Ron Johnson wrote:
> My, aren't we the close-minded literalist.
Actually, I'm not. I just have to deal with the close-minded literalists.
Remember, we've already had one person in this thread, in this thread line,
say that if the Bible says it, he believes it. That's the problem when
viewing religion from outside, especially from the extreme expressions of it.
People forget that it doesn't matter that you and I don't believe it, all
that matters is that the other guy believes it. Not only believes it but
really, truly believes it.
> Before spouting off about something, learn about it. Learn what the
> Christian interpretations of OT vs. NT are before spouting from
> seeming ignorance.
I've had more than my fair share of learning about that, thanks. Let me
give you the defining moment in my education.
I was a teen with a stupid crush on a high school girl. In a bout of
lunacy I consented to going to church with her. Not only to church but to
bible study. The topic of the day is how the godless were the root of all
evil. So I sat in this room with about 20 other people learning chapter and
verse why I was their personal devil. I didn't say a word. Not one word.
I attended the service afterwards and was singled out by the preacher as a
new member. I was supposedly welcomed warmly by the congregation at large.
Bot guess what message was hammed home during the service. Yup, the godless
Atheists are the cause of all the world's problems. I said not one word.
After the service I approached the preacher and told him that I was an
Atheist and took issue what what he had taught that day in bible study and in
the service. His answer? He was sorry that I had started on that lesson. If
he had known he would have adjusted his teachings for that day.
Was he sorry for the negative light he cast me in? No. Was he sorry for
the message he had just disseminated to dozens of people? No. Was he sorry
that he truly believed it? No. Was he sorry that his congregation believes
it? No. He was sorry that he couldn't put off the vile message until later.
All of this came *after* I went to a religious private school. So please,
spare me the whole "don't talk about what you don't know" argument. I've been
on the inside. I know exactly what's said and what is followed, thanks.
Besides, you haven't even touched the basis of my larger argument. It
doesn't matter what Christians believe or how they interpret the Bible. The
fact that they interpret it at all is the problem. If this is God's law,
God's word and it is infallible then what right do they, as mere men, have to
pick and choose which portions they wish to follow and which they wish to
disregard.
> Both are *wrong*. Doesn't matter whether one is simpler than the other.
And you're using as your litmus test the law of conservation? You do
realize that both options violate that law?
Something just existing, as you rightly pointed out, violates the law of
conservation. By the same token something coming from nothing violates the
same law. So why do you say one is wrong when the other option is just as
wrong by the same test?
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
