Yeah. Seriously. Do people of faith ever actually wonder why so many people are hostile toward the idea of organized religion?

In this case, do American Christians ever actually wonder why they get so much heat in the public arena?

There are, in fact, several answers, ranging from the increasing liberation of other paradigms in our society to, well, the downright stupid. Such as this:

The youth minister who confessed to a 1994 killing is being widely forgiven by members of his former congregation, who say they admire his courage in finally surrendering to police.

Calvin Wayne Inman, 29, remains jailed without bail since he was charged Wednesday with capital murder in the stabbing death of a convenience store clerk during a robbery. He was 16 at the time.

(CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/18/minister.confesses.ap/index.html))

Now, let's be clear. It does, to a degree, take some stones to confess to a murder you think you've gotten away with. But let's remember, also, that Christians believe in redemption, a bit of a sticky issue, since the criteria are difficult to pin down as you go from Christian to Christian and community to community. Perhaps confessing to God is important, but continuing to hide the fact from your community might be problematic. It's a matter of faith.

But this ... this doesn't even seem to be an issue. I admit I'm having a hard time with it. I met a fellow this weekend who puzzled me a bit with his outlook on God and Christ, but it was nothing compared to this.

During Sunday's service at the 800-member Elim Church, congregants praised the recently ordained Inman as a born-again role model taking responsibility for his sin.

"He's a hero, really," said Kelley Graham, 24. "I don't know how many people would do what he did. The Bible says you just need to confess to God. Calvin took an extra step."

(ibid)

You know ... like I said, it takes some stones to confess when you've had a fourteen-year run. But I'm not sure how comfortable I would feel living near a church community where law and justice are "extra". The implications are troubling, to say the least.

And yet ... I mean, come on, you knew that wasn't the end, right?

And yet—

Robin Thac said her 17-year-old son was active in the youth group that Inman led.

"I am thrilled my son has a role model to accept responsibility the way Calvin has," Thac said. "There are way too many men who don't accept responsibility."

(ibid)

—this is a role model?

Um ... what the hell is this? Seriously, this sounds like The Onion.

I'm not sure what to say. This is what Christianity does to people's minds, is one thing that occurs to me.

I mean, obviously it's a stretch to apply this notion to all Christianity. But really, what the hell?
_______________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Flock forgives minister who confesses to 1994 slaying". CNN.com. February 18, 2008. See http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/18/minister.confesses.ap/index.html

I am my own God

Yeah. Seriously. Do people of faith ever actually wonder why so many people are hostile toward the idea of organized religion?....

of course they do. Its Satan at work.

why so many people are hostile toward the idea of organized religion?

Perhaps because it doesn't make sense and when someone tells you that their religion is the ONLY way to heaven they get rather pissed off. In todays society we have allot of common sense and when someone tells us there's a supreme being with magic powers watching us it just doesn't make any sense and we don't like to be fooled and used as stupid minions doing the bidding of others only for their well being and profit making. :mad:

I am a person of faith and I am hostile toward organized religion. Religion is man-made. I just follow the Word of God (Bible) and Jesus Christ/God. The rest is easy. :)

Yeah. Seriously. Do people of faith ever actually wonder why so many people are hostile toward the idea of organized religion?

In this case, do American Christians ever actually wonder why they get so much heat in the public arena?

no, i don't wonder one bit. you know i love jesus with all my heart and don't want a damn thing to do with organized religion for the reasons you're talking about here (not this specific one, as there are so many to choose from). in a more general sense, organized religion seems to be a replacement for what is supposed to be a very personal relationship with god, and so is counter to what is taught in the very doctrine that they're supposed to be believing in.

a murderer a role model? i don't think so. a demon, no. but a human being, like all of us, yeah. it's a shame when someone does the right thing that it's so unusual they're labeled a hero isn't it? what does that say to our children?

During Sunday's service at the 800-member Elim Church, congregants praised the recently ordained Inman as a born-again role model taking responsibility for his sin.

"He's a hero, really," said Kelley Graham, 24. "I don't know how many people would do what he did. The Bible says you just need to confess to God. Calvin took an extra step."


Kelley Graham, as in Billy Graham's daughter?? She ignored the fact that the Bible says explicitly that we first be reconciled with the wronged, then to God...or else our offerings won't be accepted. There was no extra step, no beyond the call of duty.

It is an honorable thing to admit your mistakes. And, from the Christian perspective, once he has served his time and paid his dues, he would be accepted as if he had not committed the crime.

I just hope that they are more supportive to the victim's family.

I am a person of faith and I am hostile toward organized religion.

And yet you cling to your identity as a "CCR", which is in itself a form of organized religion despite the fact that its connection to Christian faith is merely nominal.

I just follow the Word of God (Bible) and Jesus Christ/God

Oh, come now, Sandy. We've been through this so many times. Look, I know you think of it as a personal attack, but you really do seem to carry your Christian identity around like a club. I mean, I'm just not sure what part of the Bible licenses your mean spirit and vicious tongue. And that whole thing with faith vs. acts seems, as it is with so many of your CCR and evangelical neighbors, a calculated "misunderstanding" that licenses their claims of Christianity despite very un-Christian behavior. Of course, I may have simply missed that part of the Bible. Where does Jesus say we should go around calling one another losers and pieces of shit? And where does Jesus say that the divisions of people instituted by men trump the promise of God's kingdom?

A couple of notes from Matthew:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
"Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven ...."

(Matthew 5.2-10, RSV (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4576340))

• • •

"But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift."

(Matthew 5.22-24)

• • •

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

(Matthew 5.43-48)

• • •

"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

(Matthew 25.31-46 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4672755))

We've been through this before. A few times at least. And, although your response, when you deign to give one, is to whine and complain about personal attacks, the issues of faith remain.

The short list:

• #1630655/56 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1630655&postcount=56), November, 2007
• #1665529/111 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1665529&postcount=111), December, 2007
• #1668234/41 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1668234&postcount=41), December, 2007

And these, like the above citations, involve doctrinal perceptions and understandings. You've done nothing over time to address the actual Biblical issues. In December, I also noted that (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1670099&postcount=94), "I thought part of the point of Christian faith was to walk a path set by Jesus, not to exploit your forgiveness and treat the world like shite."

And that last is interesting to me because you recently brought it back into focus (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1735912&postcount=197): "Born-again Christians know the only way to Heaven is by 'accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior'. It has nothing to do with works/good deeds/charity."

I found it interesting that you would raise that point without having resolved the outstanding issues from the December issue about walking the path set by Jesus. I mean, you did argue that Jesus wants you to keep sinning, which is absurd.

You know, back in November (see link above), I suggested some possibilities of what you might be instead of a genuine Christian. And here's the thing, Sandy. You are willing to make general statements like the one about accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, or that Jesus doesn't want a break from your constant sinning and wants to be part of your decisions to sin and the sins themselves, but you never really do get any deeper than that. The superficiality of your expressions of faith are part of what people find so damnably offensive about you.

And so when you pop up to reaffirm your "Christianity" with a vapid post like #5 in the current topic (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1757182&postcount=5), I really do wonder if you expect people to see your "contribution" as anything more than trolling. You consider yourself Christian, which is part of an organized religion. You follow the Bible, which is a product of organized religion. I really do think it would be interesting and helpful if you could give us something a little more genuine than self-affirmation tailored to avoid the more general discussion taking place.

To take your neighbor, Lori 7 as an example ....

• • •


it's a shame when someone does the right thing that it's so unusual they're labeled a hero isn't it? what does that say to our children?

I'm going to flip a coin on this one. Part of me agrees, but another part of me says things aren't so dire, and that it's this particular congregation, or a mentality shown by a limited number of people that think like them. I don't think we're entirely out of heroes, although I'm hard-pressed to name any right now. I don't think we're out of role models, either. In fact, of the latter, I would say we've many among us to the point that I wouldn't know where to start.

And none of this should suggest that Inman's story is without value. Even after we do wrong, there is a right thing to do. A number of questions do arise, though, and some of them may not be fair. I think of when his time is served and he is back in the community; would his neighbors be any more or less comfortable if the confessed murderer living next door was black or Hispanic? And, you know, that's really a question for when and if it ever actually comes up.

I do find the standard unsettling, though. Does Ms. Graham, for instance, really mean to imply that confessing to God is enough that his neighbors should feel comfortable? I mean, if one confesses to God, but not to the police, does that mean enough, and everything's okay, and that's all that is required for justice? Because there's a fourteen year-old murderer in California who could really use that kind of a standard right now.

And how tragic is it that Ms. Thac should be compelled to make this about "men" instead of people? We might read a few things into that, and perhaps some of those would be reasonably accurate, but is the unusual nature of confession and accountability representative of a general dearth, or is it a community thing?

Instead of worrying about what this particular occasion says to the children, part of me wants to worry more about the conditions that lead to such a state, and the effects those conditions have on the children.

My two cents, for now.

• • •


Kelley Graham, as in Billy Graham's daughter??

I'm going to doubt it on this one.

And, from the Christian perspective, once he has served his time and paid his dues, he would be accepted as if he had not committed the crime.

Would they let him take care of their kids? Okay, much like I noted to Lori, that's probably not a fair question right now. Although I would go so far as to suggest that American prison systems, in general, might complicate that outcome, as well.

• • •

A general note on the topic

A couple of our neighbors have noted that they are of faith, yet dislike organized religion. As I noted in one of the prior sections of this post, Christian faith is itself part of organized religion, and the Bible, which is the primary source for defining that faith is a product of organized religion.

Additionally, around Sciforums, there is much hostility shown toward Christianity, especially within a political context. Denigrations of "Jesusland" and "the Christian right" often sting, and it is not unusual that some Christians view this as a bigotry against Christianity in general. And while in some cases this might be true, what we have in this case is a very acute representation of something that so many of us who are not of the faith are aware of. There is something askew about the Christian voice in the public discourse, whether in heated political debates about abortion or homosexuals, or in attempting to define and explain the Christian phenomenon.

The age of the internet has presented me with a face and voice of Christianity that is leagues removed from the faith my grandmother tried to instill. It is so different from what they tried to teach us as youths in the Lutheran church. It is unrecognizable compared to the sentimental beauty of Catholic yearning, or the well-intended faith of the Quakers I knew. What the Digital Age has brought us is an ugly face of faith. It is well enough to accept that any moron with a connection can be published digitally. And for some reason, the discussion has drifted significantly in that direction. Has faith really changed so much, or has Christianity simply been hijacked by bad faith? Are we finally seeing the fruits of ignorance? After all, I might speak well of Christian faith in my youth, but it wasn't enough to keep me in the flock. Rather, while I disagreed then, at least the faithful didn't seem so ... well ... stupid.

Thus, to give my neighbor Lori 7 the faith and credit of being genuine—and is there a reason I should not?—we need to understand that even those two paragraphs appear the aberration.

Like a guy I met over the weekend. He wanted to talk for a few moments about religion in light of an exchange he had witnessed (that involved me giving someone else practical advice about their outlook on religion). He explained that he was a man of science who believed in God, and would not have faith except that he thought it could be proven. And while some might attack Christians as naive or deluded, he believed the opposite was true. Non-Christians, he explained, were deluded and ignorant ... but, as he put it, "I'm not attacking anybody". An associate and I exchanged a glance, and let the point go. We were representatives, in that specific moment, of someone else's good name. And that's the thing. I don't doubt that it stings to be called naive or deluded for believing and submitting to a fairy-tale that can't be shown true. And yet it's not supposed to sting to be called ignorant and deluded for not believing what cannot be shown true?

I understood the guy's point about as well as I'm capable. He was generally very well-spoken. But that bit about not attacking anybody struck me. If someone says something about him, it's an attack. If he says it about someone else, though?

And this, even, is part of what confuses the infidels. I expect to hear from this fellow in the near future, so instead of forming a set judgment, I should look forward to further enlightenment about his perspective. Nonetheless, there are certain eccentricities about the faith that we infidels perceive, and while it may seem a leap to go from one removed discussion to a bizarre situation in Texas, the elevation of a confessed murderer as a hero and role model is emblematic of the dangers many of us perceive abut the faith.

For many, this is also about as benign as it gets. This particular manifestation is tragic at best, but other expressions of the convergence of circumstances may well only get worse from here.

Time will tell.

Yeah. Seriously. Do people of faith ever actually wonder why so many people are hostile toward the idea of organized religion?



I mean, obviously it's a stretch to apply this notion to all Christianity. But really, what the hell?

Just keep in mind it's not all chrisitans....just most of them.
They've been lied to for so long...just look a North Korea...Do you really blamed those people for hating America? That's what happens when you're fed lies day in and Day...

The only sad sorry fact is that these people are not being forced to do so.

I am a person of faith and I am hostile toward organized religion. Religion is man-made. I just follow the Word of God (Bible) and Jesus Christ/God. The rest is easy. :)

The bible is written by man. The council of trent made sure the bible only had what they wanted to have in it and left out many books. I have always failed to see why one would say religion is made up but the bible is real, given the fact that again the bible was made by the same people who made the religion in the first place.

had you said the 10 commandments I would have agreed because god or no god those are rules anyone should follow to be a good person.

Just keep in mind it's not all chrisitans....just most of them.
They've been lied to for so long...just look a North Korea...Do you really blamed those people for hating America? That's what happens when you're fed lies day in and Day...

The only sad sorry fact is that these people are not being forced to do so.

Where do you suggest they find the truth ?

I am a person of faith and I am hostile toward organized religion. Religion is man-made. I just follow the Word of God (Bible) and Jesus Christ/God. The rest is easy. :)

Congrats. Step1 to Enlightenment is accomplished. Religion IS Man made.

Step2 - who wrote the "Word of God" - Bible?

The bible is written by man. The council of trent made sure the bible only had what they wanted to have in it and left out many books. I have always failed to see why one would say religion is made up but the bible is real, given the fact that again the bible was made by the same people who made the religion in the first place.

had you said the 10 commandments I would have agreed because god or no god those are rules anyone should follow to be a good person.

It gets worse, the more one thinks about it. How many Christian denomonations/ sects are there, all basing their views on a particular interpretation of the Bible. It can mean anything one wants it to and that is exactly what is going on.

If we look elsewhere we find the Koran, the Upanishads, the Baghavad Gita, the Torah and the Pali canon, among others. Not only do Christians disagree amoung themselves; they reject the scriptures of other religions.


Blessed are the blinkered.

The only sad sorry fact is that these people are not being forced to do so.

I'm all for the protection of religion under the First Amendment. Your note, however, reinforces the need for a certain discussion in the public arena. What does that protection include? John McCain said last year that Christianity was a prerequisite of being president. We can only wonder how "oppressed" some Christians would feel if some famous mouth shot off that Christianity was a disqualifying factor for the presidency. There's that Catholic nutcase, Bill Donohue, who thinks Catholics are oppressed by a Kevin Smith film (Dogma), or a joke made by a college student ("Tuition is going down like an altar boy"). For some reason there are some who feel oppressed that a theological assertion lacking a testable hypothesis is not considered scientific. Apparently, the right of homosexuals to marry the person they love oppresses Christians. To many non-Christians, these notions seem absurd.

Christians choose to believe what they do. And while the current generations are, certainly, victims to some degree, I'm not sure how we go about addressing that issue or the challenges it presents. In more substantial arguments of social justice, people tend to call for sacrificial lambs. In race relations, those lambs would be blacks and Hispanics. In the war of the sexes, they would be women. I don't trust this theory because it depends on good faith, which seems largely absent in recent years. That that absence is the culmination of Christian influence in American society is merely ironic; it doesn't mean we should call yet more lambs to the slaughter.

But where, to borrow Myles' point, should they find truth? Perhaps more appropriately, how can they be brought to reconciliation? Right now the irrational prevails, and, to consider recent claims of oppression, any attempts to insert a rational perspective into these church communities might well result in further alienation. It would be difficult to assert that they have crossed a line of no return. Nonetheless, there is something tremendously disturbing about the implications of this case. Some of this church community think it would be wrong to send him to prison for murder.

"He's shown more courage than half the people in this building, because they hide stuff," said Cheryl Ellis, another member of the youth staff. "We've all got skeletons in our closet" ....

.... "The debt he's paying to our society is teaching our young people to do the right thing," she said. "To lock him away someplace and say he owes it to society is robbing the next generation of a mentor."

(Feibel (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/5549245.html))

The symptom is, in this case, acute. What can be done?
____________________

Notes:

Feibel, Carolyn. "Church flock has forgiven slaying suspect who confessed". Houston Chronicle. February 17, 2008. See http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/5549245.html

What can be done?
Point and laugh...

I am a person of faith and I am hostile toward organized religion. Religion is man-made. I just follow the Word of God (Bible) and Jesus Christ/God. The rest is easy. :)
*************
M*W: You claim to follow the bible, but the bible is also man-made.

Man-made or not, nothing is outside of the will of God. It's just that some of us aren't stupid enough to allow ourselves to be indoctrinated into the hypocrisy that goes on in many religious institutions. I've listened to some decent sermons. Some of them feed the hungry, and provide other humanitarian services. But when they act like they own God, and attempt to take the place of Christ, and represent that indoctrinization in the institution is a subsitute for a personal relationship with God, then that's blasphemous.

ignore post

Man-made or not, nothing is outside of the will of God. It's just that some of us aren't stupid enough to allow ourselves to be indoctrinated into the hypocrisy that goes on in many religious institutions. I've listened to some decent sermons. Some of them feed the hungry, and provide other humanitarian services. But when they act like they own God, and attempt to take the place of Christ, and represent that indoctrinization in the institution is a subsitute for a personal relationship with God, then that's blasphemous.

I agree and it infuriates me that people think they are gods buddy or something. They cannot think outside of the box and apply the logic that if there is a God (which for me is logical) then he is gonna be so far removed from your average human that as you rightly claim have a personal relationship with God would indeed be blaphemous. Sometimes I wonder if the church is so stuck in dogma and tradition that it is actaully alienating churchgoers from God. If I were looking down on the church right now the first thing I would say is you have 10's of millions of churchgoers plus donations and yet all you have done is built a few places of worship which preach the same thing, sing the same psalms and quote the same passages over and over again and it's been that way for thousands of years. WHAAAAAT! Can you imagine how that power in the right hands could have led society instead of the ingorant and stagnant state we find ourselves in today.

Grrrrrrrrrrr :itold:

Man-made or not, nothing is outside of the will of God. It's just that some of us aren't stupid enough to allow ourselves to be indoctrinated into the hypocrisy that goes on in many religious institutions. I've listened to some decent sermons. Some of them feed the hungry, and provide other humanitarian services. But when they act like they own God, and attempt to take the place of Christ, and represent that indoctrinization in the institution is a subsitute for a personal relationship with God, then that's blasphemous.

Who are you to judge blasphemy? You yourself are acting like you "own" god.

Christians choose to believe what they do. And while the current generations are, certainly, victims to some degree, I'm not sure how we go about addressing that issue or the challenges it presents. In more substantial arguments of social justice, people tend to call for sacrificial lambs. In race relations, those lambs would be blacks and Hispanics. In the war of the sexes, they would be women. I don't trust this theory because it depends on good faith, which seems largely absent in recent years. That that absence is the culmination of Christian influence in American society is merely ironic; it doesn't mean we should call yet more lambs to the slaughter.


The symptom is, in this case, acute. What can be done?



I'm not willing to right off the Roman Catholic Organization as not responsible for the current state of affairs. The blood guilt they've caused and commited is HEAVY. Even today these soliders go to war with God in mind, not knowing God will have nothing to do with this indiscriminate and righteous blood shed for who KNOWS what real reason the Americans are in Iraq.

In accordance to the 1st century the are responsible as a congregation of the direction their guidance takes that congregation and also in accordance to what "fruitage" is being produce, and noone objectively looking in sees the hypocrisy and lack of anything good coming out of the church. In order for their to peace on this planet...That organization will have to topple and only way to do that is through exposure.

The bible is written by man. The council of trent made sure the bible only had what they wanted to have in it and left out many books. I have always failed to see why one would say religion is made up but the bible is real, given the fact that again the bible was made by the same people who made the religion in the first place.

had you said the 10 commandments I would have agreed because god or no god those are rules anyone should follow to be a good person.

The Bible: Written by man, inspired by God:D

I'm not willing to right off the Roman Catholic Organization as not responsible for the current state of affairs.

Nor will I write off the Catholic church, but aside from an echo effect, it's hard to blame them for what's going on in American religion today. Things were bad enough centuries ago, but the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the early 20th century heralded further decline. And that confluence of religious ideas is largely—mostly—Protestant.

In accordance to the 1st century the are responsible as a congregation of the direction their guidance takes that congregation and also in accordance to what "fruitage" is being produce, and noone objectively looking in sees the hypocrisy and lack of anything good coming out of the church. In order for their to peace on this planet...That organization will have to topple and only way to do that is through exposure.

Toppling Christianity would be especially hard in the United States. There will come a day when Christians have a hard time getting jobs, or admitted to universities, and in the end I hope it is not because of the fact of their Christianity, but rather the fact of the produce. Like the whole "intelligent design" thing. It's not a science. Period. It has no testable hypothesis. It's not because it's a "God thing", but because it has no scientific merit. Certainly, creationism has merit in other fields, but that's another question.

The better outcome would be for fellow Christians to help one another figure out exactly how far they've fallen. When I was in high school, I had a devout science teacher that saw no conflict between his faith in God and the outcomes of science. That perspective, essentially that science explains how God's universe works, is almost completely absent from the public discourse today. And that lack is significant.

Perhaps some others will question how to connect the issue of Christianity vs. science to the notion that a murderer ought to be spared prison time because he confessed fourteen years after the fact. The connection is the insularity of the Christian perspective. The infamous phrase "divorced from reality" creeps ever closer to the human condition.

Intelligent Design must be cultivated and researched like everything else should. It is sound as a theory but need much more and it's proponets have left it hanging because of the disarray the trial was conducted under and the revelation of the defendents invovle have subversive agendas. I find the ruling unforntuant but fair. If ID was as it appears a resurfacing of Creationist thinking and motives then the ultimate end was dealed logically in a court of law. The incumbants defenses were neglent of exposing evolution's lacking as a theory. They also did not delve deeply into the necessary reserach. Intrinsicly I find nothing wrong with ID as it is on the same level as evolution. Unproven and doctrinal, accepted in other words. Why either has not tested ID in bacterial generations is an astonishing show of stupidity on both sides.

So I guess we're set to disagree on that subject.
However, even the best case scenario is likely to leave a large number still suspetible to remaining inflences. No, I'm afraid catastrophich upheaveal is set to topple the catholic church and with it every religion indiscriminate of it's behavior...I'm sure world events are heading to this direction because there must be a breaking point. Such a large amount of people can't continue to be subjected to such falsehoods for much longer. And once the exposure is complete it will be viral spreading across the planet because of the easy of todays communications. The Church has already fallen from it's position of power and as it's partioners leave or fall away soon there will be little left...but that one event...It may lead to the next holocaust of the twentieth century.

This is why I tell people don't be in quite a hurry to get rid of religion because when (not if) it goes it's going to take a lot of people with it. You see what happens in Israel, what's happened just between sports riots, religion is far bigger and the fall is going to be bloody and grusome.

It is sound as a theory but need much more and it's proponets have left it hanging because of the disarray the trial was conducted under and the revelation of the defendents invovle have subversive agendas. I find the ruling unforntuant but fair. If ID was as it appears a resurfacing of Creationist thinking and motives then the ultimate end was dealed logically in a court of law. The incumbants defenses were neglent of exposing evolution's lacking as a theory. They also did not delve deeply into the necessary reserach. Intrinsicly I find nothing wrong with ID as it is on the same level as evolution. Unproven and doctrinal, accepted in other words. Why either has not tested ID in bacterial generations is an astonishing show of stupidity on both sides.

I find that outlook rather deceptive.

How can testing bacterial generations show the existence of an intelligent designer?

This is why I tell people don't be in quite a hurry to get rid of religion because when (not if) it goes it's going to take a lot of people with it.

Religion will never actually disappear. That's the best reason to not hurry to get rid of it. In the meantime, the dominant religions of our era will eventually pass from favor, and one of the best reasons to not be hasty about that is that we'll find something even worse to replace them with.

One thing I've found religionists don't generally like to give serious consideration to is what religion does. Of course, anti-religionists don't give much serious consideration to the question, either.

Without addressing the anthropological function of religion, we certainly will see much harm before we finally get it right.

Who are you to judge blasphemy? You yourself are acting like you "own" god.

the bible teaches, and jesus teaches of a personal relationship with god, not about some glorified institution. as a matter of fact, think about what jesus thought about, and had to say to, the pharisees back in his day? i have said personal relationship with god, and i take no credit for what he has taught to me, accept for the fact that i asked to be taught with humility and sincerety.

because i know god personally, i know what he is, and what he is not, about.

because i know god personally

Personally huh :rolleyes:

I find that outlook rather deceptive.

How can testing bacterial generations show the existence of an intelligent designer?

I don't know...
I'm not a biologist. I do remember that the judge asked both sides this question during the trial why either had not preformed a test which would validate Inteligent design and neither side had an answer.
It might have been a pivotable point in the trial if either had.



Religion will never actually disappear. That's the best reason to not hurry to get rid of it. In the meantime, the dominant religions of our era will eventually pass from favor, and one of the best reasons to not be hasty about that is that we'll find something even worse to replace them with.

I believe that religion as we know it will change given a sufficent relational "detonation" in the world of politics.


Without addressing the anthropological function of religion, we certainly will see much harm before we finally get it right.[/QUOTE]

For give the term...but I think that requires an AMEN.:rolleyes:

the bible teaches, and jesus teaches of a personal relationship with god, not about some glorified institution. as a matter of fact, think about what jesus thought about, and had to say to, the pharisees back in his day? i have said personal relationship with god, and i take no credit for what he has taught to me, accept for the fact that i asked to be taught with humility and sincerety.

because i know god personally, i know what he is, and what he is not, about.

Even in the "official" canon that finally got agreed upon some 300 years after Jesus supposedly walked on water, Jesus does not expand the Hebrew's God, YHWH's "love" to the rest of us until fairly late on in his life. Even then my take is, well religion is power and why not spread it- more powerful - perhaps he even had a little hint of genius in the back of his mind that re-spinning an ancient superstition, might take on pretty good with some of the weak minded Romans. This is if he existed.

It's not like it all suddenly popped up with "Jesus", we are talking all the way back to before the Hebrews ripped off the mythology of the Babylonians, Egyptians and they in fact ripped their stuff off from Akkadian-Sumerians and nile dwellers before.

Ever play that game where you whisper a story in someone's ear and they do the same to the person next to them and it goes around in a circle until the other person next to you blurts out the final version(which grows or shrinks in each telling). It always sounds ridiculous to the original teller.

I find it amazing people believe such garbage.

I don't know...
I'm not a biologist. I do remember that the judge asked both sides this question during the trial why either had not preformed a test which would validate Inteligent design and neither side had an answer.
It might have been a pivotable point in the trial if either had.

Divine creation is an integral part of human mythology. I've a book on my shelf that is nothing but creation myths (Primal Myths, by Barbara Sproul.) Where I've come to tangle with the Judeo-Christian myth is a matter of how people have wanted it included in the curriculum. This is much like the argument over the Bible when I was a kid. I would accept it as a reference and give it its place in a survey of World History. The Christians at that time wanted it to be the foundation of society and history, and taught as such. Creationism? It has its place in social studies. But they wanted it to be a science. Same thing with ID. The problem with ID as a science is that it eventually must show the designer. And, well, that's a bit problematic.

Can you give us any reference on the trial? It would be fascinating to read through the decision at least, or maybe even get hold of the courtroom transcript. But I wouldn't know where to start looking.

Bart Ehrman, author of God's Problem recently gave an interesting interview on NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096131) that deals with aspects of what many believers have considerable trouble understanding about atheists.

Goes to the other extreme as well. Some Christians do hardly anything and are outcasts from their Churches. Christians are just people, and people aren't perfect. If someone like the guy you gave as an example confesses to a murder, its good that he confessed, but that doesn't mean its good that he murdered. You have to keep it balanced.

Divine creation is an integral part of human mythology. I've a book on my shelf that is nothing but creation myths (Primal Myths, by Barbara Sproul.) Where I've come to tangle with the Judeo-Christian myth is a matter of how people have wanted it included in the curriculum. This is much like the argument over the Bible when I was a kid. I would accept it as a reference and give it its place in a survey of World History. The Christians at that time wanted it to be the foundation of society and history, and taught as such. Creationism? It has its place in social studies. But they wanted it to be a science. Same thing with ID. The problem with ID as a science is that it eventually must show the designer. And, well, that's a bit problematic.

I understand this. There is a sense of invasion by religion upon educational planes. And knowing the fanatics of the past have corrupted the search for truth a fear of what the future might bring is reasonable and the reaction is guarded. ID as science doesn't bother me one way or the other. I don't care what the majority teaches. I just have to be sure of the logic and reason I'm going to pass down to my family. I'm unintrested in forcing others into the same class room of thought. I truely feel if everyone had such a perspective there might be much less contention. Information should be free. That is my credo, so to speak. But variety makes the world intresting.

Can you give us any reference on the trial? It would be fascinating to read through the decision at least, or maybe even get hold of the courtroom transcript. But I wouldn't know where to start looking.

I previously have typed in the words "ID on trial transcript" and got the Wiki which had full transcripts...PBS also had a special and provides full transcripts but I haven't looked for theirs.

But the WIKI has everyone's statement isolated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_doc uments

Now I'm not sure if these are court transcripts or just statements...but I believe either or they were used in trial for both sides.
It is VERY Intresting read. I learned alot.

Personally huh :rolleyes:

yes, it's the most fundamental and overriding concept in the bible. and yes, it happens. it happened to me, as it has many others, and can to you too.

Who are you to judge blasphemy? You yourself are acting like you "own" god.

i can't leave this one alone. this is a very convenient thing for you to say, in not knowing a thing about me or my life, and simply because i do not believe in your institutions. listen god's been a big part of my life for a long time now and has counseled me on many things, and one of the things he's focused on the most has been this topic of religion. and let me tell you that from what i know of him, he is not a big fan of institutions. god is a big fan of individuals and individual accountability, which is undermined by the very concept of an institution. let me ask you...do you really think that what god is after is this weekly routine of us getting dressed up in our suits and hats, and going to a particular building, where we sit our fat asses on very comfortable pews, and try in vain to clap our hands to some song that has no discernable rhythm or beat, then swallow down a couple of spoonfuls of artificially sweetened baby food, for the low, low price of just 10% of your income? really? REALLY? is that right? for real, you really think that's what it's all about? well then let's look at what it says in the bible shall we, since that's the doctrine that most of you drones attest to follow. let's look first at the lives of the people in it. were they going through this weekly/biweekly exercise? is that what it says about them? is that what the parables are about? was noah involved in his local institutionalized religious organization? was elijah, moses, johah, esther, abraham? how about the disciples? their learning wasn't done once a week in some particular place, they LIVED IT. they were with Jesus 24/7. he was their master. all of these people in the bible HEARD THE VOICE OF GOD, and it turned their lives upside down. they did NOT fit in with the rest of society, and it was not a comfortable or routine exercise. they were outcasts. they were outside the norm. that is an understatement! now what is the norm in our society? a church on every street corner, and one in between. what do you think is meant when the scripture says "it's a narrow path?" i think that it means that IT'S A NARROW PATH! NOT THE NORM! and that the majority of people who are sitting in those pews every sunday are not on it! what do you think the scripture means that says people begged "lord, we worshipped in the temple. we cast out demons and healed the sick in your name." then he says to them, "I NEVER KNEW YOU." what it means is that so many of his so called people are way too busy throwing his name around in vain to serve their own purpose that they never take the time to actually get to know him.

Even in the "official" canon that finally got agreed upon some 300 years after Jesus supposedly walked on water, Jesus does not expand the Hebrew's God, YHWH's "love" to the rest of us until fairly late on in his life. Even then my take is, well religion is power and why not spread it- more powerful - perhaps he even had a little hint of genius in the back of his mind that re-spinning an ancient superstition, might take on pretty good with some of the weak minded Romans. This is if he existed.

It's not like it all suddenly popped up with "Jesus", we are talking all the way back to before the Hebrews ripped off the mythology of the Babylonians, Egyptians and they in fact ripped their stuff off from Akkadian-Sumerians and nile dwellers before.

Ever play that game where you whisper a story in someone's ear and they do the same to the person next to them and it goes around in a circle until the other person next to you blurts out the final version(which grows or shrinks in each telling). It always sounds ridiculous to the original teller.

I find it amazing people believe such garbage.


yes indeed, it's actually a very simple concept that's been reiterated through every age of history again and again, and people are still too stupid to get it.

I am a person of faith and I am hostile toward organized religion. Religion is man-made. I just follow the Word of God (Bible) and Jesus Christ/God. The rest is easy. :)

The bible is man-made as well.. :rolleyes:

yes indeed, it's actually a very simple concept that's been reiterated through every age of history again and again, and people are still too stupid to get it.

It became simple - "one" god. Originally there were many. People are generally too stupid(ok well frankly even back then there were strong individuals whom understood it was all crowd-control bullshit and found it a hassel to keep track of all the different "sacrifices") to keep track of them all. One God is simple. Actually the Hebrews didn't even invent that...

The bible is man-made as well.. :rolleyes:


The evidence available in the Bible exemplifies the knowledge in the Bible exceedes the knowledge of man, thus God inspired.

The evidence available in the Bible exemplifies the knowledge in the Bible exceedes the knowledge of man, thus God inspired.

where?

The evidence available in the Bible exemplifies the knowledge in the Bible exceedes the knowledge of man, thus God inspired.

Example?

Um ... okay, I know this is a bit drastic for changing the pace, but ... well ... the title caught my eye. And the commentary, of course. But the general content is ... um ... yeah. It's all that. And more.

You Know What's Wrong With America? (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/you_know_whats_wrong_with_america)

Four and a half minutes. Or ... here's the transcript:

I'm gonna close with one thing. I was reading my Bible this week, and I kept seeing this phrase jump out at me, in the Bible. And you're not gonna like this, but you haven't liked the sermon up 'til now, so why would I—why would I try and please you now? You're—you're gonna be mad no matter what I say. But I was reading the Bible, and I kept seeing this phrase, and I studied this phrase in the Bible; it's used six times, and it's used by God, it's used out of the mouth of God. And it's when the prophet is preaching to the King of Israel, Jehu, and he says—ah, I'm sorry, Jeroboam, son of Nebat—and he says, "Thus sayeth the Lord." He said, "'I will destroy from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall'." Have you ever seen that phrase in the Bible? Put up your hand. "Him that pisseth against the wall"? You see that in the Bible. It's used six times in the Bible. And it's—you know, six is a significant number in the Bible. It's the number of a man. You know, there are different numbers that represent different things in the Bible? Like seven is the number of completion, you know? Five is the number of death, and you'll see that all throughout the Bible; people being killed under their fifth rib, Genesis 5:5, Acts 5:5, on and on. You'll see different numbers, and significance of numbers, and six times this phrase is used in the Bible. And you say, "Oh, I can't believe you'd speak that way! It's vile." I'm sorry, but the Bible says that the words of Jesus Christ are wholesome words, and the Bible says every word of God is pure. And so don't accuse me of using bad language. That's what the Bible says.

He said, "I will destroy him that pisseth against the wall." Now what did—you ever stop and think, What did God mean by that? Did He mean, well—what did He mean? Obviously, what is He talking about? All the men, right? He said, "I'm going to kill all the men that come from Jeroboam". Because there's a difference between men and women. Men piss against the wall; women don't. Okay? And so God said—He used that language, He used that expression, and by the way, that expression is only in the King James. The New King James eliminates it. This is what the New King James says: males. All the males. And you know, the guys who made it are males, they're not men. And God said a man is somebody who pisses against the wall.

Did you know this? When I was in Germany—and you're not even going to believe this. See, why are you preaching this? 'Cause it's in the Bible, okay? I was in Germany, and, uh, I went to use the restroom in Germany in several different people's houses. I mean, totally different people. And even in public places, they had a sign that prohibited a man from peeing standing up. I'm not kidding. I mean, you can ask—my wife is from Germany, and I was there for three and a half months. They had a sign in people's house; they had a sign in the public restroom that prohibited—I'm not gonna—you know it was like a circle and a line through it, and it's, no pee standing up. And I asked my wife, I said, "Is that like—" I thought it was a joke. I was like, "Is that a joke? That's kind of a crude joke."

She said, "It's not a joke."

She said, "No man in Germany pees standing up."

That's where we're headed in this country, my friend. We got a bunch of pastors who pee sitting down. We got a bunch of—and you say, "Oh, you know, you're being vile." I'm not—hey, then God's being vile. God's the one who wrote the Bible, my friend. We got, we got pastors who pee sitting down. We got the President of the Untied States probably pees sitting down. We got a bunch of preachers, we got a bunch of leaders who don't stand up and piss against the wall like a man. And I'm gonna tell you something, that's what's wrong with America.

You don't—you don't like it? You don't like an old-fashioned Bible that tells you what being a man's all about? Beause it's called the King James Bible. And if you don't like that term, "piss against the wall", then you know what? Go to the bookstore this afternoon and buy a New King James. It'll take out that word. It'll take out the word damnation. It'll take out the word Hell about half the times. It'll take out the word Jehovah, the name of God. It'll take out anything in the Bible that has any power to it. It'll take out anything that tells you how things are supposed to be! But you know what, four hundred years ago, pastors used to stand up and preach that a man needs to be a man! Not a male. Not the males. It's 'cause the editors of the NIV pee sitting down. It's because the editors of the New King James, they all pee sitting down. I'm gonna tell you something: I'm not gonna pee sitting down. I don't care if it's Germany. I'm going to Germany in about a month. You better know I'm gonna stand up everywhere I go.

—Pastor Steven L. Anderson
Faithful Word Baptist Church
Tempe, Arizona

its a strange world my friend:p

maybe it was just ment to be another rant against beer (ie beer makes you piss and if your REALLY drunk you tend to do it on the closest wall:p)

Of course who the hell would sit down and count the amount of times the bible said you shouldnt piss on a wall:p

Of course who the hell would sit down and count the amount of times the bible said you shouldnt piss on a wall

Yeah. Obviously, I don't find the word "piss" vile, but I do find something rather odd about basing moral assertions on how one empties his bladder. I love what little noise there is from the congregation: a woman laughing, a baby crying, an old man muttering, "Amen!"

If Faithful Word is remotely like the churches I saw when I was a kid, there was a reception after the service, attended mainly by the elderly, with coffee and donuts or something of the sort. In my day, the older women would sit and murmur together about the sermon like a bad stereotype. If I try to conjure a notion of what they said after that sermon, I don't get very far.