[imitchellg5]

That's what I was trying to say, thank you for interpreting it better than I could.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You're suggesting there is a known and appropriate amount of piety.

No more than somebody arguing that George W. Bush is not a pacifist is suggesting that there is a known and appropriate amount of pacifism.

As I've said before, I don't know why people suddenly get all fuzzy and vague when it comes to religion. People shouldn't feel obligated to act as though their personal belief system is all-encompassing when it's not.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

For instance, Doofy doesn't go to church, but thinks of himself as a real Christian. On the other hand, many go to church and do the necessary rituals, but aren't very public about it. Is there any point in making decisions on who the "real Christians" are?

Whether there's any point is an entirely separate question, and I could go on a long philosophical tear about that one.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Besides, phrases like "real Christians" or "real Americans" are used mostly to condemn the ideology of everyone else; i.e., fungelicals or Mormons or Catholics who claim to be the real church, while everyone else are heretics or whatever.

Or to disassociate yourself from people who you don't feel represent your ideals despite being superficially under the same umbrella but much less fervent about it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Second question... If Atheists make up more of the population than Blacks, Jews or Gays, do you think they deserve any special treatment in the form of political clout or special recognition?

How does Atheism belong in the same category as being of a certain race, culture or sexual orientation?

Being an atheist or being religious is something that you choose, or at least choose not to question. I don't think they belong in the same category.

That being said, why should ANY group be given any special consideration, clout etc? What's wrong with plain ol' equality?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

How does Atheism belong in the same category as being of a certain race, culture or sexual orientation?

Being an atheist or being religious is something that you choose, or at least choose not to question. I don't think they belong in the same category.

That being said, why should ANY group be given any special consideration, clout etc? What's wrong with plain ol' equality?

Compensation? We are very far away from actual equality... This applies to both of your points.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Compensation? We are very far away from actual equality... This applies to both of your points.

That type of solution has done very little to foster equal treatment in this country. All it does is enforce unequal outcomes. (I don't wanna turn this into a debate all about equality)

What would be the purpose, in your view, of giving atheists a special status as a "minority"? What is it that in your view needs to be accomplished?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No more than somebody arguing that George W. Bush is not a pacifist is suggesting that there is a known and appropriate amount of pacifism.

I don't think Bush has ever claimed to be a pacifist, so I'm not really following your comparison.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That type of solution has done very little to foster equal treatment in this country. All it does is enforce unequal outcomes. (I don't wanna turn this into a debate all about equality)

What would be the purpose, in your view, of giving atheists a special status as a "minority"? What is it that in your view needs to be accomplished?

It seems a little easier than getting the Christian right and left to abstain from politics? I'd rather they abstain from politics completely, but that seems like a very tall order.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It seems a little easier than getting the Christian right and left to abstain from politics? I'd rather they abstain from politics completely, but that seems like a very tall order.

Oh. Nevermind then. I thought you actually had someones best interests at heart, rather than silly political nonsense.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Oh. Nevermind then. I thought you actually had someones best interests at heart, rather than silly political nonsense.

It is in the best entry of many if all religious groups abstained from politics, but it doesn't work that way...

[olePigeon]

People deal with illogical aspects to their faith in three ways:

1. Deny any fallacies and stick their head in the sand.
2. Claim irrefutable, contradictory evidence is only there to test their faith.
3. Interpretation: Interpret scripture in a way to justify their actions.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I don't think Bush has ever claimed to be a pacifist, so I'm not really following your comparison.

Whether or not it happened is irrelevant. Suppose I told you that I'd had lunch with Bush and he told me he was an avid pacifist. Would you scoff?

[Shaddim]

I have no faith and quite a bit of doubt, I guess I'm an atheist.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I have no faith and quite a bit of doubt, I guess I'm an atheist.

Either that or you are a troglodyte... You could be a troglodyte.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Either that or you are a troglodyte... You could be a troglodyte.

Don't be silly, I don't have a unibrow and have nothing against Geico.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Whether or not it happened is irrelevant. Suppose I told you that I'd had lunch with Bush and he told me he was an avid pacifist. Would you scoff?

Yes, because if you were THAT close to Bush, you'd know that he eats lunch 12 times a day.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Don't be silly, I don't have a unibrow and have nothing against Geico.

Do you like to have sex with animals?

*Something* must be wrong with you, it's just a matter of figuring out what...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you sort of mostly recognize the relevance and existence of God in your life as more of a spiritual thing, or do you feel that a belief in God has to go hand in hand with some sort of mix of literal/non-literal interpretation of the bible?

I don't know if this will help Bess, but here it is from my perspective...

The Bible is merely a starting point. Once you trip over the edge, you no longer really need to reference scripture because you feel it inside you. You kind of stop needing the external reference and start living it - like some kind of altered state of mind. Serenity, I guess. Like you've just spent an afternoon with Tommy Chong.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't know if this will help Bess, but here it is from my perspective...

The Bible is merely a starting point. Once you trip over the edge, you no longer really need to reference scripture because you feel it inside you. You kind of stop needing the external reference and start living it - like some kind of altered state of mind. Serenity, I guess. Like you've just spent an afternoon with Tommy Chong.

Do you have an example of some sort of public figure that is this spiritually enlightened? I'm not suggesting that such a person doesn't exist, but it's certainly hard to separate the dorks who say they are from those we ought to actually be paying attention to, ain't it?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't know if this will help Bess, but here it is from my perspective...

The Bible is merely a starting point. Once you trip over the edge, you no longer really need to reference scripture because you feel it inside you. You kind of stop needing the external reference and start living it - like some kind of altered state of mind. Serenity, I guess. Like you've just spent an afternoon with Tommy Chong.

The Bible is a starting point, but it's more of a grounding. I don't think you understand it properly though. A Christian will never NOT NEED the Bible; a Christian is called to continually be reading the Bible and meditating on it, praying through it. There isn't a point when he'll set down the Bible and be "free" from it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

A Christian will never NOT NEED the Bible

You say this on what authority?

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

a Christian is called to continually be reading the Bible and meditating on it, praying through it.

By whom? When did they call "a Christian" to do this?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You say this on what authority?

Being one, I guess. And as for the calling, if you read the Bible it IS in there.

(here comes a can of worms)

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Being one, I guess.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

The Bible is a starting point, but it's more of a grounding. I don't think you understand it properly though. A Christian will never NOT NEED the Bible; a Christian is called to continually be reading the Bible and meditating on it, praying through it. There isn't a point when he'll set down the Bible and be "free" from it.

St Paul would disagree. Like Doofy, he claimed the Holy Spirit animated his actions. He rejected the power of the Torah over him, and the New Testament wasn't yet written.

Besides, most of humanity was illiterate until recently. It would have been impossible for most to continually read the Bible. It was read to them, by authorities who decided what needed to be read.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

St Paul would disagree. Like Doofy, he claimed the Holy Spirit animated his actions. He rejected the power of the Torah over him, and the New Testament wasn't written.

No no no, you've gone all wrong. The New Testament was obviously written, how else did it get here? They didn't have Twitter back then.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

No no no, you've gone all wrong. The New Testament was obviously written, how else did it get here? They didn't have Twitter back then.

He means the New Testament wasn't written at the time of Paul. (I mean, obviously. Paul wrote half the book himself, and those are some of the earliest parts.)

[imitchellg5]

Oh, right.

[besson3c]

I like Doofy's idea of using the bible as a starting place, now that I have thought more about this.

This does introduce many more questions though. Care to share some of your thoughts on these Doofy?

1) If one does not need to stick to the teachings of the bible to achieve spiritual enlightenment, does one need to stick to the confines of Christianity?

2) Is there one true God and path to spiritual enlightenment?

3) Does God intervene in our daily lives? In other words, if you are a good Christian and you pray for that job promotion and get it, is this likely to be an act of God?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you like to have sex with animals?

Well, not just animals.

[Big Mac]

What is the point of threads like these, besson? What goals, if any, are you looking to achieve through them?

By that, I mean, are you trying to offend religious people, and if so, to what end? Are you trying to goad Christians? Are you trying to get other people to do your thinking for you? Are you sincerely asking for responses to your questions pertaining to specific religious beliefs, or are you just looking to ridicule people's views? I don't understand your purpose.

By the way, in honor of this thread I studied Jonah and commentaries pertaining to it all last night into the morning.

[besson3c]

I'm trying to have a conversation and digest other people's thoughts and opinions, questioning my own, debating some aspects, exploring some questions and concepts I haven't put much thought into, etc. It's a pretty open ended thread with no one purpose.

Not all of us have the luxury that you have of having everything in life figured out and decided upon and have decided to shut the door on further questions and re-examination.

[Big Mac]

Okay, fair enough. It seemed like you were being insincere, but maybe I misjudged your intent.

[Paco500]

To return to the original question...

If my (very christian) upbringing is anything to go by, people seem to deal with in three ways:

1) Accept is all as fact
2) Simply pretend the wacky stuff isn't there
3) Justify it with outlandish theories- for example, I had one youth group leader who managed to tie the flood, dinosaurs, Methuselah (and other extremely long human life) and young earth in to one quasi-scientific explanation.

[Big Mac]

Oh, speaking of which, they found another living coelacanth (which was thought by scientists to be extinct until fairly recently), and surprise surprise, "the fish hasn't changed much in 400 million years."

I don't mean to derail this thread, but it really comes back to my retort - how do atheists deal with the illogical aspects of atheism?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Oh, speaking of which, they found another living coelacanth (which was thought by scientists to be extinct until fairly recently), and surprise surprise, "the fish hasn't changed much in 400 million years."

I don't mean to derail this thread, but it really comes back to my retort - how do atheists deal with the illogical aspects of atheism?

Which illogical aspects are you referring to and how does this fish relate?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

1) If one does not need to stick to the teachings of the bible to achieve spiritual enlightenment, does one need to stick to the confines of Christianity?

Yes, I believe so. There's other ways which may get near, but none which appear to do the job properly.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

2) Is there one true God and path to spiritual enlightenment?

Yes and I don't know but suspect so.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

3) Does God intervene in our daily lives? In other words, if you are a good Christian and you pray for that job promotion and get it, is this likely to be an act of God?

Yes. But it doesn't work like you think it does. I'm not going to explain how it does work other than to point you at Matthew 21:21 and tell you that it's not a parable.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you have an example of some sort of public figure that is this spiritually enlightened? I'm not suggesting that such a person doesn't exist, but it's certainly hard to separate the dorks who say they are from those we ought to actually be paying attention to, ain't it?

Been racking my brains and I can't think of one. That's not to say that they're not out there, but I can't think of one. And it's not for me to judge anyway.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't mean to derail this thread, but it really comes back to my retort - how do atheists deal with the illogical aspects of atheism?

If you really want to know, start a new thread. I may be interested in participating. (Though I'm technically agnostic)

[andi*pandi]

If the non-evolving fish is proof of god, I don't see it. Evolution is driven by ecology and environs. If nothing changes in your environs, if you live in a little pocket of the ocean where you never leave and nothing else ever comes, there is no reason to evolve.

What is interesting to ponder about the fish, is if the reason they're being seen around now, is why they left their little isolated pocket. Earthquake? Pollution? Got bored and decided to evolve?

It's interesting, is what it is.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are also Christian values that seem completely incompatible with Conservative economic ideals: the notion of caring for the poor, looking out for the little guy, tending to the sick, etc.

When I say "completely" I mean mostly the common perception.

This is a really misled statement. The Christians I've known (who actually lived it; not just going to church on Sundays) are some of the most giving people I know.

Christians certainly believe in caring for the poor, looking out for the little guy, tending to the sick, taking care of children, etc. They just tend to side with Conservatives, who believe in all these things - but don't believe the government should force them to do it. It's a lot easier to give to the poor when the feds aren't stealing 45% of your income, eh?

WRT your OP: as far as I'm concerned, the things that seem strange or unbelievable in the Bible (like talking snakes, living in a whale for a week, etc.) aren't really the important part, and arguing about them is futile.

The majority of modern Christianity has lost sight of what the faith is actually about, and the important elements of existence that the Bible teaches believers.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't mean to derail this thread, but it really comes back to my retort - how do atheists deal with the illogical aspects of atheism?

They don't? The militant atheists I've met refuse to acknowledge that a vehement and 1,000% positive belief that there is no God, god, or higher power takes an element of faith, since it's belief in something that is unknown and impossible to prove one way or the other.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Oh, speaking of which, they found another living coelacanth (which was thought by scientists to be extinct until fairly recently), and surprise surprise, "the fish hasn't changed much in 400 million years."

I don't mean to derail this thread, but it really comes back to my retort - how do atheists deal with the illogical aspects of atheism?

What does a fish not changing in 400 million years have to do with Atheism? That only could have happened if there were a god?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't mean to derail this thread, but it really comes back to my retort - how do atheists deal with the illogical aspects of atheism?

This doesn't make sense.

Faith and rationalism do not mix. By that, I don't mean that there is something wrong with being irrational. Rationalism as I'm using this term here means the idea that language is an adequate vessel to explain topics, for example 1 + 1 equaling 2 and the fact that we breath oxygen. Rationalism cannot explain the deeper questions of life as we are discussing them here. However, to account for that which we don't understand with the supernatural is not, by definition, rational.

When I say that it is not rational I know full well that sounds condescending. Let me try to soften that up a little...

As Turtle said, we are all irrational. Emotions are often irrational, so much of our feelings and instincts are shaped by all of this. It's not that rational = good, irrational = bad. I happen to believe that both are very much a part of life. A philosopher might call the illogical part postmodern philosophy, which basically says that we don't actually know anything, as everything is shaped by our own experiences. I don't know how to soften this up any more as this aspect of life is almost impossible to explain, but we all know that life amounts to more than simply scientific fact and mathematics and the like.

My point is that you simply can't mix the two. Faith is very much shaped by our own experiences, which is why it is literally pointless for somebody to try to explain away their faith and how their God has impacted them personally in the hopes that the person listening will walk away with a faith equal to the speaker. You cannot "give" me your faith just with language alone, I have to feel and experience it for myself.

All I'm saying is that questioning the supernatural is not, by definition, illogical. What this boils down to is that I haven't had the same experiences that you have had. One of the purposes of this thread is to explore how the rational side of all of us battles against the unexplainable part that accepts something beyond rationalism.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

This is a really misled statement. The Christians I've known (who actually lived it; not just going to church on Sundays) are some of the most giving people I know.

Christians certainly believe in caring for the poor, looking out for the little guy, tending to the sick, taking care of children, etc. They just tend to side with Conservatives, who believe in all these things - but don't believe the government should force them to do it. It's a lot easier to give to the poor when the feds aren't stealing 45% of your income, eh?

You'll note that I never said that this is actually true, I was referring to *common perception*. If you disagree with my perception you might have a perfectly valid reason to, it is just a perception.

WRT your OP: as far as I'm concerned, the things that seem strange or unbelievable in the Bible (like talking snakes, living in a whale for a week, etc.) aren't really the important part, and arguing about them is futile.

The majority of modern Christianity has lost sight of what the faith is actually about, and the important elements of existence that the Bible teaches believers.

They become important, I think, when people preach the bible as gospel and that we should live our lives based on the bible. This is a common refrain, no?

I understand that not every part of the bible is to be taken literally, but when you tell people to live and breath the bible you get into this having to parse and debate which parts should be taken literally and which shouldn't.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Christians certainly believe in caring for the poor, looking out for the little guy, tending to the sick, taking care of children, etc. They just tend to side with Conservatives, who believe in all these things - but don't believe the government should force them to do it.

It's just odd that the generic "religious right" have no problem insisting on government intervention in other aspects of faith. If one looks at how much time Jesus spent talking about caring for the poor (lots and lots) versus how much time he spent talking about gay marriage (none), it's odd that so many don't want government forcing folks to help the poor but want them to intrude on gay marriage. And medical marijuana. And assisted suicide. Etc.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You'll note that I never said that this is actually true, I was referring to *common perception*.

Are you sure this is the common perception? Are you sure it's not just common among the Democratic faithful? Are you saying most of the people who have joined the Republican Party — which is about half of declared voters — did so under the impression that they were opposing kindness and charity?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

They become important, I think, when people preach the bible as gospel and that we should live our lives based on the bible. This is a common refrain, no?

I understand that not every part of the bible is to be taken literally, but when you tell people to live and breathe the bible you get into this having to parse and debate which parts should be taken literally and which shouldn't.

That's just it, though - what does a talking snake have to do with how you live your life?

Originally Posted by Paco500 

It's just odd that the generic "religious right" have no problem insisting on government intervention in other aspects of faith. If one looks at how much time Jesus spent talking about caring for the poor (lots and lots) versus how much time he spent talking about gay marriage (none), it's odd that so many don't want government forcing folks to help the poor but want them to intrude on gay marriage. And medical marijuana. And assisted suicide. Etc.

Oh, don't worry - I agree with all of that. It's one of the biggest problems I have with modern Christianity. They want the government to force some morals but not others. It's stupid, hypocritical, and completely goes against the original purpose of the founding fathers to keep church and government two separate entities.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Oh, don't worry - I agree with all of that. It's one of the biggest problems I have with modern Christianity. They want the government to force some morals but not others. It's stupid, hypocritical, and completely goes against the original purpose of the founding fathers to keep church and government two separate entities.

Maybe I'm mistaking you for someone else, but weren't you for teaching Intelligent Design in science classrooms?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

It's just odd that the generic "religious right" have no problem insisting on government intervention in other aspects of faith. If one looks at how much time Jesus spent talking about caring for the poor (lots and lots) versus how much time he spent talking about gay marriage (none), it's odd that so many don't want government forcing folks to help the poor but want them to intrude on gay marriage. And medical marijuana. And assisted suicide. Etc.

That's a really, really good point. Their priorities are really odd. This is what I mean when I say that most Christian denominations are not based on the Bible. The churches are actually repositories of cultural values, not reflections of Jesus' teachings. (Of course, Mormonism and Catholicism don't claim to follow the Bible all that strictly, and they are two of the bigger opponents, so I guess they can kind of get a pass on the hypocrisy if not the dickishness.)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That's just it, though - what does a talking snake have to do with how you live your life?

Because devoting yourself to God is an act of faith that requires a sense of commitment. If the commitment is to the bible it is a major distraction and major challenge for some people to adopt something that has aspects to it that are hard to get over.

How does one establish a faith when they cannot fully buy into that which they are attempting to have faith in, especially when there are those who instruct others not to cherry pick pieces of the bible?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Are you sure this is the common perception? Are you sure it's not just common among the Democratic faithful? Are you saying most of the people who have joined the Republican Party — which is about half of declared voters — did so under the impression that they were opposing kindness and charity?

You and the others are right, I can't defend this. However, the idea that "I don't want my tax dollars to be helping somebody else" is not all that uncommon, no?