Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian!!!

Posted in the Christian Forum

Comments (Page 30)

Showing posts 581 - 600 of846
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#599
Mar 15, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Generally speaking, great chefs who come up with great recipes don't get them from the Bible. They create recipes by experimentation, understanding food qualities, etc. This does not mean the Bible is anti-culinary. God gives certain abilities to different humans. Including creating dishes, and the ability to explore.
“These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.”- Leviticus 11:9, 10

Is it OK for a chef to create a dish using shrimp?
Job wrote:
2. It's not a question of 'literalness' any more than someone stating that they watched the Sun rise in the morning. Why would you think someone of that day would not use a phrase like "the Sun stood still" if that's how it appeared to him? And I'm sorry, but I have to ask again: do you have a problem with the modern/common phrase "I'm going to watch the Sun rise/descend"? Why 'or' Why not?
Now I'm sure you have a problem with the incident itself, but that's another topic. But as far as the Bible 'teaching' that the Sun revolves around the Earth, you nor anyone else has proven this. The Bible quotes individuals. But what individuals say does not mean that the Bible teaches what they say to be fact. It's simply a "quotation".
It was perfectly natural for people of that time to believe that the Sun moved and not the Earth. Copernicus and Galileo had not yet produced evidence to the contrary. I am certain that there was no question in the mind of whoever wrote the book of Joshua that the Sun moved and not the Earth. He wrote, that Joshua said "Sun, stand still over Gibeon”. He intended that to mean that Joshua stopped the Sun from moving not the Earth from rotating because he didn’t know that the earth rotated.

Of course in this day and age if someone says “did you see the sun rise” we know that he really means “did you see the sun ‘appear’ to rise”. Before Copernicus and Galileo people did not know that the Earth revolved around the Sun so when they said “did you see the Sun rise” they didn’t mean did you see the Sun “appear” to rise they meant did you see the Sun “actually” rise.

It’s a question of what knowledge did the writers of that day had compared to the knowledge we have today.
Job wrote:
3. I never once denied that. What I'm wondering is, what is the relevance?
Then we are in agreement then that virtually all of the people of Copernicus’ and Galileo’s time were Geocentrists?
Job wrote:
4. Galileo was a 'scientist'. Not a 'theologian'. As I said, if the Bible was available to more people of that time, there probably would have been more theologians not tied down to church doctrine, who would have pointed out the error.
I don't see how having access to the bible would have helped anyone understand Heliocentrism.

Having access to the Bible certainly didn’t seem to help Luther or Bellarmine.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#600
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Job wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you then suggesting that Abraham Lincoln, Harry S. Truman, and various U.S. military leaders throughout American history are tyrants...just not to the extent of the God of the Bible?
I am suggesting that neither Abraham Lincoln, Harry S. Truman, Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible or Josef Mengele could hold a candle to your “medieval tyrant god” in the ability to create human carnage.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#601
Mar 15, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
It's sounds as if you read about Buddhism from a more western perspective. There are many different types of beliefs within Buddhism, as there are many sects. But the idea that Buddhists don't believe in God seems to be more of a western view, but not by all Buddhist westerns:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/0...
There are unusual variations in all belief systems even Christianity, but I’ll guarantee you’re not going to find a lot of Buddhists praying to any deity.
Job wrote:
When I went to Japan, I visited a number of temples, pagodas, shrines (Shinto), etc. People place their prayers on little items on a wall. I saw this specifically in Kamakura where one of Japan's biggest Buddha statues exist.
The concept of a creator God is universal, and seems to surpass notions created by westerners.
Shinto means "Way of the Gods". Shinto is not Buddhism.
You are absolutely correct people throughtout history have invented imaginary gods to explain whatever they didn’t understand.
B
Job wrote:
ut I wasn't talking about Buddhists when referring to the supernatural. I was talking about Buddha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gaut...
Mythology surrounds the Buddha just like it surrounds Jesus.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#602
Mar 15, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I'm quite familiar with this quote. Not sure why your posting it though, accept to maybe agree that he certainly wasn't a Buddhist.
You wrote…

“His knowledge of Buddhism was probably more from a "Cosmic Humanism" perspective, although I don't think he was a ‘New Ager’”

…which suggested to me that you didn’t know that he considered himself an agnostic.
Job wrote:
2. Like you do with "fundamentalist" Christianity?
I don’t demonize fundamentalists; I don’t believe in a supernatural devil. I just think fundamentalists are misguided, self-righteous, intolerant ordinary human beings.
Job wrote:
3. In a way, this is actually a Christian principle as well. The difference is, it would seem, is that Buddha thought he could dismiss the creator. Dismissing the Creator is what I would maintain is illogical.
I think what the Buddha was trying to say is that once you have acquired self-knowledge there’s no need for a god or a devil or a heaven or a hell.
Job wrote:
4. Science was never a great interest to me. However, if I told you I embraced evolution, you would hold a different opinion. Realistically, science is not at the top as far as interest goes to your average American. And many merely express a belief in evolution who don't have a great interest in science. But they use the right lingo that may give some the impression that they have significant scientific knowledge.
I’m not suggesting you have to be interested in science. Poets and musicians get their inspiration from the real world also. There are a lot of different things to see and think about and feel in the real world.

"I say to mankind, Be not curious about God. For I, who am curious about each, am not curious about God - I hear and behold God in every object, yet understand God not in the least." ~ Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass
Job wrote:
5. Does it? Why?
…because I know that the main teaching of Buddhism is about self-knowledge not miracles.

“One day the Buddha met an ascetic who sat by the bank of a river. This ascetic had practised austerities for 25 years. The Buddha asked him what he had received for all his labour. The ascetic proudly replied that, finally, he could cross the river by walking on the water. The Buddha pointed out that this gain was insignificant for all the years of labour, since he could cross the river using a ferry for one penny!”- Kalama Sutta
Job wrote:
6. Buddhism being "about you" is probably why it's fairly popular in the west. Jesus Christ's teaching is that it's 'not' about 'us'. What is liberating in Christianity is when a Christian takes the focus off of "me". It's not to suggest that Buddhists are not good people. But this can be said of anyone of any religion or philosophy.
Christianity is certainly not about “taking the focus off of me”. The focus of Christianity is to do what I have to do to get “me” into heaven.

"When a man really believes that it is necessary to do a certain thing to be happy forever, or that a certain belief is necessary to ensure eternal joy, there is in that man no spirit of concession. He divides the whole world into saints and sinners, into believers and unbelievers, into God's sheep and Devil's goats, into people who will be glorified and people who are damned." ~ Robert Ingersoll
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#603
Mar 15, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. A lot of people throughout history have been fascinated by religion/spirituality, and have read about it. Westerners have had a particular interesting in eastern religion, so it doesn't surprise me that Einstein did as well. "Holst: The Planets" actually relates to Eastern religion as opposed merely being planetary. Holst had a fascination with eastern religions. It seems that a number of westerners resent the eastern interest in Christianity.[/QUOTED]
“In today's world, the religions of wisdom (the Eastern religions) appear to be far more tolerant than their Western counterparts, the religions of revelation. The Jews, Christians, and Muslims, who look to the Bible and the Qur’an for guidance…”- Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, M.Div, Union Theological Seminary in New York, professor of justice and peace studies at the University of St. Thomas, in St. Paul, Minnesota
2. Are you open to the Gospel message of Jesus Christ being truth?
I was indoctrinated in Christianity for many years. I believed what I was taught just as sincerely as you believe what you believe. But then I stated to actually think about the things I had been taught and that's when I started to become open to the truth.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#604
Mar 17, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
There were no Protestants in Europe until 1517 when Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses. Until then the Church and Christianity were one and the same, but that didn’t keep them for going to war with each other. Joan of Arc was born and baptized Roman Catholic, and voluntarily became a French participant in the Hundred Years' War (a series of conflicts between England and France). She was captured by the English, put on trial by the pro-English Catholic Bishop of Beauvais for heresy. She was burned at the stake for heresy in1431 and declared a saint and a martyr in 1456 by the same Church that burned her at the stake for heresy 25 years earlier.
<quoted text>

2. Luther’s and Bellarmine’s understanding of the Bible passages relating to the motion of the Sun was proved wrong by Galileo. Luther and Bellarmine refused to accept the scientific evidence. Creationist understanding of Genesis relating to the development of life on Earth has also been proved wrong, but creationists refuse to accept the evidence just as Luther and Bellarmine did.
<quoted text>

3. I don’t believe that the Bible supports Geocentrism. I am not trying to prove that the Bible supports Geocentrism. I am simply trying to convince you that a literal interpretation of Bible passages (like that of Luther Bellarmine and creationists) will not stand up to the scientific evidence.
1. I think you're confusing my statement with denominationalism. There wasn't any need for a synopsis on Joan of Arc, other than helping to prove my point.

2. Creationists refuse to accept the world view of evolutionists.

3. That's not a 'literal' interpretation. It's a "misinterpretation". There's a difference. Harold Camping's belief that the world would end May of 2011 was not a problem of taking the Bible 'literally', it was 'misinterpreting' what he thought the Bible somehow taught.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#605
Mar 17, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
“Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'Does not!'" ~ Brian J. Alters, Chair in Science Education McGill University
<quoted text>

2. Creationists love to take quotes by reputable scientists out of context. Some other quotes from the same article by Dr. David M. Raup
“We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change....I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence...which shows that natural selection as a biological process works....but it does not tell us how this change too place... The ideas I have discussed here are rather new and have not been completely tested.”- Dr. David M. Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology" (1979)
<quoted text>

3. I can’t imagine why you would think that. The only people Galileo ever had a problem with were the bible experts of his day. His comment, "It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures...” wasn’t directed at Giordano Bruno.
<quoted text>

4. I think the science of Biology has done very well with Evolution as its center piece.
Creationists are using the same tactic the Tobacco Industry used to discredit the scientific evidence that cigarette smoking caused cancer. They also were able to find a “very few” well-credentialed scientists to criticize the evidence.
Some quotes from The Tobacco Industry:
“…there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is.”
“…there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes.”
While the vast majority of scientists accepted the evidence that
“'For the majority of people, the use of tobacco has a beneficial effect...- Dr Ian G. MacDonald, Newsweek (18 Nov 1969)
<quoted text>
Then why would you have scientists say “as far as we can detect” in relation to the Theory of Evolution? Evolution is just as well supported a fact as Heliocentrism.
<quoted text>
“The body of knowledge that supports the theory of evolution is ever growing...”- American Institute of Biological Sciences
<quoted text>
Since scientists haven’t been presented “a really good argument” or any evidence at all of creationist propositions they have no reason to change their minds about Evolution.
1. Clearly the origin of life -- the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.- Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University

2. I don't think 'I' took anything out of context as all I did was quote him. David Raup is an evolutionist. That's why I used his quotation.

3. The scriptures do not constrain science. Any suggestion otherwise would be misinterpretation.

4. The only supposed good evolution has done was pull the wool over the eyes of many. Fortunately, there are some scientists brave enough to oppose the American Institute Of Biological Sciences. Scientists who developed a problem with evolution 'before' embracing Creationism.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#606
Mar 17, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
So your argument is…
…because Communists have persecuted Christians all atheists and agnostics have a tendency to persecute Christians.

2. I would agree that most atheists and agnostics, even in free societies, are suspicious of Christian fundamentalists, but for good reason. As Georgia Harkness (Methodist theologian) said…
“The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
Even a cursory knowledge of history would give an atheist or agnostic good reason to be distrustful of fundamentalist Christians. I do not, however agree, that atheists and agnostics are prejudiced against Christians. Fundamentalists think everyone that does not believe as they do is “of the devil” so they think everyone is against them.
"Every fundamentalist movement I've studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced at some gut, visceral level that secular liberal society wants to wipe out religion." - Karen Armstrong
<quoted text>

3. I don’t assume that your “medieval tyrant god” fluctuates on what is evil. I am suggesting that it is you that fluctuates on what is evil. If your “medieval tyrant god” wipes out thousands it’s OK but if a human tyrant does the same it’s evil.
<quoted text>
…but he did witness Christianity.
1. Where did you ever get that idea? What I've been doing is giving an example of "anti-theistic" terrorism. Just as some have used religion for terror, so have a anti-theists.

2. Whenever there are those willing to point the finger at a particular group as being the source of the World's problems, we have a problem. Right now, in my opinion, it's mostly a bunch of hot air.

Now if atheists and agnostics are suspicious of Christians today because of historic events, why wouldn't Christians be suspicious of groups like "The Freedom From Religion", when we can clearly see the effect of anti-theism in modern communist nations? I think there are good atheists and agnostic people who have no interest in the affairs of orgs like TFFR. But these atheist activist groups not only point the finger at religion (Christianity), they avoid the side-effects of anti-theism we can see clearly today in communist nations.

3. This is the same question I've been asking you. It's okay (I'm guessing) if Lincoln orders a war that killed more than our later wars combined, but when God does it, He's a tyrant.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#607
Mar 17, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Most Christians for the last 1,500 years have been indoctrinated to the idea that the words of Paul are the words of “God”.
<quoted text>

2. Thomas Paine says that he chooses not to believe that the words of Paul are a revelation from “God”. He would have to accept those same words as a revelation if they came directly to him from “God” but he doesn’t have to accept Paul’s word for anything. Do you get it?

3. <quoted text>
He and the rest of our forefathers had to fight for that freedom, and fortunately for us they passed it on.
<quoted text>
No! Whatever turns you on. Copernicus was into the motions of the visible planets.
1. Ahhh. The they feel threatened by the words of Paul? They're concerned because so many gleam from the words of Paul, and the Bible for that matter, and feel threatened.

2. Yes. Like I said, it's a choice. If he read the words of Paul, then he presented with a choice to make. That's the same for you or anyone else. Is someone trying to 'force' you to believe the words of Paul?

3. And this included (the majority) Christians, who if had not respected free choice, could have put down any opposition. If anything, you Christianity to thank.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#608
Mar 17, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>

…but he did witness Christianity.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and suggest his eyes would have been opened to common problems of mankind that don't have anything to do with religion in and of itself. That no matter what philosophies people embrace, they will commit the same atrocities.

I don't think he would be scape-goater.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#609
Mar 17, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
“These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.”- Leviticus 11:9, 10
Is it OK for a chef to create a dish using shrimp?

2. <quoted text>
It was perfectly natural for people of that time to believe that the Sun moved and not the Earth. Copernicus and Galileo had not yet produced evidence to the contrary. I am certain that there was no question in the mind of whoever wrote the book of Joshua that the Sun moved and not the Earth. He wrote, that Joshua said "Sun, stand still over Gibeon”. He intended that to mean that Joshua stopped the Sun from moving not the Earth from rotating because he didn’t know that the earth rotated.
Of course in this day and age if someone says “did you see the sun rise” we know that he really means “did you see the sun ‘appear’ to rise”. Before Copernicus and Galileo people did not know that the Earth revolved around the Sun so when they said “did you see the Sun rise” they didn’t mean did you see the Sun “appear” to rise they meant did you see the Sun “actually” rise.
It’s a question of what knowledge did the writers of that day had compared to the knowledge we have today.
<quoted text>

3. Then we are in agreement then that virtually all of the people of Copernicus’ and Galileo’s time were Geocentrists?
<quoted text>

4. I don't see how having access to the bible would have helped anyone understand Heliocentrism.
Having access to the Bible certainly didn’t seem to help Luther or Bellarmine.
1. Why wouldn't it be?

2. The what exactly is the problem?

3. Yes, of course. Again, what's the problem?

4. Is a book on evolution going to help you bake a cake?
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#610
Mar 17, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I am suggesting that neither Abraham Lincoln, Harry S. Truman, Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible or Josef Mengele could hold a candle to your “medieval tyrant god” in the ability to create human carnage.
Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, or Joseph Mengele were never mentioned in my question. Those are obvious diversions meant to take the focus off of Lincoln and Truman. Without comparison to God, would you consider "Abraham Lincoln" and "Harry S. Truman" tyrants?

If you were a Israelite living in the time of Assyrian conflict, you probably would not be so quick to jump at accusations towards a God who was providing rescue. Just as you probably wouldn't mind having our army defend us during an attack that will inevitably lead to casualties from the opposition.
15th Dalai Lama

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#611
Mar 17, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Clearly the origin of life -- the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.- Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University
2. I don't think 'I' took anything out of context as all I did was quote him. David Raup is an evolutionist. That's why I used his quotation.
3. The scriptures do not constrain science. Any suggestion otherwise would be misinterpretation.
4. The only supposed good evolution has done was pull the wool over the eyes of many. Fortunately, there are some scientists brave enough to oppose the American Institute Of Biological Sciences. Scientists who developed a problem with evolution 'before' embracing Creationism.
In the absence of a primary source reference you Williams quote will be dismissed as irrelevant bluster.

Just because no on knows the origin of the universe does not mean it does not exist.

You are in denial.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#612
Mar 17, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
There are unusual variations in all belief systems even Christianity, but I’ll guarantee you’re not going to find a lot of Buddhists praying to any deity.
<quoted text>

2. Shinto means "Way of the Gods". Shinto is not Buddhism.
You are absolutely correct people throughtout history have invented imaginary gods to explain whatever they didn’t understand.
B<quoted text>

3. Mythology surrounds the Buddha just like it surrounds Jesus.
1. Truthfully, I don't know how many do. Just that some do. There are deities within the religion itself, and if you do a search, you may find out that one of the problems some have experienced in Buddhist meditation is encountering evil spirits (demons). I used to work with one. And there's really no explanation among Buddhists concerning this phenomenon. Which is why I maintain that the Buddhist philosophy of deities being irrelevant is illogical.

2. Shintoism and Buddhism are two different opposing religions that have mixed over the centuries. The reason why I put Shintoism in parenthesis is because they are the ones who use "Shrines".

3. And they are mentioned in the Pali Canon.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#613
Mar 17, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
You wrote…
“His knowledge of Buddhism was probably more from a "Cosmic Humanism" perspective, although I don't think he was a ‘New Ager’”
…which suggested to me that you didn’t know that he considered himself an agnostic.
<quoted text>

2. I don’t demonize fundamentalists; I don’t believe in a supernatural devil. I just think fundamentalists are misguided, self-righteous, intolerant ordinary human beings.
<quoted text>

3. I think what the Buddha was trying to say is that once you have acquired self-knowledge there’s no need for a god or a devil or a heaven or a hell.

4. <quoted text>
I’m not suggesting you have to be interested in science. Poets and musicians get their inspiration from the real world also. There are a lot of different things to see and think about and feel in the real world.
"I say to mankind, Be not curious about God. For I, who am curious about each, am not curious about God - I hear and behold God in every object, yet understand God not in the least." ~ Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass
<quoted text>

…because I know that the main teaching of Buddhism is about self-knowledge not miracles.
“One day the Buddha met an ascetic who sat by the bank of a river. This ascetic had practised austerities for 25 years. The Buddha asked him what he had received for all his labour. The ascetic proudly replied that, finally, he could cross the river by walking on the water. The Buddha pointed out that this gain was insignificant for all the years of labour, since he could cross the river using a ferry for one penny!”- Kalama Sutta
<quoted text>
Christianity is certainly not about “taking the focus off of me”. The focus of Christianity is to do what I have to do to get “me” into heaven.
"When a man really believes that it is necessary to do a certain thing to be happy forever, or that a certain belief is necessary to ensure eternal joy, there is in that man no spirit of concession. He divides the whole world into saints and sinners, into believers and unbelievers, into God's sheep and Devil's goats, into people who will be glorified and people who are damned." ~ Robert Ingersoll
1. I knew that Einstein was an agnostic, which actually is why I wasn't sure why you would quote him.

2. I'm sure you would agree that atheists and agnostics are ordinary human beings. Do you think "all" fundamentalists are misguided, self-righteous, and intolerant? Do you think there are atheists and agnostics that fit these descriptions?

3. He wasn't just merely referring to a concept of God and deities. He is also said to have encountered them.

4. Fundamentalist Christian believers enjoy all of nature just like anyone else. But I have to say, stating that one should not have a curiosity about God isn't any better than telling one not to be curious about the Stars. Why "shouldn't" one be curious about God?
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#614
Mar 17, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
1…because I know that the main teaching of Buddhism is about self-knowledge not miracles.

“One day the Buddha met an ascetic who sat by the bank of a river. This ascetic had practised austerities for 25 years. The Buddha asked him what he had received for all his labour. The ascetic proudly replied that, finally, he could cross the river by walking on the water. The Buddha pointed out that this gain was insignificant for all the years of labour, since he could cross the river using a ferry for one penny!”- Kalama Sutta
<quoted text>

2. Christianity is certainly not about “taking the focus off of me”. The focus of Christianity is to do what I have to do to get “me” into heaven.

3. "When a man really believes that it is necessary to do a certain thing to be happy forever, or that a certain belief is necessary to ensure eternal joy, there is in that man no spirit of concession. He divides the whole world into saints and sinners, into believers and unbelievers, into God's sheep and Devil's goats, into people who will be glorified and people who are damned." ~ Robert Ingersoll
1. And neither is Christianity. Miracles are not the main focus.

2. That's a "works based" Gospel.

3. It can do that, but that's not the intention when reviewing the words of Christ. The words of Christ are all about "others", bringing not a message of superiority, but one of "acceptance". There's also nothing in the Gospel about removing pain.
Job

Cupertino, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#615
Mar 17, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I was indoctrinated in Christianity for many years. I believed what I was taught just as sincerely as you believe what you believe. But then I stated to actually think about the things I had been taught and that's when I started to become open to the truth.
Are you suggesting that due to your isolated experience, all should follow suit?
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#616
Mar 18, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I think you're confusing my statement with denominationalism. There wasn't any need for a synopsis on Joan of Arc, other than helping to prove my point.
You wrote…

“The laws of that day was not about demanding that everyone ‘be a Christian’. It was about adhering to Church doctrines. This is why actual professed Christians like Joan of Arc were executed.”

Joan of Arc was executed because she was a participant in a war between England and France. In both countries belief that Jesus was the son of “God” was required by law. Any other belief was heresy and punishable by law.
Job wrote:
2. Creationists refuse to accept the world view of evolutionists.
It doesn’t matter whether or not they accept the world view of individual scientists that fact that they refuse to accept the evidence is the problem.
Job wrote:
3. That's not a 'literal' interpretation. It's a "misinterpretation". There's a difference. Harold Camping's belief that the world would end May of 2011 was not a problem of taking the Bible 'literally', it was 'misinterpreting' what he thought the Bible somehow taught.
literal (adj)- upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.

Misinterpretation (n)- to understand wrongly

A literal interpretation of the Bible is generally a misinterpretation.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#617
Mar 18, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Clearly the origin of life -- the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.- Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University
“…there is no proof of lung cancer in any person traceable to tobacco or any form of tobacco product.”– William Ullman Gardner, Ph.D Yale University, Professor of Anatomy, president of the International Union Against Cancer from 1970 to 1974, later served on the Scientific Advisory Board of the Council for Tobacco Research a Tobacco Industry sponsored research organization
Job wrote:
2. I don't think 'I' took anything out of context as all I did was quote him. David Raup is an evolutionist. That's why I used his quotation.
You certainly did provide a quote out of context that suggested that Dr. Raup was making a case that there was a serious problem with the scientific evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. When the article as whole is read nothing could be further from the truth.

“There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence...which shows that natural selection as a biological process works…”- Dr. David M. Raup
Job wrote:
3. The scriptures do not constrain science. Any suggestion otherwise would be misinterpretation.
If a person says the Bible is inerrant and his understanding of it cannot be wrong then there is no amount of scientific evidence that can convince him of anything contrary to his understanding of scripture. That’s the kind of thinking that Luther and Bellarmine had; and that’s the kind of thinking creationists have; and that’s how scripture constrains science.
Job wrote:
4. The only supposed good evolution has done was pull the wool over the eyes of many. Fortunately, there are some scientists brave enough to oppose the American Institute Of Biological Sciences. Scientists who developed a problem with evolution 'before' embracing Creationism.
The science of Biology has advanced by leaps and bounds since the Theory of Evolution was accepted.

Just as there were some scientists “brave enough” to oppose the consensus of the scientific community that cigarette smoking caused cancer.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#618
Mar 18, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Where did you ever get that idea? What I've been doing is giving an example of "anti-theistic" terrorism. Just as some have used religion for terror, so have a anti-theists.
Then what’s your point?
Job wrote:
2. Whenever there are those willing to point the finger at a particular group as being the source of the World's problems, we have a problem. Right now, in my opinion, it's mostly a bunch of hot air.
Absolutely correct; for many centuries Christian and Muslim fundamentalists have been attributing all of the world’s ills to the devil and all of the unbelievers he controls, and it's all a bunch of hot air.
Job wrote:
Now if atheists and agnostics are suspicious of Christians today because of historic events, why wouldn't Christians be suspicious of groups like "The Freedom From Religion", when we can clearly see the effect of anti-theism in modern communist nations? I think there are good atheists and agnostic people who have no interest in the affairs of orgs like TFFR. But these atheist activist groups not only point the finger at religion (Christianity), they avoid the side-effects of anti-theism we can see clearly today in communist nations.[/QUOTES]
Communists haven’t been around very long and are merely an over-reaction to the many centuries of sociopolitical persecution by religious fundamentalists. The "Freedom From Religion Foundation" promotes the separation of church and state and is an entirely appropriate reaction to the religious fundamentalists of today who want to force their religious ideas onto the public and into public classrooms.

"I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do." ~D. Dale Gulledge
[QUOTE who="Job"]3. This is the same question I've been asking you. It's okay (I'm guessing) if Lincoln orders a war that killed more than our later wars combined, but when God does it, He's a tyrant.
You are completely missing the point!

If you were a slave in the old South the Civil War was a heroic endeavor that set you free but if you were a Sothern plantation owner or his Christian minister it was a cruel oppressive act by an oppressive Federal Government and contrary to the Bible.

If your “medieval tyrant god” kills 180,000 Assyrians he’s a great and powerful protector of his chosen people if you are Jew, but a cruel and malicious demon if you’re an Assyrian. Hezekiah, King of Judah, had rebelled against the Assyrians in the same way the South rebelled against the Federal government. Nobody ever thinks their position in a war is evil.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 581 - 600 of846
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

25 Users are viewing the Christian Forum right now

Search the Christian Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 7 min 15th Dalai Lama 7,004
Islam will prevail 22 min Person formerly God 71
Blame Conservatives for a Godless government 1 hr blacklagoon 69
9/11 was an inside job 1 hr hmmmmm 38
Is the Bible always literally true or correct? 4 hr 7 Seals 890
John 14:9-10 indicates that Jesus is God. (Sep '08) 4 hr Stephen Levi 8
SuzieQ, which English Bibles say 'Sun' instead ... (Dec '13) 5 hr Gary Coaldigger 690
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••