This whole Evolution Vs. Creationism is getting on my nerves. Yes, I respond to people to get some points and just state my opinion...but I really try not to be judging people for what they believe.
But there are some things that are getting under my skin:
1. The Evolutionist people are always like "Christians are always trying to force their beliefs on people and say that their beliefs are the only correct beliefs" and blah blah blah. But thats kind of hypocritical. Most of them post the same type of blogs argueing what THEY believe. I often feel like evolutionists are trying to force thier beliefs on ME.
2. There seems to be a lack of respect for other people's faith. I understand that you may not agree with someone or possibly think that their opinions are dumb, but what's with all the putdowns and rude comments? And that goes both ways...from Evolutionist to Creationist and Creationist to Evolutionist. Cant we respond in a more respectful, mature manner?
3. Where are the other religions at? It seems to me like there are only two types of people on here. Christians and Atheists. Where are the other people? I want to hear what THEY have to say.
Now, If I have ever responded to you and you feel that I was "forcing my belief on you" let me know and I will personally apologize. Also, if you feel I have disrespected you...do the same. I can apologize about it, that wont hurt my ego at all.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Actually, I don't feel that most people on this site are trying to force their beleifs on others. There have been a few occaisions and those few occaisions came from Christians. I do not beleive the discussion of what we beleive is forcing our beleifs on people.
I know there are a few Jewish people on the site and a bunch of pagans. I don't know if other faiths are represented by people who talk about this sort of thing.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
amen. i mean to be honest i tend to side with the evolutionists, but 99% of the time arguing here isn't going to change anyone's opinion.
--stacie
Poor you! You feel that those darned evilutionists are forcing their opinions on you. ....But there is a difference. Science is what scientists do. And what scientists do is publish the results of their research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. There isn't a single paper in any respected peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports creationism at the expense of modern evolutionary theory, but there are tons that support modern evolutionary theory at the expense of creationism. Yet creationists are trying to LEGISLATIVELY MANDATE the teaching of creationism in SCIENCE classes. Those darned evilutionists tell you that you are wrong in your creationist assertion. Who is REALLY trying to FORCE their beliefs on whom.
Those hell-bound atheists are also trying to force their beliefs on you too!! ... But again who is really doing the forcing. Who is it that trying to LEGISLATE time out of a busy school schedule to devote time to prayer? I believe it is the Christians. No atheist has ever tried to legislate the illegality of prayer on ones own time. Who is it that want "under God" in the Pledge to allegiance to the first country whose Constitution assures freedom of religious practice? I believe it is the Christians. No atheist have ever tried to get the phrase "under NO God" into the pledge.
Excuse me if I am a little less than sympathetic to your cries of persecution. But I think you mistake a lack of encouragement for you beliefs (which I suspect have been encouraged for your entire life) as persecution. You believe Christianity deserves a special place in society. I don't. I firmly believe it should not be encouraged. Not only that but I do not think that it deserves any unearned respect at all. No ideas should have unearned respect.
If you are like every Christian I have ever talked to for any length of time you believe some very ridiculous things. Things like the saviour of the world was born of virgin. Who else do you believe was born of a virgin? If someone claimed his mother was a virgin would you think it ridiculous? Why not for Jesus?
You think that someone dying a horrible death on the cross 2000 years ago somehow magically absolves you of sins today. I'll bet there are parents of people on death row that would be willing to die in their child's place. Do you think we should pass a law allowing one person to voluntarily die for the sins of another? Or do you think it would be ridiculous to do so? If it s ridiculous for us to do that, then why wasn't it ridiculous for God to do it 2000 years ago?
I think that such questions as I have given there should not only be allowed, they shoud be encouraged.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Darwins Beagle, be nice and let her believe what she wants.
Besides science and religion are constantly changing, there is no sense in treating them both or one like god incarnate or devil incarnate, choose your favorite word, lol
For the sake of argument, suppose I did want to prevent her from believing what she wants, how could I possibly accomplish it?
Of course, she can believe what she wants, she will do that no matter what anyone says.
What you want me to do is not criticize her beliefs. If I were in her house and she says what she said, I wouldn't say a word. If I were in her church and she said what she said, I wouldn't say a word. If I overheard what she said in a private conversation to someone else I wouldn't say a word.
But she didn't do any of that. She wrote what she wrote on this forum. The purpose of this forum is to express one's opinions and that what she did. Fine ... but she has no right not to expect not to be challenged on those opinions here. It is a perfectly proper place to do so.
With that in mind and since you seemed to miss a BIG point I was trying to make .... Why should we give someone's religious beliefs special status? Why should we not be EXPECTED to criticize them same as we would any other opinion we disagree with?
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Calm down, calm down. I got your point. I don't know why I wrote that, there was something on my mind, that I don't remember what it was.
Was to address that my beliefs do not need special status...that no one's do. You obviously misunderstood.
Sorry, but that sentiment is nowhere in your original post. In fact, you were taking umbrage that criticism you were receiving was disrespectful. That tells me that you want your opinion respected and the whole point of my argument is that your opinion deserves no more respect than does other ridiculous ideas.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Especially when the title is "Evolutionism/Creationism...For Heaven's sake, believe wht you want!".
Thank you so much for proving my point. You are one of the more disrespectful people that I earlier adressed.
First of all, I dont believe in forcing "Under God" in our pledge of allegience. I agree...i dont think it should be there. So, yeah youre wrong about that. Not all christians legislate for all those types of things. Shows how much you know. A lot of Christians fight for the same things that you do. But its great that you put us all in a little box.
Secondly, I dont believe that athiests are hell-bound. You instantly take the fact that I am a Christian and put all these labels on me. I dont believe Christianity has a special place in society...I think it deserves a special place in MY life. And if others choose to accept then I welcome them to serve God with me.
To answer Your questions:
-Yes, I believe the savior was born of a virgin.
-Yes, if someone came to me and said that his mother was a virgin I would think it ridiculous. UNLESS it was said in prophecy.
-It was not ridiculous for Christ to have died for me 2000 years ago. It would be ridiculous now because someone has already died on my behalf. But remember that he did not PUT himself on the cross. He was beaten, spat upon, and nailed to it.
That's okay if you think my beliefs are ridiculous, I still respect yours and I can be a mature person about that. I wasn't asking for your sypmathy. My blog addressed both Christians and Athiests.
You have every right to post your beliefs and your articles and all that. I'll read them, and I will RESPECTFULLY comment. All of your questions are allowed and encouraged, where in my blog did I say they weren't? My problem is the rude attitudes and disrespect.
OK, so you say:
(1) That you don't believe "under God" should be in the pledge of allegiance. And that I am unfair to accuse Christians of wanting that type of thing. But the phrase WAS specifically legislated into the pledge in 1954. And by whom?
(2) That you don't believe atheists are hell-bound. But you do believe that Christ is humanities savior. Do you not believe that he is the ONLY way into heaven? Do you believe there is a hell? Or do you believe the bible is wrong when it makes allusions to it?
Assuming you do believe there is a hell and that the only way to get into heaven is by accepting Jesus then what is hell for if not to send people like me there? Are you SURE you don't believe atheists are hell-bound?
(3) You think Jesus was born of a virgin because it was prophesized. So if someone was to come today and claim to be born of a virgin and it is HE, not Jesus that fulfills that prophecy, then you would believe it? Why would you believe Jesus has a better case to claim that he fulfilled the prophecy. Especially since we know he DIDN'T.
The prophecy that you speak of is Isiah 7:14. But the Hebrew word that is used is "almah". It doesn't mean "virgin" it means "young woman". If Isaiah had wanted to call the woman a virgin, he would have used the word "bethulah". Matthew got Isaiah wrong. He evidently couldn't speak Hebrew. He quotes Isaiah from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the bible. There the translators translated the Hebrew "almah" into the Greek "parthenos" which does mean virgin.
Furthermore, Isaiah was talking to Ahaz about whether or not he should attack an opponent. That was some 700 years before Jesus would be born. If it were a prophecy about Jesus it wouldn' thave done Ahaz any good.
Finally the prophecy in Isaiah is fulfilled (Isaiah 8:3-10) by Isaiah's son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, who IS the only person in the bible who is directly called Immanuel (Matthew says Jesus WILL be called Immanuel, but no where is Jesus ACTUALLY called Immanuel).
So now tell me again why it is that you think Jesus was born of a virgin.
(4) You do not think it is ridiculous for Jesus died a horrible death 2000 years ago to absolve you of sin now.
But you don't say why it is not ridiculous. You do think it is ridiculous for us to pass a law saying that if someone else wants to voluntarily die in place of a convicted criminal that would absolve him of whatever crime he commited. If we can see such a thing is ridiculous, why would God not see that Jesus doing the exact same thing is ridiculous as well?
===
You are correct, I don't respect those views. Why should I? You don't respect the view of a person who claim that he is born of a virgin, nor of a person who would claim that he would be willing to go through a tortured death if it allowed a guilty murderer to go free. You don't respect them because you think those beleifs are ridiculous. So do I. The only thing you do not seem to be able to see is that your beliefs are equally ridiculous. And the reason that you don't see it is because WAY too many people have respected those opinions in the past.
You are free to believe what you want, but you are not entitled to have those beliefs given unearned respect.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
(1.) Just because some Christians advocated for that to be put into the pledge of allegience does not mean that we all want it there. It's like the KKK. Who murdered blacks supposedly in the name of God. But I dont go on believing that everyone who is Christian wants to cut off my limbs or burn a cross in my front yard.
(2.) I believe that only God can judge. Yes, I believe that Christ is the way to heaven but I also believe that everyone is saved by Grace. I'm responsible for myself. I understand that there are things that make others think the ways that they do and Im sure God knows the hearts of people better than I. I have no right to say whether you are going to heaven or hell.
(3.) I believe in things called miracles. I believe it when the bible says that Jesus healed the sick, allowed the blind to see. You dont. So obviously you would say that he did not have a better case. Even if the prophecy didnt say that he would be "born of a virgin" it said that a savior would come. The fact that he was born of a virgin just makes it known that he must be the son of God.
(4) It would be ridiculous now, because it has already been done! No, it wasnt ridiculous then. It was a true act of love and generosity done by the Son of God. Now, if you decided to die for the sins of someone else, that would mean nothing. In no way do I see you as being holy.
===
What you fail to understand is that, this is all opinion. Opinions should be respected. Dont you think its kind of ridiculous that you attacked my beliefs in a blog I wrote about NOT attacking each others beliefs? No where in this time have I challenged your atheism. Even in my original blog I said nothing about atheists being hell-bound or wrong or anything else. No, I dont agree, but I can be a MATURE adult and respect it.
I never said that I dont "respect" the view of a person who said he was born of a virgin. I did say it was ridiculous. But I dont remember saying that I wouldnt respect it. If I did, I dont remember. But Ill have to read it again.
Because I am a live and I breathe the same air as you do, I think I'm entitled to respect. If I interpret life differently than you do, what makes you so much better than me?
(1) No one ever said that ALL Christians wanted the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, only that a significant number do. In fact, I would venture a guess that MOST do. I find it disingenuous of Christians to claim that Christians are not responsible for something simply because they personally disagree with it. The phrase would not have been in the Pledge without Christians putting it there.
(2) You are actively avoiding the problem I posed to you. I didn't ask if you if you thought atheists should go to hell. I asked you if you believe hell exists, or are the allusions to hell in the bible wrong? If, like most Christians, you do believe hell exists, then why do you think atheists don't necessarily go there?
(3) Again you are actively avoiding the problem I posed for you. I didn't ask anything about Jesus' supposed miracles. I asked you about his supposed virgiin birth. You said you believed it because it was prophecized. But that reason makes no sense. Anybody could claim to fulfill a prophecy, and as it turns out there isn't even a prophecy concerning Jesus' virgin birth. (But you were right in that Matthew CLAIMS there was one). So why is this not a ridiculous claim?
(4) You claim that for us to do the equivalent ... pass a law that would allow one person to voluntarily die a horrible death so that a guilty person could go free ... would be ridiculous because it has already been done. But it hasn't. Humans left on their own devices KNOW that would be a ridiculous thing to do. No society I know has ever passed such a law.
Of course, what you are trying to say is that Jesus did it for them. But he didn't. If you are right about Jesus, then they may get into heaven, but that is not what I was referring to. Heaven would be God's realm. Earth is our realm. My scenario concerns only earth. And Jesus dying 2,000 years ago isn't going to get a mass-murderer off of death row. So why is ridiculous for a person wearing a WWJD bracelet to volunteer for a horrible death if it could save a mass-murderer from death? I'll give you a hint ... the reason it is ridiculous is because justice is not served in the least if one person suffers the punishment due another, under any circumstances. If WE can see that, then why is it that God couldn't. That is the problem you need to deal with.
(5) You are wrong. Not all opinions should be respected. Many people are of the opinion that skin color determines superiority. That opinion should not be respected. Others believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. That opinion should not be respected. The respect any opinion should get is dependent solely upon how good that opinion is. And by that how well it withstands scrutiny.
You cannot respect a view you think is ridiculous. If something is ridiculous, it is by definition deserving of ridicule.
No one said they didn't respect YOU, I said I don't respect your beliefs. I do not think they withstand scrutiny. And I have respected you enough to go out of my way on several occasions to present exactly HOW they do not withstand scrutiny.
I respect you in that I think you have the right to believe whatever it is that you want to believe ... even things that are demonstrably wrong. No one is trying to deny you that right. I haven't even told you that dire consequences await you for believing as you do .... as numerous Christians have told me. I have not advocated that you be denied a job ... (but I would advocate it if you were a biology teacher and were incompetent enough to think that creationism or Intelligent Design deserved a place alongside or in place of modern evolutionary theory). I have not advocated that any legal right be denied you. That is the type of respect you deserve for being a fellow human being. You are free to do as you want so long as you don't infringe upon others. But you do NOT deserve a criticism-free ride for you belief when you express them on a forum like this.
If anything makes me better than you it is that my opinions seem to be able to withstand scrutiny better than yours. But even if my opinion turns out to be correct I am not advocating that I be given any special priveledges because of it. Certainly not on this earth and if I am right then this earth is the only place we will ever exist.
You, on the other hand, think that if you are right then you are due (by the grace of God) an eternity of absolute bliss. So who is it that is REALLY being more arrogant here?
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
(1) I never said that Christians werent responsible for that. And I'm sorry that some of them are. However. I know that there are a lot of Christians that think like me, because I talk with them. The point of my blog is that we shouldnt attack each other like this. But you said that Christians force our beliefs on everybody through things like the pledge. I was merely trying to let you know that I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. Should a whole community be judged because of what a portion of them think?
(2) Yes, I believe hell exists. And read my previous blog again and you will see my reasons as to why I dont think athiests necessarily go there. I did answer this question. If I told you what I thought about Atheists going to hell, doesnt that mean I believe in it??
(3) The point is, if Jesus can perform these miracles, why couldnt he be born of a virgin? If he could be raised from the dead and acsend into heaven, why couldnt he be born of a virgin? Try to follow what I say and maybe you will see how it connects. I believe IN Jesus because it was prophesied.
(4) Im not saying that the law has been passed. Im saying that a man has already died for all of our sins. Thats why it not necessary now. It would be ridiculous for a person wearing a WWJD bracelet to sacrifice their life because they hold no holy position. Jesus didnt die so that we would be free on earth, he died so that we would have a way to heaven. Because just like you said, earth is our realm, Heaven is Gods.
(5) I can agree with you on this point. NOT all opinions should be respected. But me as a person, should be. I think that the way you comment on someone's blog can be seen as disrespectful.
"Poor you! You feel that those darned evilutionists are forcing their opinions on you"
Yeah, I think thats kind of rude.
"Excuse me if I am a little less than sympathetic to your cries of persecution."
...I never cried persecution. It was just a simple blog addressing the fact that 1. christians post their blog opinions JUST like atheists do (so why are we the ones doing the forcing). 2. people need to be more respectful and 3. i want to hear from other religions.
You took it to a whole nother level and I dont even think you understood the point of the blog in the first place. It was like you just saw it as a reason to complain about what christians have done to you and your life.
But yes, I think that I am "due" an eternity of bliss...as are you. Is that so arrogant if I think that it is attainable to everyone?
I think we are getting a bit off track, so let me try to bring back a sense of relevance to the arguments.
(1) You complained that atheists were trying to FORCE their opinion on you. But no atheist has ever tried to legislate their opinion into law. Christians have and still try to do so. Even if you are not one who advocates that, your comparison of atheist techniques to that of Christians is misplaced.
(2) Concerning the problem of hell, you still are actively avoiding the problem. So let's take it slowly, one question at a time. You acknowledge that you believe in hell. The first question for you is what is its purpose? What is the purpose of hell?
(3) You have just as much reason to believe that Jesus actually performed miracles as you do to believe that he was actually born of a virgin ... the bible says so. But the bible also says a lot of things that aren't so ... see my "Skeptical Bible Study" blogs for evidence that is the case/ and also left unrefuted is Matthew's erroneous "prophecy" from Isaiah concerning Jesus. Both are ridiculous propositions. Do you really believe that Jesus exorcised an actual demon(s) and transferred them into a herd (pack?) of pigs who then promptly ran into the sea and drown themselves?
(4) Again you are actively avoiding the problem of Jesus' supposed sacrifice. If it makes no sense for us to pass a law allowing us to perform an analogous sacrifice on the part of people we love, then it made no sense for Jesus to have done it in the first place. Let me put it to you another way ... Exactly what did Jesus' death on the cross do that allowed God to something he couldn't have done without it?
(5) Concerning taking "it to a whole nother level". Your contention was that we need to be respectful of anothers opinion. My point is that we don't have to if that opinion is ridiculous. And my contention is that until your opinion can earn some respect we don't need to respect it. That "whole nother level" as you call it is an attempt to show you some of the reasons why it is that I think your opinion is ridiculous.
(6) Yes, I think your thinking that you are due an eternity of bliss is the height of arrogance. You think not because it is "open" to everyone. But you have already acknowledged that Jesus is the only way into heaven, so you MUST believe that it is open ONLY to those who believe as you do. THERE is where the arrogance lies.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
(1) It was not a complaint. It was merely a way of showing that both sides do the same exact thing. Okay, so athiests dont make attempts to try to take Under God out of the pledge? They dont complain about "In God We Trust" being on thier currency? THEY DO. I think these are ways that they try to legislate their opinion into law. They just havent succeeded. If they dont believe in God, that is the reason that they would like it removed from the Government.
(2) The purpose of hell is to do away with sin. Once and for all. Seeing as that we are all sinners, God is the only judge of who truly has evil in thier hearts and who does not.
(3) I will read your blogs. Believe it or not, I do care what you have to say. But yes, I do believe that Jesus did all that was said he did in the bible...thats kind of part of being a Christian.
(4) Very good question. Honestly, I have not figured it out yet. But sometime during this life, I will. But I also know that somethings that I cant understand. And I BELIEVE that one day, if I make it to heaven, I will be able to ask God those questions.
(5) The thing is...I care what you have to say. I REALLY do. My problem is your approach. It was more of an "attack" than anything else.
(6) I feel like I am repeating myself when I once again say that everyone is entitled to what I am. I dont even know if I'm going to make it there! I cannot judge rightously, only God can. I'm sure there will be athiests such as yourself in heaven and Im sure that there will be people similar to me that end up in hell.
Believe what you want about me. I'm pretty sure you already have your mind made up about me and "my ridiculous beliefs".
> (1) It was not a complaint. It was merely a way
> of showing that both sides do the same exact
> thing.
I am sure that there are examples of pushy atheists just like I am sure there are examples of pushy christians. Its just easier to find the latter because there are so very many more pushy chrisitans here in the United States (an inevitable consequence of a 75%+ christian versus 5%- non-religious/atheist population). However, once you sift out the nutcases on both sides, I don't think that the basis of the two sides motivations are the very similar at all. At the core of their philosophy, a christian wants your to convert, whereas an atheist simply wants you to think.
> Okay, so athiests dont make attempts to try
> to take Under God out of the pledge? They
> dont complain about "In God We Trust" being
> on thier currency? THEY DO.
This is an interesting point. But, do you think that those atheists would be complaining (and lets be honest, it isn't just atheists who have a problem with these two examples by a LONG shot) if groups of christian had not first acted to insert those phrases into previously existing secular institutions? Let's not forget, the original Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the phrase "under god" when it was adopted by our Congress. The same goes for "In God We Trust." The original motto of the United States was E Pluribus Unum (or rather "One from Many"). Much like the pledge, that motto was changed only after politically motivated christians became a majority in this country, and prior to the Civil War, the idea of putting a religious motto like this onto our coins was not considered appropriate at all.
The Pledge of Allegiance: A Short History
History of 'In God We Trust'
> I think these are ways that they try to legislate
> their opinion into law. They just havent succeeded.
> If they dont believe in God, that is the reason that
> they would like it removed from the Government.
Actually, the reason that most of us don't like those changes to our national instituions is that they represent an in my opinion very plain abbrogation of one of the most basic tenets of our Constitution. The First Amendment clearly prohibits religious establisments in our government, and one really has to just through to pretty impressive rhetorical hoops to argue that these two examples are anything else.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Its just easier to find the latter because there are so very many more pushy chrisitans here in the United States
Youre right. There are more pushy christians out there. A lot of them think that they NEED to be that way. But even with this fact, there are still pushy atheists. No matter how small a number they are, No matter what their motives...they are still pushy. So why jump down my throaght when I say that sometimes I feel that their beliefs are being forced on me? Especially since, I PERSONALLY i dont try to force my beliefs on anyone.
But, do you think that those atheists would be complaining if groups of christian had not first acted to insert those phrases into previously existing secular institutions?
I am familiar with the fact that Christians changed some things pertaining to the plege and currency. But of course the atheists wouldn't be complaining, because those things wouldnt be there. Whether or not it was changed, you cant say that athiests dont legislate for their beliefs. The only reason I agree with taking these things out of our government is to respect people of every religion or belief system.
"If they dont believe in God, that is the reason that they would like it removed from the Government. " <--This sentence is worded wrong. I put it in there so that I could better help you understand where I was going with the whole "in god we trust" thing. But obviously u understood it before my poor sentence. It really didnt need to be in there.
> I am familiar with the fact that Christians
> changed some things pertaining to the
> plege and currency. But of course the
> atheists wouldn't be complaining, because
> those things wouldnt be there.
So the question is, do you not agree that inserting "under God" into the pledge, and changing the national motto to "in God we trust" and then putting it on our money is just a wee bit contrary to the prohibition against religious establishments that is expounded in the first ten words of our mutual Bill of Rights? One doesn't need to be an atheist to recognize that religion and government are not a good mix. Our fouders certainly recognized that fact. Do you really think that the idea that we should respect the dictates of our Constitution regarding the separation of church and state it is a uniquely "atheist" belief?
> Whether or not it was changed, you cant
> say that athiests dont legislate for their beliefs.
I can say that its pretty darn rare. I mean, can you really point to any example of a serious movement among atheists to legislate the opinion that "no gods exist?" Can you show us an example of a serious movement among atheists to prevent religious people from practicing their personal religious beliefs?
> The only reason I agree with taking these
> things out of our government is to respect
> people of every religion or belief system.
If you agree, then are you an atheist? If not, this comment seems to undermine your complaint about what we (the atheists) are doing. Is it really so hard to believe that we atheists might actually respect your freedom of religion, so long as you are willing to respect ours?
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Thats exactly right. I dont agree with inserting "Under god" in the pledge. No matter how much I believe in God, I dont agree with everyone having to act like it is their God. No, I dont believe that that belief is an "atheist" belief. But GOD isnt just a Christian belief either. Its Jewish and Islamic. Some people who arent any of those also believe in a higher "god" power too.
No, I cannot show you any serious movement that has tried to remove "Under God" from the pledge. My blog wasnt about the broader spectrum. My blogs was about blogs. And atheists, as well as Christians, post blogs about thier beliefs. But for some reason, the athiests say that the Christians are trying to force others to believe like them. But we're all on here posting our ideas and beliefs. So what makes the christians so much worse than the atheists(in terms of blogging.) Anyway, although it is rare for athiests to legislate, it still happens. And that was my whole point. I could see if NO atheist ever tried to change it, but some of them do.
If I agree, no. I am not an athiest. I'm sorry that it came off as a complaint. My problem was with atheists as well as christians. I should have written "It seems like athiests try to force thier beliefs on Christians, just as Christians do to athiests." I kind of thought that was a given that Christians do that. But I apoligize, and there is the clarification. I dont know why it seems that all I am getting are comments from atheists like I tried to attack you guys or something. I really didnt mean it to be rude or offensive to you all. Im sorry that it came off that way.
...so I'll respond to this comment, below.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
oh sorry...ignore some of the things I said(jumping down throaghts and such). I thought u were someone else!
Er ... when you say things like:
You ARE complaining.
You couldn't be more wrong. Removing "Under God" from the pledge or removing "In God We Trust" from the currency is NOT trying to legislated atheist opinion. It is an attempt to de-legislate Christian opinion. Again no atheist has ever tried to get our opinion into the Pledge. We have never tried to legislate the phrase "Without God" into the pledge. No atheist has ever suggested that we put "In NO God We Trust" on the currency. Even if atheists constituted the vast majority of the population, I would oppose such legislation. It doesn;t belong there ... but then again neither do the Christian slogans that ARE there.
I can see this is going to take quite a few questions, but let's do it. Exactly how is hell supposed to do away with sin?
Just to make sure that you realize exactly what you are saying. You are saying that you believe Jesus actually DID exorcise demons from a person, sent those demons into a herd of pigs, and then had those pigs run into the sea and drown themselves.
You do realize that this entails a belief in the actual existence of demons, don't you?
There have been lots of stories about religious figures exorcising and/or fighting demons. What other ones do you believe? I doubt if you believe any. Why not? Because the stories are patently ridiculous? Enough said.
To put that into context, what you haven't figured out yet is exactly what Jesus' dying on the cross enabled God to do that he couldn't have done without such a death.
The answer is obvious ... NOTHING.
So then you believe the bible is in error in John 3:18 when it says "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."?
Christianity is everywhere in society so I have been forced to deal with it. I have spent enough time following arguments and thinking about them that I have made up mind. And, yes, I do think the beliefs of Christians are ridiculous.
You on the other hand, I have not yet felt the need to come to any conclusion regarding anything pertinent to your personhood. So far I am simply enjoying the discussion.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
But why de-legislate Christian opinion? Because you dont agree. Because you believe something different.
How will hell do away with sin?
The devil and his followers will be defeated.
I dont know why you keep asking me about this "atheist" going to hell thing. Its as if you WANT me to judge you. ive been trying to make it clear that I have no place or right to do that. Yes, the bible says those things, so take it as you will. But dont you think it is different for someone who believes in the scriptures but yet refuses to accept it than someone who clearly with all of their heart, no doubt in their mind, doesnt believe the bible is true? Wouldn't you be more likely to believe in God if you were THERE when he performed miracles, rather than just read about them? Thats why I'm saying that only God can judge. Only god knows the hearts, minds, and circumstances of everyone. When Jesus died (after that scripture) did he not ask for God to forgive them (those that persecuted him) for they KNOW NOT what they do? So, isnt it true that Jesus can intercede on the behalf of those who don't believe in him?
I have been forced to deal with all the evolutionist theories too. I've had to take tests in high school with questions about the Big Bang(something, that still hasnt been proven). If I answered the question according to my belief system, it wouldve been wrong. Never was I asked to take a test answering questions about Creationism.
I'm only going to answer the last bit, the bit about tests. Here's the thing, Evolution is science. Big Bang theories are science. IF you are taking a science class, then you have to expect to be asked questions about science.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
I understand the part about evolution, that's why i didnt mention it in my previous comment. But Big Bang has not yet been proven. The theory is still a little sketchy. So is it really necessary that I be tested on that? If there is also a theory that God created the universe, shouldnt that theory equally be presented??
"If there is also a theory that God created the universe, shouldnt that theory equally be presented??"
no.
the big bang, as theoretical as it may be, is still based IN SCIENCE. the idea that god exists at all is based in religion (not only that, but a specific monotheistic religion--what about islam, hinduism, buddhism, etc?), and therefore has no place in a SCIENCE class.
--stacie
> But Big Bang has not yet been proven.
> The theory is still a little sketchy.
Is it, really? I mean, how much do you know about the hard science behind the Big Bang theory? Have you studied the Theory at an advanced level? If not, have you at least tried to educate yourself thoroughly about the Theory and its claims? I find that often when religious folks criticize major Scientific Theories, they tend to have very little first hand knowledge about what it is that these Theories actually say.
Now, that isn't to say that Theories like the Big Bang may not eventually crumble under the weight of new evidence. Personally, I'm a Hawking's and Penrose's alternatives to the Big Bang, but even exciting new ideas like thiers have to wait until the evidence in support of them becomes sufficient to justify a reasonable scientific consensus.
> So is it really necessary that I be tested
> on that?
In a science class? Yes, it most certainly is necessary. The Big Bang is the dominant Scientific Theory describing the Origin of the Universe because it has collected the most evidence to back it up. And if you want to discuss the Origin of the Universe with other scientists, you really have to be conversant in the currently predominant Theory (or Theories).
> If there is also a theory that God created
> the universe, shouldnt that theory equally
> be presented??
Perhaps, but only if that theory carries with it an equal amount of scientifically credible evidence to justify giving it equal weight in the discussion. And, here's where it all falls apart for the creationists. In order to advance the religious "theory" that "god created the universe," you must first be able to provide objective, verifiable evidence that would suggest that "god" actually exists. People have been trying to do that for centuries (at least), and so far not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced that would suggest that "god" acutally exists in an objective, scientifically credible manner.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"But why de-legislate Christian opinion? Because you dont agree. Because you believe something different."
no.
it has nothing to do with what anyone does or does not believe. it has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that the constitution specifically states that the government shall not promote one religion over another. putting "god" on money and into the pledge that school children are FORCED to say is definitely promoting christianity. if i were a muslim and i thought that everyone should say "in allah we trust", i hardly think that would go over well.
get this through your head: being in the majority doesn't entitle you to anything. being in the majority does not mean you are right.
--stacie
> But why de-legislate Christian opinion?
> Because you dont agree. Because you
> believe something different.
How about because legislating religious opinion is essentially illegal and is contrary to the principles set down in our Constitution? Would you be willing to put your hand over your heart and say "one Nation, under Allah?" or "one Nation, under Buddha?" or "one Nation, under the Goddess?" or even "one Nation, under NO GOD AT ALL?" If you would not be willing to this, then it should be obvious why some of us take great offense at the unconstitutional notion that we should have to appeal to someone else's deity in order to pledge our allegiance to our own County, or that we should have to subjugate ourselves to a religious pronouncement every time we want to buy groceries.
> Never was I asked to take a test answering
> questions about Creationism.
Did you attend a public school? Public schools are government agencies, and our Constitution prohbits using the State as a means of spreading religous beliefs. Even so, the real reason that you don't get tested about creationism in you biology class is that "creationism" is not a scientifically valid theory relevant to the discipline of biology. If "creationism" could somehow be demonstrated to have true scientific credibility that was sufficient to elevate it into the position of a competing Theory, then it would be taught in biology class alongside evolution. But, just having a hypothesis (and really, that's the most generous scientific term that can be applied to the creationists' arguments) does not excuse you from the necessity satisfying the scientific method by gathering evidence, testing falsifiable elements, and making reproduceable predictions. Creationism is not a Scientific Theory in any real sense of the phrase.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Jsaj answered about the tests part of this. Let me give an answer to the first part.
"I dont know why you keep asking me about this "atheist" going to hell thing. Its as if you WANT me to judge you. ive been trying to make it clear that I have no place or right to do that. Yes, the bible says those things, so take it as you will. But dont you think it is different for someone who believes in the scriptures but yet refuses to accept it than someone who clearly with all of their heart, no doubt in their mind, doesnt believe the bible is true? Wouldn't you be more likely to believe in God if you were THERE when he performed miracles, rather than just read about them? Thats why I'm saying that only God can judge. Only god knows the hearts, minds, and circumstances of everyone. When Jesus died (after that scripture) did he not ask for God to forgive them (those that persecuted him) for they KNOW NOT what they do? So, isnt it true that Jesus can intercede on the behalf of those who don't believe in him?"
You don't take the bible as you will. It is either true or its not. You can't pick and choose what you believe from the bible and say, well the rest could be true but I dont believe it. That is hypocritical.
Also, Jesus "saving" us, isn't logical. If you read the religious stories from old religions about the Norse gods and the likes, you'll find stories of a savior sacrificing himself long before Jesus. Jesus was a hell of a smart guy who was able to manipulate the population. He was brilliant and a sociopath. He is also good with Machiavellianism. Jesus is just doing what other religious icons did. Making himself larger than life, when he's not.
I disagree. You do take the bible as you will. Not meaning that you pick and choose what goes and what fits. But that if you believe it, believe it. If you dont, dont. Interpret it how you interpret it and all that is between you and yourself. Not between you and me. All I was getting at was that I cannot judge you or anyone else.
I didnt write this blog to get into a heated discussion about people going to hell and all that jazz. People are just picking out every little thing I say so that they can attack it. As much as I appreciate the attention and conversation, I'm almost tired of having to keep replying to everyone.
I just read this tidbit last night, which is the only reason I'm posting it.
But the Hebrew word that is used is "almah". It doesn't mean "virgin" it means "young woman". If Isaiah had wanted to call the woman a virgin, he would have used the word "bethulah". [...] There the translators translated the Hebrew "almah" into the Greek "parthenos" which does mean virgin.
So I read a thing on virginity in the Bible last night for my paper (which I referred to in your blog). I don't know much about Hebrew, and don't claim to know a thing about Greek. And I don't know how reliable this woman is, because she seems to go against the past interpretations rather dramatically of a certain story (Dinah and Shechem in Genesis 34, if you're interested).
At any rate, she says: The cultural expectation that young girls should remain virgins is embedded in the Hebrew language. As is now generally well known, the term normally translated 'virgin', betula [with a bunch of accents and such that I'm not going to waste my time trying to figure out], means a girl of marriageable age. A passage such as Joel 1.8, 'like a betula wearing sackcloth for the husband of her youth', cannot refer to a virgin, and the common pairing of bahur and betula (Deut. 32.25; Isa. 23.4; [...]) makes it clear that the word's reference is to 'young man/men and woman/women' and says nothing about their physical characteristics. When the text wants to emphasize the virginal state of a girl, it adds the phrase 'who has not known a man' (Judg. 19.39; Judg. 21.12; Gen. 24.16). On the other hand, the plural word betulim probably means 'virginity' in Judg. 11.37. The same term betulim is used in Lev. 21.13 in a discussion of the High Priest who cannot leave the sanctuary; he must marry a girl in her virginity.
She goes on and talks about some more specific instances, but I want to get to her Greek before I lose you...
Classical Greece also had high expectations and strong demands for the virginity of girls. As with Hebrew, the words for 'young girl' and 'virgin' are the same, parthenos. Furthermore, the Greek word sophrosune 'right action', which refers to cautious moderation for men, means absolute chastity for girls.
As far as the being born of a virgin stuff, while I doubt it was possible 2000 years ago, it is possible today. Angels and Demons makes reference to it... a nun, having a vow of chastity, wants to have a child. So they artificially inseminate her. So it's possible today :-) Probably not too common, but possible.
EDIT: Sorry, forgot to write where it came from. The book is called Gender an Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Selection is Virginity in the Bible, by Tikva Frymer-Kensky. Found on pages 79-96.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
Your source is using a very unorthodox translation of "bethulah". It is "almah" that most commonly means "young woman" and "bethulah" that means "virgin". Here is an exerpt from a wikipedia article that discusses the translation controversy of Isaiah 7:14.
So while Jewish scholars say that "almah" means "young woman" and "bethulah" means virgin, Christian apologists claim otherwise. When it comes to HEBREW I throw my lot in with the Jewish scholars.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Like I said... I don't know how reliable she is as a source. I'm not using that as part of my paper, but rather the part where she talks about young women not having the right to consent to sex. But the words you were talking about made me think of it, and so I looked up that part. She doesn't even talk about the other words you mention. Still, it was an interesting read, and one of these days I might actually get around to writing a blog about gender differences in the Bible.
I can barely get through the Hebrew alphabet, and only know a few Greek letters (mostly since they are used in equations in science and math), so I don't by any means claim authority on this matter. I just wanted to share that tidbit. I've heard the argument that the New Testament mistranslated parts of the OT, but I didn't hear anything about the specific details about it.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
You are right that there shouldn't be an argument. Some fundamentalist Christians don't believe in gravity or they believe that the earth is flat. This certainly has no effect on the laws of physics or the shape of the planet. These beliefs seem ridiculous. Who could possibly take them seriously? But imagine what would happen if these people gained political power.
And that is why the argument exists. To the scientific community, denying that evolution happens is just as ridiculous as believing the earth is flat. Whether or not you "believe in evolution" doesn't really change it. But not "believing" in evolution and having political clout is dangerous. These people will make very poor decisions in many areas - the environment, medicine, etc.
People arguing from a scientific standpoint are merely describing the world around them based on all available knowledge. Their models and discoveries are extremely valuable. Whereas creationism has done nothing to advance technology, medicine, and conservation and even less to describe in a realistic way the world we see around us, the benefits to society of genetics and evolution research are innumerable.
Your beliefs and the stories of your faith are important. I just posted on the way that stories and our belief in those stories can be very powerful and good. But it is very dangerous to use these stories to dictate government policy.
This is one reason why many scientists argue so passionately against creationism.
............................................
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
-Voltaire
And I agree. Religious beliefs SHOULDNT dictate the government. Although I think that Christianity is a good foundation, because I do agree with the morals and values that we uphold, I still think that others should be free to believe what they will.
how much do you know about other religions? a lot of religions have similar morals and values, so why should any one religion be a foundation?
furthermore, are you trying to imply that without religion there are no morals or positive values? because that's what it sounds like.
--stacie
Oh my goodness. There is no way to get around you guys is there? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, keep in mind that everything I say is not intended to undermind anyone elses opinion/religion/whatever! I said that I think Christianity is a good foundation. Yes...that is a personal opinion. Which is pretty OBVIOUS since I'm a Christian. If I didn't think that Christianity was a good foundation then why would I choose to follow in that pathway?
As I reread it I realized that the last part of my final sentence came off as arrogant. I'm sorry that you took it that way. So let me reword it for you:
"And I agree. Religious beliefs SHOULDNT dictate the government. Although I think that Christianity is a good foundation, because I do agree with the morals and values that we uphold, I still think that it should be kept seperate because it is forcing a lifestyle that others may not agree with."
Is that better at all? Anyway, to clarify I do believe that all religions have great morals and values. Likewise, everyone has some sort of moral/value that is respectable. I wouldn't mind a Christian nation in a Christian world, or a Muslim nation in a muslim world. However, in the realities of the world we live in, it is not smart to try to build a nation upon a single religion's ideas/beliefs.
> Where are the other religions at? It seems to me like there
> are only two types of people on here. Christians and Atheists.
> Where are the other people? I want to hear what THEY have
> to say.
I am of the opinion that there are two primary reasons why one rarely sees non-christians in debates of this sort. The first is really kind of obvious, when you think about it. A vast majority of the United States identifies itself as christian (more than 75%). So, by the sheer weight of statitical probability, most of the people on the pro-religious side of these arguments are going to be christian. The second reason is a bit more anecdotal, and is based merely on my personal experience as a formerly ordained wiccan minister and universalist unitarian. That reason is that most of the other religious communities in this country don't take their mythologies quite as literally as a great many christians, and are less likely to find themselves in conflict when a scientific discovery contradicts some obscure passage in one of their ancient texts or stories.
The reason that atheists are as active as we are in these debates is that most atheists are scientifically minded and abhor ignorance, and it irritates the heck out of us when people choose to reject evidence and reason in favor of primitive mysticism.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
and it irritates the heck out of us when people choose to reject evidence and reason in favor of primitive mysticism.
Yeah, but yall have to realize that people arent going to very easily give up their religion. No matter how much evidence is posed against it. Especially if their religion is doing something positive in thier lives. It stops being about definitions and science because it becomes a part of them. It inspires them to try and be better people. Holy or not, Jesus wasn't a bad guy, was he? He showed love and compassion for others. Is it so wrong for others to want to follow in his footsteps and take on those types of characteristics? Budha(spelling?) had some good ideas, right?
But I do understand that religion should not dictate the lives of those who dont believe. And I'm very sorry that it does sometimes.
> Yeah, but yall have to realize that people
> arent going to very easily give up their
> religion. No matter how much evidence
> is posed against it.
Indeed. We need merely look to history and the bones of scientists who were imprisioned, tortured and burned alive for daring to suggest heretical ideas such as "the world is round, not flat" and that "the earth is not fixed in space, but rather circles around the sun" to see how difficult it can be to overcome the intellectual inertia of religious zealots.
> Especially if their religion is doing something
> positive in thier lives. It stops being about
> definitions and science because it becomes
> a part of them.
Do you think that teaching people to reject evidence, no matter how much proof it provides to be a "positive" experience? I mean, you do know that snakes do not eat dirt, right? That bats are not birds? That rabbits don't chew their cud? That the world is not flat? That the sky is not held up by pillars? That the earth does not have a navel? That hell is not located deep undergound?
I mean, c'mon...there comes a point when even the most devoutly religious person has to separate the useful principles of his or her religion from the primitive hokum that the ancient progenitors of their sect invented out of their ignorance of the natural world. And if they will not, then it becomes very difficult to treat them with the respect as one rational person to another.
> It inspires them to try and be better people.
> Holy or not, Jesus wasn't a bad guy, was he?
> He showed love and compassion for others.
> Is it so wrong for others to want to follow in
> his footsteps and take on those types of
> characteristics? Budha(spelling?) had some
> good ideas, right?
Superman isn't a bad guy either. In fact, I think that people could do worse in their search of someone to model their lives by. But, just because Superman inspires me doesn't mean that I really believe that a guy in blue spandex can fly and shoot heat rays out of his eyes.
> But I do understand that religion should not
> dictate the lives of those who dont believe.
> And I'm very sorry that it does sometimes.
I hear this quite often from some of the more reasonable christians that I encounter, but that sentiment rarely seems to be backed up with a willingness to actually confront the other members of the christian religion that DO think that they should be able to dictate the religious beliefs of other people. And without that willingness, such sentiment is very sweet but ultimately not really worth much on a practical level.
Are YOU willing to stand up to your fellow christians and say, "Hey, leave those guys alone! They have a right to believe differently than us, and we shouldn't be using the government to try to force them to believe!"?
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
First of all, my entire Seventh-day Adventist church is against the whole church being involved in government thing. My pastor actually does a sermon about it every once in a while. Yes, I do stand up to fellow christians when the topic comes up. But only when the topic comes up. im the same way about everything else (abortion, womens rights...) But I dont go around trying to make a big statement for our government or anything. I'm REALLY not into the whole religion vs. no religion type of discussion. I actually try to stay away from it. I guess, posting this blog didnt help, because its my most popular one so far. But I'm more vocal about racism and stuff like that.
Either way "religion" has done a lot of positive for me in my life. It inspired me to quit smoking (something obviously dangerous to my health), be nicer and more compassionate to people, respect myself and my body, and the diet laid out in Leviticus helped to significantly lowered my grandfathers blood pressure. Even if later on, I found out there was no heaven, no hell, I still will have known that I lived a life doing my best not to hurt anyone, hurt myself, and respect others. I don't doubt that people can live a life like this without being a Christian, but with what Ive been through, I figure that Christ is worth following.
with people having opinions that are not congruent with our own. They may even defend with great passion their ideals, or provide evidence in the form of research, anecdotes, statistics, or even circular logic. The idea is that here, we get to discuss it.
Discussions can become heated, but, as is stated in the FAQ, abuse is not allowed. Providing logical premises that could negate a conclusion is allowed. If you aren't comfortable with a heated discussion about a controversial topic, please don't blog about it.
I'm an "other" and I think that any religion that discredits the scientific method or logic is unworthy of my time. Science tests ideas against observable results. If you choose to believe in gravity or not, you can still observe it's action. Logic is the study of reason, of thought. Humans' ability to use logic defines us as different from other animals. (How many times have you caught squirrels in your yard arguing over whether or not a buried acorn still exists?)
I'm open to logical and scientific discussions of religion. I am also open to the discussion of people's personal experiences. Putting your ideas out there, however, does make them fair game to test their premises.
I think this beating the dead horse
-jus my opinion
the best sagittarius in the world!!!!
respect my intelligent sag swag.
maybe it is to some people, but to others it promotes a very interesting intellectual debate that i personally and having a great time reading.
--stacie