Theology Discussion?

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Thanks for smiling.

What I posted above about them is a pretty good distinction between the two. A 'law' only refers to a single process. Complex processes are 'theories.' Sure, there are some crazy scientific theories, but strictly speaking, these are not Scientific Theories, but scientific theories (follow that?). For example, String Theory, is a scientific theory. Plate Techtonics is a Scientific Theory. Even though it is called a Theory, you would be hard pressed to find a geologist who doesn't acknowledge Plate Techtonics. Quantum Mechanics is also a Scientific Theory, but as far as I understand (granted, physics is not my specialty), just about all advanced physics work is done based off of quantum mechanics. Quantum Mechanics, Plate Techtonics, and Modern Evolutionary Synthesis will never become Scientific Law's, by definition.

understood what you are saying. I believe more scientists would agree with Plate Techtonics, than Evolution. Many do (probably most), but there are a lot who do not (even secular scientists have been known to say there may be other ways). But, I think we'll need to transfer this line to the other thread.
In the meantime, I follow what you're saying between Theory & theory.
wow! we areed

[smsmith40]

As per your last statement, I would like to agree, but you stated yourself that you are not looking for God at all. And by saying such, it means you are not open about God. Mind you, that's IMO. I'm not open to some things either, so I know what you mean.

This is I'm afraid where we diverge. I know I have an open mind and heart, and I neither have a need for or feel the presence of God.

Whereas your faith says that if you have an open heart and mind you will find God or God will find you.

I know thats not true.

I understand that in the end you don't know me and I don't know you. Your perspective is different and I respect that. Frankly, anybody that can have a strong faith in God, against all the evidence I see around me against his existence, gets my (grudging) admiration.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

This is I'm afraid where we diverge. I know I have an open mind and heart, and I neither have a need for or feel the presence of God.

Whereas your faith says that if you have an open heart and mind you will find God or God will find you.

I know thats not true.

I understand that in the end you don't know me and I don't know you. Your perspective is different and I respect that. Frankly, anybody that can have a strong faith in God, against all the evidence I see around me against his existence, gets my (grudging) admiration.

I can live with that...and even take the off-hand compliment.

The only thing I would disagree with above is your statement "I know thats not true" It is an opinion, not truth. I can respect your opinion that you feel there is no God. I don't agree with it, but I can definitely respect that's how you feel. Just like it appears you respect me for my belief in God. Neither of us can prove or disprove the existence of God. So we both live by faith in our beliefs - though they differ.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

Neither of us can prove or disprove the existence of God. So we both live by faith in our beliefs - though they differ.

Since faith can be defined as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence," I don't think faith applies to those who's beliefs are based on science rather than religion. That's not a knock, but to equate the two is innacurate IMHO.

[smsmith40]

OK Rami, I'm going to resort to logic. The last refuge of the morally bankrupt.

You hypothesis is that anyone with an open and honest heart will feel God.

I have an open and honest heart

I do not feel God

Therefore I know that your hypotheis is not true.What I cannot do is prove that my hypothesis. I can only disprove yours

Well done Nittany, I was on my way to dictionary.com when I saw your post

[randilover]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

I certainly believe that the Bible, like most other holy texts, contains valuable human truths and values. We would even probably be better people if more people read it.

There's some great content in the Bible, but if I was an unbeliever, did not find it divinely inspired, I would consider it one of the poorest works in the world. It's central figure claims to be God incarnate. If he is not, then he either lied or was equatable to a poached egg (as C.S. Lewis apply noted). Thomas Jefferson was some sort of Deist I believe. He had a copy of the gospels that he took and cut out all the miracles, etc., believing they were untrue. I find it interesting that some find parts interesting, but ignore what the other parts claim.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Its the whole God thing that gets in the way for me. I think I'm just too much of a rationalist. I don't feel God in my life or in the world around me. I think it being an engineer, I like to know how things work. My faith If you could call it that, is that even if I don't know how something workd, anothe engineer somewhere probably does.

I find this interesting too, since you are an engineer. I think rationality starts from a base, from a point, from a first cause. If there is no God, where is this starting point. What is the reference for truth. Why does 2+2 always = 4? Am I getting too metaphysical?

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I don't think Hitlet, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc were great students of modern philosophy. They were nutbags who perverted a philisophical ideal to suit their personal abition, and trampled those who stood in their way. They are not representative of the advancements that have been made.

Actually, they were. I mentioned before that Marx traced himself to Darwin, and Lennin traced himself from Marx. Hitler based lots of his "solution" off of Neitchze, and the superman or whatever he called it. I don't think they trampled on much, they executed them to their "logical" end.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

The reason that our societies have held back from these kind of atrocities is that our systems of governement prevent too much power in the hands of one or two psychopathic individuals. Germany in the early 30s and Russia at the turn of the century were both deeply religious societies, as is Rwanda and Serbia to pick a few examples at random.

Ah, but our governments are based off of the ideals of accoutability and the corruption of man, both Judeo-Christian ideals. Therefore too much power is never given into the corruptable hands of one person (or a set of persons). I can't speak for Russia, but Germany was in the midst of a philosophical movement that took God out of the equation and they reaped the results.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

OK Rami, I'm going to resort to logic. The last refuge of the morally bankrupt.

You hypothesis is that anyone with an open and honest heart will feel God.

I have an open and honest heart

I do not feel God

Therefore I know that your hypotheis is not true.What I cannot do is prove that my hypothesis. I can only disprove yours

Well done Nittany, I was on my way to dictionary.com when I saw your post

I don't think you can disprove God, as equally as I cannot prove Him. Being a logical person, you should not so easily write off something (or someone) just because you presently do not feel it. Just because you do not sense something right now does not mean it doesn't exist. Does a cancer patient 'feel' the cancer as it first starts in his/her body? I'm even using a physical example (no, it's too inperceptible to them). Only after you either look for it or it grows do you become aware it's there and you 'feel' it.

I also wanted to shoot you over this link.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/statech.htm
Being the history buff, I thought you might like it (sorry it's about US history. And (for Doddgers) it's a non-Christian web site so he might believe it to be true (sorry, man - had to put in that little tease about your comments on page 2 to Burt). however, stunning for what you said to be a country based on secular views to have so many references to God and Christianity and Jesus.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Ah, but the Bible is interpreted on a daily basis. The Bible is not written is such a way that its meaning is clear, nor universally translated or understood. One person can read the Bible and ascertain one meaning, another person can read the Bible and understand something different. What is it that leads two people to two different understandings?

It's a big book. It, like all literature, is often used to assert ideals that the asserters are looking to push as their own adgenda.

EDIT: I would also make the point that most of the time we can trace misuse of the Bible to a few key errors. Not interpreting the Bible in light of it's other passages, taking items out of context, etc.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Some time ago the Bible was interpretted in such a way that justified slavery. The Bible is now being interpretted in such a way, by some people (but not all) to justify discrimination against gays. You can't read and undestand the Bible without bringing logic and reason into the equation. It is impossible to read anything without using logic and reason. That's how the brain works.

In defense of Christianity, it was also the Bible that inspired the abolishionist movements in both Britain and the US. So, justafiably, what was wrong was righted. Not to mention, there's direct scripture that details slave traders as sinners:
⁸We know that the law (Mosaic law) is good if one uses it properly. ⁹We also know that law^[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, ¹⁰for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine ¹¹that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (I Timothy 1:8-11)

I don't think anyone reading this thread would be able to argue that this speaks directly to slavery, and also easily repudiates the notion that this would be "ok" with God. Funny how some people just easily miss what it says about obvious issues (slavery, etc.).

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

Actually, they were. I mentioned before that Marx traced himself to Darwin, and Lennin traced himself from Marx. Hitler based lots of his "solution" off of Neitchze, and the superman or whatever he called it. I don't think they trampled on much, they executed them to their "logical" end.

Lenin was much closer to Marx than Stalin. If you are going to claim that since Darwin begat Marx, Marx begat Lenin, and Lenin begat Stalin, that Stalin is somehow a product of the theories of evolution, or even that Stalin is somehow an inevitible product of communisitic theory, you're fooling yourself. Stalin used the idealistic views of communism, concentrated power, and ruled with a ruthlessness that would make Hussein blush. Please, he trampled on the whole ideal of communism. I'm no communism apologist, but to argue that Stalin is the natural product of Marx ignores the fact that no near as bad as Stalin followed him.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

I also wanted to shoot you over this link.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/statech.htm
Being the history buff, I thought you might like it (sorry it's about US history. And (for Doddgers) it's a non-Christian web site so he might believe it to be true (sorry, man - had to put in that little tease about your comments on page 2 to Burt). however, stunning for what you said to be a country based on secular views to have so many references to God and Christianity and Jesus.

I personally don't think I argued that the US was founded on secular views. What I did argue with was the notion that each and every founder was a Christian. The references to God and the Creator in the founding documents were not universaly acknowledged to be the Christian God.

[randilover]

By the way, anyway to get rid of the -sally that keeps popping up when words like universal ly are written out? It's hard to take a comment seriously about Biblical interpretation when there is a banana with a bikini in the middle of it. ;-)

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

It's a big book. It, like all literature, is often used to assert ideals that the asserters are looking to push as their own adgenda.

And I would argue that anyone who quotes the Bible as a source or justification for anything is furthering their own agenda.

Originally Posted by randilover

EDIT: I would also make the point that most of the time we can trace misuse of the Bible to a few key errors. Not interpreting the Bible in light of it's other passages, taking items out of context, etc.

In my opinion, taking any single quote and using it as a argument for anything is taking it out of context. I doubt there is a single issue that the Bible only discusses in one part, and not another. Everything is discussed more than once in the Bible, and I bet it contradicts itself on a great many things.

Originally Posted by randilover

In defense of Christianity, it was also the Bible that inspired the abolishionist movements in both Britain and the US. So, justafiably, what was wrong was righted.

I can't wait until the Bible is used for justification to end prejudice against homosexuals, and see how the current readers of the Bible who disagree with that stance justify their current reading.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Well said, Jim.

As far as slavery, my main point was there is no universal interpreation of the Bible, even on major issues.

I'd disagree with this one. I am not a Methodist, but there are very few core elements that Jim (as a Methodist), Rami, and Y. Undead and I would disagree on as central core elements of Christianity. Those that would disagree would be contradicting it's teaching at some point, which I (or anyone of us) could easily refute in a matter of minutes.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

A significant portion (not willing to say majority, but it could have been) of American Protestantism at the time interpretted the Bible as justifying slavery. Obviously, virtually no one interprets the Bible that way anymore. Homosexuality is far from being interpretted universally. Personally, I feel this will follow slavery, and once society as a whole accepts homosexuality, the people that interpret the Bible as condemning it with not see it so staunchly.

I will leave the point of society accepting it and the church (as a whole) then accepting it to present history, but respectfully disagree. (I would see it as Biblically and logically incompatable with Christianity, but do we want to get into that?)

This would be a good point to note that just because a large portion of (Chistian) society in general accepts something under the guiese of a religion does not mean it's followers agree. More often than not, they are (erroneously) silent.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Mainly, my point is since the Bible's interpretation changes with the times, it's inclusion in determing morality is no different than not including it, in terms of having a solid foundation to work from.

Some of the teaching changes with the times. It's teachings on morality are quite obvious and sure and have not changed since Christ. It is firm in it's approach to morality, it is not relative. The Sermon on the Mount (as an example) is quite obvious in it's claims to morality and spirituality.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Ypsilanti Undead

You make a good point here. Maybe the problem is when the Bible is treated as the source of morality, rather than a means of conveying it.

Can you elaborate on this one? I think I get you, but maybe I am not. Do you mean that as a source it is a problem, but when used as the means of communicating morality it is good? I would probably agree with that as I believe morality is rooted and based on the nature of God, not the other way around.

I think people get the idea of God as the comic killjoy of things we see as good. But most fail to realize that when God condemns something it is not to hurt you but to help. For example, things are not wrong because God said them, God said them because they are wrong. (i.e.- When sexual activity outside of marriage is condemned it is because marriage is a reflection of the relationship between God and his church. Murder is wrong because man is created in God's image. Theft is wrong because ownership and responsibility are built into his nature. Hope that helps when people think Christians are just out to stomp on things that are fun. There is a logic to it)

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

But as our only way of getting a message from the actually source, how else it is to be used?

See my above post to Y. Undead's post and also the point I made earilier about good and bad fruit.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

First, so we're clear, I certainly don't think the vast majority of Christians that use Christianity or scripture to support their point of view negatively. Of course there are always exceptions, but I definitely respect their point of view. So I'm definitely not anti-Christian morals. Just wanted to be clear on that.

Thanks for clarifying. Obvously you've been very repectful.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Now, as far as your comments on homosexuality, you say the Bible is pretty clear on that. Isn't that pretty much what your run of the mill Southern Baptist would have said about slavery in the 1840s?

I'd have to check on this, but I don't believe they saw it this way. I think it was more of a political/economic thing. Although there were some Christians that had slaves, even in the deep south it was spoken against.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

just as there is no question in many's mind that the Bible is anti gay. If we put the passages in question next to each other (anyone have them handy?) would the passages regarding slavery be less clear than those regarding homosexuality? I honestly don't know. I've never compared them but would like to see what it says on each.

The Bible is not "anti-gay," although, maybe you were just cutting a corner. You have to start thinking more along the lines of why it says certain things are wrong vs. right. It's not just arbitrary. It points to something, or, better yet, someone.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Since faith can be defined as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence," I don't think faith applies to those who's beliefs are based on science rather than religion. That's not a knock, but to equate the two is innacurate IMHO.

Hey, wait a second, isn't "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence," Evolution, or am I wrong on that one? ;-)

Seriously, I think faith is misinterpreted here, and may be up to this point on the thread. You see we are thinking along the lines of A + B = C. However, faith, on Biblical terms, is expressed as a relationship, not a formula, state of mind, or even a place. Dodgers got the dictionary.com quote, but that is the #2, the #1 is "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." The Bible calls it being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. It isn't based on "no evidence," or "evidence to teh contrary." It's based on confidence of the word of a person. I can have little confidence that it is raining at my house when I look at the radar on the web, but if I call my wife and she says it's raining, despite all the evidence to the contrary, I believe (or have faith) that it is raining there.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I personally don't think I argued that the US was founded on secular views. What I did argue with was the notion that each and every founder was a Christian. The references to God and the Creator in the founding documents were not universaly acknowledged to be the Christian God.

I was actually just giving you a hard time about stating Christian site can't be true (only secular can convince you). Nothing about what the site had to say, that was more for smsmith.
No problem. justing giving you a hard time, nothing personal.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by randilover

Hey, wait a second, isn't "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence," Evolution, or am I wrong on that one? ;-)

Seriously, I think faith is misinterpreted here, and may be up to this point on the thread. You see we are thinking along the lines of A + B = C. However, faith, on Biblical terms, is expressed as a relationship, not a formula, state of mind, or even a place. Dodgers got the dictionary.com quote, but that is the #2, the #1 is "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." The Bible calls it being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. It isn't based on "no evidence," or "evidence to teh contrary." It's based on confidence of the word of a person. I can have little confidence that it is raining at my house when I look at the radar on the web, but if I call my wife and she says it's raining, despite all the evidence to the contrary, I believe (or have faith) that it is raining there.

good points...wish I had mentioned them...

[smsmith40]

I don't think you can disprove God, as equally as I cannot prove Him. Being a logical person, you should not so easily write off something (or someone) just because you presently do not feel it. Just because you do not sense something right now does not mean it doesn't exist. Does a cancer patient 'feel' the cancer as it first starts in his/her body? I'm even using a physical example (no, it's too inperceptible to them). Only after you either look for it or it grows do you become aware it's there and you 'feel' it.

Rami

I'm not trying to disprove God. I'd be stupid to try. What I am doing is disproving the hypothesis that anyone with an open and honest heart and mind will find God or God will find them. As I stated above I know that not to be true.

The problem with Christians asserting it to be true is that the unspoken corollary is that non-believers DON'T have an open mind or an honest heart. As a non-believer (or not yet convinced anyway) I find that fairly insulting.

I'd quite like you to accept that there are open, honest happy people in the world (like me and Mike) who God doesn't reveal himself to and get along fine without him.

[smsmith40]

I find this interesting too, since you are an engineer. I think rationality starts from a base, from a point, from a first cause. If there is no God, where is this starting point. What is the reference for truth. Why does 2+2 always = 4? Am I getting too metaphysical?

I don't think you are being too metaphysical. I not sure you have used the best example, 2+2=4 is more notation than anything else, but Maths is a good starting point.

Lets take pi, the ration of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is a universal constant, it is a basic building block of the scientific view of the universe. It and the rest of modern mathamtics are woven in to the fabric of the universe.

My acceptance of a rational, science based approach to the world differs to your faith because Maths and science can be proven to me every day. I don't need faith. If I want to know whether pi really is 3.141........ I can go and measure it.

As nittany said faith is belief without logical proof or material evidence. I get both every time I fire up my laptop and the screen lights up. Science works

[smsmith40]

Ah, but our governments are based off of the ideals of accoutability and the corruption of man, both Judeo-Christian ideals. Therefore too much power is never given into the corruptable hands of one person (or a set of persons). I can't speak for Russia, but Germany was in the midst of a philosophical movement that took God out of the equation and they reaped the results.

Watch out neo-con about(j/k). Democracy as a judeo-christian ideal. Not much evidence of that about. I can't think of a single example where the church was a driving force for democracy through history until the democratic ideal has become widely accepted in the late 20th century.

The church has been around for 2000 years, democracy is an idea that has only taken root in the last 100. Religion and the church dominated society for a 1300 years without a single step being taken towards democracy. The founding fathers and other heroes of democracy may have been religious people, they may have quoted God in their defence in the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath (look it up, its inspiring) but they were not acting with the approval of the established church.

Democracy has been established because of popular dissent against the ruling elite. The ruling elite has always contained the church.

The church is fundamnetally an undemocratic organisation. The guy at the top decides what the rules are and everybody else either buys in or ships out.

You know the Church of England and the Anglican church worldwide are having serious problems deciding whether to accept gay clergy and women bishops. I've never once heard anybody suggesting that they should have a vote to see what the membership actually wants.

100 odd cardinals decided the leader of 2 billion catholics, who appointed the cardinals. Oh yes! The old leader. Who did they choose? Only the head of the Inquisition.

ps National Socialism was born in Bavaria, which was a devoutly catholic part of the world in the 1920s. Parts of Germany was becoming more secular, there was an emerging communist movement.

In no way ami I suggesting that facist movements were either encouraged, supported or connected to the Church.

But Facism developed in Italy, Spain and southern Germany, the three most religious societies in 20th century Europe. Facism's twin brother Communism developed in another highly religious society.

[smsmith40]

For the lazier among you

For as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
From The Declaration of Arbroath 1320.

http://www.constitution.org/scot/arbroath.htm

[randilover]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Watch out neo-con about(j/k). Democracy as a judeo-christian ideal. Not much evidence of that about. I can't think of a single example where the church was a driving force for democracy through history until the democratic ideal has become widely accepted in the late 20th century.

The church has been around for 2000 years, democracy is an idea that has only taken root in the last 100. Religion and the church dominated society for a 1300 years without a single step being taken towards democracy. The founding fathers and other heroes of democracy may have been religious people, they may have quoted God in their defence in the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath (look it up, its inspiring) but they were not acting with the approval of the established church.

Democracy has been established because of popular dissent against the ruling elite. The ruling elite has always contained the church.

The church is fundamnetally an undemocratic organisation. The guy at the top decides what the rules are and everybody else either buys in or ships out.

You know the Church of England and the Anglican church worldwide are having serious problems deciding whether to accept gay clergy and women bishops. I've never once heard anybody suggesting that they should have a vote to see what the membership actually wants.

100 odd cardinals decided the leader of 2 billion catholics, who appointed the cardinals. Oh yes! The old leader. Who did they choose? Only the head of the Inquisition.

Ok, but the church is not a political institution. It's based off of a quite detailed heirarchy from the Bible itself. However, it's influence in birthing modern democracy can not be discounted, and in fact is a direct corrolation. There is no other society on earth that would have had the social and moral structure to give light to democracy (as it's now know). I've heard a well known speaker/scholar talk of his speaking with a Muslim scholar, and the Muslim conceeded that Islam would never have given way to democracy (as it now stands, and Islam is an example, I'm not picking on it.) The ideals and morals put forth by those landing at Plymouth rock (who themselves were escaping a religious institution) and those of the founding fathers who wholeheartedly believed what they wrote, that God was behind what they were putting down on paper. I don't think it is a reach to say what I noted earlier, that Jedeo-Christian values are the basis for modern democracy. Sure some of the founding fathers were not Christian, but most were, and most of the learning institutions (schools, colleges, universities) were at the time as well.

Originally Posted by smsmith40

ps National Socialism was born in Bavaria, which was a devoutly catholic part of the world in the 1920s. Parts of Germany was becoming more secular, there was an emerging communist movement.

In no way ami I suggesting that facist movements were either encouraged, supported or connected to the Church.

But Facism developed in Italy, Spain and southern Germany, the three most religious societies in 20th century Europe. Facism's twin brother Communism developed in another highly religious society.

Ah, yes, I agree with you, but to put forth logic as the alternative to a religious society is equally as damning as Germany was the most highly educated and philosophically literate society on the planet at the time. It then gave way to arguably the greatest tyrant in history. Take note those who look to the figurative text book for "absolute truth."

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

There is no other society on earth that would have had the social and moral structure to give light to democracy (as it's now know).

Please. Democracy was developed 500 years BCE. The first Athenian democracies looked very much like the early United States in that slaves, women, and foreigners did not have the right to vote.

If Christianity was so important to democracy, and the 20th century was so bad as you have previously argued, why was there not one single democracy in the world with universal suffrage in 1900, yet today, 120 (62.5%) of the world 192 nations are democracies with universal suffrage? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra...27democracy.27)

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

And I would argue that anyone who quotes the Bible as a source or justification for anything is furthering their own agenda.

Wow, that is rather indicting. I would really really disagree with you, as a majority of those I know who quote the Bible do not in any way have an agenda, they are seeking the truth.

Also, if you don't quote something, what do you do? Do you live in a vacuum?

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

In my opinion, taking any single quote and using it as a argument for anything is taking it out of context. I doubt there is a single issue that the Bible only discusses in one part, and not another. Everything is discussed more than once in the Bible, and I bet it contradicts itself on a great many things.

Well, the scientist in you must be screaming to get out and get rid of the "bet" in the above sentence. If the Bible is full of contradictions, I'd like to hear them. I read it everyday and fail to find any (true, logical) contradictions. (There are what I would call aparent ones, but they easily become explanable.) I think this is often passed along, especially in education circles, and is repeated but fails the test as no one ever talks about those contradictions.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I can't wait until the Bible is used for justification to end prejudice against homosexuals, and see how the current readers of the Bible who disagree with that stance justify their current reading.

Ok, there's a reference to a great passage that is not out of context (it's the whole chapter) that I think is rather denouncing of homosexuality. I read it today, not because of this thread, but that's where I was in reading. I can give it to you, but I'd rather not get into that as much as ...

I think predjudice is wrong against those who practice it. Remember our old lover the sinner, hate the sin comment. There's validity to that statement. To be honest, I think the church has done a rotten horrible job of loving the homosexual sinner. But it is improving, greatly. I have friends that were and have known others that were once this way, or struggle not to be that way. And I would call them friends. But like I would not tolerate a thief stealing, I would not tolerate the practice of it. I think the big hang up for most is how the attempt to normalize it, teach it to kids, etc., takes center stage. We are talking about something that affects something like 4% of the population. Yet it eats up tons of political, news, and headline time.

[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Please. Democracy was developed 500 years BCE. The first Athenian democracies looked very much like the early United States in that slaves, women, and foreigners did not have the right to vote.

If Christianity was so important to democracy, and the 20th century was so bad as you have previously argued, why was there not one single democracy in the world with universal suffrage in 1900, yet today, 120 (62.5%) of the world 192 nations are democracies with universal suffrage? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra...7democracy.27)

Yes, but it in the modern sense was non-existent at the time of the US (which was what made it so asounding). I'm not sure that it had some of the core tenents that we as the US/Britain espouse, namely accountability and division of power. Some of our dearest freedoms were just trounced on by Greeks and Romans, religious freedom, freedom of the press, etc.

Also, I think the reason there was little democracy in 1900 and much now is the same reason we are in Iraq. It has spread because of the US, not born out of the countries backround. Japan, India, Western European (and Eastern for that matter) countries have all been born out of what was started here. I am in no way history proficient, and I mean in any way whatsoever, but I'd am pretty sure what I am stating here is the truth.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

Wow, that is rather indicting. I would really really disagree with you, as a majority of those I know who quote the Bible do not in any way have an agenda, they are seeking the truth.

BS. If they were seeking the truth, they'd open up their beliefs to the scientific method, or other method of truly discovering the truth.

Originally Posted by randilover

Well, the scientist in you must be screaming to get out and get rid of the "bet" in the above sentence. If the Bible is full of contradictions, I'd like to hear them. I read it everyday and fail to find any (true, logical) contradictions. (There are what I would call aparent ones, but they easily become explanable.) I think this is often passed along, especially in education circles, and is repeated but fails the test as no one ever talks about those contradictions.

Translated="Sure, the Bible has contractions, but they can be explained away."

Originally Posted by randilover

Ok, there's a reference to a great passage that is not out of context (it's the whole chapter) that I think is rather denouncing of homosexuality. I read it today, not because of this thread, but that's where I was in reading. I can give it to you, but I'd rather not get into that as much as ...

I think predjudice is wrong against those who practice it. Remember our old lover the sinner, hate the sin comment. There's validity to that statement. To be honest, I think the church has done a rotten horrible job of loving the homosexual sinner. But it is improving, greatly. I have friends that were and have known others that were once this way, or struggle not to be that way. And I would call them friends. But like I would not tolerate a thief stealing, I would not tolerate the practice of it. I think the big hang up for most is how the attempt to normalize it, teach it to kids, etc., takes center stage. We are talking about something that affects something like 4% of the population. Yet it eats up tons of political, news, and headline time.

What exactly do you mean "teach it to kids?" Normalize it? It's a practice that has been in existience since we have written history. It occurs in the animal kingdom. Sorry, but it is "normal." I will agree with you on the coverage of it though, the coverage level far exceeds it representative population, but when you have issues of prejudice, those tend to take center stage.