# a different message for all to consider...



## waitingforsuperman (Nov 3, 2005)

God isn't pissed at you for looking at beautiful girls. christianity isn't about keeping you from having fun. the bible is about love, grace, forgivness, and redemption - not about justice, pain, suffering and hate.

the post this is obviously in response to is deeply hurtful to me. i've spent the past several years trying so hard to explain to christians and non-christians alike that following Jesus is about forgiveness and love. then one person comes along with a message like that, and all the non-christians think that christians are all crazy and just want to keep people from having fun, and the christians think that maybe God's going to punish them, too.

it's beyond frustrating, and it's disheartening. i've committed to spending my life sharing the relevancy of Jesus' message of LOVE and FORGIVENESS and GRACE to people. it sickens me to see someone who is spreading the message that God is about cruelty, revenge, and hate.


----------



## waitingforsuperman (Nov 3, 2005)

sorry for going all christian on your asses. i can't promise that it won't happen again, but i doubt it will.

that said, God isn't pissed at you for thinking that heather and ann marie are hot. so keep on thinking that they're hot. please.


----------



## Emma (Nov 3, 2005)

waitingforsuperman said:


> heather and ann marie are hot.



*ahem* *pokes*


----------



## BBW Betty (Nov 3, 2005)

waitingforsuperman said:


> God isn't pissed at you for looking at beautiful girls. christianity isn't about keeping you from having fun. the bible is about love, grace, forgivness, and redemption - not about justice, pain, suffering and hate.
> 
> the post this is obviously in response to is deeply hurtful to me. i've spent the past several years trying so hard to explain to christians and non-christians alike that following Jesus is about forgiveness and love. then one person comes along with a message like that, and all the non-christians think that christians are all crazy and just want to keep people from having fun, and the christians think that maybe God's going to punish them, too.



I'm glad you posted this. I'd have to say I mostly agree with you, although I DO think that justice has, does, and will come into play, just not so micromanaged in this world. I believe we will be judged at the second coming. 

One of my favorite images is "The Laughing Christ." And we all know God has a sense of humor. Just look at some of the beings (human and other animal) that he created.

As far as sinning goes on the other thread, someone mentioned the "lusting" after the girls, which could be. My guess is that the GF in question was in one of those chatrooms (or one of her friends was) and discovered his behavior while they were apart. We all make choices, and those choices have consequences. I love this quote, although I forget who said it: "If you don't want anyone to know, DON'T DO IT!"


----------



## Jack Skellington (Nov 3, 2005)

Don't sweat it. 

As long as your posts don't turn into fire and brimestones rants and you start to constantly ask people if they are saved, I really don't see a problem.


----------



## waitingforsuperman (Nov 3, 2005)

Jack Skellington said:


> Don't sweat it.
> 
> As long as your posts don't turn into fire and brimestones rants and you start to constantly ask people if they are saved, I really don't see a problem.




yeah, that'll never happen.


and em. we all know that i pretty much have a mild crush on you. will you only feel better if i say heather, ann marie, and curvy em are totally hot? if so, i'll say it. heather, ann marie, and curvy em are totally hot.


also, betty, the bit about judgement/justice was talking about right now, not in the future. i agree with you.


----------



## ThatFatGirl (Nov 3, 2005)

waitingforsuperman said:


> the post this is obviously in response to is deeply hurtful to me. i've spent the past several years trying so hard to explain to christians and non-christians alike that following Jesus is about forgiveness and love. then one person comes along with a message like that, and all the non-christians think that christians are all crazy and just want to keep people from having fun, and the christians think that maybe God's going to punish them, too.



The post was deeply hurtful to you? Wow.. you are a sensitive one. Our religious beliefs probably more closely agree than those of mine and Ticky's but keep in mind that there are all variations of Christianity and some of them tip the scales on guilt or are heavy on fire and brimstone. There is no right and wrong in this case as there are many paths to God and each of us has to figure out what is right for ourselves. 

Ticky suggested self-evalution. That is not a bad thing. The only person he pointed a finger at was himself.


----------



## waitingforsuperman (Nov 3, 2005)

ThatFatGirl said:


> The post was deeply hurtful to you? Wow.. you are a sensitive one.



his post wasn't about christianity as the bible puts it. i'm hurt because it's a step backwards for all christians when people spout something that's not biblical and call it christianity. it's not simply that it's not how i interpret the bible; his view of God is the opposite of how God is explained in the bible.


----------



## sweetnnekked (Nov 3, 2005)

ThatFatGirl said:


> The post was deeply hurtful to you? Wow.. you are a sensitive one. Our religious beliefs probably more closely agree than those of mine and Ticky's but keep in mind that there are all variations of Christianity and some of them tip the scales on guilt or are heavy on fire and brimstone. There is no right and wrong in this case as there are many paths to God and each of us has to figure out what is right for ourselves.
> 
> Ticky suggested self-evalution. That is not a bad thing. The only person he pointed a finger at was himself.



I experience the guilt and F&B on a daily basis. It's the main reason for my weekly psychiatry visits. I've been trying to escape for years!!


----------



## artfan9000 (Nov 3, 2005)

All Christians are wrong anyway, so why get worked up over it? Seriously, if God is love, I think he'd love us enough to love AIDS and cancer away.


----------



## Totmacher (Nov 3, 2005)

[Rant]
God is a very hands off kinda guy. It's kinda like how, if you had good parents, at some point in your life your loving father or mother let you do something stupid and experience the consequences so you'd learn from them and be less likely to do stupid things. 

The two big theories about AIDS I've heard are that it is either the result of an ex-nazi bio warfare expert's work gone horribly wrong or the result of someone copulating with infected rhesus monkies and incubating a chimeric virus. Both examples of people doing something stupid and having to learn from it. Now we know: If you're gonna give someone blood test it first, if you're gonna exchange bodily fluids check first.

Cancer is a sad fact of the way the way life operates. In Christianity we have this thing called, "Original sin". It's when Adam and Eve partook of the tree of knowledge. It's the one big thing God never forgave us for and it's why women menstruate and all people grow old and die. Supposedly Jesus took the blame for it along with everything else when he died on the cross and went to hell fo three days, _but_ we still grow old, menstruate, and die. Granted nowadays the death is temporary, but it still happens so I'm guessing there is a little bad blood left there. Back to the point: Cancer is inevitable. The man who does not get cancer at some point is as rare as the man who doesn't age. The magnitude of miracle that would be needed to wipe out such an integral flaw in life would be on par with the easter miracle. God doesn't do those much anymore. If you want to live a life without pain and suffering you're going to have to wait until the last judgement. Yes, it's complicated, but, the ways of The Lord are mysterious ones. 
[/Rant]

Oh yeah, I saw the understood, "Em is hot" in supe's post. Em, you must realize: You are so very hot it would be ludicrous to even think God, or anyone else, could be mad at someone for believing it.


----------



## ataraxia (Nov 3, 2005)

As everyone on this board probably knows by now, I'm _very_ non-Christian. That said, even I have no problem with this thread.

(I just thought I'd take this opportunity to try and prove that I'm not a religious nut either. I have nothing actually constructive to add.  )


----------



## AnnMarie (Nov 3, 2005)

waitingforsuperman said:


> sorry for going all christian on your asses. i can't promise that it won't happen again, but i doubt it will.
> 
> that said, God isn't pissed at you for thinking that heather and ann marie are hot. so keep on thinking that they're hot. please.




This place is loaded with hot mamas, but I thank you for including me among them.  

I still think you're being snarky, though.


----------



## Santaclear (Nov 3, 2005)

God would be mildly pissed at this thread if he existed.

*note* This whole damn THING is "God", it's not separate from us!


----------



## fatlane (Nov 3, 2005)

artfan9000 said:


> All Christians are wrong anyway, so why get worked up over it? Seriously, if God is love, I think he'd love us enough to love AIDS and cancer away.



This from a person who has Hello Kitty all over a web page...


----------



## fatlane (Nov 3, 2005)

And one of MY favorite pictures is the "Disco Jesus".

It's all in good fun...


----------



## Santaclear (Nov 3, 2005)

In the '70s I used to tell people I "like to party with the Lord." Got a lot of blank stares.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 3, 2005)

Now I need to find a pic of Jesus with a Flock of Seagulls haircut...


----------



## waitingforsuperman (Nov 4, 2005)

fatlane said:


> Now I need to find a pic of Jesus with a Flock of Seagulls haircut...




not at all where i intended this thread to go...

but i'm snarky.


----------



## coyote wild (Nov 4, 2005)

this reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from one of my favorite movies, *I <3 Huckabees*

*Girl*: Jesus isn't mad at us as long as we keep Him in our hearts.
*Tommy Corn*: I hate to break it to you, but he _is_, he most definitely _is!_

*silence*

but really? i have the distinct feeling that God got to a point where He was like "You know what? I gave humankind* free will, and they* are going to use it. Can I really punish them* for using it? Assuming of course it isn't in relation to hatred towards his or her* fellow men and women.* ....Or to me...."

So He stopped sending us messages engraved on stone and stopped sending angels to anyone sane. Doesn't mean He doesn't love us. Quite the contrary. I just feel he's giving us room to grow and make our own mistakes.

Of course, odds are I'm completely wrong and will end up in hell for believing my God loves me and wants me to have freedom, when he really is more strict and mad at me than I realize.

I'm going to have a lot to answer for on Judgement Day.

Don't get me started on religion. I could go on forever. And don't get me started on right wing Christian conservatives. Of course, there are none here, otherwise they're more than likely hypocrites.

*Yes, even God is PC.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 4, 2005)

AnnMarie said:


> This place is loaded with hot mamas, but I thank you for including me among them.



But, not doing it, is like talking about Jazz without talking about Louis B. Armstrong.


----------



## Moonchild (Nov 4, 2005)

To those just posting to let us know they don't believe in God: There's a time and a place, and this isn't it. When the discussion is about God's existence, by all means speak up. But when it's about the teachings of Christianity, your opinions are not necessary and they serve to do nothing but make you appear no better than those to whom Jack Skellington referred in his first post.

By the way, I'm Christian, and I'm into bands like Impaled Nazerene and Satan (they didn't think too long on that one, huh?). Imagine what I go through on religious-themed threads on metal message boards


----------



## Totmacher (Nov 4, 2005)

"Satan" means, "Adversary". Maybe they just took arabic in high school and thought their music was kinda confrontational?


----------



## fatlane (Nov 4, 2005)

Arabic is offered in high school? Where?


----------



## Moonchild (Nov 5, 2005)

Totmacher said:


> "Satan" means, "Adversary". Maybe they just took arabic in high school and thought their music was kinda confrontational?



Hmmm... Maybe. But in any case it doesn't matter too much since they're friggin awesome anyway.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 5, 2005)

Rearrange Satan and you get Santa. IT'S TRUE!


----------



## loves2laugh (Nov 5, 2005)

i love Jesus. He is loving, compastionate, always there when i need someone. the only people i see Him yell at are arrogant and pompous jerks. it took me a long time to be able to read the old testament and not see an angry pyschopath tearing up the world. its ashame that we use our free will to hurt others and for selfish gains, we could really do some amazing things if we had the will to end poverty and child abuse in all its forms.

well thats my rant
God bless you all!
ingrid


----------



## Totmacher (Nov 5, 2005)

fatlane said:


> Arabic is offered in high school? Where?




Well, I'm sure of New York, California, and Ohio. I'm willing to bet most states have a school or two with a teacher who organizes a class when there's enough interest. Then there's also private school...


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Nov 7, 2005)

loves2laugh said:


> i love Jesus. He is loving, compastionate, always there when i need someone. the only people i see Him yell at are arrogant and pompous jerks. it took me a long time to be able to read the old testament and not see an angry pyschopath tearing up the world. its ashame that we use our free will to hurt others and for selfish gains, we could really do some amazing things if we had the will to end poverty and child abuse in all its forms.
> 
> well thats my rant
> God bless you all!
> ingrid




So true. But lately people who are getting all the media attention are the right-wing zealots who think everyone but them is going to hell. They would take their fundamentalism and pass it off as God's law.


----------



## loves2laugh (Nov 7, 2005)

you are so right curva and so many people are turned off because of them. i have met more than my fair share of "righteous ones". i would rather hang out in a dark pit with spiders, but i also know it isnt about people, its about Jesus and i have tried to teach myself to look at Him and not them. not always so easy.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Nov 7, 2005)

loves2laugh said:


> you are so right curva and so many people are turned off because of them. i have met more than my fair share of "righteous ones". i would rather hang out in a dark pit with spiders, but i also know it isnt about people, its about Jesus and i have tried to teach myself to look at Him and not them. not always so easy.



It's never easy to love your neighbor when your neighbor is a fundamentalist. They seem to think everyone who does not agree with them is against them. Perhaps when Jesus returns He will show the fundamentalists the error of their ways. 

The funny thing is, Jesus often challenged the fundamentalists of his time but those of our time often claim him.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 7, 2005)

Thoughout history it was usually the extremists, that cause the world trouble.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 7, 2005)

In my experience, I've seen there's something fundamentally wrong with fundamentalists.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 7, 2005)

fatlane said:


> In my experience, I've seen there's something fundamentally wrong with fundamentalists.



I think that's fundamental.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 7, 2005)

Here's another fun religion fact: There's more than one Bible out there. The Ethiopian Orthodox version wins the record for most books, having more than 20 books not found in the KJV and Vulgate. So when people say they believe in the Bible and only the Bible, ask 'em which one!


----------



## Jes (Nov 8, 2005)

fatlane said:


> Here's another fun religion fact: There's more than one Bible out there. The Ethiopian Orthodox version wins the record for most books, having more than 20 books not found in the KJV and Vulgate. So when people say they believe in the Bible and only the Bible, ask 'em which one!



I, myself, prefer the Vulgate. All of the medieval Italian poets used it, and since I have a minor in medieval french, english and italian literature (and yes, you can imagine I had MILLIONS of job offers with those credentials!), it was imperative that I know it. 

I'm enraged this morning. Who wishes to comfort me?


----------



## Durin (Nov 8, 2005)

> It's never easy to love your neighbor when your neighbor is a fundamentalist





> In my experience, I've seen there's something fundamentally wrong with fundamentalists.



Let's not generalize folks. All Fundamentalism means is you believe the fundamentals of x faith. There are Muslim Fundamentalists, Christian Fundamentalists ect. ect.

Most Fundamentalists are like everybody else, pay taxes, raise kids, watch movies ect. ect. Don't let the Nut wing of Christiantiy scare you because believe me 10% of any group are probably nuts.

:bow:


----------



## waitingforsuperman (Nov 8, 2005)

Durin said:


> Let's not generalize folks. All Fundamentalism means is you believe the fundamentals of x faith. There are Muslim Fundamentalists, Christian Fundamentalists ect. ect.
> 
> Most Fundamentalists are like everybody else, pay taxes, raise kids, watch movies ect. ect. Don't let the Nut wing of Christiantiy scare you because believe me 10% of any group are probably nuts.
> 
> :bow:




people use fundamentalist to mean extremist.

the fundamentals of christianity is: Christ died to save sinners. Our work on the earth is to love the Lord and love our neighbor. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; noone comes to the Father but through Him.

that's pretty much it. if you believe in these fundamentals, you are a fundamentalist.

fundamentalists are not necessarily legalists or extremists. however, the word is becoming increasingly meaningless, as people are using it simply to mean "extremist." well, there's no point for that. we already have the word extremist, and don't need another word that means the same thing. but, using the definition of fundamentalist, not it's common usage, we don't have another word to mean fundamentalist.


i believe in the fundamentals of christianity, but i'm far from an extremist or a legalist. i enjoy kill bill vols 1 & 2, fine cigars, and the word "ass." a legalist or extremist would say that i am going to hell. a fundamentalist would say "'work out your own salvation in fear and trembling...' - the apostle paul." so, i'm working out my salvation, and - since i'm neither extremist nor legalistic - will be gracious enough to not chide you for doing the same.



i like fat girls.


----------



## Durin (Nov 8, 2005)

What kind of Cigars do you like?

I am a fan of Don Deigo, Henry Clay and anything Padron. 

I think what most don't get is that being a FA is morally neutral. It all depends what values and morals you adopt. For me as a Christian who happens to be an FA I married a beautiful BBW.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 8, 2005)

Jes said:


> I, myself, prefer the Vulgate. All of the medieval Italian poets used it, and since I have a minor in medieval french, english and italian literature (and yes, you can imagine I had MILLIONS of job offers with those credentials!), it was imperative that I know it.
> 
> I'm enraged this morning. Who wishes to comfort me?



I'm sorry you're enraged, but I also understand it, being no stranger to anger.

I don't know if this helps, but it's true: when it's over, you'll still be a smart, strong, funny, attractive woman. No random crappy event or ill-intentioned asshole can take that away.

How does the Vulgate bible differ from the other versions? As an agnostic/atheist who is honestly baffled by the need for a belief in the supernatural, I'm fascinated by the different forms religion takes. (I know there are bright people on both sides of the fence. I just don't get the religious side.)


----------



## Durin (Nov 8, 2005)

Dogsoldier to give you a reason why I have a belief in the Supernatural I would paraphrase Shakespeare to say "There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio than we can imagine."

On the practicle side I don't believe that science and faith are divorced at all. Quantum tells us that there are many Dimensions  that we cannot comprehend. Science believes that the Universe is made up of primarily Dark Energy and Dark Matter that we really don't understand. But even beyond that Science and Faith are asking to completly different questions.

In fact there is a good editorial about this on the last page of Time magazine.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Nov 8, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> As an agnostic/atheist who is honestly baffled by the need for a belief in the supernatural,



I'm honestly baffled by muggles. They're a strange lot.

I don't need the supernatural. It's just there. I need a million dollars. I also need an Xbox 360. But that's a whole other story.


----------



## Jes (Nov 8, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> I'm sorry you're enraged, but I also understand it, being no stranger to anger.
> 
> I don't know if this helps, but it's true: when it's over, you'll still be a smart, strong, funny, attractive woman. No random crappy event or ill-intentioned asshole can take that away.
> 
> ...


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 8, 2005)

Jes- not bored at all. I've always been pretty sure that the many translations and commentaries associated with the bible have produced interpretations bearing little resemblance to the positions held by the various original authors (who themselves often didn't resemble one another in their world-views).

And I can well relate to construction-induced rage. We once had a kitchen remodel that was supposed to take a week or so and actually lasted four months. We spent almost as much on eating out as we did on the remodel.

Durin - I understand and agree with your "more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of" observation. I think humans are animals with particularly evolved brain functions (perhaps overspecialized in certain areas) that have enabled us to develop technologically at a faster rate than probably is good for us. However, we're still just planetary parasites in a tiny and remote corner of the universe, and we've probably not evolved far enough to comprehend it all. I recognize that I'm not capable of comprehending the big picture, and I don't think anyone else is either, including all philosophers and founders of religions. 

I think it's our job as humans to keep questioning, investigating, and trying to improve, but nobody has the final answer. I also believe gods and other supernatural beings were invented by humans to comfort themselves in the face of the unknown and control the behavior of others. As history keeps showing us, what appears to be supernatural is merely nature misunderstood.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Nov 8, 2005)

To be serious for a moment. Don't worry, it won't happen often. 

Non-beliefs are still a belief system. No more valid or proven than any other. It also often can be just as rigid, judgmental and uncompromising set of beliefs as any fundamentalist extremist possess. That "I'm right. Only I am right. People are going to Hell/people are stupid for believing differently than I do." 

Not having Judeo-Christian beliefs or a belief in atheism has allowed me to see people from a different perspective in matters of faith and beliefs. I can honestly say that I've run into my fair share of bigoted narrow-minded atheists as well as Christians. The Christians have just been more violent in my case.

People use non-beliefs as a big of "crutch" to comfort themselves as spiritual people use their beliefs. They don't want to believe that there own personal beliefs might be wrong and can't handle the concept that there might be something beyond their perception of themselves, reality and the universe they live in. I don't understand it, therefor it does not exist. It's comforting and less challenging to set themselves in that I'm right/you're wrong dogma. 

I feel science and the supernatural can (and do) coexist. Science does not and will not ever be able to explain everything. There are things in this universe that exist beyond conventional science. 

Science would tell you people have no soul and no purpose other than to reproduce and exist. That is in direct opposition to the deep human need to better themselves when in scientific terms life has no meaning. Don't get me wrong. I like science. Science is good. But it is not the end all and is not equipped to explain the matters of the soul. Nor can science explain compassion, guilt, art or love.

Science has the theory of the big bang (Which I believe). But what created the matter that created the big bang and what created the stuff that came before that and so on. Science tries to make order out of chaos and explain things that have no explanation. Sounds a lot like faith. Science, philosophy and spirituality need not be in opposition of each other. I believe in both science and spirituality and think they compliment each other nicely. 

Extremism of any view is what's bad. Be that science or faith.


----------



## BBW Betty (Nov 8, 2005)

You know, I think science and religion can complement each other. To me, the existence of "natural laws" proves the existence of a God who created those laws. Just my opinion.

Jes, I have a question. And to everyone else, this is just plain curiosity, NOT an attempt to start a religious war.
***You say the Vulgate is pre-KJV. Does that mean that it is most closely related to Catholic translations of the Bible, which contains a few books not present in the KJV? I love to study religion in the context of history, and vice versa.

Thanks in advance for your opinion/knowledge.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 8, 2005)

BBW Betty said:


> You know, I think science and religion can complement each other. To me, the existence of "natural laws" proves the existence of a God who created those laws. Just my opinion.
> 
> Jes, I have a question. And to everyone else, this is just plain curiosity, NOT an attempt to start a religious war.
> ***You say the Vulgate is pre-KJV. Does that mean that it is most closely related to Catholic translations of the Bible, which contains a few books not present in the KJV? I love to study religion in the context of history, and vice versa.
> ...




I totally agree.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 8, 2005)

The Latin Vulgate *is* the Catholic translation prepared by Jerome in the 4th Century. It excludes certain books found in various Orthodox texts, but includes books later discarded by Protestant sects. It is certainly more inclusive than the canon of Marcion, which excluded any books he considered "too Jewish", which meant all the Old Testament, 3 of the 4 gospels, and all but 13 of the Pauline and Catholic Epistles were chucked by ol' Marcion.


----------



## Jes (Nov 8, 2005)

fatlane said:


> The Latin Vulgate *is* the Catholic translation prepared by Jerome in the 4th Century. It excludes certain books found in various Orthodox texts, but includes books later discarded by Protestant sects. It is certainly more inclusive than the canon of Marcion, which excluded any books he considered "too Jewish", which meant all the Old Testament, 3 of the 4 gospels, and all but 13 of the Pauline and Catholic Epistles were chucked by ol' Marcion.



uh-hmn, fatlane. Who died and made YOU Jes, eh? Hmmn? *foot tap*

My translation flows beautifully and I like it (I read it only as narrative, not for spiritual reasons)--and it's translated of course because my Latin is nonexistent, unlike Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio's.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 8, 2005)

You wanna rumble? (whips out copy of "The Barbarian Conversion" by Fletcher)


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 8, 2005)

Jack Skellington said:


> Non-beliefs are still a belief system. No more valid or proven than any other. It also often can be just as rigid, judgmental and uncompromising set of beliefs as any fundamentalist extremist possess. That "I'm right. Only I am right. People are going to Hell/people are stupid for believing differently than I do."
> 
> I can honestly say that I've run into my fair share of bigoted narrow-minded atheists as well as Christians.
> 
> ...



First of all, I've believed in (and liked) that Jack Skellington character ever since I first saw _The Nightmare Before Christmas._

I do, however, think you're misinterpreting what I said. I never said I knew I was right; I just said I knew I didn't know. I, too, have encountered one or two bigoted, narrow-minded atheists, although not very many, to be honest. And I ain't one of them. I have no "I'm right - you're wrong" dogma. It's more like, "I don't know, and I don't think you do either, although I'm willing to talk about it."

I don't find my inability to believe in the supernatural particularly comforting. It would be more comforting to believe there was a god, or a purpose to everything. (Okay - to be honest, I wouldn't want to believe in a god that behaved like the bully in the old testament.) I hope there's a purpose to everything, and I try to act like there might be, even though I really have no idea if there is. However, I can't accept the concept of "I can't understand it, so I'll make something up to explain it," or "I'll take somebody else's word for it just because it might make me feel more secure."

I also think you've got science wrong. Science is simply the acquisition of knowledge through applying the scientific method: form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and accept/reject the hypothesis based on the outcome. There are many scientific theories, some of which _are_ more valid than others, simply because they're supported by more evidence. However, there is no monolithic "Science" that says things like, "People have no purpose." There are individual scientists who believe that, but most would tell you they just don't know, or the question is outside their jurisdiction. Good scientists are open to all possibilities, but most want to see evidence before they're willing to accept a theory or concept. That doesn't seem rigid to me. Instead, it seems eminently reasonable.


----------



## Michelle (Nov 8, 2005)

Really, REALLY good post old dog. I concur! Wish I could formulate my thoughts as well as you did.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Nov 8, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> I do, however, think you're misinterpreting what I said. I never said I knew I was right; I just said I knew I didn't know.



I was speaking in general on views of spiritual beliefs and non-spiritual beliefs and it was not personally directed at you or anyone else. That's why I didn't quote anyone. Sorry for any confusion.



> There are many scientific theories, some of which _are_ more valid than others, simply because they're supported by more evidence.



I was not talking about which scientific theories are more valid than others. 

My point was that non-spiritual beliefs are no more valid than spiritual ones. For example atheism is not better than Christianity and vice versa and atheists can be just as close minded and dogmatic in their beliefs as Christians. 

Because none of us really knows what really lies or doesn't lie beyond. We just don't know. We can make assumptions based on our own experiences and beliefs. But that doesn't make our beliefs the only correct one.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 8, 2005)

I once thought atheism was an active belief, but that's just strong atheism. "Weak" atheism is a lack of belief in God, a lack of belief in no God, and he'd rather just not fool with any sort of religious question.

Takes all kinds in this big crazy world...


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 8, 2005)

Jack Skellington said:


> Because none of us really knows what really lies or doesn't lie beyond. We just don't know. We can make assumptions based on our own experiences and beliefs. But that doesn't make our beliefs the only correct one.



Unless, perhaps, you believe that none of us really knows what lies or doesn't lie beyond. As do I, and, apparently, you too.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 8, 2005)

fatlane said:


> I once thought atheism was an active belief, but that's just strong atheism. "Weak" atheism is a lack of belief in God, a lack of belief in no God, and he'd rather just not fool with any sort of religious question.



Actually, I think your "weak" atheism is more like agnosticism.

Whether I'm an atheist or an agnostic depends on how you define god. As I keep saying, it's all relative.

(P.S. Thanks, Michelle.)


----------



## fatlane (Nov 8, 2005)

Naah. This "weak" atheist didn't want to bother with ANY big questions. Not agnostic. Just didn't give a flip.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 9, 2005)

fatlane said:


> Naah. This "weak" atheist didn't want to bother with ANY big questions. Not agnostic. Just didn't give a flip.



That's cool. As you said, it takes all kinds. Diversity is good.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 9, 2005)

I-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii am everyday people, yeah, yeah...


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 9, 2005)

fatlane said:


> I-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii am everyday people, yeah, yeah...



My heart is so warmed, I could just shit.

(Guess I'd better add that I'm only being a wise-ass here, to preclude such shit hitting any fans.)


----------

