Sign in to follow this  
MusicLover_2007

Death threat against South Park creators about depicting Allah

Recommended Posts

CCBF, that's really a beautiful sentiment. I disagree, but it was a very interresting and inspiring read. Smiler

i agree that every individual person is beautiful, that there is validity to pretty much every worldview, and certainly that closed-mindedness is suffocating. Now i'm probably getting into trouble with a lot of people here, considering it's a regina spektor forum, but factually, something is right, and while i doubt that i can convince everyone to convert to christianity, i can attest to personal experience that has led me to believe the way that i do.

Left to myself, logically, i'd drop any discussion on this topic and say that anyone who thinks they know what's right must be soft in the attic.

Personally, i tend away from contradicting people, and from putting myself out there much at all.

But i have observed differences in myself, people approaching me about why i'm different. The only thing i can see is my faith in jesus. His love has made a huge impact on me, and i have no doubt that without Him, i'd be really messed up. I can go into details of my testimony if you want, but essentially i beileve what i believe, not because i grew up with it (this has only shown me what hyppocrites chrstians are), but because i see changes, and differences in my life. If i've been out of fellowship, it shows. When i stray, there remains a constant tugging to return, reminding me that i don't need to do this alone.

Since i've been to college, i've lost pretty much every ritualistic aspect of my faith, and it's very freeing. My faith thrives in a way that highlights it to me, makes it more vibrant, if that makes sense. I'm discovering God, not as a mysterious guy who knows my every thought, but as a personal, thinking, feeling being who loves me.

I believe because my faith affects me, not in my choices, but in my internal climate--i have peace that on my own, i could not have achieved.

Other than that, the bible isn't mythology, because 1: the documented events actually took place

2: jesus fulfilled over 600 prophesies in His life (many of which with His birth, something He couldn't have controled if He was just some delusional guy)

and there are other little bits of information i've come across over the years. While they aren't the basis of my faith, they are a nice rebut to "your beliefs are superstition, so shut up about them already!" (that didn't come from anyone on here. it's from other sources. Just to be clear!)

So, yeah, i belive my standpoint is more trustworthy because i'm a witness to the promises in the bible. I don't put any stock in the newest evolutionary theory, because it's been provided by people who essentially know exactly as much as i do (give or take a little). they're only fairy tales!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by good > perfect:

you are referring to evolution as if it is a god. some all knowing power that made us.

You're right--i worded that poorly.

quote:
evolution didn't do anything. we did. and in the process of life, over millions of years, we evolved into what we are today. of course we can distinguish humans from other animals, in the same way a dog can distinguish itself from a cat. we are ALL animals. just different species.

Never heard of an animal killing another animal of its species for kicks and giggles. apparently this is a development exclusive to the homonoids...

quote:
that is from your own article. just saying. it seems that this does not support you as much as you think it does?

Actually, it supports me just fine, evident by the fact that, as your excerpt amply illustrates, the author is biased againt a new earth perspective. Even so, he cannot refute the arguement provided by the RATE team.

The fact that they believe in the Bible (while easily the reason they chose to challenge the system) is irrelevant to the validity of their arguement, because their arguement is based in observation, not in the premise of their faith.

In fact, the only reason the author could have for bringing the "circular" beliefs of the RATE team into question would be to dissuade people from becoming christians in light of this new perspective. This anti-christian persuasion comes within the context of christians casting doubt on the validity of a dating system that supports an old earth (evolution). So essentially the author is saying, "even though we see flaws in the popular (evolution-based) dating system, you shouldn't believe those christians, because their faith is not scientific." Again i say, there's no reason to bring the basis of these christians' faith into question.

Rather than fixating on their faith, the author, in the spirit of scientific advancement, could have spent the rest of the paper speculating about ways to improve our dating system. Or maybe praising these scientists who happen to be of an alternative perspective for pointing out flaws in our methods of measurement. To me, this choice to criticize scientific christians' faith shows that the author was intimidated by these arguements, and chose to shout, "see! they don't have everything right! Because their faith is silly!"

Accusing them of illogical faith is misleading, making them seem irrational and untrustworthy. You come away from the paper with the impression that their arguements should be disregarded or mocked. Yet the author himself acknowledges that their point requires further inquiry into this widely accepted dating method.

What i'm saying is, a discussion of the RATE team's faith (which you yourself cited as proof that the paper doesn't support my claim) is irrelevant in this paper, provided only as a cheap ploy to lessen the scientific arguement this paper is supposed to be acknowledging. This in turn slows scientific advancement with its mixed signals which can be blamed entirely on a bias against bible thumpers.

quote:
Biblical non-literalists

those from the "create-your-own-god" camp?

quote:
Eighteen hundred years ago, Bishop Oregin taught that the account of creation could not be literal, because there could be no literal meaning of a “day” before the creation of the Sun and the Earth.

God is infinite, but can't keep time without a sun?

quote:
Also, Saint Augustine rejected the literal interpretation of the term “day” in Genesis to mean 24 hours sixteen hundred years ago.

these are just people giving their own spin to some of the simple words presented in the bible.

quote:
Creationism largely made a come back around the time Darwin published his theories, because they seemed to directly oppose the Christian belief.

Makes sense...

quote:
The Bible, on the other hand, commands Christians not to be dogmatic on any issue not central to salvation.

That sounds familiar. I don't remember what verse, though. I hope my attitude couldn't be described as "dogmatic". We are encouraged to question everything, take nothing for granted, and be ready to answer the question, "why do yuo believe what you do?". I don't see how that's possible without a fair amount of immersion in other worldviews, in order to understand the POV of the asker.

quote:
Saint Augustine famously said (speaking of cosmological debates) “Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."

Are you accusing me of "talking nonesense"? Razzer

The bible itself says that its contents are "nonesense" to unbelievers. According to Augustine's logic, we shouldn't even quote scripture! Yet the bible encourages "the public reading of scripture until [Christ's second coming]".

I agree that, if you're ignorant about something, you should just admit it. I don't think that anyone (except Jesus) could undesrtand every word of the scriptures. There's no shame in admitting that you're uninformed about something in the bible. Therefore, anyone who tries to speak on a subject they don't know about does, indeed, deserve to be mocked. But if you know what you're talking about, or at the very least, admit it's your opinion/not infallible, then there's nothing wrong with sharing your beliefs/what the scriptures say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Be like the water, people.:

quote:
Biblical non-literalists

those from the "create-your-own-god" camp?

What is that supposed to mean? I don't take the Bible literally - actually, I don't know anyone who does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to offend Red Face sorry if i did!

i was saying that, if you try to bend the scriptures to meet your preferences, you're actually knocking God down, or rejecting Him altogether. There's no reason to think that the term "day" in Genesis doesn't refer to what we undesrstand as a 24-hour period (unless you know something about the text that i don't?)

i agree that there are stories and analogies that we shouldn't take literally, but these are illustrated very clearly with things like, "jesus told this parable:" or, "the believer is like a flower..." i don't think believers are flowers, because the text says, "like flowers". But if the context does not imply poetic liscense, then who am i to tell people that god "didn't mean it the way it sounds?" It's all about context. Smiler

hopefully i cleared that up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Be like the water, people.:

hopefully i cleared that up?

Yeah. And I wasn't offended, I just didn't know what you meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BLTWP, that was one of the more beautiful statements about faith I have ever heard. Thank you. I hope someday I can be that confident and content with my own personal beliefs.

It seems that one of our main differences is that I am more of a humanist. My spirituality springs from the discovery of life, the adventure of finding myself. Or not necessarily finding myself, but moreover being myself. You do make a very interesting point. If you have a companion who loves you your whole life unconditionally you always have somewhere to turn, and so you can always be at peace. I see this in you through your words more than the vast majority of Christians I meet, and don’t take that in the wrong way, because some of the people I love most are Christains. But I retain that humans are much stronger and able than they realize when it comes to doing good and finding peace with themselves and nature. Not only am I a humanist, but an optimist. Smiler

In terms of my calling The Bible mythology, I'm sorry if that was offensive, I certainly didn't mean it to be. I do view it that way, but it’s because I just see it from a slightly different cultural standpoint. Once again, our varying perspectives. I see the similarities between the Bible and mythology while you see the beauty and truth in Christianity, and were both probably ignoring some things, but it seems to me we also both have some really valid arguments. Really, though, that is all beside the point! If you have achieved beauty and happiness, through whatever truth, then I envy you. Still, I need to find my own truth, and I am quite sure it is a different one than yours.

Again, thank you for that beautiful poem of spirituality. I think we would be good friends. Smiler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Never heard of an animal killing another animal of its species for kicks and giggles. apparently this is a development exclusive to the homonoids...

animals do kill each other, over territorial disputes and power struggles. sound familiar? the whole "serial killer" thing which i think is what you are referring to is admittedly, unique to us. only thing i have to say is greater mental ability = greater ability to abuse it?

quote:

Actually, it supports me just fine

sorry, haha. i thought you had been saying the article was written in a favorable light towards young earth dating. oops.

quote:
God is infinite, but can't keep time without a sun?

this was in 200 CE. the sun was the way they told time. they didnt use the measurement of 24 hours. therefore, the bishop was saying that before the sun was created, there couldn't have been a "day." it just wasnt possible. i understand your point though. i was just trying to point out that this debate is not new in the religious community.

quote:
Are you accusing me of "talking nonesense"? Razzer

no no, haha. just keeping the debate alive! i'm quite enjoying it!

i was (when i wrote that) talking about creationism being taught in schools. i think personally that just because there are faults with the theory of evolution (minor ones), doesn't mean that creationism is a valid scientific theory. it simply doesn't have enough physical evidence, the only evidence it claims is that there are problems with evolution. which is fine. because there are. but that doesn't provide any validity to creationism itself.

if anything, i believe schools should teach evolution along with the problems with the theory. creationism is simply not a science (yet?), and it should be taught along with religious materials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this