take triillions of times the age of the universe for life to start.

It takes just a few hundred thousand years.

You can take the monkey analogy if you like, but don't forget just how huge the universe is. There's more monkeys than you can possibly imagine. Eventually, we will end up with Othello.

djellison

Sep 30, 2009, 08:29 AM

Apart from that, I would love to see where in the Bible it says what you say it does ...

Psalm 93:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2093:1&version=NIV), Psalm 96:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2096:10&version=NIV), 1 Chronicles 16:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%2016:30&version=NIV), Psalm 104:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%20104:5-104:5&version=NIV),

All saying, in one way or another - 'The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved'

This is in direct contradiction to the known facts that the Earth -Moon system orbit around a central point (which is inside the volume of the Earth - but we wobble in Newtonian sympathy). This orbits the Sun, the Sun orbits the super massive black hole at the centre of our Galaxy, and our Galaxy is hurtling towards the Andromeda Galaxy at over a hundred km/sec or so. There is no means by which one can claim the world cannot be moved. It's moving like you wouldn't believe.

Your turn - where does it describe the planets orbiting the Sun.

Iscariot

Sep 30, 2009, 08:33 AM

All I can say is that you're absolutely correct that our scientific evidence does not prove a God, at the same time ... it does not disprove a God.

It does not disprove "a" God, but it does definitively disprove a literal or even quasi-literal interpretation of holy scripture and by extension those Gods.

djellison

Sep 30, 2009, 08:34 AM

The role of religion, as Paul's writings seem to indicate, is to draw man spiritually closer to God..

And what is the purpose of that?

The purpose of an engine is to do work. But to find it useful, you can put it in a car and drive to Vegas.

Desertrat

Sep 30, 2009, 08:35 AM

sbuddycorex, I'd rather vehemently disagree with you about "most" Christians. "Some", yeah, I'm in accord. To me, the fundamentalist types are not really representatvie of most Christians, for all that they get the publicity.

FWIW, I tend to dislike noisy proselytizers of whatever sort of faith or religion. Doesn't matter to me if it's fundamentalist Christianity or Socialism. When it comes to the arguments of religion, I guess I'm sort of a lacksadaisical agnostic: I don't really know, and I don't rreally care. :)

The Bible is a compendium of verbal history, written down after generations of story-telling. Worse, it was translated into other languages, which creates a whole new set of problems. While the examples for moral behavior are well-taken, I don't see how it can be used as a literal history of anything. Story-tellers always embroider their tales, and I figure there's been a bunch of embroidery written down in the Good Book.

'Rat

iBlue

Sep 30, 2009, 08:45 AM

I'll try to put the voice with the attitude to the name now, and I'm assuming you have a Californian accent due to a comment on saw on another thread saying you grew up in LA. Okay ... Now that all the stalkerish stuff is handled ... haha.

My girlfriend is the exact same where that she avoids confrontation like the plague, and would rather not debate out of fear of not being able to keep up.
....

I think I sound pretty californian, southern, more specifically. I put the word "like" in places it doesn't belong and I will use the word "dude" whenever possible. :D I've lived in the UK for 3 years now though and I think it's changed the way I speak (and write) ever so slightly. I seem to enunciate a little more and sometimes put different emphasis on different syllables. (E.g., DUvet instead of duVET) I use different words, things like that. When I saw my family recently they said I sound pretty much the same but almost as though I am better spoken. *shrug*

Aaaanway... I wouldn't say I don't enjoy debating for fear of not keeping up, though that could be a small part of it. It's more a matter of my not feeling strongly enough about the issues to put forth the effort. I'm not always great at breaking things down into little bite sized portions, I see the whole plate and push it away, you know? I prefer to keep things mellow. I'm kind of a Dudeist (http://www.dudeism.com/) like that. :cool:

takao

Sep 30, 2009, 09:14 AM

This is news to me - given the Cathloic Church and its behaviour towards Galileo when he went to the Vatican and tried to convince them that Copernicus got things right. Only 360 years later did the Vatican say they might have got it wrong and that actually Galileo got it right.

often forgotten though:

- Galileo was partly sponsored by the Vatican
-The Pope actually was even sponsoring him before when he was just a cardinal
- the pope himself actually was interested in astronomy himself (writing own thesis etc.)
- galileo making ridiculing comments about the popes theories
etc.

biting the hand which fed and protected you for years is never a good idea
and after all he still got a rather mild result out of the process and the church/curia was still split

while the church was wrong, galileo was quite an unpleasant person himself ... even going so far as simply claiming "being the single instance in terms of astronomy" which can be easily seen in his relationship to Tycho Brahe/Kepler whose (correct) theories he simply ignored or simply called wrongwithout any proof

Dont Hurt Me

Sep 30, 2009, 09:22 AM

It should be said that man wants to worship anything and if a man is raised worshipping something 9 out of 10 times his offspring will do the same. We have hundreds of religions, all want to point to something else other then the natural order of things.
Like it or hate it Evolution is fact and is all around us. We and everything around us is in a state of constant change,the planet, the weather, food supply and all the living things only our lifetimes are so short we cant see it. All we have to do is start digging to see records of the past.
I still believe that some religions were given to primitive man to stop all the constant killing that man cant seem to shed. Others are simply manmade fairy tales for control and power and $$$.
Man is loaded with evolutionary proof, wisdom teeth, hair,appendix,Our size,finger nails etc. Only the blind ignore it.
With that all said I still think there is a God/Spirit/Force but nothing like out of any book ever read and that Jesus had it right when he said Love God and love one another.

mscriv

Sep 30, 2009, 10:17 AM

This is a good thread. It's stayed friendly and hasn't derailed like so many of these tend to do. :)

(curious) Do you know if something of that nature has ever been described in the bible? I don't mean Genesis because that seems to focus on earth, though I imagine that would be the place to talk about it. Is there any clear reference to other planets? Surely god isn't just an earth god.

Hey iBlue, your question is sort of posed by Arthur C. Clarke in his short story "The Star". It's quite an interesting read and brings about all kinds of questions like those that are posed in this thread.

To xbuddycorex, I just want to say thank you for expressing what you have stated in this thread. I appreciate your positive attitude and the way in which you handle faith. The old sentiment is true. Nothing hurts or damages faith more than Christians themselves who profess Jesus with their mouths, but deny him with their lifestyle. It's disheartening and frustrating when it happens. Thanks for not doing that.

Rt&Dzine

Sep 30, 2009, 12:41 PM

While the Catholic church has the same foundation as Christianity, they have built some wild things on that foundation that Christianity has no desire to have anything to do with.

Uh . . . the Catholic Church is one of the earliest Christian sects. The Protestants came much later.

Macaddicttt

Sep 30, 2009, 12:51 PM

This is news to me - given the Cathloic Church and its behaviour towards Galileo when he went to the Vatican and tried to convince them that Copernicus got things right. Only 360 years later did the Vatican say they might have got it wrong and that actually Galileo got it right.

Actually, it was far earlier that the Church accepted heliocentrism. The ban on his writings was lifted in the early 1700s. It was only 360 years later did they apologize to Galileo personally.

The bible explicitly states "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved" "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved" and "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" - These are contraindications to the known structure of the solar system.

If you think that the Catholic Church things that the Bible should be taken completely literally, then you don't know anything about Catholic theology. Even Augustine said that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, especially in books of poems and songs, like Psalms which you quote here.

I would be interested to see what elements of the Bible explicitly state the Earth and other planets orbit the sun, given that the Catholic Church, a body that derived it's very existence FROM the Bible, found a man guilty of being a heretic for saying the very same thing.

First, Galileo was not condemned for heresy, but was found "vehemently suspect of heresy." Second, the Bible was created by the Catholic Church, not the other way around.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 30, 2009, 12:54 PM

We don't know. Just in the same way that proponents of the "Big Bang Theory" can't give a clear explanation of what exactly happened at the "Big Bang" or how something came from nothing, none of us "Christians" can give an informed answer because simply, we weren't there.

It may be our linear viewpoint that is messed up and not the explanation. Also the big bang theory doesn't suggest something came from nothing, everything was just much smaller before it expanded (this time?). I don't think we can be entirely sure the universe hasn't been born and decayed several times before we were able to observe it (hey it worked this time).

The difference is that scientists do not make the jump to believing, they try to debunk until there are no other alternatives.

Shotglass

Sep 30, 2009, 12:58 PM

imac/cheese

Sep 30, 2009, 01:33 PM

How does "god" explain dinosaur remains and fossils?
Just curious.

From what I understand, the Hebrew word "Yom" used in Genesis numerous times during the description of creation can mean a variety of different things. It can mean a 12-hour period of light. It can mean a 24-hour day. It can mean a week. It can mean a vague period of time. It can mean a lifetime. It can mean eternity. In the English bible, it has been translated as "day".

According to Genesis, god created the animals on the fifth and sixth days. So "god" explains dinosaur remains and fossils by stating that he created them in a vague period of time before he created man.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 30, 2009, 01:42 PM

themoonisdown09

Sep 30, 2009, 01:47 PM

I found this (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis.html) that talks about the word "yom" and that the meaning in Genesis is probably not talking about 24-hour days. In case you don't want to read the whole thing, here is their conclusion:

We are left with only one interpretation for the days of Genesis [chapter] one. The literal, clearly indicated, meaning of yom for Genesis one must be an unspecified, long period of time.

nbs2

Sep 30, 2009, 01:49 PM

www.jesusneverexisted.com is a very interesting site. Of course, nobody can be sure everything (or anything) on there is actually scientific. What is scientific though is that pretty much nothing from the gospels could ever have taken place. They're so obviously fabricated it's a tragedy that some people could base their lives on them.

I don't get what you are trying to say

X is an interesting site. I don't know if everything, or anything, there can be proven. What is provable is that nothing that X disagrees with could have ever happened.

The site you mention is incredibly biased. If you can't prove or refute the truth of that site, it has no business confirming or refuting the truth of others. Regardless, your claim of science behind the allegation of impossibility is astounding. Do you truly believe that it is impossible or just unlikely? I don't think science could ever claim that something was an absolute impossibility. I certainly cannot fathom it. It could discount it based on current understanding as unlikely or unworkable given current contraints, but impossible? How do you prove an impossibility?

Macaddicttt

Sep 30, 2009, 01:50 PM

From what I understand, the Hebrew word "Yom" used in Genesis numerous times during the description of creation can mean a variety of different things. It can mean a 12-hour period of light. It can mean a 24-hour day. It can mean a week. It can mean a vague period of time. It can mean a lifetime. It can mean eternity. In the English bible, it has been translated as "day".

According to Genesis, god created the animals on the fifth and sixth days. So "god" explains dinosaur remains and fossils by stating that he created them in a vague period of time before he created man.

And what makes it clear that the entire story is an allegory and not to be taken literally at all is the fact that there are two creation stories. There's the seven days one and the Adam and Eve one. In the seven days one, animals are created before man. In the Adam and Eve one, animals are created after man to keep him company.

It's very obvious that dinosaurs don't factor into Genesis because they have nothing to do with the story or what it's trying to show. Anyone who tries to put dinosaurs in the creation stories is very confused.

Iscariot

Sep 30, 2009, 01:59 PM

Anyone who tries to put dinosaurs in the creation stories is very confused.

And may be similarly confused about paying their taxes :3

djellison

Sep 30, 2009, 02:24 PM

First, Galileo was not condemned for heresy, but was found "vehemently suspect of heresy."

Oh - that makes the institutionalised rejection of science and attempts to silence those who did research all right then!

Galileo said the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe. He was told to shut up, and held under house arrest. Totally, fundamentally, utterly unacceptable then, and now. Organised religion has expended significant energy trying to slow down science. Organised religions knows that with increasing knowledge comes a decreasing need for the nonsense that religion sells. Trying to stop stem cell research. Founding disgusting things like the 'institute' for creation research and the brainwashing it's trying to do.

Religious types are still trying to get religion into science books, they're still trying to reject the facts, the evidence, the reality.

They're still at it - now - hundreds of years later.

Galileo is long dead - but the practice continues.

It's disgusting.

yg17

Sep 30, 2009, 02:35 PM

From what I understand, the Hebrew word "Yom" used in Genesis numerous times during the description of creation can mean a variety of different things. It can mean a 12-hour period of light. It can mean a 24-hour day. It can mean a week. It can mean a vague period of time. It can mean a lifetime. It can mean eternity. In the English bible, it has been translated as "day".

According to Genesis, god created the animals on the fifth and sixth days. So "god" explains dinosaur remains and fossils by stating that he created them in a vague period of time before he created man.

So you base your beliefs and entire way of life off a book that is so bloody vague that we can't even figure out what they mean when they use the word "day"? If such a simple concept was lost in translation, how do you know the rest of the book is accurate and not a bunch of mistranslated, inaccurate garbage?

Gelfin

Sep 30, 2009, 02:37 PM

And may be similarly confused about paying their taxes :3

You keep yore gub'mint hands offa mah dinosaurs!

Macaddicttt

Sep 30, 2009, 02:39 PM

Oh - that makes the institutionalised rejection of science and attempts to silence those who did research all right then!

I never said that, but you had every intention of saying that the Catholic Church was and is anti-science. That is ridiculous.

Organised religion has expended significant energy trying to slow down science. Organised religions knows that with increasing knowledge comes a decreasing need for the nonsense that religion sells. Trying to stop stem cell research. Founding disgusting things like the 'institute' for creation research and the brainwashing it's trying to do.

Religious types are still trying to get religion into science books, they're still trying to reject the facts, the evidence, the reality.

They're still at it - now - hundreds of years later.

Galileo is long dead - but the practice continues.

It's disgusting.

First, maybe you should stop generalizing. I'm one of those you might call "religious types," but I don't want to "get religion into science books." The pope is another one of those "religious types" and I think he'd agree with me. Stop trying to condemn the billions of people who belong to an organized religion for the actions of the few.

Second, you specifically condemned the Catholic Church and your only evidence was a trial hundreds of years ago that did not claim heresy and was later recanted. Your anger is severely misdirected.

Third, the only way that the Catholic Church (again, the religion you singled out) injects itself into science is in terms of ethics. They have no interest in telling you "embryonic stem cell research won't work" but rather "embryonic stem cell research is unethical." So unless you think there are no ethics in science (and I would assume that Mengele would be your hero in that case), you really have misdirected your anger against the Catholic Church for an incident that happened almost 400 years ago.

thejadedmonkey

Sep 30, 2009, 02:47 PM

djellison

Sep 30, 2009, 02:56 PM

an incident that happened almost 400 years ago.

People are dying in Africa of Aids ( just over 6,000 a day at the moment) because the Catholic Church tells them not to use Condoms.

People die because some freak show of a religion tells them that blood transfusions are wrong.

Children die because their parents PRAY rather than take them for the chemo they need.

These are happening today, because of dogma, idiocy, stupidity, ignorance - all thanks to religion.

I'm not going to debate it any more with you. But my opinion is simply this.

Religion is damaging. It has been damaging the progress of humanity and civilisation for centuries, and the sooner it is gone for good, the better off this world will be. Imagine just how much better off humanity would be if every penny spent on churches and gold crucifixes and jewellery and statues and paintings of fictional characters....had been spent on something ACTUALLY useful. It defies, pun intended, belief.

Macaddicttt

Sep 30, 2009, 03:00 PM

People are dying in Africa of Aids ( just over 6,000 a day at the moment) because the Catholic Church tells them not to use Condoms.

They're still at it. Today. Now.

Again, this is a matter of ethics, not destroying science. To the Church it is more important to refrain from extra marital sex. They find contraception immoral. And also, please tell me what the Church has to gain by letting its members in Africa die?

steve knight

Sep 30, 2009, 03:09 PM

then my personal favorite: Dinosaur bones were put in the earth by G-d, and we just need to believe that he did it because we 'know' science is wrong.

I thought the devil put them on earth to make Christians doubt?

yg17

Sep 30, 2009, 03:16 PM

Just to you know, Jews also believe in the bible, and acknowledge the existence of Dinosaur bones too... It's not just Christians.

And the best answers I've heard are that when G-d created the heavens and the earth in 7 days, bla bla bla, the dinosaur bones were leftover creations, leftovers from the creation, something along those lines. (EDIT: It looks like it relates back to Yom that you're discussing above)

then my personal favorite: Dinosaur bones were put in the earth by G-d, and we just need to believe that he did it because we 'know' science is wrong.

I don't believe either of those views, however I heard the 2nd one from my sister's rabbi. Of course my rabbi believes in evolution, so... ;)

I'm actually surprised to hear that coming from a Rabbi...is he a reform or more conservative one? I was raised with reform Judaism (although now a nonbeliever) and every reform Rabbi I've ever talked to has basically said that the bible is just a bunch of stories not to be taken literally or treated as truth.

Again, this is a matter of ethics, not destroying science. To the Church it is more important to refrain from extra marital sex. They find contraception immoral. And also, please tell me what the Church has to gain by letting its members in Africa die?

How about the church comes into the 21st century, realizes that married or not, people are going to screw, and encourage they do it safely? Premarital sex is no longer unethical, and anyone who says it is needs to stop living in the middle ages. Society has evolved and moved forward while the catholic church is still stuck in the past.

Clearly, preaching "Don't **** until you get married" isn't working, why not try going another route and preaching safe sex?

diamond.g

Sep 30, 2009, 03:25 PM

How about the church comes into the 21st century, realizes that married or not, people are going to screw, and encourage they do it safely? Premarital sex is no longer unethical, and anyone who says it is needs to stop living in the middle ages. Society has evolved and moved forward while the catholic church is still stuck in the past.

Clearly, preaching "Don't **** until you get married" isn't working, why not try going another route and preaching safe sex?

I think the church knows that people are going to screw, but (from my understanding) the bible doesn't say screw using condoms. It says don't screw unless married. So the church, attempting to be "consistent", is going to continue to preach don't screw till married.

Gelfin

Sep 30, 2009, 03:30 PM

And also, please tell me what the Church has to gain by letting its members in Africa die?

Religion's chief selling point throughout history has been that people who have no hope or sense of control over circumstances of their own lives can comfort themselves with the idea that, however horrible things may seem in everyday life, there's an abstract justice and order to the Universe, one which they might enjoy in death even if they could not in life.

I am not suggesting an intentional scheme to promulgate HIV infections so as to drive reliance on religion. I question whether anybody is sufficiently evil to actively seek that. On the other hand, in my observation the morality of a gestalt can often diverge quite a lot from the individual sentiments of its constituents. The Church benefits quite a lot from the existence of people who believe their only hope is to do exactly what the Church tells them to.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 30, 2009, 03:44 PM

Religion's chief selling point throughout history has been that people who have no hope or sense of control over circumstances of their own lives can comfort themselves with the idea that, however horrible things may seem in everyday life, there's an abstract justice and order to the Universe, one which they might enjoy in death even if they could not in life.

I am not suggesting an intentional scheme to promulgate HIV infections so as to drive reliance on religion. I question whether anybody is sufficiently evil to actively seek that. On the other hand, in my observation the morality of a gestalt can often diverge quite a lot from the individual sentiments of its constituents. The Church benefits quite a lot from the existence of people who believe their only hope is to do exactly what the Church tells them to.

This guy sure looks the part...

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_01/popeG031007_468x377.jpg

imac/cheese

Sep 30, 2009, 03:57 PM

And you want to base your life on this book for what reason? God must have been a vague *******.

So you base your beliefs and entire way of life off a book that is so bloody vague that we can't even figure out what they mean when they use the word "day"? If such a simple concept was lost in translation, how do you know the rest of the book is accurate and not a bunch of mistranslated, inaccurate garbage?

The question was how does Christianity explain dinosaur remains and fossils, not why would someone base their life on a book. Does it really make a difference whether god created the world in 7 days or whether it was 7 indefinite periods of time? Since god was the only witness during that time and seeing that god is outside of time, the difference between days and vague periods of time becomes blurred.

And what makes it clear that the entire story is an allegory and not to be taken literally at all is the fact that there are two creation stories. There's the seven days one and the Adam and Eve one. In the seven days one, animals are created before man. In the Adam and Eve one, animals are created after man to keep him company.

In Genesis 2:19, where it talks about the animals being created, the order is not really definite. Reading the actual verse suggests that god had already created the animals.

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

The verse states that the Lord god had formed the beasts which to me states that it had already occurred before this time.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 30, 2009, 04:13 PM

The verse states that the Lord god had formed the beasts which to me states that it had already occurred before this time.

Is this actively happening now? Birds and Beasts weren't even around at the time of the creation of earth.

takao

Sep 30, 2009, 04:27 PM

how one unique recommendation regarding the "HIV caused by catholic church discussion":
how about for once look up how many in the countries hit hard by HIV are of which christian group

Botswana
Roman Catholic 5 %
Protestant 62%

Lesotho:
RC: 45%
Other Christian nom: 45%

Zimbabwe:
RC: 7%
Protestant 33%

South Africa:
Christians accounted for 79.7% of the population. This includes Zion Christian 11.1%, Pentecostal (Charismatic) 8.2%, Roman Catholic 7.1%, Methodist 6.8%, Dutch Reformed 6.7%, Anglican 3.8%, and other Christian 36%

namibia: 80% of the population christian of which half are lutherians then with some distance all the other christian groups

Malawi:
RC 20%
Protestant/other christian: 55%

Mozambique:
RC 23%
Protestant 17%
muslim 18%

Central African Republic:
RC 25%
Protestant 25%
Muslim 15%

Kenya:
RC 33%
Protestant 45%
Islam 10%

Sierra Leone
RC 3%
other christians 27%
Islam 60%

obvisouly looking at those numbers i'm surprised myself how much blame the pope actually gets ... sure it's a stupid stance to be against condoms but i'm not sure about a statistical correlation between catholicism and HIV prevalence ...

Unspoken Demise

Sep 30, 2009, 04:29 PM

If you're going to make a stealth Christian interrogation thread, shouldn't you spell "religion" correctly?

Macaddicttt

Sep 30, 2009, 04:34 PM

Clearly, preaching "Don't **** until you get married" isn't working, why not try going another route and preaching safe sex?

You misunderstand the ends. The end of the Church isn't creating happiness on earth, but getting people to act according to God's morality. Dying sick and unhappy after living a moral life is preferable to enjoying an immoral life. "What works" in the eyes of the Church is whatever gets people to not have extramarital sex.

themoonisdown09

Sep 30, 2009, 04:38 PM

What does HIV and Catholics have to do with dinosaurs? :confused:

It seems like this thread is getting WAY off topic.

Macaddicttt

Sep 30, 2009, 04:38 PM

The verse states that the Lord god had formed the beasts which to me states that it had already occurred before this time.

But you're just playing with semantics to make the Bible fit a preconceived notion. I could just as easily look at verse 18 and see, "18 The LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.'" Because he said "will" it means it hasn't happened yet. The point is that it's silly to try and find any literal order in which God did things from Genesis and if that's what you take away from reading it, you've missed the entire point of the book.

yg17

Sep 30, 2009, 04:39 PM

You misunderstand the ends. The end of the Church isn't creating happiness on earth, but getting people to act according to God's morality. Dying sick and unhappy after living a moral life is preferable to enjoying an immoral life. "What works" in the eyes of the Church is whatever gets people to not have extramarital sex.

Except what works in the eyes of the church doesn't work in reality, therefore, if they're going to get involved in the issue, they should use what works in the real world and encourage safe sex. Or they can just do the world a favor and stay out of these issues if their ideas aren't working.

Pocket lint

Sep 30, 2009, 04:42 PM

how one unique recommendation regarding the "HIV caused by catholic church discussion":

[Many numbers]

obvisouly looking at those numbers i'm surprised myself how much blame the pope actually gets ... sure it's a stupid stance to be against condoms but i'm not sure about a statistical correlation between catholicism and HIV prevalence ...

I haven't, but I'm curious as to the percentages of christian (and otherwise) "aid"groups/missionaries held up against the prevalence of HIV? I mean, in which countries are "aid" groups demanding abstinence before they will help, or simply pushing abstinence as part of their missionary help?

That might actually give a better view, in my opinion, rather than simply tolling how many are officiel members of certain faiths, because it is focusing on what it is all about: Is the "abstinence" attitude important, and it might even give hint at how important such middleage idiocy is in relation to spread of HIV.

Macaddicttt

Sep 30, 2009, 04:44 PM

steve knight

Sep 30, 2009, 04:44 PM

Pocket lint

Sep 30, 2009, 04:50 PM

I thought the devil put them on earth to make Christians doubt?

Did you forget you already posted that remark in post #64?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8573021&postcount=64

steve knight

Sep 30, 2009, 04:54 PM

Did you forget you already posted that remark in post #64?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8573021&postcount=64

I must have hit the back space. I saw that I had not posted it. my bad.

yg17

Sep 30, 2009, 04:56 PM

Again, you've totally missed the point of the Church. To the Church "reality" is when you die you will be judged for your life and you must hope that you be saved through the grace of God. So to say what the Church is doing "doesn't work in reality" you've again missed the point that there are divergent aims. You have to define what you're working towards before you condemn someone for practicing something that doesn't help to achieve that aim.

What you're saying is like going up to a baseball coach and saying, "Your rules are all wrong! You'll never get a touchdown like that! Why aren't you teaching people the forward pass?" The coach is left to stare blankly at you and respond, "Uh, we're playing baseball, not football. We're not trying to score touchdowns."

Perhaps that's what's wrong with religion in the first place. It's focusing on what happens when we die, a huge unknown and it could be wrong. How about instead, it focuses on what's happening now, while we're alive, where not everything is unknown. The Catholic church is too worried about the afterlife and in the process of worrying, they ruin present life.

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 05:45 PM

Wow, so I'm back and i've gone through the whole thread and i'll respond to everything that is on topic first. Then i'll go back and address some of the things like premarital sex.

I am lost, again, so Catholics aren't Christians?
:confused:
Catholics are Christians, but Christians aren't Catholics. The best explanation I can give is my own personal experience. I was raised Catholic and after years of just doing rituals and religious things out of repetition I felt as if I was missing the entire point of everything by going to a Catholic church. It was basically, come to mass, feel guilty, confess, repeat. I felt as if Jesus wanted me to have a relationship with God, wanted me to follow in His footsteps and go out and serve people, to help the homeless and the poor ... To actually do something with what I believe, and not just believe it.

What chances, and what odds? I'd be interested to see what events or things you find so unlikely that you have invoked a creator of some sort.
It really isn't about the whole life thing, I'm not God and who am I to say He couldn't have chosen to use evolution. The events or things that I find so unlikely that I have invoked a Creator of some sort is something coming from nothing. Even to say that it was just microscopic gasses floating around from past universes or what not, there still needs to be a beginning, there needs to be a point when there was nothing and something was created, and my heart simply tells me that there must be something bigger than me that was involved in that.

My reasoning is also the reason why I don't run around shoving my beliefs down peoples throats ... Everyone deserves the right to believe what they want to believe. If someone asks me my beliefs, i'll share ... but that's it.

Psalm 93:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2093:1&version=NIV), Psalm 96:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%2096:10&version=NIV), 1 Chronicles 16:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%2016:30&version=NIV), Psalm 104:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%20104:5-104:5&version=NIV),

All saying, in one way or another - 'The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved'
The same thing can be said about a king and his kingdom. "The kingdom was firmly established and it cannot be moved". When I read those chapters in their entirety, that is how it seems to me in context.

Aaaanway... I wouldn't say I don't enjoy debating for fear of not keeping up, though that could be a small part of it. It's more a matter of my not feeling strongly enough about the issues to put forth the effort. I'm not always great at breaking things down into little bite sized portions, I see the whole plate and push it away, you know? I prefer to keep things mellow. I'm kind of a Dudeist (http://www.dudeism.com/) like that. :cool:
I think I could be called a "Christian-Dudist", if that's possible, haha.

Uh . . . the Catholic Church is one of the earliest Christian sects. The Protestants came much later.
Absolutely true, but the reasoning behind the move away from the Catholic church is what makes them so different. If you ever attend a Catholic Mass and then attend a Christian service you will see the dramatic difference. Like I said, they have the same foundation ... but they have chosen to do something very different with it.

It may be our linear viewpoint that is messed up and not the explanation. Also the big bang theory doesn't suggest something came from nothing, everything was just much smaller before it expanded (this time?). I don't think we can be entirely sure the universe hasn't been born and decayed several times before we were able to observe it (hey it worked this time)..
Please see my response above to djellison.

Macaddicttt

Sep 30, 2009, 05:52 PM

I felt as if Jesus wanted me to have a relationship with God, wanted me to follow in His footsteps and go out and serve people, to help the homeless and the poor ... To actually do something with what I believe, and not just believe it.

Of course you know that the Catholic Church preaches salvation by faith and works, whereas Protestants preach that salvation comes through faith alone. The Catholic Church very much encourages you to go out and do something in this world.

I've had the exact opposite experience as you since just about every Protestant I've ever been in contact with believes with certainty that they are saved just because they believe in Jesus and don't feel a need to do anything more than that (not saying that they don't, but they don't view it as essential to their salvation). Catholics on the other hand don't even promise salvation from faith and going to Mass weekly, but leave it entirely up to God and place far more emphasis on actions.

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 05:56 PM

Except what works in the eyes of the church doesn't work in reality, therefore, if they're going to get involved in the issue, they should use what works in the real world and encourage safe sex. Or they can just do the world a favor and stay out of these issues if their ideas aren't working.
While I would agree that for the most part, teaching abstinence doesn't work in the real world ... it does work in some cases, but for the most part those cases have very little to do with what is taught in church. Long before I was ever involved in church I made a decision that I wanted to wait until my wedding night to have sex. My decision was based off of the negative effects of premarital sex I have seen around me, but my faith has given me some needed encouragement when i've needed it. Thankfully, my girlfriend has chosen the same path and soon we will be walking down that aisle virgins, and I'm pretty stoked for that.

Now just because that is the path that i've chosen doesn't mean that's what I expect from other people, cause I know they probably don't believe what I believe. Yet, I do believe that safe sex does need to be taught, but not in the church ... that's just not the appropriate venue for it. I believe safe sex should be taught in the educational system, in a health class, at a young age. To not teach safe sex because you demand abstinence is setting your children up for failure.

Perhaps that's what's wrong with religion in the first place. It's focusing on what happens when we die, a huge unknown and it could be wrong. How about instead, it focuses on what's happening now, while we're alive, where not everything is unknown. The Catholic church is too worried about the afterlife and in the process of worrying, they ruin present life.

I couldn't agree more. In reality, if you look at the life of Jesus He spent much more time telling people to do good things, and help those in need, and He actually went around helping people and providing for people. He did talk about the afterlife, but that wasn't what it was all about. The sad part is that a lot of churches focus so much on the afterlife that they miss out on the good that can be done in this one.

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 06:02 PM

Of course you know that the Catholic Church preaches salvation by faith and works, whereas Protestants preach that salvation comes through faith alone. The Catholic Church very much encourages you to go out and do something in this world.

I've had the exact opposite experience as you since just about every Protestant I've ever been in contact with believes with certainty that they are saved just because they believe in Jesus and don't feel a need to do anything more than that (not saying that they don't, but they don't view it as essential to their salvation). Catholics on the other hand don't even promise salvation from faith and going to Mass weekly, but leave it entirely up to God and place far more emphasis on actions.

Please see my response above to yg17, but to that I would say that if there are Protestants out there that truly believe they are saved through faith alone, then they need to read James 2:14-20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jam&c=2&v=14&t=NKJV#14). It specifically says that faith without works is dead.

The best explanation I can think of is that faith does save us, but if you are truly saved you would want to do something with that, you would have a desire in your heart to go out and do things which is where the works come into place. I would venture to go as far as to say that if someone says they have faith, but doesn't have works ... that they probably don't have faith.

Macaddicttt

Sep 30, 2009, 06:06 PM

Please see my response above to yg17, but to that I would say that if there are Protestants out there that truly believe they are saved through faith alone, then they need to read James 2:14-20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jam&c=2&v=14&t=NKJV#14). It specifically says that faith without works is dead.

The best explanation I can think of is that faith does save us, but if you are truly saved you would want to do something with that, you would have a desire in your heart to go out and do things which is where the works come into place. I would venture to go as far as to say that if someone says they have faith, but doesn't have works ... that they probably don't have faith.

That's the normal response given by Protestants. The real difference between Catholics and Protestants in terms of this is that faith isn't necessarily required to be saved. Catholics say that it's completely up to God who's saved and we have no idea who isn't. This also gives a path to those who want to be good people but simply don't "feel" faith the way Protestants insist you "feel" faith. Look at Mother Theresa. In her writings she talks about how she felt no comfort in her faith at all and felt empty inside, but still did good works. I'm not saying she didn't have faith, but if she relied on her faith propelling her to do her good works, she would have not done them.

Wotan31

Sep 30, 2009, 06:24 PM

Others are simply manmade fairy tales for control and power and $$$.
Scientology comes to mind.

Rt&Dzine

Sep 30, 2009, 06:29 PM

Absolutely true, but the reasoning behind the move away from the Catholic church is what makes them so different. If you ever attend a Catholic Mass and then attend a Christian service you will see the dramatic difference. Like I said, they have the same foundation ... but they have chosen to do something very different with it.

The Eastern Orthodox Church are the original Christians started by Jesus and his Apostles. The newfangled Christians have chosen to do something very different with it.

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 06:30 PM

That's the normal response given by Protestants. The real difference between Catholics and Protestants in terms of this is that faith isn't necessarily required to be saved. Catholics say that it's completely up to God who's saved and we have no idea who isn't. This also gives a path to those who want to be good people but simply don't "feel" faith the way Protestants insist you "feel" faith. Look at Mother Theresa. In her writings she talks about how she felt no comfort in her faith at all and felt empty inside, but still did good works. I'm not saying she didn't have faith, but if she relied on her faith propelling her to do her good works, she would have not done them.

If I led you to believe that I needed to feel faith in order to do good works than I have misspoken and I apologize. There have been plenty of times when I have either been struggling in my faith or just not "felt it", but my desire to do things that are help others and meet their need on a physical level is far greater than something like that can stop me.

In all honesty, if I weren't a Christian I would probably be involved in some form of humanitarian group ... it's simply something I enjoy. Which brings us to an interesting question, "If works is proof of faith, then what is there to be said about people that are doing good things but have no belief in a higher power at all?". I guess the best answer I could give is that it's a matter of the heart, and it is something that God alone can judge. So I don't know.

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 06:34 PM

The Eastern Orthodox Church are the original Christians started by Jesus and his Apostles. The newfangled Christians have chosen to do something very different with it.

I'd beg to differ, not with your statement about the Eastern Orthodox Church because in all honesty, i've never researched it and I really have no reason to doubt it ... but i'll look into it for my own benefit. But what I do differ with is your statement about "newfangled Christians". While some may be doing their own thing, I believe that some of us are truly trying to follow in Christ's footsteps, regardless of what the organized church may say.

Macaddicttt

Sep 30, 2009, 07:01 PM

The Eastern Orthodox Church are the original Christians started by Jesus and his Apostles. The newfangled Christians have chosen to do something very different with it.

I think that's a pretty bold statement to make so matter of factly, especially since at the very least Catholics claim the exact same thing.

Rodimus Prime

Sep 30, 2009, 07:08 PM

What does HIV and Catholics have to do with dinosaurs? :confused:

It seems like this thread is getting WAY off topic.

It the same reason why I tend to stay out of these thread is instead of debating things some people OP make a flaming post.

Or they get hung up on things like HIV and not trying to address it or even try to understand the logic behind lets say the Catholics churches stances on the use of condoms. They just bash it.

It has been pointed out why the Catholic church has it stance. It gets pointed out why they flame.

Fact is many people just do not care what the reason is they just want ot flame the church.

Rt&Dzine

Sep 30, 2009, 07:17 PM

I think that's a pretty bold statement to make so matter of factly, especially since at the very least Catholics claim the exact same thing.

It's officially called The Orthodox Catholic Church. Anywho, this is not my opinion but what the scholars say.

Macaddicttt

Sep 30, 2009, 07:24 PM

It's officially called The Orthodox Catholic Church. Anywho, this is not my opinion but what the scholars say.

The entirely depends on which scholars you ask. Ask the pope, who's quite the scholar, and he'll tell you that the Catholic Church was the one founded by Jesus himself. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Old Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion all claim to be the Church founded by Jesus.

Also, claiming that the Orthodox Church is the Church founded by Jesus and the Catholic Church wasn't is kind of silly since at one point they were the same Church and in fact there still is some sort of communion between the two churches. For example a Catholic can fulfill his obligation to go to Mass on Sundays by going to an Orthodox Church and vice versa.

Zombie Acorn

Sep 30, 2009, 07:27 PM

It really isn't about the whole life thing, I'm not God and who am I to say He couldn't have chosen to use evolution. The events or things that I find so unlikely that I have invoked a Creator of some sort is something coming from nothing. Even to say that it was just microscopic gasses floating around from past universes or what not, there still needs to be a beginning, there needs to be a point when there was nothing and something was created, and my heart simply tells me that there must be something bigger than me that was involved in that.

There doesn't have to be a beginning of everything or end, we think that only because we look at the universe and base it off of our own perception of time/life. You perceive the world today as impossibly complicated simply because that complication is the only way you would be able to observe in the first place.

Rt&Dzine

Sep 30, 2009, 07:32 PM

The entirely depends on which scholars you ask. Ask the pope, who's quite the scholar, and he'll tell you that the Catholic Church was the one founded by Jesus himself. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Old Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion all claim to be the Church founded by Jesus.

Also, claiming that the Orthodox Church is the Church founded by Jesus and the Catholic Church wasn't is kind of silly since at one point they were the same Church and in fact there still is some sort of communion between the two churches. For example a Catholic can fulfill his obligation to go to Mass on Sundays by going to an Orthodox Church and vice versa.

You are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that the Catholic Church wasn't founded by Jesus. I should have included it with the Orthodox. I'm saying that the newer Christian sects such as Protestants are not the original Christians.

Macaddicttt

Sep 30, 2009, 07:37 PM

You are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that the Catholic Church wasn't founded by Jesus. I should have included it with the Orthodox. I'm saying that the newer Christian sects such as Protestants are not the original Christians.

Ah, I gotcha. My mistake. You are correct. :)

The Californian

Sep 30, 2009, 07:42 PM

There doesn't have to be a beginning of everything or end, we think that only because we look at the universe and base it off of our own perception of time/life. You perceive the world today as impossibly complicated simply because that complication is the only way you would be able to observe in the first place.

The same way that if a person were a two dimensional being they could not possibly fully comprehend an object in the third dimension. This is also why if we as three dimensional beings attempt to understand the fourth dimension or something existing with no reference to time or aging. We simply take the bits we can understand and attempt to put together the puzzle.

Iscariot

Sep 30, 2009, 10:12 PM

Again, this is a matter of ethics, not destroying science. To the Church it is more important to refrain from extra marital sex.

If your "ethics" result in destroying science, then you are still destroying science. The fact that their means may be coming from a place of "ethics" does not undo the ends.

Bobdude161

Sep 30, 2009, 11:35 PM

The same way that if a person were a two dimensional being they could not possibly fully comprehend an object in the third dimension. This is also why if we as three dimensional beings attempt to understand the fourth dimension or something existing with no reference to time or aging. We simply take the bits we can understand and attempt to put together the puzzle.

wow, we're on the same chord here on a lot of issues. pretty cool.

What about the great flood? (http://ldolphin.org/meddead.html)

FrankieTDouglas

Sep 30, 2009, 11:49 PM

As for the whole abstinence thing, wasn't that originally created to ensure a legitimate and guaranteed bloodline from David to Jesus? Variance outside of this line could throw the whole thing off.

As for how it actually relates to the real world in "you" and me, I have not a clue.

djellison

Oct 1, 2009, 02:49 AM

To specifically answer your question, the Bible does refer to The Sun and the fact that the Earth orbits it ( which is completely contrary to the beliefs of the time ) and some planets..

I quoted lines from the Bible that are in direct contradiction to this. You say you've not seen then before. I give you exact citations and THEN you say that they don't mean what they say. The Earth is a temporary thing. It moves, it will not be round for ever, it's not been around for ever. No matter what interpretation of 'move' you use - there is no way to say those quotes are right.

I am still waiting for your bible quote that refers to the Earth and planets orbiting the Sun.

This says it all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DXl68NF_uI

It's also DAMN funny.

jake.f

Oct 1, 2009, 05:21 AM

Wow, didnt expect this thread to last this long.

To the above poster, I also want to know how the solar system is explained in the bible.

Rodimus Prime

Oct 1, 2009, 10:25 AM

I quoted lines from the Bible that are in direct contradiction to this. You say you've not seen then before. I give you exact citations and THEN you say that they don't mean what they say. The Earth is a temporary thing. It moves, it will not be round for ever, it's not been around for ever. No matter what interpretation of 'move' you use - there is no way to say those quotes are right.

I am still waiting for your bible quote that refers to the Earth and planets orbiting the Sun.

This says it all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DXl68NF_uI

It's also DAMN funny.

My question is what is the point of trying to explain it to you. You do not care. Post after post in this tread has been nothing more than bash Christians. You are bashing it and tearing them down. You are closed minded to it.

As for the answer to your question. You need to remember a few things. While the bible was written by God it is still interputted by humans, and also translated into other languages by humans. On top of that there are also multiple versions of it in each language. The ones you quoted about orbiting the song I believe was NIV.

Those facts about have to be remembers when looking at a bible. Those same verses you choose could easily be men nothing on earth can move it. Guess what we (humans) can and have moved/destroyed mountains and God knows what else to the earth but we still have not moved it, changed its orbit or anything. Earth can not be moved from its current path.

This also hold true under science as everything is relative. You can choose earth and your (0,0,0) point and it just fine. Hell I can say I am the (0,0,0) of the universe and guess what there is nothing scientifically wrong with that choice, just not the most logical choice in that matter.

But as I said at the beginning you do not care what I had to say you just want to bash and rip apart Christianity so you are going to be fairly closed minded.

Iscariot

Oct 1, 2009, 10:39 AM

You are closed minded to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Flawed thinking.

iBlue

Oct 1, 2009, 10:40 AM

...While the bible was written by God it is still interputted by humans...

putting
197001

interputting?
http://upc.edesignuk.com/uploads/images_other/interputting.jpg

AP_piano295

Oct 1, 2009, 10:49 AM

My question is what is the point of trying to explain it to you. You do not care. Post after post in this tread has been nothing more than bash Christians. You are bashing it and tearing them down. You are closed minded to it.

As for the answer to your question. You need to remember a few things. While the bible was written by God it is still interputted by humans, and also translated into other languages by humans. On top of that there are also multiple versions of it in each language. The ones you quoted about orbiting the song I believe was NIV.

Those facts about have to be remembers when looking at a bible. Those same verses you choose could easily be men nothing on earth can move it. Guess what we (humans) can and have moved/destroyed mountains and God knows what else to the earth but we still have not moved it, changed its orbit or anything. Earth can not be moved from its current path.

This also hold true under science as everything is relative. You can choose earth and your (0,0,0) point and it just fine. Hell I can say I am the (0,0,0) of the universe and guess what there is nothing scientifically wrong with that choice, just not the most logical choice in that matter.

But as I said at the beginning you do not care what I had to say you just want to bash and rip apart Christianity so you are going to be fairly closed minded.

What yout arguement is we cant "move" the earth from its orbit :confused:

djellison

Oct 1, 2009, 11:19 AM

My question is what is the point of trying to explain it to you.

If someone claims the Bible states that the Earth orbits the Sun - then I want to see evidence for that - it would a new an interesting piece of the puzzle in determining the scientific history of humanity.

When I cited the fact the Bible states the Earth as unmoving, it was demanded of me that I provide evidence for that.

I immediately did just that - I provided links to some website that will show you any chunk of the Bible you look.

But that person has not been so kind as to return the favour. I find that rude. Don't you?

Don't presume to tell me to 'Remember' that 'God wrote the bible'. I will remember no such thing, as there is no evidence whatsoever that the Bible is anything other than a loose collection of wives tales, fairy stories, rumours and ideas written by MAN and selectively edited by MAN to form the basis of various religions.

My mind is open - very open - to facts and evidence and reality. My mind is so open it can be terrifying. There are things I can't even begin to comprehend - the beginning of time, the scale and scope of the universe, the beauty of particle physics - why people liked Cloverfield - the natural world in which we live is astonishing and it becomes more astonishing the more we learn about it.

If you showed me incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a God right now - I would gasp in amazement, apologise profusely, and join the band. That's how science works - it changes its view dependent on data and evidence. Religion is the opposite of that. It's backward. It's sitting in a movie with a hat pulled over your eyes and fingers in your ears.

But of course, if you open your brain TOO Much, your brain might fall out. Something tells me you didn't watch the video I linked to.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 11:53 AM

If your "ethics" result in destroying science, then you are still destroying science. The fact that their means may be coming from a place of "ethics" does not undo the ends.

What a ridiculous statement. Are you contending that there is no place for ethics in science, or are we only allowed to follow your definition of ethics?

What if stem cells could only be harvested by killing adults? Would you let pesky ethics stand in your way, or would keeping you from killing adults be "destroying science"?

I quoted lines from the Bible that are in direct contradiction to this. You say you've not seen then before. I give you exact citations and THEN you say that they don't mean what they say. The Earth is a temporary thing. It moves, it will not be round for ever, it's not been around for ever. No matter what interpretation of 'move' you use - there is no way to say those quotes are right.

Obviously you've never heard of poetry. Next I'm waiting for you to call Shakespeare a fraud for saying time is "devouring" since "there is no way to say [that's] right."

I am still waiting for your bible quote that refers to the Earth and planets orbiting the Sun.

Then you'll be waiting for a long time. The Bible does not concern itself with science, so why would it contain such a quote?

arkitect

Oct 1, 2009, 11:59 AM

Then you'll be waiting for a long time. The Bible does not concern itself with science, so why would it contain such a quote?

Because of this:
To specifically answer your question, the Bible does refer to The Sun and the fact that the Earth orbits it ( which is completely contrary to the beliefs of the time ) and some planets.

So it is not unreasonable from us to want to know exactly where it does say that… you know, chapter and verse?

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 12:02 PM

So it is not unreasonable from us to want to know exactly where it does say that… you know, chapter and verse?

My mistake. I must have missed that somehow. :o

You're on your own with that one, buddy.

Iscariot

Oct 1, 2009, 12:26 PM

What a ridiculous statement. Are you contending that there is no place for ethics in science, or are we only allowed to follow your definition of ethics?

Neither, hence why I put ethics in quotes.
What if stem cells could only be harvested by killing adults? Would you let pesky ethics stand in your way, or would keeping you from killing adults be "destroying science"?

I think you're misunderstanding my reply in a fairly profound way, so I'll try to clarify:

People are dying in Africa of Aids ( just over 6,000 a day at the moment) because the Catholic Church tells them not to use Condoms.

Again, this is a matter of ethics, not destroying science. To the Church it is more important to refrain from extra marital sex. They find contraception immoral. And also, please tell me what the Church has to gain by letting its members in Africa die?
If your "ethics" result in destroying science, then you are still destroying science. The fact that their means may be coming from a place of "ethics" does not undo the ends.

That is to say; because the "ethics" of the Church is against condoms is not a good enough reason to ignore the damage caused by attempting to stop their distribution. You cannot ethically halt condom distribution simply because of religious edict. I was not implying that science existed in a vacuum devoid of ethics, that would be ridiculous.

FrankieTDouglas

Oct 1, 2009, 12:27 PM

Then you'll be waiting for a long time. The Bible does not concern itself with science, so why would it contain such a quote?

...So then I suppose you are against any type of creationism being taught in science class?

If the bible does not concern itself with science, then should science be concerned with religion?

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 12:29 PM

That is to say; because the "ethics" of the Church is against condoms is not a good enough reason to ignore the damage caused by attempting to stop their distribution.

That is a complete ethic question, not an instance of the Church "destroying science." If you want to debate the ethics of the Church's policy towards AIDS in Africa, start a thread, but it is in no way evidence that the Church is anti-science or "destroying science."

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 12:30 PM

...So then I suppose you are against any type of creationism being taught in science class?

If the bible does not concern itself with science, then should science be concerned with religion?

Yes, creationism is ridiculous. Not only is it bad science, but it's bad theology. And even if it were good theology, it would have no place in science class because it isn't science.

Eraserhead

Oct 1, 2009, 01:49 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Flawed thinking.

Best video series on Youtube evar.

Iscariot

Oct 1, 2009, 02:16 PM

That is a complete ethic question, not an instance of the Church "destroying science."

Those were your words.
If you want to debate the ethics of the Church's policy towards AIDS in Africa, start a thread, but it is in no way evidence that the Church is anti-science or "destroying science."

I didn't start the debate (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8572947&postcount=62), but it is relevant to the topic of discussion as the original question deals with resolving science and religion.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 02:23 PM

Those were your words.

Except that they weren't; they were yours:

If your "ethics" result in destroying science, then you are still destroying science.

imac/cheese

Oct 1, 2009, 02:33 PM

Iscariot

Oct 1, 2009, 02:34 PM

Except that they weren't; they were yours:

Man, seriously. Did you even look at that post? Because right in that post is me quoting you, saying:
Again, this is a matter of ethics, not destroying science.

Post #63, srsly. Or search this thread, you were the first person to use the word "destroying". If I were going to use hyperbole like "destroying" I probably would have included something about bones, old gods, souls, fire and blood, and it would have been grandiose and pants-crappingly awe-inspiring.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 02:39 PM

How do you know which one is the original? It seems like they have all branched off somewhere along the way from others that believed differently.

The claims of originality come from which has maintained dogma since the beginning of the Church. The Catholic Church has never proclaimed a dogma and then contradicted it (please note the distinction of dogma from cannon law). Compare to the protestant churches that contradicted the beliefs of the church that were held since its inception.

It's not like protestants and Catholics got to a point in history where something new was presented, and differing responses lead to a schism. The protestants said, "You're wrong and you've been wrong for 2000 years; we're right." You've immediately broken any claims of continuity with the first church, and in fact most protestant churches don't make any claims of apostolic succession at all.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 02:48 PM

Post #63, srsly. Or search this thread, you were the first person to use the word "destroying". If I were going to use hyperbole like "destroying" I probably would have included something about bones, old gods, souls, fire and blood, and it would have been grandiose and pants-crappingly awe-inspiring.

I was responding to djellison who definitely contending that the Church was trying to destroy science. Perhaps he didn't use the same word, but it's not hyperbole to characterize his assessment of the Church as "destroying science." If "institutionalised rejection of science and attempts to silence those who did research" is not "destroying science," well, then I should have used a different phrase.

I guess I just don't understand why you would use the words "destroying science" unless you thought the Church was. I didn't mean to claim that you were the first one to use the words "destroying science," but you definitely used them in a way to 1) imply that the Church did want to "destroy science" and 2) imply that the Church used a false screen of "ethics" in order to do it. No matter who said it first, they still were "your words."

I claimed that the Church wasn't trying to destroy science. You countered that claim. Therefore you argued that the Church is destroying science. I am continuing to argue against that assertion.

Iscariot

Oct 1, 2009, 02:56 PM

I guess I just don't understand why you would use the words "destroying science" unless you thought the Church was.

I was simply continuing with the phrase you had chosen to use in — believe it or not — an attempt to avoid confusion.
1) imply that the Church did want to "destroy science" and 2) imply that the Church used a false screen of "ethics" in order to do it. No matter who said it first, they still were "your words."

Alright then, I'll clarify here:
People are dying in Africa of Aids ( just over 6,000 a day at the moment) because the Catholic Church tells them not to use Condoms.
Again, this is a matter of ethics. To the Church it is more important to refrain from extra marital sex. They find contraception immoral.

It can't be a matter of ethics, because telling people not to use condoms who then contract AIDs as a result is immoral. The perceived "ethics" of the Church here are backwards. In this instance the ethics of the scientific community are morally superior to the ethics of the Church.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 03:00 PM

It can't be a matter of ethics, because telling people not to use condoms who then contract AIDs as a result is immoral. The perceived "ethics" of the Church here are backwards. In this instance the ethics of the scientific community are morally superior to the ethics of the Church.

You say that as if it were fact, which is ridiculous. Obviously people disagree. And when you say that one set of ethics is "morally superior" to another, how are you comparing them? What's the ruler you're using to judge? Or are you simply of the opinion that whatever ethics you hold are "morally superior" to any other set of ethics?

djellison

Oct 1, 2009, 03:05 PM

Eraserhead

Oct 1, 2009, 03:05 PM

You say that as if it were fact, which is ridiculous. Obviously people disagree.

Source that condoms aren't effective?

Iscariot

Oct 1, 2009, 03:08 PM

You say that as if it were fact, which is ridiculous. Obviously people disagree.

People disagreeing with something doesn't make it ridiculous.
And when you say that one set of ethics is "morally superior" to another, how are you comparing them? What's the ruler you're using to judge?

How's 6 000 people dying of AIDS vs. not dying of AIDS every day as a ruler?
Or are you simply of the opinion that whatever ethics you hold are "morally superior" to any other set of ethics?

Now this is ridiculous. Are you really trying to argue that morality and ethics are so incredibly subjective that choosing AIDS over premarital sex is actually a tenable argument? This seems to be your fallback argument, that concepts are so nebulous that any interpretation becomes valid. It doesn't take someone with a black and white worldview to come to the conclusion that 2.1 million people dying of a disease whose transmission is preventable is worse than premarital sex, and that believing otherwise is foolish.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 03:11 PM

If the Church wasn't trying to destroy science - why did it put Galileo under house arrest, ban his book, and demand he "abjure, curse and detest".

There is no question of morality (however flawed) involved. Galileo was chasing the truth, and the Church tried to stop him.

They were trying to stop what they mistakenly perceived as heresy and science was a casualty. They figured out their mistake, removed his books from the banned list, and apologized. You contended that their aim was destroying science and still is. Source?

Source that condoms are ineffective?

Oh, they are effective. I never said they weren't. Again, it's a matter of ethics. Both condoms and abstinence work; the Church says condoms are immoral and abstinence aren't.

What if it were scientifically proven that raping a virgin cured AIDS (DISCLAIMER: of course it isn't). Would you be in favor of this cure? No. It would be immoral. The question isn't want works in stopping AIDS, it's what's morally acceptable to do in the attempt to stop AIDS.

Same with things like embryonic stem cell research. The Church doesn't say that it won't work, but that destroying embryos is immoral.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 03:13 PM

People disagreeing with something doesn't make it ridiculous.

True, but it is ridiculous to see ethics as something so black-and-white that you can off-handedly reject a belief and ethics system that one sixth of the world belongs to.

Now this is ridiculous. Are you really trying to argue that morality and ethics are so incredibly subjective that choosing AIDS over premarital sex is actually a tenable argument? This seems to be your fallback argument, that concepts are so nebulous that any interpretation becomes valid. It doesn't take someone with a black and white worldview to come to the conclusion that 2.1 million people dying of a disease whose transmission is preventable is worse than premarital sex, and that believing otherwise is foolish.

I'm suggesting that your ruler and the Church's ruler are completely different. The Catholic Church believes in heaven and hell. So yes, 2.1 million people dying and going to heaven for eternity is better than 2.1 million people living 80-year-long lives and then going to hell for eternity.

You care about the life, the Church cares about the soul.

Pocket lint

Oct 1, 2009, 03:19 PM

You care about the life, the Church cares about the soul.

In other words: The church doesn't care about life at all. They'll rather see people die because of dogma than to change their ways.

Glad we can all agree that the Catholic church costs life and don't give a toss about it.

Eraserhead

Oct 1, 2009, 03:22 PM

Oh, they are effective. I never said they weren't. Again, it's a matter of ethics. Both condoms and abstinence work; the Church says condoms are immoral and abstinence aren't.

Abstinence works if it is used consistently and correctly, but this doesn't actually happen in reality. Take this from the US:

Around a fifth of young Americans tell researchers that they have been through a ritual "Virginity Pledge" signing a contract saying they will not have sex until they get married.

...

And then they have sex. A study has followed over 11000 US adolescents across several years and found that 72 per cent of the pledgers had sex before marriage. Pledgers did wait a bit longer before they first had sex, and did have fewer partners than non-pledgers. But they were also less likely to use condoms when their hormones got the better of their intention, and they were just as likely to have sexually transmitted diseases as kids who never swore off sex*

* = Bruckner and Bearman 2005, Bruckner et al 2004, Wellings et al 2006

Iscariot

Oct 1, 2009, 03:24 PM

True, but it is ridiculous to see ethics as something so black-and-white that you can off-handedly reject a belief and ethics system that one sixth of the world belongs to.

I'm not off-handedly rejecting a belief and ethics system that one-sixth of the world belongs to, because I'm only rejecting the notion that pre-marital sex is a greater offense than AIDS, which is something I highly doubt anywere near 100% of Catholics believe.
I'm suggesting that your ruler and the Church's ruler are completely different.

Just because they "believe" something doesn't mean that their ethics operate on a separate plane of existence. Some people believed it was ethical to fly planes into the World Trade Centre. Are you going to defend their right to claim morality as well? Does their "ruler" merit the same level of consideration? Regardless of the ethical framework you've build for yourself, some things are just wrong, like suicide bombings, stoning women, molesting children, refusing medical treatment for minors, denying AIDS prevention, and a host of others. This doesn't mean that ethics are black and white or that there isn't a lot of subjectivity, but it does mean that at some point what we believe has to yield to what we know.

rdowns

Oct 1, 2009, 03:54 PM

I'd like to hear the Christians explain this. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy)

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 05:07 PM

Just because they "believe" something doesn't mean that their ethics operate on a separate plane of existence. Some people believed it was ethical to fly planes into the World Trade Centre. Are you going to defend their right to claim morality as well? Does their "ruler" merit the same level of consideration? Regardless of the ethical framework you've build for yourself, some things are just wrong, like suicide bombings, stoning women, molesting children, refusing medical treatment for minors, denying AIDS prevention, and a host of others. This doesn't mean that ethics are black and white or that there isn't a lot of subjectivity, but it does mean that at some point what we believe has to yield to what we know.

I am by no means suggesting that ethics is subjective. I am very strongly against moral relativism because, well, it just doesn't make any sense.

My whole point is that you come in here condemning the morality of a group without even providing an objective standard upon which to judge morality. You just say, "It's immoral because it's immoral." That's not an argument. If you were to actually research why the Catholic Church preaches against condom use, you'd see that there's a huge amount of theology and reasoning behind it. Your condemnation has no reasoning behind it other than, "Because it seems immoral" (or at least that's all you've posted).

I'm not interested in a discussion of what the basis of morality is, but my whole point is that you have completely disregarded the fact that someone might not agree with you on what the basis of morality should be. I'm not saying that you have no right to criticize Catholic morality, only that you should actually debate the foundations of morality before debating their conclusions. To continue my sports analogy from earlier, you should debate the merits of football and baseball and decide which you want to play before deciding the best way to score a touchdown.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 05:09 PM

I'd like to hear the Christians explain this. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy)

I don't see what needs to be explained. Humans evolved from an ancestor shared with apes. Big deal.

Eraserhead

Oct 1, 2009, 05:33 PM

If you were to actually research why the Catholic Church preaches against condom use, you'd see that there's a huge amount of theology and reasoning behind it.

What's the reasoning? Abstinence education has been scientifically proven to not work.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 05:42 PM

What's the reasoning? Abstinence education has been scientifically proven to not work.

The reasoning has to do with morality, not what works. The Church identifies all humanity as sinners, so nothing will ever "work"; we'll always sin. The Church is interested in helping you to know what is right and wrong so that you can make choices in your life about what you're going to do. The Church says not to judge others, so you try not to. Of course you're not going to be completely successful, but you try, you confess your sins and failings, and hope that God grants you his grace so that you might go to heaven. You work your hardest to live a moral life and live as God wants you to live, and hope that you might be saved.

The Church teaches that extramarital sex is wrong, therefore you try to avoid it. That's that. You might fail, but you try to do what's right.

Similarly, in Catholic theology, sex must be only between a married couple and the couple must be willing to accept the possibility of pregnancy for it to be moral. That's why condoms are found to be immoral. Now the Church could say, "If you're going to have extramarital sex, then use a condom because what you're doing is already immoral." In fact there have been many discussions within the Church about saying just that. The problem is that they don't want to look like they're endorsing extramarital sex and contradict thousands of years of teachings.

So again, it doesn't matter if science proves that condoms stops AIDS because the ends doesn't justify the means. Similarly, the Church doesn't want to stop people from curing diseases, but finds it morally wrong to destroy embryos to do it.

Imagine you could get stem cells from killing adults. Would it be an affront to science to oppose that method even if it were proven to work better than embryos?

Imagine that raping a virgin could cure AIDS. Would it be an affront to science to oppose this cure, even if it were proven to work?

Pocket lint

Oct 1, 2009, 06:01 PM

The reasoning has to do with morality, not what works. The Church identifies all humanity as sinners, so nothing will ever "work"; we'll always sin. The Church is interested in helping you to know what is right and wrong so that you can make choices in your life about what you're going to do. The Church says not to judge others, so you try not to. Of course you're not going to be completely successful, but you try, you confess your sins and failings, and hope that God grants you his grace so that you might go to heaven. You work your hardest to live a moral life and live as God wants you to live, and hope that you might be saved.

So, basically, there's the argument for all sorts of sect and beliefs - It's perfectly fine to "teach" the sheeps all sorts of things, no matter if they work or not. Because it's religion, it doesn't matter if it's contrary to knowledge, contrary to science, contrary to common sense, and hurt a lot of people. It doesn't matter if it's right in the real world, wrong in the real world. No, it only matters if it's "right" and "wrong" in some twisted belief set. It doesn't need to be grounded in reality.
You just argued for a return to the dark ages, against science and knowledge, and pro dogma no matter the costs.

If anything, all that you said is plenty reason to try and limit religious lobbyists across the board. It really is a scary scenario and world view you put forth in that post.

This surprises me, to be honest, because you always seemed so down to earth in these matters, even if your beliefs differ strongly from mine and likeminded. This, though, I don't know what to say ...

Edit:
Come to think of it, your whole argument seems to be an appeal to authority: Abolish all critical thinking, common sense and science. We only need some church to dictate us what is right and wrong.

djellison

Oct 1, 2009, 06:12 PM

The Church teaches that extramarital sex is wrong,

That's great.

But it ISN'T wrong.

it's not a 'moral' as there is nothing 'immoral' in sex between two consenting adults who happen to not be married.

It's simply an arbitrary rule that some religions have put down.

Allowing that arbitrary rule to overrule common sense at the expensive of LIVES?

THAT - THAT is damn immoral.

Frankly -it's extortion

'Want sex?'
'Yes please'
'You've got to get married first'
'Oh - ok - how and where'
'Well - we do services in our church for a basic fee of £313.50 plus another £150 for the lady who does the flowers, plus £65 for the organist.....'

The Church - abusing morality in the great soul protection racket.

The Californian

Oct 1, 2009, 06:17 PM

If someone claims the Bible states that the Earth orbits the Sun - then I want to see evidence for that - it would a new an interesting piece of the puzzle in determining the scientific history of humanity.

When I cited the fact the Bible states the Earth as unmoving, it was demanded of me that I provide evidence for that.

I immediately did just that - I provided links to some website that will show you any chunk of the Bible you look.

But that person has not been so kind as to return the favour. I find that rude. Don't you?

Don't presume to tell me to 'Remember' that 'God wrote the bible'. I will remember no such thing, as there is no evidence whatsoever that the Bible is anything other than a loose collection of wives tales, fairy stories, rumours and ideas written by MAN and selectively edited by MAN to form the basis of various religions.

My mind is open - very open - to facts and evidence and reality. My mind is so open it can be terrifying. There are things I can't even begin to comprehend - the beginning of time, the scale and scope of the universe, the beauty of particle physics - why people liked Cloverfield - the natural world in which we live is astonishing and it becomes more astonishing the more we learn about it.

If you showed me incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a God right now - I would gasp in amazement, apologise profusely, and join the band. That's how science works - it changes its view dependent on data and evidence. Religion is the opposite of that. It's backward. It's sitting in a movie with a hat pulled over your eyes and fingers in your ears.

But of course, if you open your brain TOO Much, your brain might fall out. Something tells me you didn't watch the video I linked to.

I apologize for not being available for a prompt response, I have been busy with Anatomy, Physiology and Biology labs and lectures and haven't found the time to check MR Forums in that time. I will make sure to schedule more time for it in the future as to not be rude.

To answer your question, I misspoke, I was mistake, I was wrong. I have been taught for years that the Bible did say the earth rotated around the sun and never took time to examine that for myself and in the research I have done I do see now that there is only one fleeting reference to this which people have expounded into what they want it to so, so again I apologize.

In reference to the verses you gave me I stand my ground in saying that in their context my explaination that they are poetry refering to a king who's kingdom is firmly in place and can not be moved, but I know I can never convince you of that so I won't try any further. I respect your point of view, but I have a different one.

I wish the Bible gave all of the answers about everything and that I could provide you with answers about those things, yet it is a book with a purpose and that is what it acheives, little more. Though I will say that I am interested in the astronomy of the Bible and will research it more.

djellison

Oct 1, 2009, 06:28 PM

I wish the Bible gave all of the answers about everything

How boring would the universe be if all the answers were in a book!

The joy of living in reality, is the thrill of the chase for knowledge.

The Californian

Oct 1, 2009, 06:35 PM

How boring would the universe be if all the answers were in a book!

The joy of living in reality, is the thrill of the chase for knowledge.

I couldn't agree more. How mighty would God be if we could figure Him out completely. ( Back to the whole 2-dimensional / 3-dimensional conversation )

Pocket lint

Oct 1, 2009, 06:40 PM

I couldn't agree more. How mighty would God be if we could figure Him out completely. ( Back to the whole 2-dimensional / 3-dimensional conversation )

I doubt it was the thirst for "knowledge" about God, he was hinting at. ;)

In all seriousness, though, I hope you do lust for real-world knowledge as well.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 06:49 PM

So, basically, there's the argument for all sorts of sect and beliefs - It's perfectly fine to "teach" the sheeps all sorts of things, no matter if they work or not. Because it's religion, it doesn't matter if it's contrary to knowledge, contrary to science, contrary to common sense, and hurt a lot of people. It doesn't matter if it's right in the real world, wrong in the real world. No, it only matters if it's "right" and "wrong" in some twisted belief set. It doesn't need to be grounded in reality.
You just argued for a return to the dark ages, against science and knowledge, and pro dogma no matter the costs.

I never said that. I think religion is flawed if it's contrary to science. I think it's flawed if following a religion increases suffering (to stay on topic, the AIDS epidemic would be completely cured if Catholic thought was followed to the letter).

What I take issue with is this right and wrong in "the real world." I'm merely asking what the basis for your morality is. Common sense isn't the basis for morality. That's the same as saying, "It's immoral because it's immoral." There's no critical thinking, there's no basis. It's impossible to argue about or discuss because it just "is."

Edit:
Come to think of it, your whole argument seems to be an appeal to authority: Abolish all critical thinking, common sense and science. We only need some church to dictate us what is right and wrong.

That's not what I advocate at all, and that's not what the Church advocates at all. The Church advocates more critical thinking than just going by "what seems right." The Church has reasons for all of its morality, based in logic, science, and reasoning, and doesn't expect that you just follow blindly. You're supposed to research it for yourself, and in the end your conscience is always more important.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 06:55 PM

Frankly -it's extortion

'Want sex?'
'Yes please'
'You've got to get married first'
'Oh - ok - how and where'
'Well - we do services in our church for a basic fee of £313.50 plus another £150 for the lady who does the flowers, plus £65 for the organist.....'

The Church - abusing morality in the great soul protection racket.

Do you know how tin-foil hat that sounds? I can just imagine it now: A group of guys get together and say, "Hey, I got a great idea to make some extra money! We'll remain celibate and take a vow of poverty so we can make people pay for having sex! It's genius! We can even get the women who does flowers in on it!"

It's only in the past 100 years that weddings have gotten expensive for anyone but royalty. In the Catholic Church, you don't have to pay a red cent to get married. Capitalism is what created all these expenses. What religion do you know of that requires flowers, an organist, etc.? Whatever religion that is I would not defend.

Your knowledge of religion, especially the Catholic Church that you're fond of maligning, is extremely limited and based in complete ignorance.

EDIT: I just reread your post and I have to say, I had no idea that not having sex before marriage cost lives. :rolleyes:

Pocket lint

Oct 1, 2009, 07:02 PM

I never said that. I think religion is flawed if it's contrary to science. I think it's flawed if following a religion increases suffering (to stay on topic, the AIDS epidemic would be completely cured if Catholic thought was followed to the letter).
You DID argue that. You argued that what "right" and "wrong" doesn't have to be grounded in reality if it came from the church.
You propably don't believe that, but that was what your argument ended up as.
[Edit: Just to be clear: I'm not arguing against your personal beliefs or anything. I'm arguing against a single post, which struck as very out of character for you]

What I take issue with is this right and wrong in "the real world." I'm merely asking what the basis for your morality is. Common sense isn't the basis for morality. That's the same as saying, "It's immoral because it's immoral." There's no critical thinking, there's no basis. It's impossible to argue about or discuss because it just "is."
I never tried to argue anything with regards to moral. The sole argument in that post of mine is adressing your argument and checking for validity. I never argued, for instance, that the only place ethics (let's face it, it's another word for knowing the difference between right and wrong) should be derived from is common sense.
No, I pointed out that arguing that "what's right and wrong is outside the real world" is an appeal to authority, a request to accept dogma.

That's not what I advocate at all, and that's not what the Church advocates at all.
Yet that was your argument. I don't doubt for a minute though, that you really don't mean it. It would be out of character for you to argue that dogma is great - screw science et al. I am pointing out, though, that the argument you put forth is exactly that: An appeal to authority and a request to follow dogma.

The Church advocates more critical thinking than just going by "what seems right." The Church has reasons for all of its morality, based in logic, science, and reasoning, and doesn't expect that you just follow blindly.
Yet there is no reason in an enlightened world other than dogma to keep the "don't use condoms, you'll go to hell. Just don't sleep around"-nonsense.

You're supposed to research it for yourself, and in the end your conscience is always more important.

I know you believe that, but that doesn't change that the argument earler was nothing more than another way of saying that it's perfectly fine to ignore the real world and give "advice" to be followed even if it costs lives, and the "advice" given is dead against science and human nature. Because, hey, it's okay, because they shouldn't questioned. In other words: Pro dogma, and therefore against knowledge, science, common sense, and, yes, reality.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 07:08 PM

I know you believe that, but that doesn't change that the argument earler was nothing more than another way of saying that it's perfectly fine to ignore the real world and give "advice" to be followed even if it costs lives, and the "advice" given is dead against science and human nature. Because, hey, it's okay, because they shouldn't questioned. In other words: Pro dogma, and therefore against knowledge, science, common sense, and, yes, reality.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying at all. I've proposed hypothetical questions about the limits of science in determining ethics, and no one has answered them.

If "science" proved that you could get stem cells by killing adults, would it be standing in the way of science to refuse to do that? No. What if killing one man for stem cells could save a hundred lives; would you force that man to die against his will to save those hundred? Is it being anti-science to refuse? No. It's not. It's drawing a line in the sand and saying that there are ethics that you cannot break no matter the practical benefits.

I'm arguing against the "ends justify the means"-type reasoning going on here. You've set an arbitrary definition of "what works" and anyone who thinks that it's immoral is "anti-science" and thinks that dogma trumps all. That is an immense simplification and it's either a gross misunderstanding of what I'm saying or completely disingenuous.

EDIT: You act like it's impossible to avoid extramarital sex and that abstaining from extramarital sex is some terrible thing that's scientifically impossible. I'm not saying that's what you think, but look at what you're arguing. Your argument is boiling down to: It's contrary to science to not have extramarital sex. That is ridiculous.

Iscariot

Oct 1, 2009, 07:09 PM

My whole point is that you come in here condemning the morality of a group without even providing an objective standard upon which to judge morality.

I don't need to provide an objective standard when one exists. If I came into a thread condemning a murderer, would you cry foul that I didn't explicitly state why murder was wrong? This is not an instance where the moral framework here needs to be clearly laid out; there's an obvious ethical framework in place when 2.1 million people are dying every year.

This is entirely beside the point, however, and clouding the issue. You are making my argument out to be one of senseless condemnation of a massive group of people, when that is obviously not the case. I am condeming anyone who believes that preaching abstinence is more important than halting the transmission of AIDS. This is also not a question purely of morals, it's also one of actions, as the Catholic church is actively working against the distribution and use of condoms. Your entire argument is a red herring to divert attention away from the fact that you have absolutely no ground to stand on when it comes to the actions of the Catholic church and condom use in Africa.
that you should actually debate the foundations of morality before debating their conclusions.

No. That's absurd. I don't need to understand the "foundation" of why the Catholic church is against condom use, because it's wholly irrelevant.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 07:16 PM

I don't need to provide an objective standard when one exists. If I came into a thread condemning a murderer, would you cry foul that I didn't explicitly state why murder was wrong?

If it were a thread about a murderer who had an entire belief system that justified murder (see Nietzsche's superman), then yes, I would cry foul that you weren't addressing the heart of the matter, but merely the periphery.

No. That's absurd. I don't need to understand the "foundation" of why the Catholic church is against condom use, because it's wholly irrelevant.

I suggest you take a course on ethics, as you seem to have no appreciation for diverging theories on ethics and their bases. It is not irrelevant. Imagine Kant and Mill debating the subject of extramarital sex when one is using the categorical imperative and the other utilitarianism. Do you think that would be a productive discussion? Because that's pretty much what we're doing here by talking about the results of a system of ethics without talking about the system of ethics itself.

Pocket lint

Oct 1, 2009, 07:17 PM

I don't think you understand what I'm saying at all. I've proposed hypothetical questions about the limits of science in determining ethics, and no one has answered them.

If "science" proved that you could get stem cells by killing adults, would it be standing in the way of science to refuse to do that? No. What if killing one man for stem cells could save a hundred lives; would you force that man to die against his will to save those hundred? Is it being anti-science to refuse? No. It's not. It's drawing a line in the sand and saying that there are ethics that you cannot break no matter the practical benefits.

I'm arguing against the "ends justify the means"-type reasoning going on here. You've set an arbitrary definition of "what works" and anyone who thinks that it's immoral is "anti-science" and thinks that dogma trumps all. That is an immense simplification and it's either a gross misunderstanding of what I'm saying or completely disingenuous.

In short: No, you were arguing pro dogma. It's not longer.

EDIT: You act like it's impossible to avoid extramarital sex and that abstaining from extramarital sex is some terrible thing that's scientifically impossible. I'm not saying that's what you think, but look at what you're arguing. Your argument is boiling down to: It's contrary to science to not have extramarital sex. That is ridiculous.
No, I'm not arguing that it's impossible to not have sex before marriage. I am saying that some might not do it before they get marriage, but quite a lot do, and that it's not the premarital berufsverbot that is the problem, it's when it's combined with the dogmatic view that because "we" believe it's a sin to have sex before marriage, it doesn't matter that people die from aids because we also don't believe in prevention and will do anything to stop you from getting educated about it.
I had written this reply just before I saw the above, and I think this is a better explanation:

I had no idea that not having sex before marriage cost lives. :rolleyes:

If only it was that simple and if only that was the only thing they preached.

While they preach "no sex before marriage", there are many missionaries and catholic help organisations out there. When you not only preach "no sex before marriage" but combine it with a refusal to teach about sex and prevention and even ban (dogma again) prevention despite reality, you have a recipe for disaster.

It's not many years ago when christian idjits (I don't know their denominations - suffice to say they were fundamentalists) put pressure on the US government to halt foreign aid if prevention and condoms were a part of the aid. It had to teach abstinence and completely forego prevention in order to get funding.

So yes, teaching abstinence when done as dogma does indeed kill people.

Earlier in this thread someone posted a link to an article which said that the pledgers were LESS likely to use condoms when they went ahead and had premarital sex. Because people do.

Pocket lint

Oct 1, 2009, 07:21 PM

subject of extramarital sex

Is it just me (not native and all), but doesn't "extramarital" imply affairs, having another partner _while_ married, and "premarital" having sex _before_ marriage?

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 07:23 PM

In short: No, you were arguing pro dogma. It's not longer.

What? :confused:

So yes, teaching abstinence when done as dogma does indeed kill people.

Earlier in this thread someone posted a link to an article which said that the pledgers were LESS likely to use condoms when they went ahead and had premarital sex. Because people do.

Look, I agree that it's stupid for anyone to try and stop people who are having extramarital sex from getting condoms. And yes, if someone's going to have extramarital sex, they should use one. But I don't think you appreciate the situation the Catholic Church is in. It cannot be active in distributing condoms because that would compromise the teachings of the entire church, and is therefore forced to only advocate abstinence.

And yes, there may be instances where people in the Church have done stupid things (such as actively blocking condoms from reaching people who are having extramarital sex) and those people will have to answer for their actions, but on the whole, it is not "anti-science" to preach abstinence.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 07:23 PM

Is it just me (not native and all), but doesn't "extramarital" imply affairs, having another partner _while_ married, and "premarital" having sex _before_ marriage?

Extramarital means "outside of marriage." That includes premarital sex, adultery, homosexual sex, etc.

TuffLuffJimmy

Oct 1, 2009, 07:25 PM

Extramarital means "outside of marriage." That includes premarital sex, adultery, homosexual sex, etc.

unless of course you're in a gay marriage. :rolleyes:

Iscariot

Oct 1, 2009, 07:27 PM

If it were a thread about a murderer who had an entire belief system that justified murder (see Nietzsche's superman), then yes, I would cry foul that you weren't addressing the heart of the matter, but merely the periphery.

Which is not what this thread is about. More red herrings.
I suggest you take a course on ethics, as you seem to have no appreciation for diverging theories on ethics and their bases. It is not irrelevant.

You have no idea what my educational background is nor what kind of reading I've done or the appreciations I have. It is nonetheless entirely irrelevant, because we're not discussing theories of ethics or a situation wherein there is enough subjectivity to warrant such a discussion. All you are doing is waving around vague hypotheticals and hoping nobody will notice that you're entirely dodging the issue at hand here, and that is the actions of the Catholic church vis a vis condoms and AIDS. Thus far other than warping an ethical system beyond all value you've added nothing to defend the position of the Catholic church, and I suspect it's because deep down you know it's an indefensible position.

Pocket lint

Oct 1, 2009, 07:28 PM

What? :confused:

Look, I agree that it's stupid for anyone to try and stop people who are having extramarital sex from getting condoms. And yes, if someone's going to have extramarital sex, they should use one. But I don't think you appreciate the situation the Catholic Church is in. It cannot be active in distributing condoms because that would compromise the teachings of the entire church, and is therefore forced to only advocate abstinence.

And yes, there may be instances where people in the Church have done stupid things (such as actively blocking condoms from reaching people who are having extramarital sex) and those people will have to answer for their actions, but on the whole, it is not "anti-science" to preach abstinence.

No, it's not antiscience to preach abstinence as such. However, it is pure dogma when that notion (yes, let it call it that) expresses itself along the refusal to teach about prevention and what else the real world has to deal with.

From where I'm standing, to use the argument that "you don't fully appreciate etc" doesn't change a thing: It's an attempt to exempt the catholic church for any criticism, all because they're should have a right to espew dogma even if it kills people.

Extramarital means "outside of marriage." That includes premarital sex, adultery, homosexual sex, etc.

Oh, like that.Thanks. I have to agree with Jimmy, though:

unless of course you're in a gay marriage. :rolleyes:

And then add, that I find it to be a weird use of the word. But I'm hardly the one to criticize english (american) usage, lol :p

steve knight

Oct 1, 2009, 07:34 PM

The church does not even advocate birth control for married couples.
so they cause the poor to breed like rabbits.

Pocket lint

Oct 1, 2009, 07:36 PM

The church does not even advocate birth control for married couples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 07:41 PM

unless of course you're in a gay marriage. :rolleyes:

Well, we were talking about the Catholic Church, so I was using their definition which is a sacrament that does not recognize same-sex marriage.

steve knight

Oct 1, 2009, 07:43 PM

Well, we were talking about the Catholic Church, so I was using their definition which is a sacrament that does not recognize same-sex marriage.
well yes. but it is OK to be gay and be a priest. well it was ok till the victims started talking. I think that may be the straw that broke the camels back.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 07:45 PM

It is nonetheless entirely irrelevant, because we're not discussing theories of ethics or a situation wherein there is enough subjectivity to warrant such a discussion.

And I think it's totally absurd to assume that there are any situations in which the theory part of ethics can be thrown out. All ethics have to have a theoretical basis for them to be defensible. This idea that you can pick and choose which ones you can't debate is ridiculous and akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to admit this fundamental fact. Any ethical system that's worth adhering to should have an explanation for even the most mundane of ethical questions that does not boil down to, "Are you crazy? Of course I'm right because I just am! Common sense tells me so."

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 07:46 PM

well yes. but it is OK to be gay and be a priest. well it was ok till the victims started talking. I think that may be the straw that broke the camels back.

One, I can't believe you just compared homosexuality and pedophilia.

Two, I think it's great for gay people to become priests because the priesthood requires celibacy.

Pocket lint

Oct 1, 2009, 07:49 PM

One, I can't believe you just compared homosexuality and pedophilia.
This makes me think good things of you. It makes you come off as a tolerant person with the ability to respect people.

Two, I think it's great for gay people to become priests because the priesthood requires celibacy.

This doesn't.

The Californian

Oct 1, 2009, 07:50 PM

I doubt it was the thirst for "knowledge" about God, he was hinting at. ;)

In all seriousness, though, I hope you do lust for real-world knowledge as well.

Oh I knew exactly where he was going with it, I just thought it would be interesting to show how two minds going in opposite directions can be thing so similar.

And yes, I do desire real world knowledge, this is why I travel much, have mostly friends that differ greatly from me in beliefs and lifestyles and always keep an open mind to learning new things and being proven wrong and changing ... acting otherwise is ignorance.

TuffLuffJimmy

Oct 1, 2009, 07:51 PM

Two, I think it's great for gay people to become priests because the priesthood requires celibacy.

If you had ever watched Queer As Folk, you would know that it's pretty damn hard for gay people to stay celibate. ;)

*I'm ignoring the part where you suggest that all gay people should remain celibate.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 07:53 PM

This doesn't.

Um, I'm sorry that I failed your test? :confused:

Do you judge everyone by their sexual morals?

Pocket lint

Oct 1, 2009, 07:58 PM

Um, I'm sorry that I failed your test? :confused:
It wasn't a "test". It was a comment on the apparent paradox of those two statements.

Do you judge everyone by their sexual morals?

No, I judge people from what they say and do. If you speak intolerance, chances are you're intolerant, if you spew hatred, chances are you're hateful, if you speak tolerance, chances are you're tolerant.

Btw, speaking of judging someone on their sexual morals: Take a look at your statement and tell me that's not judging people by their sexual morals.

The Californian

Oct 1, 2009, 08:02 PM

Ugh, this thread is making me nauseous. Bottom line, the church often doesn't properly represent the teachings of Christ which we mostly just good, sensical teachings. Man likes to make things more difficult and often succeeds.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 08:05 PM

No, I judge people from what they say and do. If you speak intolerance, chances are you're intolerant, if you spew hatred, chances are you're hateful, if you speak tolerance, chances are you're tolerant.

So I "spew[ed] hatred"? That's news to me. And you show right here that tolerance in inherently intolerant because the second someone says, "I think doing X is immoral," they're "spew[ing] hatred."

FrankieTDouglas

Oct 1, 2009, 08:06 PM

How do you know which one is the original? It seems like they have all branched off somewhere along the way from others that believed differently.

Wow, might one even say that... the church has evolved?

TuffLuffJimmy

Oct 1, 2009, 08:08 PM

So I "spew[ed] hatred"? That's news to me. And you show right here that tolerance in inherently intolerant because the second someone says, "I think doing X is immoral," they're "spew[ing] hatred."

Well considering homosexuality immoral is like considering being black immoral. After all a homosexual could act heterosexual, of course this would be dishonest, and avoid the endless burning hell. Just the same as a black person could get their skin bleached. If a gay person chooses to remain gay, that's just about as immoral as a black person choosing to not bleach their skin.

Yes, considering the way someone is born immoral, is hatred.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 08:13 PM

Well considering homosexuality immoral is like considering being black immoral. After all a homosexual could act heterosexual, of course this would be dishonest, and avoid the endless burning hell. Just the same as a black person could get their skin bleached. If a gay person chooses to remain gay, that's just about as immoral as a black person choosing to not bleach their skin.

Yes, considering the way someone is born immoral, is hatred.

Um, when did I say I consider homosexuality immoral or say that homosexuals should act heterosexual? I think homosexual sex is immoral, regardless of who does it. And I think it'd be ridiculous for a homosexual to pretend to be heterosexual. It's not betraying oneself to refrain from sex if you're homosexual anymore than being heterosexual and choosing to be celibate is.

Pocket lint

Oct 1, 2009, 08:14 PM

So I "spew[ed] hatred"? That's news to me. And you show right here that tolerance in inherently intolerant because the second someone says, "I think doing X is immoral," they're "spew[ing] hatred."

1) I didn't say you spewed hatred. That's selective quoting. I found the sentiment "it's a good thing gay people becomes priests, because then they won't have sex with eachother" (yes, that's a paraphrase, but that is the contents of what you said) to be rather intolerant and quite judgmental of other people's "sexual morals".

This is even more paradoxical, considering you then claim I'm the one being judgmental about YOUR "sexual morals".

2) Pointing out intolerance is not "inherently intolerant". With that argument, you could argue that countering antisemitism, countering any kind of intolerance is intolerance in itself, and therefore there is no reason to even use the word "tolerant", we might as well remove tolerance from our societies.
I wonder how you will argue that an attempt to stop a genocide is somehow "intolerance". I mean, if your argument is valid, that "tolerance is inherently intolerance", then I'd like to see you argue that. But really, this is just yet another attempt at deflecting and saying zilch.

TuffLuffJimmy

Oct 1, 2009, 08:15 PM

Um, when did I say I consider homosexuality immoral or say that homosexuals should act heterosexual? I think homosexual sex is immoral, regardless of who does it. And I think it'd be ridiculous for a homosexual to pretend to be heterosexual. It's not betraying oneself to refrain from sex if you're homosexual anymore than being heterosexual and choosing to be celibate is.

but then that's suggesting that homosexuals don't have the same rights as heterosexual people. Homosexuals should choose to never have sex, while heterosexual people are able to **** as they choose?

Pocket lint

Oct 1, 2009, 08:18 PM

but then that's suggesting that homosexuals don't have the same rights as heterosexual people. Homosexuals should choose to never have sex, while heterosexual people are able to **** as they choose?

Yup, that's it. And HE's the one trying to attack _me_ for "judging everyone's sexuality" (i.e. being intolerant). :rolleyes:

steve knight

Oct 1, 2009, 08:20 PM

Um, when did I say I consider homosexuality immoral or say that homosexuals should act heterosexual? I think homosexual sex is immoral, regardless of who does it. And I think it'd be ridiculous for a homosexual to pretend to be heterosexual. It's not betraying oneself to refrain from sex if you're homosexual anymore than being heterosexual and choosing to be celibate is.

how can it be immoral when it is they way the person has been born? for most gay people it is not a choice just like it is not a choice for you to like the opposite sex. Gods created gay people just like he made regular people that is if god made people at all.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 08:24 PM

but then that's suggesting that homosexuals don't have the same rights as heterosexual people. Homosexuals should choose to never have sex, while heterosexual people are able to **** as they choose?

I never once suggested that "heterosexual people are able to **** as they choose."

And what you're claiming is quite ridiculous. Everyone has tendencies towards different kinds of sin. It's not denying someone their rights to ask them to fight those tendencies. By your logic, encouraging alcoholics to never drink while others who don't have the genetic predisposition to addiction drink in moderation is violating the rights of alcoholics.

My point is that in any moral system you're going to have people with desires to act against those morals. It's not a violation of rights to believe that those things that are desired are immoral. There are plenty of things that I desire that I believe are immoral, but I'm not violating mine or anyone else's rights by thinking they're immoral.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 08:30 PM

how can it be immoral when it is they way the person has been born? for most gay people it is not a choice just like it is not a choice for you to like the opposite sex. Gods created gay people just like he made regular people that is if god made people at all.

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT EQUATING THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS, AS PROVED BY MY WORDS EARLIER IN THIS THREAD.

Sorry for the all caps, but that was an important disclaimer, judging by responses I've gotten from people in the past.

There is just as much evidence that pedophilia is genetic as there is evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Is it immoral to deny pedophiles sex just because of the way they were born? My point is that being born with a certain desire does not make the end of that desire necessarily moral.

And yes, I know that pedophilia is completely different because there's a victim, etc., etc.. My only point is that apparently it's okay to deny some people their sexuality, but not others.

We can agree that pedophilia is immoral, and while we disagree about the morality of homosexual sex, what you ask of pedophiles is exactly what the Church asks of homosexuals.

And yes, I know that raping a child is far, far, far, far worse in every way than having consensual homosexual sex.

bobber205

Oct 1, 2009, 08:33 PM

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT EQUATING THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS, AS PROVED BY MY WORDS EARLIER IN THIS THREAD.

Sorry for the all caps, but that was an important disclaimer, judging by responses I've gotten from people in the past.

There is just as much evidence that pedophilia is genetic as there is evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Is it immoral to deny pedophiles sex just because of the way they were born? My point is that being born with a certain desire does not make the end of that desire necessarily moral.

And yes, I know that pedophilia is completely different because there's a victim, etc., etc.. My only point is that apparently it's okay to deny some people their sexuality, but not others.

We can agree that pedophilia is immoral, and while we disagree about the morality of homosexual sex, what you ask of pedophiles is exactly what the Church asks of homosexuals.

And yes, I know that raping a child is far, far, far, far worse in every way than having consensual homosexual sex.

Yeah because a immoral act with an innocent child and two consenting adults is anywhere near the same thing.

A penis in a guy's butt does nothing to harm you but what happened in the Cathloic Church with priests and pedophilia and the coverups the church did is unforgivable.

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 08:33 PM

I wonder how you will argue that an attempt to stop a genocide is somehow "intolerance". I mean, if your argument is valid, that "tolerance is inherently intolerance", then I'd like to see you argue that.

I would never argue that, and I don't see your point. You're the one who values tolerance, not me. I think you should treat everyone like human beings (which forms a part of your ideal of tolerance), but I do think that certain people are better people than others, certain moral systems are better than others, and certain beliefs are better than others.

Really you're just proving the ineffectiveness of valuing tolerance.

bobber205

Oct 1, 2009, 08:35 PM

I would never argue that, and I don't see your point. You're the one who values tolerance, not me. I think you should treat everyone like human beings (which forms a part of your ideal of tolerance), but I do think that certain people are better people than others, certain moral systems are better than others, and certain beliefs are better than others.

Really you're just proving the ineffectiveness of valuing tolerance.

:rolleyes:

Macaddicttt

Oct 1, 2009, 08:35 PM

Yeah because a immoral act with an innocent child and two consenting adults is anywhere near the same thing.

A penis in a guy's butt does nothing to harm you but what happened in the Cathloic Church with priests and pedophilia and the coverups the church did is unforgivable.

I knew I'd regret posting that. If you actually read the post I did not equate the two. And I quote: "And yes, I know that raping a child is far, far, far, far worse in every way than having consensual homosexual sex."

I only pointed out that apparently it's okay to make some people deny their sexuality but not others.

And yes, what some people in the Church did about priests and pedophilia was terrible beyond words.

bobber205

Oct 1, 2009, 08:40 PM

I knew I'd regret posting that. If you actually read the post I did not equate the two. And I quote: "And yes, I know that raping a child is far, far, far, far worse in every way than having consensual homosexual sex."

I only pointed out that apparently it's okay to make some people deny their sexuality but not others.

And yes, what some people in the Church did about priests and pedophilia was terrible beyond words.

The Catholic church is saying that homosexuals are "bad" people. Now that's fine to say if they are actually doing harm to society. How does homosexual sex you personally exactly? Or society? It does absolutely nothing. I can understand why the church is against rights for women (specifically them being priests) because that would erode the "male" power but homosexuals? Reeks of homophobia, whose roots I simply don't get, to me.

Yes I am aware that some BS line in the Bible talks about sex between a man and a man.

It also says we shouldn't wear clothes/cloth made up of more than one fiber. And not to plant two seeds in one hole.
Intelligent humans can read that and go "lol that's stupid" but wont' dare do that for something that meaningfully and negatively impacts someone's life.

steve knight

Oct 1, 2009, 09:04 PM

I only pointed out that apparently it's okay to make some people deny their sexuality but not others.

And yes, what some people in the Church did about priests and pedophilia was terrible beyond words.

just like it is ok to deny some people their freedom or other things. if we go by your logic no one should be denied anything because someone else has it.

The Californian

Oct 1, 2009, 09:08 PM

This thread has veered so far off topic into areas I have no desire to contribute to so I will dismiss myself from here. If anyone would like to ask me a question or direct me to a thread they would like my opinion on just please PM mr and I would be glad to oblige.

Thank you so much for the cordial conversation/debate.

Iscariot

Oct 1, 2009, 10:08 PM

And I think it's totally absurd to assume that there are any situations in which the theory part of ethics can be thrown out. All ethics have to have a theoretical basis for them to be defensible. This idea that you can pick and choose which ones you can't debate is ridiculous and akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to admit this fundamental fact. Any ethical system that's worth adhering to should have an explanation for even the most mundane of ethical questions that does not boil down to, "Are you crazy? Of course I'm right because I just am! Common sense tells me so."

You're still dodging the question. The idea that ethics is so vague that any viewpoint can be considered valid is asinine. Your constant attempts to distill my viewpoint to some kind of black and white ethical objectivism continues to betray the fact that you know your only chance of winning this argument is to reduce ethics to a concept so nebulous it becomes meaningless. Meanwhile you fail to address the point; there is no valid viewpoint where 2.1 million people dying of AIDS is preferable to pre-marital sex.

Pocket lint

Oct 1, 2009, 11:26 PM

I would never argue that, and I don't see your point. You're the one who values tolerance, not me.
You claim to never wanting to argue that, yet you have as is evident from your posting. If it's true that arguing against intolerance and pleading tolerance is intolerant, then the argument must be equally valid if said intolerance results in deaths. If not, well, then your argument is invalid.
Further, you're now defending intolerance to a degree where you're forced to argue that intolerance is good.
I think that bolded statement of yours says a lot.

I think you should treat everyone like human beings (which forms a part of your ideal of tolerance),
Yet you argue that tolerance is intolerance, in that it argues against intolerance. Thus you're saying that the "first" intolerance is fine, and exempt for being criticized. You have become a proponent for intolerance, hate speech and what have you. Noone should argue against such things, because that would be intolerance. :rolleyes:

but I do think that certain people are better people than others
I would think that the only reason you bring this up is because it in some twisted way ties into your belief system that intolerance is fine, and this is not about an individual, but a type of people. Subhumans. I can't see why else you'd bring this up. However, the notion of subhumans tie mighty fine into the notion that arguing against intolerance is intolerant in itself.

certain moral systems are better than others, and certain beliefs are better than others.
Sure. Intolerant viewpoints are fine and shouldn't be countered - with the caveat, of course, that the intolerant is you. Don't cry for help if someone does something to you, or put you at the rear of the line for anything, simply because they don't like you, your beliefs or any other odd reason. You see, tolerating your views or your person are really intolerance. See how that works?

Really you're just proving the ineffectiveness of valuing tolerance.

The only thing getting proved here is my patience, or lack thereof.

I knew I'd regret posting that. If you actually read the post I did not equate the two. And I quote: "And yes, I know that raping a child is far, far, far, far worse in every way than having consensual homosexual sex."

I only pointed out that apparently it's okay to make some people deny their sexuality but not others.

And yes, what some people in the Church did about priests and pedophilia was terrible beyond words.

Yes. In an earlier post, you were implying you were tolerant towards people of other "persuasions" and "corrected" someone from making an effed up connection between gays and pedophiles. Only, a few posts later, you go ahead and do that exact thing.
By making that comparison between those two "types" of sexuality, you're making a direct comparison between gays and pedophiles. You cannot run away from making that - direct - comparison where you do indeed _equate_ the two.

I know, I know. I shouldn't criticize this as you prefer intolerance, and since your intolerance is based on your idea of your preferred religion, you should be given a carte blanche to dish it out ...

johnrs

Oct 2, 2009, 04:20 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8285180.stm

djellison

Oct 2, 2009, 04:36 AM

I think homosexual sex is immoral, regardless of who does it.

WOW.

Just WOW.

Sometimes it's easy to forget it's the 21st Century.

.Andy

Oct 2, 2009, 07:42 AM

I only pointed out that apparently it's okay to make some people deny their sexuality but not others.
Is paedophilia a sexuality?

arkitect

Oct 2, 2009, 07:55 AM

WOW.

Just WOW.

Sometimes it's easy to forget it's the 21st Century.

I agree.
The amount of intolerance is astonishing.

But then again I remind myself that many Americans live by "rules and laws" written by desert nomads in the Bronze Age…

Rodimus Prime

Oct 2, 2009, 11:01 AM

WOW.

Just WOW.

Sometimes it's easy to forget it's the 21st Century.
I love you double standard you have there. There is nothing wrong with the beflief that homosexaulality is wrong. That is someones personal belief. The right and wrong part come on how they act on said belief
If it ends with let's say just the belief but not trying to force the belief threw law so be it or be predijust about it that is there personal belief and it should be respected as such.
I have read enough of Macaddictt post to see he seems to respect gays as people even though he does not agree with there actions in there personal lives.

Si I could say wow on your intollerants of people who do not agree with your beleifs as well

Pocket lint

Oct 2, 2009, 11:12 AM

I love you double standard you have there. There is nothing wrong with the beflief that homosexaulality is wrong. That is someones personal belief. The right and wrong part come on how they act on said belief
If it ends with let's say just the belief but not trying to force the belief threw law so be it or be predijust about it that is there personal belief and it should be respected as such.
I have read enough of Macaddictt post to see he seems to respect gays as people even though he does not agree with there actions in there personal lives.

Si I could say wow on your intollerants of people who do not agree with your beleifs as well

And now we're full circle: If one doesn't tolerate intolerance, it's evidence of intolerance in itself.

Let me paraphrase your argument: There is nothing wrong with thinking jews and black people are subhumans. As long as one doesn't act on it, but merely express one's beliefs in that regard, it's perfectly fine, and noone should argue against such beliefs, because that would be intolerance.

:rolleyes:

edesignuk

Oct 2, 2009, 11:15 AM

Let me paraphrase your argument: There is nothing wrong with thinking jews and black people are subhumans. As long as one doesn't act on it, but merely express one's beliefs in that regard, it's perfectly fine, and noone should argue against such beliefs, because that would be intolerance.Thank you. That's what I was trying to put in to words and gave up on because I couldn't seem to phrase it right.

Pocket lint

Oct 2, 2009, 11:17 AM

Thank you. That's what I was trying to put in to words and gave up on because I couldn't seem to phrase it right.

You're welcome :o

arkitect

Oct 2, 2009, 11:24 AM

I love you double standard you have there. There is nothing wrong with the beflief that homosexaulality is wrong. That is someones personal belief. The right and wrong part come on how they act on said belief
:eek::eek:

Somedays I think I have seen it all and read it all… but here is another humdinger of a post.

So, well done Rodimus Prime, you've really gone and done it this time.
:rolleyes:

djellison

Oct 2, 2009, 11:40 AM

I love you double standard you have there. There is nothing wrong with the beflief that homosexaulality is wrong. That is someones personal belief. ....

your beleifs as well

So I'm intolerant for objecting to someone's intolerance? The intolerance here is the fact that someone thinks an entirely natural act of love between two consenting adults, presenting no harm or disk to anyone else is 'immoral'

There IS something wrong with the 'belief' that homosexuality is wrong. Do you know why?

IT ISN'T WRONG.

Not morally, not socially, not biologically, not in any way whatsoever is it 'wrong'.

If you think it is...then it's not homosexuality that's wrong - it's YOU who is wrong.

This issue is not up for debate any more than being black is morally 'wrong'.

Oh - and if you're commenting on them - what ARE my beliefs, exactly. I'd love to hear them.

mscriv

Oct 2, 2009, 11:54 AM

The intolerance here is the fact that someone thinks an entirely natural act of love between two consenting adults, presenting no harm or disk to anyone else is 'immoral'

Freudian slip much... :D

I retract my earlier compliment about how well this thread was going. The derailment is in full effect. I try to stay away but it's so entertaining in the "you have to slow down and gawk at the car wreck" kind of way.

Rodimus Prime

Oct 2, 2009, 11:56 AM

So I'm intolerant for objecting to someone's intolerance? The intolerance here is the fact that someone thinks an entirely natural act of love between two consenting adults, presenting no harm or disk to anyone else is 'immoral'

There IS something wrong with the 'belief' that homosexuality is wrong. Do you know why?

IT ISN'T WRONG.

Not morally, not socially, not biologically, not in any way whatsoever is it 'wrong'.

If you think it is...then it's not homosexuality that's wrong - it's YOU who is wrong.

This issue is not up for debate any more than being black is morally 'wrong'.

Oh - and if you're commenting on them - what ARE my beliefs, exactly. I'd love to hear them.

No you are intolerant because you went flaming for that belief. Macaddicttt stated his belief because it was ask or it was relevant to the topic was he going out and preaching about it in random location no. he was not.

you turn around and flame him for it instead of trying to even debate it.

I do find it funny that people will scream about religious freedom but turn around and attack others when the religions do no agree or line up.

I see nothing wrong with thinking homosexuality is wrong. Personally belief for said person. It is fine as long as they do not use that belief to infringe on some one else right. That means under the eyes of the law it does not matter if you are gay or no because it is not part of the church.

But I feel it is wrong to force your belief on to some one else. Macaddicttt was not forcing his belief on to others. You on the other hand were forcing you belief on to Macaddicttt hence the reason you are being intolerant. not the other way around.

Iscariot

Oct 2, 2009, 11:59 AM

You on the other hand were forcing you belief on to Macaddicttt hence the reason you are being intolerant.

djellison, you take that gun away from Macaddicttt's head right this second!

imac/cheese

Oct 2, 2009, 02:08 PM

I find it interesting that so often when people express their opinions on something, those who disagree cry "intolerance". From what I understand, intolerance is "not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters". This leads me to look up the word tolerate which means "to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance".

Macaddict stated his belief that homosexual sex is immoral. That belief, in and of itself, does not fit the definition of intolerance. His belief of it being immoral does not interfere with the existence, presence, practice, or act of other's views. He is not prohibiting or hindering those who believe homosexual sex is moral in any way.

djellison stated that it is wrong that people think homosexual sex is immoral, but he is in no way prohibiting or hindering people from thinking that way. He is not being intolerant.

Intolerance comes from actions not from stated beliefs. The voters in California are intolerant of Gay marriage. The Catholic Church is intolerant of condom use amongst it members.

Eraserhead

Oct 2, 2009, 02:21 PM

Macaddict stated his belief that homosexual sex is immoral. That belief, in and of itself, does not fit the definition of intolerance. His belief of it being immoral does not interfere with the existence, presence, practice, or act of other's views. He is not prohibiting or hindering those who believe homosexual sex is moral in any way.

djellison stated that it is wrong that people think homosexual sex is immoral, but he is in no way prohibiting or hindering people from thinking that way. He is not being intolerant.

Intolerance comes from actions not from stated beliefs. The voters in California are intolerant of Gay marriage. The Catholic Church is intolerant of condom use amongst it members.

This sums up how I feel about it.

bobber205

Oct 2, 2009, 04:06 PM

Iscariot

Oct 2, 2009, 04:41 PM

This sums up how I feel about it.

If beliefs existed in a vacuum, maybe.

imac/cheese

Oct 2, 2009, 05:17 PM

If beliefs existed in a vacuum, maybe.

There is no doubt that beliefs often lead to intolerance. In order for people to be intolerant of gay marriage, they would have to believe that gay marriage was wrong. But just because they believe gay marriage is wrong doesn't mean they are going to try to prevent gay people from marrying.

I have some very strong beliefs about many things, but I do not try to keep other people from following their own beliefs.

Zombie Acorn

Oct 2, 2009, 05:21 PM

No1451

Oct 2, 2009, 05:30 PM

Actions from beliefs though. Intolerance is a state of mind. You can't make it a action verb. I can "injure" someone and cause an injury. You can intolerance someone or something and cause intolerance.

Uh, no. Just no. Tolerate IS a verb, so not tolerating something has to be an action. Just thinking it is not action.

allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference : a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent.

Tolerance is a matter of permitting without condoning. I personally think that being gay is physically wrong since it goes against basic animal nature to continue our line, but I think no less and I don't actively try to reform/change/prevent them from their way of life.

The Californian

Oct 2, 2009, 05:36 PM

Okay, I peeked into here even-though I said I wouldn't and I have to comment.

As you all most likely know I am a "Christian", and while reading a lot of the stuff the is being said here by other "Christians" about homosexuality and so many other things I feel the need to come in here and apologize.

I'm sorry. Not because I agree with them, but because I stand under the same banner they stand under and that is not what I believe at all. Christians, by definition are supposed to be "Little Christs", it was a slur of old times that Christians turned around into a positive name for themselves. Now, if we are supposed to be "Little Christs" or followers of Christ shouldn't we be out there feeding the hungry, helping the homeless find homes, giving money to the poor? Sure, that is a portion of what Christians do in present time, but in reality more money goes towards fighting gay marriage and protesting things and honestly it disgusts me. Cause ultimately while it makes Christians look like douche-bags, it makes Jesus and God look bad because we are the ones that say we are representing Gods interest.

I had a long conversation with several Christian friends last night and I made a point that we need to stop spending so much time being against things, and we need to start spending more time, energy and effort on being for things. If you read about the life of Jesus whether it be in the Bible or by non-religious scribes of the time you will see that he spent all of his time helping people, offering practical advice, and meeting peoples needs. The only time he ever condemned anyone was when people who claimed to be doing "Gods work" were promoting their own selfish desires, like making money or pushing their own agendas. But when Jesus came upon people that didn't believe the same things he believed he just loved them, he fed them, helped them, he never once condemned them.

So how is sitting here and preaching morality to people that don't hold the same beliefs as you even close to following Jesus? I just don't understand it.

So for all of that, I apologize. I truly am sorry, and I offer nothing to justify any actions that have been contrary to this. People have done a lot of horrible things in Gods name and I feel horrible about this. I'm so sorry.

imac/cheese

Oct 2, 2009, 05:41 PM

Most hetero guys don't think about gay relations so why would you even take the time to decide whether its moral or not? If you are like me I wouldn't partake in it anyways because I am hetero, so what reason would I have to even think about it in terms of morality unless I wanted to pass judgment on someone else?

Judging someone is not intolerance.

Zombie Acorn

Oct 2, 2009, 05:55 PM

Judging someone is not intolerance.

But wait, I use my view to vote for representatives that make laws. Am I still being tolerant?

Eraserhead

Oct 2, 2009, 06:10 PM

If beliefs existed in a vacuum, maybe.

If I believed gay marriage or sex before marriage was morally wrong, would that be an issue as long as I didn't try and stop anyone else from having one?

skunk

Oct 2, 2009, 06:40 PM

If I believed gay marriage or sex before marriage was morally wrong, would that be an issue as long as I didn't try and stop anyone else from having one?If you believed that being true to your sexual orientation was wrong, and having heterosexual intercourse before the granting of some arbitrary, religion-based licence was wrong, based only on presumed fiat-derived criteria handed down by your particular supernatural being of choice - who, incidentally, you might suppose to have created those variations and drives in the first place - then that might well be an issue for your logical, rational mind to grapple with.

Iscariot

Oct 2, 2009, 09:51 PM

If I believed gay marriage or sex before marriage was morally wrong, would that be an issue as long as I didn't try and stop anyone else from having one?

That would be beliefs existing in a vacuum, which we know they don't. I realize that it's a concept that's valid in theory, but in practice our brains simply aren't wired to allow for holding something as morally absolute without it spilling out into our actions on some level.

steve knight

Oct 3, 2009, 12:00 AM

imac/cheese

Oct 5, 2009, 10:44 AM

But wait, I use my view to vote for representatives that make laws. Am I still being tolerant?

Trying to make a law that forces everyone to act in accordance with your beliefs is intolerant.

That would be beliefs existing in a vacuum, which we know they don't. I realize that it's a concept that's valid in theory, but in practice our brains simply aren't wired to allow for holding something as morally absolute without it spilling out into our actions on some level.

Many people can have personal beliefs that they do not try to force onto other people. Other people feel that their personal beliefs need to be forced onto others. The latter are intolerant while the former are not.

Iscariot

Oct 5, 2009, 12:53 PM

Many people can have personal beliefs that they do not try to force onto other people. Other people feel that their personal beliefs need to be forced onto others. The latter are intolerant while the former are not.

EVERYONE acts on their prejudices. You, me, .Andy, Zombie Acorn, everybody. No personal beliefs exist in a vacuum, and to rationalize intolerance as "okay" because somebody doesn't "act" on it is pulling the wool over your eyes.

The difference is those who are honest about it and work to change, and those who try and hide it behind some sort of rationalization.

imac/cheese

Oct 5, 2009, 03:23 PM

EVERYONE acts on their prejudices. You, me, .Andy, Zombie Acorn, everybody. No personal beliefs exist in a vacuum, and to rationalize intolerance as "okay" because somebody doesn't "act" on it is pulling the wool over your eyes.

The difference is those who are honest about it and work to change, and those who try and hide it behind some sort of rationalization.

I am in no way rationalizing intolerance as okay. I am stating that actions and beliefs are two different things and someone can have very strong beliefs while at the same time tolerating others who have different views. That is the root of the word tolerance. You do not agree with their beliefs but you tolerate them.

You are right that no personal beliefs exist in a vacuum, but that doesn't mean that my beliefs are intolerant of those who do not agree with them. For example, if a person believes that abortion is morally wrong but they do not try to pass laws prohibiting others from getting an abortion, they would not be intolerant. If they treated abortion seekers with respect and love even though the action of abortion is abhorrent to them, they would not be intolerant.

Zombie Acorn

Oct 5, 2009, 07:27 PM

If they treated abortion seekers with respect and love even though the action of abortion is abhorrent to them, they would not be intolerant.

Theoretically maybe, most of us know what the talk turns to once the facade is gone and the person whom they were respectful to leaves.

mscriv

Oct 6, 2009, 11:34 AM

I had a long conversation with several Christian friends last night and I made a point that we need to stop spending so much time being against things, and we need to start spending more time, energy and effort on being for things. If you read about the life of Jesus whether it be in the Bible or by non-religious scribes of the time you will see that he spent all of his time helping people, offering practical advice, and meeting peoples needs. The only time he ever condemned anyone was when people who claimed to be doing "Gods work" were promoting their own selfish desires, like making money or pushing their own agendas. But when Jesus came upon people that didn't believe the same things he believed he just loved them, he fed them, helped them, he never once condemned them.

So how is sitting here and preaching morality to people that don't hold the same beliefs as you even close to following Jesus? I just don't understand it.

So for all of that, I apologize. I truly am sorry, and I offer nothing to justify any actions that have been contrary to this. People have done a lot of horrible things in Gods name and I feel horrible about this. I'm so sorry.

xbuddycorex, I like a lot of the things that you have said around here, but be careful that you don't over emphasize God's grace and love to the point of denying his holiness, sovereignty, and condemnation of sin.

It is true that Christians often do the most damage to their own faith and witness by not "practicing what they preach" and I too get tired of all of the protests and agendas that seem to be pushed for political or personal reasons. However, God in the old testament definitely condemned sin and Christ in the new testament did the same. There are multiple examples of him holding people accountable as he loved them. Just look at the "woman at the well" in John 4. Jesus knew her life and told her to make some changes while he showed her kindness and compassion at the same time.

The Bible teaches us that God alone has the right to Judge people's salvation status, but at the same time it tells us to be discerning in our actions, to flee from sin, and to approach brothers who are caught up in sin to restore them to right relationship with God and other believers. A lot of our culture today wants to "water down" the gospel by turning Jesus into some peace loving, non-judgmental, can't we all just get along, god is love figure.

I think you have it right when you say we as believers need to put actions to our words and spend more time being "for things". But, we must remember to be balanced in portraying all of God's attributes when we describe his character and explain what he calls us to do as followers of Christ.

skunk

Oct 6, 2009, 12:09 PM

xbuddycorex, I like a lot of the things that you have said around here, but be careful that you don't over emphasize God's grace and love to the point of denying his holiness, sovereignty, and condemnation of sin.Any being who needs others to affirm his holiness and sovereignty should be seeing a shrink.

FrankieTDouglas

Oct 6, 2009, 03:17 PM

...But, we must remember to be balanced in portraying all of God's attributes when we describe his character and explain what he calls us to do as followers of Christ.

...and then comes the religiously justifiable intolerance.

nbs2

Oct 6, 2009, 03:40 PM

there was a lot less virgin marriages in the olden days then people really knew. one of the more stupid things Christianity did was to try to over control humans and their habit of humping anything that they could.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEAH, THAT'LL WORK: Wikler Moran-Mora, 38, sent a middle-of-the-night
text message to his wife: he had been kidnaped, he said. "Don't call,
take it easy, they said they will let me go," he told her. When the
Tampa, Fla., woman said she was calling police, he quickly replied that
he had been let go. Too late: the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office
tracked down his phone and discovered Moran-Mora, a pastor at the
Christ Our Righteousness Chapel, had faked the incident as cover, since
he was with another woman, a sheriff's spokesman said. He was arrested
and charged with making a false report. "We are fine now," Moran-Mora
said the next day. "It was a mistake, and everything is solved between
us." (Tampa Tribune, WFTS-TV) ...Mistake: a given. Everything is
already "fine" and "solved" with his wife: excessively optimistic.

Did you read the rest of the email?:

COPYRIGHT 2009 by Randy Cassingham, All Rights Reserved. All stories are
completely rewritten by Randy Cassingham using facts from the noted
sources. ALL broadcast, publication, retransmission to e-mail lists,
WWW or any other copying or storage, in any medium, online or not, is
STRICTLY PROHIBITED without PRIOR written permission from the author.
MANUAL FORWARDING by e-mail to friends is allowed IF 1) the text is
forwarded IN ITS ENTIRETY, from the "Since 1994" line on top through
the end of this paragraph and 2) NO FEE is charged. We REQUEST that you
forward no more than three copies to any one person -- after that, they
should get their own FREE subscription.

Rodimus Prime

Oct 6, 2009, 04:25 PM

Did you read the rest of the email?:

COPYRIGHT 2009 by Randy Cassingham, All Rights Reserved. All stories are
completely rewritten by Randy Cassingham using facts from the noted
sources. ALL broadcast, publication, retransmission to e-mail lists,
WWW or any other copying or storage, in any medium, online or not, is
STRICTLY PROHIBITED without PRIOR written permission from the author.
MANUAL FORWARDING by e-mail to friends is allowed IF 1) the text is
forwarded IN ITS ENTIRETY, from the "Since 1994" line on top through
the end of this paragraph and 2) NO FEE is charged. We REQUEST that you
forward no more than three copies to any one person -- after that, they
should get their own FREE subscription.

Why would he want to post that. I mean it complete discredits his attack (which I think was crap to begin with)

mscriv

Oct 7, 2009, 12:11 AM

...and then comes the religiously justifiable intolerance.

Many of us who openly discuss our faith in this community have readily admitted that there are people who distort and selfishly use God's truth to further their own agenda. It would be refreshing if you would not lump us in with this group, but interact with us solely based on how we interact with you here. I am well aware there are some real judgmental and "intolerant" people who post here on MR in the name of faith, but please don't assume all of us are like them. I would like to think members like xbuddycorex, red warrior, and myself are able to show that not everyone who claims to be a follower of Christ fits your stereotype of intolerant, judgmental, right wing wackos.

bobber205

Oct 7, 2009, 12:41 AM

Many of us who openly discuss our faith in this community have readily admitted that there are people who distort and selfishly use God's truth to further their own agenda. It would be refreshing if you would not lump us in with this group, but interact with us solely based on how we interact with you here. I am well aware there are some real judgmental and "intolerant" people who post here on MR in the name of faith, but please don't assume all of us are like them. I would like to think members like xbuddycorex, red warrior, and myself are able to show that not everyone who claims to be a follower of Christ fits your stereotype of intolerant, judgmental, right wing wackos.

There needs to be more like you guys. :)

skunk

Oct 7, 2009, 02:48 AM

God's truthWhat is "god's truth"? :confused:

mscriv

Oct 7, 2009, 09:59 AM

What is "god's truth"? :confused:

Now Skunk, I think your asking a question that you already know the answer to. ;) It's no mystery that I believe the Bible is God's revelation of himself to man and that it is inspired and inerrant absolute truth. We have debated/discussed this before in other threads that went deeper into the process of how to correctly interpret scripture.

I mentioned it below in the context of how people misuse God's truth for their own agenda. I'm sure you and I are one the same page here. It's abhorrent when someone takes God's principles and falsely uses them for selfish reasons. For example, the televangelist that is really only after your money or the pro-life zealot that sees nothing wrong with bombing a clinic.

AP_piano295

Oct 7, 2009, 10:40 AM

Now Skunk, I think your asking a question that you already know the answer to. ;) It's no mystery that I believe the Bible is God's revelation of himself to man and that it is inspired and inerrant absolute truth. We have debated/discussed this before in other threads that went deeper into the process of how to correctly interpret scripture.

I mentioned it below in the context of how people misuse God's truth for their own agenda. I'm sure you and I are one the same page here. It's abhorrent when someone takes God's principles and falsely uses them for selfish reasons. For example, the televangelist that is really only after your money or the pro-life zealot that sees nothing wrong with bombing a clinic.

I think the point that skunk is making is that "God's Truth" is highly subjective. No one has talked to Jesus or god in quite a while so it all comes down to interpretation.

Someone who proclaims god hates fags believes they are fallowing gods truth and they use scripture to prove the correctness of their beliefs.

How do you know they aren't following "God's Truth"?

mscriv

Oct 7, 2009, 10:54 AM

I really don't want to get into the Christians vs. Homosexuals debate, especially since it's not what this thread is about, but I'll answer your question in this realm as an example.

I would ask people that hold that view to show me the specific texts they are using that say, "god hates fags" (your words not mine) and then talk with them about the correct interpretation of scripture by using appropriate exegetical tools like context, original language, etc.. Something that people often misunderstand is that scripture cannot be judged by us, but by other scripture. In other words if you are having a hard time understanding the intended meaning of something then you judge it against the whole and it's intended meaning. This is not a new literary concept. When you write a paper in school your teacher is basing his/her interpretation on your thesis and your ability to be consistent and cohesive in your intended meaning.

Using any form of communication out of context or adding/subtracting from the original intended meaning is wrong. Unfortunately, that's where a lot of people tend to go with the Bible. They approach it with their mind already made up about something and then look for whatever they can find to back up their predetermined belief. It's sad if you ask me. :(

AP_piano295

Oct 7, 2009, 11:56 AM