Competing World Views Of Religious Liberals And Conservatives

[Steven]

What? There is absolutely no interpretations in many parts of scripture, have you read the entire new testament? In your opinion, would someone be able to call himself a christian if he thought murder was ok? The fact is that there are certain things you can believe that would automatically disqualify you from calling youself a Christian.

OK, even I have to add some caution here....

I DO beleive there are interpretation differences in all of the scriptural text, although I am by and large a traditionalist overall....there are opinions that I am not 110% "traditional" on, or even 100% sure of where I stand....for example the subject of Hellfire itself and damnation itself....and the subject of Heaven and Earth after the millenial reign and where God's people supposedly end up dwelling...

Blackmail there are other interpretive approaches as well based on context alone, and that is where I think as beleivers we sometimes fall short. For example there is a passage of scripture that reads

"this means everlasting life, their knowing you...."

I've seen two impressive argumetns and teachings on that one passage - one interpretation being the "literal" nuts and bolts you MUST know scripture backwards and forwards or you are lost approach...

and the relational you must know God with a sense of intimacy approach.

both interpretations will lead you off in vastly different directions (and I favor the latter) and will fortify completely different types of relational approaches. So in that case, you'd better have a decent grasp on TO WHOM that passage of scripture addressed, WHAT EVENTS preceeeded and proceeeded that passage, and THE CULTURE of the receipients and deliverer of said passage to get a good feel for whats going on besides the black and white or tradional obvious......

I have read the entire new testament, yes.

that does not qualify me as a saved beleiver in Christ.

Nor does it authorize me to decide who is and is not a true beleiver - we must be careful here with that temptation.

By the way I have many times been accused of NOT being a real beleiver.

for the things I say, or do, or who I hang with, or what I do or do not embrace. Life is jsut not as black and white as we'd make it seem. As to your question regarding murder let me answer (sorta) in a two fold manner.....

first a biblical question to you: what is the purpose of the avenger of blood and the sanctuary provided if the hunted can make it to a safe city before the avenger reaches him? Why is that Avenger of Blood not condemend by God?

Next - a true statement about myself, knowing who I am and how I am wired: If a man harmed Laura I would hunt him and kill him, I would not report him to the authorities. Yet I am a beleiver. Am I damned?

Maybe. And Maybe not. Maybe in the end that's God's job to balance the books.

there is still a great deal of mystery to this gospel thing, and this God trip thing. I think in the end we all have to find our way....

[Steven]

Does my admittedly half-hearted knowledge of scripture invalidate the post where I said "Fuck scripture?"

Hey.

Erin, my quick witted snotty assed friend who makes me laugh and sometimes gives me reason to pause, out of respect for oh I don't know....A Holes like ME, do you really have to be this belittling by saying truly stupid thigns like FUCK SCRIPTURE?

some us DO see scripture as an extremely relevant and qualified foundation to draw from as our moral compass. And we actually do use our brains, not your brain, but our brains. Now its true that I have cooked at least half of my brain for many years, but I still have the occasional clever breakthrough....

Now, Ted and you are a bad mix.

Every time you two get togethor I watch the braniac olympics begin as you two try to explode each other's heads, and the fact is that you both make good arguments.

A nod of repsect to Ted - he does his homework.

And a flag against you Erin, is that you sometimes argue with Ted just for the sheer joy of poking him in the eye, but you dont respect the topic enough to do some research to see where Ted is coming from, instead you just seem to collectively dismiss it all as mindless old world drivel from a superior position and I dont really beleive that holds much water, given the amount of Bravado you like to use.

And you dont have to agree with him, for example Ted and I have seemingly radically different perspectives on scripture and our work as beleivers. For example I AM anti abortion and yet I AM pro choice. I beleicve that its wrong, and yet I beleive that you should have the right to choose right and wrong. And that's ok, my difference in approach, because i dig Ted, and respect him, and understand what he's trying to do and have some true admiration for that. I do wish however, that Ted would not get so pissed at you and that he had that ability to recognize some value in you or at least crack up on some of your more classic moments.

Somebody in here had a good argument about the use of logic or soemthgin or another over subject like Joshua and walls coming down and the earth being created in 6 days and blah blah blah and all I can give you (i think now that was everdark) is that its ok to use your brain and decide how to receive those passages....for example I personally do NOT beleive the earth was formed in 6 days but I also do not beleive that that is what the bible is tryign to say to us and that to prove or disprove 6 24 hour periods is a really really stupid thign to waste your time over when that has no bearing whatsoever on the biblical meassage as a whole of man needing an intercessor fo divine nature. Please people, let's stay on point. And the Joshua trip.....again I dont care and yet I DO beleive it happend exactly as stated in the text and yet I also beleive a plate shift occurred in that unstable area exactly as those trumpets went off and yet again - is the bible trying to raise an argument about the crushing power of trumpets or is it tryign to exemplify God's ultimate authority over events and nature in light of his will? So once more, lets stay on point people.

[BrassFusion]

Steven, the "fuck scripture" thing wasn't directed at you, because you DO use your brain. You read and interpret ancient texts in what you hope is an appropriate context and try to fit them to your modern life in peaceful coexistence with those who dissent.

I disagree with the use of scripture as a substitute for logic and compassion, that is. Salt's a great seasoning but it lacks as a staple.

[Steven]

Steven, the "fuck scripture" thing wasn't directed at you, because you DO use your brain. You read and interpret ancient texts in what you hope is an appropriate context and try to fit them to your modern life in peaceful coexistence with those who dissent.

I disagree with the use of scripture as a substitute for logic and compassion, that is. Salt's a great seasoning but it lacks as a staple.

understood.

[sinmantyx]

Finding the same propaganda in two different links, finding vague references to "the womb" and a passage about beating a woman into miscarriage is NOT homework...it's the top two hits of a google search.

Blackmail said this:

"He also completely sidesteps the abortion issue, wich is convenient, I suspect his views are incomaptible with scripture. Thus he has no standing to talk about anything Christian Faith related."

To defend this statement, he not only has to show that scripture can be interpreted to condemn abortion, but that anyone who doesn't believe that scripture condemns abortion is completely incompetent and unable to make sound arguments about *not just scripture* but the nature of Christian faith.

However much it's a bit rude to yank his chain by saying incendiary things, I will certainly say that he started a fire when he claimed such an indefensible position.

I certainly know more about physics than the history of the Christian faith, but he certainly shows an extreme ignorance of how theology evolves, what the word "tenant" means (ala. Nicene creed, or even how forced and arbitrary that all was), and the sheer volume of divergent REASONABLE and informed biblical interpretations that are possible.

Any feminist (man or woman) who knows the score is going to have a VERY difficult time warming up to the Old Testament, not because of how an enlightened person may interpret it, but how it has historically be used as a "divine excuse" to subjugate women in REAL and horrific ways for centuries. The New Testament even has it's misogynistic interpretations. I mean, when one of your earliest memories was asking your mother: "So, instead of letting the men have their "way" with the angles, Lot *gave* his daughters to them? What did they do?"...and later understanding that it was considered reasonable to give your daughters over to get gang raped by a mob of violent men in order to save a group of angels from the same fate. That's just fucking great.

I have a great respect for people like you (and my gay minister) who are somehow able to AVOID throwing the baby out with the bathwater and can basically calm their rage long enough to glean real spiritual insight and strength from scripture.

However, at some point, scripture just looks like another "golden calf" most of the time...a bunch of books picked out by a King (who was very gay by the way, which I find really funny) with the baggage of the interpretations of politically powerful dead guys...that have been tauted as the "Word of God" and therefor error-less, not because that makes any logical or theological sense (as the Bible even says that Jesus is the Word not the Bible as written, compiled, and translated by people at least 400 years later) but because allowing individuals to make their own interpretations would "confuse" the population and render them less easy to control; which is also the reason for the rise of orthodoxy...right? In that context it certainly feels a bit liberating to acknowledge that not only does the Bible NOT say tons of things people think it says, but it DOES say tons of stuff most people don't want to admit.

That was the point of the original author of the article. The "Christian right"s views are based very strongly on cultural norms and it's not enough to know scripture or history or theology...but to understand the culture of various segments of the Christian population, who currently have successfully entered the political landscape and caused all sorts of harm to the progress of civil liberty.

I

[Steven]

quick repsonse since Im at work....

careful with the Nicene creed referance, as there are many different teachings on what actually took place at that council and what the numbers of the voters actually were, there are many holes in the council of Nicea corruptibility theory in terms of how the text was cannonized but thats a whole other Oprah and Oprah is the devil (joke).

what I meant about Ted doing his homework is that he researches the biblical text itself - he knows why he beleives what he does. granted I agree that at times Ted can light a pretty big fire under hte unbeleiving behinds of many of you and I dont think that is a great christ like example in and of itself and ultimately the cannonization of the text is supposedly centered on Christ.....but I have faith In Ted.

and we can go back and forth (and tis cool with me) on other topcis that you cited such as Lot's incredibly callous and foolish behaviour which is not biblically presented in any way to whitewash him when you get right down to it - it simply tells the story. If you dig backward a littel further you also see that Abraham himslef was a pagan, prone to divination, and had a thing for prostitutes and telling lies. Again - no whitewashign fo the story. God started this whole big ass Isaraelite thing with what he had to work with and the text is pretty straight shooting. To me its no different talking about my past and what kind of man I was, i was, what I was.

I liked your Golden Calf insinuation, I thought that was pretty clever but I disagree with it. However it is difficult to sell (and I ain t a salesman) anyone on the notion of the incredible consistencies of scripture when they don't dig into it - it just doesent make much sense.

forgot to make this point as well - when you say that the bible "SAYS" can you clarify?

because a gathering of details and facts does not in and of itslef mean that the text has the intention of condoning something.

I do however agree with you that many people think that certain biblical truths are nto even aware that thsoe supposed teachings are not in and of themselves...biblical. On the flipside I personally do not fear anything at all being brought to light that is supposedly biblical and only ask that I am allowed to comment on context and be received with an open mind. It may suprise you at times to hear me say "I dont know"...

a quick note on feminism....I made this point earlier somewhere that if yu look into the case of Eve to Adam, how and why and what her described role was originally, yo udont (or I dont at least) see this oppression, meaning that man corrupted that along with pretty much everythign else when he willfully seperated himself from God's headship.

[sinmantyx]

a quick note on feminism....I made this point earlier somewhere that if yu look into the case of Eve to Adam, how and why and what her described role was originally, yo udont (or I dont at least) see this oppression, meaning that man corrupted that along with pretty much everythign else when he willfully seperated himself from God's headship.

We totally agree with many many things. It's not that the culture(s) described in the Old Testament were sexist...of course they were. It's the fact that stories about these ancient times are *used* in ways that justify a continuation of those perverse cultural norms.

Because the Bible is used the way it is, people can't say Abraham was a great man, but that part where he pimped out his wife was pretty uncool (I think that was Abraham...but it could have been any number of those guys that did that all the time.).....just like people say Thomas Jefferson was a great man, but that owning slaves things was pretty uncool. Instead, much of Christianity places Biblical characters up as little-gods; classified as "Men of God" and that they, despite their human frailty, are used as examples of how one should worship God and how one should live. I disagree with that...and so would most people in actuality. However, admitting that prophets and "men of god" and disciplines were human and that they said and did some pretty questionable things; and lived by some pretty questionable laws; is "heretical" to those who place the words within the Bible over the divine inspiration of the Word. When you worship an object instead of what that object may represent....isn't that idolatry? Trust me, I have learned from all the discussions that I have had with you on this board, that you've rejected that type of orthodoxy, but MANY people have not.

When I say "says" I'm being vague. I mean both "imply" and "prescribe". In both situations, a person may say, "...but the Bible SAYS...." blah blah blah At some point it's just a legalistic torrent of selective reading and creative interpretation. At some point, you have to leave scripture behind and follow the seed of inspiration and trust that it will lead you to the right path. That is the essence of "liberal religion".

The original author makes a great point: The "right" is generally motivated by duty and law. You do something because it is the right thing to do and because God demands it. THAT is why scripture is continually held up as the inerrant Word of God; because without the laws, prescriptions and comfort of those boundaries and structures they are AFRAID. They believe that allowing inspiration outside of those prescriptions and allowing for an individual to decide what speaks to them and what does not; will necessarily cause social disorder and ruin.

The message of the author is that....it doesn't. Just like actually educating children about sex, love and stds instead of "just saying no" does NOT cause young people to become sexually active. Choice does not make people have abortions or divorce frivolously or abandon their families or become slaves to substances.

You get it. Lots of people don't. For example, you said that you are pro-choice but anti-abortion. So many people think that is impossible and contrary and doesn't make sense. It's like the only way the "religious right" knows to further it's agenda is at the end of a gun: using law and purity "contracts" and other trappings of obligation.

Sometimes I wonder if they don't believe in their own product. Just like my husband is a great sales person because he's a "true believer" in the wonders of the Whirlpool Duet; if the religious right truly believe that their values are a good choice, why do they fear choice? There are no laws against Christian values! It says so in the Bible They have nothing to fear.

[kellygrrrrrl]

Justifying sin by whatever means necessary is all I see.....

It just doesn't work like that.

We as humans want to find a loophole in everything.....to justify that it is ok....when its not, but don't want to believe that and will find reason within to make it ok.

Abortion is 'usually' (NOT ALL CASES) the result of "sex Before marriage".......

Which is a sin within sin.

I agree 100% w/ Ted here.

BUT......I really don't have a solid opinion on Abortion.

because there are circumstances that I haven't concidered fully.

Like, rape, Drug addiction and that affecting the child, alcoholism, Unwanted children, etc.....

Are all of these things the childs fault? No.

If we had a solid foundation to stand on, in a perfect world, there wouldn't be violence (rape), people wouldn't be having unprotected sex pre-married thus causing unwanted children to have to "abort" them unjustifiably.

But If you do not have these foundations to stand on (Very simple ones at that) then chaos is the inevitable.

And that, is a choice.

[sinmantyx]

I think perhaps it's the concept that human beings are inherently EVIL that makes the "right" worried about choice. If you believe that human beings will "find a loophole" to slip into hedonism and that you NEED a list of non-negotiable rules in order to live a moral life; humans are just caged beasts with no sense what-so-ever. Thing is: if you're looking for a "loophole" you're going to find it faster if you argue the "letter of the law" than if you argue the "spirit of the law". The "right" is shooting themselves in the foot.

The world would not be perfect if human beings were somehow perfect and always followed all the rules. The world is simply better if we make right choices.

[Steven]

We totally agree with many many things. It's not that the culture(s) described in the Old Testament were sexist...of course they were. It's the fact that stories about these ancient times are *used* in ways that justify a continuation of those perverse cultural norms.

Because the Bible is used the way it is, people can't say Abraham was a great man, but that part where he pimped out his wife was pretty uncool (I think that was Abraham...but it could have been any number of those guys that did that all the time.).....just like people say Thomas Jefferson was a great man, but that owning slaves things was pretty uncool. Instead, much of Christianity places Biblical characters up as little-gods; classified as "Men of God" and that they, despite their human frailty, are used as examples of how one should worship God and how one should live. I disagree with that...and so would most people in actuality. However, admitting that prophets and "men of god" and disciplines were human and that they said and did some pretty questionable things; and lived by some pretty questionable laws; is "heretical" to those who place the words within the Bible over the divine inspiration of the Word. When you worship an object instead of what that object may represent....isn't that idolatry? Trust me, I have learned from all the discussions that I have had with you on this board, that you've rejected that type of orthodoxy, but MANY people have not.

When I say "says" I'm being vague. I mean both "imply" and "prescribe". In both situations, a person may say, "...but the Bible SAYS...." blah blah blah At some point it's just a legalistic torrent of selective reading and creative interpretation. At some point, you have to leave scripture behind and follow the seed of inspiration and trust that it will lead you to the right path. That is the essence of "liberal religion".

The original author makes a great point: The "right" is generally motivated by duty and law. You do something because it is the right thing to do and because God demands it. THAT is why scripture is continually held up as the inerrant Word of God; because without the laws, prescriptions and comfort of those boundaries and structures they are AFRAID. They believe that allowing inspiration outside of those prescriptions and allowing for an individual to decide what speaks to them and what does not; will necessarily cause social disorder and ruin.

The message of the author is that....it doesn't. Just like actually educating children about sex, love and stds instead of "just saying no" does NOT cause young people to become sexually active. Choice does not make people have abortions or divorce frivolously or abandon their families or become slaves to substances.

You get it. Lots of people don't. For example, you said that you are pro-choice but anti-abortion. So many people think that is impossible and contrary and doesn't make sense. It's like the only way the "religious right" knows to further it's agenda is at the end of a gun: using law and purity "contracts" and other trappings of obligation.

Sometimes I wonder if they don't believe in their own product. Just like my husband is a great sales person because he's a "true believer" in the wonders of the Whirlpool Duet; if the religious right truly believe that their values are a good choice, why do they fear choice? There are no laws against Christian values! It says so in the Bible They have nothing to fear.

this was a good post, well done.

let's talk about soem of this shall we????

much of Christianity places Biblical characters up as little-gods; classified as "Men of God" and that they, despite their human frailty, are used as examples of how one should worship God and how one should live. I disagree with that...and so would most people in actuality. However, admitting that prophets and "men of god" and disciplines were human and that they said and did some pretty questionable things; and lived by some pretty questionable laws; is "heretical" to those who place the words within the Bible over the divine inspiration of the Word. When you worship an object instead of what that object may represent....isn't that idolatry?

ok.....yes I agree that Christendom as a whole sometimes places too much emphasis on these by way of only illuminating that they were used of God, thus equating them with greatness. But - its also not that simple. For example what technically made Abram "great' in teh eyes of some was quite simply, his faith, which is the pivitol and consistent prerequisite to grace as per the written word. But he wasent always faithful was he? Perfect example you used of his pimping his wife. So here is the question - if God was concerned about his personal PR, why then would he not have the cannonizers do a little editing? Why allow the text to include such a scathing review of the man's shortcomings? You can use King David as an example too, he was a murderor who stole bathseba and killed her husband, yet God called him "a man after my own heart" and did incrediblehings with him. He also allowed David to reap the tragedies that he had sown. Lets see anyone else? Ahhh Saul, who became Paul, the Christian hunter and killer and the writer of much of the new testament. Brilliant man he was, incredibly gifted and educated under Gamliel,yet he had some head trips. Peter? PUSSY. yet Christ built the entire church on hi shoulders. Moses? Couldent apply his own teachings and ordinances to his own son and was prone to pride yet God used him mightily even though at one point he was so pissed at him he was going to kill him until his WIFE interceded....

I say we SHOULD talk about these things, because God allowed them to be documented. All of this stuff just shows me that only God is God, and men are not, and yet God still gets his will done and can work with just about anything & anyone....heresy only applies to those who yeild to the powers that be. They called Christ a Heretic too.

When I say "says" I'm being vague. I mean both "imply" and "prescribe". In both situations, a person may say, "...but the Bible SAYS...." blah blah blah At some point it's just a legalistic torrent of selective reading and creative interpretation. At some point, you have to leave scripture behind and follow the seed of inspiration and trust that it will lead you to the right path. That is the essence of "liberal religion".

To a point, I agree with you. But even within my "liberalism" (God man I HATE categories) I am rooted in biblical constants. You know how I am and what I present as christianity or godliness. I may get a littel sideways with it, but everythign I say can be biblically supported. I therefore root myself in scripture, yet remember that I was created to speak my mind....I think whats most important here is the delivery methods and motivations...its not the scripture that perverts, its the delivery of said scripture.

The original author makes a great point: The "right" is generally motivated by duty and law. You do something because it is the right thing to do and because God demands it. THAT is why scripture is continually held up as the inerrant Word of God; because without the laws, prescriptions and comfort of those boundaries and structures they are AFRAID. They believe that allowing inspiration outside of those prescriptions and allowing for an individual to decide what speaks to them and what does not; will necessarily cause social disorder and ruin.

You make good points. All I will offer you at this point is that many of us, a great many of us, hold up scripture as God breathed and ordained and the fullfillment of Chrsit as "The Word" as an incredible and sometimes mysterious yet very potent life force of change and revalation. Some of us, simply are in awe of what it can do, what it has accomplished, and how it continues to flourish. Despite what has been done in the name of God - I still love the written text like a dear freind whom I trust implicitly.

Just like actually educating children about sex, love and stds instead of "just saying no" does NOT cause young people to become sexually active. Choice does not make people have abortions or divorce frivolously or abandon their families or become slaves to substances.

well done here. I support this idea, yet I do not beleive in relativism, I beleive soem choices are simply wrong.

Sometimes I wonder if they don't believe in their own product. Just like my husband is a great sales person because he's a "true believer" in the wonders of the Whirlpool Duet; if the religious right truly believe that their values are a good choice, why do they fear choice? There are no laws against Christian values! It says so in the Bible They have nothing to fear.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and tell you that you are the closest thing to a beleiver I've seen in a long time. Christ himself told us that the chruch would reach this age. He fought against these same things during his own time. All I can suggest/challenge you with is that a man like me, who was brought up like many of these tradional right wingers and who studied the same book, is in the end..... a man like me. If it was "religion" that causes that, or the bible that causes that, or christianity that causes that.....then I would fail to be who I am right? So what causes an offshoot like me? If and when you see evidence of God you need to recognize it silently and hide it in your heart. If your seeking, you'll find the evidence you need.

nice talking to you.

Steven

[BrassFusion]

Justifying sin by whatever means necessary is all I see.....

It just doesn't work like that.

We as humans want to find a loophole in everything.....to justify that it is ok....when its not, but don't want to believe that and will find reason within to make it ok.

Abortion is 'usually' (NOT ALL CASES) the result of "sex Before marriage".......

Which is a sin within sin.

I agree 100% w/ Ted here.

BUT......I really don't have a solid opinion on Abortion.

because there are circumstances that I haven't concidered fully.

Like, rape, Drug addiction and that affecting the child, alcoholism, Unwanted children, etc.....

Are all of these things the childs fault? No.

If we had a solid foundation to stand on, in a perfect world, there wouldn't be violence (rape), people wouldn't be having unprotected sex pre-married thus causing unwanted children to have to "abort" them unjustifiably.

But If you do not have these foundations to stand on (Very simple ones at that) then chaos is the inevitable.

And that, is a choice.

The concept of "sin" is invalid outside the context of one's own faith... that's what our country was built on, and I assure you that the perfect world, if it existed, wouldn't be a theocracy. There's nothing we can do to make the world perfect, or even make everyone follow the same moral code, so children out of wedlock will always happen.

Abortion isn't a justification for fornication and its resultant "unwanted" children. It is a medically reliable solution to unnecessary potential offspring, in the most clinical terms. And like premarital conceptions, abortions will ALWAYS be around. They're older than history itself, too: it's just they came a trimester or two later and were called "infanticide."

Reproductive sciences, including abortion practices, are the culturally acceptable alternatives to infanticide. As people get more desensitized to the issue, this science can progress and actually be less destructive in terms of culling late-term fetuses.

I'm talking about a future in which you wake up every day and take a multivitamin that cleanses your body of a zygote that may have begun development the night before. When you wish to conceive, you take a different vitamin. It WILL happen, but not until people aren't scared of the possibility.

[torn asunder]

this is what bothers me - (not about you, blackmail, but the bible...)

2. The scripture says you can not take life.

I already touched on this, in any case the bible condones killing does not involve the unborn.

the bible constantly contradicts itself, within itself... how the f*ck can you believe/follow a teaching that can't even make up it's own damn mind!?!?

because a gathering of details and facts does not in and of itself mean that the text has the intention of condoning something.

which completely shows how open to interpretation the bible is/should be...

Moses? Couldent apply his own teachings and ordinances to his own son and was prone to pride yet God used him mightily even though at one point he was so pissed at him he was going to kill him until his WIFE interceded....

wait - "god" was going to kill moses? so much for "thou shalt not kill!!! wtf!?!? god can only control himself when someone else points out "hey, you shouldn't do that!?" some omnipotent, unconditionally-loving benefactor he is!?!? when i see/hear discussions like this, it reenforces the reasoning behind why i never bothered wasting more time studying this kind of "crap" (my opinion) once i realize something is as incompatible/contradictory within itself as this is, i know i need not bother. what makes me really sad, is that there are people out there who are blindly following the myriad different teachings that all supposedly stem from this one so-called "word of god"... and sorry to offend, but i seriously hope that organized religion falls off the face of the planet, sooner rather than later.

/leaving - carry on, people...

[kellygrrrrrl]

More later, until then.......Good day all!

I'm outta here!!!

:peanutbutterjellytime

[Steven]

this is what bothers me - (not about you, blackmail, but the bible...)

the bible constantly contradicts itself, within itself... how the f*ck can you believe/follow a teaching that can't even make up it's own damn mind!?!?

which completely shows how open to interpretation the bible is/should be...

wait - "god" was going to kill moses? so much for "thou shalt not kill!!! wtf!?!? god can only control himself when someone else points out "hey, you shouldn't do that!?" some omnipotent, unconditionally-loving benefactor he is!?!? when i see/hear discussions like this, it reenforces the reasoning behind why i never bothered wasting more time studying this kind of "crap" (my opinion) once i realize something is as incompatible/contradictory within itself as this is, i know i need not bother. what makes me really sad, is that there are people out there who are blindly following the myriad different teachings that all supposedly stem from this one so-called "word of god"... and sorry to offend, but i seriously hope that organized religion falls off the face of the planet, sooner rather than later.

/leaving - carry on, people...

I like these kinds of discussions.

and you'll get you wish in due time Mike I'm sure....only to eventually be replaced by worship of the state. but I digress.....

on the contradiction of thall shalt not kill.....

two quick answerrs, trite as they may sound:

A) first translation is really thall shalt not commit murder, not thall shalt not kill. but whatever. theres plenty of killing in the bible is yrou next answer I would guess but I leave it to you to do what you will...also bear in mind that you are quoting one of the ten commandments, who's purpose was?

addressed to whom? To faccilitate what?

I'm not watering down here, I'm enlightening....

B) IN AMerica, were likewise not allowed to randomly kill at will. Yet we kill the unborn, even late in to their trimesters, and we have no problem with that authority. We also go to woar and slay innocent women and children, and we allow this as well, we topple governments, we assasinate world rulers, we ruin lives by manipulating the market, etc etc etc.....

there is always the highest authority.

which does, what it wills itself to do, within the confines of that authority.

that commandment against commitming murder is directed at a subordinate people with extrememly limited authority. It does nto apply to God. Nor does God answer to men. You want him to meet you at your understanding of decency and order before you will yeild, and I get that. But it will never happen.

Likewise, neither will our government and local authorities. We deal with what we find palatible. We sometiems disagree and and have a hard time accepting the bigger picture.

its your right to feel this way. I dont knock you for it, but I'm not bound by it, and what you call "crap" has sustained and healed many people....myself included.

Next contradiction, please stand up.

[sinmantyx]

I was riding around in the car just a little bit ago and had an epiphany. It was something I already knew, but hadn't linked to this conversation yet.

Many individuals on the "right" don't know why.

Why not have premarital sex?

Because God said not to? Because women are property and virginity is valued? (If you think this is just an archaic reason, you didn't hear a father said he would "not be giving anyone away" at his daughter's wedding if she didn't "remain pure" on the news last week...talking about these obnoxious "purity balls") Because it will "pollute the soul"? Because it's not fair to your future spouse somehow?

I think at some point young people will inspect the rules they have been given. If they do not understand the consequences of their actions...other than "you'll burn in hell" or some other phantasmal scare tactic...they will certainly stray. Kept isolated and ignorant, they will certainly be taken advantage of.

Many traditional values are simply VERY good ideas. They do keep people from harm in many ways. However, if the reasons are not articulated, it's a recipe for disaster. It's like telling kids, "Drugs will kill you"...which they know is a lie most of the time...without explaining which substances do what and why it's a bad idea to partake.

Just saying "It's a sin" is not a reason...it's just brain-wash-light indoctrination that has no basis. A rule with either NO reason or fake reasons behind it, will simply crumble under it's own weight under scrutiny...and the credibility of the authority behind the rules will certainly suffer.

[phee]

I was riding around in the car just a little bit ago and had an epiphany. It was something I already knew, but hadn't linked to this conversation yet.

Many individuals on the "right" don't know why.

Why not have premarital sex?

Because God said not to? Because women are property and virginity is valued? (If you think this is just an archaic reason, you didn't hear a father said he would "not be giving anyone away" at his daughter's wedding if she didn't "remain pure" on the news last week...talking about these obnoxious "purity balls") Because it will "pollute the soul"? Because it's not fair to your future spouse somehow?

I think at some point young people will inspect the rules they have been given. If they do not understand the consequences of their actions...other than "you'll burn in hell" or some other phantasmal scare tactic...they will certainly stray. Kept isolated and ignorant, they will certainly be taken advantage of.

Many traditional values are simply VERY good ideas. They do keep people from harm in many ways. However, if the reasons are not articulated, it's a recipe for disaster. It's like telling kids, "Drugs will kill you"...which they know is a lie most of the time...without explaining which substances do what and why it's a bad idea to partake.

Just saying "It's a sin" is not a reason...it's just brain-wash-light indoctrination that has no basis. A rule with either NO reason or fake reasons behind it, will simply crumble under it's own weight under scrutiny...and the credibility of the authority behind the rules will certainly suffer.

Very good post

[BrassFusion]

Steven- I don't worship your god and I SURE as hell don't worship the state. I worship freedom. I think a community of Erins that shared no values but for the one of the most freedoms possible for the most individuals possible at almost any cost would do rather well.

There are always sacrifices (and it's often tricky to try to weigh them fairly), and to me the freedoms of the self-aware trump the freedoms of the significantly less self-aware. Freedoms of people trump freedoms of animals, within reason. Freedoms of adult women trump freedoms of the fetuses they may carry, within reason. More important than self-awareness of course is thoughtless malice, as in the freedoms of the innocent should outweigh the freedoms of the malicious and selfish.

Obviously there are billions of ways to dole out freedoms and some people are always going to get the short end of the stick. Right now, in this country, it's poor people, children, gays, and minorities, in something approximating that order. Most of the people who get shafted don't really deserve it, but I'm optimistic that democracy and its eventual resultant

*****SECULARISM*****

will play out more fairly.

Edit: In the "shafted" list, I left out criminals and women AND men and "believers" AND "nonbelievers" and a host of other groups. Doesn't mean I don't believe they're devalued unfairly, it's just impossible to organize a list like that.

[torn asunder]

that commandment against commitming murder is directed at a subordinate people with extrememly limited authority. It does nto apply to God. Nor does God answer to men. You want him to meet you at your understanding of decency and order before you will yeild, and I get that. But it will never happen.

do as i say, not as i do!? that's pretty shitty, imo, and no way to "lead by example". i mean, if my "supervisor" was to tell me (the "subordinate") not to do something, while doing exactly that which he was against for me, i'd tell him he was full of shit. god doesn't have to answer to me, but i also in no way have to answer to some idealized, fatherly, allpowerful, drummed-up entity who can't even follow his own edicts.

now, the above has nothing to do with the underlying connection i feel for everyone, and i feel runs through us all - it has to do with a "character" i feel has been created by a particular group of people as a way to control and make obedient, the people they wished to subjugate. most x-tianity that i hear now (uber-strict - orthodox? i don't know what to call it) is all about fire & brimstone, god of wrath, repent or burn in hell, kind of stuff. if the fear component were removed, and the respect and love aspect were taught (and *modelled*) i would be all for it, but i digress...

[sinmantyx]

*****SECULARISM*****

No...no....NO! Separation of authority (religious and political) and lack of theocracy...I'm all for that. Secularism (depending on how you are defining it) is what makes France think forcing Muslims woman and girls not to cover and forbidding "prominent" religious symbols on jewelry at public school is somehow REASONABLE.

Civil liberty does not equal secularism...and democracy CERTAINLY doesn't equal secularism. In fact democracy (at this moment in time) is promoting theocracy, due to a shift toward the tyranny of the majority (better known as the religious right: with their successful anti-gay-marriage campaign).

While I'm at it: Lack of organized religion does not lead to worship of the state. I don't get that at all. It would most likely just be supplanted by disorganized religion.

[BrassFusion]

No...no....NO! Separation of authority (religious and political) and lack of theocracy...I'm all for that. Secularism (depending on how you are defining it) is what makes France think forcing Muslims woman and girls not to cover and forbidding "prominent" religious symbols on jewelry at public school is somehow REASONABLE.

Civil liberty does not equal secularism...and democracy CERTAINLY doesn't equal secularism. In fact democracy (at this moment in time) is promoting theocracy, due to a shift toward the tyranny of the majority (better known as the religious right: with their successful anti-gay-marriage campaign).

While I'm at it: Lack of organized religion does not lead to worship of the state. I don't get that at all. It would most likely just be supplanted by disorganized religion.

That really isn't what I meant. I hate to misuse a word, but it IS kind of ambiguous, isn't it...

sec·u·lar·ism

–noun

1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.

2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

[Origin: 1850–55; secular + -ism]

sec·u·lar·ism

n.

1. Religious skepticism or indifference.

2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

I don't like the 1. definition from the first source. The other three are ok. What I'm getting at is that in the absence of dogmatic fear-mongering secularism will win the day, to a man. Like it did with me... for the lack of scare tactics, I was essentially raised to be an agnostic.

A democracy in which few people care about religion would create a society in which all religions could be given the same degree of respect (which would be not much, admittedly, in most cases). But I doubt we'll see the day when it's illegal to wear an eye patch to observe the circumcision feast of St. Bluebeard, for example. No one takes it seriously; no legislation is needed.

[Steven]

Steven- I don't worship your god and I SURE as hell don't worship the state. I worship freedom. I think a community of Erins that shared no values but for the one of the most freedoms possible for the most individuals possible at almost any cost would do rather well.

There are always sacrifices (and it's often tricky to try to weigh them fairly), and to me the freedoms of the self-aware trump the freedoms of the significantly less self-aware. Freedoms of people trump freedoms of animals, within reason. Freedoms of adult women trump freedoms of the fetuses they may carry, within reason. More important than self-awareness of course is thoughtless malice, as in the freedoms of the innocent should outweigh the freedoms of the malicious and selfish.

Obviously there are billions of ways to dole out freedoms and some people are always going to get the short end of the stick. Right now, in this country, it's poor people, children, gays, and minorities, in something approximating that order. Most of the people who get shafted don't really deserve it, but I'm optimistic that democracy and its eventual resultant

*****SECULARISM*****

will play out more fairly.

Edit: In the "shafted" list, I left out criminals and women AND men and "believers" AND "nonbelievers" and a host of other groups. Doesn't mean I don't believe they're devalued unfairly, it's just impossible to organize a list like that.

i liked this post erin.

[Steven]

do as i say, not as i do!? that's pretty shitty, imo, and no way to "lead by example". i mean, if my "supervisor" was to tell me (the "subordinate") not to do something, while doing exactly that which he was against for me, i'd tell him he was full of shit. god doesn't have to answer to me, but i also in no way have to answer to some idealized, fatherly, allpowerful, drummed-up entity who can't even follow his own edicts.

now, the above has nothing to do with the underlying connection i feel for everyone, and i feel runs through us all - it has to do with a "character" i feel has been created by a particular group of people as a way to control and make obedient, the people they wished to subjugate. most x-tianity that i hear now (uber-strict - orthodox? i don't know what to call it) is all about fire & brimstone, god of wrath, repent or burn in hell, kind of stuff. if the fear component were removed, and the respect and love aspect were taught (and *modelled*) i would be all for it, but i digress...

this is a fair argument .

but were not talking about man to man conflicts here.

were talking about (supposedly) differences of opinion between fallible and finite man, and an supposedly all knowing and iinfinitley more powerful "GOD". The edicts created were for man, not for God.

sux I know (on the surface). but it tis what it tis....and to be honest I think that if you were ever really face to face with "GOD" if he exists as we seem to be describing him, in full power and breadth of existence and knowledge, I doubt that you'd really challenge him Mike. ANd thats not a strike against you, I like you, alot, and we've had some good stuff between us, but I see you as my equal: just a man, prone to flaws and aoccasional flashes of brilliance but in the end just a man. I do respect the courage of your convictions and beleive you will carry them with you wherever you go and acknowledge that you have some inherent wisdom within you which is pretty rare for someone so young. I also know the depth of conviction and have tested the waters as have many others just like me.

by the way the fire and brimstone thing has never been modelled by ME, and I am a card carrying beleiver and until my voice is squelched then to some degree you have to factor me in to your equasion. There are exceptions to the norm, which I beleive that I represent and would even go so far as to say are possibly spiritually rooted. You will choose your focus, but you cannot say that an alternative did not ever present itself.

by the way do I strike you as fearful and subjugated? I know I don't, but go ahead.....

[Steven]

That really isn't what I meant. I hate to misuse a word, but it IS kind of ambiguous, isn't it...

I don't like the 1. definition from the first source. The other three are ok. What I'm getting at is that in the absence of dogmatic fear-mongering secularism will win the day, to a man. Like it did with me... for the lack of scare tactics, I was essentially raised to be an agnostic.

A democracy in which few people care about religion would create a society in which all religions could be given the same degree of respect (which would be not much, admittedly, in most cases). But I doubt we'll see the day when it's illegal to wear an eye patch to observe the circumcision feast of St. Bluebeard, for example. No one takes it seriously; no legislation is needed.

and yet this same scenario exists in other countries. it IS illegal, to be a Christian in parts of the globe. Can cost you your life. SO obviouysly somehow somewhere, somebody is taking it quite seriously. And if history repeats itself (think about your republic in the hands of say.....Nero) then this is always a possibility. Im no prophert either, I just see the possiblilites of it.

[Steven]

I was riding around in the car just a little bit ago and had an epiphany. It was something I already knew, but hadn't linked to this conversation yet.

Many individuals on the "right" don't know why.

Why not have premarital sex?

Because God said not to? Because women are property and virginity is valued? (If you think this is just an archaic reason, you didn't hear a father said he would "not be giving anyone away" at his daughter's wedding if she didn't "remain pure" on the news last week...talking about these obnoxious "purity balls") Because it will "pollute the soul"? Because it's not fair to your future spouse somehow?

I think at some point young people will inspect the rules they have been given. If they do not understand the consequences of their actions...other than "you'll burn in hell" or some other phantasmal scare tactic...they will certainly stray. Kept isolated and ignorant, they will certainly be taken advantage of.

Many traditional values are simply VERY good ideas. They do keep people from harm in many ways. However, if the reasons are not articulated, it's a recipe for disaster. It's like telling kids, "Drugs will kill you"...which they know is a lie most of the time...without explaining which substances do what and why it's a bad idea to partake.

Just saying "It's a sin" is not a reason...it's just brain-wash-light indoctrination that has no basis. A rule with either NO reason or fake reasons behind it, will simply crumble under it's own weight under scrutiny...and the credibility of the authority behind the rules will certainly suffer.

in a nutshell:

what is biblically taught about sexual relations?

A) that a "soul tie" is created by sexual unions, thus many unions creates many soul ties prior to the "intended" soul tie that is supposed to exist between a man and his wife for the sake of intimacy.

B) that when a man (or a woman) sins sexually, they sin "against their own flesh" and in so doing harm themselves.

the basic argument against sexual promiscuity is that a marital covenent is created to thrive in intimacy and has a much greater chance for growth when that purity is nurtured and maintained. It has nothgin to do with being dirty or with sex beign dirty. It has to do with preservation of the relationship.

by teh way what do you beleive the workign definition of "SIN" is? (I ask because it helps to paint a certain picture)

[BrassFusion]

and yet this same scenario exists in other countries. it IS illegal, to be a Christian in parts of the globe. Can cost you your life. SO obviouysly somehow somewhere, somebody is taking it quite seriously. And if history repeats itself (think about your republic in the hands of say.....Nero) then this is always a possibility. Im no prophert either, I just see the possiblilites of it.

If Christians weren't rabidly pushing their faith on others the secularists wouldn't have a reason to take them seriously and there would be no need for any legislation. Not that there is "need" now, per se (and I personally believe it's counterproductive), but no one would see the need for legislation.

in a nutshell:

what is biblically taught about sexual relations?

A) that a "soul tie" is created by sexual unions, thus many unions creates many soul ties prior to the "intended" soul tie that is supposed to exist between a man and his wife for the sake of intimacy.

B) that when a man (or a woman) sins sexually, they sin "against their own flesh" and in so doing harm themselves.

the basic argument against sexual promiscuity is that a marital covenent is created to thrive in intimacy and has a much greater chance for growth when that purity is nurtured and maintained. It has nothgin to do with being dirty or with sex beign dirty. It has to do with preservation of the relationship.

by teh way what do you beleive the workign definition of "SIN" is? (I ask because it helps to paint a certain picture)

She KNOWS it's a sin, but she doesn't appear to see why it's "immoral" outside the banner of religion, I believe. And I agree with her.

It's very irritating to be bound by the expectations of a Christian culture when I'm not Christian, and see my fellow atheist/agnostic chums fall into those traps.