"the God of the Bible" (or "unbogging the IotD blog")

<a href="http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=3626" target="new">link to IotD discussion about God, humor, the origins of the universe and why Joy is not at all tempted to quit her day job and become a lawyer</a>

This is just an effort to pack it up over there. I'm open to criticisms and queries, though I can't guarantee excuses or answers that will satisfy.

also, as I mentioned over yonder...
[email]matthew1344@hotmail.com[/email]

This is leftover from the other blog....

<b>warch</b> Tuesday Jul 8 07:55 PM
I feel compelled to pop in ...
So what about "Thou shall not kill"
I'm curious JD, about your thoughts, your personal beliefs and biblical interpretation of recent events like 9/11 or the long violence in the middle east. Is God angry and trying smite us all or something? You've stressed your faith in the absolute truth of biblical God, salvation in heaven; so can a soldier that kills another human be a true Christian? Can a leader that orders others to kill be a Christian? Could you ever imagine a time when you, as a Christian, would be justified by God in killing another human?

God justifies the justifiable actions of civil authorities. Under the Old Testament law, the community leaders were sanctioned with the authority to judge communal affairs and carry out the punishments deemed. The death penalty was the designated penalty for certain crimes, primarily for murder. If there was a case of accidental manslaughter, the killer could run to certain pre-designated cities (cities of refuge) and seek refuge until his case could be cleared and his life saved. In the Old Testament, God also commanded the Israelites to slaughter entire cities full of enemies. These were pagan people who had sacrificed their children to idols and were known for blatant evil. If you read the OT, you will note that most of the Israelites were not holy-rolling angels themselves. They had plenty of problems and were by no means inherently qualified to serve as the purgers of humanity. That was not the point. God used them as a tool (1) to bring punishment to nations who had rejected him, (2) to prevent those nations from turning on them and (3) to prevent those nations from corrupting his people spiritually.

We do not live under a theocracy today. I do believe God is ultimately in control, that he is overseeing current events, that he is acting in a manner consistent with his own character when he does witness such events. No, God did not prevent that plane crash in the Sudan, nor did he prevent those plane crashes on 9/11. I can't explain his purposes for allowing those things to happen. I can tell you I would NOT be so presumptuous (as certain "spiritual" leaders have) to say that 9/11 was God's judgment on an America that has neglected him. Certainly those suicide bombers' actions were condemnable. They will be held accountable for taking "innocent" lives. Did God sanction their attacks? No. Was God there? Yes. Is God using those attacks in the lives of people today? Yes. Will we ever know the answers to all our WHYs when it comes to 9/11? I seriously doubt it. But God is not the creator of evil simply because men carry out evil.

God's Word is clear, both in the OT and NT, that he ordains civil authorities, whether they like it or not and whether we like it or not. Romans chapter 13 (NT) is a clear layout of God's view of civil authorities. I'm not "for" war when it is avoidable. And the preeminent purpose of the Bible is certainly not to lend credence to a warmongering people. But even in the book of Ecclesiastes it says "there is a time to kill." Wartime country-defense, wartime noble-cause-defense, home-/family-/self-defense, legislated capital punishment--all of these are justifiable instances where killing is not condemned biblically.

That being said, I would personally do my dead-level best (no pun intended) to avoid killing in all circumstances. As someone with some assurance about the afterlife, I would hesitate greatly before making the decision to send another person there. And God does not promise a fair life for the Christian. We are to expect opposition, maybe even persecution to death. If someone held a gun to my head and told me to kill someone else for no apparently just reason, I would rather die--and I would.

Whereabouts are you from? Chicago?

I'm from Arkansas, and I've met many, many people who share your beliefs around here.

i was born in SC (11 years there, off and on), raised in the Indianapolis area (15 years there, off and on), Colorado for a summer. i've lived in the Chicago area now for almost exactly a year. left my heart in Colorado.

i knew one person in arkansas. guess i know two now. :biggrin: not sure to what extent it's a regional phenomenon.

God justifies the justifiable actions of civil authorities.

Well sure,why wouldn't he? ;) But defining justice has proven to be a bit gray for those with civil authority. defense seems to be the great justification, so then define a just threat, ...It seems to shift with each Bible study.

Anyway, it seems you can find just instances for killing. So can I.

Recent events and encounters with some Mennonite relatives have sparked my thinking on this. My pacifist relatives would argue that nothing of this world is worth killing another for, not even in defense. It all about salvation. A philosophy of devotion that I admire. It is consistent and absolute. They say their Faith is the true Spirit of Christ. Walking the walk. But I cant get on that bus. I love what, I have faith, is goodness and truth in the present and I know I'd fight to keep it.

Okay, well I guess I'm going to try to tackle some of your points. I'm only going to pick a few, so as to narrow it down a little.

Originally posted by joydriven
It does not matter what I think or say, nor what you think or say. God is very absolute in the Bible--very specific about how Creation took place, very specific about the only Way to heaven.

Do you really believe that? That the written word isn't open to interpretation? That translations don't skew the meaning? If it's so absolute, why all the different denominations?

And furthermore, on what evidence do you believe that God even wrote the bible? Or do you frown upon asking for evidence?

Originally posted by joydriven
God justifies the justifiable actions of civil authorities. Under the Old Testament law, the community leaders were sanctioned with the authority to judge communal affairs and carry out the punishments deemed.

Great, so the massacre of 6 million Jews under the authority of the German government was okay? What about medeval governments who would routinely torture their subjects? Is that okay with God? Is it okay with God that the Iraqi government tortured dissidents?


One more question. I'm going to be a father in November. Let's say, hypothetically, that I become a Christian before then, and I decide that I now respect God and his decisions and choices. At some point, I'm going to have to learn how to discipline my child. I decide that I'll model my behavior after the most Good person I know, God.

So I say to my child, "Clean your room. If you do this, I'll buy you ice cream. If you don't, I'll bake you in the oven. I'm preheating it to 525 degrees fahrenheit right now. The choice is yours. "

Is my diciplinary style good or evil?

Do you really believe that? That the written word isn't open to interpretation? That translations don't skew the meaning? If it's so absolute, why all the different denominations?

No, I didn't say it wasn't open for interpretation. But the Bible itself says that it is the Holy Spirit of God who gives insight (illumination) into the Bible's meaning. There are issues that the Bible is very black and white about--such as murder and adultery. Approached with a normal-literal literary approach, the ten commandments do not budge. Never is it right to kill in the sense of murder. Never is it right to take another man's wife. But the Bible is also a whole book that should be read as a whole. It should not be seen as a contradiction when the Bible says "Never" and yet allows for killing (under wartime circumstances for example) or for taking another's wife (say, if the guy dies).

There is a difference between skewed/biased/narrow interpretation and honest/as-objective-as-possible/measured-against-other-factors interpretation. We recognize this in the literary world. If I watch a movie like <i>The Matrix</i>, and I walk out of there and join you in a restaurant, and I say, <b>"You know--'There is no spoon.'"</b> Well, in what sense is that the weirdest thing you've ever heard? Taken in its context, understood in the scenario with which it was presented, that statement is a great symbolic representation of the movie's whole message. BUT... You're sitting with me in the restaurant, you hear me give that statement out of the blue, you look around the table settings and see spoons everywhere--well, you may be pretty confused and probably ticked at the apparently-ludicrous nature of the statement. You may start to worry that I'm a few French fries short of a Happy Meal.

But for some reason, people want to get all mystical and/or skeptical when it comes to the Bible. We want to jerk 10-word verses out of context and construct a system of guidelines by which we can read the rest of the Bible or just as soon not.

Being absolute truth and being interpretable are not mutually exclusive properties. I'm not saying the written Word isn't open for interpretation. On the contrary--I'm saying it is, but that we should acknowledge our human interpretations for what they are. By its definition, an absolute truth does not move--rather we are expected to live our lives in light of it. We can choose to ignore it, or we can twist it to mean what we want it to mean, but that action on our part does not necessitate change on its part.

As I mentioned above, there are issues that the Bible is black and white about. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. If there is an apparent contradiction, then the fault lies with the interpretation. When I read "God so loved the world" and I read "Jacob have I loved; Esau have I hated"--I realize that there are aspects of God that I will never be able to reconcile in my mind. I am unable to comprehend the mystery of a God who is fully good and a God who is fully great, a God who is just as loving as he is terrible. Too often, we try to squeeze God into a human-shaped box. We forget that we are like him, but he is not like us. There is a big difference.

There are other issues that the Bible is kind of grey on. For instance, good Christians have, throughout the centuries, agreed to disagree on issues such as prophecy--what is going to happen in the last times, baptism--what is the best method? sprinkling? dunking? pouring? These issues are not laid out in black and white in the Bible. They are therefore subject to broader speculation, and there are broader resulting viewpoints. You can still be a Christian and disagree with other Christians on issues like eschatology or baptism. These issues are not what we call "essential to the gospel," meaning, if they are not laid out for us in the Scriptures, then they are not essential to salvation or to a relationship with God, and are not part of the basic, fundamental creed of Christianity.

Where different people "land" on various grey issues usually does cause them to bundle up in distinct denominations--birds of a feather do flock together. Remember, there is a difference between <b>religions/faiths</b> (e.g. Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.) and various <b>denominations</b> within a religious category (e.g., Presbyterian, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.).

<b>A truly <i>Christian</i> denomination is...</b>

> one that adheres to the black and white truths of Scripture (not necessarily the passed-down man-made traditions of its institution),

> one whose basic/fundamental creed is faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ (no other Way to heaven),

> one made up of people who don't just talk all the above talk but genuinely walk it (as opposed to compromising, automatic, paid-for or inherited membership).

Wow, I'm out of time. I'll be back with other feeble explanation attempts later. :)

Is Jesus God, or was Jesus created by God? Are they similar, or are they the same thing? Christians warred and killed each other over this question for centuries. Is this justified, because if someone believed that Jesus was not God but God's son, they would be praying to a false diety and potentially (probably) go to Hell as a result?

You have stated that faith in the Bible requires some circular reasoning (I believe that it what you said). This implies to me that the Bible makes sense and verifies itself as being accurate and true, if the observer already believes that the Bible is true. From my perspective, it does not give the doubter reason to believe that it is true. This is also my perspective and problem with being awed by Christ: while impressive, what he is not spectacularly impressive if you do not take the Bible's word for his supernatural miracles, and being the son of God.

Mohammed, by contrast, did very impressive things, that seem to be possibly beyond the reach of a normal man; he excelled in so many different ways. I might be willing to stretch that he had God's help. The Islamic and Jewish view is that Jesus was one of the great Prophets but not Christ. In the 'Finger of God' Someone scowled at the Jews for not accepting Jesus' take on religion, why not scowl at Christians for not accepting Mohammed's take on religion? What would convince me, as someone who does not already wholly believe in the Bible, that Christianity is more valid than Islam or Judaism?

If God gave us free will, why would he have used the Israelites as a tool to punish those that rejected him? Isn't that part of the whole free will deal?

Comparing/defending the validity of various organized religions makes me flashback to hideous highschool pep rallies. We are number one! hey! Somehow I think God must be beyond all that.

Actually, to continue your pep rally idea:

Having competition amongst various sects pretty much ensures that MORE worship will occur. If everybody agrees that god/dess is cool and worthy of praise, does so in the same way all the time, over the centuries people will slack.

Set up a competition, though, with multiple smaller sects, each striving to prove to the others that THEIR worship is clearly more fervent and superior to the guys' next door (Particularly if the guys next door are either methodists or unitarians) ...

Torrere: Is Jesus God, or was Jesus created by God? Are they similar, or are they the same thing? Christians warred and killed each other over this question for centuries.

Your statement reiterates the need to make sure we are all on the same page (sort of like getting our watches in sync) about the definitions for the terms we use. You say Christians warred and killed <b>each other</b> over the question of Christ's deity. Believing in the deity of Jesus is essential to being a Christian in terms of biblical Christianity. Although due to a misunderstanding that is shared by the majority of the world, this is nonetheless untrue.

By the popular definition, "Christianity" is a term used for any faith that includes Jesus Christ to any extent. Therefore, all kinds of religions (notice I say religions, not denominations) get lumped into the religion Christianity. Examples of this lumping phenomenon would be the fact that Christianity is also said to include Roman Catholics, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Nazis, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. I say to you, these are <b>other</b> faiths/religions. Personally, I don't really care to claim a particular label--but I recognize the inevitable fact that I will be categorized somehow and that labels are (if defined consistently) useful. Maybe I shouldn't call myself a Christian if I feel that "my brand of" Christianity differs so from that of others who are mentally bundled with me into the same group. Historically, I am quite justified in calling myself a Christian (followers of the biblical Jesus were first called Christians/"little Christs" as a derogatory label in Antioch, which is located in present day Turkey, and those early disciples' faith is still the faith that I follow). However, so many of the distinguishing lines are being rubbed out, and so many other groups are being given this label today that it is confusing, to say the least (especially in scenarios like this--an online, cross-cultural, open-ended, all-inclusive discussion).

You see, the deity of Jesus Christ is one of those basic fundamentals in the Christian Bible. It is one of those black and white issues that are not negotiable for "good Christians" to differ over. The Jesus Christ of the Bible claimed in the Bible to BE the God of the Bible, incarnate. He is indeed the Son of God. He is also God. There are many who believe that Jesus was merely a prophet or a good man. I say only that these do not follow the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Whether our human minds can grasp the possibility of a triune God (made up of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) is not the issue. The issue is that the God of the Bible revealed himself and the essential components of the Christian-or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it-faith IN that Bible.

Therefore, it is impossible to conceive that true Christians (i.e., people who "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" and "confess with [their] mouth[s] that Jesus Christ is Lord") would fight and kill other true Christians (i.e. people who "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" and "confess with [their] mouth[s] that Jesus Christ is Lord") over the issue of Christ's GODness. Is that really what happened, or is that just the popular viewpoint (i.e., the lumping in and blurring of definitions from the perspective of outsiders looking in)?

Maybe one side of the battles was comprised of true Christians, or maybe there was a mix of true or duped Christians on either side. Maybe both sides of Holy War crusades were stocked full of ignorant men who could not read the Bible because it was not available to them in their own languages and they had been relying on pulpiteers and rumors and traditions to teach them their doctrine.

Either those fighters/killers believed in the Christ of the Bible--wherein he claims to be 100% holy God + 100% sinless man and therefore able to become the only sufficient/adequate sacrifice for sin--OR they believed in only the historical ambiguities (i.e., some guy who was really nice and maybe did some scientifically-explainable miracles or maybe the witnesses just had sunstroke that day and were hallucinating...i.e., some really good man who was just a little loony or a liar with loyal followers who stole him out of his grave so people wouldn't think he was insane for teaching what he taught or cruel for leading them on).

Torrere: The Bible makes sense and verifies itself as being accurate and true, if the observer already believes that the Bible is true. What would convince me, as someone who does not already wholly believe in the Bible, that Christianity is more valid than Islam or Judaism?

Absolutely nothing, friend. If you are looking for answers that come from flawless arguments within the realm of logic, I cannot go further than to use logic to prove to you that you rely on faith for other things and can therefore accept the Bible through faith as well.

I didn't say that circular reasoning was prerequisite to faith in the Bible. I recognize that it seems so to an extent, particularly to those in your position who doubt the Bible's qualifications and credibility. In the realm of logic/debate, using the Bible's self-claims about the Bible's authenticity and authority is not a valid method; it would be called circular reasoning. However, I am trying to point out that there may be other realms, beyond that of logic/debate. In the realm of faith (in which realm we all dabble every day on points far less consequential than the Bible's claims), circular reasoning is a non-entity.

Civilization sets the meanings of words, not you.

dave: If God gave us free will, why would he have used the Israelites as a tool to punish those that rejected him? Isn't that part of the whole free will deal?

I just watched "Henry V" last night, and I was reminded of various stories I've heard from WWII, how God seems to spare certain people/nations and allow others to get hit--regardless of the odds, regardless of the virtues and vices found on both sides of the battle. For centuries nations have asked themselves the question why fate seems to smile on other nations. God had claimed the Israelites as "his" people and was fighting for them (yes, he allowed them to conquer the pagan peoples but in highly unconventional if not miraculous ways--like marching around city walls 7x before they collapsed inward--and when incredibly outnumbered), irrespective of their many shortcomings and sin problems. There were other points in Hebrew history when God turned his back temporarily and allowed his chosen people to go into exile under the tyranny of various nations. There are other times where God has offered salvation and forgiveness to people who displayed more wickedness and seemed "far more gone" than the Israelites. For instance, when he gave the Assyrians in the city of Ninevah the opportunity to repent, and when they did, the Hebrew prophet Jonah was outraged because God had accepted the repentance of these wicked people. That is the beauty of his grace. None of us is truly innocent. All of us have a free will, but that very free will is still bent and stained with a corrupt nature. Even our free will, unaccompanied by his grace, is unable to choose rightly or respond to him rightly.

P.S.
Well, if civilization wins out on the name game regardless of its unfamiliarity with historical records and theological distinctions, it's understandable and acceptable. If we're talking about realms, this is how the cookie crumbles in the realm of linguistics/etymology. Meaning is attributed by society. I guess just call me whatever you wish. :) But if you want to know what <b>I </b>was talking about/referring to, and if we want to discuss things on the same plane, then acknowledging some parameters (even for a temporary, for-sake-of-argument scenario) is good.
Y'all are wearing me out. :D

Originally posted by joydriven
Absolutely nothing, friend. If you are looking for answers that come from flawless arguments within the realm of logic, I cannot go further than to use logic to prove to you that you rely on faith for other things and can therefore accept the Bible through faith as well.

I didn't say that circular reasoning was prerequisite to faith in the Bible. I recognize that it seems so to an extent, particularly to those in your position who doubt the Bible's qualifications and credibility. In the realm of logic/debate, using the Bible's self-claims about the Bible's authenticity and authority is not a valid method; it would be called circular reasoning. However, I am trying to point out that there may be other realms, beyond that of logic/debate. In the realm of faith (in which realm we all dabble every day on points far less consequential than the Bible's claims), circular reasoning is a non-entity.

I posit that circular reasoning is prerequisite. If you can provide me with 'absolutely nothing', then it would seem that Christianity has no more claim on truth than any other world religion, from Islam to Hinduism to Shinto. Hence, people who believe that they are properly following their own religious faith slaughtering other people who believe that they are properly following their own religious faith is ludicrous. When two groups of people who both believe that Jesus Christ is their savior slaughter each other because they disagree slightly in how they feel Christianity should be, it is barbaric.

That this seems justified to you is scary.

As for Christians killing Christians en masse over Christianity, I cite the warfare between the Trinitarian Christians and the Arian Christians, and between the Protestant Christians and the Catholic Christians. I define anyone who looks to Jesus Christ and the Bible (as they understand it) as Christian.

When two groups of people who both believe that Jesus Christ is their savior slaughter each other because they disagree slightly in how they feel Christianity should be, it is barbaric. That this seems justified to you is scary.

Hi, Torrere. Either I miscommunicated or you misread me. I was actually criticizing the so-called "Holy Wars" and made my views on murder pretty clear. As I said, we do not live in a theocracy as the Israelites did in the Old Testament. The theocracy form of government ended long before Rome conquered the Jews. With the incarnation of Jesus and the instatement of a New Covenant, things changed bigtime. The God of the Bible does not call his people to fight crusades for religion during this time period following the New Testament, and, according to the Bible, he won't do so again until the end of the world when he comes (again, incarnate) to lead it himself.

True--it's your prerogative to call me what you want, but for myself I would deny a religious association with the groups you mentioned. I would not identify myself as an Arian (again, "Arian" + "Christian" = a contradiction in terms since an Arian refuses the doctrine of Christ's deity, a doctrine which is imperative to his salvific power), nor would I identify myself with Catholics (because of other major doctrinal deviations from the Bible). These are doctrinal points of contention, not slight disagreements. As I stated before, there may have been good-but-falsely-taught people on either sides of those wars, but I would not place much stock in either side being made up of truly Christian warriors.

Just as you do not seem to fault ALL Muslims for extremist acts of Islamic terrorism (that would be absurd), nor should you assume that the "Christians" who called themselves "Christians" in the crusades you mentioned are truly representative of all who would call themselves Christians throughout history.

As has been stated, we're talking about the God of the Bible here. The one who revealed himself in the pages of a book that has lasted down through the ages as the best-selling and the most influential book of all. We're not talking about the Arian idea of God. We're not talking merely about my own personal "take" on God, about the Catholic's "take" on God or the Muslim's "take" on God.

The God of the Bible. Not the contrived, passed-down, watered-down god of traditionalism-steeped, Bible-neglecting churches. Not the alternative man-made gods (whether wooden or merely inventions of the mind) that have no ears to hear or eyes to see or hands to help people with.

Humanly, we want a god who is our own creation--something we can wrap our minds around and comprehend and find the beginning and the end of. But what true and lasting security can the offspring of mortal minds offer? Show me a book besides the Bible that wasn't written by merely wise mortals. Show me a book besides the Bible that doesn't offer another man-made alternative.

I don't want wood, hay and stubble. I don't want a god that my own village silversmith made out of silver that got into the mines as the result of a big bang or some other fantastic non-God origin. I want something bigger than me to worship. I want something bigger than any man (even nice respectible prophet-type miracle-making men) to worship. No other religion on Earth offers me anything that matches up to the God of the Bible.

Frankly, I don't even want a religion. I want a relationship. That is what the God of the Bible offers me. I haven't found a better, more substantial, more well-documented, more proven object for my faith than I find in Jesus Christ the Righteous.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hi there Joy, sorry I didn't get involved in this discussion sooner, but life has kept me busy of late.

Approached with a normal-literal literary approach, the ten commandments do not budge. Never is it right to kill in the sense of murder. Never is it right to take another man's wife.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Never? Okay, let's test that with an example situation shall we? What if a member of that marriage has asked for a divorce and been refused? Even if they've been separated for a year or more? "Never" means that for this person to have a relationship would be wrong by both biblical and legal standpoints. Is this your stance? Oh, and any child would conceived in such a relationship would definitely be a child born of sin, correct? As the child of an adulterous relationship?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;By the by, I just choose adultery because it was more fun. I could go with murder too if you like. I can think of a couple of people that really deserve murder and yes, I would think less of a person that wouldn't pull the trigger given the opportunity. I'm sure you can guess the kind of examples I'd give. Like I said, adultery is more fun.

If you are looking for answers that come from flawless arguments within the realm of logic, I cannot go further than to use logic to prove to you that you rely on faith for other things and can therefore accept the Bible through faith as well.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ok, I'll bite. Please use logic to prove that I rely faith. Note, Saying that I have faith the sun will rise or my brakes will work on my car is crap. I expect these things to happen because I understand them a bit. Expectation and faith are two different things, please don't confuse the two.

I cannot go further than to use logic to prove to you that you rely on faith for other things and can therefore accept the Bible through faith as well.

(Missed this earlier.) It's equally trivial to show you how you absolutely stake your life on things that are provable, and how you choose to avoid faith every single day, specifically as a means to staying alive and healthy.

It's equally trivial to show...

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh, I don't know UT. I think I'd like to hear this logical explanation of how I rely on faith. I really would. It sounds like a huge assumption about a large group of people she's never met and she says that she can make the argument logicaly. It sounds like a faith based assumption to me. Aren't you even curious? I am. I still want to hear it.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So relax UT. I understand that the vast majority of "Christians" us non-religious, or at least non-christian types meet belittle, insult and threaten us. Torture for all eternity is an impressive threat too. Still, you don't actually have to take offense and I'd really like to understand the point of view of somebody on the other side. No, the arguement won't win anyone over, but I want to understand the idea behind it, why they think it should. Joy seems willing to talk, let's let her.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I also want to address the absolutism of the ten commandments. Sounds interesting.

Well, I've avoided this thread because Joydriven's posts are way, way too long. Joydriven, I really think you'd do a better job of convincing people if made your points with fewer words.

And also, you only answered one of my questions. Could you respond to all the others as well? It's your choice, of course, but I'm curious as to your reponse. Especially my last question.

You guys are funny.

joy: This is hard to explain simply. Let me use an analogy. ANALOGY

others: Joy, your analogy rotted here and here and here. Explain your position.

joy: Um, an analogy is never going to be perfect in every point, but can't you see the benefit of finding some familiar point of reference that we can all identify with quickly? Like in ANALOGY ANALOGY ANALOGY?

others: Joy, all your analogies just do not cut it. Face it, you are not good at this. Can't you just talk in plain English?

joy: Ok. It's just really hard to size up succinctly AND clearly, but here goes another attempt... (insert on and on and on discussion).

others: Too long. Please explain the theology of entire world civilizations past present and future flawlessly. In plain English. And be brief now, mind you.

:D

I really will work on it. Thinking now. Believe it or not, I prefer concision myself. But concise AND clear is a real tough combination of goals when a gracious-but-skeptical audience brings such a vast spectrum of experience to the table. ( insert the 'one of me and lots of you' pity party spiel here. :) )

&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Um, joy? How 'bout a simpler question then? Why is it that you always make it sound like we're being really rude, even attacking you when it's either simple discussion or constructive critisism?
&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Nobody said "you're not good at this" or "you're ananlogy rotted" nor even asked you to "explain the theology of entire world civilizations past present and future flawlessly" Why attack yourself when we aren't?

joy: Ah. Foiled again.

:)

I said you are a gracious but skeptical audience, and it seems like a fair evaluation at least on this subject. I was asked (about 20 pages back or so) to lay off the analogies, but I'm not offended. I'm actually kind of impressed that you guys are reading me in spite of me. I find that incredibly gracious. And if you weren't skeptical I would worry.

I was actually enjoying this thread, because of the quality of the exchanges, and because the tenor was so notably pleasant. I think joydriven has done a better job than most True Believers I have been forced to endure to try to make a case for chosing to believe, well, something.

As I have grown older, I have (finally!) realized that the differences among the various theists are but tiny gaps, compared to the giant chasm separating theists from agnostics and atheists. But why lump the latter two together? Because it seems that it is not what one believes, but the fact that one is capable of believing that separates the two groups of people.

This may seem obvious, but once I noted my own absence of "faith" I found that this was a condition which permeates my being, not just my religious beliefs (or lack therof). With interest, I noted that those of my friends who are truly faithful to their religious convictions (not just "following the rules" and who don't try to "prove" that theirs is the right or only way) seem to have remarkable amounts of "faith" or "belief" in other areas of their life, as well.

I have come to accept that no arguement, no amount of discussion, no proported "facts" will ever sway me, as I lack the essential ability (desire?) to believe -- to go on pure faith. There have been times of enormous strife in my life when I have wished that I could believe, so that some sense or reason or comfort could be gleaned, but it seems I just don't have it in me. I no longer scorn or privately sneer at those who do, however, if it gives them some of that sense or comfort. Sometimes I wonder if it is better to believe a whole lot of bunk and get something out of it, than to believe absolutely nothing.

Note: This takes no account of how organized religion has historically been used to subdue the masses and accomplish nefarious agenda; I'm talking merely of current, individual experiences of the comfortable, well-educated classes in one of the wealthiest countries in the most enlightened age in human history.

Originally posted by 99 44/100% pure
This may seem obvious, but once I noted my own absence of "faith" I found that this was a condition which permeates my being, not just my religious beliefs (or lack therof). With interest, I noted that those of my friends who are truly faithful to their religious convictions (not just "following the rules" and who don't try to "prove" that theirs is the right or only way) seem to have remarkable amounts of "faith" or "belief" in other areas of their life, as well.

I am an example of another variety... I have great faith in many things, just not in a Creator, at least not in the sense that the Creator is a sentient, all-knowing, all-seeing being which intentionally created All That There Is. Such a being would understand me, and would therefore know that I cannot accept His/Her/Its existence without solid evidence.

I have faith in my friends. I have faith that doing good things will bring one good fortune, whether you want to call it Karma or just a side-effect of society. I have faith that the laws of physics which I depend on for my very life will never change. These faiths, like many others, may be misplaced... but I have these faiths based on my own observations. I have good, solid reasons to have these faiths other than the fact that I want to, and/or that it makes me feel happy and whole.

I am aware of no religion which claims that the Creator will greet us in the afterlife, regardless of how wrong we were about everything, put to us the question "What did we learn from our time on Earth?" and accept us as we are. Such a religion might appeal to me, because it allows me to just go through life as a good, decent person without fearing the irrational wrath of a God who felt ignored... nevermind that He/She/It supposedly sent me here, removed my memory of Him/Her/It, and commanded that I worship Him/Her/It based on zero substantial evidence. If there is a God, I cannot accept that He/She/It would be foolhardy enough to create such an obviously dead-ended scenario. Thus my conclusions.

I don't know about other religions, but in Mormonism, it is considered a great sin to ask God for evidence that He exists. Hah! The needle on my bullshit-o-meter is getting bent from spending so much time against the peg. Bah.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a loving, forgiving Creator. I just don't like the idea of suspending logic and reason in favor of said Creator.

Juju: On what evidence do you believe that God even wrote the bible? Or do you frown upon asking for evidence?

I don't frown upon asking for evidence, no. On the other hand, I can't guarantee that the 'evidence' that satisfies me as convincing will satisfy your curiosity. The Bible itself says 'faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen' (Hebrews 11:1). In this scenario, my trust in invisible/intangible 'evidence' supercedes my trust in visible/tangible 'evidence.' Some would say they seek something more substantial than faith. My premise is that faith is the most substantial evidence, and seeking other = settling for less.

In spite of some apparent inconsistencies (which I've said before could be explained if approached in context of the whole book and with an understanding of basic scribal errors), the Bible shows an incredible unity in its parts and as a whole. For a book that was written over a period of 4000 years by hundreds of human hands, the Bible is unprecedented and unmatched by any other work throughout history. It has stood as a unified whole and yet can be divided into sections of history, poetry, prophecy, letters, etc., all of which have gathered note as excellent representations of the literary genre and style in which they were written. Considering the huge span of cultures/ages that were crossed and the diversity of the authors' styles and backgrounds, I see no other way to explain the fact that this one book manages to carry one main theme to generations of readers, and has been doing so for centuries now. Its historical and linguistic references are verified in countless extra-biblical, secular historical and linguistic accounts, and I could not begin to expound (briefly) the mountain of textual evidence that supports both the validity of the Old and New Testaments.

It really is too bad that the content of the Bible is so controversial, because otherwise I think we would count it far more reliable a resource than most other books selling like wildfire on shelves today.

The Bible's own testimony is that it was inspired by God, that 'holy men of old were moved by the Holy Ghost' to write it. And once I am willing to take that step of accepting such a preposterous suggestion, things start falling in place. That's why, for instance, there is such a harmony to the four gospel accounts,
even though Matthew had formerly been a tax collector working for the enemy and keifing his own share of his fellow countrymen's income, even though Luke was a Greek doctor who used the more scholarly sentence structures and wrote with Gentiles in mind after having traveled with Paul, etc. The Bible also says 'all Scripture was given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness,' and also quotes from the Old Testament in multiple locations. To me, these New Testament claims and quotes, made over 400 years after the last OT book was written--along with the numerous examples in the NT of specific OT prophecies that were fulfilled--combined with the physical and circumstantial phenomena that surround the Bible's existence, are too uncanny to be written off as mere coincidence or contrivances of men. I have to conclude that the Bible must be a supernatural book.

MAN. I WAS GOING TO BE BRIEF. :(

One more question. I'm going to be a father in November. Let's say, hypothetically, that I become a Christian before then, and I decide that I now respect God and his decisions and choices. At some point, I'm going to have to learn how to discipline my child. I decide that I'll model my behavior after the most Good person I know, God. So I say to my child, "Clean your room. If you do this, I'll buy you ice cream. If you don't, I'll bake you in the oven. I'm preheating it to 525 degrees fahrenheit right now. The choice is yours. " Is my diciplinary style good or evil?

Sorry, this is over my head. If you'd like, feel free to say you've stumped me. I cannot express the fathoms that separate these scenarios from the real thing. There is no way to up the stakes.

God didn't say 'clean your room.' God said, 'acknowledge me for what I am and what I've done.' By nature, we aren't scrambling around trying to do good or glorify God.

God doesn't work with ultimatums as we humans view them. If we were talking about a person drowning, it is not a matter of a precocious God withholding a lifeboat or popping the only available one, when some poor guy just fell into the water. It is a matter of God in his grace and mercy reaching down to miraculously save a drowning person who jumped in the first place, bent on committing suicide.

The Bible actually compares God to the father who is awaiting his runaway son's return, upon which he rejoices and throws a huge party in spite of all the things that son has done to grieve him. The Bible compares God to a shepherd who leaves his 99 safe sheep in the fold and goes searching because he notices 1 is missing. The Bible isn't even comparing when it describes God coming down off his judge's bench and saying, here I'll take his penalty so that justice is met. It just flat out describes the scene--a cross where a sinless God-Man died to wipe out the sins of any runaway sons and lost sheep who cared to look to that divine penalty-taker.

God made your son. God made the components for ice cream and ovens and your mind and he is indeed a good model for discipline. There just is no comparison.

[COLOR=purple]OK, I normally stay out of the whole religious thing, being an ex-Mormon, but I felt compelled to discuss one of my issues with God.

It stems from the story in 2 Samuel, chapter 6. The following is the text from the King James Version: [/color]

1 Again, David gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand.
2 And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.
3 And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart.
........
6 And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.
7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.


[color=purple]

OK, so to paraphrase, There were a BUNCH of folks taking the Ark to Jerusalem, and the oxen stumbled. The Ark of the Covenant was in danger of falling into the muck, mud and mire. This sacred, holy relic was about fall into uncleanness. So this guy, a son of Abinadab, one of the priests, reaches out, falls face first into the shit, and saves the Ark with one hand. Puts it back on the cart, then BAM!!!! God strikes him dead. Why?

He touched the ark.

This really pissed me off. Uzzah saved this precious thing, this devine relic, and how does he get paid back? He gets smited (smote?) right there by the Ark.

I've talked to priests, preachers, bishops and other assorted religious "leaders" about this, and they all say the same thing: Uzzah was told not to touch the ark. Ever. He disobeyed, so God killed him as divine punishment for breaking the law.

That's not good enough for me. God is supposed to be benevolent, forgiving. Just. Uzzah was only trying to save the Ark. God was, in essence, being an asshole to prove a point. I can't get behind that.

Do I believe there is a Creator? Yes. A god/dess? Yes. The bible says there are many Gods. I also belive in Karma, and the threefold rule. I believe in the afterlife. If I had to classify myself as anything, it would be Wiccan/Druidic. I believe the Yahweh of the bible is a spiteful, jealous God.

And that's my (already too long) rant.

[/COLOR]

No problem, Onyx. When the Jews broke the covenant with God that ended the old testament. Done/Fini/Closed. Has no bearing on us today, just ancient history.

Another ex Mormon? The whole Mormon thing is freaky. Didnt Smith rewrite a new "inspired" bible with the help of God? that seems pretty ballsy. Whats the whole latterday saints thing? I guess I could surf around and learn this meself, but hey...

http://www.religioustolerance.org - So you can find out all the fucked up stupid shit about various religions.

Ummm... I guess Susquehanna County PA has to take some credit for the Mormon movement, ... our apologies (although whatever works for you, its your life your deal, just stay off my deck). Its interesting how ugly the locals were towards the movement then and how accomodating they are now that they're established and are have some economic clout. The town of Susquehanna is positioning itself as the LDS Mecca since Smith had his visions near there. I've surveyed in the area where it all went down and there were some interesting notes about the whole thing in the deeds we researched. The Mormons went through some serious abuse to get where they are though. If you read some of their history folks were practically killing them for sport.

Originally posted by warch
Another ex Mormon? The whole Mormon thing is freaky. Didnt Smith rewrite a new "inspired" bible with the help of God? that seems pretty ballsy.

[COLOR=purple]He started an inspired version, but was martyred before he could finish it. I have never seen a copy of it, but from the excerpts I've seen on ex-mormon.org, which shows King James version next to NIV next to JSR (Joseph Smith Rendition), the guy was wack. It's just not even close. [/COLOR]

Whats the whole latterday saints thing?

[color=purple]The major idea is that Joseph Smith brought about the restoration of the church through revelation as a prophet of God. All Mormons are called "Saints" and we are living in the Latter Days. Hence the name. [/color]

Wow! I learned a bit from some disgruntled former mormons at http://www.utlm.org/ Yikes. Christianity it aint.

&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbspHey, anybody remember this thread? It's pretty old but I still like the fig tree and fish things. http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?threadid=2954

There's a new book on the church by the guy who helped get those yuppies killed on Everest a while back.

[NY Times.... register.... blahblahblah]

Is it Jon Krakauer, by any chance? If so, cool. Who did he kill this time?

Yeah, author of Into Thin Air. Damn good book.

Looks like he's killing American made fundies.

In the book, Mr. Krakauer examines Mormon fundamentalists, the tens of thousands of true believers living mostly in Utah who broke away from the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The splinter groups are the American Taliban, Mr. Krakauer says, living in desert theocracies where pubescent girls are forced into marriages with old graybeards who rule with an iron fist. These polygamous communities are against the law, but usually tolerated by officials who see a little bit of great-grandpa's pioneering ways in the modern sects.

[COLOR=red][FONT=times new roman]WARNING: Blatant attempt at thread hijacking ahead[/FONT][/COLOR]

After a few minutes of reflection, I realize that that was a nasty thing to say about Mr. Krakauer. He didn't really kill anybody. At 28,000 feet, hypoxic, frostbitten and dehydrated, I'm sure he did the best he could.

If you liked <u>Into Thin Air</u>, you'll also enjoy <u>Everest: Mountain Without Mercy</u>. It's a National Geographic book written by a guy named Broughton Coburn. It's chock full of photos from the IMAX crew that happened to be on the mountain at the same time as the doomed pair of yuppie moron expeditions, and subsequently helped drag the surviving yuppies down off the mountain after half a dozen of them found out the hard way that buying a $400 Mountain Hard Wear jacket doesn't really make you a rugged, outdoorsy type.

I found my copy in the bargain bin at B&N a while back. It's worth $6.99 if you can find it.

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
[COLOR=red][FONT=times new roman]WARNING: Blatant attempt at thread hijacking ahead[/FONT][/COLOR]

After a few minutes of reflection, I realize that that was a nasty thing to say about Mr. Krakauer. He didn't really kill anybody. At 28,000 feet, hypoxic, frostbitten and dehydrated, I'm sure he did the best he could.

Sort of nasty but its my understanding that thats pretty much his own assessment. Although he may just be feeling guilty about the gobs of money he made.

HB - I've already got it. It's a good one. :) Another one too, of which I can't remember the name... but it's got pictures of <b>dead people</b>, and in <b>vivid color</b>. Good stuff!

One really interesting bit to the original question is, "Did God say that?"

In college a friend made an interesting discovery in her Ancient Greek class. They used the Bible as thier translation medium at the time (Greek on the left, English on the right).

The Greek text used the words most literally translated as "Thou shalt not murder" (apparently, in Greek there is a word better suited to Murder than Kill...) but the translation we all came to read was "Thou shalt not kill".

Puts a different twist on it, eh?

interesting thought, BryanD. and a good reminder that i need to come back here sometime and answer to warch's invitation.

I saw a license plate frame on a VW Jetta today that said, "God can't be everywhere at once. That's why he made grandmothers."

And I thought, "Cute, except that directly contradicts the notion that 'God is Omnipotent'. Jesus Christ, don't religious people even attempt logic anymore??"

Of course, that also reminds me of another recent, un-religous conversation I had.

I asked my mom why strangers and aquaintances kept asking me what Kathy's due-date is. The information is completely worthless to them. What possible use would they get out if it? The question just serves to irritate me, because I know all they'll do in response is nod and then never, ever use the answer for anything.

But in response, she just told me I was too serious. :)

That, or you're being a firestarter (which you seem to do here too). :)

Did you just call me a troll?

It's not your sole purpose, so I wouldn't call you a troll.

, don't religious people even attempt logic anymore??"

It's not the religious people that are illogical, it's grandmothers.

why strangers and aquaintances kept asking me what Kathy's due-date is.

I'm not casting any aspersions here but when coworkers tell me about their pregnant wife that's all I can think of to say. Maybe subconsciously I'm marking the date to start avoiding them. That's when the baby stories and pictures start.;)

.

Maybe the grandmothers in question subscribe to a religion where God isn't omniscient.

Sorry, been busy for the last few days. Damn shame, this has been a pretty juicy topic.

I personally walk the Roman Catholic path, as any good Irish boy from Queens is wont to do. Now, despite the efforts of the Plum soccer moms to deny me my education in my chosen faith, I have succeeded in learning one thing or another - namely, purgatory.

When I first heard of purgatory, I figured it was a dogmatic cop-out, and dismissed it from my mind. But after reading up and learning, I'm thinking that it's probably the core solution here. To infer from Matthew and Revelations, only those of a perfect soul can stand there and see God without turning into metaphysical goo. As follows, since no one is perfect, one spends some time to dust off the lint before stepping into the club.

Now, of course, the Catechism has this as a Catholic-only thing, all non Catholics will be subject to one circle of Hell or another, etc. etc., but to look past that, it gives one the impression that so long as you fly right, whatever minor things you pick up will be taken care of later no matter what you believe.

Do I believe that Jesus is the qualifier for the club, yeah. But it's like a classy restaurant - If you show up without a jacket and tie but look nice, clean, etc., they'll spot you one at the door. You just have to wait around for a bit.

Originally posted by joydriven
As someone with some assurance about the afterlife, I would hesitate greatly before making the decision to send another person there. And God does not promise a fair life for the Christian. We are to expect opposition, maybe even persecution to death.

Hi Joy,

You give a rare perspective to Christianity in these three sentences. When I read the first sentence I thought, "what decision do I make in sending other people there *unprepared* because I didn't live in obvious relationship with God and didn't speak to them about God?"

I don't mean to try to motivate myself by guilt, but not sure how I can escape guilt if I just avoid the responsibility and opportunity to participate in God's working. And it isn't guilt I feel so much as the importance of the opportunity. I think your last two sentences are important in that our transformation is best accomplished, and best revealed to others, in the unfairnesses and oppositions of life and how we face and endure them.

Anyway, I enjoyed your very thoughtful posts and wanted to let you know you got me thinking.

Originally posted by Chewbaccus
When I first heard of purgatory, I figured it was a dogmatic cop-out, and dismissed it from my mind. But after reading up and learning, I'm thinking that it's probably the core solution here. To infer from Matthew and Revelations, only those of a perfect soul can stand there and see God without turning into metaphysical goo. As follows, since no one is perfect, one spends some time to dust off the lint before stepping into the club.

Great explanation of purgatory. It seems to me you've nicely summed up the relatively minor difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestants with this example.

For both Roman Catholic and Protestant, Jesus' death for us is critical to salvation and heaven. For the Roman Catholic, His death provides us opportunity to enter purgatory to be cleansed from minor unconfessed sins and thereby be made ready for heaven. For the protestant, Jesus' death on the cross makes us ready for heaven, not just ready for purgatory.

Protestants think of Jesus as having cleansed us of the penalty for all sin in His death for us; taking care of both hell and purgatory; removing the dirt and grime of sin as well as the lint and dust.

Yeah, my mother was originally Scots Presby before converting when she married my father, and she still has that core of confident faith about how things will turn out. I, however, can't even make plans for an afternoon next week without worrying what might happen to derail them.

[COLOR=indigo]OK, FNF, you start. I'm really looking forward to this. :)[/COLOR]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[color=indigo]
Now. In the above quote, the part you left out is this: Abraham takes Isaac to the mountain to sacrifice his child, because God told him to. When he gets up there, he raises his hand to kill his son, and the angel of the Lord stops him, and tells him, you have not withheld your only son. (So, it was a test of Abraham's faith.) Abraham doesn't kill his son.
[/color]

The fact that Abraham didn't end killing his son does not make the story any less ridiculous.

All that would make the story MORE ridiculous would be if God actually said, "Just kidding!" or "You're on candid camera!"

[COLOR=indigo]But that's not what FnF tried to imply with his quote. He tried to imply that the bible says God wanted human sacrifice. That is not the case.[/COLOR]

I'm knew at blog rings and what not, so forgive me if i've posted this improperly in some shape, way, or fashion.

Anyway, hello. I have a question, joydriven.

I know a guy from Gambia, Africa (tiny little place on the east coast) and he follows Islam. I, however, am atheist. We joke from time to time and exchange tidbits just to playfully bother eachother. He is probably one of the greatest people I know.

But you see, spending time with him raised an interesting question:
Where will god place followers of other religions in the Kingdom of Heaven, supposing they are even allowed there in the first place?

Originally posted by gobbledygook
Where will god place followers of other religions in the Kingdom of Heaven, supposing they are even allowed there in the first place?

*raises hand and bounces frantically up and down in his seat*

Ooh! Ooh! I know! I know!

Why was Abraham asked to sacrifice his 12-year-old son?







Because if he'd been 13, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice.

Ba-DUM-bum! :haha:

As I understand it, the pre-Christian (maybe pre-Jewish?) roots of the faith in YHWH did require sacrifice. I suspect that the faithful were required to make sacrifices to be absolved of sins.

I talked about this with my landlord nearly a month ago, as he happens to have a Master's in Theology. He started studying as a devout Roman Catholic, and finished up as a fierce atheist.

The death of Christ was 'the greatest sacrifice that could ever be made'. Because Christ was sacrificed, the people of the faith no longer had to make sacrifices.

Bob thought that it was kinda wierd that, because God wanted to forgive us of our sins, he sacrificed his son so that he could forgive us of our sins.

(I also introduced him to the idea, found in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, that the religion amongst the tribes in the hills of Ethiopia. Not only is this were the language family (of Hebrew and Arabic) comes from, but supposedly they still have a tradition of vowelless G-Ds and a Y-H-W-H [and some other stuff that I can't remember].)

[COLOR=indigo]But that's not what FnF tried to imply with his quote. He tried to imply that the bible says God wanted human sacrifice. That is not the case.[/COLOR]

Yes, but God did ask for a human sacrifice, initially. I think FNF left out the end of the story because everyone knows how it ends anyway. It was part of what his whole posting was trying to point out: the God of the Old Testament was cruel and bizarre.

[color=indigo]
Then the system broke down. The morals and "uptightness" of the 50's (which I would venture to say were more religious in nature in the U.S.) gave way to the "make love not war" of the 60's and "free thinking" and the feeling that "I can do what I want." Men were beating their women, not taking care of them, some were alcoholics, taking drugs, whatever. In essence, men (generally) stopped taking care of THEIR responsibilities and women had to support themselves and their children. Divorce rates started rising, and once that happened, you saw a rise in the feminist movement.
[/color]

It wasn't until the '70s or the '80s when women were even empowered to stand up against abusive husbands. Even today, it is hard for some to break free. I think it's ridiculous to say there was any rise in domestic abuse in the '60 or '70s. I don't think I can prove it though, because NOBODY TALKED ABOUT DOMESTIC ABUSE BEFORE the 1960s. For centuries, men have used the bible as a justification for abusing their wives. Men and women alike have used the bible as justification for beating their children. It is only in this modern (or what preacherswife2u would call "sinister") era that this has idea has been debunked. And thank God (gods? goddess?) for that.

The 1950s was not all roses. Biblical times were even worse.

[color=indigo]
So marriage (and by biblical standards, the wife being subserviant to her husband) was a solemn, sacred thing. If a man was a drunk and didn't work, what father is going to give his daughter to him? Men were supposed to care for, and cherish all his possessions, yes, even his wife.
[/color]

What kind of father would give his daughter to an abusive drunk? Maybe the same kind who would force his daughter to marry her rapist:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

28: If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29: Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 KJV

28Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught,
29 they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and can never divorce her. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 CEV

28 If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged to be married and coerces her into lying with him, and people find out about it,
29 the man must pay the girls father about one and one-fourth pounds of silver. He must also marry the girl, because he has dishonoured her, and he may never divorce her for as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NCV

[COLOR=indigo]I understand what you're saying, but due to the vastly different versions of this passage, it is unclear to me whether it's rape or seduction. If you look in the preceding verses, it talks about if a man rapes an engaged woman, but the orginal word is a different word than the word used in the verses above. Since I can't read aramaic, hebrew or greek, I can only go by 4 or 5 different sites on the internet on this, but it is possible to see the words used in the original language, and it IS different from one verse to the other, suggesting to me, different meaning.


[size=1]BTW: The laws of this chapter were Mosaic law, which, as you probably know, were overturned in many instances due to Jesus' role in salvation and redemption. Just to note: this will be my argument in probably any OT subject. Since Christians are by definition redeemed by Jesus, please limit debate to NT scripture.[/size] [/COLOR]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]
[size=1]BTW: The laws of this chapter were Mosaic law, which, as you probably know, were overturned in many instances due to Jesus' role in salvation and redemption. Just to note: this will be my argument in probably any OT subject. Since Christians are by definition redeemed by Jesus, please limit debate to NT scripture.[/size] [/COLOR]

Why? I'm certainly glad that the laws don't apply today, but that doesn't make any difference to my arguments. The laws did apply at one time, and this defines the character of God. It has nothing to do with whether the laws apply or not.

PreachersWife2U says God is good and unchanging.

FNF says no, God of the bible (OT and NT, most people believe they are the same god) is cruel and unjust, and He changes all the time.

I'm with FNF on this one.

[COLOR=indigo]
Two rebuttals here:
(1)
The LAWS changed, God didn't. There's a big difference. Another example (although this is probably not the best one) is the US Constitution. (Put aside for a moment the amendments, which changed the document, this example is more figurative than literal).

The Constitution is the governing document, the highest form of law in the United States. No law can contradict the Constitution.

However, laws have been passed on the local, state and in some cases, federal level that have later found to have been Unconstitutional. So they changed the laws to better fit the need of the people, while still being in line with the Constitution. The laws changed, the Consitution didn't.

(2)
Society is an ever-changing structure. The bible teaches, as preacherswife2u has stated, that we are to follow the law of the land unless it conflicts with bible teachings. Many of the Mosaic rules in Deuteronomy and the OT were questionable to the people of Jesus' time (however much later that was after Moses). Jesus came along and answered questions (see the quote I posted about divorce) and clarified things, knowing he was going to be the sacrificial lamb of God. Therefore some of the LAWS changed, like animal sacrifices. That does NOT mean by default the God changed.

Now. As far as "Good" and "Unjust" and the other words you used, those terms are pretty broad. For example, God said, "No one may touch the Ark of the Covenant, upon penalty of death." and then someone touched it to save it from the mud and horse shit in the road as it fell off the wagon. That man was struck by lightning. God smote him. Was God "unjust"? Was the man who tried to save this most holy of relics from horse shit and filth "bad"? I feel that the answer is no. God said, "Don't do it or I'll kill you." Mr. Guy, even with the best of intentions, did it anyway. And paid the penalty. That is justice.

Now, I'm hearing arguments about "Well why would God ask such a thing?", specifically regarding Abraham. Well, not being able to speak for God, only having the story to go by, I think about it like this:

You're God, and your plan is to make a great nation of people that (hopefully) worship you. You want to pick the kind of people that are going to be loyal and follow your word to the letter. Do do whatever you tell them to do, because they believe in you. They believe that you will do what is right, and help them out in the face of many trials and tribulations. You have this one guy and his family in mind to give all this power and glory, knowing that your divine son will be born of this line of people. You really wanna give this gift to this guy, but you aren't real sure he's worthy. He seems to be, but when the chips are down, would he give up everything for you? Even his son?

Abraham was told, "go do it". So without question, without hesitation, Abraham said, "Yes Lord." And he took his only son to kill him for God. And he raised his hand, and although he didn't want to, he was ready to kill his only son. But God stopped him in time. He didn't really want Isaac as a sacrifice, but wow, Abraham was really a loyal, God-loving man. And so this great gift was bestowed upon him and his descendants. Of course it was a test.

It's also an allegory for God's love through his son, but that gets preachy. So I'll leave it there.

In addition, you didn't comment on the whole rape/seduction rebuttal....[/color]

If God hasn't changed since the Old Testament, then I certainly don't want to worship Him.

As for the whole rape/seduction thing, rape is everywhere in the bible, especially the OT. I'm just too lazy to drag out all the quotes today. My opinion (because I don't Hebrew, Aramaic or Latin or Greek either): The line between rape and seduction is quite blurry anywhere in the Bible. Since women weren't supposed to have a will of their own in Biblical times, I don't think there was a huge distinction between rape and seduction.

If you don't mind me asking, why are you defending the Bible and its followers? Didn't you say you were Wiccan or Pagan somewhere else? (BTW, I'm glad you're back in Cellar.)

[COLOR=indigo]Yes, I'm Wiccan, but in the course of choosing that lifepath, I've made extensive study of many different religions, and the bible in particular. Wicca is a very tolerant path, and many seek it after having bad experiences in the other major traditions. Not to mention my husband is very Christian, and we have many of these debates in reverse. :)

I defend the bible because I like to debate, as long as it doesn't get personal, and I need to hone my style and the syntax with which I post my thoughts. This seemed as good a place to start as any. I should be more active, now that Dave is gone, and I have made judicious use of the ignore feature and dont have to worry so much about personal attacks. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=indigo]I also want to point out that I'm not the only one that gets to defend the bible ova heya! Others feel free to post, too!![/COLOR]

Originally posted by gobbledygook

Where will god place followers of other religions in the Kingdom of Heaven, supposing they are even allowed there in the first place?

as noone has picked up this question I'll take a shot at it from my POV.


The way I understand the RCC teachings (Roman Catholic Church) It helps a great deal to 1) Be Catholic, 2) if not a Catholic at least to be a Christian (as in being a true believer of Jesus).

HOWEVER, neither of these two are mandatory requirements to getting through the pearly gates. (And of course, falling into one of those categories is not a free ticket either.) Getting into heaven involves being in a state of grace, and not being weighed down by any mortal sins and such.

I couldn't be sure, but I would think someone like Gandhi is a good candidate for Catholic heaven... And according to South Park, Saddam is up there too.

Originally posted by Slartibartfast


as noone has picked up this question I'll take a shot at it from my POV.


The way I understand the RCC teachings (Roman Catholic Church) It helps a great deal to 1) Be Catholic, 2) if not a Catholic at least to be a Christian (as in being a true believer of Jesus).

HOWEVER, neither of these two are mandatory requirements to getting through the pearly gates. (And of course, falling into one of those categories is not a free ticket either.) Getting into heaven involves being in a state of grace, and not being weighed down by any mortal sins and such.

I couldn't be sure, but I would think someone like Gandhi is a good candidate for Catholic heaven... And according to South Park, Saddam is up there too.

Well, you have my vote for Pope, but you should check out what the Vatican has to say on the subject at

DECLARATION "DOMINUS IESUS" ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

The high points are:

1. The Lord Jesus, before ascending into heaven, commanded his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world and to baptize all nations: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk 16:15-16); “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the world” (Mt 28:18-20; cf. Lk 24:46-48; Jn 17:18,20,21; Acts 1:8).

It appears that according to this statment, Ghandi does not get a 'get out of Hell' card.

The rest of the document discusses Catholocism in relation to other religions. Here the church declares itself the one true religion while not completely denouncing other faiths. The justification for this is:

Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors'”.27 Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.

This states that anything good found in other religions was inspired by Jesus. I guess this includes paganism, although Christ affecting a religion which predates his birth would have to be considered another miracle. Then again, I don't know enough about paganism to say how far back the 'writings' go.

The Vatican has a problem in that, if they come down too hard on other religions, people go around committing hate crimes and atrocities. If they are too accomodating and inclusive, they become less unique and run the risk of losing their identity and message in a sea of multiculturalism. This document was written in 2000 and basically says "we're going to play nice, but let's not forget who's top dog around here".

Im not an expert in theology or advertising. However, if you've ever read anything about 'brand identity', you can see the issues they have to deal with.

From an interactive website to a business card, a brand must be recognizable, differentiated and help build customer loyalty.

This is from a book description on Amazon.

Religion is an idea. It is one idea in a marketplace of ideas. Anything in a marketplace usually differentiates iteself from the otghers by branding. Almost anyone in the US has at least some mental picture about most of the religions in the US. A lot of these ideas might be slightly or completely wrong, but they still exist. We sort of know the difference between a Baptist, Buddhist, Catholic, and Jew. These labels have meanings to us. We probably do not know every type of Christian or Jew, or the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, but the rough outlines are there.

Heaven (or enlightenment) is the prize in many of the world's religions. It's the equivalent to the toy suprise inside a cereal box or the frequent flyer miles attached to a credit card. Noone can prove it exists, and everyone understands that those who are rewarded don't usually come back to show those still working towards those rewards (expect in certain instances always witnessed by someone else). In some cases, the desire for confirmation leads to sightings in the frost on a window, a knot in a tree stump, etc.

The interesting area in all of this is the effort to treat religion as a science. Religious science is an oxymoron. Religion is based on faith, which is the existence of belief without proof. If anything, the fact that Jesus is a historical as well as religious figure, probably complicates things. Moses and Mohammed were prophets. While they occupy a special place in their religions histories, their followers never claimed divinity for them. Moses especially is even written in the Bible as a flawed character.

So, they're them, we're us, and we all have to get along and try to concentrate on our similarities and desire for a stable society. This does not, however, mean that Christianity, at least in the eyes of the Vatican, has to share it's heaven with non-Christians. In some way, this mirrors the 'restricted' country clubs and resorts in the first half of the 20th century in the U.S. The response to this by the Jewish men and women who were excluded was to build bigger and better clubs and resorts. It might be that in the same way I will not end up in the same heaven as the popes. Taking a look back at early papal history, I don't really mind this.

The interesting area in all of this is the effort to treat religion as a science. Religious science is an oxymoron. Religion is based on faith, which is the existence of belief without proof.

[COLOR=indigo]I was going to jump back on my "evolution is a religion" wagon again, but had flashbacks, so I'll just take the zero. And by the way...the whole New Monkey thread? Yeah. directly relates to this. Anyway.


[size=1]*mumbles incoherantly about dave and retards and shuffles off.*[/size][/COLOR]

>> Well, you have my vote for Pope, but you should check out what
>> the Vatican has to say on the subject at


Thanks for your vote of confidence, but don't impeach the guy we have now just yet.

To quote his pointy hattedness himself JPII, from a 1990 encyclical [Redemptoris Missio]

>>>

The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it moust be concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have the opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church... For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accomodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

>>>

Okay to translate. Jesus died to save EVERYONE. Not just Catholics,
but EVERYONE (including those pesky fundamentalists that ring your
doorbell -though only God knows why :) ) Those that are not Catholic and are saved, have had it done so in a way that is not understood (the Pope calls it a mystery, so he don't know either). This covers a lot of ground, and it is essential that it does. Do you think a just born baby that dies of some medical complication goes to hell because it was not baptised? What about all those aboriginees that were living in Austrailia, or the native Americans that never saw the white man until centuries after Christ (aside from that stuff Joseph Smith wrote *cough*) ? The Church teaches they are somehow afforded the chance at salvation. How, only God knows, but He is fair, so they must have been afforded a chance.

Now, to look at the flip side, those who are not saved...
you quoted Dominus Iesus as follows...

>>>

“Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned”

>>>

This means if someone has explained to them the full Gospel with all its meaning and significance and they think about it, ponder its meaning, say to themselves "hey I understand this stuff, but NO, I reject this teaching as being false", "or "I believe in this God and I reject him" Then they are condemned... probably.

Yes even then there is an escape clause!

Those who preach the Gospel are only human, and they sometimes make mistakes (sometimes very big mistakes). Maybe what was preached to this person was true, but not the complete truth, or maybe the person did not fully understand what they were rejecting. So they might still have a chance.

So in the end, you can't be sure who is saved or not, it is really between God and the individual.


>> The rest of the document discusses Catholocism in relation to other >> religions. Here the church declares itself the one true religion while >> not completely denouncing other faiths.

That sounds accurate. :)


>> This states that anything good found in other religions was inspired
>> by Jesus. I guess this includes paganism, although Christ affecting
>> a religion which predates his birth would have to be considered
>> another miracle. Then again, I don't know enough about paganism >> to say how far back the 'writings' go.

Think of Jesus as a savior of all people and all times. Those who were around BC got a dose of his Good Stuff retroactively (if you can swollow one miracle, why not swollow a dozen, hey miracles happen every day if you just look)


>>The Vatican has a problem in that, if they come down too hard on
>>other religions, people go around committing hate crimes and
>>atrocities. If they are too accomodating and inclusive, they become
>>less unique and run the risk of losing their identity and message in >>a sea of multiculturalism. This document was written in 2000 and >>basically says "we're going to play nice, but let's not forget who's >>top dog around here".

Well, the Catholic Church does believe itself to be in posession of the One True Path (tm) That has always been an up front fact even before Dominus Iesus. It doesn't try to beat other religions over the head with that knowledge (well it used to but let's not go into that right now :( )
But at the same time the Church believes that its truths are self evident, and that all truths point to the one Truth.

But which of the following would you prefer...

avoiding differences as if they were of no consequence
or
engaging differences in a respectful conversation

The Church teaches that all religions should gather together in peaceful discussion of their beliefs. The truth will float to the top by itself.

All that dogma the Church teaches is not going to be changed for multiculturalism or for anyone. And just because a person says "hey, I believe I am right", does not mean they say "I am right and you are not entitled to believe anything except what I tell you to." The Church believes strongly in the fact that everyone should have a freedom of religion (No? yes! it does!).



I have to go to class this afternoon, but I have more of your post to comment on

:D

Hi again,


rereading my earlier post, I said the following...

>>>
Think of Jesus as a savior of all people and all times. Those who were around BC got a dose of his Good Stuff retroactively
>>>

Thinking it over, I'm not sure if I can affirm this or not. I'm a little confused about the Before Christ / After Christ significance. If anyone really is interested I guess I could find out more info from somewhere.
Maybe someone else around here knows...

But moving along...

richlevy said...

>>>
The Vatican has a problem in that, if they come down too hard on other religions, people go around committing hate crimes and atrocities. If they are too accomodating and inclusive, they become less unique and run the risk of losing their identity and message in a sea of multiculturalism. This document was written in 2000 and basically says "we're going to play nice, but let's not forget who's top dog around here".
>>>

The goal of the Vatican is to evangelize the world, aka spread the Good News. I agree that if this is done 'heavy handed' then it is counterproductive. Take the Jehova's Witnesses for example. They are a very heavy handed in the way they spread their 'good news', and I think it is very counterproductive as it makes them look bad in the eyes of other religious people who disagree with them.

I'm not sure what you mean by accomodating and inclusive, maybe you can explain more.


>>>
However, if you've ever read anything about 'brand identity', you can see the issues they have to deal with.
quote:From an interactive website to a business card, a brand must be recognizable, differentiated and help build customer loyalty.
>>>

I think I can see what you mean, but when you look at every religion closely, you will see their uniquenesses and similarities- you have to research or ask.

I think you are comparing evangelization and business marketing. Yes, there are similarities, but I would say the stakes are pretty high when it comes to shopping for a religion.

To take your analogy, someone who is trying to sell their religion better know what they are selling (or else the buyer should be entitled to a refund!) Sadly, many people don't know their own religion very well, let along other people's beliefs.


>>>
Religion is an idea. It is one idea in a marketplace of ideas.
Anything in a marketplace usually differentiates iteself from the others by branding.
>>>

Can I take an example. Let's look at evolution. The idea of evolution came about with Darwin. Did he decide to market a new brand of idea when he proposed that less evolved animals over millions of years changed and evolved?

Did the person who built on that idea and showed that the engine that powers evolution is in fact these little things called genes decide to break off and form a new sect with this new idea?

These people tossed their ideas out into the world with the evidence they had, and then let people either accept what they said, or reject it.

And then we come to the question of truth. Yes, these folks happen to be preaching something pretty funky with their double helixes and man from monkies ideas, and yes there are alternative ideas that one can choose to believe in place of evolution, but does what one believe
change the truth of evolution? Cut and paste this concept to the discussion of religious truths.

Shopping for religious ideas is looking for a truth to believe in. The fact that there are many different truths being advertised does not change the fact that some are truer than others, and there is one out there that is TRUE.

Hey in all honesty, maybe they are all wrong, but that's not what the RCC teaches, and its not what I try to believe (and that is the word- try - its not always easy)


>>>
Heaven (or enlightenment) is the prize in many of the world's religions. It's the equivalent to the toy suprise inside a cereal box or the frequent flyer miles attached to a credit card. Noone can prove it exists, and everyone understands that those who are rewarded don't usually come back to show those still working towards those rewards (expect in certain instances always witnessed by someone else). In some cases, the desire for confirmation leads to sightings in the frost on a window, a knot in a tree stump, etc.
>>>

I don't have time to post why right now, but I don't agree with the main idea of the above.

>>>
The interesting area in all of this is the effort to treat religion as a science. Religious science is an oxymoron. Religion is based on faith, which is the existence of belief without proof.
>>>

Not quite... I would say that yes, you need faith to believe in any religion. Yes, the proofs used in science can't completely be used to prove ane religion. But I'll tell you this, facts can disprove a religion!
If there was a religion out there that preached that the sun was a giant plush orangutan, I would call any follower of that religion a bona fide looney. On the other hand, I wouldn't call a Buddhist or a Moslim a looney. I might disagree with them, but I wouldn't think they are off their rocker.

There are folks out there that keep preaching the end of the world, and they set a date and time. Some people believe them, and follow their prophet... until the day comes... and the sun goes up and down, and everything is as it always was. These folks just had their religious belief pulled out from under them through rock solid facts.

Then there are those that believe in something despite rock soild facts. Folks that don't believe in evolution, or folks that peg the beginning of the universe at around 6000 BC. These guys all seem to be ignoring a mountain of scientific facts that prove they are wrong.

A true religion is not contradicted by scientific fact.

____

okay folks, fire away


:biggrin:

I just started to look back on this thread (something I should have done a little better before), and I realize that my whole spiel started from a comment made from someone that I think was off topic.

So I apologize if all my posting came off as a thread hijack.

Hello?:confused:

Hi.

Hey you two, whats up?

[COLOR=indigo]Well, for Christmas, I got a gift subscription for my husband to "Creation Magazine", which purports to use science to prove the Genesis account. They do not believe in Evolutionary Theory. I'll be posting more as I get more information.

Please understand I'm not trying to "convert" people to any type of Christianity, merely exploring the Evolution vs Creationism debate. Thought I'd take ya'll with me. Those of you that would like to come. I'm going to try to present both sides of the issue. Stay tuned![/COLOR]

Those that believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible usually also believe that evolution is wrong.


Yum! two great tastes that taste great together.

Onyx, I have to ask you, how do you think humankind came along?

[COLOR=indigo]I have no idea.

Growing up in a (mostly) agnostic household, I wasn't raised with any religion, per se, but my father didn't believe in evolution, either, because he felt if man evolved from apes, then we should still be evolving. The "missing link" shouldn't be missing, because apes are still here, and we are still here.

Once I started making up my own mind, I went evolution, and did my thesis in college on Black Holes. Then my spirituality kicked in, and I started studying various religious texts. I became Wiccan, because I felt that the set of beliefs of those traditions best fit with my own.

Now that I've married a Christian, and he's about as religious as you can get without going to church (and if there was a local church called the "Vineyard", he'd go there.) He believes in the bible, and it's literal meaning, and we've had many discussions on the evolution (me) vs creationism (him) viewpoints. His biggest problem with evolution is that we simply don't know, and he has a problem with the scientists accepting the idea as fact and completely discounting any contradictory evidence.

The problem is I simply don't have a good enough grasp of the scientific concepts behind the proofs for each side to accurately defend either (See the EvC thread I got ripped to shreads on.

So, now I'm going to take a time out, educate myself, and start posting what I find here and on my "religious" webpage.

To be honest, I don't know which way I'm going to go, or even if I'm going to make up my mind either way. Wiccan beliefs sometimes center around a "father time" and "mother earth" theme, but to be honest, I'm not sure what creation beliefs hold the majority in the Wiccan/Pagan traditions. I think this would be a great time for someone that knows much more to take over.

Take it away, Els!! [/COLOR]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]I have no idea.

Growing up in a (mostly) agnostic household, I wasn't raised with any religion, per se, but my father didn't believe in evolution, either, because he felt if man evolved from apes, then we should still be evolving. The "missing link" shouldn't be missing, because apes are still here, and we are still here.
...
[My husband's] biggest problem with evolution is that we simply don't know, and he has a problem with the scientists accepting the idea as fact and completely discounting any contradictory evidence.
[/COLOR]

I realise these are not your thoughts, but I'd like to comment. First, we are still evolving, but much less quickly with the advent of civilization. With the current travel abilities, even the minor population differences that had started to happen (race, etc) has been disrupted.

The missing link argument is silly ( apologies to your dad ). You and your 5th cousins exist, but your great-great-great-great-grandmother isn't around anymore.

Any scientist who discounts evidence isn't worth the name. But the problem is that many creationists love to create "evidence" that can convince the uneducated, but doesn't stand up to scientific investigation.

From OC:
he has a problem with the scientists accepting the idea as fact and completely discounting any contradictory evidence.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Ya know, as far as the origin of the species goes, it's the theory of evolution, not the law or fact of it. Science doesn't claim it as fact just as highly probabl... Screw it. I give up. Creationists have decided to take on faith that they know what scientists believe. How could they be wrong?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Oh yeah, I know it wasn't you that said it OC, just an old pet peeve of mine.

Originally posted by Whit
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Ya know, as far as the origin of the species goes, it's the theory of evolution, not the law or fact of it. Science doesn't claim it as fact just as highly probabl... Screw it. I give up..

That's like saying the earth going around the sun is theory or rocks that are dropped fall towards the ground is theory. Yes, scientist trust the 'theory' of evolution that much.

No fact known goes against evolution, gravity, or heliocentrism. And all facts know fully support each one.

Originally posted by juju
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Great article juju, this should be mandatory reading for all who claim to be against evolution