Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 1,451-1,500 of 12,463

[Hazel]

Hi Shannon :)

Nice way of putting it, but I'm afraid it still comes down to ifs. If we take the gospels aswhole cloth etc.

Well, I won;t work on ifs when it comes to something that should be important. When something is so important to someone, surely they should be as sure its true as they can be, and once again, we're back to the need for proof. Without proof, there is no reason to think the bible is anything but a work of fiction.

[Hazel]

Zakaria wrote: "No, it is not Ok to call me Zak. Zakaria is fine. "

Sorry, preference noted :)

[[deleted user]]

I wasn't addressing you, Hazel. I know you don't believe, and I respect that. I was addressing someone else. I was addressing the believers who are posting.

[Hazel]

noted Shannon, however, I'm still allowed to reply, especially as you didn't refer to anyone specifically by name, thus making your intentions clear, without which it is reasonable to assume you're addressing everyone involved in the thread.

[[deleted user]]

And, whether or not it makes sense to you, Hazel, people do believe, even without proof. It makes sense to me that ... even though believers have no scientific proof to back their beliefs ... they ... we ... at least live in the way that we believe Jesus lived. Fact or fiction, Hazel, the ideals voiced in some of those parables, like the parable regarding the Samaritan, have worth. I, as a person, learn in all sorts of ways and from all sorts of avenues. I can read a novel, a work of fiction, and learn from it and find value in it. Fact, fiction or somewhere in between, people who believe in the values that are held up as the values of Jesus, need to do more than say they believe. Jesus didn't tell stories about talking the talk. Quite the opposite. His stories were about being. He'd want believers to be.

[Hazel]

Shannon, I'm not denying that some of the parables have worth. You're absolutely correct, they do have intrinsic worth. But they are in the same book in which a man hands over his two virgin daughters to be raped to protect two angels in his home, among many other dispicable things. As an analogy, I'm not in the habit of picking cherries out of a pile of manure to eat them, and then declaring the whole thing edible.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "noted Shannon, however, I'm still allowed to reply, especially as you didn't refer to anyone specifically by name, thus making your intentions clear, without which it is reasonable to assume you're..."

I didn't mean you couldn't reply. I meant ... I know, with 100% certainty, that you don't believe. As I've said before, I respect that. 100%. I was not trying to, in my response, turn atheists, etc... to the teachings of Jesus. Not at all.

My message was to believers who are posting on this site.

I'd not try to convince you of something that you don't believe in. That wouldn't be respectful.

[Hazel]

very well, but to avoid confusion in future, please do indicate who your posts are aimed at.

I keep forgetting that you're not the proslytising type, sorry about that.

[Hazel]

Zakaria wrote: "R.C. wrote: "Zakaria wrote: "No, it is not Ok to call me Zak. Zakaria is fine. God is the supreme being who is the first cause of all that there is. He is the God recognized by jews, christians and..."

I'm reasonably sure that RC was genuine about you having good english, because you blatently do. Better than some english people I know, in fact

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Shannon, I'm not denying that some of the parables have worth. You're absolutely correct, they do have intrinsic worth. But they are in the same book in which a man hands over his two virgin daught..."

That is a HORRID story from the Bible. I remember my reaction the first time I read it. I sat in absolute HORROR! As I've said before, I believe the Bible was written by men. I believe it was written by men who were not perfect. I believe it was written by men at a time when ... anyone who was not a Jewish man ... was different and less than and treated poorly, etc....

Cherry picking .... Man, I've not seen that phrase so much in my entire life as I've seen it on this site.

Here's the deal. We're human. Humans do some of the most amazing, kind, loving and incredible things. Humans also do the most disgusting, vile, filthy and reprehensible things. Don't we, as humans, need to cherry pick. Let's think on that for a moment. Truly.

Much as some would think it would be lovely if we could just live mathematically ... scientifically ... like a computer chip or something, we're humans and are living in a world of human beings who do things that are awesome and things that are destructive. I, as a human being, see the horror ... daily. I'm not turning my head to it. I see it and experience it. However, I choose to focus on the awesome things ... at least I try to.

Here's an example that might better explain what I'm trying to say.

When the National Museum of the American Indian opened in Washington DC, people were shocked. There weren't displays that chronicled the horrors the Europeans/Americans visited upon the native peoples. Why? How could that be? People were in a tizzy over it. Why? Well, the American Indians who created the museum did not want to be defined by that time and those acts. They felt they were so much more. This isn't the perfect analogy ... but this is the place I'm coming from.

We, as humans, pick and choose each and every day. What will we believe? What will we value? What will we hold dear? How will we be defined? Each day.

If I were a machine or computer or ... I could go on about Pi every day and not much else. I'm not. And, truth be told, I am so totally and completely right-brained, it's not even funny. I'm into the humanities ... stories and myth and ... all of that very non-scientific stuff.

So, for me, I choose each and every day what I hold in my mind and in my heart and I pick the things that define me ... my way of being. I find there to be good and bad in just about everything. I see both. Then, I try to live the good ... I try to make good out of the bad. Frankly, I think, regardless of our religious/spiritual beliefs, that's what we do as humans. We see and live both good and bad things. The key is what we take from those good and bad things.

If something has both good and bad, do we throw it out because it's bad?

Mold can make people sick. It can also heal. Do we make the decision to throw mold out ... not learn from it ... not use it for good ... due to the fact that it can also be bad? No. Not by a long shot. People cherry pick all over the place.

Do I think you should take the "good" parts from the Bible and weave them into your belief system, Hazel? NO! For the 10th time, no. Some people do and will. That's their choice, our choice. You don't need to agree with it. I don't think you need to do it. But, some of us will.

[Hazel]

I absolutely agree Shannon.

But the main problem I have (with religion, not with you or your beliefs, or the way individual people wotk out their beliefs) is that they don't throw away the bad and keep the good, they try to justify the bad, and make it good. And I'm reasonably sure you and I are on the same page with this one.

And yes, we pick and choose which bits to give credence to, thats because morally we have to. I still don't see the need to include a supernatural element in it. Though, we're obviously never goingt o come to a consensus on this point.

I have to admit, I hadn't meant the analogy to translate directly to cherry picking, it was just the first foodstuff that came to mind. It could easily have been bread, or oranges or lambchops, or skittles.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "very well, but to avoid confusion in future, please do indicate who your posts are aimed at.

I keep forgetting that you're not the proslytising type, sorry about that."

Well, thank you for that. I don't know where you're coming from, Hazel, so I'm not sure that this statement applies to you. Here's what I'd like to say .... One of the things I notice about people ... one of the things I've noticed about some of the people who post to this thread ....

People are painting with a very wide brush ... seeing things as either black or white ... all or nothing ....

I don't think life is that easy.

I believe I spoke before about square holes and round pegs. Not everyone, every belief, etc... can be so defined. Given that, we really need to try to look and listen and hear what's really there before
us ... and not put labels on people and things that might not be accurate. (I'd guess that's rather a scientific outlook.)

:)

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "I absolutely agree Shannon.

But the main problem I have (with religion, not with you or your beliefs, or the way individual people wotk out their beliefs) is that they don't throw away the bad ..."

Mmmm.... Some people do this. True. They do it in all sorts of ways and places. Religion. Politics. Education. It's done everywhere ... and ... I find it ...

In truth, I find it disgusting.

I won't try to explain or excuse the cowardly and filthy acts in the Bible. No. They're there.

There is good, in my eyes, too, though. I can and will recognize and learn from both.

[Hazel]

I agree, there is good, and there are many things I take from religious teachings that I hold to be good. The good samritan example you gave being one of them. I try to see in scales of grey (in fact, I prefer full colour), rather than black or white. I know that you have basically created your own faith from the bits that ring true with you, and have little issue with that, it means you're able to reject the aspects of religious teachings that are abhorent, which means you're thinking, and you're intelligent enough to not claim the bible is a divine mandate. The only issue I do have is that you hold with the existence of a god for which there is no evidence. I won't tell you you shouldn't, but I would ask you to consider why you do (which I seem to recall you said you'd started doing when I asked why you had to include god in your morality, if you're already picking and choosing which of his supposed teachings you accept, or something like that).

But honestly, one thing I have learned from reading the bible is that god, and his followers therein, and by extension the people who created them and wrote the books, are utter dicks.

[Xdyj]

Whirlwind wrote: "Xdyj wrote: "It's probably because the authors/translators didn't know modern gender-neutral writing. IMO regarding gender issues the Bible has way more "detestable" stuff than this."

No! It's no..."

Sorry what I meant is that the Bible has more explicitly misogynistic contents than using "man" for "human". And then there's the genocides and homophobia. I think I would still reject Christianity even if I live in a fantasy world where everything in the bible is real. On the other hand, I completely agree with Shannon & Hazel that people can be better than their faith and many believers know better than blindly follow all the "disgusting" morals :)

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "I won't tell you you shouldn't, but I would ask you to consider why you do (which I seem to recall you said you'd started doing when I asked why you had to include god in your morality, if you're already picking and choosing which of his supposed teachings you accept, or something like that). "

Indeed, I did say I was doing that. I did. And, a bit after that, when Whirlwind said she truly wanted to know why people believe in God, I detailed the reasons I did and do. Now, you responded by telling me that my writing and experiences were beautiful; however, you detailed the reasons why they weren't from God and had no link with spirituality. I read your response with an open-mind. I thought about it. But, ultimately, I still hold with my truths. Mine. Not someone else's truths. Not truths pastors tell me to believe in. Not truths you tell me to believe in. At this point, I still believe, as is my right.

Now, regarding ...

But honestly, one thing I have learned from reading the bible is that god, and his followers therein, and by extension the people who created them and wrote the books, are utter dicks.

I'd like to say a few things ...

I don't see many shades of gray or any color at all in that statement.

There are some horrid things in the Bible. I'll say that and have. For example, when Abraham and Sarah were traveling, if Abraham got afraid (due to Sarah's great beauty and his thought that powerful men would kill him to get her), he'd all but pimp her out to powerful men. Yuck! Yuck on so many levels. She was his wife and deserved his love, care, and respect. Instead, he traded in her body ... all but sold her body, her sex, for his benefit. Excuse me for a moment. I think I need to go take another shower ... and ... after that ... another. What a cowardly and filthy thing he did ... if he did it!

But, let's take a look at someone else from the Bible. Jesus. (I'm discussing the Bible and Jesus, by the way, because that's what I know.) At any rate, think about the woman who had bled for years and years. In the Jewish culture at that time, she would have been seen as unclean. A woman was seen as unclean during her menses and was not allowed to touch men, etc... until they bathed in a sacred bath after that time. We're told Jesus was walking down a street, I believe, and was surrounded by a throng of people. This woman, this bleeding woman, had a thought that she'd be healed if she just touched his robe. She did.

The Bible tells us that Jesus felt power leave him and knew someone touched him. He asked who had touched him. The woman came forward and told him everything. She told him how long she'd bled and that she'd lost everything due to her condition. She told him she'd touched him in order to be healed.

Jesus, who was raised as a Jew and in the Jewish culture, did not condemn the woman. How dare she, a woman, touch him?! That alone, bleeding or not, was not allowed. It was condemned. How dare she, a bleeding woman ... an unclean woman, touch him?! No,
that is SO NOT what we're told He said. We're told he said, "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace."

Think about all the themes present in that story ... the morals ... the different layers of meaning and richness.

He didn't tell people what to do and what to think ... exactly. He lived it. He was .... He didn't tell people to accept women as worthy. He didn't yammer about it morning, noon and night. He lived it. He showed people how to live based on His actions, not His mere words.

He insisted that someone touched him and asked the person to step forward. She shared her story, in front of everyone. He ... accepted her. He treated her with respect and care. He could have jumped up and down and accused her ... horrified that he'd been touched by a woman ... a strange woman ... an unclean woman. He didn't. He treated her with care.

I could go on. I could detail the story of Jesus at the well with the Samaritan woman. A woman! Oh, the horror. A Samaritan woman! An unbeliever! A woman who'd known many men! Aaahhh!!!!!!!! What does the Bible say he did? He asked this woman for a drink of water and took it from her. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then, he talked with her.

Not only are we told that Jesus did these radical things, the people who wrote different books in the Bible wrote these stories ... these scandalous, salacious, radical stories down. Over and over.

Interesting.

Why would these men, these "utter dicks" ... as you say, write that Jesus did these scandalous and unacceptable things? How would it even occur to these men, indoctrinated into a misogynistic culture, to write that a man, their man, would think and say and do these things?

Huh? I wonder if they made such OUTRAGEOUS claims because there was a man, Jesus, who actually did think and say and do these far out things. Hmmm....

So, when I read that you believe that God, the people who follow God, and the people who wrote the Bible are utter dicks, well, Hazel, I have to shake my head at that. If that's what you truly believe, that's your choice. Of course, it is your choice. I will say that I think you're painting with a very, very, very broad brush. And, I think it might be a rather superficial brush.

[Hazel]

you're entiltled to extrapolate all that from one sentence, but of course, you'd be using a very broad brush to tar me with if you did.

[[deleted user]]

Ah, Hazel. Come on. I read your words and take you to be a woman of your words and your word. I didn't extrapolate or spin. You said it. And, it was QUITE clear. Are you saying you didn't mean what you said?

[Hazel]

Ah, but you see, you're saying that I said that people who follow god are dicks, which isn't what I said, I said that the followers depicted therein (ie within the bible) are dicks. Not all of them, I'll admit, but really, the vast majority of them are not nice people. They are constantly vying for power, they use trickery to create sin in other people, the list goes on.

Now, if we look at what I said other than that, I said god within the bible, as the therein that comes after the word worshippers in my original statement also applied to god. So, its the god as depicted in the bible that I am referring to. Then I said the people who invented the character, and wrote (or I suppose I should say concocted the stories, which others later recorded) thebooks we find in the bible created the personality of god within the bible, and as the bible is a book created to control other people (except where they realise that its written by fallible people, such as you have done yourself, and who apply their own innate morality to decide which bits are worthy) then, the way that they have written the character of god would suggest that they portrayed him like that deliberately, in order for they themselves to exert themselves over those they wanted to control through the stories, therefore suggesting that they were not very nice people. As such, they were utter dicks.

I'm sure you can provide me with an instance in the bible in which God has a direct interaction with a character within it, in which he doesn't expect absolute and complete, unquestioning obedience in return for whatever he offers them.

[[deleted user]]

Okay, Hazel, I left out a word.

You said, and I quote,

But honestly, one thing I have learned from reading the bible is that god, and his followers therein, and by extension the people who created them and wrote the books, are utter dicks.


Your quote would include Jesus, yes? After all, he was a follower therein. I, for one, do not see the Jesus depicted the the Bible as an utter dick. So, I shake my head at your statement.

Regarding ...

I'm sure you can provide me with an instance in the bible in which God has a direct interaction with a character within it, in which he doesn't expect absolute and complete, unquestioning obedience in return for whatever he offers them.

Well, if you really and truly want me to spend time thinking about this and seeing if I can find such a reference in the Bible, I might think about it. But, I think you're forgetting something.

I'm sorta/kinda one of the live and let live people on this thread. I believe what I believe. Sometimes, if I see something that I just can't help but respond to, I respond. But, I, for one, don't feel the need to prove anything. I'd sorta/kinda like to have the right to an opinion and the right to call something for what it is, but I don't feel the need to control what people think or believe.

So, what would be the point of my searching for a place in the Bible where God doesn't expect obedience? What would be the point in my finding that for you? You wouldn't believe it. That's okay with me. It wouldn't change your mind in any way. That's okay with me.

My only point was ... not all of the followers THEREIN were utter dicks.

[Hazel]

I even said in my clarification "not all of them". Though Jesus did state that his diciples had to hate their families to be counted as such, and that he was there to turn son against father etc etc. Most of what Jesus supposedly said was good stuff, but there was some dubious stuff in there too.

[Xdyj]

Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I won't tell you you shouldn't, but I would ask you to consider why you do (which I seem to recall you said you'd started doing when I asked why you had to include god in your moralit..."

If I remember correctly Jesus did tell people what to do a lot and he explicitly said that all the old laws should be upheld. I agree that many of his ideas are great and powerful and way ahead of his time, but his teachings and deeds are also far from perfect by today's standard. As to those patriarchs, prophets and apostles, they have said and done so many aweful things that I lost count when I read the bible, but they're supposed to be fallible motals so maybe those stuff could be explained away somehow.

[Tina]

R.C. wrote: "Tina wrote: "Jesus wrote: "All rite, I think it's time I set the record straight."

hahahaaa and what do you think, "Jesus"?"

I also always put quotes around "Jesus", when I think "Messiah" or "Pr..."

I put quotes around Jesus because that it the guys username

[Xdyj]

R.C. wrote: "Shannon wrote: "After all, he was a follower therein. I, for one, do not see the Jesus depicted the the Bible as an utter dick. So, I shake my head at your statement."

Are you challenging Hazel's ..."

I think the difference between Jesus and others is that his religion became dominant so most people would not call him out for it, while the other two are less lucky.

[[deleted user]]

R.C. and Xdyj ...

The question was ... whether or not

god, and his followers therein, and by extension the people who created them and wrote the books, are utter dicks ...

I pointed out some amazing thoughts and deeds for which Jesus, a follower therein, was credited in order to point out that all of the followers therein were not utter dicks.

Utter, by my estimation, means absolute.

Did I say the Jesus as referenced in the Bible was absolutely good and just and ...? No. I'm pretty sure I said Jesus was not an utter dick.

Others within the Bible, followers therein, who are not utter dicks ...

The various women who went by the name Mary.

The woman who anointed the feet of Jesus and dried his feet with her hair.

Now, going back to the Old Testament, I don't think Rahab was an utter dick. Nor do I think Esau was an utter dick, though, I must admit I've not read that part of the Bible for some time. Joseph? I don't think he was high up there on the dick-o-meter. No. Abel? Enoch? I'm not sure that they were portrayed as utter dicks. My point was ... not all followers therein were utter dicks ... not that they were perfect by the standards of their time or by today's standards.

Now, R.C., you've asked if I've read Matthew 24. Yes, I've read the gospels. I just pulled out my Bible and reread that section. There's a lot there, R.C.. What part do you want me to address, exactly? And, to what end? You might feel the need to convince people they should not believe in God. I don't know. You might want me to try to argue that people should believe in God. I don't know. I don't feel that need. (Though, I did feel the need to say all the followers therein were not utter dicks.)

Finally, regarding Jesus and Jim Jones, .... I don't tend to run round calling people dicks, R.C.. So, I'm not going to start now ... nor am I going to sit and attempt to rate who, throughout history, was more of a dick than everyone else. I'm not going to go there with you. No.

[[deleted user]]

Xdyj --

I forgot something. I don't think Jesus told people to follow the old laws. In fact, there are several instances in which He healed people on the Sabbath. That was not in keeping with the old laws; it was totally against the old laws. He did it again and again despite being questioned and condemned for it. Also, there's a part, I believe, that talks about eating unclean food. Either Jesus or His followers ate food deemed unclean by the old laws. When questioned, he said something about food being clean ... and that we should be more concerned with the unclean things inside us than with what we eat. I think .... I might not have that exactly right, but I'm pretty sure I'm close.

[Hazel]

Joseph? He kept one brother hostage and threatened his other brothers if they didn't do exactly what he told them. Instead of saying "hey, its me the brother you wanted to sell into slavery before someone else beat you to it",and sorting the issue out there and then, he plotted and planned revenge, and manipulated his brothers to do what he wanted, as well as setting them up to look like thieves.

Abel was a victim, one of the two major types of people in the bible.

Esau intended to kill his younger brother after his brother disinherited him, and was only mollified by being given pretty much half of everything that his brother had variously worked hard for over 14 years and tricked out of his father in law.

Now, did you miss the part when I said "not all of them, I admit"? Or are you ignoring it? I wrote the first post quickly, when being nagged to get out of the way so my other half could use the same space, near the plug socket, so that he could iron his uniform for the remembrance day parade tomorrow. SO it ended up not being as I wanted it to be, which is why I clarified.

He did tell people to follow the oldlaw, he even extended them to have worse punishments than previously. The fact that in the stories he then went and broke several of the laws he told others they should follow does not remove the verses when he espoused that following the old laws was still expected. It just makes the character, as portrayed within the bible a hypocrite

[[deleted user]]

Hazel ... I did say I hadn't read that part of the Bible, the Old Testament, for quite some time.

We should remove Joseph and Esau from my list. I remembered the fact that they forgave their brothers. I didn't remember the grudges, etc... that they held against them. But, you are right about that.

I don't know why we need to remove Able? Does the fact that he was a victim make him an utter dick? I don't remember reading anything that made me think he was a dick. And, being a victim doesn't make him one.

But, I'd like to leave the rest on my list as not being utter dicks.

Now, regarding your admission that not all followers therein are utter dicks, I did address my last post to R.C. and Xdyj. R.C. asked if I was challenging your personal definition of Jesus and His followers and asked if I was applying an external standard that I felt superior to yours ... etc... etc... etc .... I was addressing his query.

Finally, I wanted to clarify something I said. Not only do I not believe that Jesus was an utter dick, I also do not believe he was one in general. I think Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, stood for truly amazing things and did amazing things.

I find it somewhat discomforting that our words have gone in that direction .... People don't need to believe in God or certain aspects of certain faiths. I, for example, am not a follower of Islam. However, I respect Muslims and their holy book. I also know that to claim that people within their holy book and the followers within it were -----, would be the height of disrespect. That's not something I'd do. To Muslims ... to people of any faith. It saddens me that people would do so with regard to the Jewish and Christian holy books. I respect all people and their beliefs or lack thereof. You don't have to believe, Hazel. You don't have to respect religions. I support your ability to choose your beliefs ... and to reject belief. But .... You say you respect people of faith. Do you not see that saying what you did ... about God and the people who followed God and were referenced in the Bible ... is totally and completely disrespectful to the people you claim to respect? I really wonder about that. I also wonder at the fact that you and several others on this thread can't seem to, with any consistency, express your thoughts and beliefs without having to tell everyone how wrong, wrong, wrong they are every time they share their thoughts and beliefs. I don't tell you or any Agnostics or Atheists that they're wrong ... unless you're being disrespectful. And, that, isn't due to your lack of faith. It has to do with respect ... and irony.

[Hazel]

I think you're failing to see a difference between respecting people who happen to have faith, and respecting their faith. I respect many people who have faith, but I do not respect their faith, for I don't feel its something that needs respecting. I think most people who happen to ahve faith would be people worth respecting with or without that faith, and as such the faith isn't a implicit characteristic that the respect is derived from. It is an utterly seperate consideration. I have said several times that I respect people despite theirfaith, but I have also said several times in several posts that I do not respect the faith, or the religions and precepts on which the faith is based.

I will insult the Koran, Mohammed married a 6 year old, and took her virginity before she had her first period. I will not show respect for that, or ignore it when considering his teachings. Individual muslims however are a different matter. The majority of muslims would probably agree that having sex with a preteen girl is fundamentally wrong. Thus, they are respectable despite their religion and faith, not because of it.

The only reason I didn't address the others in your list is because its some time since I read the bible too (I'm currently rereading it, but man is it hard going), and I've just reached Leviticus, which is why I could comment on Joseph and Esau, as they come before then, but wouldn't think to comment on the others until I've refreshed my memory on them. Interestingly, Joseph eventually fogiving his brothers resulted in the people of Isreal moving to Egypt, which led to the entire people being enslaved by the egyptians, and then its a good 480 years after Joseph dies that God decides to take notice of their plight. This god who promised to be true to them always, seems to have just been pottling around ignoring them for 480 years while they were subjugated and suffering.

I didn't say that by being a victim that Abel was a dick. I was dismissing him as being a bit part. By being a victim, he is the one at the mercy of someone who behaves like a dick, ie his brother Cain. In other words, he's a narrative tool used to further Cains story and have him banished from Adam and Eves sight, and to somehow go into the world and find someone to marry... don't worry, we dont need to explain where the other people came from....

I respect you because you have the guts to talk about what you think, and to tell people when you think they're wrong, but you do spend a lot of time tellimg me that I should respect faith because you respect other peoples lack of it. Explain why that follows?

[Valerie]

A world without religion is not a world without faith. Faith was the seed through which religion grew and quite the tangled jungle it has become. I think that most people could function perfectly well without religion, but not without faith. I am a scientist (genetics and biomedical engineering) and I place my faith within that. I wouldn't want to live in a world without science, but is that because of the things that science has given the world (from domesticated crops to antiseptics to using suicide vectors to selectively invade and kill cancer cells) or because for me it would be a loss of faith? I'm not sure, but it is a very interesting question and one I'm sure will get some page space in my journal.

I would also like to address the comment about a world of science being a world without imagination. This is simply a falsehood. Imagination comes part and parcel with the scientific method. Science is the collaboration of logic and imagination/creativity. Science, well good science, can be artful in it's elegance.

[[deleted user]]

Forget it, Hazel.

I respect all people of faith. I respect people who are Agnostic and who are Atheists. That stands alone.

I'll not tell you that you're wrong due to the fact that you value science.

I'll not tell people that they're wrong for valuing religion.

That stands alone.

You keep doing what you're doing, if you're comfortable with that. Tell everyone who doesn't agree with you that they're wrong. Come up with a reason, for every point that anyone, who is not an Atheist, makes that "proves" that they're wrong. Call God and the followers within the Bible utter dicks. Go for it.

That can also stand alone.

There doesn't need to be any link at all ... between my respecting your thoughts, opinions and beliefs (...and, I believe, the belief that there is no God is a belief) ... and my, therefore, expecting a certain level of equal respect from you in return.

No. Nothing needs to follow.

I'll let you continue to express that you're right ... and that you're
the only one who is right.

That can stand alone.

And, yes, I'm fully cognizant of how self-richeous I sound.

I'll also let that stand alone.

[Hazel]

See, this sentence:

I respect all people of faith. I respect people who are Agnostic and who are Atheists

to me only needs to say "I respect all people", with the possible addition of "who have earned it".

You've brought this back to right and wrong again. I haven't said anyone is wrong, I've said they have no evidence to back up what they're saying. And thus without evidence, I reject their claim. And in every discussion point so far, I've presented evidence to back up what I'm saying, whether you consider the evidence viable or not is a different matter, but I believe that it is, I could be wrong, but if so, I'm sure someone, (and I suspect not you, and I respcet that and that you don't desire to get into spats about evidence), will sally forth with said counterargument, or someone may even cement what I'm saying, and back it up with further evidence. I don't claim to be 100% right, I err towards listening to the evidence, and the reasonable assumption that the point with more evidence is more than likely the more valid.

[Xdyj]

To Shannon: Sorry probably I didn't make myself very clear because English is not my first language. I never meant to say any people in real life or anyone in this discussion is "wrong" or Christianity or Islam is religion of evil, only certain values in koran or bible are against my own conscience. I never ever used the word "dick" to describe anyone, and all of my replies were supposed to support the argument of someone else or provide further evidences. And I agree with most of the points you are trying to make. However, I don't think any idea or value deserve such a position that no one dares to attack. We humans make mistakes all the time and how can we correct our mistskes if we are not allowed to challenge our assumptions?

[[deleted user]]

Xdyj wrote: "To Shannon: Sorry probably I didn't make myself very clear because English is not my first language. I never meant to say any people in real life or anyone in this discussion is "wrong" or Christia..."

No, no. I know you did NOT use the word "dick" ... etc.... I was answering both you and R.C., who had used that word. I meant to address your statement regarding Jesus and the old laws ... but forgot in the post addressed to R.C. and to you. So, I sent the next post. There's no need to apologize and your English is fine. I just wanted to point out that, from what I remember of the gospels, Jesus did step outside the old laws. I'm sorry it seemed that ... that you thought that ... I said you used that language. You definitely did not.

[[deleted user]]

Also, Kdyj ...

I agree that ideas and values can be challenged. There's no wrong in that, in and of itself. What I question is how those challenges are made. I also wonder at the need, in some, not to allow people with different beliefs and opinions to ... to have them ... and to ... live and let live.

[Hazel]

I am beginning to suspect that you were upset at the use of the word "dick" instead of "unpleasant person". I'm not going to apologise for that, its a perfectly cromulent word, that takes less time to type, and still means the same thing.

I respect your right to believe what you want. That doesn't mean I have to respect what you chose to believe. This is the important difference that seems to be being missed in all your assertations. I'm not expecting you to change what you believe, but I believe that you have made an error in what you chose to believe, and I am not afraid to say that.

The imporatant thing here is to understand the difference between attacking the person with the beliefs, and attacking the beliefs that they hold. Many people consider their beliefs to be utterly intrinsic, which is why I can see where the confusion comes in. Whereas I consider a persons beliefs to not be intrinsic in any way, they do not come into the world with us, its something that we develop as we grow up based on our very flawed perception of the world, and the teachings of those around us. Its not who or what we are, its an appendix we have added, or had thrust upon us by others.

I'm not telling you to change your beliefs, I've said this several times, I did manage to get you to consider why you hold them, you did, and decided that you still wanted to hang on to them. Fine, great, if it makes you happy, thats brilliant. But personally, I think thats an error, I'm entitled to think thats an error, and I know me thinking that isn't going to mean squat to you, and if it does, then a)I'd be touched that you hold my esteem so highly, and b)it would suggest that you really haven't reached a complete conclusion that you're happy with.

I haven't tried to change your faith, but you keep asserting thats what I'm trying to do, simply because I'm arguing at odds with what you believe.

[Xdyj]

To Shannon: I didn't say everyone should challenge their beliefs, just someone should do it. In fact, I think Jesus himself can be read as someone who was willing to challenge the common belief and social norms of his time. Also, if I were a Christian I would be proud and not sad that so many Christians are not afraid of open criticism to their holy book:)

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "I believe that you have made an error in what you chose to believe, and I am not afraid to say that. "

You've made this point quite clear, Hazel. You've made this statement over and over and over again. I've got it. Everyone who reads this thread has a firm grasp on it. I do wonder at your need to continue to say it ... over and over and over again. Because, in truth, we've all got it.

Here's the deal ... and the difference between us ... I think. My cousins are Mormons. There are a lot of things, within the Mormon faith, that I don't hold with. There are things said, done, and believed by Mormons that I don't respect.

You said ...

I respect your right to believe what you want. That doesn't mean I have to respect what you chose to believe. This is the important difference that seems to be being missed in all your assertations. I'm not expecting you to change what you believe, but I believe that you have made an error in what you chose to believe, and I am not afraid to say that.

The difference between the two of us is ... as part and parcel of my respecting my cousins right to practice Mormonism, I don't feel the need to tell them ... you're in error ... you're in error ... you're in error. Cousins, you've made an error in what you chose to believe. I'm not afraid to tell you that. You're in error. And, the God, the people who wrote the Book of Mormon, etc... and their followers therein are utter dicks. And, in case you didn't hear me the first five times, you're in error.

If I remember correctly, Brigham Young killed people, innocent people, in order to steal women to take as his own. I've not taken the time to research that this evening. So, if I'm wrong, I apologize. But, I don't believe I'm wrong. That, what he did, makes me sick. It disturbs me that their leadership is all male. I was horrified when they, my cousins, were baptized and their mother was not allowed to touch them during their immersion ... only the men were allowed to do that.

But, when they've spoken about how their faith sustains them, when they've talked about family night, when they've asked to say prayers at the table, I've remained silent. I've even dealt with them respectfully when they've tried to get me to convert to Mormonism. I've told them no. Period. But, I've not told them they're in error. If they want to believe what they believe, that's their choice. I respect that. And, for me, part of respecting their right to believe is not to speak out against their faith, their prophets, their holy books, etc....
That is incredibly disrespectful to me. I can't stress that enough.

When they've asked me to discuss my faith with them, I have. When they've asked me, directly, why I wouldn't convert, I've asked if they really wanted a truthful answer. When they said they did, I gave them my honest thoughts on the matter. But, having said that, I've not felt the need to ... forever and always ... tell them they're
wrong ... tell them in error ... or speak disrespectfully of their beliefs. That's just not done ... by me.

I think that might be the Native American in me. Several years ago, I went to a Native American ... hmmm ... gathering of sorts. Different elders were holding a ... it was like a talk/conference. They talked of the treatment of our people, different current events in our area ... sacred lands that had been polluted by mining, an attempt to get remains from local museums, etc.... They also shared different elements of the culture ... drumming, song, etc.... It was in a conference room of a local hotel.

This man came. He was not American Indian. He started to talk about Christianity and Jesus and said he came for the express reason of converting us if we weren't already Christians. I could tell how uncomfortable the elders were ... some were downright angry. But, no one said a word. They sat there. They let this man have his say ... despite the fact that he was extremely disrespectful of the intent of the gathering and of their beliefs. Once he'd had his say, the husband of one of the elders asked the man if he'd step outside with him in order to talk more.

When they left, the elders turned to me. I was new to them, the only one there who was new to them. I'd never gone to such a gathering. They explained how they felt about his intrusion and his words and his beliefs. But, they asked me to think about how they dealt with the situation. "What did you see?" they asked me. I detailed the different expressions I saw on their faces. I talked about their body language. I mentioned that some looked disgusted, some saddened, some angry. Then, they asked what I heard. What did they say? Nothing.

They told me this was a very important lesson. Despite his level of disrespect, they said nothing. They didn't stop him. They didn't argue with him. That, they said, would be disrespectful. Regardless of whether or not they agreed with his intrusion or religion, they respected his right to have a voice and to speak of his beliefs. Allowing him this was very important to them ... and a key to their cultural beliefs. When he was done, they pointed out that the elder's husband, who wasn't American Indian, took him outside and dealt with him privately. One Yankee to another ... they chuckled. That was the respectful way of handling it. And, they pointed out, their silence during his diatribe did not mean the agreed or wouldn't deal with the situation. Deal with it they would and did. But, they dealt with it in a way that honored his right to a voice and respected his belief.

So, .... For me ... for certain cultures ... there is a difference between sharing one's own beliefs and questioning, constantly, the beliefs of others. That in and of itself, questioning the faith of others, is highly disrespectful for many American Indian people. Given the fact that I'm not totally Indian and was not raised as such, I can deal with questioning ... especially if the questions are voiced in a respectful manner. But, calling people who believe stupid or sheep or morons ... that is highly disrespectful, in my eyes and in my heart, and I've spoken out against that when it's happened in the past. Saying the God of the Christian Bible and the followers therein, etc... are utter dicks .... I can't even begin to tell you how I felt when I read those words. That, for me and my beliefs ... as a person, as a believer, as someone who has Mohawk ancestry ... that goes so far beyond disrespect. That's just not done. (Obviously, it is done and was done.) But, for me, within my circle and my blood, that's just NOT done. And ... it's not just the word. It's the disrespect leveled by that word ... by those words, in general.

[[deleted user]]

Xdyj wrote: "In fact, I think Jesus himself can be read as someone who was willing to challenge the common belief and..."

I agree.

[Hazel]

Shannon, do you think I sit with friends and family whohave faith and tell them I think they're in error if they haven't freely entered into, and particpated in a conversation relating to it in the first place? You entered into this conversation, you keep expressing your thoughts on me, so I keep responding, why else do you think I end stating the same things again? If you didn't keep pushing, I wouldn't keep answering.

I haven't called anyone stupid, quite the opposite, I haven't referred to anyone as sheep, I haven't said anyone is a moron. Are you confusing me with Whirlwind? Or Bunnie? Because they're the ones who have used such words in relation to people of faith. I simply keep responding to your assertations that I should respect faith, when I dont think that I should have to, and I'm certainly not going to start saying "oh ok, I'll do it because you told me I had to". I don't see anything intrinsically respectable in belief in something that I think so obviously does not exist, and for which there is no evidence... oh look, I'm saying it again, because once you again you have opened the question up. I feel that it is imperative that if you find fault with something, you should speak out, and personally, I find fault in constantly teling me that I have to respect someones faith in order to respect them, because that is absolute bullshit. I have plenty of religious friends, of many denominations, and many of my family members have faith. The difference is, that I only enter a conversation about religion when someone is happy with it, I don't tell them what I think out of the blue, I sat quietly through the christening of my nephew, despite my conviction that baptism of a child is morally wrong, I don't start the conversation, because it would be disrespectful. Nor did I start this conversation with you, you entered into it freely, after it had already begun.

You want a change in subject? Then stop beating out the same objections over and over again. And unles you can think of something new to add to what youve trotted out thus far, then I guess this conversation is at an end, because you have now broken enough of the rules I abide by in conversation on pretty much any subject (the most important being that all parties accept that the viewpoint with the most evidence is likely the one that is most likely to be correct, and that if you raise a point that you should provide evidence for it) that I no longer want to discuss it with you. You have made it clear that you're simply going to keep returning to "but you should respect my faith" without giving me any reason to do so. I respect you, I even quite like you, but I don't respect your faith, no matter how many times you assert that I have to, infact the continual assertion that I have to reduces my respect in you, so probably best leave it before I lose the respect and it turns into contempt.

Its been lovely talking to you though, I have enjoyed it, even if you haven't.

[[deleted user]]

Wow, Hazel!

Here ... I'll say it for you.

You're right.

[Hazel]

and bang, the respect has gone.

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "and bang, the respect has gone."
I'm with you Hazel why should we respect beliefs and religion.
Believers,
Please explain to me just what I should respect about your beliefs or religion. Why should I respect a belief system that oppresses me because I’m a woman, that would make me the property of my father, husband or son. Why should I respect something that condones or at the very least fails to condemn the honour killings of women and the murder of suspected “witches”. That vilifies fellow humans being for being homosexual a state that if their own beliefs are true is how god makes them and he never makes mistakes. That protects peadophiles from prosecution, actively contributes to the deaths from AIDS by banning contraception for the faithful and kills school girls by sending them back into a burning school because they didn’t have time to put their burkhas on while escaping.
And if all this is religion or man and not god, then where the hell is he to tell us we got it wrong?

[[deleted user]]

Why? Isn't that what you wanted to hear. You've only made comments because I've pushed. That's the only reason. Since I've made comments and you've responded, you must be right about that. I've repeated myself. True. You're right about that. Now, I hadn't forgotten that you'd not called people stupid or morons ... at least I don't think you have. I think you've told people their arguments were ridiculous, but that's different. When I made that comment, I was speaking in general. But, you didn't say it, so you're right. You're right in that I've not offered scientific evidence for my belief in God. So, you're right there. I did enter into this conversation freely, so you're right there. And, what was the line about my having something new to say ... or sticking with what I've "trotted out" so far ... and ... if I've nothing new to say the conversation is at an end. Well, I don't think I have anything new to say, so, you're right again. So, all in all, you're right.

[[deleted user]]

Well, Shanna ...

The elders I spoke of don't believe in a Jewish, Christian or Muslim God. I was sharing a belief of their culture ... which is to allow people to have a voice and respect their beliefs. There are non-believers who hold those truths as part of their values. It might not be easily understood by you or by others ... but ... it is part of the fabric of some cultures. You might have a different cultural heritage, with different values.

And, when it comes to believers, I don't know if many people on this thread really want to hear what believers have to say. Hey, maybe they do. But, it doesn't really seem like that to me. So, I don't know whether or not believers are going to want to put themselves out there in order to answer your question.

I did hear the question, though. This is my only answer.

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "Well, Shanna ...

The elders I spoke of don't believe in a Jewish, Christian or Muslim God. I was sharing a belief of their culture ... which is to allow people to have a voice and respect their b..."

Ok so what is you actually believe then?

[Tina]

Shannon wrote: "I wasn't addressing you, Hazel. I know you don't believe, and I respect that. I was addressing someone else. I was addressing the believers who are posting."

I agree with you and I thank you very much for saying that. You are completely correct. I admit I do get carried away in trying to constantly defend myself.

But it is important to share the Word, to defend your faith

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." 1 Peter 3:15
Maybe I wasn't being gentle enough

[Tina]

Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "noted Shannon, however, I'm still allowed to reply, especially as you didn't refer to anyone specifically by name, thus making your intentions clear, without which it is reasonable to..."

I don't know if I agree with that 100%, if you are a believer, as you claim you are, (and I'm not doubting that) wouldn't you want to share this belief with everyone? If you believe you are saved, and have the Holy Spirit living within you, wouldn't you want to tell the world of this miracle, this light? What if every Christian believed that they shouldn't share their faith because it's "rude" to share it?
Or do you just mean in subtle ways, to open minded people seeking help, a Savior? Like witnessing in every day life to friends and family? I'm just not sure what you're trying to say (completely). . .

[Tina]

Zakaria wrote: "R.C. wrote: "Zakaria wrote: "No, it is not Ok to call me Zak. Zakaria is fine. God is the supreme being who is the first cause of all that there is. He is the God recognized by jews, christians and..."

Agree completely. As I said before, it takes more faith to believe all of this came from absolutely nothing than that something always existed, the uncaused cause, God.

[Xdyj]

Zakaria wrote: "Tina wrote: "Zakaria wrote: "R.C. wrote: "Zakaria wrote: "No, it is not Ok to call me Zak. Zakaria is fine. God is the supreme being who is the first cause of all that there is. He is the God recog..."

I don't think B. Russell himself, as an atheist/agnostic, would believe in that, but I haven't read his stuff for years so sorry if I'm wrong. The trouble is, the message of most religion is not simply the existence of god(s), but also a lot of properties associated to them as well as the belief in holy books, churches etc. Simply "proving" the existence of god (and I personally don't find your argument convincing) does not make your religion more convincing than, say, Christianity or Hinduism, or even the Aztec religion that demands human sacrifice.