scumble

Are you ignoring me now, Beach?

Jayhawker Soule

Union rules.

Why couldn't YHWH create a reality that looks like the result of an evolutionary process in order to test our faith? Why couldn't the whole thing be some deceitful practical joke imposed by the Gods of the Faerie Kingdom? Once you posit a supernatural agency, all "why couldn't" questions become equally inaccessible and, therefore, equally worthless. What possible method or protocol could you use to select among an infinite set of logically possible fairy tales?

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Beach_MU

Alright, let me once again reiterate. I DO HAVE OTHER THINGS TO DO. I will comment on your points, but in the meantime perhaps you could use your free time to study up on an idea called "PATIENCE"

Beach_MU

First off I am not dodging any of your points, but I do try and answer those that can be answered quicker first because of a limited time frame. Don't presume my availability or that I'm on your time table. Some topics take longer to explain and if I don't, when I only have a few minutes free at one time, choose to answer half of your point (an act I'm sure you would criticize me for), then don't assume I'm avoiding you. As the case would be, I'm probably not going to have time at present to answer even all of your points in this post so how about demonstrating a little understanding.

That doesn't change the fact that Christianity has been used to condone it and that Jesus failed to condemn it, even when he did address the issue.

I understand that this idea ties into the "main thrust" of your argument and that's fine, and I will address that in due time, but I'm not arguing that Christianity wasn't used to condone it or that Jesus didn't condemn it in the Bible. Neither of these facts are being debated. The conclusions and implications of these facts is what is being discussed.

Ah, the Not a True Christian argument. Of course, all the preachers who defended slavery and Jim Crow felt that their interpretation was "biblical". It must be very comforting for you to know that you (and your close associates, I presume) know the "true" interpretation. I'm not sure the Catholics, Mormons, or any other Christian group you don't belong to would agree with you that you behave "biblically".

Let me present this idea. If I claim to be an evolutionist and an atheist (which I don't) and then go around and tell everyone there is a God and that he created everything and that evolution is a fraud, would you then conclude that evolutionists and atheists must therefore believe there is a God and that evolution is wrong? My point is this. By simply claiming that someone's actions are "biblical" that doesn't make them biblical. I'm not basing my definition of biblical off some weird interpretation of the Bible. In most every case of someone claiming to be Christian that isn't (as far as I'm concerned), that person takes one verse and uses it out of context, ignoring everything else the Bible teaches. I base my definition of biblical off of what the Bible says and in most cases it's extremely clear (little interpretation required) on the actions of the select groups that simply claim to be christian while doing horrible things.

(Forgive me, but my time is up and your other points will have to wait till later)

Skeptical

I realize you are busy with others in this thread and the discussion we were having regarding fossil transitions is OT for this particular board anyway. If you have some time and can look at the links I posted, I would enjoy discussing the matter with you further in the E/C board. You can send me a private message if you want and let me know when you have time to do so. I'd really like to get a chance to present the evidence to you if your willing to give it a fair hearing.

Jayhawker Soule

For what it's worth, I didn't notice anything in your post suggestive of dialogue. I was, however, somewhat curious about this: You have no belief about the Bible, but believe it to be like Plato's Republic. As a minor point, let me suggest (1) that you do have a belief about the Bible, and (2) that the Bible is nothing like Plato's Republic, e.g., there is a world of difference between folklore infused with myth and Socratic dialogue punctuated with 'noble fiction'.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Radcliffe Emerson

It's hard to explain. Part of it is, they are finding out more and more now about the original Christians, Middle Eastern people as Christ was. Christianity today is based on the bible translated in Western-style thinking, which is not what the original Christianity was. Jesus was not Western, he was Middle-Eastern, and spoke Aramaic.
The original Aramaic thoughts behind the gospels are not like our current gospels at all. The Aramaic Jesus never said he was the son of god, he never said he was the only way to the father, he never advocated eternal torment. Middle-Eastern Christianity is closer to Islam than Western Christianity, minus the strict rules about women, classes, and avoiding other religions. Islam teaches Jesus was not God, and that's exactly what Aramaic Christianity says. It's more mystic, and deals with "God" being the force that connects everything in the universe than a supreme being sitting on a heavenly throne judging people. Of course this would have been wiped out by the Roman Catholics, if they could have.
Aramaic Christians were mainly in the Turkish Empire when the Roman Catholics started killing all Christians who didn't think like them. The Turks allowed them to practice their faith, as they did not cause any harm to the Turks. So they survived, when several other sects deemed heretical because they didn't accept the Trinity were killed off. In fact, until the idiots from Europe started the Crusades to get the Holy Land back, Muslims, Christians and Jews lived side by side in Palestine and other Middle East countries peacefully.
Middle Eastern people in the early centuries did not see big differences between Judaism and Aramaic Christianity. When Islam arose later, it somewhat mirrored the Aramaic Christian thinking, but it arose first in pagan areas not accessed by those Christians.
Aramaic Christianity into the 20th century was largely isolated behind Iron Curtain countries, practicing secretly and has only been brought out in the last few decades. They're learning from them that the world's main view of Christianity in general is not Jesus at all. Traditional Christians will certainly not agree, and will be defensive, but it's true.
So yes, I tend to be deist. When I read mystical writings that talk about a deeper aware of the universe and nature around us, linking us all to something, it makes sense to me, far more than forcing creeds on people.
There is a mystical form of Islam called Sufi. They are peaceful, and have much in common with Aramaic Christians.
Where I run into problems with theism is sticking to this nonsensical idea that Jesus was God, and said he was the only way to heaven, when his original followers did not look at him as God at all. The resurrection was believed to be spiritual, and the further belief was that as God raised Jesus spirtually, God will raise EVERYONE ON EARTH spiritually, not just a chosen few.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

scumble

Well, it just seemed that way since you were answering others. I'm very patient, take your time - we're in no rush here. No need to be patronising

scumble

Put it this way - I have no belief about the Bible or Plato's republic - I was not intending to suggest the two were the same kind of work.
Perhaps you're right in some sense that I believe the Bible to be a load of stories. I could squeeze the belief out of it by saying I think it much more likely the Bible is load of stories. I certainly can't tell myself it's factual. I really don't know, and it seems wise to try and understand what the Bible contains without infusing extra meaning into it.
It's difficult to know whether I believe things or accept them as a "temporary belief" until some extra bit of information comes my way.

Well, I think humans need belief to some extent to function. I believe my house is going to be there when I go back home, although I can't necessarily guarantee it. It's probably an interesting discussion on its own.

Oolon Colluphid

Hey Beach, when you get the time 'n' all, please don't miss me off your reply-to list. And do stop by E/C. Give creation your best shot!

Oolon