Culture & Lifestyle

Rant

Your god is too small!

Posted 29 months ago|72 comments|753 views
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
I am astounded that we, the members of Rant/Rave, can argue back and forth with over 100 comments on evolution! Half of the people in the country don't believe in evolution and 18% think the sun rotates around the earth, and it is futile to argue with these folk because all of the logical arguments and facts are dismissed because they prefer to believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. In my opinion relying on ancient texts to explain the modern world is nothing less than intellectual laziness.

Most of these people do not understand the origins of the bible and how the original "revelations" or folk tales were carried on from one person to another for hundreds or thousands of years before they were committed to clay tablets or papyrus. Any psychologist can tell you how anytime you have one person relate a complicated story to someone else it will change with each telling, with the story teller embellishing and adding or editing the story so it better fits their own belief system. If you told one person a story and had them pass that story on to someone else and that person to another by the time you reached six other individuals the story would be unrecognizable.
So even if you did believe that God told a prophet one of the truths of the universe, that truth would be unrecognizable in a short time. Even after the oral tradition gave way to written word, the scribes and the head monks would take editorial liberties to make the story more understandable. There used to be thousands of different versions of sacred texts before the Synod of Hippo in 393 decided which writings would become what would be called the New Testament.

I wish that while they were editing out these texts, that they would have left a few scribbles from the women who used to be quite important to the church before it merged with Mithraism and became the Official Religion of the Roman Empire. I also wish they would have edited out all of the instances of extreme violence and the insanely harsh practices that occurred in the middle East way back then. The Jewish and Christian faiths just tend to ignore where the Torah and the Old Testament demands that you stone your son to death if he gives you any lip, and one of the big problems with the world today is that the Muslims didn't go through 350 years of cruelty during the inquisitions or go through the Protestant reformation that re-wrote the bible to make it more humane. Even Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible (or collaborated on one), but by the time he threw out all the outrageous parts it was pretty small. Islam is still stuck in the 6th century when those harsh punishments were acceptable.

Half of the Christians do not even know that these three religions each worship the same God of Abraham, or that many of the sacred texts have the same origins.
Today there are a thousand different sects of Christianity, many splintered off because they didn't like a particular version of the bible, and each one will condemn everyone else in the world to hell if they do not share their perverse and quaint beliefs. When the Spaniards were conquering this country they baptized the young Indian babies, to save their souls before splattering their brains against a wall. Almost all of these Christians, Jews and Muslims envision God as some old guy with a long white beard, because Man is created in God's image.

Science has determined that life exists in almost every environment on earth, including the harshest climates you can imagine. There is a lot of evidence that life on this planet might have originated form outside earth in comets (where we get a lot of our water) or even outside our solar system carried in asteroids. It is only logical that life would also exist elsewhere. And that is just the carbon based life forms. There could be intelligent sulfur based life living in the atmosphere of Jupiter (or silicon based, or nitrogen based). They probably wouldn't worship some old guy with a white beard. They would probably worship some big gas bag.

And what about other solar systems? Almost every star system we study has planets around that sun. It is mathematically a certainty that a very large number of those star systems will have planets that have the proper densities to contain an atmosphere like ours, and that they are an appropriate distance from the sun so that our species might survive there. Would they have life on such a planet? It is almost certain. Would they look like us? Almost certainly not. There are a bazillion galaxies each with a gazillion suns, with a googleplex of planets rotating around them. Did God just put those galaxies and stars and planets up there as decorations for us? I think it was Carl Sagan who once said something like: "If God didn't put life on most of those planets, it is a terrible waste of real estate". There are probably hundreds of millions of species that are much smarter than we are. Do you think they all teach "Intelligent Design" in their schools? Do you think that Jesus died for their sins also?
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: The problem I saw in the evolution posting was the lack of truth in advertising when the OP initially presented his case as though it was credible science when it fact it was the oxymoron of fundamentalist religious science (Intelligent Design / Creationism), and one only need to start unzipping the tuxedo to reveal all the wack-a-loon religious underpinnings.

Your post here is excellent with logical points but in the anti-logic world of religion, your focus on criticizing the logic of their religion will give them vindication and confirmation that their 'faith' is the one and true religion.

They don't see logical points; they see a 'spiritual' attack and it's inspired by their favorite bogeyman - the anti-god Devil angel himself. They even have Bible verses to counter-act logic (e.g. their beliefs are foolishness to unbelievers and god will send them to hell)

Of course any religion is simply a comforting fantasy to deal with the inevitable & disconcerting issue of mortality, and the pointing out of logical realities and Science are seen as hostile attempts to steal away their fantasy.

For example, I saw a video a couple months ago that cleverly debunked paranormalist EVP recordings (Electronic Voice Phenomena) and the reaction from the ghost believers was no less frothing than if you had told a Christian that Jesus was a myth.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: SS, so you're essentially comparing somebody's version of god to a child's imaginary friend and that we need to indulge them for the sake of their psychological health.

I'm not sure that's anymore kindly, but my goal is to convince people not only to think rationally, but to prevent the kind of incendiary & divisive sectarianism that often leads to violence. It's one thing when two children fight over which imaginary friend is stronger than the other, but when adults do it, they often end up killing each other as history and present day events tell us.

Just as important is to ensure that the religious or pseudo-religious are prevented from imposing the philosophy or laws of their imaginary friend(s) on the rest of the society using the power of the state (e.g. dominionism, sharia law.)

Now don't misunderstand me. If I meet somebody and they mention they're this or that religion, or they're wearing a Star Trek uniform with Spock ears, I'm not going out of my way to puncture their fantasy balloon, but the minute they start trying to sell me, sell my children, sell this forum, sell the school board, or sell some legislation on behalf of their fantasy god(s), I'm going to weigh in. If you don't like it, I got two words for 'ya - *TWEET* *TWEET*
29 months ago: Siempre, you said, "This is why I believe no one can make a scientific study out of a religious belief."

I don't believe that's where the problem lies. Scientists, broadly speaking, are all about learning *how* the universe works. They're not involved in the theological questions of *why*. Not their jobs. No one's particularly interested in a scientific study of a religion's beliefs because scientifically, none of them are even remotely supportable. Whether you're talking about Vishnu as a four-armed blue shape-shifting god of creation and destruction or YHWH as a vast ruler over a literal heavenly kingdom filled with the deceased, what you're describing is a scientific impossibility.

I think the real problem arises when the religious take science as an attack on their beliefs. For instance, science has established pretty clearly that the Earth is several billion years old. Young Earth creationists mistakenly take this as an attack on their interpretation of the Bible, and end up trying to prove science wrong. Worse, they try to get creationist "science" taught in schools to counter the presence of actual science in modern curricula.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Dave,

...When you tell a Christian that Jesus Christ did not die for their sins, that's starting a fight...

That's exactly what I was talking about Dave regarding divisive sectarianism that often leads to violence and by the same token, shouldn't you expect a Muslim to fight when a Christian tells them that Jesus is the only way and Muhammad was a false prophet? In fact Dave, why don't you read this Bible Baptist sermon in which these Christians called Muhammad a demon possessed man.

http://biblebaptistsermons.blogspot.com/2009/08/muhammad-was-no-prophet.html

Do you agree with the incendiary sentiment in that article and if so, do we got a double standard going on here? If you want to argue about who's got the real religion and who's the false religion, argue until you're blue in the face but the minute you resort to violence, you got a malignant religion and it needs to be exposed as such.

I don't have any problem with people with peaceful religions, who respect other religions, and don't attempt to impose their religions on others. Doesn't mean I buy into their religion or that's it anymore real than the other religions, but at least I can respect them.

But if you're religious and don't respect other religions, it's the height of hypocrisy to call out people when they don't disrespect your religion in return.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Dave,

On my above comment, there's a typo - read "don't disrespect" as just "disrespect"

Also, regarding prove or disprove, you're correct in that we cannot disprove the existence of your god anymore than we can disprove the existence of someobody else's god, and there's a whole bunch of versions of god out there.

We can however prove or disprove any claim that you make with respect to the application of your religion. For example, if you say you can performs miracles like walking on water or heal people with just the touch of your hand, we can disprove that and expose you as a fraud. That's been done.

If you say that a Christian is more moral than some other religious person or non-religious, we can measure that too if we decide on the standard of moral measurement.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: ...If a Baptist Minister says that Muhammad was not a prophet then he is instigating contention witch is not in the spirit of Christ and is therefore not living his religion...

Sounds like you have mutual respect for other religions - that's great and I have no problem. Of course there's plenty of Christian Fundamentalists who would disagree with your statement.

In fact, I did a google search on 'muhammad "false prophet" baptist' and there was over 61,000 hits; over 82,000 hits if you spell muhammad as mohammad.

That's just one other religion by the way. I did a search on '"joseph smith" baptist cult' and up came over 24,000 hits. That's not to that all the hits are going to be anti-Mormon but there's certainly no shortage. In fact, one Christian site called Live Prayer stated,

"An evil tool of Satan masquerading as a Godly grandfather is burning in Hell for all eternity! Gordon B. Hinckley, the leader of the Satanic Mormon cult is dead at 97. Hinckley saw this cult grow from 9 million members to over 13 million members worldwide during his 12-year reign as its leader. While Hinckley is already being memorialized as a "great man of God," the fact is his life has been an instrument in the hands of Satan to help lead the souls of men to hell by following the false theology of the Mormon cult."

I'm glad that you wouldn't agree with the above.
29 months ago: @Siempre

I wasn't making myself clear there, sorry. I was talking specifically about scientifically testing the claims of a religion. Studying the religion from an anthropological perspective happens all the time, of course. But you don't hear about astronomers looking for, say, signs of Amaterasu in the Sun.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: How many measurable dimensions are in the physical, observable world? How many were there 20 years ago? How many will there be 20 years from now?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: Hint: close plate experiments and micro-machines.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: TWEET! I'm going out now, I'll be back later.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: SS,

"You don’t believe in my G-d and I don’t believe in your absence of one...I’ll indulge your fantasy if you will indulge mine."

Of course but you didn't read what I said following:

"I'm not going out of my way to puncture their fantasy balloon, but the minute they start trying to sell me, sell my children, sell this forum, sell the school board, or sell some legislation on behalf of their fantasy god(s), I'm going to weigh in."

You're not indulging my beliefs if you're busy trying to sell me your religion and warning dire consequences if I don't buy into your religion. Not saying that's you in particular but it certainly to applies various fundamentalist sects. Has to be a mutual respect - a two way street.

By the way I didn't say I was an atheist; in fact, I reject it's conceited dogmatism :) *TWEET* *TWEET* (get your own sign-off Out of the Box!)
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: Wasn't a sign off, it was a Twitter tweeter. I "Twitted", or whatever the heck these people who think somebody really cares what they are doing every moment.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: How many measurable dimensions are in the physical, observable world? How many were there 20 years ago? How many will there be 20 years from now?
29 months ago: Selling God? Selling unGodly? Isn't that the same extreme? Just 180 degrees opposite? I don't push God or Jesus. I have stated in the past I have a firm belief that many Christian churches have fallen away from the truth that they need to worship God and not Jesus. Many have been blinded. It is correct that the three major religions do have one common creator and one common beginning of their belief. Abrahamic Law. The first law from God. Yes, I also believe in Jesus.
29 months ago: SS, make sure your wearing your 3D glasses. Without them there are only two planes. Unless your Mr. Spock playing multidimensional chess. You made the point. Too bad that the 3rd dimensional croud can't, won't accept it.

The World can't even deal our 2 dimensions. Why compound it by adding a 3rd? Wait...what if the 3rd's are wrong and there is a 4th? Would that then become the Holy 4th?
29 months ago: SS, work on this theory.

8 seperate dimensions.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: Only a couple of takers? Funny how those takers are two of faithful. The others don't know where the question is leading, and don't want to take the chance.
29 months ago: This is funny. I can't wait.
But, let me preface my 8 dimensions with 8 planes.
If you add the geometrics to it it is really

10 dimensions (with geometrics).

However, those of faith know all is one.
29 months ago: Sorry, MY BAD

4 planes, 8 quadrants, 2 geometrics and ONE dimension

There is my final answer.

Doesn't the Universe have the same mathmatical makeup?

Go figure.
29 months ago: Religion may be found in nearly every, perhaps every, civilization on Earth. Critics of religion "know" beyond any shadow of doubt, this is because the people in power always use religion to control "the masses". Failing this, those control public opinion, always attempting to brow-beat common people into becoming "good citizens". The critic does not view the subject of religion by itself. But combine with other forces that they see as being against individuality. Resulting (in the critics mind) in a "Big Brother is coming for you" attitude. And "religion is but one of his approaches". early societies probably had critics of similar thoughts. But with today's broad, cheap publication, those critics have reach beyond the sound of their voices.

On the other side of the fence stand people who consider it possible, at least possible, that there is something more to Life than these physical bodies. Who consider it at least possible, that good works, and a life that is helpful to their fellow man, is rewarding. The precise, exact, reward may be just beyond grasp and clear proof. But people of this stance prefer to stand up for the good, rather than succumb to darker areas of unthinking animals.

Christianity points along the more lighted pathway. Buddhism's applied reason, a more lighted pathway. Islam has more than a single interpretation, but most agree it points a better pathway. while Scientology's pathway is laid out as a bridge of understanding.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
29 months ago: I agree with Mark that religion is often just a comforting fantasy to help people deal with morality, but it started out with curiosity and an attempt to explain how everything worked. It seems now that the opposite has happened. Religious people often use religion Not to explain how things work. Any mystery we don't understand is God's will and the question of creation by God seems a cop out. The main purpose of this rant however was to explore why people that insist on literal interpretations of the bible for things like creation still ignore all of the very violent aspects of the bible where God actually condones rape, murder, slavery, and stoning people to death for offenses we would consider minor today. How can you be rational and admit that the bible is totally insane in many aspects, and yet rely on the bible for science even though the facts totally contradict the bible? If you are going to go with faith over rationality, why not be consistent and practice what the bible says for punishments? Declare Sharia law here in the states, and start stoning people to death like the Taliban?
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
29 months ago: Sorry for the Typo, I meant comfort dealing with Mortality, I don't think that religion is necessary for morality. The basic difference there is that some of us believe that people are born good and have to learn to be bad, while Christians believe people are born bad,(original sin) and need religion to become good, thus all without religion are bad.
That offends me.
No one said anything about how Christians would deal with an alien race. Would you also insist that they were born in sin and needed to be baptized or they would go to hell?
Might want to work on your diplomacy a bit before the mother ship descends.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: ...therefore, any "alien" race would also be human...As for salvation, yes, they would need it too. Whether by the Christ who died on this planet or one prepared for theirs...

This is what happens when you take alloegorial stories to their literal and illogical interpretive end.

It's also an example of constraining & shoehorning scientific exploration & investigation into one's rigid religious paradigms.

Essentially you're continuing the same error as the Roman Catholic Church in condemning Galileo for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Although they belatedly apologized 3 centuries later, like today's fundamentalists, they were unable and unwilling to comprehend a non-literal reading of christian bible verses such as Psalms 93:1 & Psalms 104:5.

By the way Dave, since Genesis 1:16 says that God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, do you believe the moon is a light like the sun is?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: ...therefore, any "alien" race would also be human...As for salvation, yes, they would need it too. Whether by the Christ who died on this planet or one prepared for theirs...

This is what happens when you take alloegorial stories to their literal and illogical interpretive end.

It's also an example of constraining & shoehorning scientific exploration & investigation into one's rigid religious paradigms.

Essentially you're continuing the same error as the Roman Catholic Church in condemning Galileo for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Although they belatedly apologized 3 centuries later, like today's fundamentalists, they were unable and unwilling to comprehend a non-literal reading of christian bible verses such as Psalms 93:1 & Psalms 104:5.

By the way Dave, since Genesis 1:16 says that God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, do you believe the moon is a light like the sun is?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Sorry for double posting the same comment - must have double-clicked the submit key. Anywho, on that question about Genesis 1:16, here's a modern day report about Bill Nye the Science guy getting the fundy treatment when he says that the moon only reflects the light of the Sun *TWEET* *TWEET*

http://www.examiner.com/x-4112-Skepticism-Examiner~y2009m4d22-Just-shoot-me
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Dave,

You're missing the point. What we think of as 'Scientifically clear' today (flat earthers aside), was not clear nor universally accepted when first discovered.

Galileo was not murdered; he was censored and his works banned by the Inquisition. What was Galileo's crime? He employed the Scientific method and made discoveries that conflicted with the literal interpenetration of the Christian's bible. Sound familiar?

It wasn't until technology advanced to the point where there was overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that the Bible literalists finally conceded, but only on those particular Bible verses - everything else must be literal as you implied with your conjecture about aliens having to be humanoids and saved by their own version of Jesus.
29 months ago: This has moved into some interesting territory again. The question of which verses ought to be taken literally and which ones are parables has been described to me as being "obvious" and self-evident by friends who are practicing Christians.

But as of yet, no one has been able to tell me precisely what it is in the Bible that delineates whether a particular verse is literal or figurative, and several friends have told me they rely on guidance from pastors and clergy to determine which is which.

What that tells me is that which portions of the Bible are meant to be taken literally depends on who is doing the interpretation. There are no explicit instructions one way or the other.

Sadly, I believe this opens the door for justifying prejudice with religion. Individual verses from, for instance, Leviticus, are used to justify judgment rendered against homosexuality, while the rest of Leviticus is ignored.

Leviticus 18:22 - "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Homosexuality is a sin.)

Leviticus 18:19 - "Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness." (Sleeping with a woman during her period is just as big a sin.)

Leviticus 18:20 - "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her." (Adultery is also just as big a sin.)

Leviticus 18:21 - "And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD." (Masturbation and swearing are equally sinful.)

The first gets all the attention. But anyone who indulges in any of the other acts are living in sin as much as any gay man, if the text is taken literally. Utter the words "goddamn it," and you have, according to a literal reading of Leviticus, engaged in a sin just as dire as if you had had homosexual sex.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: Well, you are correct.
Any sin, great or small, is equal in the sight of God.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: And you are not correct about the profaning of God's name. Cursing (swearwords) is not what is meant by "using the Lord's name in vain."
29 months ago: That's some commendable consistency, OOTB. All sins are equal to God. OK, I can respect that perspective. But it leads me to question why there has been so much emphasis on outlawing homosexuality and not on outlawing sex during a woman's menstrual cycle. The Christian Coalition and similar groups talk about the former all the time, but never the latter. Why is that?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Dave, Science contradicts the Bible almost anytime that the ancients who wrote the Bible attempted to understand and define the natural world without understanding Science. For example, Genesis 1:6-8 states that god created a firmament called "Heaven" to divide the water on earth from the water in the sky, and in Genesis 7:11 opens the windows of "Heaven" to allow it to rain. Now an acient without benefit of Science knowledge and without benefit of some all-knowing God to tell him otherwise, made up the best explanation he could dream up.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Noni, your point on consistency reminded me of the Christian dominionist desire for displaying the 'Ten Commandments' in public schools and courthouses. Oddly enough, the majority of fundamentalists pushing the Ten Commandments only adhere to nine of the ten commandments because they believe the Sabbath was for Jews & superseded by the Christian's so called new testament.

If they're going to pick and choose which commandments to follow among themselves, they shouldn't be imposing them and the rest of their religion on secular society, not to mention that the practical laws contained in the Ten commandments were lifted from the Code of Hammurabi.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: Noni,
"The Christian Coalition and similar groups talk about the former (homosexuality) all the time, but never the latter. Why is that?"

I really don't know the answer to that question. You will have to ask a member of those groups. One might surmise it is because there aren't many loud, vocal and well funded pro-menstrual-sex or pro-adultery groups and lobbies trying to gain attention for their cause.

Markbyrn,
I don't know where you get your information,(Nine out of ten dentists agree!) but as for me and my family, Saturday IS a day of rest.
Christ said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Many people pick and choose what they think is relevant today, and decide what parts of the Bible to believe. Whether this is ignorance, laziness in not wanting to or being able to educate one's self, or simply defiance, I don't know.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: Markbyrn,
"Now an acient without benefit of Science knowledge and without benefit of some all-knowing God to tell him otherwise, made up the best explanation he could dream up."

You are correct, even though you may not realize why. Much of what was written was passed down through word of mouth, and much of it was received through visions and inspiration.
John the Prophet described the end days in the manner of a man 2000 years ago seeing the present, and not really understanding what he was seeing. His mind, usng a thoroughly documented process you can read all about here on the internet, transcribed what he was seeing into thoughts he could understand.
Many of his prophesies, (revelations, actually) especially those geologic ones, have been confirmed as extremely likely by independent researchers.
29 months ago: OOTB: "One might surmise it is because there aren't many loud, vocal and well funded pro-menstrual-sex or pro-adultery groups and lobbies trying to gain attention for their cause."

I would counter with this: The existence of loud gay rights activists is directly attributable to laws against their sexual orientation and loud, organized groups of bigots denouncing them. I doubt there would even be gay rights groups if the law didn't restrict their rights any more than, say, the rights of heterosexual women to marry and have sex during their periods.

Personally, I would like to see the religious institution of marriage and the civil institution of marriage completely separated. It would allow churches to stand by their beliefs, while not denying gay couples the same civil rights as straight ones.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: Noni

Remember that in many states, acts still considered as illegal include any oral acts, any anal acts, whether hetero- or homo-sexual in nature. Some states even regulated the positions employed in heterosexual acts.

Here is a list of some sex laws still on the books. You are bound to get a kick out of the last one.


1. Oral sex is illegal in 18 states, including Arizona.

2. In Virginia, it is illegal to have sex with the lights on.

3. It is illegal for husbands in Willowdale, Oregon, to talk dirty during intercourse.

4. Sexual intercourse between unmarried couples is illegal in Georgia.

5. Engaging in any sexual position other than missionary is illegal in Washington, DC.

6. In Connorsville, Wisconsin, it is illegal for a man to shoot off a gun when his female partner is having an orgasm.

7. In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, it is illegal to have sex with a truck driver inside a toll booth.

8. Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal in Florida.

9. It is illegal in Utah to marry your first cousin before the age of 65.

10. Sex with animals is perfectly legal for men in Washington state, as long as the animal weighs less than 40 pounds.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: Hey, I just copied it from a website, don't blame me for the content.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Out of the Box,

I'm not getting my info from a dentist and unless you live under a rock, not keeping the Sabbath Commandment is typical Christian evangelical / fundamentalist thought.

http://www.letusreason.org/7thAd9.htm

In the New Testament epistles there are only 2 references to the Sabbath (Col.2:16; Heb.4:4), both these passages the apostle Paul clearly explains that the day is not a required day to be observed by Christians.

http://www.biblebaptistchurch.ws/Jargon.aspx

Later, it became part of Israel's law, to "keep the Sabbath". Christians are not required to keep the Sabbath. It is significant that of the Ten Commandments, keeping the Sabbath is the only one not repeated in the New Testament.

The largest evangelical Protestant denomination in the USA (Southern Baptist) has even changed the Sabbath to a different day & meaning, and called it something else:

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#viii (See The Lord's Day)

So you disagree with all the above and if you do, perhaps we need to get these millions of Christians back in the fold and following all Ten Commandments, especially since they think these Commandments should be posted as some kind of government sanctioned standard.
29 months ago: On John the Prophet...

For the last two thousand years, Christians have been seeing parallels between their specific "trials and tribulations" and those described in Revelations. Of course we see those parallels today, too. Who can argue that the world isn't rife with greed, corruption, murder, and strife?

The thing is, it's *always* rife with greed, corruption, murder, and strife. What makes the current crop worse than that of the 1970s? Or the 1890s? Or the 1500s? Show me a modern parallel to Revelations, and I'll show you one that's just as valid from hundreds of years ago.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Out of the Box,

...John the Prophet described the end days in the manner of a man 2000 years ago seeing the present, and not really understanding what he was seeing...

Frankly if an all-knowing god was breathing the scripture into John the Prophet, he could provide 'predictions' that weren't so obscure that the words can be, and have been, interpreted to mean almost anything. That's the same trick used by phony seers and charlatans from Nostradamus on down.

In any event, you didn't cite any examples of John's predictions coming true. Remember that Ron Reagan quote: trust but verify. How about citing 3 examples?
29 months ago: @Dave Cobb

"Just because when they see these things happening and don't know any other way to describe them doesn't change anything."

Then, as Mark points out, why such vague language? Language that's been interpreted to mean the end times are nigh for more than a thousand years?

"I believe that there are laws that even God has to follow. Many of which follow what we understand as science."

Wouldn't that mean God is not omnipotent?

"But, I also believe that there is much more to it than we understand. We are not perfect beings but God is."

This is mutually incompatible with the above. If there are rules God must follow, then wouldn't that make Him imperfect? If so... Who created the rules?

"Like I said before about the bible, it was not intended to be the sole source of information concern God."

Sure it was. Every religion's primary texts are considered the fount of truth by that religion's adherents.

"Science can not and does not disprove any bit of the bible."

Genesis 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." The moon is not a source of light.

"Nor does the bible tell us all there is to know."

Definitely agree here. Continued...
29 months ago: "God, creates all sins as equal, no unclean thing can dwell in His presence. I don't know much about the practice of sex during a woman's menstrual cycle but if it is in fact a sin then it is not different than the sin against nature which is homosexual intercourse."

Why do I know the Bible better than most Christians? Yes, it's a sin, and it's a sin from the same chapter of Leviticus as the sin of homosexuality.

Leviticus, by the way, is a real bundle of fun. 1 through 7 describe in great detail how to please God and atone for sins by sacrificing animals to Him, along with bread and fruit (I figure this is how the priests got fed). Leviticus 12 bans women from coming anywhere near anything holy for more than a month after giving birth to a boy. Of course, then she also has to give the priests a lamb. Makes sense to me...

Other hits include faulting the victims of leprosy as sinners, eating blood being a terrible insult to God, and getting stoned to death being a just punishment for disrespecting your parents.

"As for the institution of marriage, what is it really worth anyway? All it does on a legal level is assure that when the couple splits up they each get what they are entitled to. If you don't believe it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage or to raise a family outside of marriage then what is that document title Marriage Certificate really worth anyway?"

Hoo boy... there are tax benefits, child custody issues, and of course, spousal rights should one of them fall ill, just to name a couple off the top of my head.
29 months ago: Nice comment coming from a person that says they are Jewish. Leviticus is the third book of the Hebrew Bible.
29 months ago: I never said I was Jewish. I said my family is. I mentioned early on in several places that while I do follow some Jewish traditions, I'm personally non-religious.

However, you are correct. Leviticus is part of the Torah. But Jews treat the Torah (and the Tanakh as a whole) very differently than fundamentalist Christians do. You see, to Jews it is a history of their people, good and bad, and subject to review, interpretation, and even - gasp - change. Even today, new Rabbinical writings are becoming part of Judaism. Though they regard it as holy, Jews do not regard the Tanakh as the final, perfect truth. There are even very liberal Jews today who regard the kashrut to be optional, just dietary rules that would have been wise 3000 years ago but are no longer necessary.

The Christian interpretation of the Tanakh is, frankly, very odd to Jews.
29 months ago: Oh really. You never said you are Jewish. Your personally non-religious that takes a firm stance on religious topics. You claim to know the Bible better than Christians while quoting from the Torah. You present yourself as someone that anyone of any religion should listen to when you speak on religion. Sorry to bust your little non-religious bubble. I don't care what anyones religion is when entering into a religious debate. As long as they have a religion. Which by the way, "I'm personally non-religious", you don't.
29 months ago: Sorry y'all, Did that non-religious statement also com from someone that has a view on the Holocaust? How can that be if your non-religious? You don't believe in the Jewish Religion. Therefore, you can't say that there was a Holocaust on religious principles. Oh yeah, we are getting back to the gene pool and evolution.
29 months ago: "Oh really. You never said you are Jewish."

That's right. Not practicing, anyway.

"Your personally non-religious that takes a firm stance on religious topics."

Nope. I take a firm stance on science topics. If religion would just stay out of it, I'd be a happy camper.

"You claim to know the Bible better than Christians while quoting from the Torah."

Torah, Old Testament, whatever you wanna call it. Hey, I never told any Christians to incorporate (and mistranslate) the religious texts of my ancestors into their own religion.

"You present yourself as someone that anyone of any religion should listen to when you speak on religion."

Nope, I just reject the idea that *I* should listen to *them* when they speak on religion. Especially in secular settings such as schools that my tax dollars pay for.

"Sorry to bust your little non-religious bubble. I don't care what anyones religion is when entering into a religious debate. As long as they have a religion. Which by the way, 'I'm personally non-religious', you don't."

So you're claiming that not worshiping any God isn't a valid stance in a religious debate? That's kind of silly.
29 months ago: "Sorry y'all, Did that non-religious statement also com from someone that has a view on the Holocaust? How can that be if your non-religious?"

Because mass murder is wrong and evil, and it doesn't take a belief in God to know that. It just takes being human.

"You don't believe in the Jewish Religion. Therefore, you can't say that there was a Holocaust on religious principles."

Huh? That made no sense whatsoever.

"Oh yeah, we are getting back to the gene pool and evolution."

Huh? That made no sense whatsoever.
29 months ago: Smart people are so smart! Especially when they preach to the dumb wall.
29 months ago: "Because mass murder is wrong and evil, and it doesn't take a belief in God to know that. It just takes being human."

It also doesn't take a belief in God to accept abortion.
Which is the current Holocaust and needs to be called Feticide.

Do you have scientific proof otherwise?
29 months ago: I didn't think so.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Just like Christianity, there are ultra-Orthodox sects within Judaism that holds that both the Written and Oral Torah were divinely revealed to Moses, and that the laws within it are binding and unchanging.

Not enitirely analogous to Christian fundamnelalits but close enough in terms of intolerant literalism, especially if they happen to be in Isreal and pushing their religous values on secular Israelis, often with stones and spit.

But that's in Israel and I think our discussions here are focused on the US, and it's not Orthodox Jews here that are pushing to impose their literalist religious values on secular society.

Focusing on Noni's religion or lack thereof is a bit of a red herring, perhaps to get things off track here.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: ...Yes there are the ten commandments in the Old Testament but Jesus also addressed each of these commandments in the New testament and gave us a new set of rules to follow by..

There you go; so we don't need to post up the Ten Commandments in the public schools and courthouses. Actually I just received a new set of 10 Commandments that I'll post up separately.
29 months ago: Fair enough Mark. Before we go further. Do you hold any religious belief? If so please make it clear.

I'll start.

I am a Christian.
I have broken from the "Church" because I believe the "Church" teaches worship Jesus over God.

It was a hard break for me as my Dad is a minister.

However, I made the break for my religious belief that the Almighty is higher than Jesus. So, there it is in a nutshell. I'm a son of a Minister that might have an insight on the current "Church". I also have a fair knowledge of scripture. I won't and don't use it. I also believe that there have been and are current selected ones to witness. I also believe that we all have the ability to heal (laying of hands). That is something the only a few will even accept because of the cost.
29 months ago: Don't ask scot. He just insulted every Abrahamic religion with his rant about the 10 commandments.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Scot, I'm disappointed that you don't appreciate my take on the Ten Commandments. It's not an entirely original work though, but your 'poor taste' proselytizing commercial (John 3:16) reminded me to post them.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: TCG, my 10 aren't an insult to the three major religions; perhaps only a tweak of the nose to various sects of proselytizing fundamentalists.
29 months ago: @TCG

"Feticide?" Oy vay... You really don't know how to argue, do you? It's point/counterpoint, not point/ignore point and come up with some other topic to distract everyone. But here, I can play that game, too. In lieu of answering your question, I'll go further off topic, even though, yes, I can answer it with science. Maybe later I will.

But I digress from my digression, which is: Why is the anti-abortion crowd largely populated with pro-death penalty folks? It seems to me that if you believe a fetus is a human being and you believe that all human life is precious, being for the death penalty is the height of hypocrisy.

Oh, and by the way, why isn't a miscarriage the same as murder for you folks?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Scot,

...If you don't want to hear it don't question our beliefs by participating in religious discussions...

Our beliefs?? You got a frog in your pocket? Hate to break the news to you but the title of the rant is "your God is too small" and it made some stark criticisms of organized religion.

You want to push your beliefs - not problem but don't get upset when you get push back. In fact, If you don't want to hear it, don't question my lack of swallowing your beliefs by participating in religious discussions. Sound familiar? *TWEET* *TWEET*
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Actually, regarding miscarriage in the bible:

Exodus 21:22-25(NASB)

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

So essentially if a man hurts a pregnant woman and she loses the fetus, he gets a monetary fine. If the woman is hurt or killed though, it's the eye for an eye treatment. If God thought the fetus was a person, the penalty for it's demise would be the same as for a person, right? Guess not.
29 months ago: @scotmanster

You've earned my respect for your consistency. If more anti-abortion activists would side with anti-death penalty liberals, the death penalty would be history.
29 months ago: You're welcome, scotmanster.

On the topic of the Old Testament, I think the reason it gets so much attention is that it's one of only a couple places where the Bible expressly forbids homosexuality. Jesus himself never mentioned it. Considering some of the downright silly rules that exist next to that prohibition, I genuinely wish Christianity would dispense with the Old Testament entirely.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
29 months ago: Quite a few comments, and what I gather from the faithful is that you can pick and choose which parts of the Bible you can take literally and which you can ignore. (If told by your pastor) This makes for an interesting moral guideline. Especially since there are so many inconsistencies:
Robbery commanded: Ex 3:21,22/ Ex 12:35,36
Robbery forbidden: Lev 19:13/ Ex 20:15
Lying approved and sanctioned: Josh 2:4-6/ James 2:25/ Ex 1:18-20/ 1 Kings 22:21,22
Lying forbidden: Ex 20:16/ Prov 12:22/ Rev 21:8
Killing commanded: Ex 32:27
Killing forbidden Ex 20:13
Slavery and oppression ordained: Gen 9:25/ Lev 25:45,46/ Joel 3:8
Slavery and oppression forbidden: Is 58:6/ Ex 22:21/ Ex 21:16/ Matt 23:10
No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death: Ex 31:15/ Num 15:32,36
Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his disciples in the same: John 5:16/ Matt 12:1-3,5
Adultery forbidden: Ex 20:14/ Heb 13:4
Adultery allowed: Num 31:18/ Hos 1:2; 2:1-3
The blood-shedder must die: Gen 9:5,6
The blood-shedder must not die: Gen 4:15
Anger approved: Eph 4:26
Anger disapproved: Eccl 7:9/ Prov 22:24/ James 1:20
Judging of others forbidden: Matt 7:1,2
Judging of others approved: 1 Cor 6:2-4/ 1 Cor 5:12
A lot of serial killers claim God told him to to do it, and many parts of the bible does have God telling people to kill others for few if any reasons.
I suggest that common sense and what is best for the community is a better moral guide than the bible.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: TCG,

...Fair enough Mark. Before we go further. Do you hold any religious belief? If so please make it clear...

I'm a spiritual agnostic - the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. A fair summation can be found at:

http://spiritualagnosticism.blogspot.com/2008/05/more-on-existence-of-god.html
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
29 months ago: Scotmanster I respect you for being tolerant of homosexuality. A break in the solidarity of the right. I agree that the old testament was totally different and in many respects contradicts the New. The old testament God is a God of vengeance and wrath. The New Testament God is one of love and forgiveness. Most of the intolerance and the silly and irrational refusal to face scientific facts, are based upon the Old Testament. Tolerance, Peace, and compassion come from the New Testament.
During the first 300 years of Christianity the followers of Christ walked the walk. They refused to fight and kill even if attacked and they lived in tolerance and compassion. Then beginning in 314 the church became a tool of those in power to subjugate the masses, and many of the true teachings were burned. Before then most Christians did not believe that Christ was divine, just a pretty good philosopher.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Nice if were true but I don't buy the mythology that the Christian New Testament is kinder and gentler.

Apostle Paul on homosexuality:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse...Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1:17,26

Jesus on not being accepted:

"But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near. I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town." (Luke 10:10-12)

Jesus on Peace:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matt 10:34)
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: scotmanster,

...If you want to take it in a literal sense then you are right...

Oh, I don't take it literally and I'm not a Christian. I'm merely pointing out what the literalist fundamentalists use to condemn homosexuality as well as pointing out the other side of the coin as it pertains to the christian biblical image of Jesus.

As the bible is written my multiple different authors at different times in history, the end result is a multitude of Christian sects that are nearly in polar opposite to each other with respect to issues like war & peace, justice, poverty, and theology itself. Even the historical bible stories contain contradictions between various books of the bible.

For example, how did Judas die? In the Book of Acts, they said Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. In the Gospel of Matthew, Judas threw the money into the temple and left, then he went away and hanged himself.
29 months ago: "I think the real problem arises when the religious take science as an attack on their beliefs. For instance, science has established pretty clearly that the Earth is several billion years old. Young Earth creationists mistakenly take this as an attack on their interpretation of the Bible, and end up trying to prove science wrong. Worse, they try to get creationist "science" taught in schools to counter the presence of actual science in modern curricula."
I agree, it is sad that some people feel science has to be at odds with religion. I believe in the separtation of church and state, freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
I would like to state for the record I am a religious person. Even though I believe in a higher power, I don't believe I have to the right to force others to accept my beliefs. If we display the 10 commandments then shouldn't we give other religions the same promotion? If we are going to teach creationism then should we teach every religion's story of creation? Isn't a bit discriminatory to only teach one religion's version of how we came to be?

Just some thoughts.
29 months ago: These are great-
"1. Oral sex is illegal in 18 states, including Arizona."
Why single out AZ?
"2. In Virginia, it is illegal to have sex with the lights on."
Completely justifiable law...being over 40 I completely support this law!
"3. It is illegal for husbands in Willowdale, Oregon, to talk dirty during intercourse. "
Can hey talk dirty any other time? How about single me...or just husbands.
"4. Sexual intercourse between unmarried couples is illegal in Georgia."
Imagine if they tried to enforce this...
"5. Engaging in any sexual position other than missionary is illegal in Washington, DC."
Maybe DC isn't a good honeymoon destination.
"6. In Connorsville, Wisconsin, it is illegal for a man to shoot off a gun when his female partner is having an orgasm."
One has to wonder why this law exsists, is this a real problem in Connorsville?
"7. In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, it is illegal to have sex with a truck driver inside a toll booth."
What about professions, can I have sex with an orthodonist in a toll booth?
"8. Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal in Florida."
Again is this a big problem? Do you really need a law, really?
"9. It is illegal in Utah to marry your first cousin before the age of 65."
But it is okay after 65?
"10. Sex with animals is perfectly legal for men in Washington state, as long as the animal weighs less than 40 pounds."
I have no response for this just I am not taking any pets to Washington state.
29 months ago: It was not to long ago that interracial marriage was illegal. Biblical reasons were used by supporters of the law. My husband is a different race than me, there was a time when we might not have been able to legally marry. It is sad that homosexual people have no right get married, much like interracial couples of the past.
Hopefully people will become more tolerant towards gay marriage, as they have interracial marriage.
29 months ago: @Gezabelle

Have hope. The younger generations overwhelmingly support gay rights and reject religious bigotry. Marriage equality will happen in our life times.
Meredith
Meredith
Grand Rapids, MI
23 months ago: Once again, great post, Altruist. I'm new to Rant Rave and thought I would go back and catch up with some older posts from favorite authors.

I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs and have no desire to argue with or try and sway those who do believe. For me, however, it makes no sense that if God is an all-seeing, all-knowing deity, then why isn't he big enough to have thought up the Big Bang theory and the process of evolution? Maybe that's exactly the way he wanted it to be. As you said, Altruist, it seems that, "Your God is too small".

It seems very 'en vogue' these days to put religion squarely in the box where science should be. Why isn't God big enough for both of these? We're writing off the opinions of our educated, studied members of society for an, 'I know better attitude' and often dismissing the smartest among us as arrogant elitists, to whom we refuse to give any credit. When and why did it become a bad thing to have an education? Personally, in my leaders I want those who have thoroughly done their homework and those who will make decisions based in factual information, rather than on gut instinct. The gut is typically wrong - it tends to fly off the handle or get overly dramatic when this does nothing but aggravate the problem.

Many say they want leaders who are like them. I'm smart enough to know that I want leaders who are smarter than me. Many say that they want in their leaders a regular Joe - someone they could sit down to dinner with or have a beer with. I've had many a beer with many individuals, none of whom I would like to see handed the nuclear missile launch codes.

I wonder when and if this trend will turn around - when people of faith can find a God that is big enough for both science and religion. The current trend of dismissing education and science will not do our children and our successors, who will have to compete on a global scale, any favors.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.