On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 15:00 -0700, DJA wrote: > > > > In fact, in following this thread, I've seen many posts by many people > > that do not have an understanding of Christian teachings. > > Exactly _which_ Christian teachings? Can you point me to one specific > Bible (last time I was in a Christian bookstore, there were dozens - all > different)?
I have a computer program with no less than 6 different translations as well as the original Greek and Hebrew texts. I'll see if I can get it up and running and show you several different translations all saying the same thing regarding various subjects. > > > > It makes me > > wonder how many have any understanding of Islam, Judaism, or any other > > religions that are not practice by those talking about them. This points > > to one cause of religious and other conflicts - they often arise from a > > complete misunderstanding of the other side. > > My observation is that most self-proclaimed Christians _I've_ met > (including in my own family - obviously) don't even have a basic > understanding of their own beliefs, let alone the accuracies of the > tenets of their own religion. I happen to know what mine are. Mom happens to know what hers are. > Including an _accurate_ knowledge of its > history, based on empirical, verifiable data and research. There's lots of that. Trouble is, many people are so bent upon disproving it (Christianity, God, and anything to do with either or both in this case), they tend to ignore the data or twist it around and around in order to further their view. (Yes, the same could be said for some on the other side of the coin, so let's not go there and start that argument.) Someone mentioned evolution in another post. Well, evolution is still a theory, was NOT penned by Darwin, and has yet to be proven. (Note: I'm not referring to evolution within a species or sub-species here. I'm referring to the general term that people speak of when they want to convey the progression of life from a single cell organism all the way to what we as homo sapien sapiens are today). There is no scientific proof of it, though it is taught in schools as fact and provable. There is proof of natural selection (Darwin's discovery), evolution within a species, and other such things that *may be* a part of evolution. Evolution is used as a scientific truth to disprove one belief of Christianity, and therefore that God exists at all. Just one example of data and research being twisted to support an end. > In fact, it's > my considerable opinion that the basis of most religions extent today > (orthodox and otherwise) is just plain made up nonsense which has been, > as a result of centuries of both inadvertent and malicious corruption of > things written and said hundreds and thousands of years ago, become so > inconsistent and impractical (as in unpracticable) as to be a primary > cause, rather than a primary solution, to the Human specie's problems. > > Given that virtually none of the original sources for any of these > teachings has existed for at least a thousand years, it's no wonder it's > easier and easier to espouse some personal belief and attribute it to > the god of choice. IOW, just make the shit up and say god said so. > > > > In every belief system, there are fringes on both ends of the norm > > (think politics with the left, moderate, right, center, etc.) Most of > > what I've seen discussed in this thread regarding Christianity, God, The > > Bible, etc. are results of views of the fringes of the basic > > religion(s). > > > > PGA > > If there were only right, center, and left that would be refreshing. You forgot the etc. part. :P > However, it's not nearly that simple. There are literally thousands of > differentiations of belief systems in Christianity alone. Which one do I > choose? Each thinks the other is wrong, or at least not quite right. How > do I know? Of course, they all will say "It's in the Bible, read it for > yourself". But again, which Bible? And when I do read it, I find that it > doesn't contain what god said, When referring to the God of The Bible, it is correct to print God, not god, as that is a name (personal pronoun), whether you believe in God or not. It's like writing paul, instead of Paul. (Also, its "The Bible" not the Bible, as the correct title of the book is "The Bible".) > but rather what someone > thought/claimed/believed/hallucinated god said. Even worse it's really > what someone thinks someone thought someone else thought someone said > they heard someone say god said. And they're ALL DEAD! > > In any case, no one of that particular religious persuasion really wants > to know what _I_ think or believe. Because what I think didn't come from > their bible, and if if I say _I_ talked to god and it said what I said > was true, I'm some kind of nut case. This is what science is for. To prove (or disprove) things that are not otherwise proven or disproven. So, show me some science, and I'll show you some. What I have seen from science thus far, in its attempts to disprove the existence of God (or any creator), is more proof that God exists than proof that He doesn't. Believe me, I have doubted, and questions, and thought about it many times. Our parents did not raise a couple of idiots and we were taught to question and research. My questions and research has always led me to the same conclusion, God exists, Christ is His son. Whether or not the universe was created in 7 days or a million years is not a key issue when it comes to the basic beliefs of Christianity. The same is true for some other things. Some things are of more importance. Many people, including yourself, citing things about the Christian religion in general do not know what they are talking about as they have not studied it, do not practice it, have no interest in it, and/or listen to others who are clueless about it as take their word as truth. The same goes for many other religions and topics. I for one, when in doubt and really want to know, will research it. For example, I will possibly ask some people I know that have studied a religious subject for material that I can reference. I will reference that material and try to determine where it came from, what credibility it has, if there is something that can dispute it and what credibility that has, etc., etc. I found the "DaVinci Code" (the movie and the "code" and book the movie is based upon) interesting. I wanted to know more about it. I did some research. I found through the research that the movie is based upon a book that is a fiction work based upon more fiction. Many people, without doing any research at all, believe the DaVinci Code (not the movie, the code) and all it encompasses is factual. The scientific data says otherwise. > > But then they have no trouble believing that a bunch of guys who lived > thousands of years ago talked to [G]od - but they /weren't/ nut cases. But > then maybe I'm being to rational; and rationality is anathema to religion. No, only certain religions and some people within religions, just as it is with many people within any group. > > How ironic. > > > [And yes, Paul and I have had these discussions before.] > [And we will no doubt have them again. :) ] Time to go home! I'm the last one left in the building! :) PGA -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
