Before I start I’d like to thank everyone for all of the encouragement I was given to get back to writing.
As I just mentioned, I’ve been away for a few days and rather than espouse my opinions on the political goings on of our nation I think I’ll warm up with a couple of philosophical questions. They both pertain to the controversial topic of religion. I hope I don’t offend anybody too terribly much, but to be honest I’m not that worried about it.
WHY #1
Why do people want us to pass and follow laws whose only justifications are religious? I don’t get it. What’s the motivation? I have no problem with people that base their moral standards on a particular religion, but what I don’t get is where the idea of forcing others to behave according to their beliefs came from.
Where do you people get off? I am for the legalization of marijuana but I’m not interested in forcing everyone to smoke weed. I am for gay marriage but I wouldn’t think of making all Americans pair of with someone of the same sex and tie the knot. I feel that abortion should remain an option but I understand that it would be horrific to require every pregnant woman to get one.
Do you see what I’m getting at? I’m A Okay with you believing in God and living your lives accordingly. BUT, when you people start trying to mandate your religion you push me into a place that causes me to start pointing out the intrinsic flaws in your whole belief system. I’d just as soon smile and play nice but I would also just as soon you keep your religious opinions to yourself as they concern the laws of our nation.
I’m not even worried about the separation of Church and State in this argument. I’ll accept, for the sake of argument, the Right’s position that there is no legal support for such separation (even though the Constitution as well as Supreme Court precedent says otherwise). Anyway, under this scenario you have the right to legislate religion. That doesn’t explain why you would WANT to. What is it with religion that makes otherwise sane people want to control the way nonbelievers behave? I’m willing, in this instance, to give you your way on whether you can legally make us behave the way you want us to but now what? Now that you've gotten your way it still doesn't explain why is it so important to you that we live according to your beliefs?
WHY #2
Why do 54 % of Americans believe that humans did not evolve from lower life? How can this be? A minority of the opponents of evolution will point out the fact there are holes in the fossil record, this, while being a pretty weak argument, at least makes a certain kind of sense. That being said, the argument that you hear most often isn’t actually an argument at all. What you hear the most is that there is just no way that beings as complicated as humans could have come to be by chance and chance alone.
I’ll inevitably take some flack for my feelings on this but I’ll go ahead and answer my own question and say that it is due to ignorance. I, and I am by no means the only one, believe that it is due to the lack of knowledge that the average American has of the inner workings of Evolutionary biology. That’s the only answer that makes any kind of sense. How else can the citizens of a nation that leads the world in almost all sciences trust a book as contradictory as the Bible over the massive amount of evidence that scientists have accrued in support of Evolution?
I can call the Bible contradictory because I, unlike most creationists and intelligent designers, have a working knowledge of both topics. I’m not going to start listing facts that validate my point of view, or attempt to tell you about any of the myriad of direct contradictions that the Bible holds. I don’t have that kind of time nor do I want to take up that much space. What I WILL say is that on one side of the argument there is scientifically analyzed proof and on the other side there is a book of parables that contradict themselves even on the topic of Creation.
Knowing what we do, how did we get here? At what point did we become a nation that has so little respect for science that we will stubbornly turn our backs on it just to protect our belief in a book that is its own worst enemy?
This section is likely to be described as biased opinions of a heathen. I won’t argue with the “biased” and “heathen” parts but I will take offense to my writings on this subject being called opinion. Here are the facts: A) While every link in the evolutionary chain has not been found (nor will they be) we have enough proof of evolution’s legitimacy that to argue that it is false can only be due to ignorance of the proof we do have. B) The Bible is a book that has been rewritten more times than we have any way to count. Even if we assume that the Bible we have now is the original text it contradicts itself all over the place. Let's take it even farther and say that the Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even if that were the case, if the Bible is taken literally, as it is with creationism, it is in support of slavery.
Those are the facts and yet we, as a nation, have chosen the archaic, contradictory, and morally suspect Bible over chemistry, biology, geology, and the theory of Evolution that they all support…WHY?
Moody
As for the contradictions in the bible there's already a very comprehensive and long list over at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible [ http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html ]. I recommend everyone give it a read.
It's genuinely sad that you can only talk about a well supported scientific fact like evolutionary biology after prefacing it with "this is going to piss people off". Would it piss those people off if you said that the earth rotates around the sun? Well just in case some people were thinking about getting pissed off and giving Moody flack for this I'd like you all to please read my counter arguments before you make you comment: [http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF]. If you plan on making any of the claims in that article, just know that I will be answering you exactly as they have. Please don't waste my time.
Question #2: Why do 54 % of Americans believe that humans did not evolve from lower life? It’s hard to speak for all 54% but for me, a creationist, I observe that if we evolved from lower forms of life why is it that frogs remain frogs? Just recently, deep sea divers discovered some fish that’s been around for eons. Why hasn’t that fish evolved any further? Unless one believes that this coincidental conjoining of two zygotes were destined to go no further.
If that’s true then what decides that? I look at the massive expanse of our universe, thousands and thousands of light years, the possibility and probability of two amoeba bumping into each other and beginning what has come to be homo sapiens is about the same as the likelihood of a tornado passing over a junk yard and leaving in it’s wake a Boeing 747.
What I disagree with is the way you try to establish your point regarding evolution. One the one hand we have a book which I deem to be completely useless and on the other hand we have good hard science which cannot be wrong. Oh and I'm not going to waste my time providing proof because I don't feel like it but those no good Christians need to have proof for why they believe what they believe, and they don't because I said so.
Yep thats a good solid argument and I can't find a single hole in it. Nope not one.
Evolutionists would argue that frogs became frogs because our mutual evolutionary decendents went through all sorts different kinds of mutations and the different species that developed off of these intitial branchings developed differently based on the how their future changes built on the initial mutations.
It's like giving two people the same set of dirrections to get some where in terms of rights and lefts. If one of them makes a wrong turn at the begining, every step taken after the first wrong turn sends that person off on a divergent course.
The succes of a particular mutation is often based on the prior mutation it's species has undergone. Their environment determined that the series of mutations that have come to make up a frog are the ones that were succesful enough to survive in that enviroment.
Moody
I didn't make arguments for evolution or the Bible. What I said is that the theory of Evolution is based on proven facts and Creationism is based on a book that has contradictory opinions on many things including the origin of earth and the life on it.
With science, if two theories contradict the one the evidence points to is accepted until another theory with even more proven evidence comes along and disproves it. That's how it works. Proof is used to advance the humanity's collective knowledge
Creationism is based on the writings of a book as the only proof and the book used (the Bible) is incredibly flawed and contradictory particulary where it concerns the Origin of life as we know it.
My point wasn't to prove evolution as correct. That's already been done. My point was to say on one hand there is evidence and on the other there is a book that can't even agree with itself on how the world as we know it came about. I also wanted to point out that to take the Bible literaly, as many people do, is to sign up for all sorts of crazy ideas, not just Creationism.
Moody
Don't worry about proving your point or anything, just say it over and over and over. Then you will become what you are fighting against. Well, maybe not exactly the same but your actions will be based on perceptions rather than fact. As you accuse us crazy Christians of doing.
Gotta be careful, once you start basing beliefs in perceptions of reality rather than grounded fact you might start believing our propaganda. Wouldn't want that would you.
Nope that would be bad ... definetly, definetly bad.
I'm pretty sure that the answer in both of these cases is ignorance.
In the first case it is the ignorance of their own motivations. To say that things are "wrong" is what the likely answer would be but people need to recognize that the reason they thinks these things are wrong is because their religious beliefs tell them it is. What I mean is that they are ignorant of the fact that they are trying to legislate their religion. They think they are doing "what's right".
In the second case it is igorance of science. Most creationists can't fathom how a series of random occurances can lead to complicated organisms, specificaly humans. They use arguments like the one lagniape used with his 747 metaphor. They don't know that evolution is far more logical and probable than a tornado putting together an airplane. While all of the steps in the process haven't been found scientists have figured out how enough of them may have happened to prove that it is a much more viable theory for the origin of life on earth than any manor of intelligent design.
Moody
Are you asking me to prove evolution is true on my blog? There is enough information out there to prove my opinions without me taking the time and space to list them all here. Others have suggested a book that I will also suggest for begining to understand Evolution. It's called "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It's a good place to start and Dawkins offers other books to read for further proof.
Or are you asking me to prove the Bible is contradictory? You should know better than I that this is so, but for an example I will remind you of the story of creation given in Genesis and the different story given in the second chapter (Adam and Eve). The order of operations is all screwed up from one to the other. That's an example of contradiction. As for proof that it supports slavery then I will offer this. When Abraham made his Covenent with God, did the lord tell him to free his slaves? Hell No! He told him to circumsize them. When Paul speaks to the escaped slave does he help him hide or even tell the slave to run away by himslef? HELL NO! He tells him to go back to his master. There's my proof for the Bible's support of slavery. There's your "Good" Book.
I will once again say that my second question was based on the fact that there is alot more proof for one theory over the other. I'm sorry that you disagree but the truth of the matter is that scince has infinetly more proof for the theory of evolution than for the theory of intelligent design.
You can deny science all you want but it doesn't make scientific discoveries go away. At least I don't think it does. Let's find out. Convince yourself that electricity isn't real and see if your lights stay on.
Moody
Of course you believe what you wish.
As to slavery, yep the Bible supports it. History supports it. Only recently has this changed and you are biased by your place in history. Until the industrial revolution it was a necesity for civilization. That is just a fact of life.
What I am saying is that you should atleast attempt to backup your statements. You realize that your profound questions are asked in a different way by Christians and people of other faiths.
There is likely another blog out there asking, "why can't these evolutionists see the truth right in fron of their eyes?" And the answer they give is "ignorance."
The fact is both sides are right. Most Christians are ignorant on the details of evolutionary science, and most proponents of evolution are ignorant of Christianity. For that matter many if not most so called Christians are ignorant of Christianity.
Oh, and as for the Bible beign contradictory. I have gone through volumes of so called contradictions and I simply cannot find a single one that cannot be explained much more easily than evolution. I'm not saying this disproves evolution, I am just making it clear that the contradictions are only evident because one wishes them to be so. They ignore context and historocity of the statements to make it seem like the Bible cannot even agree with itself.
If one only sees that the Bible is contradictory because they wish it to be so, then maybe creationists see evolution as being more improbable than intelligent design because they wish it to be?
The door swings both ways right?
Please read the section regarding the contradictions in Genesis at this link:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html
Some are more trivial than others. I believe that the one Moody refers to is this one:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
Jesse, I thank you for this site, and I have read through about 150 of the contradictions listed here. I have heard most of these before so they do not suprise me. I would like to point out that the web creators are fair enough to provide a link in each of their "contradictions" to a page with an explanation. IF you follow these links you will find that there is nothing new under the sun and all of these issues have been looked at through Christian history and all things within context are easily explained (as I point out above much mroe easily than evolution though I do not meen this to imply the Bible to be more reliable because it is easier to explain, I just use it as a measuring point to demostrate that these explanations are as valid as other sources that need explanation.)
I think moody is trying to say that whether he gives proof or not the argument is still the same,proof exists for those that need it, and that those of the creationist type that are intelligent enough to understand both sides, give him an insiders view on why oh why they believe the way they do.
Something you said in your last comment directed to me made the hair on the back of my neck stand up,
"There is likely another blog out there asking, 'why can't these evolutionists see the truth right in fron of their eyes?' And the answer they give is 'ignorance.' "
Ignorance of what? When evolutionists creationists are ignorant we can point to facts that that back up our reasoning.
I don't understand how we can all trust science in almost everything we do from the medicines we take to the computers we blog on but when it comes to evolution 54 % of Americans say scientists are full of shit.
I've got a new rule. If you don't trust the scientific view of creation then you can't trust their view of anything else and must forsake all of the benefits associated with it. Period.
Moody
Personally I think the thing that most invalidates a person's argument is "There's a giant invisible man in the sky that can hear what I think". To me that's a sign to take away their sharp objects and step back.
Please just imagine every offensive and aweful though about religion and religious people and that is my post.... see you in hell folks.
If we can agree that slavery is wrong and that the Bible supports slavery then why is it impossible for it to be wrong about creation. If there ever was a situation in which the scientific evidence for one side outwieghs the evidence for the other this is it. If we can admit the Bible is wrong about somethings then why is evolution so hard for Christians to believe?
P.S. If we can avoid answers like "because they're stupid" I would appreciate it. I may have used the word "ignorant" but when I used it I meant that they lack a knowledge of the facts not they are incappable of grasping them.
Moody
My point here is that there really is a LOT of evidence (proof, arguments, facts) supporting the theory of evolution and to blow it off is to say that it doesn't matter how much evidence we accrue, they simply will not listen. It's closemindedness in its purest form.
Knowledge also evolves. We build and build on things we already know and eventually we end up with ipods and wireless networking. What will happen to the kids whose foundation of knowledge is built not on science, but on religion? That's when our knowledge base stops evolving and we all end up back in the dark ages. Anybody got a light?
Now back to reality.
Moody, you certainly make a good point about slavery. The Bible does allow for slavery. The interesting this is that God allows for many things which he clearly says at one time or another He does not agree with. It has something to do with the nature of man. For example. God never intended for Israel to have an earthly king. He did not want them to be like other lands. The prophet Samuel says as much when he ordains the first king. He tells everyone that God says they can have their king to be like other nations and just like other nations they will be oppressed by their kings.
Things really worked out well for them. The issue of slavery, as addressed in the Bible, is something like this. If you are going to have slaves, and I know you will because the nature of man is like that, then this is how you should treat them. Don't do things like other nations. Give them time off. Be kind to them, and eventually you have to set them free unless they think you are just the best master and they can commit themselves to you beyond the limit, but this is entirely up to the slave.
We can agree that slavery is wrong, but the Bible does speak to a historical setting where it was not wrong. The question at hand was how best to treat the slaves, not whether or not one should have slaves.
Finally, I wish to point out that there are snags in evolutionary theory that require explanation much more complex than the snags found in the Bible. Those snags do not invalidate evolutionary theory.
Some good examples are missing fossil records, the point at which a species is officially seperate from a related species, and what happens to the theory if certain assumed truths fall through.
Of course, I am not argueing against evolutionary theory. I have often said that evolution does not invalidate God. I think that Christianity has done itself a diservice by holding onto old science far too long. There is a long, sad history of this. I won't bother listing all the major issues that the church fought science on, but I will say that invariably these issues are not doctrinal and so the church shouldn't have fought on these issues. Ultimately the church came around to see that this was not doctrinal, but it was always too late to mend relations with science (Pope John Paul the whatever pardoned Galileo before he (the pope) died ... talk about a little late).
What I have issue with is the attack on the Bible and how it (the attack) was not substantiated. This is no better than the attacks that so many Christians make against evolution.
I like the new look, nice work.
Some who feel their religion is the one true Word seem unable to keep the "Good News" to themselves. Many Faiths have offer some good basic laws, like not killing each other for example. Yet some of the most pious are notorious for killing anyone who doesn't subscribe to the belief system. So a beautiful Spiritual thing turns into a tool of Opression turned on the those who have a different Faith or no Faith at all. It blows.
As for the evolution thing, I always thought using our Brains was God-like, so why is it so Hard to use our Brains to pursue Science? Faith is Faith, Science is a way to test facts and prove or disprove them. They are not the same thing but they can complement each other. You can have Faith and understand that Evolution is real and happening all around us.
Interesting stuff.
Peace,
Prank
I have two responses to you two questions and I think that both encompass what you were conveying on both levels. Let's see ...
ALL religions of the world (and I know I will get shit for this) have the same basic principals. I have read the bible, the Koran, the Upinishads, the Talmut, the Mormon text. I READ religion. It is a hobby. Not one pushed down my throat by anyone (I was raised by lesbians, religion was not a staple). The most common threads that hold any existance together are found as they meld together. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't be jealous or envious. Respect elders. The only one I have any issue with is "Do not covet thy Neighbor's wife", it should be don't screw your buddy's broad without permission! They ALL hold the same right and wrong and that should be respected.
In regards to the whole Bill of Rights delemna with Amendment One: READ IT! If you read it word for word and think about what is represented there especially from a logical point of view it simply says no government funded religion and you can beleive what you want. There is a big open screen door on that one! Too much play dough / silly putty fucking on that one.
Anyway to adress point two: Evolution. The most reasonable explanation to that question, believe it or not, comes from Rush Limbaugh. Evolution comes as a design requirement form the big guy. And a lot of creationists beleive that. If something as great as this happens than it is up to a greater being that has it's random evolution all planned out. Ever play Age of Empires? I do not know where I stand on that. I do beleive in evolution but, again, I am agnostic. So what the hell do I know?
R.E. Knowlton III
My attack on the Bible is directly related to the efforts made recently to promote intelligent design in our shool systems. In the text of my first question I mentioned that I have no problem with people living their lives according to their religion but that I DO have a problem with them forcing those beliefs on the American people. I also mentioned that my "equal and oposite reaction" to efforts to legislate religion is to come back at the trangressers with attacks on the logic that is the base of their beliefs.
My point is that if your going to question the logic of science then I'm going to say "you started it" and come back with questions of my own.
You mentioned that the holes in evolution are more complicated than religion. Is that the least bit suprising? I can't think of anything in science that isn't more complicated than religion save some of the blood lines in the Old Testament.
I also feal that I would be remiss if I didn't let you know that it is very encouraging to read that you, a religious person, don't view science as the enemy of God.
I would also like to point out that I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. I don't "believe" there is a God nor do I "believe" that there isn't. The intention of both of my questions was to point out the fact that in both cases established fact outwieghs the evidence of the contrary positions that right now are pushing for prominence in the public theater.
I only meant to better understand the side of the issue that I stand against. As I stated earlier, I have no gripe against anyone's religious beliefs except where they are forced on me with out enough evidence to support them as fact.
I have a lot of respect for your willingness to make your opinion known in a place that was not likely to welcome you with open arms. I only wish that more people sharing your points of view would have chosen to participate in our discusion.
Thanks for playing along,
Moody
In this post I wasn't interested in the legality of the issue, what I wanted to know was WHY the Religious Right is so adament in legislating their beliefs.
As for the second post, when I say "Creationists" I mean those that recognize the Bible's explination of the origin of earth. If you are of the opinion that evolution is how we developed but God instigated the process, then you are traditionaly considered a Deist (which is what Thomas Jefferson was). Deists believe that God got the ball rolling then said "HAVE FUN". The problem with that is that then the Bible becomes pointless. If God let the world go after initiating an evolutionary creation then he is a non factor because he plays no part in our lives and therefore has never told us we're going to hell if we don't behave.
If, on the other hand, he let us evolve and then decided to stick his fingers in the water so to speak, then his banner of perfection is brought down because the defining factor of evolution is death due to poor construction. Is a God infinitely good if he lets his creations die horrible painful deaths before the excuse of sin was even capable of being carried out by the drasticly less intelligent beings that dominated the earth during our development?
What I'm getting at is that if God is as perfect as we're expected to beieve then why would he have gone thorugh the trouble of evolution? For a more eloquent argument on this topic I whole heartedly recomend The Vessel's "Caravan to Enlightenment" blog. I believe he adressed this issue in his second to last post. Shit, I recomend you read his stuff anyway because he is easily one of my favorite bloogers here at Blogstream.
P.S. You can find The Vessel's blog in my "Blogs I Like" list. Also, this comment was deleted and reposted due to drunken errors in syntax.
Moody
Idealogical debates cannot be won by whomever has the best statistics, facts, whatever. Idealogical debates cannot be won period.
The Bible supports slavery and you have a problem with that? The Declaration of Independence was written by slave OWNERS and you don't have a problem with that? Go figure.
Even if they hadn't freed their slaves, as many of them didn't, they wrote in our country's first public decree (The Decleration of Independence) that "all people are created equal". The writers of the Bible paid no such favors to the the slaves of their times.
To adress your first point last, debate on this topic is NOT useless because when people like PuriChristos take the time to argue their points of view I gain more knowledge than any kind of reading I may partake in is likely to divulge. I may not change anyones mind but I will have a better understanding of people in general and if that isn't reason enough to ingage in these kinds of arguments then nothing is.
Moody
Know this is a topic you might address in the future.
UN Ambassador Bolton compared Iran to 9/11
“Just like Sept. 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that’s the threat. I think that is the threat,” Bolton told ABC News’ Nightline.
Bombs Away!
I plan on covering this issue in a future post so I don't really feel like cluttering up this post with debate that is, while valid, off topic.
Moody
I find this interesting. I think it would be a good idea to go and look back at what the Bible has to say regarding slaves. They were required to be freed after a debt was paid, or in the year of jubilee (something like every 49 years) and children born of a slave father were born free. The majority of the slaves were taken as debt slaves. That meens someone owed a debt but couldn't pay it so they became slaves until the debt was paid. Intrest was even limited to prevent this from becoming a situation like the coal workers from the end of the 19th century who were kept in debt and forced to stay with the company indefinitly.
Like I said, the Bible deals with slavery because it was a fact of life, but the Bible tries to make things better for slaves. Read Philemon and see how Paul deals with Onisimus as a brother of Philemon so that Philemon will treat him well instead of doing what was culturaly acceptable to a run away slave.
Finally, I would like to point out that the Israelites were slaves much more than they had slaves.
Just a late and brief response to your whys...
Shouldn’t anyone, or any group in America, have a right to argue for and lobby for their views? You aren’t suggesting that Fundamentalist Christians don’t have a right to argue for abortion while moderate Christians (and liberal humanists) get to argue for pacifism and getting out of Iraq are you?
Again, assuming that you agree that we as Americans all have a right to argue our positions in the public forum, what is it that so bugs liberals about Christians getting into the debate? Is it the subjects of the debate (abortion and evolution here)? Or is it just that Christians are involved and that really pisses you off. I mean if an atheist opposed abortion or argued against evolution (as an atheist he or she couldn’t very well argue for Intelligent Design but could make a case against evolution) would that bother you as much? I have a sense that it wouldn’t. And doesn't that perhaps mean you need to examine your own motives here...
If I may comment on your why #1 response. The big man in the sky religions are not the only ones that try to convert and push their beliefs. I was raised buddhist and still live by some of the teachings...but the "organization" states (I will skip the buddhist terminology and put n layman terms) - only through converting people will we achieve world peace.
I would agree with most of your comment but would like to add that the organizations have an agenda to convert to gain power....and they will tell you whatever in the hell you need to hear to get you on the wagon. Little worker bees being kept in check through fear.
Those people that I have come across that hold their spirituality close to their heart (and don't need an organization to futher sooth their fears) usually don't openly discuss their beliefs and when they do it is amongst friend. It is personal.
While I'm not quite sure I agree with you view on why those with a spiritual bent try so hard to legislate their beliefs your argument did paint an interesting picture.
I haven't thought about what those of us with agnostic or atheistic points of view must look like too religious folk in a long time.
It would make sense if a spititual person saw me, for example, and the way I live and want to "save" me. I get that I guess. But the way to go about it is not by force. The best they could is be ready to "show me the light" if I asked for their help.
Nobody wants some one elses religious beliefs forced on them.
Moody
I LOVE the debate. I have no problem arguing over what theory is true and what theory isn't. The problem I have is when people start trying to turn religious beliefs into law. Under the laws we have there is nothing keeping Christians from practicing their faith however they want in their personal lives.
But with both of these topics the Religious Right is trying to force others to accept their Religious beliefs.
By the time you were done reading the long comments you may have forgotten the thrust of my first question so here it is again.
Why do people WANT to force others to live by their religious beliefs?
The left may have different values and beliefs then the Religious Right but we aren't saying "you can't believe and live the way you want". What we are saying is "why can't you let us believe and live the way we want?"
As for intelligent design, the left isn't the only group that considers it bad science. An article in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper rejects the teaching of intelligent design, saying it "does not belong in science".
Moody
Moody
Life is suffering. Ooooohh man is it suffering. Insightful comment as usual.
Moody
I meant by force of law.
To answer your question with another question, how does my point of view force my beliefs on anyone?
I don't want religion taught in public schools. If you want your kid to learn Jesus with their math then you can pay to send them to private school.
I think I answered your question in the body of my post. I don't want liberal points of view mandated. I want people to have the ability to choose for themselves.
That inevitably will bring up intelligent desgin. You may now ask "then why aren't you given a choice between intelligent design and evolution in schools?" The answer is that there is no proof of intelligent design outside of the illogical argument that evolution doesn't seem possible. Not only that but it is also a religious explination and while the first amendment only covers government funded religion Supreme Court prcedents starting at our nation's earliest days have drawn clear lines between church and state.
A) If people don't believe in a religion then the practitioners of said religion shouldn't care if others choose to live a life not in accordance with their beliefs.
B) Teach science in science class. If one wants their children taught an unscientific view of the origin of our world then they should have their kids educated someplace other than public schools.
Moody
I'm gonna address your last A.
The reason its not okay for us non-believers and semi-believers to just go about our merry business is that they've had it drilled into their heads that they're supposed to be spreading the word of god to all the heathans and pagans of the world. Now, the problem with this is God's word has apparently lost some of its oomph over the 2000 years since jesus coming. The "word of God" has been translated into "believe in MY god" not "spread good throughout the world regardless of who's name its in". In that light they feel that they're doing all of us a service by forcing us to act the way they believe will prevent us from going to hell. And here I thought they were supposed to believe that god gave us all free will too. Guess I wasn't exactly right.
The bible contains few, if any, contradictions. The few that might appear to be there can be explained. The others aren't contradictions at all--they're simple misunderstandings by the reader and/or the confusion between the beliefs of the person reading and the ideas presented in the Bible. Anyone who wants to can read the Bible with an open mind. Sooner or later (and probably sooner), they're going to find out their clergy has either been lying to them all this time, or is stupid. If you want real evolution, pick a church and compare what they teach to what is in the Bible. You'll see evolution of a belief system that has stretched a long way from its origin.
Similar to the fossil record--the "scientist" has a specific belief system, and he "reads" the record according to that belief system. He then has a problem with others who don't have that belief system, because they see holes in his theories you could drive an 18-wheeler through.
Most "problems" with the bible can be "fixed" by simply reading it without preconceptions. That's what I did in the 80's, and I only know of one contradiction, and I heard an explanation for that contradiction that makes sense.
The Bible doesn't support slavery. My daughter's a lesbian. I don't support lesbianism. Otoh, we don't fight about her choices. They're her choices. I still love her, and there's nothing I can do about her choices so I just keep my mouth shut. Same thing with God--When the Jews decided they didn't want judges anymore and wanted to switch to kings, God let them, even though He disagreed with them. He let them know He disagreed, then He let them have their king, Saul. Parts of the Old Testament are an account of a people. A history. Maybe God expressed His disapproval and someone didn't write it down. Or maybe He knew the people weren't ready to give up their slaves. Who knows? One thing is for sure, He didn't say, "Go ye out therefore, and gather ye slaves from every corner of the world. Thou shalt make them work so that ye may have free time."
As far as your question #1, maybe some people advocate passing laws because there are things that are absolutely wrong or absolutely right. And just as the fossil record and the incredible diversity of life attests to proof of an intelligent designer, the consequences of certain things in life lend evidence to its rightness or wrongness. I think you'd be surprised how many conservatives don't attend church. Just because they don't attend church doesn't mean they don't have belief systems. And just because they have a belief system that includes the idea that there is a God and that there's a line between right and wrong, does not mean they go to church.
Btw, I'm also for the legalization of marijuana. Even though I don't smoke it. But probably for different reasons--I think enforcement is a big-time waste of tax dollars, and the War on Drugs is almost as successful as Prohibition was--and far more expensive.
I remember seeing recently that it was something like 70% of people didn't believe we evolved from lower life forms. But if these surveyors were to ask other questions, like "Do you believe in natural selection?" -- numbers would even out. A lot of people believe in things that make sense. Life coming from nothing isn't even possible according to science. And yet it is the very foundation of the unproved belief system around evolution. At least the Bible was written down first.
Cheers,
John
John
Send me a postcard.
Continually saying that the Bible supports slavery without giving any context is a great disservice to understanding this topic.
Prior to Adam and Eve's sin, there was no slavery. If Adam and Eve hadn't sinned and people increased in number on the earth, there wouldn't have been any slavery.
Slavery came about as the result of mankind's wickedness and rejection of God, according to the Bible. Yet God allowed, and still allows, slavery to continue throughout the world.
Why does God allow this? For the same reason he allows all sinful people to live (as the Bible defines sin), God doesn't want anyone to perish, but to have eternal life--and this includes sex slave traders, pimps, and all sinners.
The Bible says we have a sin problem. Slavery is a sin, but God desires that we come to Him, so God has mercy on us all including me and you, Moody.
He had a long way to go!
\I too believe "Mary jane" should be legal, and would vote for it too if it would be on a ballot..i feel booze, pills etc..is legal..If i want to grow a herb and smoke it drink it or cook it, it's up to me and i shouldn't go to jail for doing it.No one should. I don't have to smoke it to believe people have the right to it if they want to.
I too believe i have the right to control my own body..I've never had a abortion myself, but i suport a womans right to do as she pleases with her own body without being "Judged" by the christian people ( Who are not supposed to judge others anyway for any reason if they are really true christains they would not judge someone for this) what i do with my own body is my business.
I'm not gay Nor do i have any gay friends, but i support their right to be married ...when someone whats to commit to anouther person it's thier right to choose who that be....in past years Indians wasn't allowed to marry white people..they shunned blacks marring whites..etc..etc..but no matter who we chose as a partner, we do not have the right to say this is right & this is wrong..Who has that right??? not me. Yes, people say they support marrage between a man and a woman..but these same so called christian people will tell you it is wrong to have a child out of wedlock..but mention to them that "mary" got preg. for Jesus before she was married and oh, they put their hands over their ears..But that's what i understood the Bible to say.....AND there wasn't anyne around to marry Adam and Eve, now was there? Cept God.
All commitment is good be it beteeen a man & a woman or 2 people of the same sex..we have no right to decide that.Who we sleep with is our business and no one should make judgement.
these are just my own opinions I'm sure I'll make people mad, but like i said..I have the right to my own beliefs..without others judging me.
Hope you're just taking some time off and will come back, Moody, I've always enjoyed your posts!
Here's my thought on question #1. It is certainly a very dangerous thing to try to legislate religion. I am quick to condemn those who would have killed the Afghan man for converting to Christianity, for instance. So I understand your point.
But here's where we may disagree. I think there's morality separate from Christianity (or Judaism or Islam) present in, for instance, the abortion debate. Put in a slightly different light, if about half of our society thought it was fine to have their parents euthanized when they became unable to care for themselves, those who disagreed would fight hard for legislation to stop that act. Strictly out of respect for human life. There are laws against bigamy which are purely moral laws; laws against pornographic stores near schools and churches; laws against nudity in public; laws against prostitution and so on. I would think that many of these would exist if there were no religion. But I could be wrong.
On the evolution thing, you are right that evolution exists. But why does that disprove creation? I don't think the evidence we have of evolution comes close to proving that man evolved from apes or anything else. Am I off base here?
Good to read your blog again. It's been awhile.
sharptalk
Feeling like writing again?
Are you ok?
Have you been reading blogs and just not writing?
Have you been writing another blog this whole time?
Be well and smile.
Godspeed.
R.E. Knowlton III