| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
baddogma
antitheist
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 9460
Local time: 12:51 AM
Location: Colorado
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:40 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Basilosaur wrote: | | If everyone doesn't believe in the same things doesn't it mean that god is incompetent in making us understand? |
You understand, you are just in denial so you can live a life of sin!
*runs
_________________
Join http://www.sefora.org/
Can omnicient god who knows the future find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
I'm ashamed of what I did for a Klondike bar....
smartmarzipan: "Debating fundies is like playing chess with pigeons. They knock over all the pieces, shit all over the board, and then fly back to the roost to declare victory." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
baddogma
antitheist
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 9460
Local time: 12:51 AM
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject: Re: Anyone heard this argument before? |
|
|
| Quote: | Here's a simple test to keep in mind for the word 'relationship'...
If you're having a 'relationship' with someone...you should be able to invite some friends and family over to have dinner with the two of you., and the friends should all be able to ask your 'friend' the same questions and hear the same answers. |
Bravo!
_________________
Join http://www.sefora.org/
Can omnicient god who knows the future find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
I'm ashamed of what I did for a Klondike bar....
smartmarzipan: "Debating fundies is like playing chess with pigeons. They knock over all the pieces, shit all over the board, and then fly back to the roost to declare victory." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShaSha
Forum Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 4990
Local time: 9:51 AM
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:45 pm Post subject: Re: Anyone heard this argument before? |
|
|
| LakeGeorgeMan wrote: | | ShaSha wrote: |
Now on individuals, go to any church and take a poll and you will not get people agreeing on all things. When it comes to their personal lives, they choose to have a personal relationship with god as their guidance and church is separate from that. Church, religion, is the building to some, it is the body of people to others or the group with the same name. But none of them will claim it to be the all in all with god. The personal is important and the bible emphasizes letting the holy spirit guide the individual for a closer relationship than a general one.
|
Which of course is utter nonsense and the type of empty, meaningless religious rhetoric that Rickyroma has been refering to. Again, 'holy spirit' is simply a pious term for my own personal 'conscience'. And human beings have diverse genetic differences, and on-going, diverse life experiences, that influence their personal development, and that cause them to have diverse beliefs and opinions about life and human behaviors and 'good' and 'bad'.
|
Nonsense to you but not to me and to others who slant that way  Holy spirit means that to you and I respect that. I do agree that it is based on our diverse experiences and that is why we aren't intended to sit still and accept all from another. But a hundred years ago our lives weren't as diverse so there was less thinking on one's own which is where I came from in my answer.
| Quote: |
So pretending that there is a magical, invisible, consistent, 'holy spirit', that invades the minds of faithful Christians or new age theists, and gives them some special insight or marching orders or decision making ability, is the kind of ignorant, superstitious nonsense that is only tolerated because of it's ingrained pious tradition.
|
No one is pretending that we are given special insight except maybe you and others who are stuck in your way of thinking. My contention is that atheists are equally tapped into this spirit that is all. Nothing special, just a shedding of group thinking available to all of us but made easier when tapping into the greater consciousness.
| Quote: |
If instead of 'holy spirit', I went around claiming I was having a relationship with an invisible magical fairy named 'Claude', who invades my brain and takes it over and speaks to me and guides me...
...I would be institutionalized.
|
No, you wouldn't be. You are only institutionalized if you are thought to be a possible danger to yourself or others.
| Quote: |
But change 'Claude' to 'God'...and 'invisible magical fairy' to 'holy spirit', and this nonsense suddenly becomes not only tolerated and perfectly sane, but actually a kind of 'virtue', that is supposed to be 'admired', because the purveyor of the nonsense is allegedly 'deeply spiritual'...(a.k.a. insane)...for uttering it.
|
Also not true. Those who claim god are questioned and sometimes institutionalized. I know one personally who proclaims he is god and he has been locked up for short periods. Generalizations so far on your part.
| Quote: |
'mainstream theist' is an meaningless as 'mainstream voter' or 'mainstream women' or 'mainstream bike rider'.
|
Again, your viewpoint. It isn't meaningless to everybody. Must we all be LGM? I couldn't enjoy you as much if I was you 
| Quote: |
Many former theists like to use the word sheep for theists because they were blindly following their religion. I'd even say that was me up to a certain point. But when I questioned it and no longer followed it blindly, then I could say it was a personal relationship because it wasn't based on faith or tradition or family etc.
|
| Quote: |
No...all it is...is your 'personal religion'...your new and improved personal version of god...borrowed and then molded into an image that satisfies YOU in some way.
|
If you say so
| Quote: |
You're not having any kind of 'relationship' with anything other than your own mind.
|
I agree. I happen to believe god is a part of my mind that I didn't always have access to but did when I understood religion and its' dogma. Tapping into it I was freer, more intelligent, more loving, more fun and just an overall greater human being. If it is a placebo effect, well, I will have more of that since it harms none and actually helped many. 
| Quote: |
Here's a simple test to keep in mind for the word 'relationship'...
If you're having a 'relationship' with someone...you should be able to invite some friends and family over to have dinner with the two of you., and the friends should all be able to ask your 'friend' the same questions and hear the same answers.
|
Not true. Let's say we have a polyamorist as a guest who is a friend. I am in a happy marriage and ask the friend more on polyamory which I and my hubby are interested in pursuing. That friend gives me detailed information on how to go about it. My other friends at this dinner vary in their concepts. Some are single so interested in swinging but they are going to get a different answer than I am because they don't have a partner in the equation, only themselves. And the married monogamous ones simply aren't going to even ask the question because it just isn't in them. But if they did ask out of shits and giggles, the friend would say no, it wouldn't be for you because you are different and would possibly cause a divorce blah blah blah. So no one answer fits all even in a non spiritual sense. So why would somebody who wants a personal answer accept a general one? That's what religions do. That's what group think does. But individuality actually takes all matters into consideration and that is a broad view that our expanded spirit has that we may not have.
Now mind you nobody is being told they are better. That is the dogma of some religions. Spirituality embraces all humans.
| Quote: |
In the meantime, the way religion evolves as a memeplex, is when people like you take some previous cultural concepts of gods, their attributes, their abilities, their likes and dislikes, the rituals required to please them...
|
Maybe but the way religion stays stagnant and strict is by people like you who say people have to be one way or the other. You are just like one of the writers of the bible who is stating this is the way of the lord You are like the minister who wants to say this is the only way you can get to heaven. Only you are using reason and logic as your way and you believe you are right and I am wrong. Well, I say it is each of our lives and you have yours and I have mine and we have more in common than uncommon so what's the bitch?
| Quote: |
...and simply modifies them in some way, and then tries to convince others that they should adopt these modifications in their defition of their personal gods.
You're simply a faulty memeplex copying machine. Best to come to grips with that. |
I do try to encourage other theists to lighten up on the strict rules because god really is love. But I don't try to force anybody to adopt my view. I don't have to. There are similar views by many and we are increasing not because we convert but because we are discovering the more spiritual we explore, the more individual we become and the freer.
You sir just made up everything you have stated about me from your own memeplex of generalizing theists, new age or otherwise. To quote you, "You're simply a faulty memeplex copying machine. Best to come to grips with that"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baddogma
antitheist
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 9460
Local time: 12:51 AM
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: Re: Anyone heard this argument before? |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Here's a simple test to keep in mind for the word 'relationship'...
If you're having a 'relationship' with someone...you should be able to invite some friends and family over to have dinner with the two of you., and the friends should all be able to ask your 'friend' the same questions and hear the same answers.
|
Not true. Let's say we have a polyamorist as a guest who is a friend. I am in a happy marriage and ask the friend more on polyamory which I and my hubby are interested in pursuing. That friend gives me detailed information on how to go about it. My other friends at this dinner vary in their concepts. Some are single so interested in swinging but they are going to get a different answer than I am because they don't have a partner in the equation, only themselves. And the married monogamous ones simply aren't going to even ask the question because it just isn't in them. But if they did ask out of shits and giggles, the friend would say no, it wouldn't be for you because you are different and would possibly cause a divorce blah blah blah. So no one answer fits all even in a non spiritual sense. So why would somebody who wants a personal answer accept a general one? That's what religions do. That's what group think does. But individuality actually takes all matters into consideration and that is a broad view that our expanded spirit has that we may not have.
Now mind you nobody is being told they are better. That is the dogma of some religions. Spirituality embraces all humans. |
Fail.....for starters YOU HAVE SOME ONE SITTING THERE, that isn't imaginary to your other friends.
_________________
Join http://www.sefora.org/
Can omnicient god who knows the future find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
I'm ashamed of what I did for a Klondike bar....
smartmarzipan: "Debating fundies is like playing chess with pigeons. They knock over all the pieces, shit all over the board, and then fly back to the roost to declare victory." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baddogma
antitheist
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 9460
Local time: 12:51 AM
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HIGHER CONSCIOUSNESS = delusional.
_________________
Join http://www.sefora.org/
Can omnicient god who knows the future find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
I'm ashamed of what I did for a Klondike bar....
smartmarzipan: "Debating fundies is like playing chess with pigeons. They knock over all the pieces, shit all over the board, and then fly back to the roost to declare victory." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShaSha
Forum Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 4990
Local time: 9:51 AM
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greyghost wrote: | ShaSha, you try to point out that most "mainstream" theists don't take the bible seriously.
Well, if by "mainstream" you mean "popular" or "modern", then I think you would be wrong. Almost the majority of theists I have come across, both online and in person, honestly consider the bible to be the literal word of god. Every page, every verse. My sister is a catholic and she would say that she takes the biblical account of genesis seriously. Of course she would, if she didn't then wouldn't that make the whole of Christianity meaningless? But right, Adam & Eve is nothing more then....a parable? Or just symbolic? Representing the "sins" in all of us? I tried telling her that, and she returned with, "well, that doesn't sound nearly as meaningful." No, it doesn't.
Unless by "mainstream" you meant "learned" or "educated". As in, actually read the bible and know there are certain things that just make little sense or are horrid? |
Mainstream are those religions where they somewhat follow dogma of their church so it is easy to get a glimpse into their thinking vs fundamentalists that are part of a bible only culture.
Your sister is a different Catholic than I was raised to be. I went to Catholic high school and learned evolution as it existed at that time which was completely scientifically compatible. I was taught that the bible is not to be taken literally. In fact the bible wasn't taken literally until maybe a hundred years or so ago as a protest over probably the RC church's interpretations.
Indeed, Adam and Eve were possibly symbolic, my teachers didn't teach them as dogma. Original sin though was dogma and still is in the RC Church. That same church has many mystics and saints and if your sister has read them, she knows they don't all think the same. Or if she simply reads the various liberal and conservative literature that is available to Catholics she will also see that her world of Catholicism varies according to the parish priests and or Catholic authors.
That is what I mean by mainstream. Take any Lutheran or Catholic and really question and they will say yea, I believe all of that but I don't believe that. They are the modern religious person and they are more of an individual than the Catholic of several hundred years ago who lived to survive and didn't have much time to think or argue or the education to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShaSha
Forum Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 4990
Local time: 9:51 AM
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject: Re: Anyone heard this argument before? |
|
|
| baddogma wrote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: |
Here's a simple test to keep in mind for the word 'relationship'...
If you're having a 'relationship' with someone...you should be able to invite some friends and family over to have dinner with the two of you., and the friends should all be able to ask your 'friend' the same questions and hear the same answers.
|
Not true. Let's say we have a polyamorist as a guest who is a friend. I am in a happy marriage and ask the friend more on polyamory which I and my hubby are interested in pursuing. That friend gives me detailed information on how to go about it. My other friends at this dinner vary in their concepts. Some are single so interested in swinging but they are going to get a different answer than I am because they don't have a partner in the equation, only themselves. And the married monogamous ones simply aren't going to even ask the question because it just isn't in them. But if they did ask out of shits and giggles, the friend would say no, it wouldn't be for you because you are different and would possibly cause a divorce blah blah blah. So no one answer fits all even in a non spiritual sense. So why would somebody who wants a personal answer accept a general one? That's what religions do. That's what group think does. But individuality actually takes all matters into consideration and that is a broad view that our expanded spirit has that we may not have.
Now mind you nobody is being told they are better. That is the dogma of some religions. Spirituality embraces all humans. |
Fail.....for starters YOU HAVE SOME ONE SITTING THERE, that isn't imaginary to your other friends. |
Nope, that wasn't part of the equation. He said one answer would be the same for all. But if it makes you feel better, you are right |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baddogma
antitheist
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 9460
Local time: 12:51 AM
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: Re: Anyone heard this argument before? |
|
|
| ShaSha wrote: | | baddogma wrote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: |
Here's a simple test to keep in mind for the word 'relationship'...
If you're having a 'relationship' with someone...you should be able to invite some friends and family over to have dinner with the two of you., and the friends should all be able to ask your 'friend' the same questions and hear the same answers.
|
Not true. Let's say we have a polyamorist as a guest who is a friend. I am in a happy marriage and ask the friend more on polyamory which I and my hubby are interested in pursuing. That friend gives me detailed information on how to go about it. My other friends at this dinner vary in their concepts. Some are single so interested in swinging but they are going to get a different answer than I am because they don't have a partner in the equation, only themselves. And the married monogamous ones simply aren't going to even ask the question because it just isn't in them. But if they did ask out of shits and giggles, the friend would say no, it wouldn't be for you because you are different and would possibly cause a divorce blah blah blah. So no one answer fits all even in a non spiritual sense. So why would somebody who wants a personal answer accept a general one? That's what religions do. That's what group think does. But individuality actually takes all matters into consideration and that is a broad view that our expanded spirit has that we may not have.
Now mind you nobody is being told they are better. That is the dogma of some religions. Spirituality embraces all humans. |
Fail.....for starters YOU HAVE SOME ONE SITTING THERE, that isn't imaginary to your other friends. |
Nope, that wasn't part of the equation. He said one answer would be the same for all. But if it makes you feel better, you are right |
Here's a simple test to keep in mind for the word 'relationship'...
If you're having a 'relationship' with someone...you should be able to invite some friends and family over to have dinner with the two of you., and the friends should all be able to ask your 'friend' the same questions and GET ANSWERS.
Fixed
_________________
Join http://www.sefora.org/
Can omnicient god who knows the future find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
I'm ashamed of what I did for a Klondike bar....
smartmarzipan: "Debating fundies is like playing chess with pigeons. They knock over all the pieces, shit all over the board, and then fly back to the roost to declare victory." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unbeliever
Forum Master
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 2557
Local time: 8:51 AM
Location: The exact center of my observable universe
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eyedunno wrote: | | greyghost wrote: | I would not say I'm religious... I would simply tell you that I have a relationship with God. Christian is not a religion, religion is the belief and worship of a god, Christianity, though often practiced as a religion is actually a relationship.
Honestly, where the hell do they come up with this stuff? Do Xtians have some sort of fallacy making machine we don't know about? |
Calling a bag of fresh dogshit a tulip doesn't make it stop stinking. |
Yeah, a turd by any other name would smell as foul! 
_________________
"True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance."
Akhenaton?( c. B.P. 1575)
Science is a lighthouse,
Faith is the rocks below.
God Not Found - resources for atheist/agnostics
"the universe is under no obligation to be easy for us to comprehend."
moloth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShaSha
Forum Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 4990
Local time: 9:51 AM
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: Re: Anyone heard this argument before? |
|
|
| baddogma wrote: | | ShaSha wrote: | | baddogma wrote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: |
Here's a simple test to keep in mind for the word 'relationship'...
If you're having a 'relationship' with someone...you should be able to invite some friends and family over to have dinner with the two of you., and the friends should all be able to ask your 'friend' the same questions and hear the same answers.
|
Not true. Let's say we have a polyamorist as a guest who is a friend. I am in a happy marriage and ask the friend more on polyamory which I and my hubby are interested in pursuing. That friend gives me detailed information on how to go about it. My other friends at this dinner vary in their concepts. Some are single so interested in swinging but they are going to get a different answer than I am because they don't have a partner in the equation, only themselves. And the married monogamous ones simply aren't going to even ask the question because it just isn't in them. But if they did ask out of shits and giggles, the friend would say no, it wouldn't be for you because you are different and would possibly cause a divorce blah blah blah. So no one answer fits all even in a non spiritual sense. So why would somebody who wants a personal answer accept a general one? That's what religions do. That's what group think does. But individuality actually takes all matters into consideration and that is a broad view that our expanded spirit has that we may not have.
Now mind you nobody is being told they are better. That is the dogma of some religions. Spirituality embraces all humans. |
Fail.....for starters YOU HAVE SOME ONE SITTING THERE, that isn't imaginary to your other friends. |
Nope, that wasn't part of the equation. He said one answer would be the same for all. But if it makes you feel better, you are right |
Here's a simple test to keep in mind for the word 'relationship'...
If you're having a 'relationship' with someone...you should be able to invite some friends and family over to have dinner with the two of you., and the friends should all be able to ask your 'friend' the same questions and GET ANSWERS.
Fixed |
The word relationship doesn't just mean people. So your desperate correction still doesn't make me wrong. Take for instance a symbiotic relationship. There are many different kinds of relationships that fall under that umbrella and none of them fit your desire to define what a relationship with "divine" should act out like. It isn't a controlled area anymore than some symbiotic relationships.
There is also the relationship of blood and or marriage which also cannot fit into your definition as given.
Your type of definition is only #3 in one of the online dictionaries.
So do not tell me that a relationship has to be one thing and one thing only preacher man. That is god damn religion and I fucking don't want it.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShaSha
Forum Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 4990
Local time: 9:51 AM
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greyghost wrote: | ShaSha, you try to point out that most "mainstream" theists don't take the bible seriously.
Well, if by "mainstream" you mean "popular" or "modern", then I think you would be wrong. Almost the majority of theists I have come across, both online and in person, honestly consider the bible to be the literal word of god. Every page, every verse. My sister is a catholic and she would say that she takes the biblical account of genesis seriously. Of course she would, if she didn't then wouldn't that make the whole of Christianity meaningless? But right, Adam & Eve is nothing more then....a parable? Or just symbolic? Representing the "sins" in all of us? I tried telling her that, and she returned with, "well, that doesn't sound nearly as meaningful." No, it doesn't.
Unless by "mainstream" you meant "learned" or "educated". As in, actually read the bible and know there are certain things that just make little sense or are horrid? |
I would like to add a bit more to your statement. In reading another thread I am reminded of
"1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (American Standard Version)
American Standard Version (ASV)
Copyright © 1901 Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible]
34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.
35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. "
Thus mainstream (well known is a good definition) churches such as Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian, UU, Unity, Methodist and more have women ministers. That is evidence that those people do not take the bible literally word for word. Churches such as the Quakers do not have either or but whomever "feels the spirit" talks.
While the Catholics do not have female priests yet, it is a strong and divisive area. But their many women do and have taught men for centuries and those women have not stayed home nor are they obedient to the average man, mainly only to their Mother Superior and of course most priests. But the average man has to recognize the nun as superior to himself, definitely a bible conflict. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baddogma
antitheist
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 9460
Local time: 12:51 AM
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject: Re: Anyone heard this argument before? |
|
|
| ShaSha wrote: | | baddogma wrote: | | ShaSha wrote: | | baddogma wrote: | | Quote: |
| Quote: |
Here's a simple test to keep in mind for the word 'relationship'...
If you're having a 'relationship' with someone...you should be able to invite some friends and family over to have dinner with the two of you., and the friends should all be able to ask your 'friend' the same questions and hear the same answers.
|
Not true. Let's say we have a polyamorist as a guest who is a friend. I am in a happy marriage and ask the friend more on polyamory which I and my hubby are interested in pursuing. That friend gives me detailed information on how to go about it. My other friends at this dinner vary in their concepts. Some are single so interested in swinging but they are going to get a different answer than I am because they don't have a partner in the equation, only themselves. And the married monogamous ones simply aren't going to even ask the question because it just isn't in them. But if they did ask out of shits and giggles, the friend would say no, it wouldn't be for you because you are different and would possibly cause a divorce blah blah blah. So no one answer fits all even in a non spiritual sense. So why would somebody who wants a personal answer accept a general one? That's what religions do. That's what group think does. But individuality actually takes all matters into consideration and that is a broad view that our expanded spirit has that we may not have.
Now mind you nobody is being told they are better. That is the dogma of some religions. Spirituality embraces all humans. |
Fail.....for starters YOU HAVE SOME ONE SITTING THERE, that isn't imaginary to your other friends. |
Nope, that wasn't part of the equation. He said one answer would be the same for all. But if it makes you feel better, you are right |
Here's a simple test to keep in mind for the word 'relationship'...
If you're having a 'relationship' with someone...you should be able to invite some friends and family over to have dinner with the two of you., and the friends should all be able to ask your 'friend' the same questions and GET ANSWERS.
Fixed |
The word relationship doesn't just mean people. So your desperate correction still doesn't make me wrong. Take for instance a symbiotic relationship. There are many different kinds of relationships that fall under that umbrella and none of them fit your desire to define what a relationship with "divine" should act out like. It isn't a controlled area anymore than some symbiotic relationships.
There is also the relationship of blood and or marriage which also cannot fit into your definition as given.
Your type of definition is only #3 in one of the online dictionaries.
So do not tell me that a relationship has to be one thing and one thing only preacher man. That is god damn religion and I fucking don't want it.
|
I think the gist was boiled down to when you are talking to your "friend" others should be able to confirm there is something other than your self there. Twist it all you want. You're still talking to yourself.
_________________
Join http://www.sefora.org/
Can omnicient god who knows the future find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
I'm ashamed of what I did for a Klondike bar....
smartmarzipan: "Debating fundies is like playing chess with pigeons. They knock over all the pieces, shit all over the board, and then fly back to the roost to declare victory." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greyghost
Annoyingly Addicting
Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 1251
Local time: 11:51 AM
Location: Earth, Milky way, Universe
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ShaSha wrote: | | greyghost wrote: | ShaSha, you try to point out that most "mainstream" theists don't take the bible seriously.
Well, if by "mainstream" you mean "popular" or "modern", then I think you would be wrong. Almost the majority of theists I have come across, both online and in person, honestly consider the bible to be the literal word of god. Every page, every verse. My sister is a catholic and she would say that she takes the biblical account of genesis seriously. Of course she would, if she didn't then wouldn't that make the whole of Christianity meaningless? But right, Adam & Eve is nothing more then....a parable? Or just symbolic? Representing the "sins" in all of us? I tried telling her that, and she returned with, "well, that doesn't sound nearly as meaningful." No, it doesn't.
Unless by "mainstream" you meant "learned" or "educated". As in, actually read the bible and know there are certain things that just make little sense or are horrid? |
Mainstream are those religions where they somewhat follow dogma of their church so it is easy to get a glimpse into their thinking vs fundamentalists that are part of a bible only culture.
Your sister is a different Catholic than I was raised to be. I went to Catholic high school and learned evolution as it existed at that time which was completely scientifically compatible. I was taught that the bible is not to be taken literally. In fact the bible wasn't taken literally until maybe a hundred years or so ago as a protest over probably the RC church's interpretations.
Indeed, Adam and Eve were possibly symbolic, my teachers didn't teach them as dogma. Original sin though was dogma and still is in the RC Church. That same church has many mystics and saints and if your sister has read them, she knows they don't all think the same. Or if she simply reads the various liberal and conservative literature that is available to Catholics she will also see that her world of Catholicism varies according to the parish priests and or Catholic authors.
That is what I mean by mainstream. Take any Lutheran or Catholic and really question and they will say yea, I believe all of that but I don't believe that. They are the modern religious person and they are more of an individual than the Catholic of several hundred years ago who lived to survive and didn't have much time to think or argue or the education to do so. |
"Mainstream" seems more like "compartmentalization". Sure, sure, THAT part of the bible isn't true, but THIS part is. What's to say what is, or isn't? But let us not go into that discussion. And I can't help but disagree with your idea that "most" Catholics don't take the bible literally word for word. Maybe the well educated Catholics, or the well off Catholics, but the majority of them do.
My siblings and I were raised to believe every word of the bible. My sister STILL believes it as is (and she is studying to become a nurse). I remember, and this was just a year ago, when I told her that Noah's ark couldn't possibly be literal. She NEVER heard of it as such. She (as with my brother and I), was raised to take it literally, or at least never told that it is nothing more then symbolic. now, from my experience, if you pressure a priest long enough, of course he is going to admit that he doesn't really believe Noah's ark or anything as such. But he sure does go to great lengths to hide this fact from his congregation, simply by never mentioning this fact.
It can be argued that a lot of western Christians don't take the bible to be completely literal. The well off, well educated individuals. This might be true. But it isn't true in third world countries like the Dominican Republic (where my parents and sister were raised), or Haiti. Or people living near the poverty line in the United States. No, most of these people do take the bible literally, sure most of them never really read it (and some can't even read), but that just proves my point. Considering that the majority of Catholics live in Third word countries and are at the poverty line, and that they actually make up a large bulk of the population of Christians around the world, I can't help but think your point is moot.
_________________
"There is no such uncertainty, as a sure thing."-Robert Burns
"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."-Albert Einstein
"Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons."-Bertrand Russell
"I want someone to quote me in their signature. That's why I'm a pandering whore."-CET
New blog entry- 11/03/08 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bharaths7
Visitor
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Posts: 1
Local time: 10:51 AM
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: |
Those "sacred" books, like the bible or the quran, are books that were written by people in a particular time period, addressing the problems of that time, with the limited knowledge these writers had, with a certain agenda that often escapes us.
|
Wow!
I signed up just to quote your text.
I have the same viewpoint, but from a different perspective.
The fact that these books are limited to the knowledge of the people (at that time period) who wrote them proves that there is no divine intervention in writing of those books, just some people and their own beliefs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baddogma
antitheist
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 9460
Local time: 12:51 AM
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Welcome bharaths7
_________________
Join http://www.sefora.org/
Can omnicient god who knows the future find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
I'm ashamed of what I did for a Klondike bar....
smartmarzipan: "Debating fundies is like playing chess with pigeons. They knock over all the pieces, shit all over the board, and then fly back to the roost to declare victory." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
