Religous debates and questions

The "shire" of religious freedom under siege
http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=37187

Color me convinced. If there's one thing that the Hobbits represented as the ultimate underdogs, it's definitely a religion whose adherents make up more than three quarters of the U.S. population. That's the same religion which is routinely affirmed in public by politicians even though this is of questionable legality. Let's look at the serious issues though. Is your local government (which is almost certainly made up of Christians) not going to let you build a church exactly where you want it? That's the will of Sauron at work, that is.

Glad they focus on what is important...

Somebody help me out - going back to Eldo's chart, what's with the mormon magic underwear?

Magic translating sticks; check.
Magic carpets to transport lost tribes all over tarnation; check.
Magic underwear?

According to Wikipedia, "magic underwear" is more properly known as Temple garments and they "are viewed as a symbolic reminder of the covenants made in temple ceremonies, and are viewed as either a symbolic or literal source of protection from the evils of the world".

Oh. You mean a chastity belt.

Never sounded hygienic to me.

I suppose in a way this may seem a deliberetly provocktive post (or possibly assualt) on the religously minded but I just reread the Creation account in Genesis. And its a complete farce. Its a pantomine story. Its almost like Monty Python worte it.
It has a God, who created the entire universe, all life, then humanity, but can't find two people in His own garden except by wandering about shouting their names. He also can't go for a walk in the afternoon as its a bit hot for our all powerful God, he walks in the cool of the evening, maybe He was already getting on a bit.
He then makes Man from dust, but instead of making woman the same way He bizarrely, and quite disurbingly rips out one of Adams ribs and says, 'this'll do'. He then puts them in the garden with a tree of forbidden dire consequences fruit and a TALKING evil snake, that He knows is evil cause He made it. Its either a stich up or a comedy, I can't decide.

Now I can rationaly get round all this because I can bring to the table the earlier Summerian creation story on which the biblical one is clearly based, and so get a fuller picture- but its incompatible with a one God belief.
So to all the religous people how do you deal with this? The story itself is clearly nonsensical in the form the Bible presents it, and compared to evolution pretty unlikely as a starting point for life on this planet.
And if you rationalise it, say its just a creation story not a literal truth etc is that not the same position as somone like me, a non religous person takes, in which case whats the difference?
There's a reason the Catholic church over the centuries have been unwilling to admit bits of the Bible might not be wholly accurate, like being at the centre of the universe rather than in the unfashionable western spiral arm, and its because they know if people are allowed to not believe one bit, they might start picking and choosing which bits to follow or none and the control a church has over its congregation can be lost.
So can you believe in the biblical God if you discount parts of it? If its the word of God does that not mean all of it?

I think people have always picked and chose bits to suit them, like Divorce and condoms and stuff like that, those things are supposedly against the Churches teachings but people do them anyway.

Yes but people who do that- are they not essentially, by picking and choosing, admitting they do not really see the Bible as the word of God? After all if you trully believed it was the word of God you would hardly pick and choose. And if the Bible is not the word of God, then it must by default be the work of people, and not Holy any more than other writing is.

I think people pick and choose and then ask for forgiveness for sinning, and as God is supposed to forgive you if you are sincere its a get out of jail card.

Handy. (If a tad contrived )

After 2000 years they have got it sussed.

Yes but how do believers not suss it? That's the bit that confounds me- theres billions of them out there somewhere, apparently, despite the fact I hardly ever meet any ( ) Its a pretty obvious set up the Church.

Its like we all need something to believe in when times get tough, so we overlook the glaringly obvious, its like believing in Father Christmas, we want to belive in him, so he exists.

That's a wonderfully original reading of Genesis, Petty.

I think it's easier to believe in biblical truth because it's so disjointed you can't logically hold it all in one's head. If it was logical it could be compressed down enough for one to step back, survey the whole, and say "now wait a minute...". But people who think it's important expend so much effort trying to stuff the whole mess in their brain that they rarely get a chance to think critically about it. At least, that's my explanation.

Okay, back into the salt mines....I'll re-emerge every few days. Sigh.

I don't know if it's germane to this conversation or not, but I heard a talk show on Religion once and this Christian Pastor (or Priest, or Teacher?) got real uppity about the issue of discussing "Agnostcism" in schools. He seemed not to mind kids discussing "Atheism" though.

Was it because he preferred black and white (good and evil?) to wide-open questioning?

halfwise wrote:Okay, back into the salt mines....I'll re-emerge every few days. Sigh.

Gainful employment as opposed to idle speculating, Halfwise?

Mmm?

I vote for the salt mines -- and not too many re-emergings!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I suppose in a way this may seem a deliberetly provocktive post (or possibly assualt) on the religously minded but I just reread the Creation account in Genesis. And its a complete farce. Its a pantomine story. Its almost like Monty Python worte it.
It has a God, who created the entire universe, all life, then humanity, but can't find two people in His own garden except by wandering about shouting their names. He also can't go for a walk in the afternoon as its a bit hot for our all powerful God, he walks in the cool of the evening, maybe He was already getting on a bit.
He then makes Man from dust, but instead of making woman the same way He bizarrely, and quite disurbingly rips out one of Adams ribs and says, 'this'll do'. He then puts them in the garden with a tree of forbidden dire consequences fruit and a TALKING evil snake, that He knows is evil cause He made it. Its either a stich up or a comedy, I can't decide.

Now I can rationaly get round all this because I can bring to the table the earlier Summerian creation story on which the biblical one is clearly based, and so get a fuller picture- but its incompatible with a one God belief.
So to all the religous people how do you deal with this? The story itself is clearly nonsensical in the form the Bible presents it, and compared to evolution pretty unlikely as a starting point for life on this planet.
And if you rationalise it, say its just a creation story not a literal truth etc is that not the same position as somone like me, a non religous person takes, in which case whats the difference?
There's a reason the Catholic church over the centuries have been unwilling to admit bits of the Bible might not be wholly accurate, like being at the centre of the universe rather than in the unfashionable western spiral arm, and its because they know if people are allowed to not believe one bit, they might start picking and choosing which bits to follow or none and the control a church has over its congregation can be lost.
So can you believe in the biblical God if you discount parts of it? If its the word of God does that not mean all of it?

Now, now, Petty. Let's not be hasty. Surely God knows exactly what he's about. Remember you (and I) are the clay, and he is the potter, and if sometimes he seems to be a manic irrational incompetent potter, who are we to judge HIM? Bless Eru, I say.

That's a wonderfully original reading of Genesis, Petty.- Halfwise

I will admit its tone was somewhat flavoured by Ricky Gervais take on it from his Animals tour. Oddly this bit of that show has been removed from everywhere on youtube and dailymotion- the rest of the act is there but not the Bible bit. However I tracked it down, highly recommended, very funny as well as thought provoking.

http://www.snotr.com/video/4351/Ricky_Gervais_-_The_Bible

His piece on Noah's Ark however survives the Youtube censorship tyrnanny.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:That's a wonderfully original reading of Genesis, Petty.- Halfwise

I will admit its tone was somewhat flavoured by Ricky Gervais take on it from his Animals tour. Oddly this bit of that show has been removed from everywhere on youtube and dailymotion- the rest of the act is there but not the Bible bit. However I tracked it down, highly recommended, very funny as well as thought provoking.

http://www.snotr.com/video/4351/Ricky_Gervais_-_The_Bible

His piece on Noah's Ark however survives the Youtube censorship tyrnanny.

Very funny and o so true

Paul wasn't at the Last Supper! What blasphemy!

I admit I don't find Ricky funny. At least not so far, haven't seen so much of him. Here he just regurgitates jokes and thoughts which are nearly about as old as the Bible itself.

Chris' "Jesus,lol", now that was far more creative and original!

Did you watch both Amarie?- I prefer the Genesis bit to the Noah Ark one- but couldn't originally find his bit on Genesis as its been pulled from everywhere, suspicously. But I find it the funnier of the two- particularly the idea God made everything in the dark.