* ...the Bible is, at best, a flawed interpretation of God's word ... *
Ya see Jon, that isn't a choice at all because it's not what the bible is. It's a collection of stories assembled by some unknown person, which include some of the same characters in most of them. It's not much different to the canon of folk tales to be found right across Europe and most other continents. The same phenomena exists in folk song and other traditional media, did you know there are over 300 different versions of 'Barbara Allen'. That puts the comparatively few versions of 'biblical' events in perspective.
* ...All Christian teaching says that Christ will come and reign on Earth for a thousand years and then after that dispensation (era), the Earth will be destroyed (by him) and a new Heaven and a new Earth will be created for us. That is in the bible and so clear that it is not in dispute among any protestant denominations that I am aware of. ... *
If evidence were needed that your religious point of view is utter rubbish then here it is! Hasn't anyone told you that life expectancy can't reasonably be pushed much past 120 yrs, and even then only rarely? The idea that any person could survive a 1000 yrs is complete lunacy, surpassed only by belief in that idea.
* ...God himself will destroy the Earth when he is ready, by his own hand at the appointed time. Some might say: “Isn’t it possible that God may use man to do it by directing him to “not” save the planet?” No – not at all possible - because of the scenario of the one thousand-year-reign. This is not a denominational teaching – this is not a sect or a fringe teaching. This is Bible scripture that leave no room for interpretation.
... *
Paul, I'm beginning to worry about you.
* ...was raised in the church from my youth. Yes, I was dragged to church as a boy by my parents. Because of that, I left the church as soon as I was old enough to do so. I came back on my own – kicking and screaming all the way - because I agonized over my own beliefs and how they stood in direct opposition with the church. ...*
Are you trying convince me (or yourself), that having spent early years being indoctrinated that you broke free and that the indoctrination was completely exorcised from your mind? Is it a catholic saying, 'give me the child for so many years and I'll give you a catholic for life'?
* ...to well what the mainstream secularists believe but unfortunately, the non believer knows so little about what we believe. ... *
It's not necessary to know what 'you' believe, only necessary to know what the handbook says, and the handbook is largely garbage. (and yes, I have read the damned handbook. Not all of it I admit, but sufficient to know that it functions well as fairy stories, but is a complete failure as a handbook on the universe and it's creation.)
I base 'my' belief on scientific facts, logic and a healthy scepticism about most things. It would help if you'd stop accusing others here of displaying 'anger', that does nothing to reinforce your views, it just makes it look like you're projecting false negativity on to them to use as a stick to beat them with.
* ...Am I one of those who believes all of the Bible is truth - Yes, yes, yes. ... *
It's becoming increasingly difficult to answer your words without appearing to be insulting, and that isn't my wish, BUT, and I'm sorry, you're a deluded man and I feel desperately sorry for you.
Would I be right in assuming you're an American, possibly from the south?
Science has proven that there are electrons and neutrons in the atom. This particles spin around themselves so quickly that they form solids. The speed at which these articles spin and the number of them in any given unit, determines how hard or soft an object will be.
Just in case anyone's wondering, this is wrong.
(and so was the bit about time limits to theories, and magnetism)
Whatever your history with jc Denver, he is quite right here. Although I wouldn't say 'near-total ignorance' but a 'position of dangerous fanaticism' to highlight the subtle difference between somebody who is genuinely unaware of the facts, evidence etc behind different ideas and somebody who willfully chooses to fight against anything that threatens their rigid 'beliefs'.
jude
"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net
Jude>"Whatever your history with jc Denver, he is quite right here. Although I wouldn't say 'near-total ignorance' but a 'position of dangerous fanaticism' to highlight the subtle difference between somebody who is genuinely unaware of the facts, evidence etc behind different ideas and somebody who willfully chooses to fight against anything that threatens their rigid 'beliefs'."
Jude,
No, he (jc) isn't right, neither are you. It's a question of knowledge and awareness. Perceptions drawn from a single source are rarely correct.
My assessments as voiced here are only what you perceive them to be based solely on what I project. My belief system is not known to you nor anyone else that doesn't know me. I will try my best to reaffirm your and his belief system though. If I can aggravate a smug twerp, I'm pleased to do so, just on principle.
I love to go swimmn' with bow-legged women.
Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/
What it did confirm is that global warming is happening - and it will have consequences. Instead of arguing or denying this we all need to be seeing what we can do. Also we need to look at other environmental problems i.e if we keep filling our ground with polluted rubbish how on earth (pardon the pun) are we going to be able to grow food. It is definately time that everyone started doing there bit for nature ... if you consider what nature does for you everyday I think you will see that she deserves a return.
Exactly, ancaBle. That was my point, way further up. Arguing about it is pointless. We need to find ways to fix it and avoid getting deeper in trouble.
To ancaBle:
"What it did confirm is that global warming is happening - and it will have consequences. Instead of arguing or denying this we all need to be seeing what we can do."
Okay, let's. What is it that you think we can do?
"Also we need to look at other environmental problems i.e if we keep filling our ground with polluted rubbish how on earth (pardon the pun) are we going to be able to grow food."
What? So you are of the belief that we are, and can, pollute the ground to the point that we will cover the entire Earth with landfills and will not be able to plant food?
And they say I'm not rational.
"It is definately time that everyone started doing there bit for nature ... if you consider what nature does for you everyday I think you will see that she deserves a return."
You said "she" when you talk of nature. Interesting. Who is she? I'd like to have a talk with her.
And they say "I" believe in fairy tales. Sounds like you've got a real "belief system" going on there.
"Exactly, ancaBle. That was my point, way further up. Arguing about it is pointless. We need to find ways to fix it and avoid getting deeper in trouble."
Right - let's all run out and fix it.
Okay, I’ll make a couple of predictions right now.
1) We will try to “fix it”.
2) We will fail to “fix it”.
We will fail because the “fixer” is a budding industry that either will not want to really fix it, or will claim it is not fixed when it is. This is because once it gets "fixed", their money goes away, and after all, that is what they are in it for.
poetjude
"Although I wouldn't say 'near-total ignorance' but a 'position of dangerous fanaticism' to highlight the subtle difference between somebody who is genuinely unaware of the facts, evidence etc behind different ideas and somebody who willfully chooses to fight against anything that threatens their rigid 'beliefs'."
Yes I agree. These "Save the Planet" folks do indeed, willfully choose to fight against anything that threatens their rigid 'beliefs'.
Thank goodness that I don't do that.
I have said, go ahead and save the planet. I am not against cleaninig up our envirornment - though it is true I will probably not do anything about it myself that I am not forced to do by law. I keep my house clean and my property clean and the rest - well, the rest of the world is my ashtray. (Just a pun folks. I could not resist.) I have said that I am not saying we should trash the Earth. I only warned that I believe that this Envirornmental Movement will be turned into a religious movement and that I believe it is already happening, i.e. the title of this very forum.
Paul, I'm beginning to worry about you.
(Thank you mississippi. You see, I new you were a nice guy.)
* ...Am I one of those who believes all of the Bible is truth - Yes, yes, yes. ... *
It's becoming increasingly difficult to answer your words without appearing to be insulting, and that isn't my wish, BUT, and I'm sorry, you're a deluded man and I feel desperately sorry for you.
(Thanks again my friend. But how can you say that in such a way, really? You didn't say "in my opionion" or "I believe" or "I think" - you just said I am deluded as a point of fact. So who really is the radical? Who really is the ridged dogmatist?)
Would I be right in assuming you're an American, possibly from the south?
(Yes and no. I'm from the north but am presently living in Florida.)
"So you believe that faith is something that cannot be reasoned?"
What do you mean by reasoned? I'm sure someone can justify to themselves with some kind of (probably flawed) logic. I think there are reasonable arguments as to why faith can be a positive force. But it is fundamentally irrational. That's the very essence of faith. It's believing in something in spite of an absence of facts or evidence.
Buk:
"Not really sure of the relevance of this."
It was blithely phrased, but I thought my point was clear - a literal interpretation of someone's words, be they God's words in the Bible, or someone else's words in any other context, is not an absence of interpretation or skewing. Metaphors are so common in language that to take someone's words literally is often to misinterpret them.
Therefore, you cannot claim that scripture - particularly scripture that deals with such imagined scenarios as the end of the world - is resistant to misinterpretation, or that the literal interpretation of it is bound to be - or even likely to be - the correct one. Basically, I am arguing that Paul believes in a particular 'spin' on what the Bible says, as much as anyone can be said to, and that he has no reasonable grounds for believing his interpretation has more authority.
"You can't logically prove that God doesn't exist and didn't create everything..."
I haven't aimed to do this. I return to logic repeatedly to draw a distinction between beliefs based on other beliefs (ie. believing the Bible is true because you believe in a particular kind of Jesus) and beliefs that come about from our capacity to reason, starting with known facts. This is as part of the general effort to make clear that 'science' or 'secular thinking' cannot be truthfully regarded as an alternative religion or different set of beliefs.
JC
You said - I interject:
What do you mean by reasoned? I'm sure someone can justify to themselves with some kind of (probably flawed) (Why probably? It is easy to say "probably". I can say your ideas are "probably" flawed.)logic. I think there are reasonable arguments as to why faith can be a positive force.(There you go - so why not consider those arguments instead of just dismissing then out of hand,as you have been doing?) But it is fundamentally irrational. (It can not be "irrational". I will say more about that in a moment.)That's the very essence of faith. It's believing in something in spite of an absence of facts or evidence. (This is where you are wrong. This is where, I believe you understanding breaks down. You exercise faith every day. You sit in a chair because you have faith that the chair will support your weight. You flip the light switch because you have faith that you will be gifted with light. These things, you may argue, are worthy of your faith because they have proven themselves many times in the past. (So has the Bible.) But you also go to the doctor when sick because you have faith that he can make you feel better. There must have been a first time. You take advise from certain people because you have faith in them, or refuse to even to ask for advise from some because you have no faith in them. You drive to work, with the faith that you will not get into car crash.
People live by faith every day. Faith in nature, in the goodness of man, in the power of the press, in the justice of the courts, in the abilities of politicians and, yes, in scientists if not science itself.
You have faith also in certain authors, because you seem to make a connection with what they say. Some do this, in the 33 authors of the Bible.)
This is as part of the general effort to make clear that 'science' or 'secular thinking' cannot be truthfully regarded as an alternative religion or different set of beliefs.
(Okay, but believing in the environmental movement as it "is", or at least, as it is headed. Can be construde as religion. Read about the religion called Shamanism and you will find the environmental movement - or at least the track that it is on. A religion is a religion no matter how you define it. A rose by any other name is still a rose.)
"Why probably? It is easy to say "probably". I can say your ideas are "probably" flawed."
Every instance I've ever come across has been flawed, but I'm allowing for the possibility that someone can find a good reason. So I say 'probably' to indicate that I allow for that.
"There you go - so why not consider those arguments instead of just dismissing then out of hand,as you have been doing?"
I haven't. I've been dismissing the idea that faith-based beliefs are an alternative to beliefs arrived at through reason. The arguments I'm thinking of that posit that faith is a positive thing go along the lines of: 'if people are comforted by faith, then that is surely positive'. I don't readily accept such arguments, but they do have a degree of force.
"This is where, I believe you understanding breaks down. You exercise faith every day. You sit in a chair because you have faith that the chair will support your weight."
Nope. This is where *your* understanding breaks down. I sit in a chair because I know it is extremely likely that it will support my weight, from past performance of similar objects, and because that is what a chair is designed to do. It is a reasonable expectation. I do not do so on the basis of faith. Faith is stepping into a canyon like Indiana Jones does in the Last Crusade, when there is no reason (except faith) to believe you won't fall. It is distinct from an expectation based on probability.
Or look at it this way: if I was sitting in a chair because of faith, and it *didn't* support my weight, then my faith would take a heavy blow. How could I ever believe a chair would support my weight again? My faith in chairs - proved wrong! If I sit in a chair because of knowledge, and it doesn't support my weight, I might be momentarily shocked, but it does not conflict with my reasons for sitting in that chair - I never believed there was a 100% chance of it supporting my weight - I just knew that it was likely.
This is the root of your problem, yet again - you don't seem to be able to understand that all beliefs are not based on faith, and that 'science' or 'secularism' are not, therefore, alternative religions. What they are alternative approaches that emphasise the human ability to use rationality - they do not ask that you put your faith in anything. You really have to get this - environmentalists, scientists, whatever group you elect to reduce to a stereotype, are generally not operating on the bases of doctines or faith-based beliefs. They are operating on reason-based beliefs, which is a completely different kettle of fish.
Yes, to a degree, people who are not religious do have faith in things as well - all your examples may be true in certain individuals. The difference is that they understand that this 'faith' is a sort of hope, a sort of trust - something that has no philosophical currency. It is not the same as when they believe something that is based on facts.
"Okay, but believing in the environmental movement as it "is", or at least, as it is headed. Can be construde as a religion."
No again. You're taking elements of what particular people, or particular groups have said, and are trying to define a whole movement based on them. Different people who would class themselves as 'environmentalists' believe different things. Some, no doubt, operate according to something verging on religious foundations, but these are the ones that, for good reason, lack credibility. 'Shamanists', Wiccans etc. are not regarded as authorities.
I knew you'de go there.
*Nope. This is where *your* understanding breaks down. I sit in a chair because I know it is extremely likely that it will support my weight, from past performance of similar objects, and because that is what a chair is designed to do. It is a reasonable expectation. I do not do so on the basis of faith. (So you are saying that you never exercise faith?) Faith is stepping into a canyon like Indiana Jones does in the Last Crusade, when there is no reason (except faith) to believe you won't fall. It is distinct from an expectation based on probability.* (No. Faith, like science, is taken (or can be, and I believe should be taken) on evidence much like the "chair" scenario. We have our faith proven to us by acting on that faith and having it provide us with possitive resaults. If you did that,(and you do with chairs and such) you would understand that: yes, faith is believing in things unseen, but it is also proven by its own exercise. Can't you see that?)
*Or look at it this way: if I was sitting in a chair because of faith, and it *didn't* support my weight, then my faith would take a heavy blow. How could I ever believe a chair would support my weight again? My faith in chairs - proved wrong! If I sit in a chair because of knowledge, and it doesn't support my weight, I might be momentarily shocked, but it does not conflict with my reasons for sitting in that chair - I never believed there was a 100% chance of it supporting my weight - I just knew that it was likely.*
Faith does not have to be the absence of knowlege. I say I have faith in the Bible. What do you think that means? Do you think that means I 'don't' have any knowlege of the Bible, or might you rather draw the conclution that I 'do' have some knowlege of the Bible. Faith can be the abscence of knowlege, however.
*Different people who would class themselves as 'environmentalists' believe different things.*
I'm not talking about people who classify themselves as 'environmentalists'. I am talking about the movement itself, the organization. More over, the philosophy of the movement.
The Bible defines faith this way: Now faith is the "substance" of things hoped for, (but it does not stop there) the “evidence” of things not seen.
It also says, for one example:
…for he that cometh to God must "believe" that he is…
So faith is believing.
It also says that Moses, for example – though I know you don’t believe the story since it is in the Bible – was "moved" by his "faith" in God and was saved from the flood.
So faith is believing and proven by acting on that faith.
Paul,
is there a special school for Christian Right apologists, where you learn the technique of taking apart posts on message boards, and then replying to them line-for-line with interjections that ask rhetorical questions or make points about your faith?
I ask because I'm sincerely interested. It's a very specific technique, and I wonder where you picked it up.
As I stated above, the purpose of the exercise for you is to introduce doubt by aggressive textual nit-picking, pointing out seeming inconsistencies or gaps and driving them open with a wedge of semi-logic that is designed not to change the mind of the person that you're debating with, but to introduce an overall doubt about their argument in the eyes of less informed onlookers.
That's what this is about, a kind of debate in public, isn't it? You don't care what any of the people who have disagreed with what you think, but you do very much care about the less well informed people who may also be reading, and they're the target of the exercise.
Have you heard of a technique called 'the politician's answer'? A imagine you have, because you use it a lot. The trick is, when asked a question, is to produce an answer that has an internal logic, and seems to follow a logical path, but that doesn't necessarily have a proven initial premise. If you do this with enough charm, or authority, people forget the point you were answering and go away thinking that you were talking sense, even if your answer bears no relationship to the question you were asked, or is based on misinformation, sleight of hand, flawed or faulty logic or plain dishonesty.
As you well know, evangelism works best when it can suggest an answer to a question, or suggest a certainty that replaces a doubt.
Where do they teach these tactics?
Cheers,
Mark
Ha. Yes I went to school for this. lol I'll be teaching a class on Interjection Writing soon.
No, I'm not so clever as you (seemingly) give me credit for. It is just a lot of stuff to respond to. So it seems to be the best way of handling it.
Yes, as you said, it's just a public debate. I'm enjoying it. Aren't you?
You again give me too much credit when you speek of internal logic and such.
Look - I'm out here all by myself, buddy. Give me a break. LOL
To Archergirl:
Finally, I have a chance to respond to you.
You said - I interject:
Paul, this is a heavily UK-based populace you're arguing with, and the UK is an overwhelmingly secular society, (Ha – I can tell.) so it is more likely than not that most of the users will disagree with you on many things. Religion is looked upon, justifiably, with a good deal of skepticism, (I would call it hostility actually. And why is it so “justifiable"? I don’t understand that.) so you should keep this in mind! Jude seems to be our resident religious person, and she argues her points with great intelligence and tremendous good nature toward her unbelieving brethren. (Humm! Jude is the resident religious person? Oh my!)
Comic Relief was absolutely dire. I forced the kids to switch over to watching reruns of Dr. Who instead. Dr. Who saved the 2012 Olympics.
Paul_k, I say 'justifiably' because many people (and probably the vast majority of people on this site) feel that religion historically has caused more division and suffering in the world than it has brought unity. You are more than welcome to your beliefs, as far as I am concerned; to coin a Beatles' phrase: whatever gets you through the night.
I wouldn't necessarily view the forum as being 'hostile' (although there are certain *cough* members who make it a point to be as disagreeable as possible at any opportunity). We argue about all kinds of rubbish on here; occasionally it can get quite childish and nasty, but this is rare. Most of the debates are undertaken with respect, if not agreement, for the other person's POV. Just grow a thick skin, realise that you'll never change anyone's mind, and you'll be fine! ;-)
Yeah, I admit I misspoke. I really don't find the people here hostile - just strongly in oposition to christianity. I really have enjoyed talking to all the people here.
I don't expect anyone to change their mind. It's just that I'm an old man and am home bound, for the most part, and well, enjoy a good animated discussion. LOL - maybe too much.
"I'm not talking about people who classify themselves as 'environmentalists'. I am talking about the movement itself, the organization. More over, the philosophy of the movement."
Organisations and movements are two different things. Environmentalism is *not* an organisation.
Here's the Wiki article on the movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalism
I don't see any reference to worshipping the Earth, and a movement can't have a 'secret' philosophy. Individuals can have hidden agendas, and organisations can have hidden agendas - movements can't, because they are loose groupings of individuals and organisations, who each have their own agendas, and who are united only by a central premise or issue. If that central premise or issue was a lie, or a front, for something more nefarious (ie. replacing God with Earth) there would be insurmountable confusion - the movement would attract individuals and organisations who believed in the dummy premise instead of the secret one, and so the dummy premise would quickly become genuine.
So you can't make this accusation stick. It's like accusing Jews of colluding in a secret plot to take over the world. The level of conspiracy required is unfathomable.
I may be taking your accusation too literally, of course. The alternative is that you are simply incapable of understanding people's concerns in any other terms than religious ones. You can't accept that a vast number of people can be united over a social issue, rather than a doctrine, so you see all such movements in terms of finding a replacement for God. Maybe you have trouble accepting the fact that some of us (most of us, I'd say) don't *require* a God, or an alternative figure of worship - or even an alternative explanation for the Universe - in order to operate. We do not have an alternative religion - we are simply not religious.
Your definition of faith is simply wrong. If you have a rational reason to believe something, you cannot simultaneously have faith in the idea. You could, say, have a rational reason to believe that something is *likely* to succeed in something, but in addition have faith that they *will* certainly succeed. There is potential for a combination of faith and reason in that respect. But if something is almost 100% likely through pure reason (ie. if I let go off this object in mid-air, will it fall?) you simply cannot claim to have faith in it also.
Faith requires some degree of an absence of knowledge to bridge the gap - in your Bible example, you *know* certain things about the Bible, sure, but you have no evidence (and thus no rational basis to believe) that it is actually the word of God and is right about everything, so you make that leap with faith. And in fact, faith in the Bible, or in God, does occur in a vacuum of proof. I've never seen any attempt at finding a rational basis for the belief that is anything but far-fetched.
From one old man to another, I'm sorry you're house-bound Paul, that is a condition that I don't envy one little bit.
I'm not going to dissect and pursue this 'contest' any further as there's not much point. I'm sure every contributor understands where everyone else stands on this matter by now.
Just one thing I'd like to add about religious belief, (and no doubt it applies to other thinking too).
People who are raised within the church, (even those that depart temporarily) almost never change their minds about the indoctrination they 'suffered' as a child. To disavow all that they've been taught is to admit their life is built on a false premise, and there's nothing worse than realising you've been living according to a fantasy. Many 'believers' need a crutch to support them and get them through their years. It relieves them of the responsibility for their own lives. It's better to accept that responsibilty, it's empowering and confidence building. Even if an individual screws up, (as they inevitably will) they can still live in the knowledge that it was THEIR screw-up.
I don't really have a problem with the religious beliefs of individuals (apart from fanatics), but it pisses me off when they insist that their belief is the only truth, and secularists are somehow uninformed, inferior and maybe even 'ill'.
You are right on two accounts
1) You are taking me too literally and -
2) It's not that I am "unable" to veiw things from a non-christian view point, but rather, I choose not to.
Like I have said before, ALL of my views on politics, world affairs and "issues", extend from my beleif in God and on his Word. (Yes, on my understanding of them.) I try to "reason" how God would have us, as his children, act and react to things by the instructions he gave us in his Word.
I'm not saying that the movement is "willfully" becoming a religion. I am saying that there are already some religions out there that this movement, I believe, will play into the hands of. (forgive my poor grammer)
Don't believe me - that's okay. I really don't expect you to. I'm just telling you to WATCH FOR IT". I believe that you will see it (at least begin) in your life time. Maybe even very, very soon.
Look at the title to this forum as an example: "Heretics of the new religion?" started by 2Lou. I don't know where he got the title - but evidently, "someone" is looking at the possibility that it is or becoming that.
If 2Lou reads this, I hope he will tell us where he came up with such a title.
Thanks Mississippi.
Why the name Mississippi by the way?
I can't let you get away with your last post though, without a comment or two. You indicated that Christianity is a crutch. I agree. All christians need a crutch. It is better for the lame to walk with a crutch than without one. It is just that the secularists do not believe they need one and that is why they continue to stumble through life (I believe and the Bible also teaches.) I believe we all need a crutch. You actually do use them too. They're just not the same ones I use.
Also, christians do accept responsibility for themselves and their actions. They have to. It is part of the faith. You know very well that all people, according to the christian faith, will have to make an accounting. It is a basic tenant of the faith.
I'm sorry, because I know I really piss you off. I know that because I am a religious fanatic. After all, we all are fanatic's about something. I suppose every preacher you ever met was a fanatic. Some of us are fans of football, baseball, hockey and the like. I like all of those - but I am a fan of God. Sorry.
'I don't think that Christianity is the only truth. I just believe that it is correct.'
Uh... if you accept the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy then you *do* believe that the Bible represents the only truth. Unless you'd care to parse that statement a little more? I mean, it's certainly true that, in your believing the Bible in its entirety is not just morally but historically one hundred percent accurate, you must believe in some truths that go *beyond* traditional Christianity - after all, there *are* no Christians in the Old Testament, because there is no Christ.
And where there are apparently conflicting statements (i.e. the accounts of Creation, and eye for an eye versus turn the other cheek) well, you just slap your own interpretation on those and then insist that it's the only reasonable way of viewing them, that no other interpretation is possible, that it's God's Word so it must be right, but not right in the way other people think it, just right in the way *you* think it.
Thanks Jack for providing the link. Notice this excerpt I took from it under the topic of Environmental Ethics:
"It exerts influence on a large range of disciplines including law, sociology, theology, economics, ecology and geography".
Notice the word "theology"?
Rokkitnite
You are correct. I am just trying to be a little diplomatic, that's all. I said that because I do, infact, acknowledge that there are some truths outside of christianity. I believe in the law of gravity, for instance, and the Bible says nothing about it. We know it from experience and science. That's why I said that it is not the "only" truth. I just believe that if a statement or implication is in direct opposition to the scriptures, the Bible is the truth in that matter.
You're right also about the Old Testement. It's, as you probably know, part of christianity as well.
Rokkitnite says:
*And where there are apparently conflicting statements (i.e. the accounts of Creation, and eye for an eye versus turn the other cheek) well, you just slap your own interpretation on those and then insist that it's the only reasonable way of viewing them, that no other interpretation is possible, that it's God's Word so it must be right, but not right in the way other people think it, just right in the way *you* think it.*
Come on now. No, I don't slap my own interpretation on anything. That's silly. That is only how you precieve it because you don't know the Bible and don't fully understand christianity. The Bible explains itself quite nicely - don't worry about that. When Jesus said the 'turn the other cheek' bit he also explained the 'eye for an eye' bit. It isn't just left up to our own understanding. It is spelled out very understandable.
Much of the Old Testament is how things should be "before" the promise of the "coming fullfillment". And when that coming happened - Jesus - then so came with him, the conclusion of a lot of Old Testament things. That is why we don't do the same rituals as those of the old testament -
because those things were done in the "faith" that he would come. That was how they were saved - by faith believing that he would come. We are now saved much the same way - by "faith" that he has come.
Here is more from the site Jack Cade posted.
"Ecotheology is a form of Constructive Theology that focuses on the interrelationships of religion and nature, particularly in the light of environmental concerns. Ecotheology argues that a relationship exists between human religious/spiritual worldviews and the degradation of nature. It explores the interaction between ecological values, such as sustainability, and the human domination of nature. The movement has produced numerous religious-environmental projects around the world."
"I just believe that if a statement or implication is in direct opposition to the scriptures, the Bible is the truth in that matter."
So you still believe that the reason why planets revolve is because angels float behind them, fluttering their wings?
There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett
~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~
* ...Why the name Mississippi by the way? ... *
Several reasons actually.
Firstly, I've spent a lot of time in Mississippi over the last few years and love the place, especially the Delta, and Clarksdale in particular.
I'm also a fan of John Wayne and western movies. My favourite western is 'Rio Bravo' which starred Ricky Nelson (a rock and roll singer I always liked), in a key role as a young cowboy called 'Colorado'. The movie was later re-made as 'Eldorado'. It still had Wayne in the key role but Ricky Nelson's part was taken by James Caan and his name was changed to 'Mississippi'. That name rolled off Wayne's tongue much better.
The Mississippi river has fired me with imagination ever since I read Huckleberry Finn as a youngster. I guess every young boy thought he epitomised the ideal boyhood.
I've travelled quite a bit on the Mississippi myself, sometimes on river boats, though only on the lower parts from Tennessee through to New Orleans.
Believe it or not, since I adopted the name I've had at least 25 emails from people saying they envied the name and they wish they'd 'thought' of it first.
Actually on some American sites I visit I've had to resort to spelling it as 'Mizzizzippi' because the proper spelling along with several numerical additions were already taken, and I thought that 'Mississippi397' looked a bit silly.
I am a UK citizen and I've lived in England all my life apart from a short spell in the early 70's when I lived in Australia, though I've travelled quite a lot in my time.
"Come on now. No, I don't slap my own interpretation on anything. That's silly."
You are though. Any interpretation is an interpretation, however literal, however much you think it is the obvious one or that it is self-explanatory. This, for example, is clearly an interpretation that not everyone follows, and would be, I'm sure, regarded as controversial by some religious communities:
"Much of the Old Testament is how things should be "before" the promise of the "coming fullfillment".
You think you've got the whole thing reconciled, and it all makes sense to you, and it's as plain as day - fair enough, but that's how many people, with differing interpretations, feel about the Bible.
"I'm not saying that the movement is "willfully" becoming a religion. I am saying that there are already some religions out there that this movement, I believe, will play into the hands of."
Well, that's a far more reasonable proposition. I would still disagree, but it's not something that's easy to prove one way or the other. Undoubtedly, there are some 'nature' religions, and they share some interests with environmentalists. Whether this is enough to change the whole direction of the movement remains to be seen, although I would think it unlikely.
Your right Jack, it does remain to be seen. You say that you would think it unlikely, but since the conception of Ecotheology, I would have to disagree with you and say that it is very highly likely. Let's just watch and see. So far, the trend seems to be on my side of the arguement, especially since Ecotheology is one of the principle tenents of the movement.
Let’s just look at this “what if” for a moment, with an open mind. Leave out, if you can, any preconceived ideas or predispositions. Are you there? Good. Let me ask you this question? (Here comes the “what if”.)
If you wanted to organize a “One World Government”, what would be the best way to go about it? Wouldn’t you need to gather a great majority of the world over to your side first? Wouldn’t you have to convince them that there was a greater good in coming together? In affect, wouldn’t you have to unite the world around something that the world would see as a common necessity or great need - something to rally around?
If you're with me so far, then is it really too far fetched to believe that “saving the planet”, “cleaning up the environment”, “save the dolphins” and the like, would make a great platform to rally around – wonderful touchy feely stuff to bring the people of the world together?
Can’t you see how religious movements throughout history, have united people into massive units. Religious movements have gathered to form only three basic religions – Judaism, Islam and Christianity. You can add a forth or fifth if you like but even then, try to imagine that kind of unity across the globe. Religion has united peoples of the world far better than governments ever have.
Now imagine if you can gather ALL the people around the world into a One World Religion called Ecotheology or by any other name with this at its core. You can win many of the other religions over without them even having to drop any of their basic tenants.
Once you have this underway, not even completed really, you can begin to implement the other tenants of the movement on the world.
The law – you simply mandate eco “stuff” on the world by law and enforce it easily because the “people” will tell on you if you don’t obey the “eco laws” – just like they will if you don’t obey the smoking laws.
Sociology – falls into place with religion and people uniting around a single cause for a united purpose.
Economics – will fall in line because the world is already largely united to fund the movement.
Ecology – well that is what its all about – or is it?
Geography – is a misnomer since we are talking about a worldwide movement unless you are referring to specific areas targeted for clean up.
Does all this make sense to anyone? Anyone?
No, and that's speaking as an evangelical Christian (though not a very good or conventional one).
This dispensational stuff was first propounded less than 200 years ago, people who had done the donkey work on translating and commenting on the Bible before that never saw it that way. It began with semi-cult people like the Plymouth Brethren and only now that it has adherents with lots of dosh in the States to make lots of glossy books and films has it become widespread.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not the only three major religions, but they have a common root; presumably Hinduism and Buddhism aren't so important to you because they are only believed by hundreds of millions of poor people in the East as opposed to noisy rich influential people in the West.
Admittedly nuclear weapons and the possiblity of global plagues, plus all the Israel stuff which makes many Christians support that nation's unrighteousness in a "biblical" cause, makes end-of-the-world Christianity respectable, but the majority of Christians of all types in the UK don't subscribe to this, and are becoming more environmentally concerned because it's seen as a responsible and godly thing to do in our current age as opposed to cobbling together prophetic plans of the "end times" and letting future generations go hang.
Share your state secrets at...
http://www.amerileaks.org
~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~
~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~
Pages