Cantousent

There are so many different areas of science that corroborate the tenets of evolution that to call the evidence circumstantial is pedantic in the extreme. There is no disputing the general tenets of evolution. all that may happen is the hypothesis may have more detail added over time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Accepted. I'm perfectly happy to call it a law, but then I get it from the other side. Since, technically, it is a theory, I'm going to stick with that because it is the area on which most folks can agree. Since it really doesn't hurt me if it's a theory or a law, though, I have no ulterior motives in calling it a theory. Really. :cool:

I've wondered about these things myself. I first remember going over evolution in detail as an undergrad. I'd been exposed to the theory beforehand, but I hadn't really cared one way or another. I've been more involved in my religion over the past ten years or so, but I don't recall hearing much from the pulpit about evolution. However, I will make one observation: the theory of evolution does not explain the the existence of matter, which is equally significant. Nor does it explain creation of life, which is a much more important matter. So it really only answers one thing from the bible, creationism. As a battle, creationism is a touchy thing. You might find it surprising that Christians often don't want creationism taught in school. Creationism is much worse than an atheist vs. Christian debate. There simply aren't enough atheists to make the confrontation ugly. Creationism now is a sectarian debate, and the only thing keeping Christians from attacking each other is the perceived threat of atheists in a Godless society. If that weren't the case, then the creationism vs evolution debate would be a lot more hostile than it is. I'm for teaching evolution because, while we all try to come to grips with what we believe or don't believe regarding God, we must still live in the world and understand the rules by which we live. Inasmuchas evolution appears to be a sound theory, I'm for accepting it. It isn't proven, but that's not the point. We must find a reasonable place to begin and hope that we can discern the truth one way or the other.

Damned quotes. I'm easily confused! Hey, maybe smart people really don't believe in God. I'm still waiting to throw out my extremist views. I just haven't had the opportunity. Soon, though. Very soon.

If smart people don't believe in God, then you cannot believe in God and be smart. However, opposite side of that could probably give rise to a huge amount of text. Does that mean you are average if you believe in God? ...Or stupid? ...Or genius? ...Or crazy? Maybe it should read, "sane people don't believe in God." The thing is, folks put paid to the original proposition in the first few pages and since then we've been having a general discussion of religion.

HA! We haven't even known the topic for quite some time. Hell, I think the last person to make a point actually dealing with the original topic was taks.

That's not a matter of applying our notions to a historical context in which the social values were completely different. It is a widely accepted fact that when children are exposed to sex, it leaves serious psychological sequels that last for their entire life. Homosexuality, as far as I know, does not. Yeah, I have to concede the point. That particular arrangement is wrong. ...And we must call it what it is. I spend most of my time reading ancient Greek literature and discussion ancient Greek culture, but I would fight like hell the idea that we should allow this particular practice. Adults should not have sex with children. You know I had the exact same opinion when I was twelve .. Well, he is twelve, and has proven so countless times. What did you expect? I laughed out loud. I doubt Ros is 12, but, dammit, it was still funny. Sorry Ros.

Actually, I've always thought that homosexuality was a bad basis on which to judge someone else's morality. First of all, I think it's dangerous to judge someone else's morality in the first place, but homosexuality is a particularly bad basis for drawing conclussions. ...And I believe that regarding homosexuality regardless of whether it is a lifestyle choice or a genetic predisposition. Why? Because homosexuality, if it is a sin, has minor impact on the community. Civilizations have had more or less tolerance over the history of mankind and still we have thrived as a species. Why should I see homosexuality as a serious threat to either morals or survival? However, I will say that the Greeks and Romans didn't have a no holds barred approach to homosexuality. Mostly, if you were the penetrator, then there was nothing wrong. However, if you were the penetrated, then there certainly was a stigma attached to your name. Nevertheless, if I were going to pass judgement on ancient Greek culture, I would say that the practice of 30+ year old men marrying girls in their early or even pre-teens was worse. What of that, though? It's something despicable to our age, but the Greeks had a flourishing society and a vast treasure of literary and philosophical works. What are we to think of a civilization that is long gone but provided the foundation for so many academic principles of our own day? BTW: we had a measure here in California regarding gay marriage. I voted that homosexuals should have the right to marry. That's not my true belief, however. I think gays and lesbians should have the the obligation to marry if they are to get the same treatment as other married couples. I see marriage as a civil, rather than religious, arrangement at any rate. For that reason, I don't see why I should care if two men or two women get married. If they do, then I hope for the best for them.

You are right, of course. I stand corrected.

Metadigital: "Your literacy notwithstanding, I find christianity in general a patronising social contruct. Defending it merely impoverishes your credibility: why aren't women permitted to be Bishops? (Let alone homosexuals -- didn't Jesus preach inclusion -- prostitutes, tax collectors, gentiles, anyone except gays?)" How odd that you talk about the intolerance of Christianity and how exclusive it is to others and then make a statement that cannot be taken as anything other than divisive. I've not been so arrogant as to expect other to "defend" their religion or lack thereof. I need not defend my faith. I am more than willing, however, to discuss it. If you desire contrition, then you will find yourself unfulfilled. If you desire a rational, cordial discussion, then I am glad to comply.

"Your use of faith - for instance - is what I would call belief. Faith is not an articulate set of precepts - rather it is, for me, what one knows through discernment. Beliefs are linguistic attempts to intellectually describe faith. The problem is that once written, there is a tendency to concentrate upon the word and not the fact that it is the expression of one person at one moment who would likely describe it otherwise the next time. Though this may seem semantic, perhaps even pedantic, it is important to normalise such discussion in order to attempt to establish a shared vocabulary. In such a pluralist society, there is a tendency for two people to debate a point, using the very same words, when they are fact in possession of very different meanings." Good God, Fionavar, we're brothers. ...And not only in Christ! I much prefer to find areas where different parties can agree, make sure that they understand to what they've agreed, and then get to work on areas of real disagreement.

I think the argument is derailed: we are not necessarily talking about physical violence. The issue I believe revolves around the Christian imperative to actively evangelise: it is a hostile act to assume moral, spiritual and theological superiority and try to convert the "heathens" to the word of God. If you are a Buddhist, you do no such thing. Live and let live. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am a Christian. I have not argued against any belief in this thread. I have been, I submit, more tolerant than the people who question my religion. Hell, the only thing I've done is disagree with folks who, from what I can tell, assume an air of moral superiority to me. ...And yet I'm not really angry about this. The discussion has been remarkably civil and no belief deserves to exist if it cannot survive scrutiny.

I'm often a bit teary eyed during sad film moments. I don't tend to full out cry at films often, but I do cry from time to time. I'm basicly a big wimp. Can't help it, you know. Anyhow: In Millenium Man when Little Miss dies. In The Return of the King when Aragorn says to the Hobbits, "My friends, you bow for no one." In the Passion of the Christ when Jesus says, "My God, My God, why have you forgotten me?" I cried because of Titanic, but that was before, during, and after it stole three hours of my life. I mostly thought Titanic was creepy, what with the old lady having sex with a guy once and then acting as if the long life and family she had with some other fellow, nameless in the film, didn't mean a damned thing. She should have thrown herself in the ocean and left the jewelry to her family, or an orphanage.

Fionavar hits it right on the head. I will admit, however, that I willingly cherry pick the particular books I reference as literature. Some are just sets of laws or lineages. Others are quite profound. For example, the book of Job is a classic. Moreover, reading the books in Greek is gratifying. Since most folks don't have the years of life to waste in learning ancient Greek or Hebrew, I would commend Fionavar's suggestion regarding good translations. It's not hard to convey core ideas, but keeping the feel and flow of the original is quite difficult. As a small disclaimer, however, I will urge those of you who are going into the humanities to at least consider a few years of Attic Greek. Koine is even easier and a couple of years will get you started. You might be surprised at how powerful some of the ancient texts are when you read them in the original language.

I have to admit that I'll sometimes use the internet to get the big picture on things, especially when I don't know much about the subject. It's clearly one thing to say that Christ might not have existed and quite another to state with certainty that Christ did not exist. For my part, aside from being a Christian, I think the evidence that Christ existed is compelling. I tend to look at the bible in three different ways. It is the bedrock of Christianity and therefore the final word on moral issues. It is also a historical document that should be evaluated and corraborated with other evidence. Finally, it is a masterpiece of world literature, and it should be viewed as such. The bible is a reflexion of the times in which it was written. While I see the bible as a whole as a cogent expression of proper moral thinking, it does not escape me that there are passages that seem contradictory. I could resort to mental gymnastics in an effort to prove that the bible is not contradictory, or I can try to assess the work as a whole and see what it means to me as a Christian. I see this as something quite different from "Cherry picking" passages. I contend that using only those passages to support a personal bias is "Cherry picking." Trying to meld my experiences with scripture into a workable world view is not. When I was in high school, my mother would tell me to do my homework, make friends, obey the rules, have fun, and be a good student. Nothing in the list need contradict anything else on it. Still, what was most important to me was to have fun.

The thread goes forth unto infinity. One question: did you cite wikipedia as an authority in your thesis?

That's because it's really much more of an FPS than a flight sim. It's kind of like Crimson Skies, a flying FPS.

Is Kingdom Come the graphic novel where Superman goes into retirement after losing a court battle? If so, that was a great read. I don't get the chance to read comics anymore, but my brother in law insisted I read it. It was a quick read and reminded me why I used to love comics so much. ...And I liked the new take on the Flash. His super speed putting him in two realities at the same time was awesome.

Nice. Good luck!

It's not your quotes but your logic that is failing. ...But you could probably clean up the quotes the quotes just by taking out my name (I'm sure folks reading this thread, all four of us, will know who said what) and just making sure you have one open and one close quote for each citation. Also, having read through the thread again, I see that I was mixing you up with someone else in this thread, which is really bad considering the other person. I see that you're doggedly sticking to your arguments, but you are not necessarily attacking Christians. Still, you're quite persistant in claiming that Christianity is a violent faith. I continue to disagree. Inasmuchas you're deriding Christian principles, which seems apparent to me, I submit that you are attacking Christians. Nevertheless, there is a difference between attacking my beliefs and attacking me as a person. I respect that. I don't believe that the foundations of Christianity are violent. In making the claim that Christianity is violent at heart, there's been far more cherry picking on your end than mine. After all, I must take scripture and blend it into a workable basis for my worldview. You, on the other hand, start with a premise and overlook all other considerations in making your point. There hasn't been so much as any attempt to understand the opposing view on your part, only doggedly persisting that Christianity is violent and Christians who don't understand the violence of their own religion are fooling themselves. That doesn't make sense. I maintain that Christians, along with all other human beings, must take their convictions and forge them into a reasonable foundation for a moral compass. ...And you have the advantage of knowing my religion and having free reign to attack it. (I assume you will concede that you are attacking my religion, even if you refrain from attacking the followers.) You have not given a cogent account of your own belief system and so I have nothing to attack. Of course, I doubt I'd spend much time attacking your beliefs anyhow. I'm just pointing out that it's much easier to attack someone elses belief than to defend your own. At least that's been my experience. Still, I'm glad to see you're not the fellow claiming Catholics are pedaphiles. It puts the whole discussion in a different light. At least on my end.

So, you don't care what Buddhists think and yet you're willing to attack Christianity on their behalf. Okay. ...And, by attacking all Christians, you are attacking me personally. I thought that would be apparent. As for your other arguments, I'm more than willing to let them stand beside my own and let others decide which of us is more tolerant.

hahahaha that was funny. The creationist argument is a mess anyhow. Instead of being a religious vs science issue, it's become a sectarian battle zone.

So, the question really doesn't revolve around belief in God, nor does it center on a discussion of tolerance. Instead, you've gone through every scripture in the bible with a view to painting me, personally, as violent? Consider that, by claiming that all Christians belong to a violent religion, you are creating a definition by which all Christians must be violent or they cannot be Christian. ...And I'm not cherry picking my beliefs, I just don't concede that the scriptures you cite are either more prominent or central to Christian thinking. Like virtually everyone else in this world, including our now famous Buddhist, there is no document, writing, or scripture that can convey everything about my personal beliefs. ("Generally, Buddhism is considered one of the world's most peaceful faiths, although this is not always true, to wit Buddhist violence against Christians and Muslims in Sri Lanka." http://www.caymannetnews.com/Archive/Archi...%20Yearend.html That would be violence done in the name of religion, I suspect.) Like the Buddhist who committs violence because he is an imperfect Buddhist, I might be an imperfect Catholic. After all, that imperfection probably cuts both ways, meaning that I am imperfect in my desire to avoid violence. Moreover, what about Christ's affirmation of the old laws? Is the exhortation to turn the other cheek more central to Christianity than "an eye for an eye?" ...And what about the fact that judgement is reserved for the Lord. I contend, your laundry list of old and new testament laws notwithstanding, that Christianity is, at heart, a non-violent religion. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to continue attacking me. Christianity is my faith. Worse, Catholicism is my religion. ...And yet I see no reason to either hate or ridicule a Buddhist. To be honest, I've known many Buddhist (having lived in Asia for some time undoubtedly helped) and I've never had one attack my religion before. They've been, to the person, a most tolerant and friendly group of people. I wonder what most of them would think of you attacking Christianity with such fervor.

http://www.khandro.net/dailylife_war.htm Buddhism is a remarkable system for beliefs, but even a world view as non-violent as Buddhism does support folks who are more than willing to fight, die, and kill for their beliefs. I chose the web page above because it, like you, depicts Buddhism as non-violent. Indeed, I see it as non-violent. Still, Buddhists as individuals and as groups have been involved in violence. Is Christianity more violent than Buddhism? *shrug* I suppose. Christianity, under the same scrutiny, certainly has a longer history of violence. Nevertheless, the basic tenets, and certainly the most profound teachings of Christianity are non-violent. Religions are comprised of human beings. Human beings can be violent, recalcitrant, and intolerant. These conditions need no religion to manifest themselves. For instance, some folks insist Christianity is a violent religion and then search actively for evidence to paint all Christians as violent. I believe that stance is intolerant. After all, the very name of the thread is "Smart people don't believe in god..." That's the example of tolerance to which atheists should hearken.

My favorite series is Doom, but that's largely because of nostalgia. The two Half Life games are the best crafted of the genre, though.

Oh, come now, you have imaginary friends from all over the world, WM. You can discuss English politics with them whilst you sip imaginary tea from an imaginary cup on an imaginary saucer.