|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/23/2004 08:14:19 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by magicshutter:
Another thing, I'm tired of hearing about how people have 'phds' or are 'scientists'. Just because you do a few experiments and jot down all the nonsense your teacher spewed out doesn't make you all knowing and all wise. |
Well I appologize if I have offended you by mentioning my credentials. I felt it relevant to the context of the discussion otherwise I would not have mentioned it. For the record getting a PhD is a little more than "few experiments and jot down all the nonsense your teacher spewed out" LOL
Gave me my morning funny though.... |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 07:38:50 PM · #27 |
The following letter may illustrate why a literal interpretation of the Bible is laughable in the modern world. It appeared in my email and, I believe, is making the rounds on the Internet, so some of you may have already seen it:
-------------------------------
Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. As you said, "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... end of debate.
Now I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? What if I can afford Celine Dion? Or Gretzky?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. What does Laura say?
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or can you send your Secret Service to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10 - it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? Is anal sex safer than lobster Newburgh, or the other way around?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field. He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone him? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn him to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively since you were born again and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. And thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
An adoring fan,
|
|
|
|
11/23/2004 08:24:44 PM · #28 |
| LOL that is friggin hilarious! Nice. |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 09:15:19 PM · #29 |
In defense of God:
There is God and there is God and religion. I believe in God but I have no need for religion. Religion is simply an organization to adore the deity.
Man is far from perfect and a mixed bag with feelings. There are good and bad people and we all have it in us to be good or bad. Consider the Nazi movement and you will find that many people at one time can be sold a bad bill of goods...basically because we are stupid.
Many of us, including the ancients have pondered on the possibility that the universe has some kind of architect. Even a physicist such as Einstein left open this possibility. The God concept is simple: man seeks to tie himself to cosmos. He feels he is part of something larger.
There is a desire to project the mankind experience into perfection because we are so far from perfect. In creating this absract projection he surmises that thar Godliness is the ultimate perfection. He attributes to this god the better virtues and then tries to emulate it by trying to make himself a better human being. I do not think many can argue on the search to be better. This is simply one way.
Now, religions forms rules and regulations and sacraments and presents to the layman a simple formula to better themselves. These people are not exploring the deeper depth of their existence nor do they want to. In effect, religion serves a purpose. But, like all organizations, they suffer from bad judgement at times and then theirs become a dogma. Even with all of its fault, many people flock to them and become dutiful followers. There is nothing wrong with this, because all religions aim to uplift the moral aspect of the human being.
The next topic is prayer. You do not have to believe in God to pray. I will prove this in one moment. If you believe in God it is then easier.
To prove that prayer works let us go back a bit in history. Back to the world of the alchemist and the magicians. The alchemist sought the ultimate substance and the magicians used desire to bring about an end.
A simple way to put this is that if you want to find something you should be alert for its appearance.
Out of the above is borne the common knowledge that a positive state of mind succeeds while a negative one is self defeating. Out of this arose thousands of books teaching people how to make their dreams come true by using positive thought. The theory is simple. Likes attract likes, So if you want something to come into your life you prepare yourself by entertaining the dream and becoming aware of events which you may have otherwise have missed, but for this positive attitude. There is a belief that desire directed with will power will keep your disposition attentive to changes and events which will favor your standing. There is a belief that this formula will attract the positive to you. There is also the belief that you will be able to project these feelings and accordingly attract others that will help you achieve your goal. So, compare this to prayer!
It is not very wise to be critical of what your neighbor believes. They have their reasons like you have yours. It is also a lame argument to say that anybody that believes in God believes in Religion. Many wise men and women accept something higher then they and they need no formal place of worship. If you are an atheist that is all right too, but bear in mind that you can not prove your point much like the believer in God can not prove his. If you are an agnostic, you are like the moderate that stands in the middle and this too is all right. Everyone of us present our ideas according to the research time we wish to apply to our convictions. Some of us are deep and some of us are shallow, this is the way of the world.
Evolution is a theory. It has many good points but lacking much evidence it remains a theory. Yes, it is a very good one, but it leaves many questionable open ends much like the theories attributed to the cosmos and the big bang, the dilating universe, etc. Belief in God, (not religion) is still feasable with the theory of Evolution. There is an old axiom, "Nothing comes out of nothing."
Message edited by author 2004-11-23 21:17:50. |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 09:55:47 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Evolution is a theory. It has many good points but lacking much evidence it remains a theory. |
I think god is a theory too, right? since there is the (obvious) lack of proof, it therefore remains a theory.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2004 10:06:37 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Evolution is a theory. It has many good points but lacking much evidence it remains a theory. |
I think god is a theory too, right? since there is the (obvious) lack of proof, it therefore remains a theory. |
Both sides of the argument are nothing but theory. That's why it's such an entertaining argument to read. One theory follows people that did experiments and took notes, the other follows an old book. Who is right?
|
|
|
|
11/23/2004 11:01:01 PM · #32 |
A few good quotes on the subject:
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." --Isaac Asimov
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." --Galileo Galilei
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." --Bertrand Russell
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." --Don Hirschberg
"I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism." --Isaac Asimov
"Faith must have adequate evidence, else it is mere superstition." --Alexander Hodge |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 11:27:11 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Evolution is a theory. It has many good points but lacking much evidence it remains a theory. |
I think god is a theory too, right? since there is the (obvious) lack of proof, it therefore remains a theory. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly: I did say that neither side can prove their argument. |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 11:37:20 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
A few good quotes on the subject:
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." --Isaac Asimov
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." --Galileo Galilei
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." --Bertrand Russell
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." --Don Hirschberg
"I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism." --Isaac Asimov
"Faith must have adequate evidence, else it is mere superstition." --Alexander Hodge |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A great presentation but one minor point is being overlooked. The people that believe in God and do not employ religion, do not make the mistake of believing in a personal God. It is more in the Zen tradition. They expect nothing, they only acknowledge that their puny retarded brain simply acknowledges a higher architect. The moment you talk about salvation or the interplay of the deity, this is not the God of the intellectual. That God belongs with religion. And then who can say who is right and who is wrong. Is is not best to respect your fellow human being and his beliefs. Remember, the absence or ptesence of God is not provable. All one side can do is impose their belief on the other or use redicule.
Message edited by author 2004-11-23 23:48:58. |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 11:41:51 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
The following letter may illustrate why a literal interpretation of the Bible is laughable in the modern world. It appeared in my email and, I believe, is making the rounds on the Internet, so some of you may have already seen it:
-------------------------------
Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. As you said, "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... end of debate.
Now I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? What if I can afford Celine Dion? Or Gretzky?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. What does Laura say?
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or can you send your Secret Service to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10 - it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? Is anal sex safer than lobster Newburgh, or the other way around?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field. He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone him? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn him to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively since you were born again and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. And thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
An adoring fan, |
Judith, you open your challenge by speaking of a literal interpretation of the bible. Consider this modern example of what you have done:
How would you respond if I were to ridicule the U.S. Constitution by saying that it should not be taken literally - for example
I saw my neighbor carryin a six-pack of Coor's beer into his house yesterday and I asked him where he got it. He said at the package store on Seventh Ave. I asked them where they got it and they said the local beer distributer. I asked them, and they said that they got it from Coors, Inc. Now, according to the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited".
My question is this, "Which federal authorities should I call to have my neighbor, the package store owner, the beer distributer, and Coors Inc. arrested and charged with commiting federal crimes?"
I'm sure that you would say that I didn't read far enough - that the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment.
Well, Let me say that if you have serious questions about what to do about violations of Old Testamant rules and regulations, as you plainly have, then you haven't read the Bible far enough. When you have read the rest of the Bible, paying particular attention to the New Testament, you will learn which of the rules and regulations you quoted were later repealed. If you still have questions once you have read through the New Testament, please post them and I'll do my best to answer them. |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 11:53:09 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The people that believe in God and do not employ religion, do not make the mistake of believing in a personal God. It is more in the Zen tradition. They expect nothing, they only acknowledge that their puny retarded brain simply acknowledges a higher architect. The moment you talk about salvation or the interplay of the deity, this is not the God of the intellectual. That God belongs with religion. |
Interesting point of view; I think I would have to agree. |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 02:02:00 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
The following letter may illustrate why a literal interpretation of the Bible is laughable in the modern world. It appeared in my email and, I believe, is making the rounds on the Internet, so some of you may have already seen it:
-------------------------------
Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. As you said, "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... end of debate.
Now I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? What if I can afford Celine Dion? Or Gretzky?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. What does Laura say?
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or can you send your Secret Service to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10 - it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? Is anal sex safer than lobster Newburgh, or the other way around?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field. He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone him? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn him to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively since you were born again and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. And thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
An adoring fan, |
Judith, you open your challenge by speaking of a literal interpretation of the bible. Consider this modern example of what you have done:
How would you respond if I were to ridicule the U.S. Constitution by saying that it should not be taken literally - for example
I saw my neighbor carryin a six-pack of Coor's beer into his house yesterday and I asked him where he got it. He said at the package store on Seventh Ave. I asked them where they got it and they said the local beer distributer. I asked them, and they said that they got it from Coors, Inc. Now, according to the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited".
My question is this, "Which federal authorities should I call to have my neighbor, the package store owner, the beer distributer, and Coors Inc. arrested and charged with commiting federal crimes?"
I'm sure that you would say that I didn't read far enough - that the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment.
Well, Let me say that if you have serious questions about what to do about violations of Old Testamant rules and regulations, as you plainly have, then you haven't read the Bible far enough. When you have read the rest of the Bible, paying particular attention to the New Testament, you will learn which of the rules and regulations you quoted were later repealed. If you still have questions once you have read through the New Testament, please post them and I'll do my best to answer them. |
RonB, thanks for the offer of assistance, but I don't have any questions. I do find it interesting, however, that you have implicitly supported the point of the letter I posted when you stated that some of the rules and regulations quoted in that letter were later repealed. Is not the logical conclusion, therefore, that "God's laws" are NOT immutable? I mean, if some of them can be repealed, why not repeal them all, or modernize them? How can we know which must be adhered to? Doesn't this conclusion then support the further argument that "God's laws" necessarily CANNOT be interpreted literally?
The argument that you have refused to engage, in this and other threads, is the following, made earlier by bdobe: "This Christian fundamentalism amongst a significant segment of our population -- I believe -- is dangerous; since it is such fundamentalism that sustained and fostered conditions that lead to militant Islam. Religious/Faith based fundamentalism of any kind curtails our ability to find common ground with the "other," based on *rational* and *reasonable* compromise."
Rather than discuss the bible (which I believe to be mainly an historical document), I am most sincerely interested in your opinion with respect to the statement by bdobe regarding fundamentalism.
I'll check back in a few days, after Thanksgiving turkey with the in-laws. :) Have a good one, everybody! |
|
|
|
11/25/2004 09:30:21 AM · #38 |
| Are you honesly making the ignorant and tired comparison of Christianity and Islam? I'm hoping I just read that wrong. |
|
|
|
11/26/2004 11:43:28 PM · #39 |
| Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism. "Fundamentalism" is the operative word. |
|
|
|
11/27/2004 01:38:45 AM · #40 |
!
Message edited by author 2019-12-27 11:21:37. |
|
|
|
11/27/2004 04:26:12 AM · #41 |
In reading this thread I see where goodwill is lacking and as such it hinders the attainment of logical conclusions to the arguments posted.
It is like ideas that are unhinged. First a premise is announced and then explanations proceed and nobody questions the validity of the premise.
I mean, consider the history of the two religions. Are they both similar? I think not. Apples and oranges. Fundamentalism is delivered in different form depending on the enlightment or the ignorance of the practicioners. The statements coming from the secular side are being made with panic.
Can you not see that you are becoming secular fundamentalist and what you consider dangerous must be dealt with at one point and one of your most zealots will consider the extinction of what is a threat to you?
I belong to no religion yet I repect all religion of good faith.This country was founded by people who suffered religion persecution. Are you saying that you are now going to become the prosecutors to curtail religious freedom. First it starts with the condemnation and arguments why these believers are dangerous and where does it lead next. In effect your premise, when taken to its logical end means that the two fanatics, are now engage in what may end up as a global war. This takes care of the blame factor. In effect, you have no place to put those that are not fanatics, because your argument is that religion fosters fundamentism and therefore religion is not to be trusted because it is the cause of the evil. You have not said it, but your arguments, like a river flows to this sad pit.
The ACLU is the legal KKK. They do not hang people but under the guise of civil liberties have been delivering blows after blows to stamp out religion. Whose liberties are they defending? Those of the secular and the profane. What a proud mission for a human being to be engaged in.
The ACLU and its followers are now the secular fundamentalists. You are pursuing your goal with fanaticism and this is so obvious in your arguments and your ideas. You deride people of faith and look at them as idiots and unworthy of your persons.
When the loony left puts up any canditates that espouses this secular fundamentalism, you invite a stronger force to bring about your defeat. It is like an ungodly monster that begs to be put out of its misery.
So while the Islamic Fundamentalist do it with their swords, the secular, lead by the ACLU does it with the fiat of the law.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 11:35:42 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Judith, you open your challenge by speaking of a literal interpretation of the bible. Consider this modern example of what you have done:
How would you respond if I were to ridicule the U.S. Constitution by saying that it should not be taken literally - for example
I saw my neighbor carryin a six-pack of Coor's beer into his house yesterday and I asked him where he got it. He said at the package store on Seventh Ave. I asked them where they got it and they said the local beer distributer. I asked them, and they said that they got it from Coors, Inc. Now, according to the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited".
My question is this, "Which federal authorities should I call to have my neighbor, the package store owner, the beer distributer, and Coors Inc. arrested and charged with commiting federal crimes?"
I'm sure that you would say that I didn't read far enough - that the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment.
Well, Let me say that if you have serious questions about what to do about violations of Old Testamant rules and regulations, as you plainly have, then you haven't read the Bible far enough. When you have read the rest of the Bible, paying particular attention to the New Testament, you will learn which of the rules and regulations you quoted were later repealed. If you still have questions once you have read through the New Testament, please post them and I'll do my best to answer them. |
RonB, thanks for the offer of assistance, but I don't have any questions. I do find it interesting, however, that you have implicitly supported the point of the letter I posted when you stated that some of the rules and regulations quoted in that letter were later repealed. Is not the logical conclusion, therefore, that "God's laws" are NOT immutable? I mean, if some of them can be repealed, why not repeal them all, or modernize them? How can we know which must be adhered to? Doesn't this conclusion then support the further argument that "God's laws" necessarily CANNOT be interpreted literally?
The argument that you have refused to engage, in this and other threads, is the following, made earlier by bdobe: "This Christian fundamentalism amongst a significant segment of our population -- I believe -- is dangerous; since it is such fundamentalism that sustained and fostered conditions that lead to militant Islam. Religious/Faith based fundamentalism of any kind curtails our ability to find common ground with the "other," based on *rational* and *reasonable* compromise."
Rather than discuss the bible (which I believe to be mainly an historical document), I am most sincerely interested in your opinion with respect to the statement by bdobe regarding fundamentalism.
I'll check back in a few days, after Thanksgiving turkey with the in-laws. :) Have a good one, everybody! |
Judith,
First, let me restate my argument - I erred in comparing the change in biblical law using terms such as "repeal". Rather, just as the Roe v. Wade decision did not "repeal" the laws pertaining to murder but superceded them in some certain cases, the NEW Testament does not "repeal" the laws of the OLD Testament, but supercedes them. Secondly, the laws of man can be established by some men, but repealed by others - whereas in the case of the bible, the laws were given by the one God, and superceded by that same God. And in His infinite wisdom, He foreknew how and when and why that would occur. So NO, I do not support the point of the letter you posted.
As for literal interpretation - Yes, they can be interepreted literally, just as our Constitution can be. Yet both require a knowledge of the intent of the law at the time it was written. For example, the word translated "slave" in the letter you posted is better translated "bondsman", or"indentured servant" when consideration is given to a) the original Hebrew, and b) the culture of the time. The second point is that, as I stated, one must be aware of subsequent laws that "repeal" or "supercede" the law being discussed. The writer of the letter you posted, obviously has paid attention to neither of the points I just made. In fact, they have purposefully chosen the translation that conveys the most negative connotation possible and have, obviously, ignored subsequent texts.
As for the argument that you say I have avoided - the first half of bdobes post is pure belief or opinion ( to wit: "This Christian fundamentalism amongst a significant segment of our population -- I believe -- is dangerous..." ) - how am I to refute his stating that which he believes? He believes it - that is a FACT, not conjecture, not an unsubstantiated statement. To attempt to refute fact would make me appear to be an argumentative fool, which I, hopefully, am not. As for the second half of his first statement ( to wit: "...since it is such fundamentalism that sustained and fostered conditions that lead to militant Islam." - I could argue the point, but it would be useless, since neither I nor bdobe can refine all of the causitive agents that lead to militant Islam to a single element. I assure you, however, that the Bible upon which fundamental Christians base their beliefs nowhere condones the murder of others simply because they do not acknowledge their God and/or their religion, wheras the Koran does condone the murder of "the heathen" who do not share the faith and religion of Islam. As for the bdobe's last statement, ( to wit: Religious/Faith based fundamentalism of any kind curtails our ability to find common ground with the "other," based on *rational* and *reasonable* compromise." ), I agree with what he has said - secular fundamentalism and christian fundamentalism do not share common ground. It is especially true in light of his final point - that the reason common ground cannot be found is because he, and others like him, do not consider the beliefs of Christian fundamentalist as being "rational" or "reasonable". If those are his views, then his point is already proven.
As a recent example of just how far secular fundamentalists are willing to go - from a very recent news story ( ref here ):
"A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence."
Message edited by author 2004-11-27 12:47:18. |
|
|
|
11/27/2004 02:22:49 PM · #43 |
If by "secular fundamentalist" you mean one who views as unacceptable any role for religion in public/political life, then I am NOT one. I'm sure you both (graphicfunk and RonB) know that the history of religious movements in this country is rich with examples of supporting the fight for social justice -- against slavery, for example, and for civil rights. The extreme Christian right in this country in the modern day, however, does not represent that progressive tradition. I'll quote at length from a website that gives a brief account of the history of the Christian right in the United States, what its roots are and what it stands for, which may explain why I agree with bdobe's assessment:
"In America Christian fundamentalists are concentrated in the Bible-belt, which encompasses what once constituted the lands below the Mason-Dixon line along with the states immediately to the north of the Mason-Dixon line. In other words, America's Bible-belt encompasses those areas where slavery was deeply entrenched in the years before the American Civil War and the surrounding areas.
"In those slave states, the Christian religion took on a very unique character among the churches that dominated religious life at the time. Of course, none of the slave states had been formed as beacons of religious freedom. Maryland was given to Lord Baltimore as a haven for Britain's Catholic population and was as religiously intolerant of non-Catholics as the mother country was intolerant of Catholics, perhaps more so. The Carolinas were populated by for-profit corporations engaged in the business of transporting people from the Old World to the New, many of them indentured in exchange for their journey. Georgia was a penal colony. Florida was a Spanish colony, while Louisiana was a French colony. The wringing of wealth out of the land was important in all of the southern colonies, and harder than it was in the northern ones.
"Slave owners and others who profited from the slave trade did not want strong churches in the territory where they lived that made them feel guilty about the source of their riches. So, the churches that did well in those territories, and the ministers who were hired to service those churches, were those whom the "gentry" were willing to hear -- and they gave a message which justified the rights of slave owners to manage property as they saw fit; a message which demanded obedience from the slaves, and a message which promoted the subjugation of women, Native Americans, and other peoples.
"Long before the American Civil War, an ostensibly Christian religion arose which completely neglected the strong Christian injunction for social justice. In place of a message of social justice, this new Christian religion demanded: from the elite, money; and from the rest of society, obedience to the established order. To assist the church in supporting the established powers, the church also demanded two things from the faithful. First, the true believer must have an unquestioning faith in the religious teachings of their church, usually expressed as an unquestioning adherence to the Bible as most helpfully interpreted by that particular group, even if that unquestioning faith required one to suspend the willingness to reason and the ability to accept reality and facts. Second, morality became almost solely defined as sexual fidelity, augmented with an injunction for men to support their wives and children. In exchange for their unconditionaly obedience, the rich and powerful were exempt from both of these rules, or at least protected from their ramifications.
"Gone were the strictures against greed. Gone were the obligations of the elites to ameliorate the plight of the least fortunate among them. Gone were demands that humanity be wise stewards of "God's" creation. Gone were injunctions to bring justice into the world, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to tend to the sick, to assist the widow, to protect the orphan, and to shelter the homeless. Gone were the stories of God's mercy and God's love for all of creation.
"North of the Mason-Dixon line, some (though not all) churches took a much different tack regarding slavery -- and theology. Unitarian, Congregational, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, Quaker and Northern Baptist churches railed against the institution of slavery and the unethical conduct of the robber barons and slave traders. Some churches became involved in the underground railroad, and some religious leaders were threatened, beaten, and in at least one case nearly hung for their convictions.
"This tremendous difference related at least partially to differences in emerging theology. Textual critism of the Bible had been around for some time, and other forms of criticism were beginning to crystallize, particularly among German theolgians, as the 1800's progressed. The scholarship that had begun to question the iron clad authority of the received texts hundreds of years before, reached the pew sitters in many denominations at last; and the broad outlines of social and economic justice began, for many Christians, to outweigh the specifics of texts that were increasingly proven to be faulty, error-ridden, and inaccurate.
"Not so among the slave-holders. Ministers who were retrogressive on social justice issues, and strict fundamentalists as regarded the "authority" of scripture were hired, and the southern church began a descent into literalism from which it has yet to emerge.
"The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest of the fundamentalist churches, indeed the largest protestant church in America, had the redeeming feature of a focus on a revelatory relationship with God... So I might believe whatever I believed, and you might believe in whatever you believed - and God might have revealed himself to each of us. That doctrine together the basic autonomy of congregations to make decisions for themselves was finally leading to a liberalization of the denomination in the latter part of the 20th century -- until the early 1980s when the Convention was taken over by arch-conservative forces who wrapped themselves in the flag, in homophobia, and in "traditional values," whatever those are actually supposed to be.
"Now, having reaffirmed their basic positions, far to the Right of most Americans and many of their own communicants, the Southern Baptists lead the pack of extremists who constitute the Christian Right. It is ironic, the rich and powerful exploiters have found allies in only a few sections of the American people: among racists, the most extreme male chauvinists, the religiously intolerant, the xenophobic, and, sadly, the mostly Bible-belt fundamentalist Christians who have long been conditioned to respond to the influence of money, and to define morality in terms of sexuality, and sexuality alone, ignoring the rich patina of social and economic justice."
----------------------------------
If you'd like to read more from this excellent website: //www.rebuff.org/ |
|
|
|
11/27/2004 02:32:01 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
When the loony left puts up any canditates that espouses this secular fundamentalism, you invite a stronger force to bring about your defeat. It is like an ungodly monster that begs to be put out of its misery. |
I object to your constant use of the pejorative "loony" to describe liberals. If you wish to refer to a specific interest group or groups, please refer to those groups specifically rather than making broad categorizations that do not apply to most of us.
If you mean the far left, say the far left.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 07:54:19 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
When the loony left puts up any canditates that espouses this secular fundamentalism, you invite a stronger force to bring about your defeat. It is like an ungodly monster that begs to be put out of its misery. |
I object to your constant use of the pejorative "loony" to describe liberals. If you wish to refer to a specific interest group or groups, please refer to those groups specifically rather than making broad categorizations that do not apply to most of us.
If you mean the far left, say the far left.
-Terry |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I apologize, Far left is perjorative enough. With all due respect I do read the threads and respond. I do not use broad catergorization but respond to the overall spirit of what is being said and implied. As a rule I rather be doing something else, but the outlandish trash that is in these political forums which are constantly attacking our soldiers. Calling them flunkies for giving their lives, because according to these threads they die not in honor for freedom but for oil to accomodate another persons in power or the state. The paranoid attacks against religion and all the pseudo scientific crap which is a direct insult. This is the mind set of the left and this is why when they put up their candidates for presidency they slap America right in the face with their views and America recoils and rallies to stamp out these out of-step creatures.
I certainly do not want your job for where does one start to censor. If we eliminate the Loony left, then we need to eliminate environmental wackos, Fundamentalists of both side, neocons, Falwell, Bush and on the line. I can assure you that all the mentioned are used as perjorative terms. Read some of the threads and you will see that the opposing sides have a jargon to accomodate the divisions within a party. No one can speak political lingo without using the terms that delineate the opoosing sides. Show me where the left uses consideration when they present their side.
Feel free to expel me from these threads. You will also notice that I have been attacked with equal fervor, but I never have need to complain because I am very well able to fence for myself and fight ideas on the arena. |
|
|
|
11/27/2004 09:09:33 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
If by "secular fundamentalist" you mean one who views as unacceptable any role for religion in public/political life, then I am NOT one. I'm sure you both (graphicfunk and RonB) know that the history of religious movements in this country is rich with examples of supporting the fight for social justice -- against slavery, for example, and for civil rights. The extreme Christian right in this country in the modern day, however, does not represent that progressive tradition. I'll quote at length from a website that gives a brief account of the history of the Christian right in the United States, what its roots are and what it stands for, which may explain why I agree with bdobe's assessment:
"...Now, having reaffirmed their basic positions, far to the Right of most Americans and many of their own communicants, the Southern Baptists lead the pack of extremists who constitute the Christian Right. It is ironic, the rich and powerful exploiters have found allies in only a few sections of the American people: among racists, the most extreme male chauvinists, the religiously intolerant, the xenophobic, and, sadly, the mostly Bible-belt fundamentalist Christians who have long been conditioned to respond to the influence of money, and to define morality in terms of sexuality, and sexuality alone, ignoring the rich patina of social and economic justice."
----------------------------------
If you'd like to read more from this excellent website: //www.rebuff.org/ |
Why is it that none of the authors of these so-called "excellent" websites seem to be able to grasp the concepts of the NEW Testament? They make all kinds of claims against the world view and belief system of the Christian, but omit mentioning any of the teachings that, in reality, form the foundation of that fundamentalism - that which is found in the New Testament.
As for the claims against the Southern Baptists, who apparently are among the worst of the Christian fundamentalist organizations - it is apparent that neither the authors of rebuff.org nor you, yourself, have a clear idea of what their beliefs or teachings really are.
I challenge you to visit the Southern Baptist website and show me what they publish there that supports bdobe's claims, or rebuff.org's claims, or your own claims that they are ""dangerous" - after all, they are perhaps the largest organization of Christian fundamentalists in the nation. Their site can be found at www.sbc.net.
In other words, instead of just making some broad claim, please outline specific claims that make Christian fundamentalists "dangerous".
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 09:58:24 PM · #47 |
From Political Research Associates: (this article was written in 1995 and show that this trend of joining forces between the GOP and religions right is not new).
"...hard right forces such as dogmatic religious movements, regressive populism, and White racial nationalism also are attacking democratic values in our country.
"The best known sector of the hard right--dogmatic religious movements--is often called the "Religious Right" It substantially dominates the Republican Party in at least 10 (and perhaps as many as 30) of the 50 states. As part of an aggressive grassroots campaign, these groups have targeted electoral races from school boards to state legislatures to campaigns for the US Senate and House of Representatives. They helped elect dozens of hardline ultraconservatives to the House of Representatives in 1994. This successful social movement politically mobilizes a traditionalist mass base from a growing pious constituency of evangelical, fundamentalist, charismatic, pentacostal, and orthodox churchgoers.
"The goal of many leaders of this ultraconservative religious movement is imposing a narrow theological agenda on secular society. The predominantly Christian leadership envisions a religiously-based authoritarian society; therefore we prefer to describe this movement as the "theocratic right." A theocrat is someone who supports a form of government where the actions of leaders are seen as sanctioned by God--where the leaders claim they are carrying out God's will. The central threat to democracy posed by the theocratic right is not that its leaders are religious, or fundamentalist, or right wing--but that they justify their political, legislative, and regulatory agenda as fulfilling God's plan.
"The theocratic right's ideal is an authoritarian society where Christian men interpret God's will as law. Women are helpmates, and children are the property of their parents. Earth must submit to the dominion of those to whom God has granted power. People are basically sinful, and must be restrained by harsh punitive laws. Social problems are caused by Satanic conspiracies aided and abetted by liberals, homosexuals, feminists, and secular humanists. These forces must be exposed and neutralized."
|
|
|
|
11/27/2004 10:13:16 PM · #48 |
I thought in the Bible we were dealing with an eternal God who "changes not" (Malachi 3:6). If that is so, is it not therefore unthinkable that God would change his mind? Are you claiming that God was immoral (condoning slavery and child murder, among other crimes) and/or fallable and at some point realized the error of his ways, got wisdom, became a moral God and handed down a new set of rules??
Really!... lol |
|
|
|
11/27/2004 10:30:29 PM · #49 |
To answer your question, RonB, about the danger posed by the Christian fundamentalist movement, another rather lengthy quotation from rebuff.org:
"While the fundamentalist movement (as opposed to the evangelical movement with which it is often confused) is apparently not really growing and may even be shrinking, it is a steady and solid contingent that is wielded like a weapon in the Republican primaries in a number of states, giving the fundamentalist groups control of the GOP in close to, or possibly even more than, half of the states in the Union. Likewise, while most GOP money continues to come from the same old conservative establishment elites that it always has, the foot soldiers of the party are now provided in large part by fundamentalist churches and Right wing religious organizations. The fundamentalist Right has come to occupy the same space in the Republican party that organized Labor occupies in the Democratic one -- except that the fundamentalist Right plays hardball with its own party organization in ways that Labor never has.
"Part of the reason for this is the influence on the religious Right wielded by two numerically insignificant groups: The practitioners of "dominion theology" (the postmillennialists mentioned on the hopes page) and the various organizations that seem to be connected, directly or indirectly with the Reverend Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church (known years ago to most Americans as "the Moonies.") The influence of these two groups on the political activity of the religious Right cannot be overstated.
"While for an in depth understanding of the influence of these two groups, the author strongly suggests that the reader take time to obtain and study Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy by Frederick Clarkson, published by Common Courage Books in 1997; I will also attempt to give you a very brief overview.
"On the hopes page, I have already explained that postmillennialists desire to establish the "thousand year reign of Christ," using the Church as an instrument. They believe that this is necessary for the second coming of Christ. The leading proponents of this system of belief are from Orthodox Presbyterian and similar churches (though Reconstructionism certainly has no single denominational home) and wield influence through positions in organizations like the Coalition on Revival (COR) and so forth.
"The Coalition on Revival (founded 1982) provides a wonderful snapshot of the extent of the influence on the Christian Right, and even on the secular Right, that Reconstructionism wields at this point in time. Clarkson points out in his book, on Pages 97 and 98 -- who the members of the Coalition on Revival were at the time of formation. Those members included: John Whitehead, Michael Farris, Randall Terry (Operation Rescue anti-abortion group), Franky Schaeffer (Francis Schaeffer's son from Eagle Forum), Don Wildmon (American Family Association), Beverly LaHaye (Concerned Women for America), Connaught Marshner (Free Congress Foundation), Dr. Stephen Hotze (Houston GOP), Robert Dugan (National Association of Evangelicals), former Representative Bill Dannemeyer (R- California), Timothy LaHaye (televangelist), Ron Haus (televangelist), D. James Kennedy (televangelist), and the following: R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Joseph Morecraft, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, Rus Walton and the Reverend Raymond Joseph.
"A stunning array of leaders from across the religious and secular Right, together with a grossly disproportionate number of members of the Reconstructionist movement, the Coalition on Revival brokered theological compromises among fundamentalist groups and assisted in the emergence of a transdenominational theology for fundamentalist Christian churches. How influenced were the non-Reconstructionist members of the Coalition? The probable answer is very influenced. Everything we can see from the outside says that, despite the later drop out of a number of the premillennialist evangelical leaders -- under pressure from their own followers, COR went far toward establishing a doctrine calling for action by fundamentalists to "take back" and exercise "dominion over" the nation, and the world. Despite the fact that by its nature premillennialist theology denies the idea that "Christians" can take political dominion over the world, and even suggests by inference that becoming actively involved in such an attempt causes a person to become part of the false church that supports the anti-Christ (who after all, in premillennial thought is the only theologically recognizable figure to gain political dominion near the time of the end of the world), the natural appeal of power to human individuals trumps theological ideology and leads many premillennialist fundamentalists to the comfortable notion that they can wield power, even if only for a season.
"According to many Reconstructionist leaders, such a time of "dominion" would include the execution (murder?) of those guilty of everything from homosexuality to repeated blasphemy (depending to some degree on what leader you are talking to, the exact offenses so punished vary). The most conservative counting that I have heard, say that at least some Reconstructionists want to kill about 50,000,000 (fifty million) Americans in order to eliminate the "unclean" from our midst. Additionally, due to a doctrine that allows lying to unbelievers without penalty or with lessened penalty (RJ Rushdoony has gone so far as to argue that "Christians" have a requirement to tell the truth under normal circumstances, but that this "does not apply to acts of war. Spying is legitimate, as are deceptive tactics in warfare." [Rushdoony, Rousas J.The Independent Republic: Studies in the Nature and Meaning of American History, Thornburg Press, 1978, p. 542-544]. Needless to say, many Reconstructionists, view the political battle in which they are engaged as warfare.) -- members of the Reconstructionist movement can, as far as I can discern, with the blessings of their faith, say that they oppose such "executions" when they actually support them -- so, while I caution people not to assume that every Reconstructionist wants to kill every person with whom s/he disagrees; I also caution people not to assume that any Reconstructionist may not so desire -- regardless of what they have said regarding the matter.
"At the same time, the influence of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon and his organization on the American fundamentalist Right is even more startling at first glance. The Unification Church has rarely, if ever, had more than a few thousand American devotees, and given the position that most fundamentalist Churches have taken regarding Reverend Moon and his claim of being the perfection of the messiah - one would suppose that connections between the two movements would be non-existent. Reality is otherwise.
"Of course, experts aver that there are a number of "front-groups" used by Reverend Moon to spread his influence throughout the Right in general. Such groups include the Women's Federation for World Peace, The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation; The World Medical Health Foundation, CAUSA and others. Likewise, it is contended that he has alliances of convenience with groups such as The World Anti-Communist League. Through these groups he has had significant influence on the secular Right for years, to the point where he was able to get both George I and Barbara Bush to speak at functions that he sponsored after the senior Bush's departure from the White House.
"Still, the fundamentalist Right? How does he wield influence there? Well, people like Clarkson and some cult experts maintain that his influence is wielded through the application of money and power. Clarkson, in his excellent book reveals that at one time The Coalition for Religious Freedom (funded with Reverend Moon's money) had the following Board of Directors: Reverend Timothy LaHaye, Reverend Jerry Falwell, Reverend James Robison, Reverend Rex Humbard, Reverend Jimmy Draper, Reverend D. James Kennedy, Reverend Jimmy Swaggart, Reverend Don Wildmon, Reverend Greg Dixon and Marlin Maddoux. If that reads like a who's who of the leaders of the religious Right at the time, that's because it is. [Clarkson, Frederick, op cit, Page 65]. At various times Moon's organization has given money, directly or indirectly to the organizations of some of these men for the use of their ministries, and to other leaders of the religious Right as well, going so far as to keep one nearly bankrupt organization afloat until it could recover. The December 20, 2002 issue of the Executive Intelligence Review says in an article by Larry Hecht that "Moon now owns the religious right from Jerry Falwell to Gary Bauer."
"So the goals of the fundamentalist Right seem to be ultimately those of suppression of dissent, establishment of theocracy in place of democracy, and continuity for as long as control can be maintained. Politically their tool is control of the Republican party at any cost, and the establishment of that party as the center of a one-party government, leading to the probable elimination of the right of franchise (ability to vote) for those who do not agree with them, and/or who are not, by their standards, Christians. Psychologically they depend on separation (through Christian academies and home-schooling) and indoctrination often considered a form of "brainwashing" to create new generations dedicated to those political goals. Many of their leaders and authors - particularly those of Reconstructionist bent - are extremely open about these goals." |
|
|
|
11/27/2004 10:32:27 PM · #50 |
| Thanks for the reference, Olyuzi! |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 11:09:18 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 11:09:18 AM EDT.
|
