Why are Rainbows Gay?

[bigrobwoot]

Just to add to Scott's post on the Theory of Evolution, he is right. A scientific theory means that it is a hypothesis that has been tested over and over and over and over again, and has never once been disproven, but it is not provable yet.

For example, gravity is just a theory, since we can only test our knowledge of it in the part of the universe we can touch. Scientists assume it applies to the whole thing, but based on today's technology, it isn't yet provable.

I'm not skating your post, Joel, but I know it's going to take about an hour to address it, and I'll be at work all day, so I gotta do it in chunks.

[Dean]

This discussion reminds me of Clarke's laws...

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

They are very useful to me in conversations like this.

Can we even imagine living in year zero much less BC from a knowledge and technology perspective? Again, I think we have to take the bible in context. What might have been perceived as miraculous or unknowable then might well be trivial or commonplace today. Their perception of time and distance were like a dog's compared to ours.

I do not find value in nitpicking scripture.

If the bible said the earth was flat because that was believed at the time, would that invalidate all else it contains?

We now know Newton's "Laws" while great for everyday use actually don't hold up under extreme conditions. Should we discount him and everything he did because of that? No.

Today we have String Theory, something we may never be able to detect or measure, but may well be the all encompassing wonderfulness for the physical world. For all we know, the universe is just god's tapestry made up of those strings.

I like Darwin's theory, but cannot really fathom time on the scale evolution takes. I talk about vision and how the human eye and the brain work while driving all the time, but cannot imagine the organism that first moved toward the light or motion that was it's origin and the mind boggling sequence to get from there to here, but I have faith that it happened.

Creationism may just be the best science of the day. And if it is the word of God, it is the best understanding of those words or ideas the people of the time had. They did not understand what we do today. How would a person of that period document something as simple as a 3D movie? A vision perceived through plastic glasses known as god's eyes?

Again, I think spending time debating the technical detail of ancient scripture is of far less value than the ideas and ideals in them.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by sperry

So we're not literally made in his image then?

Do you take that scripture to mean literal physical appearance?

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by sperry

A scientific "theory" is not the same thing as a layman's theory. A scientific theory is a hypothetical prediction, the strength of which is determined by the evidence gathered via experimentation.

This would be a great argument toward a creator. Those bible writers would be considered a layman to an extreme degree considering the technology at their time. As we know they were all completely different and from different times. So if those men came to a conclusion that was considered wrong until proven fact by science thousands of years later, would that not imply that they had help from someone who knew much more than they did?

Originally Posted by sperry

I'm not sure what your point is about the light from Andromeda... but FYI the Hubble telescope has imaged galaxies around 13B light years away, so the universe is at least 13 billion years old... which fits right in with the current estimates of the age of the universe.

I was simply trying to show Rob that I didn't believe the universe was only thousands of years old. I also stated that I was unsure how old it was. By your post it is at least 13B years old. I find that informative not something contrary to what I believe. I imagine as technology continues to improve we will find that the universe is even older than that. Again, none of us know how old it could be.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Just wanted to let you know I am leaving for LA and I don't know when I will have internet next. I will be back in a week if you don't hear from me.

[bigrobwoot]

My responses will be in bold.

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

Rob, I admire your passion about what you feel but, I don't totally understand your post.



What is your definition of evolve? There are many different views on evolution. Do you believe that man came about by chance from a puddle? If so, where has that been proven as fact? I think they still call this the theory of evolution. Even Darwin himself said this "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Also, if humans are supposed to be an evolutionary improvement over monkeys, why do humans suffer from emotional problems that do not afflict monkeys?

I believe the generally-accepted theory of evolution. The first living organism was a single-celled, bacteria-like being. That slowly evolved into a multi-cell organism, into a fish, into amphibians, into reptiles, into birds, into mammals. I don't know how much more detailed you want my definition, but j hope that answers your question.

In order for this to have happened, there needed to be a spark of energy to get the atoms to align in a way that created life. This is where my agnosticism comes in. That spark could have been a natural phenomenon, but it could have been the "hand of God". This is why I say that if there is a God, he is not all-powerful. He is simply something that exists outside of our universe that can influence our universe.

Over the course of evolutionary history, there are plenty of animals that have less-than-desireable traits, such as our emotional volatility. For all we know, we could be the stepping stone to the next great evolutionary stage. It could also be argued that in our developmental stage, the angry people killed the apathetic people, and therefore they were the ones that propagated the species.

After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.” New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of paleontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”
Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.” Science magazine adds: “The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.”

Just how sparse is the fossil record regarding “ape-men”? Note the following. Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ said Elwyn Simons of Duke University.” The New York Times: “The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years.” Science Digest: “The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . . Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.”
Modern-type humans, with the capacity to reason, plan, invent, build on previous knowledge and use complex languages, appear suddenly in the fossil record. Gould, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, notes: “We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty thousand years ago.” Thus, the book The Universe Within asks: “What caused evolution . . . to produce, as if overnight, modern humankind with its highly special brain?” Evolution is unable to answer.

Another difficulty for evolution is the fact that nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various types of flying creatures—birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest.

Wow, modern science isn't infallable? That isn't news. They've only been searching for fossils or 100 years? Of course they won't uncover the millions of years of evolution in 100 years. They're still finding and naming new species in the ocean to this day. This is where our differing beliefs come in. I fill in the gaps with evolution, you fill them in with creation.

There are fossils showing fish with the beginnings of legs, and snakes as well.

There are also mutations that just pop up in certain offspring, instead of slowly coming to fruition. For example, that octopus baby that was born in India, I think it was. That particular example wasn't helpful, but if it were, she would have mated and passed the mutation along.







How can you say that the Earth is not the only place with life and then say, "I know life hasn't been found yet"? All the other planets that scientists have probed are devoid of life. But Earth teems with life, sustained by very complex systems that provide light, air, heat, water and food, all in exquisite balance. It shows evidence of having been specially built to accommodate living things comfortably. Imagine that you are in a barren desert, devoid of all life. Suddenly you come upon a beautiful house. The house has air conditioning, heating, plumbing and electricity. Its refrigerator and cupboards are filled with food. Its basement contains fuel and other supplies. Now, suppose you asked someone where all of this came from, in such a barren desert. What would you think if that person answered, “It just happened to appear there by chance”? Would you believe that? Or would you take for granted that it had a designer and builder?

All the other planets? All, what, 5 of them? That's just this solar system. Like Scott said, the universe is unfathomably large, with trillions, probably more, of galaxies and solar systems. I'd say that it is possible for at least one of those planets in those solar systems to have a planet that can and does support life.

In the desert example, it would have to be the Sahara, and I'd been wandering for 10 minutes before I found that house. That would lead me to believe that there are other houses with people in them somewhere in the desert.

Again, I don't claim to know where our universe came from. The house needing a builder doesn't feel like an accurate analogy, though. We know there is something that exists that builds houses. We don't know if there is something that exists that builds universes (multiverses?).

Among the many precise conditions vital to life on the earth is the amount of light and heat received from the sun. The earth gets only a small fraction of the sun’s energy. Yet, it is just the right amount required to sustain life. This is because the earth is just the right distance from the sun—an average 93,000,000 miles. If the earth were much closer to the sun or farther away from it, temperatures would be too hot or too cold for life.
As it orbits the sun once a year the earth travels at a speed of about 66,600 miles an hour. That speed is just right to offset the gravitational pull of the sun and keep the earth at the proper distance. If that speed were decreased, the earth would be pulled toward the sun. In time, Earth could become a scorched wasteland like Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Mercury’s daytime temperature is over 600 degrees Fahrenheit. However, if Earth’s orbital speed were increased, it would move farther away from the sun and could become an icy waste like Pluto, the planet whose orbit reaches farthest from the sun. Pluto’s temperature is about 300 degrees below zero Fahrenheit.
In addition, the earth consistently makes a complete rotation on its axis every 24 hours. This provides regular periods of light and darkness. But what if the earth rotated on its axis, say, only once a year? It would mean that the same side of the earth would be facing the sun all year long. That side would likely become a furnacelike desert, while the side away from the sun would likely become a sub-zero wasteland. Few, if any, living things could exist in those extreme circumstances.
As Earth rotates on its axis, it is tilted 23.5 degrees in relation to the sun. If the earth were not tilted, there would be no change of seasons. Climate would be the same all the time. While this would not make life impossible, it would make it less interesting and would drastically change the present crop cycles in many places. If the earth were tilted much more, there would be extremely hot summers and extremely cold winters

All of that info about earth is why it supports life as we know it. There could be other forms of life out there that are more resistant to cold, because they live on a planet slightly farther away from their sun than we do to ours. Are you saying that out of all of the solar systems in the universe, it isn't possible that there is another earth-like planet? There are 2 in our own solar system that are near misses! Venus used to look like earth, but over millions (billions?) of years, it has slowly gotten closer to the sun, and the sun has expanded. I'd suggest that life was possible on Venus back then. They haven't dug for fossils there, so how do we know there wasn't? There isn't any water there because of the extreme heat and small atmosphere. For all we know, it used to have water before it got closer to the sun. Maybe our water came from Venus when it was boiled off. Maybe earth caught the water floating in space.


No. I think you are asking the time period question based on the fact that many people believe that God created the earth in 6 literal 24hr days. The book of Genesis was written in Hebrew. In that language, “day” refers to a period of time. It can be either a lengthy one or a literal day of 24 hours. Even in Genesis all six “days” are spoken of collectively as one lengthy period. The fact is, the Bible reveals that the creative “days,” or ages, encompass thousands of years.
A person can see this from what the Bible says about the seventh “day.” The record of each of the first six “days” ends saying, ‘and there came to be evening and morning, a first day,’ and so on. Yet, you will not find that comment after the record of the seventh “day.” And in the first century C.E., some 4,000 years downstream in history, the Bible referred to the seventh rest “day” as still continuing. (Hebrews 4:4-6) So the seventh “day” was a period spanning thousands of years, and we can logically conclude the same about the first six “days.”

You're right, I lumped you in with them, I apologize. I can't assume what you believe just as much as you can't assume what I believe. Regardless of the time frame of a "day", accoring to the bible, earth was created before anything else in the universe, including the life-supporting sun. If a "day" is really thousands, millions, or billions of years, how did plant life exist for so long without a sun to provide them with life? How did light exist without a sun being yet created? Why doesn't that light still exist without the sun?

Sir Fred Hoyle explains in The Nature of the Universe: “To avoid the issue of creation it would be necessary for all the material of the Universe to be infinitely old, and this it cannot be. . . . Hydrogen is being steadily converted into helium and the other elements . . . How comes it then that the Universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter were infinitely old this would be quite impossible. So we see that the Universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged.”

The only thing that turns hydrogen into other elements is a fusion reaction in a star. Just as the age of the universe is unfathomable, so is the amount of matter in it. So is its age. This all leads back to the original question(s), of where did we come from and why?

To answer your question, I personally do not know how old the universe is. With what we as humans know today it would make sense that the universe is at least millions of years old. On a clear night, the light of Andromeda galaxy may be visible to the naked eye. Now, knowing how far away that island universe of stars is from the earth and that light travels at 186,282 miles [299,792 km] a second, scientists have determined that the light you see coming from the Andromeda galaxy is 1.5 million years old.

I did my best. Let me know if there's anything I missed

[sperry]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

Do you take that scripture to mean literal physical appearance?

Of course I don't. But I'm not the one that claims the Bible is the literal word of god.

My point is that if people who staunchly defend the Bible as proof that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible is the literal word of god are willing to say that man was not literally created in the image of god even though that's what the Bible says, then perhaps those people using the Bible as an excuse to come down on homosexuality are actually stretching the validity of the Bible on the subject in order to foster their own attitudes about gays.

To put it another way... Bible literalists seem willing to recognize metaphor in the Bible all over the place, except where it conflicts with what they already believe. Never have I met or heard of someone that said "you know, I was okay with gays, but then I read that god says gays are sinners and now I think they should all stop being gay". Those that use the Bible as their "reason" for being anti-gay were likely anti-gay before they studied the Bible, or they were simply taught to believe it was bad from their parents at a young age, in which case they've never really even thought critically about it for themselves.

And another thought... if homosexuality is a "disease" how is it also a sin (since I've heard both claims from the anti-gay crowd)? Doesn't sinning imply willful action? Doesn't a disease imply something out of the person's control? If being fat were a sin, would a person with a thyroid disorder be a sinner because of their disorder? I'm just trying to understand the supposed similarity between someone that's gay and someone that's a thief.

Also, as I'm phrasing most of this as questions to Joel, I just want to explicitly point out that I'm not suggesting Joel is "anti-gay" or that he subscribes fully or even partially to the hypotheticals I'm mentioning. I'm actually very grateful to the relatively good natured and positive discussion going on here on what's really a pretty touchy subject. Also, I don't really expect anyone to change their minds over this discussion either way since virtually everyone has their own well formed opinions about this sort of stuff... but, as Rob mentioned, I do find value in the discussion as far as it triggering my own introspection.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

This would be a great argument toward a creator. Those bible writers would be considered a layman to an extreme degree considering the technology at their time. As we know they were all completely different and from different times. So if those men came to a conclusion that was considered wrong until proven fact by science thousands of years later, would that not imply that they had help from someone who knew much more than they did?

Perhaps, if there was an overwhelming amount of things that they got right compared to things they got wrong. The problem is that the opposite is true. When it comes to scientific predictions and explanations, the Bible is overwhelmingly dated to the era of its authors with respect to their description of the natural world.

[ScottyS]

One more thing to think about at a purely logical level: if God is able to create all of the things that we can observe about the universe, including the dimensions of space and time, it stands to reason that He is not limited in any way by the laws of physics that we have identified and categorized to date, as He would be the origin of all such frameworks. There are all sorts of implications there, starting with the fact that the Earth could have been created in some long, drawn-out manner as our current observational knowledge indicates, or in a literal 144hrs, in whichever manner God saw fit. This view actually makes the most sense from a purely scientific perspective - the idea that there is some god floating around out there that is somehow constrained by the laws of physics (like the gods of many mythologies) makes little sense. The God of the Bible is certainly not constrained by anything that we have the ability to observe or describe.

I would also say that there is a difference between arguing "literal" interpretation of the actual grammar/language used in some translation, and a "literal" interpretation of the idea/fact/concept described, after weighing against similar texts elsewhere in the Bible and original language. Interestingly enough, the focus of most people that attack the idea that the Bible is the inspired and without contradiction is typically on linguistic minutia and other similar items that real scholarship would immediately clarify. You never see an objective look at the remarkable consistency and persistence of a document that spans multiple millennia, several civilizations, dozens of writers, and all of the linguistic and grammatical issues that go along with that.

The reason I'm not getting involved in the argument is that there is always too much preconception going on, which clouds the issue.

[A1337STI]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but unable? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. No He's testing us. If God forces your actions, then you are nothing but a puppet and there's nothing to Judge you upon who goes to heaven and who goes to hell if everyone's actions are controlled.

I'de say if God was controlling my even action, now that would be malevolent. You should already know this by now, if not from the Bible, then just through common sense.

We tend to call dictators Evil because they Can and DO control the actions of others (against their will)

[A1337STI]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but unable? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. No He's testing us. If God forces your actions, then you are nothing but a puppet and there's nothing to Judge you upon who goes to heaven and who goes to hell if everyone's actions are controlled.

I'de say if God was controlling my even action, now that would be malevolent. You should already know this by now, if not from the Bible, then just through common sense.

We tend to call dictators Evil because they Can and DO control the actions of others (against their will)

[Kevin M]

There are some very clear instances of hypocrisy and contradiction going on in the Bible. An eye for an eye vs. turn the other cheek is the most commonly cited. There are some clear issues with the contents that any "real scholarship" makes quite clear. A lot of it can be explained away by subscribing to the idea that Jesus' life and death fulfilled the contract of the Old Testament and essentially made it moot. The New Testament is way more friendly to the conduct of a free society.

Still, even if I were quite Christian, believing in God, Jesus, the resurrection etc., I would obviously not believe that anything recorded in the Bible should be taken literally, for the most part. In particular the idea that the Bible ever has accurately described anything remotely scientific or involving the natural universe is laughable. The Old Testament explicitly contradicts what we've discovered and theorized in all of science. Like Scott said, it's never once gotten it right. Viewing the writings in the Bible as flawed products of a flawed species is far, far preferable to me than having to reject the entire thing as a complete fabrication loosed upon the world by a vast conspiracy of the churches of the faith.

The problem then is, once you don't feel that the Bible directly represents God but rather our understanding of him, it really sucks as a guide to social behavior. The constant and never-disputed affirmation of slavery, bigotry, sexism, violence and servitude to the church are horrifying to me. That led to my personal view of the writings in the Bible to be a fairly decent code of personal conduct- Jesus never said that any one of us should act in a way I would not condone- but a terrible one for guiding how we apply the law to other people.

So that is my severely abbreviated and mediocre explanation of why I don't attend church. I'm comfortable with the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful God who created the universe. I'm okay with the idea that Jesus could be his one true prophet and the messiah. But past that, I've never found a set of views that I, as the creature that God may or may not have destined me to be, am comfortable embracing in its entirety.

---

My first post in this thread is a quote from Ghandi- "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." I first read that long after I had figured out where I stood on the subject, and it summed me up perfectly. It's just so disappointing to me when people try to use the Bible to justify evil behavior. Slavery, sexism, war, etc. etc. are explicitly approved by scripture.

Here's the problem I have with people who want to apply the Bible (or the teachings of any other organized religion) to secular law and secular society. Why is it that Christians want to prevent people from being gay because of scripture, but they conveniently leave out so much? I have to wonder how many of the people who voted yes on Prop 8 a couple years ago are aware that the actual punishment prescribed for homosexuality is death? Have they ever read Deuteronomy 21:18 which explicitly states that disobedient children are to be stoned as well? Or Exodus 31:15 which clearly says that anyone who works on the Sabbath should be put to death? Do they know that there are 39 more capital crimes specified in the Bible?

At least Jesus was consistent, and more importantly loving and compassionate.

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

No. The bible says that God is a spirit. Just as assigning human features to God is not to be understood literally, the use of male gender to describe God should not be taken literally. Gender distinction is unique to physical creatures and is a linguistic device that reflects the limitations of human language to capture fully the essence of God.

The Bible’s use of the designation “Father” helps us to understand that our Creator can be compared to a loving, protective, and caring human father. (Matthew 6:9) This does not mean that we are to view God, or even other spirit creatures in heaven, as being male or female. Gender, in the sense of sex, is not a characteristic of their nature.

That is a very reasonable response. The male gender thing often bugged me. I dunno though, the whole man-create-in-His-image thing combined with most artistic depictions gives people the impression he is some old dude with grey hair and beard and a loin cloth or robe which must be there to cover something. A god having actual gender and grey hair and wearing clothes is quite ridiculous.

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

Since you and Rob have decided to join in, why don't you guys share your own beliefs. Clearly there is something in the bible that you found that didn't make sense and turned you away 30 years ago.

I am a devout born-again atheist (90+%). An ironic thing is the first event I remember that started me disavowing my faith was something my pastor told me whilst discussing my own request to be baptized at age 14. I had never been baptized as an infant. He basically told me I couldn't get to Heaven without being baptized. Now this is up for interpretation (and there are sects that believe this), but coming from him that was a strong statement. I went through with the baptism in my 3-piece suit in front of the whole congregation at 14. But I was on the way out already. The idea that some petty arbitrary procedure like that could eternally condemn someone despite all else they had done good and righteous - it didn't make sense. God sounded like an asshole to me. I mean he/it create these imperfect human fuck-ups and gave them free will, knowing full well we are fuck-ups, and knowing full well it will end badly, and then he banishes us to eternal damnation for such petty bullshit. It's kinda like throwing a puppy in the fireplace for peeing on the carpet. This is not my definitive reason for my lack of faith and my contempt for religion, but it is an example and one of many many reasons I cannot and will not go into in this thread. I already regret most of the keystrokes I've wasted here.

[knucklesplitter]

On a lighter note related to gayness... the LA Log Cabin Republicans are having a teabag toss. They will be trying to get their teabags into the mouths of likenesess of Brown, Pelosi, and Palin:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo....php?ref=fpblg

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by ScottyS

I would also say that there is a difference between arguing "literal" interpretation of the actual grammar/language used in some translation, and a "literal" interpretation of the idea/fact/concept described, after weighing against similar texts elsewhere in the Bible and original language. Interestingly enough, the focus of most people that attack the idea that the Bible is the inspired and without contradiction is typically on linguistic minutia and other similar items that real scholarship would immediately clarify. You never see an objective look at the remarkable consistency and persistence of a document that spans multiple millennia, several civilizations, dozens of writers, and all of the linguistic and grammatical issues that go along with that.

The earth was not created in a week, there was no great flood, women were not created from a dude's rib, etc. etc. etc x 100's. This is not literary minutia. It is fine to believe in it, but believing in it does not make it true no matter how hard one tries. It is more reasonable IMHO to take it as parable or mythology. Do not confuse faith with fact - they are not the same thing and often do not coincide. Faith is fine, beneficial even... to many of those who can believe, but it is not science, and it is not history, and in my opinion is not truth. Having lived in the Southeast most of my life I had literal Christian interpretation shoved at me daily, so I learned to shove back. If somebody wants to quote the Bible literally to put down or condemn others or to otherwise support their twisted worldview, then I am there to quote it back at them to contradict it, because quite frankly it is pretty easy.

None of this negativity is directed personally at Juice, HighDesert, Scotty... You guys seem pretty knowledgable, enlightened, and reasonable, though I personally disagree with you on many or most things religious.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

I am a devout born-again atheist (90+%). An ironic thing is the first event I remember that started me disavowing my faith was something my pastor told me whilst discussing my own request to be baptized at age 14. I had never been baptized as an infant. He basically told me I couldn't get to Heaven without being baptized. Now this is up for interpretation (and there are sects that believe this), but coming from him that was a strong statement. I went through with the baptism in my 3-piece suit in front of the whole congregation at 14. But I was on the way out already. The idea that some petty arbitrary procedure like that could eternally condemn someone despite all else they had done good and righteous - it didn't make sense. God sounded like an asshole to me. I mean he/it create these imperfect human fuck-ups and gave them free will, knowing full well we are fuck-ups, and knowing full well it will end badly, and then he banishes us to eternal damnation for such petty bullshit. It's kinda like throwing a puppy in the fireplace for peeing on the carpet. This is not my definitive reason for my lack of faith and my contempt for religion, but it is an example and one of many many reasons I cannot and will not go into in this thread. I already regret most of the keystrokes I've wasted here.

Baptism only seems like a "petty arbitrary procedure" if you don't already have a strong idea of what God wants from you and why the churches that endorse it do so. It's not about appeasing God by jumping through hoops, it's about demonstrating your own faith and your own commitment to serving God's will... by jumping through hoops. The symbolic bathing represents the church clearing you of your Original Sin, and you "taking the plunge" so to speak into the church membership and your commitment. Personally I think it makes sense, provided you also believe the rest of the basic tenants of the Gospels, which is basically love God and/or Jesus (depending on your sect), love your neighbor, and you'll be saved.

[Kevin M]

Speaking of Original Sin, that's one of the main philosophical differences I have with Catholicism and some Protestant sects. I much prefer free will, Tabula Rasa, and to a great extent Clockmaker Theory. On the other hand, if those ideas are right and life on Earth is one giant pass/fail essay exam... well, if God created me he'll understand why I got up and walked out.

[Bob Danger]

YouTube

YouTube

[khail19]

Something funny happened this last week that reminded me of this thread, so I thought I would post it up. First of all, I'm mostly agnostic and my wife is catholic. She wants to do the whole baptism thing for our 3 month old, which I'm fine with.

So we had to go to this class for parents and godparents in order to be allowed to have the baptism. The teacher (a deacon, which I gather is below a priest in the catholic hierarchy) told us that up until 1975, the church taught that babies who died before being baptised could not enter heaven, and would stuck in limbo/purgatory after death. However, in 1975 the church decided that mankind should not be allowed to assume what god wanted for the afterlife of infants, so now they say that "the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God."

So basically, all the un-baptised babies that died before 1975 went to limbo, and no one knows what happened to all the ones after 1975. Doesn't make sense to me, and my wife couldn't really explain it to me either.

[bigrobwoot]

Originally Posted by A1337STI

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but unable? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. No He's testing us. If God forces your actions, then you are nothing but a puppet and there's nothing to Judge you upon who goes to heaven and who goes to hell if everyone's actions are controlled.

I'de say if God was controlling my even action, now that would be malevolent. You should already know this by now, if not from the Bible, then just through common sense.

We tend to call dictators Evil because they Can and DO control the actions of others (against their will)

If God is all-knowing, and he knows what is in our hearts, why does he need to test us? He knows how we will react, so why make even his most devout, loyal followers suffer?

Stopping horrible things from happening to you does not have to include controlling anything you do. He doesn't have to give your child type 1 diabetes, autism, cancer, etc. to keep you (and your innocent child, for that matter) from suffering. Not creating Hitler sure would have prevented a lot of suffering. Not introducing terrible people to anthrax would have saved a few lives, not showing those kids from Columbine or Virginia Tech how to get their hands on guns would have helped... I think that's enough examples.

[dknv]

Originally Posted by khail19

..So basically, all the un-baptised babies that died before 1975 went to limbo, and no one knows what happened to all the ones after 1975. Doesn't make sense to me, and my wife couldn't really explain it to me either.

Isn't this typical? THE CHURCH (specifically the Catholic Church, headed by THE POPE - the Vicar of Christ on Earth - THE ONE AND ONLY representative of the Word of our Lord God) - changed the rules again. No offense to those of the Catholic persuasion. But can someone explain to me why decisions to change the rules like this are ok?

When I read the first page of this thread, my immediate thought was Jesus' quote, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. (Posts 2, 3 and 4 were joking around.) WWJD?

[sperry]

Originally Posted by dknv

Isn't this typical? THE CHURCH (specifically the Catholic Church, headed by THE POPE - the Vicar of Christ on Earth - THE ONE AND ONLY representative of the Word of our Lord God) - changed the rules again. No offense to those of the Catholic persuasion. But can someone explain to me why decisions to change the rules like this are ok?

When I read the first page of this thread, my immediate thought was Jesus' quote, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. (Posts 2, 3 and 4 were joking around.) WWJD?

Actually, the way the Catholic church changes the rules occasionally is to me the reason why of all the Christian persuasions, the Catholics do it best.

Sure, it took them centuries, but they finally pardoned Galileo for teaching the sun was the center of the solar system. They also have stepped back from saying the earth was literally created in 6 days and now say the Bible's story is metaphor for the billions of years it's taken since the Big Bang for the earth to exist as we see it, though they don't comment on the incorrect order of creation in the Bible. So they do bend to modern sensibilities... well they're only 400 years behind the times.

But at least the Catholics are willing to recognize the Bible is outdated, at least scientifically, and are willing to slowly make concessions to the fact. Which makes plenty of sense to me, since IMO none of the errors in the Bible detract from the Bible's message. If all churches accepted the Bible as the writings of religious scholars instead of god himself, the Bible would be a much more useful tool. But it'll probably take the Catholic church another 2000 years before admitting that... and the chance of the church still being around 2000 years from now is pretty slim since the world seems to be going either atheist or Islam.

[dknv]

Originally Posted by sperry

But at least the Catholics are willing to recognize the Bible is outdated, at least scientifically, and are willing to slowly make concessions to the fact. Which makes plenty of sense to me, since IMO none of the errors in the Bible detract from the Bible's message. If all churches accepted the Bible as the writings of religious scholars instead of god himself, the Bible would be a much more useful tool. But it'll probably take the Catholic church another 2000 years before admitting that... and the chance of the church still being around 2000 years from now is pretty slim since the world seems to be going either atheist or Islam.

My post may have sounded like I was asking the question from a highly fundamentalist viewpoint, when in fact I am leaning in the opposite direction - as you have laid out, Scott. I was posing the question from a devil's advocate viewpoint. (Although in this discussion, I wish I could have found a different phrase to describe it, haha.)

Does the Catholic Church believe the entire Bible is outdated, or is it only some writings? And are the concessions based wholly on scientific findings, or divine inspiration, or possibly something else? Or a combination of these things? From the outside looking in, it is hard to understand or trust why these teachings are the one and only truth.

I believe the messages in the Bible are God's word, put in writing by those who had divine inspiration. But with various interpretations completed by imperfect humans (including decisions on what books and writings to keep, and what to discard in both New and Old Testaments), I can understand why so many questions and doubts exist about it.

I feel very fortunate to be living in a time and place, where I won't be persecuted for questioning religious teachings; and in a time where we are seeing examples where science is backing up religious teachings (Noah's Ark and the story of the Flood), as well as where religion is acknowledging science (story of creation).

[bigrobwoot]

Where is the proof for Noah's Ark? I think I remember hearing something about that when I was going to church a long time ago, but I never heard any specifics.