MOJO-JOJO

Actually, this is a pretty cool thought...something that Asimov and Sagan might come up with while tokin' on a fatboy together

MOJO-JOJO

Oh thank goodness....another bible-thumpin' Tennessean finally gives up his myths and joins reality (and from ultra-fundie alley to boot...Knoxville-Chattanooga! )

VirusInTheSystem

quote:Whether you believe the Bible was divinely inspired or not(and i'm guessing you do) you can't deny that it was WRITTEN by humans. And when humans wrote that god is all loving/all good in the bible, they were using human standards of goodness

of course it was written by humans. i don't think that the Bible is the infallible words of God himself. Its a collection of many different writings, letters, poetry, theology, history over a great span of time and culture. I would say the scripures are human products written as a guide for other people to help them "find" God.

For example, do you think I actually take the Creation myth literally, as some kind of scientific explanation of the universe?

I think the Bible is full of myths and fables, and that many ancient people *recognized* them as such. Its in later times that more people began to take everything literally.

peace,
-justin

xeren

That's all well and good, but what's your point?

You're starting to sound like s0uljah, from earlier in this post. s0uljah couldn't come to terms with what was being discussed so he/she started avoiding the subject by talking about what he/she thought god was thinking, and you're just doing it with the bible, and it's not getting us anywhere.

Here's my point stated again: The bible says that god is all-loving/omni-benevolent. But we live in a world where there exist things that show that god is NOT all-loving/omni-benevolent. (as i have show in my ealier posts in this topic)

Whatever you believe about god having a greater purpose or what have you, it doesn't matter. The point is that Christianity is based on the bible, and the bible is wrong about the most important thing it should not be wrong about: its god.

Kantian

Where? I'd appreciate the direct reference, please.

~Transcendental idealist~

s0uljah

If we eliminate a disease, a new one will evolve to take the place of the eliminate one. Viruses, as you probably know, are subject to natural selection as well.

s0uljah

I have actually struggled with your question myself, and there are no easy answers, in my opinion.

He does indeed seem to know who will choose Him before He makes them, and saying otherwise, would be limiting God.

I imagine He could only create those that would choose Him, but God loves freedom, and every soul that He creates, chooses for itself. We can wonder why He would allow that choice, but apparently He has a good reason.

I know that doesn't provide clear answers, but thats the best I can do for ya at this time.

Marz Blak

Ah, the Unknown Purpose defense....
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

MOJO-JOJO

I think it's obvious to see that sOuljah and VirusintheSystem are indeed being forced to wrestle with very tough questions that arise when discussing the christian faith.

When one begins to change or liberally interpret the fundamental teachings of the bible, the shift begins towards some form of early church 'mysticism', as the Episcopal Bishop Shelby Spong has done.

Here is an editorial from a guy named Tom Bethell that discusses this "Revisionist" problem. <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/story/75/story_7519_1.html" target="_blank">Resurrection vs Revisionist</a>

The final paragraph speaks to the typical problem that believers and non-believers must take sides on;

"Bishop Spong proclaims his disbelief not just in the resurrection but in biblical miracles more generally, and he does so in terms that verge on the very ridicule that he seeks to ward off ("wandering stars, angels singing to hillside shepherds and virgins who give birth"). We should state the truth plainly about Bishop Spong. As I see it, he has lost his faith. He tries to put it more delicately, and that surely is why he substitutes for rank unbelief his own blurred vision of an "Easter experience," in which Jesus "must now be seen as part of who or what God is."

The truth is that Jesus--his life, his teachings, his resurrection--is difficult for all of us to accept. But we must do so. His words and his actions are a stumbling block, not because we are so modern that we know better than to embrace the beliefs of a more primitive age, but because they are often so hard. Look again at the end of that passage from St. Paul quoted above--the passage that Bishop Spong dismisses so casually [1 Corinthians 15]. Perhaps, just perhaps, he doesn't want to think about it very much."


As fundamentalists take on the tough questions about their faith, and begin examining issues below the surface, they begin to see the faith as Bishop Spong did....man-made. In an effort to salvage it for usefulness, one then tosses out the supernatural elements, and creates somewhat of a mystical religion that we can all experience...if we simply choose to. The rest of us call it for what it is (myth, a fake, a lie, whatever), and disregard it completely....other than taking a scholarly interest in it.

But as Mr. Bethell instructs, "The truth is that Jesus--his life, his teachings, his resurrection--is difficult for all of us to accept. But we must do so." He speaks to the fear of eternal life or eternal torture, neither of which he can prove will occur.

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]</p>

xeren

god, being all powerful, could have easily stoped ANY virus from evolving or spreading. Yet he didn't.

Evil.