Paul G. Allen wrote:
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.
Look again. There _are_ no originals of any of the text contained within
the Bible. In fact, it's been shown by real scholars that much of the
New Testament is quite inaccurate, with some of it just made up.
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.)
So, your best argument is that those of us who disagree with your
particular religious beliefs are just ignorant of The Truth?
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.
There's far more empirical evidence supporting evolution than there is
evidence of any kind supporting Creationism (or whatever it's called
today).
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".)
As I don't recognize the god of the Bible as either my god or even /the/
god, it's my choice to spell any darned way I want. Especially as I am
not subject to the wishes of someone else's god.
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.
Saying that science attempts to disprove the existence of god makes as
little sense as saying Linux wants to be an excellent desktop. Like
either science or Linux are sentient beings.
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 upbringing was not as even. My father always promoted independent
thinking, but said very little of his own personal beliefs till rather
late in his life. However, he did not discourage my grandparents from
exposing me to non-traditional beliefs. On the other hand my mother was
never comfortable discussing in any great depth her own beliefs, but did
very much pressure me to adhere to her choice of religious practices.
When, as a teenager, I rebelled and discarded those beliefs, I was
chastised as being a pagan. Fortunately, my father supported my
independent thinking and my mother wisely gave up trying to convert me
to her way of thinking. As you can see, my parents had quite different
belief systems, both of which contributed to my view of the world. I
think this was a good thing.
My questions and
research has always led me to the same conclusion, God exists, Christ is
His son.
I'm quite content to let you live with your beliefs even if I don't
agree with them. But I won't go so far as to say your beliefs are wrong
for you. But they are wrong for me.
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.
Apparently it's important to you. It's not been mentioned before.
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.
Since you have no idea what I have and have not studied, your argument
amounts to an ad hominem.
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.
So, you've researched, but anyone who disagrees with you obviously has
not researched, and therefor has no credibility? An implied ad hominem.
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.
Anyone who cared already knew the book was fiction. The author himself
said it was fiction. Why do we care here about "The DaVinci Code"?
What's your point?
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.
All religions, because a religion is, by definition, a monoculture.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
