As the Schiavo circus moved to its conclusion (????), I've been increasingly exercised by the outrageous posturings of "Christian conservatives" like Randall Terry. But there's a misnomer here: I doubt that they really deserve the name of either "Christian" or "conservative." So it was good to read this SF Chronicle column by Mark Morford--a good reminder that some people who go to church regularly, believe in God, and call themselves Christians are not rude, crude, bullying fanatics, but decent and honest folks.
****** www.sfgate.com ****** Return to regular view
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Are The Good Christians?
The fanatics and nutjobs now running the show sure give honest believers a bad name
- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, April 6, 2005
I know they're out there.
I forget, often, too often, just how many there are but I know they exist in much larger numbers than you might be led to believe by current spiritually embarrassing headlines and I know they are just as, if not more, passionate and healthy and deeply felt in their beliefs than the overpublicized sects of angry and frothing "true believers" screeching into the megaphone of the culture, the ones yanking BushCo's chain and pounding their Bibles and hiding their warped porn fetishes and forcing their way into our lives and laws and bedrooms right now.
They are the decent Christians. They are the calm, morally progressive, compassionate, open-hearted Jesus-loving folk who don't really give a damn for archaic church dogma or pious noise or sanctimonious candlelight vigils, for repressing women or bashing gays or slamming Islam and, in fact, turned to Christianity precisely because they believe these things are abhorrent and wrong and, well, anti-Christian.
They are Episcopalians, for example, that most nimble and intelligent and groundbreaking of Christian churches, a rather revolutionary sect that recently elected its first openly gay bishop and supports gay marriage and dares to ordain women as priests.
And they're still deeply involved in amazing charity work, AIDS and orphanages and Africa and stuff that makes you humble and amazed and they have not, due to this seemingly blasphemous dichotomy and much to the shock of their homophobic conservative brethren, been struck by lightning or doomed to hell for all eternity -- or, rather, if they have, they'll go down happy and intelligent and singing and believing in Jesus anyway, all the way down.
They are the legions of recovering Catholics, people for whom the radiant and positive aspects of this most intense of faiths still hold powerful sway but who just can't abide by the ridiculous and outdated and often homophobic and sexist doctrines hurled forth like so much flaccid manna from the unhappy red-robed automatons of Vatican City.
They are the moderate Christians, the ones who do not support illegal wars or the killing of all doctors who perform abortions and who are all for social justice and who think Bush is a bit of an imbecile, and even if they find themselves for some unfortunate reason in support of the Republican cause overall, they still think it's rather abhorrent that the man dares invoke God to support his lie-ridden wars and the smashing down of women's rights and gay rights and abuse of the environment et al.
How do I know they're out there? Because I hear from them all the time, especially when I get carried away and lump them all together in my often overly harsh criticisms of the faith and my utter lack of patience for its more rabid and small-minded and hateful practitioners and its more violently self-righteous elements, stuff so completely antithetical to what true Christianity, what true faith, true spiritual connection, is all about, it would make Jesus wince.
And these Christians -- let us call them "normal" or perhaps "natural" or even "organic" (i.e.;, devoid of poisons or preservatives or Sanctimonious Growth Hormones) -- they are filling all manner of funky or progressive (or Unitarian) churches across many a large city in America, right now.
They are streaming into huge beautiful nonjudgmental buildings all over San Francisco and Chicago and New York and Boston, etc., places that welcome gays and oddballs and spiritual nomads and pantheists and anyone else who might be feeling a divine pull, and please leave your Jesus extremism at the door and let's talk about Sufism.
And they discuss stuff that sounds much closer to mystical or cosmological or otherwise paganistic energy work than the narrow, spittle-filled believe-in-Jesus-or-burn-in-hell angles of approach you keep hearing about and that tend to slash at your heart and insult your soul.
They're not radical. They're not rabid. They're not full of venom and Rapture and they read books other than the childish Left Behind series and they don't loathe sex or despise other religions or hate their genitalia like Tom DeLay loathes congressional law, and they know full well that Mel Gibson is a rather insane misogynistic blood fetishist who knowingly swiped an illiterate 18th-century stigmatic nun's bizarre and ultraviolent hallucination to use as some sort of dangerous literal truth. Amen.
They are, in short, those who understand the deep irony that, when it comes to religion, the ones who scream and stomp and whine the loudest are often the ones who understand their faith the least.
But there is a reason these calm and moderate and private Christians don't make the news, why, despite their enormous numbers, they are not setting the cultural agenda like some sort of sanctimonious meth-addled monkey (hi, Sen. Santorum!) right now.
It's because they are not organized. They are not a club. They do not have a unified attack agenda. They do not have pamphlets or advertising budgets or congressional lobbyists or the complaint line of every TV network and program except Fox News and "The 700 Club" on speed dial.
They do not call themselves the Parent's Television Council or the Right to Life Marauders or the Family Values Coalition or some other dumbly misleading and patently bogus moniker. They are not attempting to cram already gutted public school textbooks with imbecilic "Intelligent Design" BS, nor are they writing uptight letters to the FCC en masse or ranting about nipples or dildos or low-cut jeans on teenage girls while at the same exact moment repressing their own gay fantasies and kiddie-porn collections.
They understand that our children are at much higher risk of moral and spiritual damage from, say, decimated school budgets and violent presidential warmongering and noxious Kraft Lunchables than they could ever be from Janet Jackson or Abercrombie and Fitch or healthy teen sex.
Most spiritually healthy Christians are simply living their lives, praying deeply, carefully, privately, seeing the divine all around them and choosing Jesus' teachings as the best moral compass, especially the parts about love and healing and empathy and acceptance and turning the other cheek, about how God is not some sneering angry bearded puppeteer but rather a radiant energy force inside everyone and every living thing, always, just waiting for you to tap into it. You know, just like every other religion in existence.
They are the ones who understand that Jesus was, quite simply, one hell of a powerful teacher, and healer, and mystic, and visionary, a pacifist, a liberal, a feminist, the ultimate outsider, one of the finest examples in all of history of how to radiate pure love and compassion and divine interconnection and Lord knows we could all use more of that.
The bad news is, the rabid evangelical set is growing, this cluster of lost and weirdly undereducated people for whom the Bible is literal word-for-word verbatim truth and the Rapture is imminent and the Earth is just a disposable lump and the flesh is a disgusting afterthought and should be ignored and loathed and made really really fat and sexless and sad. And, to my mind, these people deserve all the fiery verbiage and raw satire and intelligent ideological counterforce I can possibly lob their way.
But. Just as there are moderate and wonderfully articulate pro-choice Republicans and just as there are moderate and fiscally conservative liberals, so there are millions of Christians who don't adhere in the slightest to the narrow and spiritually numb worldview now being touted by the BushCo Right. And if we're going to get anywhere with this increasingly desperate and fractured American social experiment, we need to remember that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
__________________
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument." William Gibbs McAdoo. US Vice-President under Woodrow Wilson.
It's ironic that we go through these periods when religion and morality become such devisive issues for the country when the country was founded on the principles of religious freedom and protection from the tyranny of the majority, if that is indeed the case.
Gardener you are,as usual,insightful. Several times during the "circus" I asked the question...If Terri Schiavo's parents believed that their daughter was bound for heaven, why not let her go there to be made whole, to rejoice with her Savior and not continue to selfishly keep her here in this half existance? I wondered if I was the only one but someone else asked the same kind of question in the op/ed of our local paper this weekend. I think there were/are many Christians who felt that this case was in so many ways a tragedy for the Faith(ful). Was it right to starve her to death instead of giving her a more painless way to go or would that have been seen as even more like "murder"? Was removing her feeding tube more like removing a ventilator or was it taking a wheelchair away from a paraplegic? I had never thought about that until I joined a discussion about exactly what "artificial" life support is and someone tried to make the argument that a feeding tube is no more artificial than a wheelchair or nursing help for a paraplegic who is incapable of many things, including feeding himself. There are so many subtleties surrounding this issue. Thank you for pointing out that not all Christians agreed with the mob on the lawn of the nursing home. There are those that want to be able to rejoice that the call that went out to Terri Schiavo 15 years ago to come home has finally been answered. Do I sound like a good Christian? I'm not, but I respect the beliefs and I am so irritated at people who want help from modern medicine to stay alive a little longer or to get pregnant, then after the fact want to leave it "up to god". God made the decision, medicine intervened. But that is just one woman's humble opinion.
__________________
The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'.
Originally posted by ODBSGIRL: Was removing her feeding tube more like removing a ventilator or was it taking a wheelchair away from a paraplegic? I had never thought about that until I joined a discussion about exactly what "artificial" life support is and someone tried to make the argument that a feeding tube is no more artificial than a wheelchair or nursing help for a paraplegic who is incapable of many things, including feeding himself.
I don't agree with the argument that the person you had the discussion with made regarding feeding tubes, although I agree that it's difficult to precisely define 'life support'. Simply put, Mrs. Schiavo was incapable of living without tube feeds, much as the ventillated patient may be incapable of living without the ventillator. The example of the paraplegic is not comparable, as the paraplegic may well be able to live on his own without the wheelchair and nursing help, though perhaps with great difficulty.
Regardless, the tube feeds are a medical intervention, and those opposed to removing the tube seemed to have trouble accepting that the decisions regarding medical intervention lie with the next of kin if the patient is incapable of providing informed consent. Had Mrs. Schiavo gone into heart failure, her husband could have refused treatment for this condition, even though it's not invasive, per se. It's a medical treatment and next of kin has the decision making authority on the issue, just like with a feeding tube insetion/removal.
Hopefully you caught that the wheelchair example was not MY arguement, it was a point made by someone else in the discussion. I didn't agree either but am willing to at least entertain other people's ideas. I think the point that person was making was that many paraplegics are not capable of eating on their own and thought that the situations were comparable on that point.
I think we are making the same point, that medical intervention was keeping her alive. The question was why a certain section or number of christians including her parents felt that it was god's will for her to live with this "intervention"? Was just a note of appreciation for the pointing out that not all christians, not all spritual people of any faith felt that she should be kept alive artificially.
__________________
The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'.
Originally posted by ODBSGIRL: Hopefully you caught that the wheelchair example was not MY arguement, it was a point made by someone else in the discussion.
I caught that.
Quote:
I think the point that person was making was that many paraplegics are not capable of eating on their own and thought that the situations were comparable on that point.
I'm splitting hairs now, but the vast majority of paraplegics eat on their own. More importantly , though, most paraplegics are able to give informed consent for medical interventions, and that's a key point makes the person's example lack comparability to the Schiavo case.
Quote:
I think we are making the same point, that medical intervention was keeping her alive. The question was why a certain section or number of christians including her parents felt that it was god's will for her to live with this "intervention"?
People who've followed the story in greater depth over a longer period of time can correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the parents weren't terribly religious people previously, but found allies among the funddamentalists. The argument they used was of the 'sanctity of life' and that her death should be 'God's will'. My counter-argument would be that her death really was God's will given that medical intervention was ceased. Moreover, those same fundamentalists preaching sanctity of life tend to be strong supporters of capital punishment. I have never heard a single onne of them provide a rational argument as to how they justify such contradictory views. I've asked on a number of occasions, but they always avoid the question. It takes some serious cognitive dissonance to square those two views.....
Quote:
Was just a note of appreciation for the pointing out that not all christians, not all spritual people of any faith felt that she should be kept alive artificially.
I believe you are correct in your assumption that her parents were out to find allies and they found them. They are professed Catholics, though I do not know much about their dedication to the church before the last few months. But I think as a parent I can at least sympathize with if I can't agree with their desperation. Which was part of my original point and yours as well I think Thank you for pointing out that not all Christians agreed with the mob on the lawn of the nursing home. There are those that want to be able to rejoice that the call that went out to Terri Schiavo 15 years ago to come home has finally been answered.
Quote:
My counter-argument would be that her death really was God's will given that medical intervention was ceased.
The ending sentence to my first post was something to the effect of people who use medical intervention to get what they want then try to say they want god's will to work it out i.e life support, selective abortions for multiples in the case of IVF etc...can't have it both ways and need to choose a side and stick to it. I thought that was harsh and too black and white so I deleted it. I think I may be too weak and non-confrontational for these types of discussions [img]smile.gif[/img] and I bet my husband would disagree with that statement.
I appreciate the education that I get from reading these posts.
__________________
The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'.
Originally posted by sharkbait: Gardener: as an atheist, I have to say that that's one of the most compelling arguments FOR religion that i've ever heard. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I have to agree with the Sharkinator on that one. I'm atheist as well, I always figured religion was a personal relationship with a higher being, not something to be exploited. I have respect for people for being good people whether they're christian, satanist, pagan, etc. I don't see my lack of belief any better than someone's belief as long as they don't fly a plain into a huge building and kill thousands in the name of religion or run through a high school with guns asking people if they are religious and then mowing them down in a hail of gun fire if they answer yes. I think people should see people as they are more these days, someone's religion shouldn't dictate who they are ya know, they're character and actions should.
quote:Originally posted by sharkbait: Gardener: as an atheist, I have to say that that's one of the most compelling arguments FOR religion that i've ever heard. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I have to agree with the Sharkinator on that one. I'm atheist as well, I always figured religion was a personal relationship with a higher being, not something to be exploited. I have respect for people for being good people whether they're christian, satanist, pagan, etc. I don't see my lack of belief any better than someone's belief as long as they don't fly a plain into a huge building and kill thousands in the name of religion or run through a high school with guns asking people if they are religious and then mowing them down in a hail of gun fire if they answer yes. I think people should see people as they are more these days, someone's religion shouldn't dictate who they are ya know, they're character and actions should. [/quote]AMEN!!! (says the fellow atheist)
__________________ No Magic Pill (the log)
My Movember page (yes, I'm slacking on pictures)
technically, i'm not really an atheist, i'm a scientific pantheist (I still don't believe in God, but I do have an emense spiritual reverence for the wonders of the universe).
While I don't believe in a God, I am familiar with the Bible, and I think the teachings of Jesus are (excuse the sacralige... sp?) badass! I don't believe the guy was the son of God, or a savior, per se, but I love his message, and if people take nothing more than that away from the new testament, i'm ok with that (though I know most christians aren't).
K, that's my rant!
__________________
Renegade HR: Recruit great people. Inspire them to do amazing things. | http://renegadehr.net
I agree with that article for the most part, except for the part about ordaining gay priests and supporting gay marriage. Should Christians condemn homosexuals for their actions? Of course not, but the bible says pretty explicitly that homosexual relationships are not right, and I do not believe it is right for the church to promote these things as "ok". Christians are supposed to turn from sin, not embrace it. Hellfire preaching is retarded, and it is the best way to turn people away from the religion, but saying that homosexuality is alright is not any different than saying stealing or adultery is alright. I'm all for women priests/ministers, but here in the south a lot of denominations still believe women are to be held in lower regards than men. When I was in high school our preacher was a woman (Methodist), and we were trying to get the different youth groups from around town to do things together. A lot of the other churches wouldn't have anything to do with us simply because our preacher was a woman. Despite the fact that the woman was a medical doctor and an ordained minister she was for some reason inferior to their minsters. Instead of strengthening the Christian community in our town they tore it even further apart over that. There were other things they left us out of because of the sex of our preacher, but since that was the only one that really affected me that's the only one I can remember off the top of my head.
Quote:
they don't loathe sex or despise other religions or hate their genitalia like Tom DeLay loathes congressional law
I've never heard anything along these lines in a church, ever. Every preacher/speaker/etc. I have ever heard has said that sex is a good thing and is meant to be enjoyed, but it is meant to be enjoyed between a husband and wife.
Quote:
this cluster of lost and weirdly undereducated people for whom the Bible is literal word-for-word verbatim truth
I'm not sure exactly what he means in this statement, but it almost sounds like he is saying Christians should just take what is being said in scripture with a grain of salt. You can't just throw away certain parts of scripture saying they are obsolete. Just because something is becoming acceptable in society doesn't mean it is acceptable. Certain parts of scripture are written so that a more antiquated audience would be able to understand them, but that does mean they don't apply to the modern world. Maybe I completely misunderstood what the man was trying to say here, but this is kind of what it came off as to me.
Quote:
when it comes to religion, the ones who scream and stomp and whine the loudest are often the ones who understand their faith the least.
So true.
These people just need to realise that the religion they are following clearly states that no one sin is greater than another (except for blasphemy, and that their vices will damn them just as surely as being gay will. All it takes for me to keep from being judgmental about a person is to remember my own faults. Sure it's wrong to sleep around, but is it really any different in God's eyes when I smash an ice cream cone on someone's car after leaving the Chinese buffet (frieking hillarious, the other day me and my friends got some tricked out low-rider, but I digress)? Some of my views may seem very conservative to some of you, but I'm not aiming to offend anyone, just stating my beliefs on the subject.
I know this doesn't have anything to do with how the "Christian conservatives" handled the Schiavo thing, but I felt the need to comment.
[quote]
They are the decent Christians. They are the calm, morally progressive, compassionate, open-hearted Jesus-loving folk...
[\QUOTE]
That's the life that I try to portray. I agree that most "Christian views" that are seen in the public eye are somewhat radical, personalized views. That's why I try not to get into too many debates on this forum. I'm around Christians all the time, and I have never met one of these fanatical types that you see on TV. Of course, there are many different types of people. I feel as if the vast majority of Christians out there are along the lines of the description that I quoted.
I read a lot in the forum, and this might surprise you from someone that claims Christianity, but I don't agree with everything Bush does. I also don't hate everything that he stands for.
Actually, there's a new book that I've been thinking about buying, and would probably be a good read for most that are interested in this topic. It's called "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It" by Jim Wallis. Here's a review from the publisher that I pulled from BarnesandNoble.com:
FROM THE PUBLISHER
"Since when did believing in God and having moral values make you pro-war, pro-rich, and pro-Republican? And since when did promoting and pursuing a progressive social agenda with a concern for economic security, health care, and educational opportunity mean you had to put faith in God aside?" God's Politics offers a clarion call to make both our religious communities and our government more accountable to key values of the prophetic religious tradition - that is, make them pro-justice, pro-peace, pro-environment, pro-equality, pro-consistent ethic of life (beyond single-issue voting), and pro-family (without making scapegoats of single mothers or gays and lesbians). Our biblical faith and religious traditions simply do not allow us as a nation to continue to ignore the poor and marginalized, deny racial justice, tolerate the ravages of war, or turn away from the human rights of those made in the image of God. These are the values of love and justice, reconciliation, and community that Jesus taught and that are at the core of what many of us believe, Christian or not. In the tradition of prophets such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day, and Desmond Tutu, Wallis inspires us to hold our political leaders and policies accountable by integrating our deepest moral convictions into our nation's public life.
-------------------------------------------------
I haven't read the book yet. But, I intend to. I think that this is the kind of book that I've been in need of reading. Maybe I'll post a review once I've read it!
I read a lot in the forum, and this might surprise you from someone that claims Christianity, but I don't agree with everything Bush does. I also don't hate everything that he stands for.
Actually, there's a new book that I've been thinking about buying, and would probably be a good read for most that are interested in this topic. It's called "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It" by Jim Wallis. Here's a review from the publisher that I pulled from BarnesandNoble.com:
The noisy religious right has alienated me about 99% from my Christian roots. Jim Wallis? I couldn't share his views entirely, but he has things to say, is compassionate, informed, concerned, and...one of the few people who might be able to persuade me to come back to church... once or twice.
__________________
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument." William Gibbs McAdoo. US Vice-President under Woodrow Wilson.
I posted this on the Schaivo thread, but it fits better with this one...
Quote:
Living will is the best revenge
By Robert Friedman
St. Petersburg Times, March 27, 2005
Like many of you, I have been compelled by recent
events to prepare a more detailed advance directive dealing with end-of-life issues. Here's what mine says:
* In the event I lapse into a persistent vegetative state, I want medical authorities to resort to extraordinary means to prolong my hellish semiexistence. Fifteen years wouldn't be long enough for me.
* I want my wife and my parents to compound their
misery by engaging in a bitter and protracted feud
that depletes their emotions and their bank accounts.
* I want my wife to ruin the rest of her life by
maintaining an interminable vigil at my bedside. I'd be really jealous if she waited less than a decade to start dating again or otherwise rebuilding a semblance of a normal life.
* I want my case to be turned into a circus by losers and crackpots from around the country who hope to bring meaning to their empty lives by investing the same transient emotion in me that they once reserved for Laci Peterson, Chandra Levy and that little girl who got stuck in a well.
* I want those crackpots to spread vicious lies about my wife.
* I want to be placed in a hospice where protesters can gather to bring further grief and disruption to the lives of dozens of dying patients and families whose stories are sadder than my own.
* I want the people who attach themselves to my case because of their deep devotion to the sanctity of life to make death threats against any judges, elected officials or health care professionals who disagree with them.
* I want the medical geniuses and philosopher kings who populate the Florida Legislature to ignore me for more than a decade and then turn my case into a forum for weeks of politically calculated bloviation.
* I want total strangers - oily politicians, maudlin news anchors, ersatz friars and all other hangers-on - to start calling me "Bobby," as if they had known me since childhood.
* I'm not insisting on this as part of my directive, but it would be nice if Congress passed a "Bobby's Law" that applied only to me and ignored the medical needs of tens of millions of other Americans without adequate health coverage.
* Even if the "Bobby's Law" idea doesn't work out, I want Congress - especially all those self-described conservatives who claim to believe in "less government and more freedom" - to trample on the decisions of doctors, judges and other experts who actually know something about my case. And I want members of Congress to launch into an extended debate that gives them another excuse to avoid pesky issues such as national security and the economy.
* In particular, I want House Majority Leader Tom
DeLay to use my case as an opportunity to divert the country's attention from the mounting political and legal troubles stemming from his slimy misbehavior.
* And I want Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to make a mockery of his Harvard medical degree by
misrepresenting the details of my case in ways that might give a boost to his 2008 presidential campaign.
* I want Frist and the rest of the world to judge my medical condition on the basis of a snippet of dated and demeaning videotape that should have remained private.
* Because I think I would retain my sense of humor
even in a persistent vegetative state, I'd want
President Bush - the same guy who publicly mocked
Karla Faye Tucker when signing off on her death
warrant as governor of Texas - to claim he was
intervening in my case because it is always best "to err on the side of life."
* I want the state Department of Children and Families to step in at the last moment to take responsibility for my well-being, because nothing bad could ever happen to anyone under DCF's care.
* And because Gov. Jeb Bush is the smartest and most righteous human being on the face of the Earth, I want any and all of the aforementioned directives to be disregarded if the governor happens to disagree with them. If he says he knows what's best for me, I won't be in any position to argue.
Robert Friedman is editor of Perspective. He can be reached at friedman@sptimes.com
Did President Bush really say, in terms of this case, that "it is always better to err on the side of life"??
Yes he did, to which many dug up his HVYW8 chamion status concerning executions and a law passed as Governor allowing Docs to pull the plug even over objections of parents (highlighting cases in which the parents couldn't pay the bills)
Would this disqualify him as a good Christian?
As for Jim Wallis, his bk does look interesting. I've seen him interviewed a number of times during which he presented his views in an intelligent and thoughful manner.
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
Wow. Unbelievably hypocritical then. I guess he means rich white Christian American life, because that comment certainly doesn't seems to apply to Iraqi civilians or poor or minority American soliders.
More and more, I am enraged about what these crooks are able to get away with and what Clinton was (rightfully IMO) held over the fire for. What a double standard.
I'm not sure exactly what he means in this statement, but it almost sounds like he is saying Christians should just take what is being said in scripture with a grain of salt. You can't just throw away certain parts of scripture saying they are obsolete. Just because something is becoming acceptable in society doesn't mean it is acceptable. Certain parts of scripture are written so that a more antiquated audience would be able to understand them, but that does mean they don't apply to the modern world. Maybe I completely misunderstood what the man was trying to say here, but this is kind of what it came off as to me.
RLP: He's talking about the inbred southern baptist hicks who believe that the world was literally created in 7 days, man from mud and woman from adams rib, and that evolution is a theory with little evidence that should be taken with a grain of salt.
He's talking about the assholes who believe that the earth is only about 10,000 years old and not 6 billion. He's talking about the biblical literalists who refuse to acknowledge the contradictions and scientific inaccuracies of the bible, insisting that literally every single word contained within its pages is 100% true in all aspects.
Hope that helps [img]smile.gif[/img]
__________________
Renegade HR: Recruit great people. Inspire them to do amazing things. | http://renegadehr.net
hey shark-you pretty much hit the nail right on the head there! good job. i'm not going to go on a long rant here, but i must say that Christians have to read the bible in context, not literally. if you read between the lines, you will get it. i can help explain the creation stories, if any of you wish? hey-i got an A on the test [img]tongue.gif[/img] seriously, though, if you read the stories in context and understand the authors' backgrounds, you can make sense of them.
__________________
"Rust on a nail builds tetanus. Rust on a barbell builds character, strength, and attitude." -EC
"Don't spend your life wishing. Spend it doing." -FishrCutB8
"You're a mutant, like a snake with two heads or a cat shy one nipple. Be thankful that your mutation is helpful." - LD
Sorry to go a little off topic, and I am young but theres two things I would like to say.
First: What would qualify one as a "good" or "bad" Christian? Everyone makes mistakes, says the wrong thing or does something that just isnt right. But just because they have faith in God and profess to be a Christian and does something wrong, their now a "bad Christian". Im sorry but I just dont like that term. I think their human. And people just do wrong things, its our nature. It doesnt make us a good or bad whatever we claim to be. Were just someone who made a mistake.
*Side Note: Kuri - Please understand I am not going after you but I wanted to insert one these quotes of a good Christian. I guess everyone could just insert the name of the thread as an example instead of the example I made.
Second:
Quote:
He's talking about the assholes who believe that the earth is only about 10,000 years old and not 6 billion. He's talking about the biblical literalists who refuse to acknowledge the contradictions and scientific inaccuracies of the bible, insisting that literally every single word contained within its pages is 100% true in all aspects.
Hope that helps [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QB]
Please help me understand this. I believe the earth is only 6 to 10 thousand years old. I believe every single word in the Bible is 100% true. Thats just what I believe. So are you calling a person with that belief an a-whole? I dont know if thats what your inplying or not, but thats how I took it. If Im misunderstanding. Please help to make it clearer.
Ending statement: Im only 16. I dont know much. I wont argue a point. But wanted to say what I felt needed to be said.
Originally posted by Seth: I believe the earth is only 6 to 10 thousand years old. I believe every single word in the Bible is 100% true. Thats just what I believe. So are you calling a person with that belief an a-whole? I dont know if thats what your inplying or not, but thats how I took it. If Im misunderstanding. Please help to make it clearer.
It certainly doesn't make you an arsehole. Just understand that belief and theory are two very different things ( here is a functional definition of theory which fits my usage of the word -- http://wilstar.com/theories.htm ). If you choose to believe that the Earth was created about 6000 years ago (or 10 000 or whatever), that's fine, but be aware that there is a tremendous amount of evidence indicating that this isn't the case.
Originally posted by nbjjku: Not trying to start a conflict; but I have a couple of questions.
As someone who believes the Bible to be infallible; what do you make of science that refutes this?
Do you believe in the so called "lost" books of the Bible. AKA the ones that didn't get in because they didn't fit the politics of the day?
Just some innocent questions I have been meaning to ask.
Well I dont know of much science that refutes the Bible. But I know you can do research on Moody institute of science and you should be able to find alot of studies that do nothing but prove the Bible to be true. Each in clarity and in perfect sense.
And no I dont believe in the lost books of the Bible. I believe the King James Version 1611 Bible is the actual Word of God. And that the men who physically wrote the books of the Bibles every word were inspired directly from God. That the Bible is complete. And like I said before, I dont know much so I can pretty much only say my oppinion. But theres a verse in Psalm I think chapter 12 that sums up very clearly that he KJV is the true Word of God. I wish I could give you a reference but I cant.
But like I said thats just my belief and its up to an individual to decide how they depict a certain person because of their belief.
Originally posted by Seth:
Well I dont know of much science that refutes the Bible. But I know you can do research on Moody institute of science and you should be able to find alot of studies that do nothing but prove the Bible to be true. Each in clarity and in perfect sense.
Actually, I can't find anything from Moody that 'prove the Bible to be true'. Are there any studies that you know of specifically? If the Bible were really proven true and in perfect clarity, then do you think there would be so much controversy over the literal accuracy of the Bible? I don't.
I really can't find anything on the Moody website that so much as reminds me of legitimate scientific research.
Now, understand that I'm not claiming that the Bible is unimportant or that it is entirely inaccurate, or that you aren't free to believe whatever you wish, because that isn't the case. But not many of us who have a background in science will be fooled into thinking that Moody is doing anything other than paying lip service to science.
Linear Mode
