Do you read the Bible?

[PrinceAli]

I'd just like to butt in to this monster of a thread and say that religion does not necessarily contradict science, and I as a Christian have absolutely no problem with curing diseases and finding cures for others as long as it hurts nobody else.

Well it actually does in a way contradict science. In science, conclusions are always based on clearly identifiable evidence. There is always a solid basis to why and how something works. And when evidence is not present then science simply does not and cannot reach a conclusion.
Christianity on the other hand was and still is the exact opposite of science. Christianity starts with a conclusion and offers nothing of any substance and least of all any evidence to support the conclusion.

It's an unfair assumption to call faith in the Bible blind but then saying faith in science isn't blind (but I like it that you're admitting that scientists have faith). You have the Bible on one side, and your biology textbook on the other side, and you'll need to take a step of faith either way. If evolution the way textbooks tell it is hard, cold fact, then you'd wonder why evolutionists are so aggressive and argumentative to prove that they're right. I'd think facts would speak for themselves.

First, I never said scientists have faith, but they do...just not in your way of thinking. Everyone has faith, even atheists. They have faith that when they walk down a stairwell the stairs won't fall apart...or else they wouldn't have walked down it. Scientists have faith in what they are doing. But not all scientists have faith that there is a god or are even Christians. Evolution is not hard cold fact. It is a theory, just like you should have learned in biology class. It can't be proven until we are able to live a few thousand years to observe it, LOL. But what has been proven is Micro-evolution. Based on that as well as other things, we can have a safer assumption that Macro-evolution does exist, but just can't be proven.
Oh, and no...not all faith is blind, but believing in the Bible just cause the Bible says so is blind.

The fact that the Bible stays the same and that the schoolbook changes isn't a good argument for a progressive or evolutionist to use, if you think about it.

So it would be better if schoolbooks were the same as they were in 1910 in which we thought high levels of math did not exist? I honestly don't understand what the problem is for changing textbooks when we make important discoveries.

Who said God isn't proud of what good comes from humans? He's the one who defined good in the first place. Without a definitive truth, good will always be changing. It might not be acceptable to rape somebody now, but the way things are going, 200 years from now it will be a sound practice. Why would anybody want the definitions of good and bad to change? I don't see what's so appealing about that.

It just seemed how Aaron was saying it, that God doesn't really care what man does as long as you are following Jesus. I believe that good will be changing as long as we progress more scientifically. For instance, there was a time when a majority of the people thought that abortion was an act of the Devil, it was terrible to kill children before they are born. But now with scientific advances, we know that most people choose to abort before the child is developed enough, so you are losing only the fetus. But good is always heading in the direction of getting better, better in my sense. There is always going to be people that will try to make things seem good even if they aren't. However, I don't know where you come up with how rape is going to be a "sound practice" in 200 years. If it was a sound practice, it wouldn't even be considered rape.

Basically, we want good to always mean good, but you should be able to reason for yourself if something is good or not. A lot of it is common sense, but much needs to be thought about and interpreted, something that you shouldn't dare do with the Bible. We don't want it to change if it will get worse basically.

The fact that it's MORE socially unacceptable just shows how morals are changing.

Yes, and isn't that a good thing though? That morals are getting better? Sheesh, for you people with such faith of Jesus, isn't it odd how you don't have faith that things will change for the better?

But just because rape is more socially unacceptable today than it was, say, 200 years ago, does not mean that it or other sexually immoral acts will become the norm a few centuries from now.

I really would love to know how rape can be the norm...how can you even comprehend what will be in 200 years from now? The world would be so different that it is hard to even think about how you could get away with rape, if it is tough enough now. But lets not speculate that far ahead, the possibilities are endless.

What did we rationalize to suddenly consider that forced prostitution is wrong?

No comment...

Aw dude you can't be serious. Not believing in evolution at this point is like not believing in car engines - whether you've observed it or not, the effects are pretty bloody evident!

Not really, if you are talking about macro-evolution, it is still just a theory waiting to be proven.

[GOGOinVegas]

I am thoroughly enjoying being an observer ( mostly ) to this thread, I dont see why Luke would lock it, there hasnt been any of the usual rude nonsensical garbage usually associated with this kind of topic. If only people could respect each other as well in the real world.

Loomis' point about proclaiming himself god not only had me rolling , but it perfectly illustrates how many religions ( if not all) perceive themselves. why wouldnt everyone think theirs is the right one! It seems a logical attitude for us hugely egotistical humans to think so.
People die and killl each other everyday because their beliefs are so strong about this. It would seem obviously sad that 99.99999999% ( if not 100%)of these people have to be wrong, and lived and died very misled ( either by their society, parents, upbringing, etc.)
I dont see why we cant wait and see when we die ( i hope you know what I mean by see peeps!) what the TRUTH about our lives , if any will come to light. I dont think its sad that there may be nothing as many have told me. If anything, this possibility makes me feel as though we should live our lives to the fullest everyday,( as cornball as that expression is.)

I dont think anyones mind will be swayed by anything said here, but its been fun to see this progress as it has. Aaron and Loom are obviously both very passionate , smart people. What a dull life this would be if we all just agreed anyway.....

[PrinceAli]

Ugh, now to reply to the posts made as I was posting!
Lunch is sounding good Aaron...

Ok.

The subject at hand is interpreting The Bible, which I do not. Rejecting Islam or Loomism hardly effects the way that I read the Bible. I reject these religions, their texts, their gods, everything. On what basis do I reject them? Faith. Faith in God and Christianity. A literal faith in the Bible. I'm not "taking your text and interpreting it" - I'm rejecting your text, and you as a god. Now faith may not be an acceptable or logical explanation to you, but that's the basis.

Personally I do not think that Jesus would care one bit if we saw Him as God or as human or as a bundle of superstrings. I, personally, do not think that is the heart of the message He tried to preach. I think a Hindu or Muslim who abides by the two commandments at the heart of the Law is as worthy of paradise as anyone who professes a belief in Jesus as being God. That is why I am so disgusted by folks who profess their profound devotion to Christ and preach hatred in the same (and the next, and the next) breath. I am sure Loomis has met many of them, here and elsewhere.

Where did I say that I don't even think when I read? Hopefully if these 7 pages have demonstrated nothing else, they have demonstrated that I think. There's a difference between interpeting and thinking. To interpret (again, as I definied it very early on, because you can get into semantics debates all day long) something is to translate or find the meaning in what is there. But it already says something. It's in black and white, when read literally. No searches for symbolism, no questioning of "What is this trying to say?" is needed. Interpretation only comes into play when someone has difficult agreeing with or accepting what is already written there.

There is a difference between searching for symbolism, and then actually believing every word of the bible. I find it hard to search for what it is trying to say, and then don't even contemplate whether or not it is reasonable. A lot of the messages in the bible have good symbolism to them, but they are accompanied by stories like Noah's Ark and others, that hardly seem plausible.

Who said God hates science?? He loves it. He invented it! But the way you phrased it is important, my faith lies in God, not in science. Science is a tool we are given. I'm all for saving lives, ridding the world of diseases, discoveries, explorations, new ideas, and imagination, so long as none of them are misused for sin.

Ah, God loves science does he? Well if you recall, I remember a few pages back when you said something like "if it came down to science proving something in the Bible didn't happen, I would still choose God". That is what I meant, will God suddenly hate science if it can be used to disprove things in the Bible?

PrinceAli wrote:
I do understand though, that there are some bad things people have done with science such as create nuclear weapons or C4 type bombs. But like you said, man can have a bad influence on things. Churches and religion is man-made. Priests are men and not God, and can spread the "word of God" in terrible ways and create war.


I totally agree.

So it does not bother you that these priests and dangerous fundamentalists have the same faith as you and are going to the same Heaven?

Neither. My faith isn't blinding, and it is for everyone. It doesn't need to progress because it is universal and eternal, even as a constant. We don't have to believe the Bible is right- I'm not sure what you were implying by that- we do believe in it.

Your faith is blinding if you use circular reasoning to justify how it exists. It is NOT for everyone, but just those who believe jesus is their savior. Many people like to think things through and through before making a life-changing decision like that. And why wouldn't you have to believe the Bible is right when it is "God's Word"? That is like denying what God is saying...

What do you mean by the world will stay the same as the Bible? And why do you feel discovery is admonished by Christians?

The Bible will not change, only in how the different denominations interperet it or whatever. But the Bible is the Bible, will always be the same, will always preach the same messages. However, I think many Christians don't like it when discovery sometimes contends with some of what the Bible is saying, even if the discovery is hard fact and reasonable. They somehow think their faith is being threatened and they will lash out against the people not in the same boat as them...without trying to think things through first.

God rejects sin. If it is good, He does not reject it.

Ok, that makes sense. But who are people to justify what is good or what is sin? How are we to know? Most of the time it is common sense, but sometimes people will not agree with each other...and you have a bunch of people doing something they think is good, while others will think it is sin. And there are many of those circumstances.

All the good deeds and good intentions in life really don't amount to much.

Ouch, really ouch. Just try, just try to say that to someone whose ancestors were owned by other men...Most of them are glad they have a life that is not owned by someone else. Good deeds can amount to much.

Jesus is also promised not to return until the Word has been preached in every country and corner of the world.

Do you think Jesus would want to return after some people preach the word incorrectly to the tribes who don't who don't know about Him?

I don't understand what you are saying from the elipsis on. People didn't create Christianity, Jesus did. People did create organized religion, though.

I am talking about the religion of Christianity. People created that.

Speaking from a Christian standpoint, though, morality and Godliness is prophesied to go only downhill from here to the end.

Well that is a very defeated attitude. I'd like to think we'd get better, but I guess that is just me.

As a whole, moral standards (in America and worldwide) have declined sharply even within the last 50 years.

In some ways it has, but I think overall it hasn't. The women's rights and civil rights movements were good things.

We even allow virtually simulated child pornography

No, there are laws against that. Pornography though, is "allowed". It's a civil liberty for the people, so why shouldn't they have it? You are just limiting one's freedom if you combine church and state. That is an individual issue of morality.


Now, off to lunch.

[AwallaceUNC]

Ah! Nothin' like ham & cheese.

(The use of the word cheese was in no way meant to further entice Loomis in this thread).

Personally I do not think that Jesus would care one bit if we saw Him as God or as human or as a bundle of superstrings. I, personally, do not think that is the heart of the message He tried to preach. I think a Hindu or Muslim who abides by the two commandments at the heart of the Law is as worthy of paradise as anyone who professes a belief in Jesus as being God. That is why I am so disgusted by folks who profess their profound devotion to Christ and preach hatred in the same (and the next, and the next) breath. I am sure Loomis has met many of them, here and elsewhere.

I've met quite a few of them myself, and it is sad to see. That's why I want to see ]Saved!.

Jesus sacrificed Himself to and for His own creation not just to be another option on the checklist. That sacrifice was made so a path to Heaven and salvation could be paved. He is the only path, by virtue of that sacrifice and the fact that He's not just another man or a prophet, but is indeed God Himself. In essence, God is the only path to God.

There is a difference between searching for symbolism, and then actually believing every word of the bible. I find it hard to search for what it is trying to say, and then don't even contemplate whether or not it is reasonable. A lot of the messages in the bible have good symbolism to them, but they are accompanied by stories like Noah's Ark and others, that hardly seem plausible.

It's the notion that the stories have "good symbolism to them" that I reject. You can either believe all of the Bible, or none of it. Otherwise, who is to say what is truth, and what isn't? What is literal, and what isn't? While God wants us to enjoy ourselves, the Bible was given to us as a Heavenly version of the Rubix Cube (is that spelled right?).

Aside from the "leaning not unto our own understaning" bit, I don't believe miracles are at all implausible. Again, if God is all-powerful, why would something like Noah's ark be beyond His ability? Besides, few scientists/archeologists/historians dispute that a great global flood occured. They've even found remains of what many archeologists believe may have been Noah's ark. It's the destruction and repopulation of the world that they have a little harder of a time grasping.

Ah, God loves science does he? Well if you recall, I remember a few pages back when you said something like "if it came down to science proving something in the Bible didn't happen, I would still choose God". That is what I meant, will God suddenly hate science if it can be used to disprove things in the Bible?

Well you have to remember that I also said that science can't and will never be able to disprove God or the Bible. At best, it may some day appear to. No point in retyping my last post, though. No, God won't suddenly hate science, He hates the deception of the enemy and the motives of some men who seek to disprove the Bible.

So it does not bother you that these priests and dangerous fundamentalists have the same faith as you and are going to the same Heaven?

If they are truly dangerous, then they aren't truly fundamentalists (which stands in stark contrast to Islam, by the way). I can't say definitively whether any one individual goes to Heaven or not. That is God's decision- He knows each man's heart. So, no, it doesn't bother me. God is capable of descerning those truly saved for Himself.

Your faith is blinding if you use circular reasoning to justify how it exists. It is NOT for everyone, but just those who believe jesus is their savior. Many people like to think things through and through before making a life-changing decision like that. And why wouldn't you have to believe the Bible is right when it is "God's Word"? That is like denying what God is saying...

The concept of faith itself is circular. Individual faiths are not, there's more substance to it than that, which is really what these 7 pages of posts have been about.

The point is that Jesus is for everyone, and so therefore, so is Christianty. Jesus will not turn away anyone, the choice is available to all.

Yes, people should think things through, indeed. I agree with you there. You have to be sincere, after all. Just saying a prayer or crossing your heart or calling yourself saved doesn't really mean anything- they are just actions.

The way you phrased it sounded like Christians only believe the Bible so that they can use it as a crutch, which is what I was disputing it. Still, though, we don't have to believe it in the sense that we aren't forced to. To be a Christian, though, yes, believing it is a requirement.

However, I think many Christians don't like it when discovery sometimes contends with some of what the Bible is saying, even if the discovery is hard fact and reasonable.

.

That doesn't happen. See the science post above.

God rejects sin. If it is good, He does not reject it.

Ok, that makes sense. But who are people to justify what is good or what is sin? How are we to know? Most of the time it is common sense, but sometimes people will not agree with each other...and you have a bunch of people doing something they think is good, while others will think it is sin. And there are many of those circumstances.

I agree with you there. Who are people to decide that, indeed? That is precisely why interpretation and injecting symbolism into the Bible is so dangerous. When read literally, it quite clearly defines what is sin and what is not. But again, the focus isn't on not sinning, it's on following Jesus.

All the good deeds and good intentions in life really don't amount to much.

Ouch, really ouch. Just try, just try to say that to someone whose ancestors were owned by other men...Most of them are glad they have a life that is not owned by someone else. Good deeds can amount to much.

It really bugs me when the race card is played when it doesn't relate at all. Perhaps you can explain to me how you got pro-slavery remarks out of what I said?

Do you think Jesus would want to return after some people preach the word incorrectly to the tribes who don't who don't know about Him?

Again, I hold the belief that God watches over His word. The Bible prophesies that the Word will be preached in every corner & country- not the distorted word, or lies.

I am talking about the religion of Christianity. People created that.

Right, there is the faith of Christianity, and then there is the organized religion built around that faith. The latter is the construct of man, and is a problem.

Speaking from a Christian standpoint, though, morality and Godliness is prophesied to go only downhill from here to the end.

Well that is a very defeated attitude. I'd like to think we'd get better, but I guess that is just me.

Being an eternal optimist, I'd like to think that as well, but that doesn't change reality (which I believe Biblical prophecy is). It won't get better until Jesus returns.

...Ok there's more to your post and the others that I will reply to, but I have to leave now to make it to The Manchurian Candidate.

-Aaron

[MickeyMousePal]

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!!!!
This topic about the bible went 8 pages!!!
I usually read the BIBLE at least one time a year or finish in two or three years. It depends how many classes I take in the fall or spring semester.

[Loomis]

I have to ignore most of the posts as I simply don't have time to respond to them all (although I noticed MMP likes saying "Whoa!" a fair bit). But since Aaron responded to my previous post, I'll start there (and yes, I'll have to stop sleeping too).

Where does interpretation enter in? There's no disputing that I reject other religions based on faith alone. I don't interpret their words, I reject them. I'm not concerned with how they are read or understood. I am only concerned with the Bible, which I do not interpret.
[...]
On what do you base this assumption? How is it that believing that Christianity is the true path, based on what the Bible literally says, is an intepretation? There's nothing intepretive about my following the Bible, and nothing intepretive about my rejecting other holy texts and religions.

My point was that at some point you have made a point to follow Christianity (unless that is what your family did and your just naturally did that too, but someone has made the choice at one point). And by your own admission, you said that there are various strands of Christianity. So the choice was not simply one of faith, but one of a "faith within a faith" as it were. May I ask - what is the denomination of your church?

Because each of the various sects and groups within Christianity practice and interpret the bible slightly differently. Your faith teaches you to practice the bible as written, others interpret it as a series of metaphors that are meant to be guiding principles ("more like guidelines", just like the pirate code). So my point was - unless you have been indoctrinated since birth to choose a single path, your faith - by choosing the literal INTERPRETATION - has chosen to INTERPRET the bible as being God's literal word. Thus, from this INTERPRETATION you have gathered that your path is the ONLY path.

If you only use one text and one mindset (i.e. your faith) you are in fact interpreting the bible as you see fit. It may be a "literal" interpretation, but it is an interpretation nonetheless. Without reading outside the bible, or at least allowing for other notions of god to enter into your personal discourse, every thing you read from the bible is coloured by your own myopic world view. Thus, wether consciously or not, you are interpreting the bible within the boundaries of your own faith.

I might also ask if you have read the Koran? If you are going to reject something, shouldn't you at least give it the benefit of it's own "literal meaning" first? I haven't, but then again, I have not yet rejected it as a possible alternative faith. You are right - I don't find faith an acceptable answer, especially when that faith automatically rejects any idea counter to its own simply because it is not that idea. If there is a god, I don't think he/she would be willing to accept the fact that there are people who have completely closed themselves off to another way of thinking simply because they think it will lead to him/her.

[PrinceAli]

I might also ask if you have read the Koran? If you are going to reject something, shouldn't you at least give it the benefit of it's own "literal meaning" first?

Excellent point Loomis. It is also blind faith if you choose Christianity without even learning about other religions before you have made that decision. It digs into the very root of Christian fundamentalism.

I've met quite a few of them myself, and it is sad to see. That's why I want to see Saved!.

Jesus sacrificed Himself to and for His own creation not just to be another option on the checklist. That sacrifice was made so a path to Heaven and salvation could be paved. He is the only path, by virtue of that sacrifice and the fact that He's not just another man or a prophet, but is indeed God Himself. In essence, God is the only path to God.

Earth to aaron, you are one of them! You have said many times you have no respect for other religions and what they preach.

And Jesus as the only way is just your own interpretation. You are explaining the meaning of Christianity in a way that many Jews, and other Christian sects would disagree with.

It's the notion that the stories have "good symbolism to them" that I reject. You can either believe all of the Bible, or none of it. Otherwise, who is to say what is truth, and what isn't? What is literal, and what isn't? While God wants us to enjoy ourselves, the Bible was given to us as a Heavenly version of the Rubix Cube (is that spelled right?).

Aside from the "leaning not unto our own understaning" bit, I don't believe miracles are at all implausible. Again, if God is all-powerful, why would something like Noah's ark be beyond His ability? Besides, few scientists/archeologists/historians dispute that a great global flood occured. They've even found remains of what many archeologists believe may have been Noah's ark. It's the destruction and repopulation of the world that they have a little harder of a time grasping.

If God is all-powerful? Sounds as if you don't even know. So many ifs and buts are involved with your way of thinking.

Anyway, regarding Noah's Ark...I am just going to ask some common problems with it. How did a boat of wood fit 2 of every single animal in existance or even hold that much weight? How did every animal get to Noah's Ark when some animals lived on different islands, sloths and penguins can't travel overland very well, koalas and many insects live on special diets, and arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity? How did Noah get all the proper food and environment for each animal? Then think about the ventilation needed and how much waste the animals would create...exercise, etc...a crew of 8 did that? There are so many problems with this that I thought everyone knew it was just a story to tell kids what will happen if most of the world becomes sinners or something.

Well you have to remember that I also said that science can't and will never be able to disprove God or the Bible. At best, it may some day appear to. No point in retyping my last post, though. No, God won't suddenly hate science, He hates the deception of the enemy and the motives of some men who seek to disprove the Bible.

Science can't disprove what God does, because it seems as if God is above everything and can do things unimaginable in science. Basically a world like Harry Potter can exist. But anyway, on the same token...you can't prove anything in the Bible. But you'd think that if God knew that the Bible was true there would be no point in hating those who seek to disprove it. And who are you to say what God thinks and how he would feel?

If they are truly dangerous, then they aren't truly fundamentalists (which stands in stark contrast to Islam, by the way). I can't say definitively whether any one individual goes to Heaven or not. That is God's decision- He knows each man's heart. So, no, it doesn't bother me. God is capable of descerning those truly saved for Himself.

Fundamentalists are those who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. This is dangerous when the Bible teaches us that gays are sinners, and other bad things. Again, you seem to know a lot about God, I mean...how do you know what He is capable of doing?

The concept of faith itself is circular. Individual faiths are not, there's more substance to it than that, which is really what these 7 pages of posts have been about.

The point is that Jesus is for everyone, and so therefore, so is Christianty. Jesus will not turn away anyone, the choice is available to all.

Yes, people should think things through, indeed. I agree with you there. You have to be sincere, after all. Just saying a prayer or crossing your heart or calling yourself saved doesn't really mean anything- they are just actions.

The way you phrased it sounded like Christians only believe the Bible so that they can use it as a crutch, which is what I was disputing it. Still, though, we don't have to believe it in the sense that we aren't forced to. To be a Christian, though, yes, believing it is a requirement.

Believing it is a requirement, yet you aren't forced to as a Christian? Wha...

I agree with you there. Who are people to decide that, indeed? That is precisely why interpretation and injecting symbolism into the Bible is so dangerous. When read literally, it quite clearly defines what is sin and what is not. But again, the focus isn't on not sinning, it's on following Jesus.

There is no section of the Bible that lists every single thing that is sin and what is not. There is no way for humans to judge some things as a sin or not. And you can't ask a priest, because that would be their specific interpretation of the Bible. So is God asking us to use our OWN judgement?

It really bugs me when the race card is played when it doesn't relate at all. Perhaps you can explain to me how you got pro-slavery remarks out of what I said?

I feel like a 4th-grader saying this...but since when did slavery belong to a specific race? Or is that what is taught in the Bible? Most every race or nationality has had slavery in it's history. I didn't get "pro-slavery" remarks out of what you said. I was simply trying to say that good deeds can amount to much.

Being an eternal optimist, I'd like to think that as well, but that doesn't change reality (which I believe Biblical prophecy is). It won't get better until Jesus returns.

Yea, so God basically makes his people suffer until He decides to come down to Earth. But no, that is not reality...there are some things that have gotten progressively worse, but much has gotten better since our existance. And what kind of faith does that give to readers of the Bible to continue living in a life that will just keep getting worse?

[2099net]

(although I noticed MMP likes saying "Whoa!" a fair bit)

MMP is Keanu Reeves and I claim my five pounds.

[Uncle Remus]

I think when we do the 2nd Annual UD Awards ther should be a new topic called the Longest Post Award which is given to the person that has the longest post. it is sort of hard to decide which person in this topic has the longest post.

[Maerj]

All right, I think everyone needs to go here:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html

It's Beliefnet's Belief-O-Matic. 20 questions and it tells you what your religious affiliation is, if any. Give it a try!

[Porce]

All right, I think everyone needs to go here:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html

It's Beliefnet's Belief-O-Matic. 20 questions and it tells you what your religious affiliation is, if any. Give it a try!

Of course I took the test with a grain of salt, as no little Internet quiz will tell me what my beliefs are or change them, but just for fun, here are my results:
1. Orthodox Quaker (100%)
2. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (85%)
3. Seventh Day Adventist (80%)
4. Eastern Orthodox (78%)
5. Roman Catholic (78%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (72%)
7. Liberal Quakers (59%)
8. Unitarian Universalism (50%)
9. Islam (45%)
10. Orthodox Judaism (45%)
11. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (42%)
12. Bahá'í Faith (37%)
13. Reform Judaism (37%)
14. Hinduism (35%)
15. Sikhism (33%)
16. Neo-Pagan (30%)
17. Jehovah's Witness (29%)
18. Secular Humanism (29%)
19. New Age (27%)
20. Mahayana Buddhism (26%)
21. Theravada Buddhism (26%)
22. Jainism (24%)
23. Taoism (22%)
24. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (20%)
25. Nontheist (18%)
26. Scientology (18%)
27. New Thought (16%)

I don't know what the results mean. I'm not even an Orthodox Quaker.

In all seriousness, I don't believe than any certain denomination is saved and all others are damned, as I think it depends on the beliefs on every individual person. In case anybody cares, I am a Protestant with no particular denomination within it.

[Uncle Remus]

I have a tie between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. I am a Roman Catholic but the Eastern Orthodox sort of suprised me there.

[TheZue]

I love these kinds of quizzes.

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Liberal Quakers (97%)
3. Neo-Pagan (89%)
4. Reform Judaism (87%)
5. Mahayana Buddhism (85%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (83%)
7. New Age (80%)
8. Theravada Buddhism (80%)
9. Sikhism (78%)
10. Bahá'í Faith (74%)
11. Jainism (74%)
12. Secular Humanism (65%)
13. Hinduism (60%)
14. Taoism (59%)
15. Orthodox Judaism (57%)
16. Orthodox Quaker (56%)
17. New Thought (56%)
18. Scientology (55%)
19. Islam (50%)
20. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (39%)
21. Nontheist (35%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (32%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (31%)
24. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (29%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (28%)
26. Roman Catholic (28%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (21%)

[Christian]

I haven't read this whole thread. I have glanced at it and saw that it turned into one of the arguments that I was afraid it would turn into. I believe everything that science says that is true and everything that religion says that is true. What could possibly be the problem with that? The church I belong to promotes and is not afraid of scientific research. That doesn't mean you just believe something because a "scientist" says so and acts cocksure about it. To answer the original question posed by this thread: yes, I do read the Bible. I'm currently in the Old Testament book of Micah.

That's one reason why I am not a Christian. I think it is absolutely ridiculous to think that someone who is a good person, and lives their life full of happiness and respect for others won't be "accepted" into heaven just because they don't believe in the Bible or Jesus. The god I believe in wouldn't do that. To respect one's religion and then say they are going to hell for not following the right path is hypocritical.

Nobody's going to hell who tries to live right and do the best they can. I'm a Christian (and not just because my parents named me after my maternal great-grandfather, Christian Poulson) but I'm not about telling people they are going to hell. Unfortunately there are judgmental Christians who ARE into telling other people they are going to hell so it's very understandable to me why some people are turned off of Christianity. If you live right (I mean by following basic, common sense ethical principles) and sincerely desire to know the truth then you will come to know it. It doesn't have to be motivated by fear or force or intimidation from others.

[AwallaceUNC]

And here we go.

As a whole, moral standards (in America and worldwide) have declined sharply even within the last 50 years.

In some ways it has, but I think overall it hasn't. The women's rights and civil rights movements were good things.

Yes, those are good things, though the women's "rights" movement has been pushed too far in recent years, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms. There are many other facets of morality that have contributed to an overall decline.

We even allow virtually simulated child pornography

No, there are laws against that. Pornography though, is "allowed". It's a civil liberty for the people, so why shouldn't they have it? You are just limiting one's freedom if you combine church and state. That is an individual issue of morality.

I'm referring to the recent Supreme Court decision to allow virtually simulated child pornography, not pornography itself.

My point was that at some point you have made a point to follow Christianity (unless that is what your family did and your just naturally did that too, but someone has made the choice at one point). And by your own admission, you said that there are various strands of Christianity. So the choice was not simply one of faith, but one of a "faith within a faith" as it were.

There's Christianity, and there are strands that take off on Christianity (denominations). I stick with just the faith of Chritstianity itself.

May I ask - what is the denomination of your church?

Sure. I reject the idea of denominations and organized religion. The church I've regularly attended for the last 7 years or so doesn't belong to any specific denomination, it's just a church. There are folks from Baptist to Catholic who come there.

If you only use one text and one mindset (i.e. your faith) you are in fact interpreting the bible as you see fit. It may be a "literal" interpretation, but it is an interpretation nonetheless. Without reading outside the bible, or at least allowing for other notions of god to enter into your personal discourse, every thing you read from the bible is coloured by your own myopic world view. Thus, wether consciously or not, you are interpreting the bible within the boundaries of your own faith.

I fear we may be about to embark on a debate of semantics. That's why I established what I meant by interpretation in the beginning. With that premise in mind, "literal interpretation" is an oxymoron. To drive away from semantics, though, the debate here isn't really on what the word "interpret" means, but on whether the Bible is to be read literally or not. I do read it literally, and as I defined interpret before, I do not interpret it.

I might also ask if you have read the Koran? If you are going to reject something, shouldn't you at least give it the benefit of it's own "literal meaning" first? I haven't, but then again, I have not yet rejected it as a possible alternative faith.

No, I haven't yet read the Koran, but not because of some moral refusal. It's something that I just haven't gotten around to yet. I do want to read it, simply to better understand what others believe. I won't read it as another possible avenue of faith, though.

Outside of the Koran itself, though, I have studied Islam and read about it from all sorts of sources, be they Christian, Islam, speaking with Islamics themselves, or some other origin.

Excellent point Loomis. It is also blind faith if you choose Christianity without even learning about other religions before you have made that decision. It digs into the very root of Christian fundamentalism.

How does fundamentalism relate to that? I think you're using the fundamentalist connotation rather than what it actually means.

I've met quite a few of them myself, and it is sad to see.

Earth to aaron, you are one of them! You have said many times you have no respect for other religions and what they preach.

Excuse me? Who are you to say that I am filled with hate? That's a pretty hefty charge, buddy. You don't know me. I reject, for example, Islam. I don't reject the people who follow it, I don't hate them. Hate is the antithesis of Christianity. I would hate to see what has otherwise been a mature debate now get tangled up in being negative and personal.

Besides, didn't you get the memo that I'm the Friendliest/Kindest Member of the Year?

And Jesus as the only way is just your own interpretation.

What am I interpreting to get that? The Bible, read literally, is quite clear about that.

You are explaining the meaning of Christianity in a way that many Jews, and other Christian sects would disagree with.

If other Christian sects disagree with that, then they are interpreting the Bible, which leads only to distortion. It can be explained quite easily to Jews. They have a whole book of qualifications for Messiah. Christians have a whole book of how Jesus meets each and every one of those qualifications. It's then up to them to line those two up and decide in their hearts if Jesus is their prophesied Messiah.

Aside from the "leaning not unto our own understaning" bit, I don't believe miracles are at all implausible. Again, if God is all-powerful, why would something like Noah's ark be beyond His ability? Besides, few scientists/archeologists/historians dispute that a great global flood occured. They've even found remains of what many archeologists believe may have been Noah's ark. It's the destruction and repopulation of the world that they have a little harder of a time grasping.

If God is all-powerful? Sounds as if you don't even know. So many ifs and buts are involved with your way of thinking.

Yes, He is all-powerful. Please show me in that paragraph you quoted where any ifs and buts were cited.

Anyway, regarding Noah's Ark...I am just going to ask some common problems with it. How did a boat of wood fit 2 of every single animal in existance or even hold that much weight? How did every animal get to Noah's Ark when some animals lived on different islands, sloths and penguins can't travel overland very well, koalas and many insects live on special diets, and arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity? How did Noah get all the proper food and environment for each animal? Then think about the ventilation needed and how much waste the animals would create...exercise, etc...a crew of 8 did that?

First, I'm not an archeologist or scientist or historian, so I can't speak to you as a historian. I do know that most believe that prior to the global flood, the earth's landmass existed as a "pangea," one giant continent. Travel wouldn't have been as difficult for animals. The exact dimensions of Noahs' ark are given in Genesis, which calculates to a 30:8:3 ratio, which is said to be nearly impossible to be turned over and capable of holding a tremendous amount of weight.

That's all scientific stuff, which is interesting, but I don't really need it. It is simply enough to say that God provided. The Bible says that the animals came to Noah. God brought them to him, and God told Noah what food to bring in Genesis. He provided. God is bigger than a boat on the water.

There are so many problems with this that I thought everyone knew it was just a story to tell kids what will happen if most of the world becomes sinners or something.

Well if you take away anything from this thread, please realize that though you may disagree, the perception that everyone believes it is nothing more than a children's story is very much incorrect.

Science can't disprove what God does, because it seems as if God is above everything and can do things unimaginable in science.

Well, He is and He can, but that's really not the point I was making.

But anyway, on the same token...you can't prove anything in the Bible.

On the contrary, a good many things in the Bible have been proven, and none of them have been concretely disproven. I don't need to prove them, though, and have no interest in trying.

But you'd think that if God knew that the Bible was true there would be no point in hating those who seek to disprove it.

God doesn't hate anyone.

And who are you to say what God thinks and how he would feel?

I'm not. God has told us exactly what He thinks in the Bible. I do believe that Christians can share the mind of God, which is taught in the New Testament, but that's an entirely different subject.

Fundamentalists are those who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. This is dangerous when the Bible teaches us that gays are sinners, and other bad things.

The Bible doesn't teach anything bad. You may think the belief that homosexuality is sinful is "dangerous," but it doesn't make it any less valid of a point of view. I don't disrespect other's right to believe it is not a sin. *Sighs at the likelihood of this now becoming a debate on homosexuality*

Believing it is a requirement, yet you aren't forced to as a Christian? Wha...

Being a Christian isn't a requirement (it's required for salvation, but not something mandated by God of all humans). Now, if you are a Christian do you then have to believe the Bible? Yes. That's the very basis of Christianity. We wouldn't even know about it without it. Do supposed Christians who reject parts of the Bible go to Heaven? I have no idea. Again, God makes those decisions individually, and only He knows each man's heart.

There is no section of the Bible that lists every single thing that is sin and what is not. There is no way for humans to judge some things as a sin or not. And you can't ask a priest, because that would be their specific interpretation of the Bible. So is God asking us to use our OWN judgement?

You're very right about that. But when you are discussing something that isn't in the Bible (though most things are), you are no longer having a scriptural debate- it's not in the scriptures at all- so it isn't an issue of interpretation. That's what prayer and a relationship with the Holy Spirit is for.

It really bugs me when the race card is played when it doesn't relate at all. Perhaps you can explain to me how you got pro-slavery remarks out of what I said?

I feel like a 4th-grader saying this...but since when did slavery belong to a specific race? Or is that what is taught in the Bible? Most every race or nationality has had slavery in it's history. I didn't get "pro-slavery" remarks out of what you said. I was simply trying to say that good deeds can amount to much.

When did I mention a specific race? It seems you are the one who assumed. And no, that is not at all taught in the Bible. So can you please explain how you are relating good deeds to slavery, because I apparently didn't make that mental leap with you.

And that's the 2nd insinuation you've made that my beliefs and arguments are somehow childish or beneath you. Again, I hope that this is not a tone that will now take this otherwise mature and respectful thread hostage.

And what kind of faith does that give to readers of the Bible to continue living in a life that will just keep getting worse?

The Christian life doesn't get worse at all. It's the overall state of the souls of the world. The decline is the fault of Satan, not God, and it is the demise that eventually brings on Jesus' return.

I think when we do the 2nd Annual UD Awards ther should be a new topic called the Longest Post Award which is given to the person that has the longest post. it is sort of hard to decide which person in this topic has the longest post.

Congrats, you get to count the number of words in every post of this and the TVGuardian debates!! But then you might have to check some of deathie's technical posts, too.

In all seriousness, I don't believe than any certain denomination is saved and all others are damned, as I think it depends on the beliefs on every individual person.

I very much agree.

In case anybody cares, I am a Protestant with no particular denomination within it.

We care. If Protestant means not Catholic in this context, then that's me, too.

I have a tie between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. I am a Roman Catholic but the Eastern Orthodox sort of suprised me there.

Well, hey, Eastern Orthodox broke off from the Catholic church, so maybe you just have a little old school Catholic left in you.

Unfortunately there are judgmental Christians who ARE into telling other people they are going to hell so it's very understandable to me why some people are turned off of Christianity.

Yeah, that is something I hear all the time. No one is able to tell any individual that they are going to Hell, only God knows that. There are also lots of serious misconceptions about what the Bible says about who goes to Hell.

I haven't read this whole thread. I have glanced at it and saw that it turned into one of the arguments that I was afraid it would turn into.

I think that if you had read the whole thread, you'd feel differently. For the most part, this has been a kind, mature, and respectful discussion of some very sensitive topics. It's rare that a thread of this nature is able to make it even this far. That seems to be the general consensus of the others reading/participating as well.

And on that note...

I am thoroughly enjoying being an observer ( mostly ) to this thread, I dont see why Luke would lock it, there hasnt been any of the usual rude nonsensical garbage usually associated with this kind of topic. If only people could respect each other as well in the real world... I dont think anyones mind will be swayed by anything said here, but its been fun to see this progress as it has. Aaron and Loom are obviously both very passionate , smart people. What a dull life this would be if we all just agreed anyway.....

I agree, GoGo. Thank you very much for the kind words.

-Aaron

[2099net]

And here we go.

In some ways it has, but I think overall it hasn't. The women's rights and civil rights movements were good things.

Yes, those are good things, though the women's "rights" movement has been pushed too far in recent years, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms. There are many other facets of morality that have contributed to an overall decline.

I'm not sure that there has been a decline in morality, and that there will be a decline in the future.

As has been said before "scratch the Victorian veneer and something nasty will come out". It constantly amazes me how people hold up the Victorian age as a great time for morals. Terrible, terrible things were done, by individuals, companies, govenments and even monarchs (check out the abuses done by the British during our Empire days).

While family values may have been the key issue for those with wealth, it was more about social standing. Should a family member find themselves in trouble, they were outcast. People with genuine problems (drinking, gambling, pregnancy) were simply ignored without pity. The same family heads preaching wholesome values to their family often employed young children in dangerous mills and factories, and profited off the poor by obscene amounts. Don't even think that adultary or homosexuality was less common then, it was just covered up better.

The great 'Victorian values' which are often cited turn out to be nothing more than blind ignorance, distaste and apathy. Of course, you could be comparing today's morality to other recent periods of history, but I think you're wrong – the 20's, 40's, 60's… none of these were a golden era. The Wars may have resulted in tales of great camaraderie, but terrible things were done in the fighting... Soldiers sacrificed for very little gain, innocent civilians maimed and destroyed, and of course during all the wars (quite understandably) adultry and promiscuity increased.

I doubt you were referring to pre-18th Century standards, becuase they were even worse, with little in the way of fair justice or simply human rights for the underpriviliged.

Today we have (in general) more tolerance for others, more compassion for those who have fallen and higher standards of justice. Of course, there's still those who abuse the system by being greedy, irresponsible and/or sadistic, but we'll always have those.

We may have more flesh exposed on the television now, we may have more swear words and cursing being generally accepted, and life-like gore in our movies etc, but where it really matters, the bigger issues which can literally mean life and death to some people, today is much more moral than ever before.

[AwallaceUNC]

Well as you said, I wasn't referring to the Victorian era. My original statement, I believe, was "in the last 50 years." No doubt that sinful activity was prevalent then, too, and has been for a long time. But as you said, it was better covered up. It's the degree to which things are now accepted that is the problem.

-Aaron

[Christian]

Well as you said, I wasn't referring to the Victorian era. My original statement, I believe, was "in the last 50 years." No doubt that sinful activity was prevalent then, too, and has been for a long time. But as you said, it was better covered up. It's the degree to which things are now accepted that is the problem.

Well put. Just because there have been people who claimed to be moral but who really weren't that doesn't mean that one should not try to live by true moral principles. Another's hypocrisy is never an excuse for you. I don't give a darn what happened in the Victorian era. God's moral law is given to help people. When I was three I couldn't understand why my mom kept telling me not to touch the stove when the coils were red. Then one day I touched them and then I understood what she was getting at. The problem with morality is that the negative effects of breaking the moral law may not always be seen until years or decades afterwards and then when they do occur the cause-and-effect relationship may not even be recognized. Nowadays we have people feverishly insisting like spoiled little babies that they MUST be allowed to do whatever they feel like doing. Well, in a sense, maybe you can, but you can never alter the consequences.

[2099net]

Well as you said, I wasn't referring to the Victorian era. My original statement, I believe, was "in the last 50 years." No doubt that sinful activity was prevalent then, too, and has been for a long time. But as you said, it was better covered up. It's the degree to which things are now accepted that is the problem.

Well put. Just because there have been people who claimed to be moral but who really weren't that doesn't mean that one should not try to live by true moral principles. Another's hypocrisy is never an excuse for you. God's moral law is given to help people. ... snip ... Nowadays we have people feverishly insisting that they MUST be allowed to do whatever they feel like doing. Well, in a sense, maybe you can, but you can never alter the consequences.

But today we are helping people a lot more than 50 years ago. There's more charity, more human rights, [hopefully] better justice in courts. People, any person, is better off today than 50 years ago.

Just because television couldn't show married couples sleeping in the same bed on TV didn't mean it didn't happen. People's view of the 50's (or whatever) is rose tinted. Just like all these "I Love the 90's" shows today. And just because the news today insists of reporting on the more dubious aspects of the 21st Century doesn't mean that they are always happening now. And if they do happen, at least there is help available for people, instead of simply disowning them outright.

[AwallaceUNC]

Well, there is something to be said for charity, though I think it's been a very long time since the world has been without charity. I also don't think that the majority of people are particularly charitable. I'm not at all trying to paint a "we're living in Hell on Earth" scenario. I think that lust & greed- the mothers of all evil- are more accepted as o.k. today, though.

-Aaron