Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 9,401-9,450 of 12,463

[Heather]

There's a lot of information here that I noticed and this is kind of my break down.

First, I heard someone ask if there are people from other religions that break their religion's rules. I am comfortable saying yes, there is. A lot of American Reform Jewish people will eat shellfish, and some will eat pork. The reason for this is, in the 1800s some Jewish religious or political leader (forgive me, but I cannot remember the exact circumstances of who he was) came to America to visit American Jews. Some people held a banquet in his honor and served foods that were banned in the Torah, i.e. foods with both meat and dairy in the recipe, shellfish, etc. as a sort of breaking away from the more orthodox Europeans.

As for the person asking if the apple in the garden was actually an apple, it more than likely was a pomegranate. Pomegranates grow well in the Middle East, while apples are better suited for milder climes. In fact, if you look at some medieval and even some Renaissance era paintings of Adam and Eve, you will see a pomegranate in Eve's hands as opposed to an apple.

[Travis]

Heather wrote: "There's a lot of information here that I noticed and this is kind of my break down.

First, I heard someone ask if there are people from other religions that break their religion's rules. I am comf..."


A pomegranate?!
We got banished and treated like that over a pomegranate!
Those things are nasty.

My respect for this god bloke just continues to diminish.

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "The only problem with your analogy is that political party membership does not promise to save your eternal soul if you follow the dictates of the group nor does shunning the group bring a threat of eternal damnation. Religion deals in absolutes."

Not sure where you're from Mary, but I've noticed something in American politics lately. The Republicans, many of them, claim to know the one and only true way ... damnation and ruin reside on the Democrats' path. Conversely, many Democrats accuse Republicans of throwing granny off the cliff and being evil for being against welfare and gun control. Damnation and doom, with seniors starving and children roaming the streets without meals if one follows the Republicans.

Each offer a chance at "heaven" on earth and "hell" on earth if one goes over to the dark side.

So, really, ....

I ask the question. Does this only work for the religious and religion? You MUST or you AREN'T...!

Or, is it also applied to other groups?

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "I put forth the position that maybe the 7 days of creation in bible were really periods of thousands of years. He insisted that if the bible said 7 days then it was 7 24 hr days. He also said dinosaur fossils were put on earth by an all powerful god to make the earth seem millions of years old and therefore test the faith of his followers......really? That was just too much for me. If those are the mental hoops you have to jump through to explain your faith, then ill take science any day. "

Actually, I don't jump through those mental hoops and am a promoter of evolution.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "The only problem with your analogy is that political party membership does not promise to save your eternal soul if you follow the dictates of the group nor does shunning the group bri..."

It does also occur in other groups.
The Republicans have been going through a bit of a weeding out the 'unbelievers' ( or, as i like to call them, the sane, reasonable ones) in their party since 2,000.
The boy scouts can be pretty 'one true word' in some respects ( and they have a book...? Maybe it's having a book that causes it)

Then you have hardcore enviromental and vegan groups.

and anyone that doesn't believe Han shot first is not a true Star Wars fan.

[Travis]

Mary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "So, you have developed a personal philosophy from reading the bible, but you then say that the people who use the bible as a literal rule book aren't the real deal."
..."

True, religion is always being put forward as an authority, but too many want to keep that authority, while also getting away with a lot of cherry picking and 'do as I say...'

it would be nice if the religions would just pick one of those points of view, since to the rest of us it comes across as either pointless or hypocritical.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "It does also occur in other groups. "

Glad you think so. Would have been sorely disappointed otherwise.

Lost me on the Han shot first reference. Despite having watched the movies, the ones with Ford, etc..., more than once ... I didn't know what you were talking about and looked it up. What the heck? They were re-released with changes? That doesn't seem right.

Question ....

Am I a real fan due to the fact that I'm a purist and have only watched the originals and didn't even know some have tried to make it look like Han shot second?

Or, am I not a real fan given the fact that I was unaware of this outrage?!

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "True, religion is always being put forward as an authority, but too many want to keep that authority, while also getting away with a lot of cherry picking and 'do as I say...'

it would be nice if the religions would just pick one of those points of view, since to the rest of us it comes across as either pointless or hypocritical. "

As long as there are people, they'll not settle for picking one of those points, even if it means not being called pointless or hypocritical. Perhaps especially then.

Wonder which the best type might be.... Bing or Rainier? I think I'm partial to the latter.

[[deleted user]]

By the way, Travis ....

I don't think you've mentioned the new Red Dawn.

Watched it on DVD last weekend. Hmmm....

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "It does also occur in other groups. "

Glad you think so. Would have been sorely disappointed otherwise.

Lost me on the Han shot first reference. Despite having watched the movies..."

You sound like a lapsed Star Wars fan to me.
So, I think there's still hope of bringing you back into the congregation.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "You sound like a lapsed Star Wars fan to me.
So, I think there's still hope of bringing you back into the congregation."

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

You're on a roll this weekend. Again, good one!

Han would reply by saying, "I know."

Ahahahahaha!

[[deleted user]]

Shannon wrote: "Han would reply by saying, "I know.""

Oh, damn...!

Tell me they didn't change THAT in addition to the other!

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "You sound like a lapsed Star Wars fan to me.
So, I think there's still hope of bringing you back into the congregation."

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

You're on a roll thi..."

See, you slipping a SW quote in means you can still be saved.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "See, you slipping a SW quote in means you can still be saved. "

;)

[[deleted user]]

By the way, speaking of Red Dawn ....

The boys in one of my classes mentioned it during advisory a month ago. None of us had seen it in the theater and the boys couldn't wait to see it on DVD. However, we'd all heard rumors that it wasn't very good. True or not.

Anyway, one of the boys started laughing. He actually started wheezing he was laughing so. He said, "Guys, ... no, guys .... You know who Ms. _____ would be? She'd be the teacher. She'd be the teacher who, when they're all parachuting down, goes out to stop them."

Yup. People just about bust a gut laughing over that one.

[Mary]

Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "The only problem with your analogy is that political party membership does not promise to save your eternal soul if you follow the dictates of the group nor does shunning the group bri..."

I would have to say yes, this only works for religion. Religion bases it's law on the dictates of a supreme being. The law is absolute because, supposedly, the law is not man made. Groups, like republicans base their platform on the wants of humans. Even though some parties claim religion, the rules change in each election. 6 mid ago you could barely find a repub who supported gay marriage. However, this week you can find many. The rules are flexible and stances on issues shift often, because the views are based on human opinions. Religion is supposed to be an ultimate, unchanging law.

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "Religion is supposed to be an ultimate, unchanging law. "

Written by men and ever changing ....

Vatican II comes to mind.

United Methodists becoming a reconciling congregation and welcoming women in leadership, gay marriage, etc....

For me, ....

I'm not going to tell people they need to believe x, y, and z in order to say they're _________.

Live and let live ... Live free or die ....

Don't need to define things like that for people, especially when people do the same thing all over the place, semantics aside.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "By the way, Travis ....

I don't think you've mentioned the new Red Dawn.

Watched it on DVD last weekend. Hmmm...."

I've seen the original, but feel the new one is one of the most pointless remakes in film history.

If you are going to remake a 80's movie there are so many more deserving ones.

[[deleted user]]

"Ahahaha, can't you just see it.... She'd be like, 'Excuse me, men...! I think you're off course. But, would you like some cookies?"

A chorus of laughter ....

Followed by ....

"Then, NANANANANANANA...."

(NANANANANANANA is my attempt at machine gun fire.)

Followed by a chorus of laughter ....

Might be horrified if they weren't dead-on correct ... cookies and all.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "If you are going to remake a 80's movie there are so many more deserving ones. "

Hmmm....

Breakfast Club?

[Mary]

Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "Religion is supposed to be an ultimate, unchanging law. "

Written by men and ever changing ....

Vatican II comes to mind.

United Methodists becoming a reconciling congregation and..."


I'm not from New Hampshire but my husband is. I am not religious, although I have been exposed in depth to Islam, Mormonism, Judaism, and various sects of Christianity. All have firm rules that are regularly broken by the members, with varying degrees of self-loathing and guilt. It's not how I choose to love.i am able to regularly be a kind, caring human being without religion

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "I'm not from New Hampshire but my husband is."

Oh, cool!!

Tell your husband the snow has mostly melted, the sap is running, and it's mud season.

WE. ARE. SO. SICK. OF. NO. COLOR.

Can't wait for some green!

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "I'm not from New Hampshire but my husband is."

Oh, cool!!

Tell your husband the snow has mostly melted, the sap is running, and it's mud season.

WE. ARE. SO. SICK. OF. NO. COLOR.

C..."

We've got color.
I've got a yard full of brown grass and a couple of those stubborn piles of grey snow that don't melt till may.

[[deleted user]]

Mary wrote: "i am able to regularly be a kind, caring human being without religion "

Glad for you. If that works for you, that's great! Some need that guidance, though. Further, it's not all about moral guidance and rules. At least, it's not always about that. There are different reasons for belief.

Regarding the other, .... I have a hard time wrapping my brain around people, especially non-believers, saying people can't claim that they're Christian or Jewish or Muslim or ... unless they believe in and abide by all the ideals and rules of the faith. Shakin' my head.

Of course, if some believers, who are shaky in their belief, hear that enough ....

Well, they might feel so badly and guilt-ridden that they think they need to walk away from their faith. If they don't believe everything, must be they shouldn't believe. Huh....

I suppose that might be a reason to make that argument over and over and all over the place. (Not referencing you but non-believers and atheist organizations in general.) It might be a way to mess with a believer's mind, throw water in their face, and save them for the horrors of religion. Mimicking the American Atheist website there ... not you.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I've got a yard full of brown grass and a couple of those stubborn piles of grey snow that don't melt till may. "

Ah, heck....

I've got those colors myself. That's not COLOR! I want some green!

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "i am able to regularly be a kind, caring human being without religion "

Glad for you. If that works for you, that's great! Some need that guidance, though. Further, it's not all ab..."

As a personal philosophy, I have no problem with religion, but as I brought up during the gay marriage chat and what followed the people who use it as their reason why all of us have to do something don't get to then turn around and go and pick out the bits they like.

It's never been called the 'mild suggestion of god', the 'well, only if you feel like it of god'.

If you find personal strength and solace from it, have at it, be happy, but if you are using it to force some pretty crappy stuff on the rest of us then either follow your damn rules or leave the rest of us alone.

We didn't make up religions rules, the religions did that. It wasn't atheists that invented excommunication and whatever it is that mormons do.
we invented none of the rules of religion. We are just pointing out the blatant inconsistancy and outright hypocrisy of it.

That's the problem I have with religion.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I've got a yard full of brown grass and a couple of those stubborn piles of grey snow that don't melt till may. "

Ah, heck....

I've got those colors myself. That's not COLOR! I w..."

You and me both.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "If you are going to remake a 80's movie there are so many more deserving ones. "

Hmmm....

Breakfast Club?"

I was thinking more of the great cheesy sci-fi movies of my youth, like Krull, Metalstorm or Battle Beyond the stars.

[Maria]

Hi Shannon. You've asked several times "I ask the question. Does this only work for the religious and religion? You MUST or you AREN'T...!"

I've been too busy to pop in today until now, so not ignoring you.

Actually, TO ME, it applies to all groups that have a set of rules or beliefs that distinguish them as an organized group of people. I hope that makes sense. Like a union, a church, an organized religous group, a club, can't think of any more examples, but you get the idea.

Not really fans of something like Star Wars, etc. You can be a fan of a movie or book and not like one of the characters. But if it is an organized group that says, "you have to have read all Agatha Christie's books in order to be a member" - well then, that's one of their rules. You couldn't say "I've only read 20 of them, but I claim to be a member anyway." You can claim it all you like, but it won't be true.

Not the best example, but that's all I can come up with right now.

[Maria]

I thought of another example :)

My mother had a great-great-great relative that fought in the Revolutionary War. She contacted the Daughters of the American Revolution, a group of people who also have relatives who did this.

She found out that in order to become a member of that group, you have to present documented proof of your claim that you are a descendent of one of these soldiers.

My mom did not have this. She had some pictures of the man, and some medals, etc that had been left to her, but no proof of relation. So...they turned her down. Said she could not be a member.

Is my mom a great person? Does she love her fellow man? Is she sincere in believing her relative fought in the Revolutionary War? Do all our family and friends believe her? All yes. The DAR members probably believed her as well.

BUT, the RULE of the organization is - you must present proof. So can she continue to believe she has this relative? Sure. But can she say she is a member of this group? No.

Also MENSA. Do you have a genius level IQ? Maybe. Did you pass the MENSA exam? If not, guess what? You can't say you're a member of MENSA, because the RULE is - you have to pass the exam. Are you still smart? Maybe even a genius? Maybe. Can you say you are a MENSA member? Sure. You can say whatever you want. But are you really? NO.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Krull, Metalstorm or Battle Beyond the stars. "

Ummmm....

I don't think I saw those, though Krull sounds familiar.

For some reason, when I saw Krull, I thought Space Balls. That was horrid! And, shockingly, I almost think they remade that. Did they? Shuddering ....

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "Actually, TO ME, it applies to all groups that have a set of rules or beliefs that distinguish them as an organized group of people. I hope that makes sense. Like a union, a church, an organized religous group, a club, can't think of any more examples, but you get the idea."

Cool. Thanks.

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "I thought of another example :)

My mother had a great-great-great relative that fought in the Revolutionary War. She contacted the Daughters of the American Revolution, a group of people who also..."

Proof might be different from belief in all of the groups rules and regs. I see the two as not being quite the same.

A closer example might be ... is it called the Mayflower Society ... the group of descendants of the Mayflower ... and something that happened in my family a few years back.

One of my cousins did all of this genealogical research and found we were descendants of one of the men on the Mayflower, a bondsman. He got all the copies of all the birth and death certificates, etc... and applied to and was accepted in this society. He made the information available to the rest of us; we only had to get copies of our parents birth certificates and ours.

Well, I thought the genealogical information was cool but wasn't sure I needed to join the society. However, I looked into it.

One of the rules of the society is that Mayflower descendants got special privileges. I can't quite remember. I think they had a research center, historical society or something. Descendants got to go there at special hours and only be there with other descendants. As I'm writing this, I don't know that it was a rule or belief of the society, exactly ... but it was something they offered.

I, personally, thought that stunk. My mother raised me, from a very little girl, to not join groups that gave me special privileges over other people. That started after visiting my aunt at college and meeting her sorority sisters. I was young and impressionable and started going on and on about joining a soro, soro, ... what's the word, Mommy .... Major discussion about that one .... Do you think it's okay to be able to live in a special house that no one else can live in, Shannon? Does everyone get to join the sorority or are some people left out? If you're not pretty enough will you get in? If you're black or Indian will you get in? On and on ....

So, I didn't join. Didn't believe in getting special treatment. However, I suppose I could have joined and just not gone to the special hours. It rubbed me wrong though. How could I when .... I still think, though, that plenty of people might join and not believe in the special privileges. They might be hypocrites, but they're still members.

Ultimately, though, I'm glad to hear you think this thing extends to all groups, not just religions.

[Maria]

Shannon - apparently we are allowed to agree also! :)

You certainly should not belong to a group that gives it's members special privileges if you don't think that it is fair to do so. If you joined anyway, and said "ok, I'll belong but won't go during the special hours" - you're still condoning the behavior by being a member. So, I'm happy to hear that you wouldn't join. I wouldn't either.


How about if you paid for the special hours. Example: my husband's job allows us to pay a certain membership fee at BJ's (a wholesale shopping store, like Costco and Sam's Club)and be considered "business class". We can go on Saturday and Sunday mornings 2 hours before the store opens to "others". Is that wrong?

How about flying first class vs. coach. If I'm in the First Class group, I get a cocktail and a meal. If I'm in the Coach group, I get peanuts and Sprite. Granted, I paid more - but is it fair?

Food for thought...

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "How about if you paid for the special hours. Example: my husband's job allows us to pay a certain membership fee at BJ's (a wholesale shopping store, like Costco and Sam's Club)and be considered "business class". We can go on Saturday and Sunday mornings 2 hours before the store opens to "others". Is that wrong?

How about flying first class vs. coach. If I'm in the First Class group, I get a cocktail and a meal. If I'm in the Coach group, I get peanuts and Sprite. Granted, I paid more - but is it fair?"

Hmmm....

I don't know....

I guess it depends on the individuals and their ideas of what is fair. And, paying for a special service might be different from being a member of a group that is treated differently from others. I don't know. I've not had a special membership like you mentioned and haven't ever flown in First Class.

I'm trying to think of a time when I've paid for a special service or special, what, treatment.... Or, have I ever been in a group that received perks of some kind?

...

I don't know. None come to mind. But, I'm secretly afraid there might be one I've not considered.

[R.J.]

Robert wrote: "There seems to be some misunderstanding about religious laws here. Has anybody ever looked at the ten commandments not as laws to be bent and broken, but as a recipe for a society? Think how we bak..."

So, you read what god did over messing with his apples and you think he'll go easier on you when chocolate cake is involved...? ..."

That “apple” comment is another interpretation of scripture that may not be correct. Human nature understands the concept of obedience, and most folks like to interpret the fall of man as an act of disobedience, but is that really God’s way? What if the “apple” was not a law to break? You were talking earlier about how terrible God was to bring death into the world after the apple, but what if God created death before the apple? Seven times in the Creation story, God says “It is good”. It is only human interpretation of those scriptures that assumes God is not considering death when He says that. What if God made death in the beginning, and said that it was good? What if it is only man’s perspective that says “I don’t like death. I fear it. Therefore, death is wrong.”

Consider how much of the ecosystem would have to have been re-created if death were introduced into the world after the fall. Fungus, bacteria, predators, carrion-eaters would have all been created after the original six days. The people who claim the Bible is solid 100% accurate and God made the world in six twenty-four hour periods never bring this up. How did God expect for plants to ingest through their roots the broken-down components of life found in the soil if nothing ever died and broke down? It’s a completely different universe. It doesn’t make sense.

But what if Eve’s sin was not disobedience, but rather acceptance of a different perspective? What if Eve considered the apple because she thought she knew better than God? Whether there was a real fruit or not, she bit into the lie that she knew how the world was supposed to work. She took one look at Adam and said, “You need to put some pants on.” She looked at how hard work was, and how painful it could be, and said “This is not pleasant. I don’t like it. It’s wrong.” By the time Moses wrote down the story, it became an act of disobedience and a curse by God, but it makes a lot more sense to me that the original flaw of mankind is the idea we get in our head that we know how things ought to be. And a lot of the problems we have today are because people fuss with things they are better off not fussing with.

I hope this enlightens you. Have a good evening.

[Hazel]

ah, ok, so we ignore the bit where dying is part of the punishment for being disobedient to a command that couldn't be understood until after the disobedience had occurred. Gotcha.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "ah, ok, so we ignore the bit where dying is part of the punishment for being disobedient to a command that couldn't be understood until after the disobedience had occurred. Gotcha."

In The Case for God Karen Armstrong states, "Some Western Christians read the story as a factual account of the Original Sin that condemned the human race to everlasting perdition. But this is a peculiarly Western Christian interpretation and was introduced controversially by Saint Augustine of Hippo only in the early fifth century. The Eden story has never been understood in this way in either the Jewish or the Orthodox Christian traditions ... Today, because the modern West is a society of logos, some people read the Bible literally, assuming that its intention is to give us the kind of accurate information that we expect from any other supposedly historical text and that this is the way these stories have always been understood. In fact, as we shall see in subsequent chapters, until well into the modern period, Jews and Christians both insisted that it was neither possible nor desirable to read the Bible in this way, that it gives us no single, orthodox message and demands constant reinterpretation." (28)

[Hazel]

hence why literal fundamentalism only appeared in recent centuries, whereas in the past, even the highest level priests considered it all allegory. However, how it was interpreted is moot, how it is interpreted now is whats important. I don't give a shit how people 500yrs ago interpreted the bible, or 1000 or 4000yrs ago. that has no bearing on how people interpret it now, the argument that "it never used to be considered that way" is weak and moot, as it is considered that way now, and its the way its interpreted now that is important to todays society, todays morals, and todays ethics..

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "hence why literal fundamentalism only appeared in recent centuries, whereas in the past, even the highest level priests considered it all allegory. However, how it was interpreted is moot, how it i..."

Actually, it isn't weak and moot.

Not when some believers, even believers on this thread, say they don't interpret the Bible literally, that different interpretations exist, etc... and are faced with non-believers who shout "cherry-picker" and tell us we have to believe everything our religion tells us to else we're not religious.

The Bible hasn't always been interpreted in the way fundamentalists do and in the way non-believers say we should else be considered hypocrites.

A fact that will never go away ....

Further, these fundamentalist and extreme views are a new phenomena, on both sides ... belief and non-belief .... Given that, in my mind, I find both suspect due to the fact that this new interpretation, springing from extremism, is weak and moot.

Though, of course, if we were to point out the facts to the people, that they've been deceived in recent years to take the text literally, people might continue to be spiritual and follow a religious path.

Better, given the point isn't sharing information but winning the "good" fight, to convince them they must accept all current beliefs, which are extreme, or leave the faith. Then, many people who don't have the stomach for fundamentalism, will likely leave the faith on principle, never knowing the true history of their faith.

A fascinating possible tactic, yet one I find it morbidly hypocritical.

[Hazel]

it is weak and moot Shannon, as what people thought 1000yrs ago is not an argument in support of, or to excuse what people think now, in no way did I say there weren't moderate interpretations now, but there are the fundie interpretations now that weren't there before.

And really, it doesn't matter how you interpret the bible, the whole thing is still just a story, the supernatural elements of the bible are retellings of earlier mythologies, and hold as much water as the greek myths do, or the norse myths, or the babylonian myths, ort he native american myths. There is no reason to even assume it needs interpreting as anything but a work of badly written, and frankly pulp, fiction. If it was turned into a movie, it would be directed by someone who wants to be, but isn't good enough to be Quentin Tarintino.

And in fact, this sentence:

"Jews and Christians both insisted that it was neither possible nor desirable to read the Bible in this way, that it gives us no single, orthodox message and demands constant reinterpretation"

means that the argument you used can actually be used to state that the fundamentalist literal interpretation is completely valid according to how people used to say you should approach the bible, as it has been reinterpreted from previous interpretations, especially as the fundie views are being changed and updated pretty much all the time as the leadership changes etc (except the westboro baptist psychos... who simply stamp their feet and say they're right)

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "it is weak and moot Shannon, as what people thought 1000yrs ago is not an argument in support of, or to excuse what people think now, in no way did I say there weren't moderate interpretations now,..."

Which ignores current "pulp fiction" tactics employed to free people of the shackles of their ignorance and belief ....

Perhaps if we shared factual information with people regarding the roots of their faith versus tell them they must stick themselves in the round hole that is insisted upon by "fundie" interpretation, more people would demand that religious fundamentalists put a sock in it.

But, that's not the point, is it? The point is to turn people from faith at all costs. Fall in with the fundamentalists, ignore history, and give people a choice. Extremism or atheism. You can't be cherry-pickers, people! Even though all of us started as cherry-pickers! Shhhh.... Shut Shannon up! No one was supposed to spill the beans!

[Hazel]

I actually edited while you were posting, sorry.

I've nothing against cherry picking the good parts of your religion, Shannon, I have picked bits out o religions that I agree with. What I don't understand is why anyone would pick out the bits they like, and then remain within a religion that is still littered with bits they don't like (I know you're story, I consider you to be somewhat of an exception you have pretty much gone your own way). If you can cherry pick the bits that you like (general you being used here), then why not just create your own secular beliefs that don't include labelling yourself with a religion that includes horrific teachings and doctrines. If you are already picking out the bits that you like then you don't need the book, or the religion to tell you what to think, you already know how to be a good person without it, and without it you're free from the baggage of all the shitty bits. By still calling yourself a christian (or insert any other religion here) while picking out the good bits to follow and rejecting the bad, then by taking that label, there is a tacit support of the bad bits.

It would be like me only paying attention to the good things that PETA do, and ignoring the bombings, and the hatred, and the attacks. By attachign myself to PETA in that way, I'd be giving tacit support to the bad things I chose to ignore. I'd still be a member of PETA, and so would the people blowing up the homes of people who work in testing facilities, only I'd be cherry picking which bits of PETA to pay attention to. To me, thats ridiculous, I know PETA does bad things, as such I don't associate with them in any way, and actuvely speak out against their tactics. It is the same with religion, and any other institution, establishment or ideology.

[cerebus]

It is not cherry-picking in and of itself that is the issue, it is those who cherry-pick by saying that something like same-sex marriage is wrong because the bible says so, and then turn around and ignore other bits that don't fit their ideology. The reason I take issue with that side of cherry-picking is it is inconsistent and hypocritical, to support one position with no evidence other than "god said so, so we must follow" but then feel free to ignore god when it suits them....it is hypocritical, and if they honestly believe there is a god and that the bible is his word, it seems presumption of the highest order to feel you can choose to ignore some part of it. This position does not describe every believer, so this is not a debate I would have with every believer, but my questioning, which put the heebie-jeebies up some people a couple of weeks ago, is intended to find out if someone uses any part of the bible in that way. If they do, then my question I feel is both fair and reasonable.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "the argument you used can actually be used to state that the fundamentalist literal interpretation is completely valid according to how people used to say you should approach the bible, as it has been reinterpreted from previous interpretations, especially as the fundie views are being changed and updated pretty much all the time "

Yes, ... to a point.

What's left out is the fact that fundamentalists within the faith say their view is the truth, not an interpretation, and argue that it's always been the one and only view; further, they have no clue about the history of the faith or understand it wasn't always interpreted as being literally factual. In addition, many non-believers yell, at the top of their lungs sometimes, that in order to be believers, people need to believe, strictly, as the religious leaders today tell them to believe, giving no opening for interpretation.

So, yes, fundamentalists have the right, ha, to interpret their religious books as they choose. That is the history of the thing. What they and non-believers don't have the right to do is hide the truth ... the truth being that it wasn't until recently that religious folk interpreted such works literally, which calls the idea that such interpretation is the truth and the only truth, the only way, into question.

Regarding sh*t, ....

If I were to turn my back on sh*tty bits, I'd have to turn my back on the human race. Frankly, I don't know that I'd be able to belong to any group. A Christian church? Oops. I don't belong to a Christian church nor do I attend. The Republican party? Sh*tty bits. Oh, the hypocrisy. The Democratic party? Equal but different sh*tty bits. Gotta love a president who goes on vacation after shutting down the White House to school children. We pay, through the nose, for Camp David for a reason. The field of education? How many abusers were allowed to leave one school and go to the next pre-1990's, just like the priests. A lot, by the way. Sh*tty bits. My family? My great-aunt's son is a convicted rapist and my mother and grandmother made excuses for him, saying she was really his girlfriend, probably, and just wanted to get him in trouble. Really? Since when does Vermont lock rapists away for six to seven years? Ummm.... Next to never. Vermont sure as heck doesn't put men in prison whose girlfriends wanted to get them in trouble. Sh*tty bits.

The idea that I could possibly belong to any group, organized or otherwise, that lacked sh*tty bits, is impossible.

I think the point is to live my life, let other people live their lives, focus on the good, and acknowledge the sh*tty bits.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "It is not cherry-picking in and of itself that is the issue, it is those who cherry-pick by saying that something like same-sex marriage is wrong because the bible says so, and then turn around and ignore other bits that don't fit their ideology. "

Maybe. However, ....

I don't say extremist things, like the fact that same sex marriage is wrong because the Bible says so, and have still, routinely, been faced with cherry-picker commentary.

So, ... I'm not sure it's as simple as that ... the idea that it's only an issue when people throw away parts of the Bible but use other passages to infringe on the rights of others. That's not the way it's broached here. Not at all. It only becomes that if someone says, "Back the truck up," and refuses to stop saying that. Then, perhaps, people pause and ....

It's been my experience that there's a "cherry-picker" knee-jerk reaction, many times, that sometimes has to do with the poster and what the poster says ... but not always.

[Hazel]

Shannon, my post said that until recently literal interpretations were not the norm, in fact i think I've said that few times in this looooooong thread, so it may be that its been forgotten about, but I certainly recall it being a conversation we've had before.

As for shitty bits, that your cousin is a rapist is something that is outside your sphere of control, you can't control that he's your cousin. You can control what ideologies you associate with. And as I said, I wasn't actually talking about you specifically, as I know your story (to the extent that you've given it) and know that you do dissociate yourself from the ideologies that you dislike. I was talking in general.

But people have their sphere of influence, and whats outside of it, you can't control who your family are, and what they do, but you can control who you are, what you do, and what ideologies you associate with either directly or indirectly (again, general you). IN situations where someting is within your ability to control, your assiciation with it, then it is very much like the example I gave above, and rleigion, political ideolgies etc fall into the "things which you can control your level of association with". Technically, you can also remove your cousin from your life, I've done it with both my dad (an abusive fuck head) and my grandad (who sexually abused my mother), I do not associate with them at all.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "If they do, then my question I feel is both fair and reasonable. "

If they do, it is reasonable.

It's also reasonable to "cherry-pick" and interpret holy books as one is led given the fact that the religions had their foundations there and only recently switched focus.

My argument is that we keep that in mind.

It would seem religion, like all other things in life, has a certain basis in presumption.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Shannon, my post said that until recently literal interpretations were not the norm, in fact i think I've said that few times in this looooooong thread, so it may be that its been forgotten about,..."

Yes, you said that. You also said you didn't "give a shit" that those interpretations weren't the norm. So, ....

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "As for shitty bits, that your cousin is a rapist is something that is outside your sphere of control, you can't control that he's your cousin. You can control what ideologies you associate with. And as I said, I wasn't actually talking about you specifically, as I know your story (to the extent that you've given it) and know that you do dissociate yourself from the ideologies that you dislike. I was talking in general."

True. I can't control the fact that he's my cousin. Other than not to have contact with him, which I don't. But, I am a member of a family, including my mother and grandmother, who ignored his abhorrent behavior and made excuses for him. Sh*tty bits. What was I to do? Walk away from my family and never have contact with them, like some might walk away from PETA?

Hmmm....

Sh*tty bits abound. They're everywhere. It doesn't matter if you were talking about me or the universal you or ....

Sh*tty bits are everywhere. All groups. All associations. All countries. All organizations. All families. Right?

Seriously, can any of us say we're free of such bits. None! Nope. We don't belong to anything that has even one sh*tty bit!

That would be a very constipated utopia, in my opinion.

You said, ....

"If you are already picking out the bits that you like then you don't need the book, or the religion to tell you what to think, you already know how to be a good person without it, and without it you're free from the baggage of all the shitty bits. By still calling yourself a christian (or insert any other religion here) while picking out the good bits to follow and rejecting the bad, then by taking that label, there is a tacit support of the bad bits."

Okay....

So, in order not to give tacit support of the bad bits of life, would I have to leave all groups, my family, etc...?

Can you tell me you don't belong to any group, etc... that have bad bits? Do you, given your continued association with that group, family, etc..., consider yourself to give tacit approval to the bad bits?

It's a simplistic view. It's sometimes doable, wise and the right thing to do, depending. Ultimately, though, it's impossible to be free of sh*tty bits.

Regarding my family and their BS, I went to war over that and fought for what was right, the value of the woman's experience, and against their denial. On the one instance he was at a family reunion that I attended, I kept my cousins in the house and away from him ... going up against my uncle who said that was wrong, the statement I was making, and that he'd paid his debt to society. I convinced my mother, through logic and delving into the criminal record, that she was full of sh*tty bits regarding this issue, and told my grandmother, since she wasn't inclined to honor the evidence, that she needed to be sure never to speak his name to me or make excuses for him in my presence again, else I'd not be able to have further contact with her. Which may or may not have been a sh*tty and high-handed thing to do.

Sometimes, ... we stay, given the fact that the sh*tty bits aren't the entire and only reality, and work to make things better.

That's why people would ....