Dangerous Fundamentalist Justifies Terrorism

[Irvine511]

Then you did word it wrong - big time. You originally said that believing every word of the Bible to be true is dangerous.

First, I believe every word that came from Christ's mouth, and Christ spoke of Adam and Eve, as if they actually existed:

i still think that believing every word of the bible to be fact is dangerous. i think that viewing the bible as a list of commands to be blindly followed regardless of consequence is dangerous. i think to trust the bible, when your experience tells you that what is written in the bible is flat out wrong (or, more likely, your interpretation of the bible is wrong) is dangerous.

anyone who is going to place a book above their own logic, rationality, conscience and experience is dangerous.

and i think it's crap to believe that every word Jesus said is recorded in the bible, or that ever word he's credited as saying he actually spoke. are there recordings of his speeches? do we have archived video footage? emails? no, we don't, we have the recording of what other people (with their own set of interests) *chose* to attribute to Jesus. and don't give me a line about "god would find a way" because that's so intellecutally bogus, such a rationalization, that it renders pretty much everything else suspect.

have you ever written fiction? ever had your writing read by other people nd had them tell you what they think you were writing about? it's *amazing* the things people will read into your words, and it sort of doesn't matter what it is you originally intended -- it only matters what people read into your words. the bible is exactly like this -- it's ALL interpretation of a text written thousands of years ago. just look at how wildly Bono's lyrics can be interpretaed -- i.e., i remember you not seeing how "mysterious ways" could possibly be about sex, when it's as clear as day to me that there's a blatant oral sex reference and the song is about melding the sexual with the spiritual.

bottom line: the dogmatic assertion of one's interpretation of the Bible as a sort of trump card over everything that happens in life, augmented by the handed-down belief that "every word in the Bible is true," is a dangerous thing. because religion, when viewed and understood in the wrong way, is the most destructive thing on the face of the earth.

at its most benevolent, people burn Harry Potter books. at it's most malevolent, people kill other people.

 

[80sU2isBest]

i still think that believing every word of the bible to be fact is dangerous. i think that viewing the bible as a list of commands to be blindly followed regardless of consequence is dangerous. i think to trust the bible, when your experience tells you that what is written in the bible is flat out wrong (or, more likely, your interpretation of the bible is wrong) is dangerous.

anyone who is going to place a book above their own logic, rationality, conscience and experience is dangerous.

As I've told you before, nothing in the Bible contradicts my experience, logic, rationale, or conscience. So there is no contradiction for me; never has been. And that doesn't mean I'm following blindly.

We're right back where we started from, then. You do view those of us who believe that every word in the Bible is true as being dangerous. And therefore, you're every bit as culpable for the execution and jailing of Christians as I am for the ill treatment of gays. I believe that the level of culpability for each of us is zero. But if my belief that homosexuality is wrong is fanning the flames of hatred against gays, then your belief that Bible-believing Christians are dangerous is fanning the flames of hatred against Christians. There is no way around that.

 

[BVS]

Of course it's dangerous. When there is absolutely no logic to something like why two people can't love each other except some verse out of the bible then it's dangerous. When you deny science because of a misinterpretation of the Bible then it's dangerous.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Of course it's dangerous. When there is absolutely no logic to something like why two people can't love each other except some verse out of the bible then it's dangerous. When you deny science because of a misinterpretation of the Bible then it's dangerous.

BVS,
Never have I said that 2 peple can't love each other, and neither does the Bible. Nor have I ever "denied science" because of the Bible. The Bible doesn't "deny science", either.

The thing I don't agree with many scientists about is evolution...but guess what, evolution is a THEORY.

 

[BVS]

BVS,
Never have I said that 2 peple can't love each other, and neither does the Bible. Nor have I ever "denied science" because of the Bible. The Bible doesn't "deny science", either.

The thing I don't agree with many scientists about is evolution...but guess what, evolution is a THEORY.

I never said YOU said anything. Many read the Bible and interpret it to say that two men or two women can't love each other, that it's wrong (Actually it never really mentions women so all you lesbians are free...).

And yes many interpret the Bible to say that the world was created in a week, which goes against scientific FACT!!! Then you have wack jobs like Bush who won't allow stem cell research because some other wack jobs have told him it's unChristian based on absolutely nothing from the Bible. It's sick.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Then you have wack jobs like Bush who won't allow stem cell research because some other wack jobs have told him it's unChristian based on absolutely nothing from the Bible.

I'm one of the "whack jobs", and while stem cell research wasn't mentioned by name in the Bible (how could it have been) by name, there are other biblical concepts that give us an indication of what God's view on stem cell research on embryonic stem cells might be.

In order to harvest ESCs, an embryo must be destroyed. The biblical teaching is that human existence begins at conception and that life in the womb is sacred:

"You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.

My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them." Psalm 139:13-16

"The word of the Lord came to [Jeremiah], saying:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you." Jeremiah 1:4-5

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life . . ." Exodus 21:22-25

Worldwide, the consensus of embryologists agrees that life begins at fertilization (http://www.all.org/abac/quarter.htm). Because research on ESCs requires the destruction of a living human being, it is against God’s will.

 

[financeguy]

I have reservations about stem cell research too but the problem with citing selective Biblical quotes to support your political stances is just that, the selectivity of it.

Can't remember the reference but I'm sure you are well aware there is a section in the Bible calling for parents to stone their children if they misbehave. Yes it's in the Old Testament, but so are the quotes you cited above!

One wonders whether fundamentalists would want this measure be implemented into our laws?

 

[shart1780]

If he's a christian why is he cussing...?

 

[shart1780]

I have reservations about stem cell research too but the problem with citing selective Biblical quotes to support your political stances is just that, the selectivity of it.

Can't remember the reference but I'm sure you are well aware there is a section in the Bible calling for parents to stone their children if they misbehave. Yes it's in the Old Testament, but so are the quotes you cited above!

One wonders whether fundamentalists would want this measure be implemented into our laws?

Why would it matter if what he cited was in the old testemant? In the OT there were alot of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" that are mute today, but those were laws. He cited scriptures that were eternal truths about God and life, not commandments.

 

[BVS]

that life in the womb is sacred:

So now a petri dish is a womb? I think God would be offended.

 

[financeguy]

Why would it matter if what he cited was in the old testemant? In the OT there were alot of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" that are mute today, but those were laws. He cited scriptures that were eternal truths about God and life, not commandments.

You're really not getting it, are you?

The point is, once you go down the route of citing quotes from the Bible to support your political stance, you leave yourself open to accusations of selectivity.

Unless, of course you are in favour of public stonings.

Are you, Shart1780?

 

[BVS]

If he's a christian why is he cussing...?

What? Who?

Anyways...yeah I forgot Christians are perfect?

Anyways where's that verse that talks about the 7 naughty words we aren't suppose to say?

 

[80sU2isBest]

So now a petri dish is a womb? I think God would be offended.

BVS, did I or did I not say:


while stem cell research wasn't mentioned by name in the Bible (how could it have been) by name, there are other biblical concepts that give us an indication of what God's view on stem cell research on embryonic stem cells might be.

How in thw world could you get form that that I was calling the womb a "petri dish"?

Or do you not know that embryos come from the womb?

 

[80sU2isBest]

I have reservations about stem cell research too but the problem with citing selective Biblical quotes to support your political stances is just that, the selectivity of it.

Can't remember the reference but I'm sure you are well aware there is a section in the Bible calling for parents to stone their children if they misbehave. Yes it's in the Old Testament, but so are the quotes you cited above!

One wonders whether fundamentalists would want this measure be implemented into our laws?

financeguy, where is that passage in the Bible? I'm very curious!

Of the 3 passages I quoted, only one is a law. I did not post it because I think that we are still to abide by that law. I know that Christ brings Christian a new covenant - he has released the burden of the Mosaic law upon us. The reason I posted that verse is that, like the other 2 verses I posted, it speaks to the importance that God places upon life in the womb.

 

[BVS]

Or do you not know that embryos come from the womb?

Embryo is a fertalized egg. Now unless I'm completely off mark here, I believe the eggs are being fertalized in labs.

 

[financeguy]

financeguy, where is that passage in the Bible? I'm very curious!

Of the 3 passages I quoted, only one is a law. I did not post it because I think that we are still to abide by that law. I know that Christ brings Christian a new covenant - he has released the burden of the Mosaic law upon us. The reason I posted that verse is that, like the other 2 verses I posted, it speaks to the importance that God places upon life in the womb.

I will dig it out in a day or two once I get the chance to look through my King James. It is definitely there.

 

[shart1780]

What? Who?

Anyways...yeah I forgot Christians are perfect?

Anyways where's that verse that talks about the 7 naughty words we aren't suppose to say?

I was actually reffering to the original post. I was actually joking.

Although I don't believe it's good for christians to swear.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Embryo is a fertalized egg. Now unless I'm completely off mark here, I believe the eggs are being fertalized in labs.

Well, you are right..they come from labs. I wa sthinking of umbilical cord stem cells. I apologize.

But regardless of that, embryonic stem cells do come from the fertilization of sperm and egg. That fertilization is the stage at which emryologists believe life begins.

 

[BVS]

But regardless of that, embryonic stem cells do come from the fertilization of sperm and egg. That fertilization is the stage at which emryologists believe life begins.

But that's the part that I'm saying has no Biblical backing. There is no womb, there is no means of growing into life. I just don't understand how people can want to stop this if it can possibly save lives.

 

[Irvine511]

As I've told you before, nothing in the Bible contradicts my experience, logic, rationale, or conscience. So there is no contradiction for me; never has been. And that doesn't mean I'm following blindly.

We're right back where we started from, then. You do view those of us who believe that every word in the Bible is true as being dangerous. And therefore, you're every bit as culpable for the execution and jailing of Christians as I am for the ill treatment of gays. I believe that the level of culpability for each of us is zero. But if my belief that homosexuality is wrong is fanning the flames of hatred against gays, then your belief that Bible-believing Christians are dangerous is fanning the flames of hatred against Christians. There is no way around that.

like talking to a brick wall ... you gave a rationale for the whole "world created in seven days" allegory, so in that instance alone you've reconciled and rationalized words in the bible to fit what you know, logically, to be true.

and you're still ignoring the focus of my point -- nothing to do with "believing" in the Bible (a very, very vague phrase) but in taking the bible at it's literal word and sacraficing logic, rationality, and conscience for the sake of words on a page. i've given you the example of the Grand Canyon, though you've just shot yourself in the foot by calling evolution an theory. yes, and gravity is a theory. a scientific theory is vastly different than, say, literary theory or conspiracy theory.

the basic point is this: to close your eyes and ears and mind when faced with evidence that might contradict whatever might be written in the Bible (evolution, age of the earth, the "abomination" of homosexuality) is a dangerous thing.

you're strained comparison to my belief that homophobia kills, and Christianist rationalizations for the dislike/hatred of homosexuality fuels homophobia, isn't even worthy of a response. you're way off the mark.

 

[80sU2isBest]

like talking to a brick wall ... you gave a rationale for the whole "world created in seven days" allegory, so in that instance alone you've reconciled and rationalized words in the bible to fit what you know, logically, to be true.

I don't KNOW it to be true that God didn't create the world in 7 days. I said it's a dictinct possibility and does not contradict the Bible. I do not know how long it took him to create the world; all I know is that I believe he created it.

i've given you the example of the Grand Canyon, though you've just shot yourself in the foot by calling evolution an theory. yes, and gravity is a theory. a scientific theory is vastly different than, say, literary theory or conspiracy theory.

Come on, don't even compare the "theory" of evolution to the "theory" of gravity. Gravity is proven every milisecond of every day on this earth. Macroevolution has not been proven.

the basic point is this: to close your eyes and ears and mind when faced with evidence that might contradict whatever might be written in the Bible (evolution, age of the earth, the "abomination" of homosexuality) is a dangerous thing.

We are different. You believe that man's wisdom and intellect are the utmost. You believe that man is the god of all he surveys. I believe that God is much wiser and smarter than man, and that God is the god of all of this. You put your trust in man's science. You say that where there appears to be contradiction between Christianity and man's science, that man's science should be trusted. I say that God's word should be trusted.

Do you think that the world exploded into being, with no intelligent design, and that man somehow evolved from a single zygote into the complex, rational beings that we are, by pure chance?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Come on, don't even compare the "theory" of evolution to the "theory" of gravity. Gravity is proven every milisecond of every day on this earth. Macroevolution has not been proven.

Actually I think that the theory of evolution has a much higher confidence level than any theory of gravity out there today.

Scientific facts ~ objects are attracted by a force, species change and adapt down the generations through mutation and selective population pressures. Scientific theories ~ Universal Law of Gravitation (disproven ~ since gravity does not work instantaneously), General Relativity. Evolution by means of natural selection, Red Queen, punctuated equilibrium etc.

The scientific facts are there to be seen; look at the fossil record to see clear changes in life, look at the geological processes to understand past environments (palaeocurrents, sedimentary structures), look at radiactive isotopes to find out the age of igneous rocks. Study animal populations and speciation; you want proof of evolution then look at the canine; how so many different breeds with different attributes have come into existence over the course of human history from a few wolf ancestors?

What sort proof do you want, do you want to see a fish transmuted into a human being over the course of a decade?

How do you understand macroevolution and why don't you think that it explains the variety and life on earth both past and present and the observed changes of traits in species polulations under stress or seperation.

 

[A_Wanderer]

As for the pure chance argument; we must exist to be here and observe how statistically improbably our existence should be; so by defintion every other terrestrial planet where life could have started but for whatever reason didn't or where it did start and never evolved into higher organisms are nullified.

Furthurmore that argument cannot prove anything and it does not take into account evidence.

Human beings may well have evolved by "pure chance" but so too did every other organism on the planet; and of all the organsms that have ever existed on the planet earth how should it be surprising that an animal like homo sapiens evolved ~ we are animals, particularly intelligent with tremendous cognitive faculties to be sure but animals nontheless. We share morpohological simmilarities with other animals, genetic similarities ~ what is so bewildering about that possibility when we are presented with all this evidence to support it.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Human beings may well have evolved by "pure chance" but so too did every other organism on the planet; and of all the organsms that have ever existed on the planet earth how should it be surprising that an animal like homo sapiens evolved ~ we are animals, particularly intelligent with tremendous cognitive faculties to be sure but animals nontheless. We share morpohological simmilarities with other animals, genetic similarities ~ what is so bewildering about that possibility when we are presented with all this evidence to support it.

What evidence is there that ANY of this happened by chance? Can you give me one shred of evidence? It's not just humans that I consider complex creatures. I consider every living creature a complex creature. How could everything necessary for this type of life to start and sustain be the result of pure chance? Where is evidence to support "pure chance"? There is none.

 

[80sU2isBest]

What sort proof do you want, do you want to see a fish transmuted into a human being over the course of a decade?

How do you understand macroevolution and why don't you think that it explains the variety and life on earth both past and present and the observed changes of traits in species polulations under stress or seperation.

Macroeveolution involves the formation of new species. Is there any empirical evidence for macroevolution?

 

[anitram]

Macroeveolution involves the formation of new species. Is there any empirical evidence for macroevolution?

Are you familiar with the proposed mechanisms of macroevolution at all?

Particularly the fact that microevolution (which you believe in, seemingly) can accumulate in number until speciation occurs?

If you believe that microevolution is empirically proven, then why do you not believe that multiple successive microevolutions, when added up together, cannot result in the formation of a new taxonomic group?

 

[A_Wanderer]

What evidence is there that ANY of this happened by chance? Can you give me one shred of evidence? It's not just humans that I consider complex creatures. I consider every living creature a complex creature. How could everything necessary for this type of life to start and sustain be the result of pure chance? Where is evidence to support "pure chance"? There is none.

You want pure chance; look at the Miller-Urey experiment ~ reproduce the atmosphere of the early earth which is a reducing environment and amino acids will be formed; take the total surface area of the planet earth and some shallow elements of the earths crust constantly creating and combining nucleotides and run this for a few hundred million years; how many self replicating molecules could be created through pure chance?

The first step of making the organic molecules through abiotic processes is right there, through "pure chance".

 

[80sU2isBest]

You want pure chance; look at the Miller-Urey experiment ~ reproduce the atmosphere of the early earth which is a reducing environment and amino acids will be formed; take the total surface area of the planet earth and some shallow elements of the earths crust constantly creating and combining nucleotides and run this for a few hundred million years; how many self replicating molecules could be created through pure chance?

The first step of making the organic molecules through abiotic processes is right there, through "pure chance".

I'l admit that I know nothing about the experiment you are talking about, so there is no way I can comment on it.

Did the experiement go anywhere near duplicating evolution from a zygote into a complex being such as a human or even a cat?

 

[A_Wanderer]

It did not.

Sexual reproduction is not required for life to exist and it was not there from the begining.

What you are talking about seems to be a biological life cycle from fertilization through the embryonic stages until adult.

Evolution is not a life cycle; it does not happen to an individual organism, it happens over populations and through generations, slight variations having a cumulative effect. Mutations and changes; especially sex which creates new combinations being passed to offspring, the offspring reproducing creating more variations, population pressures ensuring some traits enable greater reproductive sucess.

 

[BonosSaint]

i still think that believing every word of the bible to be fact is dangerous. i think that viewing the bible as a list of commands to be blindly followed regardless of consequence is dangerous. i think to trust the bible, when your experience tells you that what is written in the bible is flat out wrong (or, more likely, your interpretation of the bible is wrong) is dangerous.

anyone who is going to place a book above their own logic, rationality, conscience and experience is dangerous.

and i think it's crap to believe that every word Jesus said is recorded in the bible, or that ever word he's credited as saying he actually spoke. are there recordings of his speeches? do we have archived video footage? emails? no, we don't, we have the recording of what other people (with their own set of interests) *chose* to attribute to Jesus. and don't give me a line about "god would find a way" because that's so intellecutally bogus, such a rationalization, that it renders pretty much everything else suspect.

have you ever written fiction? ever had your writing read by other people nd had them tell you what they think you were writing about? it's *amazing* the things people will read into your words, and it sort of doesn't matter what it is you originally intended -- it only matters what people read into your words. the bible is exactly like this -- it's ALL interpretation of a text written thousands of years ago. just look at how wildly Bono's lyrics can be interpretaed -- i.e., i remember you not seeing how "mysterious ways" could possibly be about sex, when it's as clear as day to me that there's a blatant oral sex reference and the song is about melding the sexual with the spiritual.

bottom line: the dogmatic assertion of one's interpretation of the Bible as a sort of trump card over everything that happens in life, augmented by the handed-down belief that "every word in the Bible is true," is a dangerous thing. because religion, when viewed and understood in the wrong way, is the most destructive thing on the face of the earth.

at its most benevolent, people burn Harry Potter books. at it's most malevolent, people kill other people.

While there is danger (even evil) in the misuse or malevolent interpretation of scripture or other religious text, I can see no harm in 80's beliefs in him personally. From reading his posts over the months, I do not see him calling for a ban on teaching evolution in schools. I hear some support for civil unions for gays (if not religious marriage) (I support both). I see consistency in his being prolife and anti death penalty (even if it is not philosophical, but practical being that state screws up voluntarily or involuntarily so often). I see a person defending his beliefs, but I don't see him as a person dangerous to secular society. I have many disagreements with his beliefs, which I have voiced often enough. But I see no reason for him to come under personal attack. And if it is not meant that way, it appears that way. From all I can see, he does not appear to be a member of a church that is spewing hatefilled dogma from the pulpit. He does not appear to be a member of the POLITICAL religious right, which is dangerous.

Religion has its limits. Science has its limits (science is what man knows it to be today, which is vastly different from what man knew a hundred years ago or several hundred years ago and is different from what man will know it to be a hundred years from now) I can see how many people on this board believe science to be progressive and religion to be regressive (I believe that too). But we will need philosophy and art and maybe religion in its best context to know how to deal emotionally with how quickly the world is changing geopolitically, technologically, etc. and not always for the best. Secularism (which I believe is the better way for the world to run) has its limits. It too is afraid of ideas different from its own, it stifles argument, it is politically correct to the point of colorlessness, and it lacks humor. I tend to notice a palpable lack of humor on both sides. (PS. I distrust any belief system that doesn't laugh at itself).

We each make our own judgments, our own deals with God or the devil or ourselves or others, we form our beliefs on the experiences we have and are limited by the experiences we don't have. We carry biases we try to rationalize. I know the words we say here. I don't know what the actions are in day to day life, which is how I make my judgments. So I make few judgments here (at least on board) unless somebody is over the top. I haven't found 80's over the top. Perhaps because I've known so many people like him who aren't dangerous, who have their beliefs and let me have mine. When he starts interfering with personal lives, he is dangerous. As far as I can see, he is a believer trying to do the best he can in a forum designed to highlight the differences between us all and hopefully designed to find some common ground.

When I see him guilty of hypocrisy, I'll start to bash. I've seen rationalizations, some moral condemnation, but I haven't seen any particular hypocrisy. Appears he is holding himself to the same standard of behavior he espouses. We might call it naive, we might call it regressive. We might call it preachy. But it's his honest belief in a forum generally hostile to his beliefs. So I can appreciate the courage. I've never been damaged by anyone's beliefs. I've only been damaged by their actions. So I'll wait to see if any of his actions are damaging before I judge.

There you go, 80's. A secularist defending a Christian.