The Passion of the Christ

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I'm eagerly awaiting the Diane Sawyer interview with Mel Gibson tonight on ABC. It looks like he's going to be extremely candid, and I have to say, I'm proud of him and his accomplishment.

Can't wait to see the movie, although I'm sure it'll shock me and probably make me cry.

[Droo]

I can't wait to see it either although it looks like I've got no choice - we've another month before it is released over here. I'll be deeply moved by it, I've no doubt, how moved and impressed depends upon the film.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

They're hinting on TV right now that when Jim Cavizel (sp?) was raised up on the cross that he was hit by lightning. His interview is, of course, tomorrow night. Sounds like a fascinating story.

[JediBoricua]

I want to see the movie.

In the moment I consider myself and agnostic, but I find the story of Christ fascinating, so I will see this one as soon as it hits theaters.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

A friend of mine told me that a lot of the churches around here are buying up the tickets for thier congregations.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

There's so much controversy over this movie, I expect it'll hit number one for the weekend it opens. Everyone will have to see it, whether because they think it will be good, or because they think it'll be horrid.

[Rognan Dar]

I have heard from men in my church, who went to a conference of John Piper, that he said it was a good movie. But what else he said that after the preview of the movie that there was this odd silence. Noone said anything. Not even as they walked out of the theater and to their cars.

Piper also suggested that once the movie was over, dont say anything. Dont talk about the movie. Because once you start to talk about it, you start anaylizing (sp?) it and how could you anaylize something as powerful as the death of Jesus. And I think that is a great word.

I am amped to see it. And kind of worried about what I might see...

[Lilaena De'Ville]

It's John Piper. :)

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Rognan Dar
Pipper also suggested that once the movie was over, dont say anything. Dont talk about the movie. Because once you start to talk about it, you start anaylizing (sp?) it and how could you anaylize something as powerful as the death of Jesus. And I think that is a great word.



I suppose that's one approach. I'd be hesitant to agree with such a stance, regardless of personal faith. But, that's me, and getting into such details here probably isn't a good idea.

Looking at it critically as a film and an interpretation of historical events, there's plenty to analyze.


Personally... I think those who are expecting this to provide them with some sort of the spirtually enveloping experience are ... well... setting themselves up for disappointment, among other things.

But, we shall see how it does as a historical interpretation.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Very good interview.

[darth_mcbain]

Yes, good interview. I am really excited to see this, though I'm thinking it will probably be pretty disturbing.

[Vhiran Crescent]

Well, all I gotta say is that I am really looking forward to this. I have always admired Mel Gibson as an actor, but now that this has come along I respect him so much. He spent 25m of his own money to make this film and it could be the end of his career. I really hope that he gets the money back and I encourage you all to go within the first two weeks - cuz thats when theaters decide how long to keep a movie in theaters.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Only problem I see is that the movie might be so emotionally/spiritually moving that people won't see it twice. But then you never know.

[JediBoricua]

There's no way he won't make money. With all the controversy around this film he could get over 100 million in the US alone.

[Wei Wu Wei]

I'm clearly impressed and amazed at what Gibson's done. I hear that The Passion of the Christ is the most historically accurate movie about Christ to date. I want to see it myself, but have no money to see it. I would go see it with my church, but I've got no weekends free for a while.

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by Wei Wu Wei
I hear that The Passion of the Christ is the most historically accurate movie about Christ to date.
Unless you disagree with the movie, when it's the least historically accurate one to date.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Unless you disagree with the movie, when it's the least historically accurate one to date.

Explain your comment.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Considering the fact that there is nothing in the gospels that openly contradicts the historical account (barring the ressurection) and he bases the movie on the Gospel accounts and historical accounts, then it *should* be historically accurate.

Since it is a historical fact that there was a Jewish man called Jesus who was crucified by the Romans, and this is about that. Ahd the Romans crucified thousands of people, Jews or otherwise, and so there are detailed accounts of how crucifixion wsa done, so it can be historically accurate in that way as well.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well being a somewhat bibical expert (I was raised Catholic and went to catholic school and got fed the stuff :p and I also took 3 classes in the subject in college) I think in the bible the Romans get off easy (Pilate washing his hands etc) but there is a reason for this. The Christians were trying to survive Rome was powerful they destroyed Jerusalem (basically) in 70 AD because they were starting trouble the Christians were scared Rome might come after them. So in the Bible they made the Romans look better (like in Luke you have on of the guards say that he is the Son of God and the washing of the hands in the other books) They were hoping to get the Romans off their backs. So they didn't want to make them look like they were more responsible. I have always believed the Romans did most of it. Sure some of the Pharasis told on him, but my guess is the Roman leadership told them if there are any trouble makers tell us. Back then Rome didn't mess around any small rebellion and the leader and his followers were killed usually crucified because it was a sign to everyone else who tried. And in some cases if the rebellion got more widespread like with the Zealots in Jerusaleum they would raise hell on the town and burn it to the ground.

[CMJ]

I took a class on the history of Christianity myself. I sort of agree with you Carr - especially considering Pilate is renowned in the historical record for being a bloodthirsty dude.

Also from stuff I read in class it's possible Jesus was not crucified at all, but rather hung. If that's the case maybe rope hanging off a tree limb should be the symbol of the religion. ;)

[Mu Satach]

get a rope...

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Explain your comment.
I saw a thing on POC where some Jewish leader was saying this was full of lies, all accountable to Mel Gibson.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
I saw a thing on POC where some Jewish leader was saying this was full of lies, all accountable to Mel Gibson.


Much of the Jewish community is afraid that the film will be anti-semetic. Some Jewish leaders have denounced the film without even seeing it. This isn't the first time something such as this has happened to an interpretation of the Crucification tale.


It's an issue that has existed for 2000 years. One film isn't going to alter perceptions one way or the other. It comes down to a fundemental difference in the way Judism and Christianity interpret the events surrounding Christ's death.

If the film has historical innaccuracies, scholars will pounce on them, I'm sure. Thus far, however, I've heard nothing along those lines, except for the complaints from certain Jewish sources. Not to discount their point of view, but you have to consider the source as well as the complaint.

[ReaperFett]

Oh very true, they may well be a tad biased.


This person talking said they saw it twice as an aside. Must have been a good movie then ;)

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am sure most of the inaccuracies will be about the Roman authorities unless the movies shows Pilate as a bloodthursty tryant. I should say CMJ is right, before he got Palestine (what the Romans called it) his previous province he rulled with an iron fist have thousands killed after a small rebellion.

[Saarrreeaa Meorrrei]

Mel agreed that Pilate was a bloodthirsty tyrant in his interview. *shrug*

[Wei Wu Wei]

If you weren't a Roman citizen, you were crucified. I think that was the rule. And since Jesus was not a Roman citizen, he was crucified. At least, I think that's how it worked. I'll go ask my New Testament professor later today and find out.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Heck some Roman citizens got crucified if they did enough horrible acts. Although I think the rule for roman Citizens was beheading but I am not sure about that. Of course Crucifixation was a nice death considering what the Romans did to some later Christians like Nero using some as big torches yuck (I have always seen that as the worst way to go.)

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Originally posted by Wei Wu Wei
If you weren't a Roman citizen, you were crucified. I think that was the rule. And since Jesus was not a Roman citizen, he was crucified. At least, I think that's how it worked. I'll go ask my New Testament professor later today and find out.

That is, I believe, correct. When Paul was arrested a decade or so later, as a Roman citizen he was able to appeal to Caesar and had to go to Rome for trial, Jesus didn't have dual citizenship, and had no such options.

[Commander Zemil Vymes]

Crucifixion was indeed a punishment for non-citizens. When Spartacus and his army was crushed, the survivors were all crucified, and arranged down the length of a major roadway (Via Appia, perhaps?) that led to Rome, for all to see.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah that was to warn nobody do this again. I think it was later with the Christans that they started doing more barbaric things, feeding them to lions, burnings at the stake, etc.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Well, if Jesus's not being a Roman citizen wasn't enough to get him crucified, he was declared king of the Jews. So, not only did he get flak from the Jews, the Roman government would also have a reason to kill him. To declare yourself king when the emperor was king was treason.


Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Yeah that was to warn nobody do this again. I think it was later with the Christans that they started doing more barbaric things, feeding them to lions, burnings at the stake, etc.

More barbaric? Nailing somebody to a cross so they could suffocate under their own body weight seemed pretty barbaric to me.

[Sejah Haversh]

Yeah, but lighting them on fire would be a bit worse, I would think.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah I think burning at the stake was the worse form of death and there were other things like boiling oil and other horrible methods I rathter not say.

[Wei Wu Wei]

True, they're all gruesome. Just wanted to shed a little light on how crucifixion killed someone is all. Anyways, back to talking about the movie before gory details make people sick.

Which gospel did Gibson use for his movie? Most movies have used the gospel of John, simply because the gospel of John is supposed to be the easiest of the four gospels to understand.

[Dasquian Belargic]

It's one beginning with M (I think). I remember that much from TV spots about it. Matthew? Mark? Whichever is the most controversial. As an aside, someone likes the movie enough to anonymously spam my online journal about it!

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Yeah I think burning at the stake was the worse form of death and there were other things like boiling oil and other horrible methods I rathter not say.

No, the romans had a better one. It's called the Body of death. Your tied to a recently deceased corpse. I wont post the details what happens, look it up. It's truly stomach churning.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I wouldn't be surprised the Romans came up with some horrible methods to kill people. As for the movie what do you think the box office will be? I am curious to see the respons. I personally think 150-170 domestically 500-600WW

[Wei Wu Wei]

Well, if it's the most controversial, then he might have chosen Mark, simply because Mark is the shortest Gospel. You said before that the movie ends with Christ's death, right? Did Gibson decide to just leave the resurrection out?

[Lilaena De'Ville]

He said in the interview that he used all four Gospels to write the movie and that there are a few minutes of ressurection at the very end.

[Jedi Master Carr]

He also used the work of some Nun from the 17th century can't think of her name. I read that in Newsweek.

[Ka' el Darcverse]

Roman citizens were killed much like Maximus asked to be killed in Gladiator, a swift downward strike down your neck severing you nerves.

As far as being lit on fire, generally it was a quicker death than one would expect, once the flames began raging, and you began screaming in pain you would inhale deeply to catch your breath and die from asphyixation.

Crucifixation could last as long as 2 days. You would be whipped and beaten before hand so that your back would be raw and then each time you pushed up to attempt to breath you would rip the skin open once again, not to mention the dislocating of joints and what not it took to push yourself into a position to breath.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't know maybe the thought of fire just scares me. To me that is my fear I guess being burned alive. I always thougth the worst form of death was being drawed and quartered actually. The British did that to criminals and there were times the process went on for hours.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I trust Newsweek usually here is their review it sounds like he is upset with the amount of blood and doesn't like some other things about the movie

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1129941/reviews.php?critic=columns&sortby=default&page=1&rid=1253646

also the reviews so far haven't been great it is on the verge of being Rotten according to RT.

This is from the hollywood reporter and it makes me slightly peeved as a historian

All the characters are portrayed in the extreme. Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov) is a weak and frightened political operative in a lonely outpost of the Roman Empire

Pilate was no coward the man was evil and he killed people at the whim. I have never heard of account of him as a coward.

[Saarrreeaa Meorrrei]

You're ruling a province of the Roman Empire. Your subjects generally are pretty docile and you get your jollies by crucifying the bad guys and the not-so-bad-guys, and you're generally known as a bad guy.

Then one day the native leaders of your province who usually work with you to keep the peace come to you in an outrage. "This man claims he's the Son of God! It's blasphemy, and he should be killed. However, we don't have the authority, as you're the real government here, so please order his death."

You're a bad guy, and you think, ok no problem. But you look into the accused's eyes, and you see...something. Something that makes you think twice. You inquire about his 'crimes' and they aren't that bad. General unrest, and preaching that the native leaders don't like, as well as some horsecrap about him being the son of their God. You don't generally give two figs about that sort of thing, but he's a political powderkeg.

He hasn't done anything that really deserves a death sentance. Blasphemy is worthy of death by Jewish law, not Roman. Romans had a temple to a different god on every corner, and another religious nut isn't a big deal. It's a Jewish holiday, so as custom, the Romans release one prisoner to the people. However, although you want to let Him go and crucify Barabbas (a known murderer) instead, the crowd demands for Barabbas' release and Jesus' crucifixion. It defys reason.

To keep the peace (Israel has always been in a state of unrest) you finally give in. But you still think that this Jesus guy hasn't done anything worthy of death. So, in a truly horrific act, instead of doing the right thing, you wash your hands of his life publically and turn him over to the local leaders. "Do what you want with him." you say.

How barbaric and evil to simply let something like that happen to a man that you felt did not really deserve the death sentance. You are not weak, but you feel that your hands are tied, or so you tell yourself. If you don't turn him over, the political leaders will make things very bad for you, and although it is a nice thought, you really can't kill them all.

So take Him away. You can try to pretend you never saw Him, but you cant get His eyes out of your mind. And so you wash your hands over and over, trying ot get the blood off, although there isn't any...and you wash and wash again, trying to cleanse the guilt, until your hands really do bleed, and still you don't feel clean...

[Jedi Master Carr]

But Pilate was a bad man, historians have said that he sent innocent people to death. He has been described as a butcher throughout history. My personally belief is he and other Roman officials saw him as a threat (they feared uprisings). They told the Pharraises and other Jewish leaders to watch out for anybody who might be a threat for an uprising. The Pharraises turned in Jesus partly because of that and maybe for other reasons. Pilate saw this man claiming himself to be the son of god and he said execute him like any other possible revolutionary (at least in his eyes). That was the way Rome viewed things, Rome's brutatlity can be shown 40 years later when they just about burned jerusaleum to the ground and drove the Jews out of Israel and renamed the state Palestine.

[Saarrreeaa Meorrrei]

Considering the four sources we have on the actual events all sort of agree on the same story, its hard to agree with that.

Barring a belief that the Gospel account is true and without errors, then it could be that way, yes. Regardless, he was sent to his death and he was innocent. The Pharisees did see Jesus as a threat to their way of life, he openly rebuked them, and thousands of people, Jews who usually toed the line when the Pharisees told them to, were now following this Jesus fellow.

You can't say they turned him in for maybe other reasons, they did turn him in for other reasons as well. He was revolutionary, but only religiously. He never preached rebellion against Rome, or against any government. In fact, because he didn't preach against Rome, or build an army and overthrow the opressing Romans is why the Jewish leaders could not accept him as their Messiah. Their Messiah was supposed to come and free Israel from her bondage, overthrow the oppressor! Jesis did none of these things. And so the Pharisees couldn't stand him, and refused to believe that he was what he claimed to be, and so had him rounded up.

Of course, they could have just said "Well, he's obviously a fruitcake, claiming to be God."

Isn't it funny that no one says "there was a historical man named Jesus, who was crucified, and he was nuts out of his mind, calling himself the Son of God. " Instead they say "There was a historical man named Jesus and he was crucified, and he was a good teacher and a good man."

[Jedi Master Carr]

Here is the best source on the net that I can find about Pilate

http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/articles/pilate.html

His worst offense was slaughtering the Samaratians. Most sources said he killed himself at the request at Caligulia. My guess knowing Caligula he somehow lost favor with him (maybe he didn't acknowledge his horse as a senator :p) and Caligulia said kill yourself or be killed and in Roman times it was more honorable to kill oneself than die by another hand.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I personally don't think the gospels are a historical text. They weren't written for histoical purpose and so I can't view them that way. We have to look at what we have. To me Pilate was a cruel corrupt man, maybe not as bad as some (Domitian, Caligula and Nero were far worse) but still a bad man and some Romans didn't like his actions as some sources I have read have said as much. Still Christians wouldn't not have knows this and Christian writers (Luke in particular) were trying to show Rome that Christianity was not going to harm them and they made Pilate look a lot better than he was (this was for good reason). Also it didn't matter that Jesus wasn't speaking about open rebellion. Roman authorities didn't like that kind of stuff at all. This is one reason why Christians got into trouble they saw them rebellious for their beliefs hence why a lot went to their deaths. Also I think the Jewish leaders were really worried about Jesus and they were justified for being worried about rebellion as was later shown in what happened in 69AD when Rome came down on them for really a small rebellion in Jerusaleum.

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
also the reviews so far haven't been great it is on the verge of being Rotten according to RT.
It is rotten right now.


One thing I wondered the other day. Do you think any of the negative publicity over this movie is because of Gibson's dad? As in, because he's a controversial figure, Mel's movie must be?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well his dad's comments are horrible but that doesn't make me view the movie negatively. My problem is the gore, it sounds even gorer than it should be. I think he went over the top with this. This is not suppose to be Hannible here. You didn't see King of Kings, Ben Hur or Jesus of Nazereth emphasis blood and gore and those are great movies.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I think Mel's point is that he's trying to be as realistic as possible. And so, you can't tone down the gore, because that's how it would have been.

[Wei Wu Wei]

I'm curious to see it anyhow. but you know, the whole driving point that makes Jesus so great is because he did indeed suffer a horrible fate for the people of the entire world. The Bible doesn't tell us just how bad Jesus' fate was. Sometimes people just shrug off the crucifixion.

"Oh, Christ died for me, well and good. Whatever."

But I think this emphasis on how just how much he did suffer will help people to realize just how much Christ went through for our sakes. All of our sakes.

[Jedi Master Carr]

But I think the gore is overboard at least from what I am reading from the reviews the whole bird pecking out an eye of the prisoner is just stupid, it sure wasn't it my copy of the bible. And I don't see the point in showing that.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Here is the NY times review I think he makes some good points if they are true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/movies/25SCOT.html?ex=1109221200&en=941d14122dd5df00&ei=5 083&partner=Rotten%20Tomatoes

Also this film is going to being Rotten on RT, not sure what that means.

[Charley]

Like I've ever given a damn about a movie's standings on RT. Critics can't find their posterior from a hole in the ground.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well it depends for me, some movies critics mean lot. It usually horror films and action movies that I generally ignore them. Of course I am un easy about this movie anyway and really don't want to see it in theaters for various reasons.

[CMJ]

God now has a listing on the Internet Movie Database-as the author of the "novel" the Bible. Mel Gibson is credited with the adaptation however.

God now needs a biography for the listing(most of the celbrites listed have one). A friend of mine on another board was good enough to write one.

****************

Biography for God
God has been an omnipresent force in the Universe since the conception of existence. Growing up in the Known Universe, God is credited with such miracles as the parting of the red sea, the ten plagues, and giving of the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. More recently, God has been enjoying His success in Hollywood with such biblical epics as The Last Temptation of Christ and The Passion of the Christ. Although few have actually seen God (as He is a very private figure,) Mel Gibson has claimed to have met with him on many occasions and done lunch. God's upcoming projects include curing world hunger, resurrecting the dead, and hosting the Oscars.
****************

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL, CMJ that is great.

[CMJ]

Post of the year as far as I'm concerned. Nominations are closed....I'd like to thank everyone who lost.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
But I think the gore is overboard at least from what I am reading from the reviews the whole bird pecking out an eye of the prisoner is just stupid, it sure wasn't it my copy of the bible. And I don't see the point in showing that.
When you were crucified, birds did land on you, and they did tend to see if you were tasty.

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by CMJ
God now has a listing on the Internet Movie Database-as the author of the "novel" the Bible.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0323689/publicity

Publicity! :lol

[Mordecai Lória]

Ok, you want gruesome? Look up Vlad the Impaler.

This guy was also the basis for Dracula, I beleive. I first picked up on Vlad whilst reading a snowboarding mag.

I'm looking forward to seeing The Passion too. I hear one baptist congregation rented out an entire theatre just for it...rather, I read it in the paper.

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by Mordecai Lória
Ok, you want gruesome? Look up Vlad the Impaler.

This guy was also the basis for Dracula, I beleive.
It is said, yeah.


I think this movie could almost be a "forced" hit. I heard about one cinema, has all TWENTY THREE screens showing this movie 24hrs a day. If you wanted to go to the cinema, you hardly have much choice.

[James Prent]

24 hours a day for how long?? O_o

[ReaperFett]

Not a clue, but I REALLY can't see it doing it for a whole week :)

EDIT - Cant find it, but a guy in texas paid $22,000 to book out an entire cinema.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
It is said, yeah.


I think this movie could almost be a "forced" hit. I heard about one cinema, has all TWENTY THREE screens showing this movie 24hrs a day. If you wanted to go to the cinema, you hardly have much choice.

You ever thought the threatre actually thinks there may actually be that type of demand?

With Catholicism the worlds biggest religion, I can see the potential. whether that converts into bums on seats, I dont know.

[Vhiran Crescent]

Wow. I just witnessed the movie of my life. I don't know how to put into words something like that.

I think hardest part of the movie was when they were beating him as he was chained the pole. I almost started crying, but all I could do was cringe. I loved the scenes of the Last Supper. It's hard for me to review a movie like this, as I hardly see it as one - more like an event that I have literally witnessed. I don't know how many of you are Christians or Catholics or whatever. Whatever you are, you should go see this movie(I think we have already established that though). I for one am a Christian and I just feel like breaking down and crying.

The Theatre here had all 6, 500 seat theatres sold out for the whole day, luckily I got tickets. One of the churches here is renting out every showing for 2 days and giving out free tickets. My school has also rented out a theatre.

[Marcus Telcontar]

How can there be spoilers for this movie?

Anyway...

BOM is now reporting a possible 20 million opening day.

[Vhiran Crescent]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
How can there be spoilers for this movie?

Better safe than sorry.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

My school has also rented out a theatre. You must go to a private school?

[William Belargic]

Originally posted by James Prent
24 hours a day for how long?? O_o

I heard this too, and when my sis checked the AMC site for the LA Rolling Hills 20 last week, it showed all the screens playing the movie for the weekend. But I just checked it now, and it's not like that (though lots of shows are being sold out).

So I dunno which theaters are blocking off their entire screens for this.

As for me, I already have my tix for the 1pm show on Sat. I'm looking forward to seeing the movie, but at the same time I'm hesitant on how graphic it will be.

As to whole congregations buying butt-loads of tix, yeah, it's happening across the board, not just with Catholic congregations, but quite a few Christian and Jewish (last I heard here in the LA region at least).

[Wei Wu Wei]

Originally posted by Vhiran Crescent
I don't know how many of you are Christians or Catholics or whatever.

Catholics are Christians. So making a distinction between the two is irrlevant and misleading. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

But I do agree that this is a movie that everbody ought to see. I'm buckled in tight waiting for a chance to go, or at least for a chance to open up so I can actually get a ticket.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Wei, there actually is a difference between Christian Protestants and Christian Catholics, so differentiating between the two is proper, although to some it is splitting hairs.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Catholics are Christians. So making a distinction between the two is irrlevant and misleading. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

Sorry Wei, there is a distinct difference. But this is not the place and time for that discussion or whys and hows.

I want to go see this, but I'm hesitant. I'm not sure what my reaction will be.

[ReaperFett]

A woman just died watching this movie, when it got to the climax.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
A woman just died watching this movie, when it got to the climax.


oh, joy... watch the press run away with that one...

[Droo]

There isn't a difference between Christianity and Catholicism. The split, as you will know, occured thanks to Henry VIII and up until that time the main, if not sole, religion had been Christianity. There was the split and although there isn't much difference between Catholics and Protestants, there is no difference between Catholicism and Christianity. Those who wanted to remain true to all the teachings of Christianity were called Catholics from then on and the rest were Protestants. It's also a pet peeve of mine too and although off topic I wanted to clear it up.

I can't wait to see this film, I'm almost certain I know what my reaction will be and what affect it will have on me and my faith. Like the article says, the film shows what we mean by Christ dying to save us from sin. This is what he went through, this is what one man suffered for each and everyone of us. It's such an amazing thing and I'll be ravaged by both grief and awe when I see it.

[CMJ]

From Yahoo! Movies:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Gibson has said The Passion of the Christ is the result of his vision of the Gospel as seen through "with God's help."

According to the Internet Movie Database, he was speaking the Gospel truth.

Early Wednesday morning, the site had God--the God, capital "G"--listed as a credited contributor to The Passion. By Wednesday noon, the credit was gone, but God's own personal IMDb.com page remained.

God got props for writing the "novel"--presumably, the Bible--upon which Gibson's devout, if gruesome epic is based.

It is God's first film credit, the site said.

An attempt to reach a real, live editor for comment via email at the Seattle-based IMDb.com was unsuccessful. No attempt was made to reach God. (We figured He was busy.)

As far as the filmmakers are concerned, Gibson and Benedict Fitzgerald are the authors of The Passion, which opened Wednesday. The film does not carry a "based upon" or "from a story suggested by" you-know-who credit.

So, how did God get in on the action? Has credit inflation reached the heavens?

"Maybe God got a user account and decided to use his own IMDb page," says Ain't It Cool News movie maven Harry Knowles.

Per the site, on-screen credits are among its main sources of database information. Other tidbits--i.e., Tom Cruise writes with his right hand, "but does most things left handed"--are submitted by Hollywood insiders and non-pro movie buffs who know many, many things.

In a 2002 interview with Los Angeles magazine, IMDb.com executive Barnaby Dorfman said that just because anybody can email a tip to the site "that doesn't mean it's going to be posted."

With more than a dozen TV and film cameos on his résumé, Knowles something about how IMDb.com works. He says each time the site has added a credit to his page (where he's listed as Harry J. Knowles), he's been contacted by the site and asked to verify.

Still, the IMDb is a big, big site--1.6 million names, nearly 400,000 titles by its own count. Mistakes happen. So does mischief.

"From time to time, jokers will go on IMDb and basically create their own credit on to some old film," Knowles says.

Misinformation also can result in bum entries. At one time, Oscar winner William Goldman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) was listed on the site as an uncredited screenwriter on Ben Affleck and Matt Damon's own Oscar-winning work, Good Will Hunting. Goldman long ago denied rumor he patched up the pair's breakthrough script; accordingly, IMDb.com long ago excised Goldman's writing credit.

It is not known when God's IMDb.com page was created. It is known that it's not a terribly popular page. On Wednesday afternoon, a search of "God" yielded two more popular results (Kevin Smith's Dogma and Indian director Satyajit "God" Ray) than God Himself.

Compared to, say, Paris Hilton's page, God's IMDb.com entry is sparse. There is no headshot, no biographical data, no word on whether He favors His right or left hand when creating things and/or playing golf. The page does feature a link to an agent (but apparently that info is off limits to all but paying IMDb.com customers). A publicity link refers a user to other films in which He has been portrayed, from The Prince of Egypt to Oh, God!.

About the liveliest thing on God's page is the message board. On it, one user asks, "So, if Passion wins for best screenplay, does God come down and take his Oscar?"

This is where it gets sticky.

"You could say God technically wrote every screenplay ever written," Knowles says. "It's the voice in the screenwriter's head."

[ReaperFett]

Shall we try tro get writers credit on Star Wars? :D

[Gav Mortis]

No way, we deserve more credit than that, don't want to sell ourselves short and claim responsibility for that writing. :mneh

[Vhiran Crescent]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
You must go to a private school?

Yea, Christian.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I was thinking more like 10-15 million for today. Also there are some screenings for yesterday so I bet it will be closer to 15 for the weekend. I still see 45-50 now for the Five days which is very good for a film like this. I bet it makes around 150 now. Still over at mojo forums, if anybody reads that place we got fools trying to predict Titanic. Okay. I think that says it won't the film that beats Titanic will probably surprise all.

[Jinn Fizz]

At first I wasn't sure if I was going to see this movie, but I've talked about it quite a bit with friends and family, and I've decided that I really do need to go see it for myself and see just what it's all about. I'm a Catholic myself, so I'm expecting that I will find it a moving, thoughtful experience.

I read a report on CNN earlier this evening that audience reaction so far has been generally positive, and at some screenings, the audiences have given the film a standing ovation at the end.

[Figrin D'an]

I've seen pretty mixed opinions so far...

It strikes me as a film that won't really be universally moving... reaction will very much be dicatated by one's own beliefs and the context in which one sees Christ. In that regard, it seems more likely to be a spark for one's existing emotional state to surface, rather than be a massive spirtually/emotionally driving experience.


*shrugs*

Maybe in a month or so, after most people get their fill, I'll go see it.

[Shawn]

I just caught the news this morning. Apparently, one woman had a heart attack during the movie, while another one (in a seperate theater) passed out. I really don't mean to sound callous or cynical, but it almost strikes me as a publicity stunt. Now, everyone's going to be going around saying "The Passion of the Christ is so intense, someone had a heart attack watching it!" My local news channel was certainly playing up this aspect of it when they reported the story, citing it as an "emotional and moving scene" which caused the incidents.

[Jinn Fizz]

The thing I'm afraid of is some fringe group or crazy lawyer showing up on TV demanding that Mel Gibson be charged with manslaughter or murder "because he killed that poor woman!" or something like that. Some of the criticism of him has been so harsh, I really wouldn't be surprised if something like that happened. It's completely ridiculous, of course, but it would definitely get press. Like the woman who filed a class action suit a few days after the Super Bowl halftime show, trying to claim we were all "damaged" by seeing Janet Jackson's breast for 1.5 seconds.

[James Prent]

That did sound pretty callous and cynical, actually. ;) I haven't heard of anyone having a heart attack in a movie before, but I'm sure it's happened. Just not in a movie that everyone is scrutinizing like this one.

Of course the Media is going to play up something like that, it's what they do. Look for an angle and exploit it for ratings. Or slant it from their leftist point of view. It's what happens, and it's what always happens, and I certainly don't think you should judge a movie by what the media says.

[Marcus Telcontar]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/articles/news/?id=040225potc.htm

26 million first day.

That's just a touch more than anyone expected

[Shawn]

I'm not saying he actually paid someone to have a heart attack in the theater, or anything like that. Just that this certainly isn't going to hurt the movie's publicity. I expect even more people to want to go see it now.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I apologize, I meant the universal/general *you,* not the singular/personal *you.* Sorry!

[Jedi Master Carr]

Looks like that estimate was wrong it made 23.6M first day. That is still more than I thought, I think it will be slightly frontloaded but might come closer to 200 than I once thought.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Looks like that estimate was wrong it made 23.6M first day. That is still more than I thought, I think it will be slightly frontloaded but might come closer to 200 than I once thought.

Where did you get your estimate from? From what BOM has posted, they are saying 26 million is an actual.

[Doc Milo]

I heard on the radio today that two studio presidents (or some such) have said that they won't have anything to do with Gibson anymore.

I find it funny that the same people who were so worried about the "chill wind" blowing across America because consumers chose to boycott the Dixie Chicks are now advocating black-listing Mel Gibson -- for daring to risk following his passion (pun intended) and for "pushing the envelope" as they say. I guess it's only good to "push the envelope" and follow ones passion in art when that art agrees with the Hollywood Elite. If it doesn't, the Hollywood Elite will black-list you.

I don't think Mel Gibson cares. But think of the "chill wind" blowing across the Hollywood for some young, trying-to-make it film-maker who now knows if his passion is for something on the wrong side of the political/religious spectrum, he/she better not make that movie....

I think that's a worse censorship than the government trying to defund the National Endowment for the Arts (which Hollywood believes is censorship somehow. I personally find it good when government gets out of the art business. If they are funding something, they have every right to dictate terms and conditions, but if an artist doesn't expect government money, he/she can do whatever he/she wants.)

I'm looking forward to seeing this film. I was going to go tonight, but my wife got sick, and our plans were delayed to tomorrow night. I expect this movie to get bad reviews -- it's not "politically correct" and most reviewers have the same slant as most of Hollywood. That Gibson didn't need Hollywood to do this movie must tick them off, too....

[Marcus Telcontar]

They are probably mad cause Gibson offered to them to distribute or back and they refused. Now, that decision has come back to bite em. It's all about money in the end and I suspect that is why they are saying such stupidity.

However it goes from here, Gibson, who put up his own money for production and advertising, is going to get it back and quite a great deal more. Good on him - it was pretty clear he was not making this to turn a profit - he's done just about everything to turn off crowds that you could do, wth violence, the subject, the languages... and yet, it's still going to make millions.

He's going to be much more wealthy after this. Studios and distribution companies that refused him miss out.... BTW, did you know the distributor, NewMarket, made more in one day out of this than they did apparently in the entire 2003?

[Ka' el Darcverse]

Originally posted by Dru
There isn't a difference between Christianity and Catholicism. The split, as you will know, occured thanks to Henry VIII and up until that time the main, if not sole, religion had been Christianity. There was the split and although there isn't much difference between Catholics and Protestants, there is no difference between Catholicism and Christianity. Those who wanted to remain true to all the teachings of Christianity were called Catholics from then on and the rest were Protestants. It's also a pet peeve of mine too and although off topic I wanted to clear it up.


Ummm Greek Orthodox, Coptic, Luther even came before Henry VIII, there were plenty of others as well. but that's neither here nor there.

I'm looking forward to seeing the movie. But I doubt it has an influence on my faith. I was steadfast in it before the movie and will more than likely be just as steatdfast afterwards.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Practicing 'Catholics' pray to Mary and the saints as well as to God/Jesus. Practicing 'Protestants' do not pray to Mary or the saints. That, in my opinion, is a difference, but that is neither here nor there as it isn't the subject of this thread. Yes, both worship the 'Christian' God.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Mojo updated their numbers I think. I got that off Reuters which is official source. I think the old Mojo number was counting Monday and Tuesday screenings. Also about Hollywood, part of it is because a lot of Jews are in the buisness this is no conspiracy it is the truth. So I think that is the main thing going on here. Also I don't think I want to see the movie in theaters I may wait for DVD I am still wary about it for my own reasons.

[Loki Ahmrah]

Originally posted by Ka' el Darcverse
Ummm Greek Orthodox, Coptic, Luther even came before Henry VIII, there were plenty of others as well. but that's neither here nor there.


I was talking about in England.

[Jinn Fizz]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
I heard on the radio today that two studio presidents (or some such) have said that they won't have anything to do with Gibson anymore.

I find it funny that the same people who were so worried about the "chill wind" blowing across America because consumers chose to boycott the Dixie Chicks are now advocating black-listing Mel Gibson -- for daring to risk following his passion (pun intended) and for "pushing the envelope" as they say. I guess it's only good to "push the envelope" and follow ones passion in art when that art agrees with the Hollywood Elite. If it doesn't, the Hollywood Elite will black-list you.

I don't think Mel Gibson cares. But think of the "chill wind" blowing across the Hollywood for some young, trying-to-make it film-maker who now knows if his passion is for something on the wrong side of the political/religious spectrum, he/she better not make that movie....

I think that's a worse censorship than the government trying to defund the National Endowment for the Arts (which Hollywood believes is censorship somehow. I personally find it good when government gets out of the art business. If they are funding something, they have every right to dictate terms and conditions, but if an artist doesn't expect government money, he/she can do whatever he/she wants.)

I'm looking forward to seeing this film. I was going to go tonight, but my wife got sick, and our plans were delayed to tomorrow night. I expect this movie to get bad reviews -- it's not "politically correct" and most reviewers have the same slant as most of Hollywood. That Gibson didn't need Hollywood to do this movie must tick them off, too....

I agree with you completely, Doc. So Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen have said they will never work with Mel Gibson again. So what, so apparently we'll never see a Mel Gibson movie being released by DreamWorks. Wonder what their partner Mr. Spielberg thinks about all this . And I'd like to know if they've even bothered to see the movie yet, or are they just toeing the Anti-Defamation League line? What they are practicing is discrimination, plain and simple.

And I can't help but wonder...what if the situation were reversed? What if someone who was Jewish made a movie that some people claimed was anti-Christian, and then that person was subjected to a blacklist like this...wouldn't there be a huge uproar about it? I figure there would be, because it just seems like dinking Christians and Christianity is an okay thing to do. I guess it's because to society at large, and especially to the media, all Christians are like the extreme right-wingers that get all the airtime, and are therefore okay targets of mockery.

I've always liked Mel Gibson, and right now, in a lot of ways, I consider him to be a real hero. He believed in this project so much that he paid for it out of his own pocket and took incredible risks in so many ways, and from what I've seen, he's handling all the criticism and personal attacks with dignity. I find it incredibly refreshing that in this society, which has become so secular humanist and "politically correct," someone of his stature has stood up and declared, "I love God, and I believe in Jesus." While I don't agree with all of Gibson's traditionalist views, I am proud of him for taking a stance.

Sorry I kind of rambled on there, but hopefully y'all got my drift :).

One of my co-workers saw the movie on opening night and said it was magnificent. Another one tried to see it at our local theater, but it's beeing shown on only one screen at this theater, and every show is sold out through the weekend. Every single show. So I guess I won't be seeing it until the second weekend at least.

I am looking forward to seeing it :).

[Wei Wu Wei]

Christians have a history of being dangerous. During the Roman Empire Christians were a big threat to society at large. Christ himself was considered a rabble-rouser and a menace to Jewish society. And even today, Christianity is being snuffed out of schools, the workplace, and other areas of society because having the cross, or the Ten Commandments "tramples on people's rights" or the order of society, or something like that.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

You probably should amend that first statement to read "Christians have a history of being considered dangerous." In no way do I think that Christians *are* dangerous.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't know during the middle ages some christians were dangerous. Especially in Spain they did things to people in the Inquisition that was just horrible and the Spanish catholics did some horrible stuff to Native Americans too. Still most christians aren't dangerous.

[Charley]

Differentiate between Christians and people who use the Christian faith as a crutch to advance their personal goals.

Calling Christians dangerous is like calling Muslims dangerous. The idiots exist in both camps, and neither are going to walk in streets of gold and/or get 72 virgins, whatever.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I don't know during the middle ages some christians were dangerous. Especially in Spain they did things to people in the Inquisition that was just horrible and the Spanish catholics did some horrible stuff to Native Americans too. Still most christians aren't dangerous.

By that measurement then Americans are dangerous, they did some HORRIBLE things to Native Americans, English are dangerous, they did horrible things to other people, etc etc.

Let's just face it - humans are dangerous!

*cue 12 Monkeys solution

[JediBoricua]

So a woman died watching The Passion...hmmmmmmm

*runs to the patent office to register "I survived The Passion of the Christ" slogan*

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well I said a few to some christians are dangerous you are going to find Fantatics in every religion unfortunetly.

[Marcus Telcontar]

14.5 million Thursday.

If you had said a week ago TPOTC would have done that AND looked likely to have a 75 million+ weekend, you would have been called insane.

[imported_Grev Drasen]

Originally posted by Wei Wu Wei
And even today, Christianity is being snuffed out of schools, the workplace, and other areas of society because having the cross, or the Ten Commandments "tramples on people's rights" or the order of society, or something like that.
Well, religion has no place in public schools or work places, regardless if it's Christianity or not.

[Doc Milo]

And why not?

People keep trying to interpret the Constitution of the US as protecting the public and/or government from the influence of religion. But the opposite is the case. The Constitution is protecting religions from the intrusion of government.

Another thing, the first amendment states "congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or restricting the free exercise thereof." How is religion being taught in public schools, or a bible being on the desk of a worker in the work place an instance of the congress creating a national religion? (the first clause)? It isn't. But isn't the government enforcing bogus laws that restrict such things a violation of the second clause?

If religion has no place in public institutions why is "In God We Trust" on our money? Why is it that Congress and the Supreme Court start each session with a prayer? Why are the words "One Nation, Under God..." in our pledge of alliegence? Why are the words "Endowed by their Creator" in the Declaration of Independence? Similarly was are the words "Divine Providence" also in the Declaration? Or the words "nature and nature's God"? These were words by the people who founded our nation. If they saw fit to have God and references to God and reliance on Divine providence at the founding of our country, why do we seem to think that God and religion (man's way of relating to God) has no place in public institutions and government?

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
And why not?

People keep trying to interpret the Constitution of the US as protecting the public and/or government from the influence of religion. But the opposite is the case. The Constitution is protecting religions from the intrusion of government.

Another thing, the first amendment states "congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or restricting the free exercise thereof." How is religion being taught in public schools, or a bible being on the desk of a worker in the work place an instance of the congress creating a national religion? (the first clause)? It isn't. But isn't the government enforcing bogus laws that restrict such things a violation of the second clause?

If religion has no place in public institutions why is "In God We Trust" on our money? Why is it that Congress and the Supreme Court start each session with a prayer? Why are the words "One Nation, Under God..." in our pledge of alliegence? Why are the words "Endowed by their Creator" in the Declaration of Independence? Similarly was are the words "Divine Providence" also in the Declaration? Or the words "nature and nature's God"? These were words by the people who founded our nation. If they saw fit to have God and references to God and reliance on Divine providence at the founding of our country, why do we seem to think that God and religion (man's way of relating to God) has no place in public institutions and government?



He's quite right, especially in his last bit. If you truly believe, then you WILL involve God in what you say, do, work and live. How can you acknowledge a deity on the one hand and on the other, deny Him His proper place in your work or school?

Islam doesnt care about such secular rules. They will put their God where they think He belongs.


(switch to speakign to other Chriastians) That is one thing Christians should learn - never takign a backward step in our faith and not giving in to small interest groups. We have the greatest message of all in our beliefs. Why are we scared to put it were we are?? It's good news.

Yes, Atheists have their right to a view too. And so do Buddists, and Taoists and Scientoligists. But if we truly think we have the truth, then.... the truth should be where we are. If the government is proclaimed Under Gd, then that is what it should be worked under. If there is to be seperation, then God must be removed from Governemt in total and the nation proclaim NOTHING is done via God. Nor is any trust given into God.



Originally posted by Wei Wu Wei
Christians have a history of being dangerous. During the Roman Empire Christians were a big threat to society at large. Christ himself was considered a rabble-rouser and a menace to Jewish society. And even today, Christianity is being snuffed out of schools, the workplace, and other areas of society because having the cross, or the Ten Commandments "tramples on people's rights" or the order of society, or something like that.

Wei, What you say only happens when Christians dont make a stand and pander to others. You have to draw a line somewhere, stand and fight if you truly believe that's where God is. Oh, it's not about forcing belief, it's about making yourself so attractive in yourself and your lifestyle, others will want what you have. Your life is a constant evangelical event.

I just wish sometimes I could rememebr that -_-

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah but we leave in a tolerant society where all religions should be allowed. If we gave Christianity too much power we could go backwards towards Catholic Spain, I don't want that to me govt. should stay out of religion and religion should stay out of govt.

[Figrin D'an]

I'm forseeing this thread heading in a bad direction.


Anyway... rebutal time. (opens the proverbial Pandora's Box)



Originally posted by Doc Milo
People keep trying to interpret the Constitution of the US as protecting the public and/or government from the influence of religion. But the opposite is the case. The Constitution is protecting religions from the intrusion of government.

Another thing, the first amendment states "congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or restricting the free exercise thereof."


The First Amendment of the US Constitution reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Let's focus on this part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This covers, very eloquently, two things:

1) The government not intruding upon the freedoms of religious sects.
2) The government not establishing or adopting any religion as the official religion of the State.

It works both ways.

"... respecting an establishment of religion."

This is the key phrase that is often glossed over and misinterpretted, because it has two distinct meanings placed into one simple statement.

- "respecting", in terms of avoiding violation of or interference with.
- "respecting", in terms of relation to.

- "an establishment of religion," in terms of a given religious group (ie. establishment).
- "an establishment of religion," in terms of creation or adoption of.


One phrase, two meanings.

Which is right? Both.




How is religion being taught in public schools, or a bible being on the desk of a worker in the work place an instance of the congress creating a national religion? (the first clause)? It isn't. But isn't the government enforcing bogus laws that restrict such things a violation of the second clause?


Teaching religion, as anything other than a historical context, in public schools is a violation of the that first part of the the First Amendment. Why? Because public schools are funded by the government, and teaching any religion in such a manner can therefore be construed as the government establishing or supporting a particular religious belief system over others.

The workplace is a much trickier issue, because there are differences between the government and private sectors. Pages could be written on this alone.

Bogus laws... not really, when you view them in this context. There are some rather unusual interpretations of these phrases from time to time, but most seem to follow this principle pretty closely.





If religion has no place in public institutions why is "In God We Trust" on our money? Why is it that Congress and the Supreme Court start each session with a prayer? Why are the words "One Nation, Under God..." in our pledge of alliegence? Why are the words "Endowed by their Creator" in the Declaration of Independence? Similarly was are the words "Divine Providence" also in the Declaration? Or the words "nature and nature's God"? These were words by the people who founded our nation. If they saw fit to have God and references to God and reliance on Divine providence at the founding of our country, why do we seem to think that God and religion (man's way of relating to God) has no place in public institutions and government?



The phrase "In God We Trust" only first appeared on money in 1861, as a reactionary movement to increased religious sentiments during the Civil War. It did not become the "national motto" until 1956, and was first used on paper money in 1957. The original national motto is the famous "E Pluribus Unum," which can still be found on money (translated, meaning "From Many, One.") There is much debate about a high degree of historical revisionism in this matter.


The tradition of prayer to open Congressional and Supreme Court proceedings has been around for many years, as has been the tradition of government branches to employ chaplains. There is considerable debate as to the appropriateness of this, but that is another argument entirely. This has more to do with balance of the multiple points made in the First Amendment than it does with government-backed religion.


The usage of "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegance was not begun until 1954, when a campaign by the Knights of Columbus succeeded in convincing Congress and President Eisenhower to add it. The Pledge was first conceived of in 1892, notably by a Christian socialist named Francis Bellamy, and was not adopted in any governmental manner until the 1950's.


The phrases "endowed by their Creator," "Divine Providence" and "Nature and Nature's God" are, as you stated, in the Declaration of Independance. Let's keep in mind the following, however:

1) The Declaration of Independance is, in no way, a legal document guiding the actions and policies of the government. It was never intended to be such. The Constitution, which does not have such references, was written and ratified 11 years later, and is the official document of the established government.

2) The Declaration of Independance was designed to be inflammatory and dramatic. It's intent was to inform the British Empire that the American Colonies were sick of it's policies, and was, at it's core, a fancy way for the signers of the letter to say, "Kiss our butts, Georgy-boy. We're going it alone."



Anyway... the point of all this?

While being adopted at certain more recent points in the history of the United States, these phrases are still under scrutiny today, because they do not conform the perceived intent of the First Amendment. They are not, in any manner, the words of the Founding Fathers as placed in the Constitution.

Some of the contributors to the Constitution were Christian. Many were Deist. Some were (believe it or not) atheists. Yet, they were able to draft a document without bias towards any belief structure. Their reasons for such can be found in a number of their other writings.




Weeeee! Here goes the thread hijack train!

[imported_Eve]

That's why the constitution is lasting. It watches out for all religions.

Most of the planet believes in some god, just not the same god. Religion is significant for Earthlings, and I think most of the world's good people hold the same ideals about right and wrong, regardless of what god they choose to follow. Fighting between good people because of the minor differences gets us all into trouble. Bad people are suppossed to be judged by the almighty, not you.

So why so many holy wars? Holy wars aren't caused by a few of the idiots - they were (and still are) fought in masses.

Your religion becomes a problem (or "dangerous") when you cram it down my throat as truth, simply because you believe. The world will be better when all people can find faith (or not) alone, without the help of missionaries. If others believe in a different god than you, but they still care for their children, and want good things for those they love, then why do you care what their god's name is?

[Jedi Master Carr]

You both have pretty much summed my opinion in this matter. I have to say we have done a good job hijacking this thread :p

[Ka' el Darcverse]

Because our God commanded us to go out and make disciples of all nations.

[Dutchy]

I don't believe in any God or religion.

I can think for myself. :)

[Roger Talbert]

Originally posted by Dutchy
I don't believe in any God or religion.

I can think for myself. :)


Hurr :rolleyes

[JediBoricua]

This thread stopped being about 'The Passion' a long time ago, so here goes my two cents about religion, how I see it and why:

Today I had an interesting talk about scientology, what a bunch of crap...but it got me thinking. I don't know how true this is, but apparently in the 80's, when Ron Hubbard was in the height of his 'power', scientologist started influencing some key political figures in Morocco, trying to make scientology it's official religion and a haven for all it's followers.

So where am I going with all this?

It suddenly hit me how it would have felt to be a Hebrew, roman or other non-Christian in the 1st, 2nd century. How we would be all fascinating by hearing of this 'sect' but dismissing their belief as 'absurd'.

What would have happened if scientology would have been successfull in 'taking over' Morocco, converting the country in a prosperous one and becoming in a hundred, two hundred years later a world power, exporting it's religion and making Hubbard a prophet revered throughout the world two thousands years later?
Kinda stupid no? But, in a way that's what happened to Christianity. It wasn't until the major world power of the day, the Roman Empire, adopted Christianity as it's official religion that it began spreading throughout Europe and becoming mainstream, until today.

My analysis is farfetched, oversimplified and kinda of silly, but it got me thinking. For a fact there was a man named Jesus, who was crucified for claiming to be the son of God, but for there on I can't believe anything else. Not yet at least.

I was raised in a devout catholic family, attended the best catholic school in my island and for a brief period considering being a priest. A couple of years ago I started questioning myself, induced by the sheer hipocrisy I saw around me. At first I thought it was the Church, with it's gloomy history, so I checked out other tendencies, yet I found them all equally hypocritical in one way or the other. Maybe it's college, my friends, or that I'm only 20, but I don't believe in anything, and don't mind saying it (my grandmother still puts holy water on my forehead every time I visit, and prays that I turn to the light, it's hilarious).

Maybe I just need to hit the floor really hard to see the light, and I am keeping my options open. I do not flame religion, in fact I think religion is a great thing for a lot of people. It gives their life meaning, a sense of purpose and in many occasions people turn their lives from drugs, alcohol, etc thanks to religion. So I am keeping my options open. I regularly speak to my communizes's priest, attend some masses and religious services and talk about this issue with as many people as I can (hence all this Jon-like babbling). So for all those out there who are convinced in your faith, don't take pity on me (and don't flame me ;)), but pray for me (my real name is Luis, it may be away to talk to God about JediBoricua) that I find my way, if there is indeed a way, and hope that I don't have to go through something catastrophic to get there.

PS This by no way means that I feel unhappy or empty as of right now, on the contrary I'm going through one of the bests periods of my life, I think. This is just ramblings that you were unlucky enough to read.

[CMJ]

Hmmm are we now divulging where we stand on the religious issue as a whole? I was raised in a pretty agnostic family - and thus I became one myself.

Much like Boricua I'm glad religion gives some folks comfort. It's really a great thing for some. In a way I wish I *believed* but I just don't. I almost minored in philosphy/religion in college(the same department...I took courses in each) so it's not like I wasn't "exposed" to it. Actually my dad knows the Bible backwards and forwards. Hell, I think he might know it better than alot of ministers do. Personally the more I read and learn about Christianity(and other religions to be perfectly honest) the less I believe. On the other hand - I do concede their is a possibility that a supreme being exists...which is why I'm not an athiest(like my dad).

Taking this to the film itself....I have yet to see TPOTC. I am quite intrigued to see it, becasue quite frankly, it looks like a splendid film(at the very least technically).

Oh and don't pray for me to find the light. :p When friends of mine used to tell me that it was by far the most condescending stuff I'd ever heard.

[JediBoricua]

I'm in a pretty 'divulging' mood right now...and my g/f is busy, so you guys have to tolerate me. :P

[imported_Eve]

I was raised to believe in god. I went to a christian school once. My mom took me out because my teacher told me I was a bad girl and was going to hell, before she hit me over the head with my brush.

I had several other experiences where I went to church and bible studies in my life, and every time I went near a church I was asked to leave in one way or another. Long stories, and I don't care to post, but needless to say my sister and I never read the bible when we were young, and no one had time for us. In two churches, we were hit by teachers, in another an older boy stuck his hands down the girl's pants. The people there knew, but let it go on.

Yet, I think the people were intollerable, not the religion. I must say that EVERY experience I have ever had with a christian or catholic was negative in one way or the other and maybe that's why I am personally scared of them.

BUT, I can't help thinking there is a supreme being because that's what I was always told. And I know the idea of the religion is good; just the people who I have known to practice it are weirdos.

In college, I found a belief system that seemed to make perfect sense to me. It tolerates all religions, and it is one of the only belief systems I know of that doesn't find you; you find it.

[Pierce Tondry]

Originally posted by Eve
In college, I found a belief system that seemed to make perfect sense to me. It tolerates all religions, and it is one of the only belief systems I know of that doesn't find you; you find it.

I kinda want to ask you about this. Your statement intrigues me, in part because it feels very close to my own views. We may have talked about it already, but that would be so long ago I don't remember what was said. =\

As for my own views and experiences...

I was raised. Religion was there, always hanging around the corners, trying to intrude, but it was never really fun, or interesting, or understandable. My grandparents tried to educate me, but their methods were unsatisfactory to my young palate (Christian-based 'where's Waldo' style books and such in lieu of fun Christmas presents). My family lived far from any relatives, so their influence on my growth was negligible. My parents were more concerned about seeing that I got a good education in spite of the family being fairly low-income. The first ten years of my life were mostly religion-free, mostly because no one ever took the time to sit me down and explain things. I guess everyone assumed I would somehow inherit their ideals and beliefs because I was family.

I didn't. Big surprise.

The thing is, eventually I could not help but deal with religion. I began, over the years, to deal with the individual tenets and facets of religion that I encountered in such a way that my beliefs were completely independant of religious faith. I understood things in a secular, ethical fashion. I came to see faith in a religion as a personal thing, something each person could only find for themselves, but that for some reason people were pushing like lollipops.

Finally, I encountered the big question within myself- is there a God? I sat and thought and tried to work it out scientifically, but found that method lacking, so I tried reading the Bible to see if it would shed some light. It didn't, so I went back to thinking. I came to two conclusions. One, that I was here somehow surrounded by a universe of amazing things, so perhaps a higher being was at work behind that. Two, mulling over this question endlessly would soak up my time like a sponge, and I would never accomplish anything in life.

So maybe there is a God, and maybe that being looks down on us all. Maybe there's a plan for my life, and maybe not. But I don't see a benevolent God as possessing the intolerance that passes for wisdom, or permitting the wrongdoing that people avert their eyes and don't acknowledge.

I'm not the perfect model of my own secular faith, but I have it, and I try to uphold it. I try to love everyone and accept them for who they are. Sometimes I fail.

But then, I surprise people with good things a lot of the time.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Dutchy
I don't believe in any God or religion.

I can think for myself. :)

-_-

Not funny and not true



Back on topic, Passion is estimated at $23.4 million Friday. Look out, it's going to be a huge weekend total

[Jedi Master Carr]

Why is that statement not true? I mean its not a fact what he is saying it is just his opinion which is what he feels. Personally I was raised Catholic and I still believe in a supreme being, but I dislike organized religion for many of the reasons Eve stated. I've come to own beliefs and I tolerate just about all religions, except for Scientology (I see that as a money raising scheme and not a religion).

[Marcus Telcontar]

He's basically saying that those who believe cant think for themselves. Not only is that untrue, its the typical atheist insult that misses the point - true faith is something YOU find for yourself, something YOU evaluate and YOU gather the evidence. even the Bible tells us to think for ourselves and evaluate the 'truth' it places before us. It challenges us to believe only what is true, and if what the Bible states is not true, then it is empty and jus a noisy gong.

Blind faith is not true faith - true faith is tested, emasured and defendable. I've come to my beliefs not by blindness, but by evaluation, seeking other points of view. I and others take up the tests and the challenges and in no way is this faith of mine locked into one doctrine or dogmatic repition of terms until we're brainwashed.

Is his statement a joke and I'm over-reacting? Maybe and yes, but it's the small minded statement that often shows that atheists are the most closed minded group of all. Are you atheists really so certain there's nothign out there? That's a lot to believe.

If you asked most resonable, open minded people who do not accept organised religion (with good reasons, I might add, I'm sure Jesus would have a few things to say about the religion founded in His name!) the answer of 'Is there a God?" would be answered yes.

While I will state what I believe, I would encourage everyone not to take what I say, but to search for themselves, to test, to evaluate, to judge and to test. God I'm sure does not want Blind Faith. Blind Faith is worthless and when the hard times come, it easily crumbles. Build your faith on a rock of truth, so when troubled times come, your faith stands firm.

Whatever you find that truth to be.

[DarthHERA]

I believe the Passion of Christ (the act, not the movie-havent seen it) was all about "Grace"


Organised religion sadly seems to omit this truth. Condescension, intolerance and self-righteousness often is the order of the day (such as the examples given throughout this thread) rather than the reaching out to others and brining comfort and dignity to them.

Some of the most unpleasant people Ive ever met were ardent church-goers.

But I dont think thats what Christianity should be judged by. Some Australians are idiots, but not all of us are idiots.

Christian means Christ-like. He's the measure. Believe in him, or dont believe in him. That, I think, is what the real issue of his life and sacrifice were all about.

[Darth007]

Exactly, you can't base your judgement of a religion on just a few select people. Of course your opinion will be shaped be your own experiences, but it doesnt mean it is true. I mean, I've seen church-goers that can be strict, grouchy, and always complaining. I'll bet you that they have a blind faith like Marcus talked about, and go to church because its what their parents made them do and it becomes a rule, or habit. On the other hand I've seen my grandparents, who try to make it to mass every Sunday and get involved with lots of church activities - and they are the kindest, nicest, friendliest, funniest and least up-tight people I've ever known.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
He's basically saying that those who believe cant think for themselves. Not only is that untrue, its the typical atheist insult that misses the point - true faith is something YOU find for yourself, something YOU evaluate and YOU gather the evidence. even the Bible tells us to think for ourselves and evaluate the 'truth' it places before us. It challenges us to believe only what is true, and if what the Bible states is not true, then it is empty and jus a noisy gong.

Blind faith is not true faith - true faith is tested, emasured and defendable. I've come to my beliefs not by blindness, but by evaluation, seeking other points of view. I and others take up the tests and the challenges and in no way is this faith of mine locked into one doctrine or dogmatic repition of terms until we're brainwashed.

Is his statement a joke and I'm over-reacting? Maybe and yes, but it's the small minded statement that often shows that atheists are the most closed minded group of all. Are you atheists really so certain there's nothign out there? That's a lot to believe.

If you asked most resonable, open minded people who do not accept organised religion (with good reasons, I might add, I'm sure Jesus would have a few things to say about the religion founded in His name!) the answer of 'Is there a God?" would be answered yes.

While I will state what I believe, I would encourage everyone not to take what I say, but to search for themselves, to test, to evaluate, to judge and to test. God I'm sure does not want Blind Faith. Blind Faith is worthless and when the hard times come, it easily crumbles. Build your faith on a rock of truth, so when troubled times come, your faith stands firm.

Whatever you find that truth to be.



You just defended the supposition that those who believe in a supreme being are capable of free will, stating the assertion otherwise is not true and an insult, yet you also insulted atheists by stating, rather categorically, that they are closed-minded and make small-minded statements.


That seems pretty unfair to me.


IMO, the biggest mistake people make in regards to their faith and the beliefs of others is to pigeon-hole and stereotype everyone into established categories, rather than actually listen to what each other might have to say and examine those statements at face value. We are all so quick to assume we know what one another's beliefs are, based upon a very small sampling of statements.

The belief system of the individual is great, and personally challenging oneself to uphold that system is an admirable task. I find it just as important, however, to avoid becoming so tunneled into such a task that one ignores what could be "truths" from different points of view... the "travel the road in another man's shoes" adage.

[Darth007]

IMO, the biggest mistake people make in regards to their faith and the beliefs of others is to pigeon-hole and stereotype everyone into established categories, rather than actually listen to what each other might have to say and examine those statements at face value. We are all so quick to assume we know what one another's beliefs are, based upon a very small sampling of statements.


Amen.


haha sorry couldnt resist.:angel

[Doc Milo]

Yeah but we leave in a tolerant society where all religions should be allowed. If we gave Christianity too much power we could go backwards towards Catholic Spain, I don't want that to me govt. should stay out of religion and religion should stay out of govt.

But in America, the government is supposed to by of the people, by the people, for the people. If you say that religion must stay out of government, then you are saying that the people who hold religious beliefs by default must remain out of government. Then you are saying that a preacher must not have a say in how the country is being governed, or a nun, or any other of the clergy. But ... aside from being clergy or religous, they are also citizens of this country. And as such, they have just as much a right to have an influence on the decisions of our government as any other citizen. Or are you prepared to say that no one who holds religous beliefs -- or no member of the clergy -- is allowed to vote, nor are they allowed to run for any public office -- and if they do, they must cast aside their religious beliefs once in office? If you are, then you are saying that only people who believe a certain way are allowed to have a say in the governance of the country. That is exactly what the original settlers were trying to escape when they came to America in the first place!

[Jedi Master Carr]

No I am saying religion can't play a role in Govt. The govt. can't pick a religion and say this will be the main religion of this country that is in our constitution. I would never say somebody who is religious couldn't vote that is not what I mean. The point of the seperation of Church and State is to let all religions practice here. If it wasn't for people like Roger Williams and William Penn this wouldn't be the case. Most of the people you point out fled here didn't not allow freedom of religion. The Puritans kicked out Jews and Quakers from Massachusetts. And when Roger Williams stood up and complained they kicked him out. (Williams is a historical hero of mine). That is why our fore fathers put freedom of religion in because they saw what the puritians and others did to those of other faiths.

[Doc Milo]

I agree that the government should not establish any one religion as a national religion. I would never advocate that. But it does seem to me that right now, in this country, there is an intolerence toward Christianity in how the so-called "separation of Church and State" (also words that do not appear in the Constitution) is enforced. I have a step-son in public school. In that school, he has been taught the historical context of such religions as Buddism, Hinduism, many pagan religions, but not the histoical context of Judism nor the historical context of Christianity. Children have had Bibles confiscated from them when they brought them to school to read during a free reading period. A kid drew a picture of Christ for an art project and had to have his parents come to school, and failed the project (when the picutre did, indeed, meet the parameters of the assignment.) But, if that child had drawn a Budda, there would have been no problem. It seems, to me, that the separation of Church and State only runs one way, and against one religious belief system. Why can't Christianity be taught -- in historical context, not in religious context -- in a public school?

About those who have stated that they have come to a belief system that incorporates all religions. How is this possible?

I believe in being tolerant of all religious viewpoints. But I can't see how all viewpoints can be given equal validity for the simple reason that there would be contradictions in points of view between religions. How can there be both only one God, and be many gods, for instance?

I find nothing wrong about holding to a faith -- like Christianity -- and believing that those who do not hold to that faith are wrong in their beliefs. That is not to say that they don't have the right to believe what they believe, that is not to say that they don't have the right to believe their beliefs hold the truth. It is to say that if I believe my faith holds the truth, then I will, by default, believe any faith that contradicts the truth as I see it in my faith is wrong. Wrong, that is, from my point of view. I am a Christian. I believe Christ was the Messiah. That means I believe that Jews -- who believe the Messiah has not yet come -- are wrong in that belief. I believe that there is only one God -- by default that means I believe that anyone who is a pagan is wrong in their beliefs.

Everything takes faith, even science, even math. We must have faith in science that what we observe is all there is to observe before we can come to a theory or scientific law. For math, we must have faith that formulas are correct for all occasions. But if I have faith that 2+2=4, and I know this to be the truth, then isn't it also true that someone, somewhere, might have the faith that 2+2=5. Both of us can't be right. One of us has to be wrong, even if we both believe just as strongly that we are the one that is right. There is a truth. In the end, there is a truth, and that truth is the only one that is correct. We, as humans, in our current state of being, can know the truth, but can't be sure of it. That's where faith comes in.

Again, make this perfectly clear. I am not advocating any kind of intolerance toward any religion, belief system, or non-belief. Toleration of people, and their rights to believe what they want, is something I believe in. But that doesn't stop me from believing what I believe is the truth, and believing that what others believe is not the truth, if it contracdicts my faith. That is not intolerance, although it is sometimes mistaken for it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I have no problems with that some of that I believe. About believing in all beliefs I can't answer that because I don't really believe that. I believe in supreme being and there is an afterlife but I am kind of cloudy myself on anything else. I think I have been turned off by organized religion that I am not sure what I believe, one day I think will figure it out for myself.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Figrin D'an
You just defended the supposition that those who believe in a supreme being are capable of free will, stating the assertion otherwise is not true and an insult, yet you also insulted atheists by stating, rather categorically, that they are closed-minded and make small-minded statements.


That seems pretty unfair to me.




Correct. I did. Because he threw the insult out - and I do regard it as an insult, not an attempt at humour - and it is a typical Atheist blanket statement. One I have heard from family, friends, online, off line, on the media, in books, on the TV, over and over and over again. Not all atheist are like that, but .... this line is thrown out again and again and again.

The very thing these Atheists who do accuse us of being closed minds, they are guilty of themselves. They are also ones unwilling to go looking, they close their minds and turn themselves or something physical into their God. why? are they scared if they go look, the answer might rock their faith in no God?

IMO, Atheist are capable of more poisionous vitriol than any other belief system. Why is that, I wonder? Make no mistake, atheism is a belief system, even if its a belief in no God. Well, just liek any other religion, Atheist have their share of closed minded fools who just accept what they are told without question, then yell their poision at anyone daring to stand for their faith.

Oh, there are similar closed minded fools in each and every religion, there are militants and fundamentalists everywhere. My comment could well be directed at any group.

But if Atheist think they can escape similar critism, well ..... they cant. They have to defend their faith too with logic and facts. It can be done, I can think of a few very good arguments right now in support of atheism. For one thing, it is up to the Men with Faith to prove God exists, the onus of proof is not on the atheist. If anything, I would have thought the atheist position to be the best one, for they dont require proof.

It is the absence of proof they require. As there is no "I AM GOD" in 60 foot letters int he sky, nor is there a person throwing lightning bolts from the tops of mountains and many natural occurances can be explained in purely pysical and chemical terms, it would seem to me an atheist has, in many debates, the lack of proof on their side.

I would challenge atheists to no resort to petty insults like dutchy did, but to open their minds to the possibility of somethign else, somethign bigger. As I read this thread, I see many have and are still looking. That is more than commendable and I for one congratule and encourgae you on that search. You might not find what I have, but that is between you and whatever is out there. You might find nothing. That could happen.

I'll end with, it would really suck if this is it and life was just... this. Nothing more. No point and no meaning. Nothing bigger than us. Nothing up there. Personally, when I look up into the sky, I cant just accept that there is nothing. I have to go looking and asking, questioning and researching. In my life, christianity is the one thing that has disturbed me the most and got me out of a comfort zone, as there are insights palced before us and the sermon on the Mount is one of the most profoundly moral statements ever. Jesus Himself was profoundly moral and just. What disturbs me is that such statements, so great that they have lingered on and inspired 2000 years later, could be made by a man whom claimed to be The son of God.

How can a man make such statements and yet, lie about his own nature, if he was not whom He said he was?

How can this all come about without God? How is all this planet, so wonderful and incredible, with hidden secrets and laws, so well built, come about by chance? That's the first question we all should ask. And then, begin the journey to whatever the answers we find lead us to. Yes, it's fine if you find nothing and no answers and you come to the beilef there is nothing out there. Just dont go calling us who do find somethign closeminded and brainwashed because we believe we have. You never know, we could just be right after all.

[imported_Eve]

The birth of earth can be explained. But the universe... that's where you got me. Everything had to start from somewhere. I am humble enough to believe in a supreme being, but I also believe that everything can be explained through science. It isn't within human limits yet to grasp all knowledge about the universe, but sure enough, one day science will explain that too.

To Doc Milo's statement: I do believe in the seperation of church and state, and I do not think that means religious people have to stay home. That wouldn't work as most of the world is religious in one way or another.

You're saying you can't have it like that, but it works that way now. I go to work. There are 13 people that work for me and we all have a different idea about god. Yet we can work together and the conversation has NEVER come up.

I went to public school for 12 years, college for 4 and there was no presence of religion in the classroom, and it didn't prevent my education from happening.

I say the pledge out of tradition and patriotism. I understand that the majority of Americans are christians, just as the majority of us speaks english. There are traditions that are accepted because they are traditions and Americans are significantly patriotic. In this PC world, some traditions are being thrown out the window, because they aren't constitutional, like the "under god" statement in the pledge. To me, I could care less, but it isn't constitutional, as it may refer to the christians god. Doesn't make the pledge any less patriotic, and doesn't make me forget what the settlers went through to become Americans.

You're saying you can't have seperation, but we already do. And the process is being refined to be more strict to the constitution.

You're argument is debating something that already exists.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Correct. I did. Because he threw the insult out - and I do regard it as an insult, not an attempt at humour - and it is a typical Atheist blanket statement. One I have heard from family, friends, online, off line, on the media, in books, on the TV, over and over and over again. Not all atheist are like that, but .... this line is thrown out again and again and again.




This seems more a case of you being intent upon taking it as an insult rather than it actually being directed at you.


This is part of what I mean by being quick to assume in regards to individual belief structure. We have a tendancy to see every little comment or opinion that goes contrary to our beliefs as a blatant attack upon our person. A historical trend that hasn't relented, to any degree.




I'd discuss universe origin theory, but I have a feeling that it would be more gasoline added to the fire. And it's not exactly that close the original topic...

[Jedi Master Carr]

Can always start another thread :p

[Pierce Tondry]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
About those who have stated that they have come to a belief system that incorporates all religions. How is this possible?

I believe in being tolerant of all religious viewpoints. But I can't see how all viewpoints can be given equal validity for the simple reason that there would be contradictions in points of view between religions. How can there be both only one God, and be many gods, for instance?

I think it would help you to understand perception as I have come to make sense of it. Truth- that wonderful absolutely accurate core of things- is. How we see absolute truth is something else completely.

I'll use your example. When someone says "Two plus two equals five" they are doing one of three things

1.) Presenting knowledge that is inaccurate, usually because they find it funny or are misinformed.
2.) Using a different set of values and labels for those values that suits what they learned through socialization and upbringing in a specific culture. (i.e. 2 actually equals 3 and 5 equals 6 in their way of thinking)
3.) Approaching this normally simple problem in an abstract way I am personally unaccustomed to, usually to demonstrate a point or display a unique way of thinking. (two 2's get together and have a baby 5)

My way of thinking includes the bits and pieces of absolute truth that I see in each individual religion. I think it's not important how the universe was created or whom God selected to deliver messages to the people of Earth, or how many sides to that individual being people believe exist. For all we know,

- Jesus never existed and the Bible exists because someone ages ago thought it would be funny to toss out as a joke.
- Moses was just a guy who got the people he leading was lost, and when they arrived, they made up stories to cover their embarassment.
- Buddha was just a guy skipping out responsibility who found some funky shrooms, got high, and mistook it enlightenment.

I think that's enough of that. :) Know only that I could go on.

If someone says they believe in all religions, then to me that means they have done as I have, which is taken the bits and pieces of truth they believe to be absolute and formed them into a sense-making conglomerate. Well, that or they have a differing viewpoint that manages to incorporate all religious beliefs into itself (i.e. many gods are just facets of a single god that other people have misinterpreted as different beings, but which this person has got right)

Notice how easy it is to classify something as misinterpreted? I have a feeling that's how people who go out seeking converts think: to them, people with different beliefs just don't see it the right way and need help with their thinking. This is why I don't respect door-to-door preachers, or others who trumpet their faith when it really isn't warranted. They forget that I think they're wrong for a reason.

belief in one's own absolute truth != cause for thinly veiled intolerance

PS to Fig: it doesn't particularly matter how the universe originated, which is what universe theory that I have seen describes. There had to be an enabler for it somewhere along the line. :)

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
I'll end with, it would really suck if this is it and life was just... this. Nothing more. No point and no meaning. Nothing bigger than us. Nothing up there. Personally, when I look up into the sky, I cant just accept that there is nothing.

I can, easily. There is absolutely no point in life as we know it. We're just lucky to be here. Life is useless on a universal scale.

Life's what you make it.

Hopefully by thinking for yourself, which I'm sure YOU can, though some don't. Either religious or none religious. This earth is full of dumb people.

"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe."
- Albert Einstein.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Pierce Tondry
PS to Fig: it doesn't particularly matter how the universe originated, which is what universe theory that I have seen describes. There had to be an enabler for it somewhere along the line. :)


Sure it does. Maybe not from a religious sense, for those that believe in a creator of some sort. But it definately matters from a scientific point of view. Understanding the birth of the universe allows us to further our understanding of how it works and of what it consists. This affects, literally, every branch of scientific thought.

[Pierce Tondry]

I'm talking within the context of this conversation. We don't need to know the hows and whys of creation to know the universe exists, and that is sufficient proof in the existence of a higher being for many, myself included.

[Doc Milo]

I'll use your example. When someone says "Two plus two equals five" they are doing one of three things

1.) Presenting knowledge that is inaccurate, usually because they find it funny or are misinformed.
2.) Using a different set of values and labels for those values that suits what they learned through socialization and upbringing in a specific culture. (i.e. 2 actually equals 3 and 5 equals 6 in their way of thinking)
3.) Approaching this normally simple problem in an abstract way I am personally unaccustomed to, usually to demonstrate a point or display a unique way of thinking. (two 2's get together and have a baby 5)

See what you have done here is come up with three possibilities that work only under the assumption that 2+2=4 is the absolute truth, and is correct. This illustrates my point. I know that 2+2=4, it's a mathematical fact. But it's only a mathematical fact because I have faith that the math of addition is based in truth. But ... if the math of addition is not true, if something is missing, some unknown, unobserved variable somewhere in the universe exists that throws even the most simplest of math into question, then what? As humans, we pretty much trust everything to faith in something -- even science is not really provable to absolute truth without using faith. Everything, on some level, relies on some level of faith.

To Eve: I didn't say that there should be no separation of church and state. I meant that it isn't absolute, that it is more important for the government to be out of religion than it is for the religious to be out of government. Our laws all have a basis in one religion or another -- our laws are an enforcement of an agreed-upon morality. But I do believe that the "separation of church and state" has gone too far in the persecution of the Christian faith. I'd like for anyone to explain to me how it is a violation of the first amendment if a child brings a Bible with him to class to read during a free reading period? Or explain to me how a child drawing Christ for a school assignment that asks for a portrait of a famous man is a violation? Yet, these things are and have been punished by schools. Or explain how it is a violation of the first amendment for a secretary to have a Bible on her desk at work? These are things that are done in the name of "separation of church and state."

Just remember -- and this is a tricky concept for many in America to understand. The Constitution is not a document where the government tells the people what it can or can't do. The Constitution is a document where the people tell the government what it can and can't do. Our rights are not limited by the Bill of Rights. Our government's power is limited by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Intent of anything in the Constitution including the Bill of Rights was never to restrict the freedoms of the people, it was to restrict the power of the government.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well the work thing is the employers right as an Employer you can tell your employes don't bring any books to work and that is legal, her bring a bible to work (as long as she doesn't get fired) is the employers right so that is a different deal. The other two are just teachers/school board people scared about law suits and drawing the line in the sand that nothing about Christianity will be taught here. In those cases I say they are wrong, that child can bring the bible to school as long as the teacher doesn't deside to do a christianity class than its fine.

[Pierce Tondry]

Milo: I was talking about human perception. How you managed to relate that to having faith that math works, I'm not sure. Even so, you still provide me with an example.

You have faith in math because you were told to have faith in math. You were raised to believe math is correct, given instruction in its ways, and you use it every day to personal benefit, thus reinforcing your instruction. Regardless of whether numbers and logic themselves are accurate, they are a representation of something humans use to make sense of things and we consider them 'true'.

But math has concepts that don't agree with the physical world. Math tells me negative dollars should exist because mathematics includes the concept of money and the concept of negative numbers. However, I've been given other filters and perceptions that tell me negative dollars can't exist in simple physical forms. So I envision the concept of losing money as me handing my money over to someone else, instead of a mass of anti-dollar particles coming along and nulling the existence of my money whenever I make a transaction.

The same applies to religious instruction.

Assume the Bible is completely and utterly true. Does anyone in the world follow the Bible to the letter? No, or there'd be heaps of dead sacrifices in our backyards. Instead, each person who believes in the Bible has picked out the 'real' truth of the Bible. Meaning, what they see as being the real truth based on how they were raised and what their own viewpoints of the world suggest is important.

No one wholly believes in every tenet of every religion because as you said, there are conflicts. What these people have instead of multiple religions combined into one is an entirely different viewpoint that is inclusive in its basic form.

Humans don't have the absolute answer to anything. But we think we do.

That's where we go wrong, really. We let our egos run away with us.


But I do believe that the "separation of church and state" has gone too far in the persecution of the Christian faith.

Things occur on both sides of the line, for all religions. I think not allowing a child to read the Bible during a free reading period is silly. I also think an amendment on gay marriage is silly.

But not everyone does.


The Intent of anything in the Constitution including the Bill of Rights was never to restrict the freedoms of the people, it was to restrict the power of the government.

And this is the leading practical reason I think a gay marriage amendment is stupid as hell. We went over the philosophical reasons a long time ago.

[imported_Eve]

Reading the bible during class violates the seperation between church and state like this: the kid reads the bible. Other kids ask about it. Maybe the kids are suppossed to discuss what they read later. Perhaps some parents don't want their kids exposed to the bible and the fact that it was allowed in the classroom incited discussion over it. You've already alienated everyone.

Kid draws Jesus. Maybe the drawings are to be shown or even hung up. Again it incites discussion within all the children, and hanging the picture up means the school condones putting up a catholic or christian symbol in the classroom. Again, you've alienated alot of people.

The bible isn't allowed at work for the secretary (1) because who gets paid to read while on the job, and (2) it may alienate clients. If I walked into a place of business and saw a bible on the secretary's desk, I'd feel pretty uncomfortable and believe that since it is allowed on her desk, that maybe the entire organization felt that way.

Will you let someone else build a shrine and burn incents at their desk to praise their god? What about pictures and statues of buddha everywhere?

Bottom line, you're at work to work. You can't read sports illustrated, so why should I let you read the bible?

Other bottom line, having any presence of religion in school or at the work place alienates other religions. You could let everyone bring their personal religious effects, fight over which idea is right, learn to hate one another, but then what are we doing? We're getting away from the purpose of the place we are.

Last bottom line: America doesn't restrict you being in places of religious worship. If you want your kid to be able to read the bible and draw pictures of jesus at school, there are specialized schools for that. Or you can do it all in the privacy of your home.

[Ka' el Darcverse]

You'd feel alienated by an organization that has faith in one form or another. Wow...

I've worked with Hillel (I know I butchered that) at my school as a member of student Government. I was not afraid nor did I feel alienated, but that's just me. I also worked at a the Student Newspaper, which at the time, the majority of the Editorial staff was decidedly atheist, again I am secure enough in my faith that I wasn't offended.

What I'm about to say next may offend, if it does so I'm sorry, but this is why I have problems with the term tolerance.

Today tolerance is thrown out in such a way that it means that we have to agree that the other people are right just as much as we are, this however is in direct violation of the literal meaning of the word. Tolerance is just a synoym for the word respect or on some smaller level, allow. I tolerate annoying people because the government says I can't kill them, this doesn't mean that i agree with them or their way of life or even think it is right. The same falls in with other religions (save for the killing part lol) I tolerate other religions because Christ said people have to make decisions for themselves, I under no circumstance accept the notion that you may be right. I have a faith base that says, follow the path of Christ or eternal damnation awaits, now how can I in good faith say to someone, "you may be right"? I can't otherwise I'm just saying to the world that Jesus Christ came to this world, was whipped, beaten and then nailed to the cross for no good reason and my faith is utterly worthless. Now whether or not you choose to believe that is your own choice and I tolerate and accept that, I don't really have a choice, I'm not going to force you at gun point to accept Christ (those who do and who have don't deserve to carry the name of our savior).

As far as not being able to think for myself, you're right when I became a christian, I turned control of my life over to God, his laws and morals are what have become the standard by which I must live my life and therefore think. :)

[Commander Zemil Vymes]

Eve, you have nothing at your desk that can be construed as a personal item? Picture of friends or family? If you can construe the bible as alienating, whats to stop that from being so as well?

[Wei Wu Wei]

Originally posted by Ka' el Darcverse
As far as not being able to think for myself, you're right when I became a christian, I turned control of my life over to God, his laws and morals are what have become the standard by which I must live my life and therefore think. :)

Yes, I agree with Ka'el. And in addition to what he said, even though we Christians choose to give our lives to Christ, we still also get to choose whether or not we do what He wants with our lives.

But even for non-Christians, can you honestly say you are in control of your own life? Are you able to plan your life so that you know exactly how your life will be lived from now until you die? There will always be something to come along that you did not expect that's going to throw the whole plan you have for yourself out of whack. The man or woman you planned on marrying doesn't want to get married, your boss decides that you no longer have a job, your parents wind up getting into an argument with you, all these things are things beyond your control.

All human beings can and do think for themselves. There are things that they simply cannot influence.

And don't forget that sometimes when it seems like a person might not be thinking for themselves, they have actually made up their mind to agree with someone else.

[Pierce Tondry]

Wei: I'm not sure why you consider religion the only way of learning to accept what life has in store.

Taoism teaches one to go with the flow of events be they planned or unplanned, but does not recognize the existence of a deity. One need not believe in a God or gods to accept the same basic principles as a given religion. (and you ought to be aware of that given the name of your character)

Charley: Eve can obviously speak for herself quite well, but from my own standpoint...

Friends and family don't have the same religious connotation as a holy symbol of faith, so I don't see how you can make the connection you did.

[Commander Zemil Vymes]

I'm so sad and lonely. She is obviously alienating me with pictures of her happy acquaintances. :rolleyes

This is not the solution. This is the problem. Zany moon logic like this is crapping on personal freedoms left and right with no reason whatsoever.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Originally posted by Commander Zemil Vymes
Eve, you have nothing at your desk that can be construed as a personal item? Picture of friends or family? If you can construe the bible as alienating, whats to stop that from being so as well?

Some employers won't even allow you to bring that. Still that is there right the constution doesn't give you the right to bring what ever you want to work. An Employer can tell you how to dress, what you can or cannot bring to work, etc. It is their right.

[Commander Zemil Vymes]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Some employers won't even allow you to bring that. Still that is there right the constution doesn't give you the right to bring what ever you want to work. An Employer can tell you how to dress, what you can or cannot bring to work, etc. It is their right.


And I never said it was. But if you're going to paint things in a certain light, you'd better fill in all the spaces with your little logic crayon. Employment is a contractual agreement. You agree to the terms. They can't exercise bias in hiring, but they can set up guidelines, subordinate to higher law.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Originally posted by Commander Zemil Vymes
I'm so sad and lonely. She is obviously alienating me with pictures of her happy acquaintances. :rolleyes

This is not the solution. This is the problem. Zany moon logic like this is crapping on personal freedoms left and right with no reason whatsoever.

I agree with with Charley on this.

If a kid draws Jesus and others dont like it......too bad. If a secretary wants to read her bible during her lunch break, thats her choice. Believe me, youre alienating alot more people by taking God and the church out of the schools than by keeping it in.

Whatever happened to 'the majority rules'? Now, its the ones who are the minority who have the say and thats just wrong.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Commander Zemil Vymes
I'm so sad and lonely. She is obviously alienating me with pictures of her happy acquaintances. :rolleyes

This is not the solution. This is the problem. Zany moon logic like this is crapping on personal freedoms left and right with no reason whatsoever.

YES LETS SOLVE IT BY GETTING RID OF ALL RELIGIONS GRAR

Sad and lonely indeed. Religious ideas, holy symbols, etc. have far more potential to provoke people of different beliefs than pictures of family. You don't provoke people who might be paying you money. Your argument holds as much water as Lebron's collander helmet.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Brian
YES LETS SOLVE IT BY GETTING RID OF ALL RELIGIONS GRAR

Sad and lonely indeed. Religious ideas, holy symbols, etc. have far more potential to provoke people of different beliefs than pictures of family. You don't provoke people who might be paying you money. Your argument holds as much water as Lebron's collander helmet.

Explain to me one more time how having a bible is such a caustic thing? I'm sorry, but you don't dismiss my example and uphold your own, just because. There's no context whatsoever.

I've never asked to speak to a different teller because I saw they were wearing a star of david necklace. It doesn't enter into it at all.. Neither does my example. They're both equally (key on this word please) frivolous.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Originally posted by Daiquiri Van-Derveld
I agree with with Charley on this.

If a kid draws Jesus and others done like it......too bad. If a secretary wants to read her bible during her lucnc break, thats her choice. Believe me, youre alienating alot more people by taking God and the church out of the schools than by keeping it in.

Whatever happened to 'the majority rules'? Now, its the ones who are the minority who have the say and thats just wrong.

I have problem with that if you take the Majoirity rule too far it could lead to bad things. To me there should be no Majority rule or minority rule everybody should be equal, IMO.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Then what about voting, Carr? In voting, the majority rules. However, in issues like this they figuratively speaking give the 'minority' votes twice as much weight as the majority, which makes no sense, and skews everything.

[imported_Eve]

Actually, I don't have one personal item at my desk, and Ogre can tell you so (but how about you just take me at my word).

You're comparing apples and oranges. Reading the bible on break at work is neat, because an employer can only tell you what to do while on the clock. You leave to the breakroom and you can read away. You can also discuss away. If I interfere in that, holding your job on the line all the while, then YOU can sue ME.

On the job - no. See previous post. Picture of family - we all can have a family, even if you're infertile, even if you call your friends your family. Family means literally the same thing to us all: having loved ones, blood related or not. Family is universal. We don't disagree on family, love, or any of that.

We do disagree on religion.

Have respect for that fact that the seperation between church and state is there in our laws, and it's there so EVERYONE feels welcome and tolerated (and it pretty much works). This stipulation FACILITATES tolerance.

Go argue to the government about intolerance if you want to. While you're there talking about how intolerance is stupid, tell them your stance on gay marriage.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Reading the Bible while you're supposed to be working is of course wrong. Having a Bible on your desk so you can read it on your own time (your break)...wrong... how?

[imported_Eve]

I already explained in previous post how I feel about it, but it's more of an argument of why it isn't generally allowed. I've had HR training and you can't be too careful of anything in the workplace.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Charley
Explain to me one more time how having a bible is such a caustic thing? I'm sorry, but you don't dismiss my example and uphold your own, just because.

Short form is, it suggests a belief system that may or may not be incompatible with those customers who ultimately support your company. You cater to the safe zone or take a risk affronting a potentially wealthy and powerful client with your views.

Where I work, for example, people are allowed to wear symbols of religious faith only if they are beneath/inside their shirt. This applies to those who wear Christian crosses, in spite of the fact that the store owners are Christian and the chain has a reputation for catering to a very Southern Baptist market. (don't sell wine or alcohol)

(Please note that I have seized on the example first presented by Milo of the secretary and the Bible for explanation only because it was presented. The principle applies regardless of what faith/s is/are involved. Also, I am not personally biased for or against the Bible. I've read it, after all- lotta begats in there- and view it as an instructional device akin to a college textbook.)

[Charley]

And how's it any different than, say...if you're drinking coffee out of a Boston Red Sox mug?

[Jedi Master Carr]

If your Boss sees the Bible on your desk he might think you are reading it instead of doing work. I have had bosses that won't allow you to bring anything with you to your desk because they feel that it is being unproductive that is their rules and they are a private enterprise I am sorry but I don't see how that is wrong for a Boss to do that. And actually that Red Sox thing is the same thing. I remember when the Cowboys played the steelers in the SB a few years back this Steeler fan went to work in Dallas with a Steeler shirt on, his boss being a Cowboy fan fired him, the guy sued and lost so it shows right there were courts are on, the employers have the right unless they are descriminating because of what you are.

[Doc Milo]

Reading the bible during class violates the seperation between church and state like this: the kid reads the bible. Other kids ask about it. Maybe the kids are suppossed to discuss what they read later. Perhaps some parents don't want their kids exposed to the bible and the fact that it was allowed in the classroom incited discussion over it. You've already alienated everyone.

What if the child brought in a book like "The Catcher in the Rye." What if some parents, because of the language used in the book, didn't want their kids exposed to it? Should that book be banned from a free reading period? Should it be banned from being taught in a literature class? There are many books that are controversial that parents may not want their children exposed to, yet they are read and taught as part of the curriculum (sp?). Why should the Bible be different? So, a child reading the Bible spurs conversation on it. So what? That discussion is not the school endorsing a specific religion, nor is it the Congress passing a law respecting the establishment of religion. That discussion could be centered around plenty of topics, if the teacher was responsible enough, that it endorses no religion, and merely teaches students about the philosophy and belief system held by some. How is this any different from teaching the cultural aspects of Buddism or Hinduism or Islamic? Why is Christianity the religion singled out as the one that can't be even mentioned in school even in non-religious ways?


Kid draws Jesus. Maybe the drawings are to be shown or even hung up. Again it incites discussion within all the children, and hanging the picture up means the school condones putting up a catholic or christian symbol in the classroom. Again, you've alienated alot of people

But a kid who draws a picture of a Budda, or the Dali Llama (sp?) is not treated in the same way. Why?


The bible isn't allowed at work for the secretary (1) because who gets paid to read while on the job, and (2) it may alienate clients. If I walked into a place of business and saw a bible on the secretary's desk, I'd feel pretty uncomfortable and believe that since it is allowed on her desk, that maybe the entire organization felt that way.

And if the secretary wanted to use her break time to read the Bible, she can't do that? What if the Bible, just seeing it, is a source of comfort that relieves stress in her life and thus makes her a better worker by it merely being placed on the desk -- sort of like a picture of her husband and kids?


Will you let someone else build a shrine and burn incents at their desk to praise their god? What about pictures and statues of buddha everywhere?

A book that I want to read on my break and a shrine with buring incense -- not quite the same thing. What if I had a paperback copy of "The Lord of the Rings" or "Attack of the Clones" on my desk, so that I can use my break time to read? Would that cause problems.


Other bottom line, having any presence of religion in school or at the work place alienates other religions. You could let everyone bring their personal religious effects, fight over which idea is right, learn to hate one another, but then what are we doing? We're getting away from the purpose of the place we are.

Bottom line, it only is a problem to the schools when it is a Christian symbol. Other religions are taught in school -- their precepts, how they were "founded" who founded them, their philosophies. My step-son and step-daughter both learned about Buddism and Hinduism in their school. But not a peep about Christianity, or even Judiaism.

Why?

[Brian]

Originally posted by Charley
And how's it any different than, say...if you're drinking coffee out of a Boston Red Sox mug?

The same way religious institutions are different from sports teams.

[Doc Milo]

If your Boss sees the Bible on your desk he might think you are reading it instead of doing work. I have had bosses that won't allow you to bring anything with you to your desk because they feel that it is being unproductive that is their rules and they are a private enterprise I am sorry but I don't see how that is wrong for a Boss to do that. And actually that Red Sox thing is the same thing. I remember when the Cowboys played the steelers in the SB a few years back this Steeler fan went to work in Dallas with a Steeler shirt on, his boss being a Cowboy fan fired him, the guy sued and lost so it shows right there were courts are on, the employers have the right unless they are descriminating because of what you are.

Of course, in a free enterprise, private company, the employer does have the right to make such rules. But they have to be equal. If an employer allows one person to have a book on his/her desk (like a novel that is placed on the desk for reading on break) then said employer must allow another to have the Bible on his/her desk. If I remember the case correctly (and it's been a number of years since I've read about this one) the employer had no such rules about personal items/books/magazines on the desk. The woman was told she couldn't have the Bible on her desk. Other books were allowed -- and she had previously had other books she was reading on her desk without incident.

Just one last point on the subject about schools. Ignorance breeds intolerance. Maybe if all the religions were taught in school, people would have a better understanding of other people, and they would be more tolerant of each other....

How can it be a violation of the separation to have a class called "religons of the world" where each religion is discussed and taught -- stuff like how it came to be, historical accounts of the people involved, etc, and, yes, the central belief system and structure. Not only Christianity would be taught, but all religions. I would find that more satisfactory that cutting religion out of school altogether. (And yes, even agnosticism and atheism can be explained and taught.) This type of class is not a violation of the first amendment because it doesn't endorse any one religion, instead, it teaches them all. It would make no value judgement, and would have to be taught without bias. To accomplish this, the people teaching it might have to be of the religion being taught at the time -- Christians teach Christianity, Jews teach Judiaism, etc...

Perhaps if we all understood other religions, even if we don't accept their philosophies as true, we can tolerate them better. Rather than just shutting "everyone" (even though it isn't really everyone, it's mainly just shutting up the Christians) up.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I have no problem with a history of religion where you only show the history and not dealing too much with theology. Also I know nothing about this case about the employer, I just know that most bosses don't agree with having books on their desk I know several who would scream regardless of what it is.

[Doc Milo]

I work for a city agency. I am allowed to bring books, magazines, newspapers etc to work -- I am not allowed to let them interfere with my work, but I can read them during a lull or on my break. However, if I brought a Bible to read, I would be risking an EEO lawsuit, just by the presence of the Bible in the workplace of a city agency. I can have other books, but not the Bible. This, IMO, is very wrong. My having a Bible to read during my break in no way is "congress passing a law respecting an establishment of religion" (especially since this Bible would not be in view of the public.)

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't know the guidelines. This is why its better just to say no books makes it very cut and dry, IMO.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
I work for a city agency. I am allowed to bring books, magazines, newspapers etc to work -- I am not allowed to let them interfere with my work, but I can read them during a lull or on my break. However, if I brought a Bible to read, I would be risking an EEO lawsuit, just by the presence of the Bible in the workplace of a city agency. I can have other books, but not the Bible. This, IMO, is very wrong. My having a Bible to read during my break in no way is "congress passing a law respecting an establishment of religion" (especially since this Bible would not be in view of the public.)


Does this agency possess the same rule for other religious texts (the Qu'ran, Talmud, etc)? If so, I can see the rule being justifed. If not, it is quite clearly biased, and should be legally challengable.

[imported_Eve]

Doc, (1) Never in my statements did I say that the seperation only applied to your religion alone. (2) I believe I posted about breaks.

Nice long post though.

[Doc Milo]

Eve: I know you didn't say that, nor do I think you believe it. My point is that, in practice, this is what is happening. Christianity is treated "harsher" than other religions when it comes to separation -- see my post about what religions are currently being taught in my step-son's and step-daughters (one grade school, one high school) schools.

Figrin: I'm not sure on that, but I believe it is religious texts in general. I still don't see the justification for any religious texts being excluded. For example, I or someone else, can bring a book on Marxism, or a book on Nazism, yet can't bring a religious text, regardless of the text...

[Charley]

Its practical to apply these guidelines in a business setting. Getting hired is a contractual arrangement for the most part. You agree to the terms, and you agree you won't do X, because X will get you fired. Its your choice to work somewhere or not.

The tricky bit on that is cost/benefit analysis. Are you willing to play thought police to such a level that it cuts down applicants by X (a large margin) in order to appease Y (a tiny margin) of irate, hot-button clownshoe outlier jerkwads, who have nothing better to do than to "be offended" at stuff which really isn't their damn business?

Some do, and some don't. That doesn't chaff me. What does chaff me is consistency. If you're going to crack down on some, you'd damn sure better do the same to the others. If I don't bring my bible, I expect Johnny Nihilist to not bring his Nietzche phrasebook either. The moment we play favorites on this, thats the moment we're due a world of hurt.

Public schools, being largely a compulsory institution, are a different matter entirely. I find the concept of thought-policing our children to be a horrible trendsetter, and a terrible way to go about educating them.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
I still don't see the justification for any religious texts being excluded.

Then again, you're biased on the matter, very obviously so. I'm inclined to think you don't see justification for it because you don't want justification for it.

I'm not arguing that point, tho, so keep your hats on.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Originally posted by Charley
And how's it any different than, say...if you're drinking coffee out of a Boston Red Sox mug?


Originally posted by Brian
The same way religious institutions are different from sports teams.

You might find this surprising, Brian, but I've seen people get just as worked up over sports, if not more worked up over sports than religion. So it's actually very similar. To be honest, you'd probably reduce a lot of stress in the workplace if you did not allow employees to have sports stuff than if you did not permit religious symbols.

[Doc Milo]

The thing is, these guidelines are set by my employer only because of government guidelines set at the federal level, through the office of the EEOC. As supervisors, we had to go to these classes on what constitues proper behavior and what can get you in the middle of a lawsuit.

A lot of different things are covered, not only religion. Things that had me scratching my head on how these things can be the federal regulations when they violate the first amendment not only in religious areas, but in free speech areas as well.

Anyway, my employer allows us to bring a book or magazine or newspaper on the job as long as they don't interfere with our job. The type of books allowed are guidelines not set by my employer, but by the federal government's EEO regulations.

My employer allows me to bring a book to work -- but I'm not allowed to bring a religous text because of the government regulations. Essentially, because to do so might "offend" someone else. And of course, in this PC world, it seems, to "offend" someone is the most capital of offenses.

Am I biased on the issue yes. But then again, I'd say everyone has a bias one way or the other on just about every issue known to man.

Here's something to ponder -- using the same logic as others in the thread that claim to teach any religion in school is an instance of government endorsement of that religion: Atheism is a religion. It is the belief that there is no God. To not teach any religion, is, in practice, endorsing Atheism. That, too, would be a violation of the first amendment.

[Darth007]

Here's something to ponder -- using the same logic as others in the thread that claim to teach any religion in school is an instance of government endorsement of that religion: Atheism is a religion. It is the belief that there is no God. To not teach any religion, is, in practice, endorsing Atheism. That, too, would be a violation of the first amendment.

He's got a point. If ignoring your god and putting him off to side is against your religion, than by having no religion in school (teaching Atheism) would be unfair. At least that's what I think.

Ignorance leads to intolerance, intolerance leads to hate. To prevent ignorance you need to be educated. In an ideal world everyone would learn about every religion and learn to tolerate it. You wouldnt be force fed it, and you wouldnt have to agree with it, but at least we would understand the differences and just be able to accept them.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

What I find amusing is that in today's "tolerant" world, we seem to have missed the real definition of tolerance. To be tolerant all to often seems to mean that I have to believe that everyone is right! (Which in and of itself is an illogical statement...because if someone is right, then logically someone else is wrong.) Tolerance is knowing what someone believes, and agreeing to disagree.

From Dictionary.com: Tolerance is -

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

2. The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration.

If I say I'm a Christian and I believe that Mormon's are wrong, I am accused of intolerance! How outrageous, as the very definition of tolerance states that it is the 'tolerating' of something I disagree with. :p

[Brian]

Wei: Similar, yes. The same, no. As a subject, religion reaches far deeper than sports. This very thread proves that.

In other words, when there's a full-fledged war over who wins the superbowl, call me and I'll concede the argument.

Milo: By your logic, refusing to teach one about math, biology, chemistry, and physics means I teach them about writing instead. I may just be a garbage man for a living.

Public school doesn't teach anything. Religion and faith are up to the individual to learn, be it through their own explorations or through the influence of their parents (as it should be, because without individual exploration the whole search is meaningless anyway).

007: Ignorance does not necessarily lead to intolerance, but it sure helps. Teaching open-mindedness can be a good counter to that.

Maybe one day everyone will be open-minded that teaching all religions in school will be tolerated.

[Doc Milo]

Milo: By your logic, refusing to teach one about math, biology, chemistry, and physics means I teach them about writing instead. I may just be a garbage man for a living.

Wrong. I didn't say it was teaching atheism, I said it was endorsing it. By not recognizing that man's relationship with God (whatever God or gods that may be) is an important part of the lives of many humans, you are by default endorsing the belief that a relationship with God is not important, and that is the central belief in atheism, where, since the belief that there is no God makes the relationship with God unimportant.


Public school doesn't teach anything. Religion and faith are up to the individual to learn, be it through their own explorations or through the influence of their parents (as it should be, because without individual exploration the whole search is meaningless anyway).

But this is not true. If it teaches nothing, it endorses the ideal of "there is not God" it endorses atheism. But public school, as I have pointed out earlier, does teach about certain religions.... it seems just the Christian religion is shunned....

I believe all religions should be taught in a positive manner, including atheism and agnosticism, because that will further the understanding people have of each other, make it easier to agree to disagree, and create more toleration between religions.

[Pierce Tondry]

I didn't say it was teaching atheism either. That was a metaphor and as such, not wrong.

The diehards are the reason faith issues are kept out of school and the workplace. People who won't let an issue go, who skew things towards obscure points of view- those are the reason 'separation of church and state' exists.

Incidentally, I'd like to turn your own logic against you. What grade would you introduce this religious teaching into and how would you guard against its segregating effects? How do you explain that it's not okay to hit Billy because he doesn't think Christ was real? How do you get the Muslims to stop making fun of the Jews for their rites of circumcision? How do you prevent the religious teen gangs from getting into explosive fights about whose faith is right?

Do you really want to turn every school in America into a powder keg on the scale of Ireland or the Middle East? And don't tell me that wouldn't happen- you can't predict the future and you don't know your scheme will work the way you think. You can't assume the best in a planning scenario, you assume the worst and plan against it.

Keep the can of worms closed.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
Wrong. I didn't say it was teaching atheism, I said it was endorsing it. By not recognizing that man's relationship with God (whatever God or gods that may be) is an important part of the lives of many humans, you are by default endorsing the belief that a relationship with God is not important, and that is the central belief in atheism, where, since the belief that there is no God makes the relationship with God unimportant.



But this is not true. If it teaches nothing, it endorses the ideal of "there is not God" it endorses atheism. But public school, as I have pointed out earlier, does teach about certain religions.... it seems just the Christian religion is shunned....


Your argument on this is flawed, because you are presuming a default action. Lack of recognition of the religious relationship between a person and deity does not equate to the endorsement of Atheism. The lack of recognition is a step to which allows public institutions to remove themselves from the potential endorsement of any religion. To say that it endorses another belief system, that you previously defined as a religion, is taking another step in the line of assumption.






I believe all religions should be taught in a positive manner, including atheism and agnosticism, because that will further the understanding people have of each other, make it easier to agree to disagree, and create more toleration between religions.

This is a lot trickier than it sounds, as Brian stated. In base statement, it's a noble idea, but in practical application, it would be a nightmare. A better idea may be to instill the concepts of open-minded thought and critical analysis into youth, and let them make their own decisions.


I'd hesitate to call agnosticism a religion. It's mearly a premise that states a lack of physical and psychical information on the the existence of _______ (the "_______" can be anything, not just a deity) cannot be proven or disproven. It's a way of saying, "Ignorance preceeds evidence and analysis."

[imported_Eve]

I don't think Atheism is a religion; I think that's an excuse from those who do practice a religion. Atheists don't get together and worship their non-god, have no physical basis of their beliefs (which is why they have no belief), and have no guide book or set of values on how to live, etc. etc, except laws (which aren't stipulated by gods).

And Atheism isn't taught in schools. If a teacher outright told the children there is no god, they'd get in as much trouble as they would if they told them there is one, and which one is the right one.

Doc - Honestly, all of your arguments are debating things that already exist in practice. I think maybe you're personally sensitive to this issue because you'd like to see crusifiction crosses and bibles everywhere. I think you are the intolerant one, you want your religion everywhere, and you won't stop until that happens. Your arguments (which seem to the contrary) don't mask it well either.

For the love of (your) god, this county IS NOT prohibiting you from learning or practicing religion. You have the right to go to specialized school or compliment your public school with something else. In college, you can major in it! You can always worship at home or in other organized public settings. I don't think you will go to hell if you can't read the bible at work. Wait eight hours and you can read away (even though you've already read it).

There are too many religions, and other valid subjects to learn to do it in public school. Little children are impressionable, and parents would rather steer their children at that age anyway. Once you're 18 (or unless emancipated before) you can find religion without your parents on your back. You're probably at a better age to research it anyway and think for yourself what you want to believe. But by then I'm sure your parents will have already brainwashed you.

And I will say it again - IT IS THE LAW and it works. You don't like it? Go somewhere else and see what real religious intoleration is. Why do you think so many people come to the US?

At the end of the day you can read the bible, post your beliefs here, talk to your kids and tell them which god is right, and pray freely before bed. And you can do it all without worry of prosecution because the government says so. I don't think things are so bad. Looks like you're worshiping away to me.

[Doc Milo]

Doc - Honestly, all of your arguments are debating things that already exist in practice.

I know they exist in practice. And you'd be surprised to hear that I don't disagree with the separation of church and state. I have a problem with it when it is used to discriminate against any religion. And you may not see it, or choose not to see it, but there are some that use the separation as it exists to discriminate against Christians.


I think maybe you're personally sensitive to this issue because you'd like to see crusifiction crosses and bibles everywhere. I think you are the intolerant one, you want your religion everywhere, and you won't stop until that happens. Your arguments (which seem to the contrary) don't mask it well either.

So, what you are calling me is a fanatic who wants to force my religion on everyone else, and a liar.

I don't seem to remember any of my posts that were a personal attack against you for holding your beliefs...


I think you are the intolerant one, you want your religion everywhere

And here is the illustration of what others have posted about the word "toleration." I disagree with your point of view. I am not intoleratant of it. If I were, I wouldn't even bother discussing this with you. And I don't even disagree with everything you've said. I disagree with some of it.

But then, you've taken my disagreement, and because you disagree with me have attributed character traits to me that are flat out slanderous, (like accusing me of wanting crosses and bibles everywhere, and forcing others to agree with my religion) when I have done nothing but respectfully disagree with your point of view. All I seek is answers to questions that have yet to be answered by your points. And you degrade it into a personal attack against me. Attack my logic -- point out where it is faulty, as Figrin has done, and that is fine. But attribute traits to me that are untrue and unfair and that is not fine.


For the love of (your) god, this county IS NOT prohibiting you from learning or practicing religion.

I never said it was. I don't have a problem with the separation. I have a problem with the separation being used to legitimize discrimination.


There are too many religions, and other valid subjects to learn to do it in public school.

I am not advocating teaching religion as one would learn it from church or even a theology class. Just the basic precepts, in an historical or cultural context -- of all major religions.

And I find it interesting that not a single one of the people who are arguing against me has actually addressed the fact (not opinion, not for instance, but fact) that public schools -- at least my son's -- has taught Buddism and Hinduism in their social studies classes.

And the cases I have presented of discrimination are facts, not opinions, not for instances. A child being suspended from school for drawing a picture of Jesus, a child being suspended from school for bringing the Bible to read during a free reading period. I have not heard a satisfactory answer as to why these things are punishable offenses. (In fact, the most liberal of liberal lawyers, Ron Coobie (sp?) actually represented the kid who drew the picture of Jesus in a court case. (I haven't heard what the outcome of that case is...)


But by then I'm sure your parents will have already brainwashed you.

Oh, so someone who holds religious beliefs has been brainwashed. More of the same "I'm and atheist, I can think for myself" insults....


And I will say it again - IT IS THE LAW and it works.

It's the law yes. And it works. Yes, to a degree. But the law has been used to discriminate against Christians. You may not think that it has, you may not have heard of the cases of it happening. Maybe it doesn't happen in your locality. But these thing have been happening. There is a fine line between the establishment clause and its enforcement, and the free exercise clause and its enforcement. I see the separation of church and state being enforced fairly every day, and I see it being used to legitimize discrimination, too. It's the latter that I have a problem with.

[imported_Eve]

It wasn't my intention to be rude, Doc. I do feel that way about your stance, and I don't know any other way to say it. You weren't called any names, and I too have had someone in this thread insinuate that I'm an overbearing PC-freak who's being intolerant (in not so many words). That's neat, but I moved on with the conversation.

Your post did lend to what I was saying though. It's all about Christans for you. I've been explaining how it isn't, and that's exactly why the law has this seperation. Every point you have made has been addressed by someone, and frankly I can't see how Christians are discriminated against, when several government officials are Christian, and most of America is. You also have failed to show me how this "discrimination" has prevented you or your family from worshiping your god any more than it has anyone else.

I'm getting the feeling you think I am Atheist?

As far as buddhism and hinduism being taught in social studies -To the extent that you're studying history, do they not also talk about catholic holy wars, or the whole reason Americans left England? Why different Kings started different denominations? Why divorce came about in the first place? Your religion is there too, to the extent that it has to do with history. And (while I don't have the numbers for sure), there aren't significant numbers of Buddhists and Hindus in America so I don't think they're getting too much of a dose of it. Western history is made of western religions, namely catholic and christian, and that's what we learn more than anything.

Again, your argument is laced with bias and your forgot to mention all the things we learn in social studies that have to do with your religion (or some similar denomination).

Can you please present an example of REAL religious discrimination in schools?

[Brian]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
And you may not see it, or choose not to see it, but there are some that use the separation as it exists to discriminate against Christians.

Everything you see as discrimination against Christians may not actually BE discrimination SOLELY against Christians, which is one of the things I've been trying to explain.


So, what you are calling me is a fanatic who wants to force my religion on everyone else, and a liar.

I don't seem to remember any of my posts that were a personal attack against you for holding your beliefs...

3 observations:
1) You're putting words in her mouth.
2) You used an emotional response to evade the point.
3) Personal attacks = flame != personal judgements = opinions.


But then, you've taken my disagreement, and because you disagree with me have attributed character traits to me that are flat out slanderous, (like accusing me of wanting crosses and bibles everywhere, and forcing others to agree with my religion) when I have done nothing but respectfully disagree with your point of view.

So you wouldn't like to see Christianity as the world religion... right? Remember, it's slander if it isn't true.

PS, she never said anything about forcing, she said you "won't stop until you see it happen", meaning you refuse to give up the issue. Telemarketers may be doggedly persistent on the phone, but they don't hold you at gunpoint and force you to buy a product. Really, watch the conclusions you're drawing.


All I seek is answers to questions that have yet to be answered by your points. And you degrade it into a personal attack against me. Attack my logic -- point out where it is faulty, as Figrin has done, and that is fine. But attribute traits to me that are untrue and unfair and that is not fine.

I think what I might say here, you would construe as a personal attack and not a personal judgement. If you are interested in knowing what I would say, you may let me know and I'll post it. I take no responsibility for you being offended by it, though.


I never said it was. I don't have a problem with the separation. I have a problem with the separation being used to legitimize discrimination.

I don't like that either, but the onus is on you to prove that the case is distinctly discriminatory before I will agree.


I am not advocating teaching religion as one would learn it from church or even a theology class. Just the basic precepts, in an historical or cultural context -- of all major religions.

How do you then be sure you're providing full and adequate surveys of the subjects involved? Do you pack all the religions into one course and hope one of them doesn't get shorted? Or do you give each their own individual course and force impatient and uninterested kids to sit through them all? Or do you combine them into a couple of different survey courses and create perceptual links you don't intend? If you do the second or third option, what happens when you have to cut a class for lack of funding? Which religion/s get/s it?

Worst of all, what happens if you get a biased teacher for one of these courses?

Keep the can of worms closed.


And I find it interesting that not a single one of the people who are arguing against me has actually addressed the fact (not opinion, not for instance, but fact) that public schools -- at least my son's -- has taught Buddism and Hinduism in their social studies classes.

That hasn't happened in any school I or my brother have gone to, and I think I can hardly make an informed opinion on the presented statements when you have provided next to zero information on it. You have already admitted to bias on this issue as a whole, are already proven to make suspect leaps of logic, and have each presented statement put in such a way that it is colored by enough perspective to be a rainbow. How do I then sort through all that to find the relevant facts?

As I've stated, the onus is on you to prove your point.


And the cases I have presented of discrimination are facts, not opinions, not for instances. A child being suspended from school for drawing a picture of Jesus, a child being suspended from school for bringing the Bible to read during a free reading period. I have not heard a satisfactory answer as to why these things are punishable offenses.

That's because all you've said is "this kid was punished for doing X Christiany thing." These aren't cases you're presenting, they're statements. Suspension, for instance, wasn't even mentioned until this last post of yours and that's a detail I find very relevant. I answered on the one case (secretary's Bible) I knew enough about to extrapolate with.

Just based on what I know, I think suspension is probably going a bit too far. Then again, I don't know if someone is trying to make a point on the case or not, nor do I know how resistant each child was to the initial judgement of the teacher. I know far, far too few details to make an informed decision because they have not been presented to me.

For the third time, the onus is on you to prove your point.


(In fact, the most liberal of liberal lawyers, Ron Coobie (sp?) actually represented the kid who drew the picture of Jesus in a court case. (I haven't heard what the outcome of that case is...)

I'm not sure what you think this means. Liberals are known to push the bounds of individual rights, or so it seems to me.


It's the law yes. And it works. Yes, to a degree. But the law has been used to discriminate against Christians.

ONLY against Christians? You're 100% positive NO other religion is being equally pushed away, and maybe you have tunnel vision when it comes to discrimination against your faith?


You may not think that it has, you may not have heard of the cases of it happening. Maybe it doesn't happen in your locality. But these thing have been happening. There is a fine line between the establishment clause and its enforcement, and the free exercise clause and its enforcement. I see the separation of church and state being enforced fairly every day, and I see it being used to legitimize discrimination, too. It's the latter that I have a problem with.

If only discrimination were easier to standardize, I would more efficiently be able to discuss this. I want statistics and case details before I chime in with a 'yes' or 'no'.

At best, I think your definition of discrimination is strongly slanted and does not agree with mine on many points. I agree with the principle you present, but do not necessarily agree with your interpretations on the enforcement thereof.

Ergo, I don't think I'm going to get anywhere else with you and don't see much need to reply further.

Edit: heh, heh, read Eve's post for the short version. :)

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Eve
I don't think Atheism is a religion; I think that's an excuse from those who do practice a religion. Atheists don't get together and worship their non-god, have no physical basis of their beliefs (which is why they have no belief), and have no guide book or set of values on how to live, etc. etc, except laws (which aren't stipulated by gods).

Well said... :)

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Call me curious, but where do you think that the atheist gets their set of values on how to live?

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Call me curious, but where do you think that the atheist gets their set of values on how to live?

Parents, family, friends, school, work, etc. or in general by observing all the people and things surrounding you, and decide for yourself what's good and what's not.

[ReaperFett]

Ina recent survey, 33% of aethists said they prayed. The ultimate in hypocracy :)

[Dasquian Belargic]

Sometimes you're made to pray though. I'm not a Christian but we had to pray in the chapel service at school, every day.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Originally posted by Dutchy
Parents, family, friends, school, work, etc. or in general by observing all the people and things surrounding you, and decide for yourself what's good and what's not. And where do you think they got their values from?

To know that something is good, means you have to be aware that something is not good, or evil. If your conscience pricks you...well why is that? Is it because you were brainwashed at an early age to believe one thing was right and another wrong? Or is it a universal truth that there is right and wrong, that no matter what you think, Murder is always wrong.

Or if I happen to think murder is right, and murder is good to me... Does that make it right?

People who don't believe in a 'higher power' of some kind may miss the boat, as universal truths such as good and evil, right and wrong, point to a Universal being.

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by Dasquian Belargic
Sometimes you're made to pray though. I'm not a Christian but we had to pray in the chapel service at school, every day.

"Those saying they never prayed included 29% of Israelis and 25% of Britons. But across the entire sample, almost 30% of all atheists surveyed said they sometimes prayed. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518375.stm

Once you get out of School I can't see how you're MADE to pray.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Eve
I'm getting the feeling you think I am Atheist?


That's okay. Everyone probably thinks that I am as well, even though I have never, not once, in the history of this online community, ever stated or alluded to my belief structure.

re: assumption of belief comment I made earlier.






Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Call me curious, but where do you think that the atheist gets their set of values on how to live?


Atheists draw their values from any number of sources. This is one of the primary reasons why it can't really be called a religion. Beyond the commonality that atheists disbelieve in any supreme being, there is no set structure to any other beliefs they may have. Other personal morals or values that they adopt can come from whatever or wherever they wish.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
And where do you think they got their values from?

To know that something is good, means you have to be aware that something is not good, or evil. If your conscience pricks you...well why is that? Is it because you were brainwashed at an early age to believe one thing was right and another wrong? Or is it a universal truth that there is right and wrong, that no matter what you think, Murder is always wrong.

Or if I happen to think murder is right, and murder is good to me... Does that make it right?

People who don't believe in a 'higher power' of some kind may miss the boat, as universal truths such as good and evil, right and wrong, point to a Universal being.


Attrocities, including murder, are commited every day for any number of reasons, including in the names of deities. What you see as universal truth may not be for another person, even one who shares the belief in the same God as you.


You're making a circular logic jump. You're arguing that universal truths point to a universal being, yet your assumption of a universal being includes certain "universal truths", such as 'There is a universal being.'

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
To know that something is good, means you have to be aware that something is not good, or evil. If your conscience pricks you...well why is that? Is it because you were brainwashed at an early age to believe one thing was right and another wrong? Or is it a universal truth that there is right and wrong, that no matter what you think, Murder is always wrong.

No, it is "by observing all the people and things surrounding you", so society tells me.


Or if I happen to think murder is right, and murder is good to me... Does that make it right?

No, it doesn't. There are law, society and common sense that say if it's right or not.


People who don't believe in a 'higher power' of some kind may miss the boat, as universal truths such as good and evil, right and wrong, point to a Universal being.

What Figrin D'an said. :)

[Lilaena De'Ville]

You're making a circular logic jump. You're arguing that universal truths point to a universal being, yet your assumption of a universal being includes certain "universal truths", such as 'There is a universal being.'

lemme think about it some more. :p I knew I shouldn't have piped up while on my break at work, didn't have enough time to think out what I was trying to say.

[imported_Eve]

There are whole arenas of philosophy that talk about how we know right from wrong, and they have to do with logic and reasoning methods, which can have nothing to do with a god.

Having a god and religion means having a guide on how to be, but there are alternatives to god, like philosophy.

Here is some logic and reasoning and note how god is missing:
1 - I like being alive.
2 - If I like being alive, other's must also enjoy being alive.
3 - We all enjoy life, so life must be good.
4 - If life is good, and we all enjoy life, then it would follow that we would not enjoy losing our life.
5- Since we would all not enjoy losing our life, we would not want to cause another to lose life.

HENCE, murder is undesirable, bad, and against the law.

Many laws derived from philosophy. Philosophy and religion do compliment one another but they are not the same thing (hence why each subject is given a different name).

Counting everything and its purpose off to god is fine if you believe, but you're missing alot, and not giving the human being credit for thinking for him/herself.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Also speaking philosophically (because God is not necessarily apart from philosophy either, and neither are any religions) just because you believe something doesn't make it real. Conversely, just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it any less real.

Of course, philosophy has yet to prove that anything really exists apart from your perception of it. So in that sense, everything has to be taken on faith in some aspect or another.

[Pierce Tondry]

That really doesn't relate to the argument at hand. What are you trying to prove, exactly?

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Can't prove anything. :)

I dunno, everyone was getting all serious and philosophical, so I thought I'd philosophize as well. But I'm butting out now, ok Brian?

[Pierce Tondry]

It doesn't matter to me whether you choose to stay in or not. I just thought you might be trying to relate that to what's been said already and I couldn't for the life of me figure out how it connected.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Originally posted by Eve
Counting everything and its purpose off to god is fine if you believe, but you're missing alot, and not giving the human being credit for thinking for him/herself.

Eve was crediting philosophy as providing us with the 'human answer' to what people sometimes credit to God.

And yet, the truth of philosophy is at the end of the day, you cannot prove that anything exists beyond the sphere of your own mind. The human answer, in my opinion, is an empty hole of uncertainty.

And we have to take the entire world on faith anyway.

[imported_Eve]

This isn't real. This is the Matrix.

[Pierce Tondry]

LOL, THERE IS NO SPOON!

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Precisely the point of philosophy!

If only we could be truly objective in everything, but in the end, everything is tainted by our own perception, and is subjective. And that is where tolerance comes in, where we have to agree to disagree.

We can't prove God is real and we're right, but you can't disprove it either.

<a href=http://rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=479>Institute Defends Teen Artist's Right to Religious Expression!</a>

<a href=http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=460>School Officials Try to Silence Christian Motivational Speaker! </a>

<a href=http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=459>Attorneys File Suit in District Court in Defense of Muslim Girl’s Right to Wear Religious Head Covering to School</a>

<a href=http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=454>School Officials Discriminate Against Religious Puppeteers</a>

<a href=http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=458>Florida Officials Prevent Church from Displaying Religious Christmas Message During Holiday Light Show; Secular Displays O.K</a>

[Doc Milo]

I was seaching the net, and others may find this interesting: According to the Dept. of Education, the cases I have spoken about are, indeed cases of illegal discrimination. Here are the pertinent guidelines set forth by the Secretary of the Dept. of Education:


Student prayer and religious discussion: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit purely private religious speech by students. Students therefore have the same right to engage in individual or group prayer and religious discussion during the school day as they do to engage in other comparable activity. For example, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray before tests to the same extent they may engage in comparable non-disruptive activities. Local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of order and other pedagogical restrictions on student activities, but they may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against religious activity or speech.

Generally, students may pray in a non-disruptive manner when not engaged in school activities or instruction, and subject to the rules that normally pertain in the applicable setting. Specifically, students in informal settings, such as cafeterias and hallways, may pray and discuss their religious views with each other, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other student activities and speech. Students may also speak to, and attempt to persuade, their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to political topics. School officials, however, should intercede to stop student speech that constitutes harassment aimed at a student or a group of students.

Students may also participate in before or after school events with religious content, such as "see you at the flag pole" gatherings, on the same terms as they may participate in other noncurriculum activities on school premises. School officials may neither discourage nor encourage participation in such an event.

Student assignments: Students may express their beliefs about religion in the form of homework, art-work, and other written and oral assignments free of discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such home and classroom work should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school.

Religious literature: Students have a right to distribute religious literature to their schoolmates on the same terms as they are permitted to distribute other literature that is unrelated to school curriculum or activities. Schools may impose the same reasonable time, place, and manner or other constitutional restrictions on distribution of religious literature as they do on non-school literature generally, but they may not single out religious literature for special regulation.

A lot of what I have been describing is actually permissable, yet schools still violate these guidelines (as shown in Lileana's links above.)

And for the record, I speak about discrimination against Christians because, as pointed out, I am a Christian and thus sensitive to that discrimination. But I am equally concerned when it is discrimination against any religion. Just because discrimination is done equally to all religions doesn't make that discrimination right.

Link to the Secretary's statement on principles governing the Separation of Church and State in regards to public schools: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/religiousexpression.html

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Precisely the point of philosophy!

If only we could be truly objective in everything, but in the end, everything is tainted by our own perception, and is subjective. And that is where tolerance comes in, where we have to agree to disagree.

We can't prove God is real and we're right, but you can't disprove it either.



So... wait...

You're using existentialist thought to defend the premise that "God cannot be disproven?"

okay then... I'm just going to leave that one alone.



I'll just make two points...

1) Philosophy still makes certain underlying assumptions to form it's premises, no matter the branch or specific idea. If individual perception is ultimately skewed, not only is proving or disproving anything a completely hollow exercise, but so is the desire or need to even attempt to do so. Not to mention that we enter a logic causality loop in which everything in the history of humanity is meaningless, and any concern about the existence or lack thereof of any deity shouldn't exist.


2) The burden of proof is always upon the believer, not the disbeliever. The fact that God cannot be disproven is irrelevent. There has to be evidence submitted as proof before that evidence can be scrutinized and either accepted or denied. The same axiom is applied to the scientific method. For example, the fact that I cannot disprove the existence of dark matter doesn't matter (yes, pun intended), because there has yet to be presented any significant, non-circumstantial evidence to support it's existence. Does it exist? Maybe. At this time, there is not enough evidence to support the conclusion that it does exist. The fact that there is not enough evidence to support the supposition that it does not exist is a secondary conclusion based upon the original conclusion, and is immaterial until the conditions leading to the first conclusion are altered significantly to affect it.

[imported_Eve]

Exactly Fig. I wasn't being agreeable with LD in my Matrix remark. I just don't know how to respond to her remarks, as they are original. Maybe she should read Simulacra and Simulation, and steer clear of Disneyworld forever.

Doc, now you're changing or qualifying your argument to make it work, and NOW it does. Maybe I missed something you said (and I may have) but I thought we were arguing about happenings in school that WERE administered by teachers. Especially so, when you brought up the social studies remark.

When I asked for an example before, I should have qualified MY statement by saying I want a personal example, but that doesn't matter... and example is an example, but you're the one complaining, and I don't see your worshiping being hindered.

Your cases/examples are being trialed in a court of law. What else do you want? It's not like they're just getting away with it. I think some of those issues are free speech issues, some are legitimate, and some are wrongful.

Also, see what happens when these people do things that we all may think are okay? Or when people do things that we would allow because we want to be able to do them? Someone, somewhere gets mad and throws them out. That means someone WAS offended or alienated, and/or thought others would be. Religion is a matter that people get seriously offended over. For many, all of you have to do is disagree and they condemn you.

And you think reading the bible at work, drawing pictures of jesus, and having throughough discussion of your god at school would work (as administered by an official faciliatator or teacher)? I don't think so and these cases show just that.

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by Eve
Maybe she should read Simulacra and Simulation, and steer clear of Disneyworld forever.
Maybe you should gain some belief that not everything in this world is known, and not trust a book that has it's first Amazon.com review say "It is dense, complicated, annoyingly analytical, and fairly pointless. " :)


Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Call me curious, but where do you think that the atheist gets their set of values on how to live?
JUST finishing a paper where we spoke about this, concluding that athists get their values from religion, as religion gacve the common sense values.

[imported_Eve]

Fett : Are we telling people what to believe now? You can debate it, but no one here has flat out told anyone what to believe. I could say the same to you in reverse. Besides, what are you arguing with me about? Did I say anything to the effect that everything in the world is known?

Nice review from Amazon but if you knew anything about the book, it goes along exactly with what she is saying, and I recommend it to her. It talks about everything not being real, Disneyworld being an example in the book. So your review from Amazon enforces that I think the book is bad, hence I disagree with her.

[Morgan Evanar]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Maybe you should gain some belief that not everything in this world is known, and not trust a book that has it's first Amazon.com review say "It is dense, complicated, annoyingly analytical, and fairly pointless. " Maybe you should try reading the book first before passing judgement using an unknown source as basis.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Originally posted by Eve
Maybe she should read Simulacra and Simulation, and steer clear of Disneyworld forever.

Maybe you should read Mere Christianity which is written by a former atheist about his logical conclusion that there must be a God. edit: It is also one of the clearest explainations of the cross-denominationa Christian faith ever written, which cannot be disputed, although some of his logic has been disputed (back to the forever existant 'you can't really prove for sure that Christianity is true').

And, I've never been to Disneyworld. If you're intimating that I'm living in a fantasy land, well, I suppose that's your right. And, I'm right here: I guess talking about people in third person is fun, but I think I'm missing the point.

As far as me being original, thanks, I try. :)

[imported_Eve]

People still think I'm Atheist? Well, I am not, and have already said as much.

Thanks for the recommendation. Good for that guy. Shall I act insulted now, like you did?

Fantasy world - That's not what I was implying at all. You'd have to read the book to know I wasn't insulting you. It merely talks about what you're saying. It's a good book for that line of reasoning and I had to read it (as required) in college for an upper level poli sci class. But as Fett said, it has one bad review at Amazon. And I don't agree with the book. That's all.

My comment was directed to Fig (as denoted), not you, hence speaking in that manner.

On a personal note, you should know I say what I mean (always), and deriving conclusions from things I haven't said and then reacting off of it isn't good. I could easily be insulted at your tact, but you didn't flat out say anything to me insultive.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

People still think I'm Atheist? Well, I am not, and have already said as much. Didn't say you were, apologies.

And I'll try to pick up the book to read it.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Maybe you should read Mere Christianity which is written by a former atheist about his logical conclusion that there must be a God.


Weren't we talking about philosophy, and how perception is ultimately skewed? If that's true, than what's the point of reading the book, when the authors perceptions are obviously skewed and subjective, despite any logic displayed within the sphere of influence of that perception (being his own mind)?

Which one is it?


Just to note, Mere Christianity while generally regarded as a good source of a simplified historical explanation of the doctrines of major orthodox Christianity and their major beliefs, is often criticized for it's holes in logic and assumptions made by the author during his arguments for the existence of God. Ultimately, the logic gaps must be filled in by personal faith to become acceptible to the reader as an explanation.

C.S. Lewis was a wonderful author (IMO), but not even the best of writers is beyond the bounds of logic, paticularly in the non-fiction arena.





As far as me being original, thanks, I try. :)


Assuming this is in response to my comments about your use of existentialist thought...

Original... yeah. I'm just not so sure you want to be original in this case. There are certain fundamental principles in the statement that... don't exactly jive, let's put it that way.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I was refering to Eve saying that I was original. And i know that I'm faulty, sorry. My one philosophy class was quite a few years ago.

I also edited prior to your post and agreed that his logic can be viewed as flawed, because with any religion or faith, some things cannot be logically explained.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Eve
People still think I'm Atheist? Well, I am not, and have already said as much.


Originally broadcasted on The Simpsons
Lisa Simpson: I'm a Buddhist!
*elsewhere*
Ned Flanders: My Satan sense is tingling!

Sorta sums up what happens every time, eh Eve?


Originally posted by ReaperFett
Maybe you should gain some belief that not everything in this world is known, and not trust a book that has it's first Amazon.com review say "It is dense, complicated, annoyingly analytical, and fairly pointless. " :)

Select> My Admin Options> Stop Being Retarded

Fett Explodes

PS: I trust random reviewers like I trust Infinium Labs' business plan.



JUST finishing a paper where we spoke about this, concluding that athists get their values from religion, as religion gacve the common sense values.

Socrates and Plato are going to hurt you so bad when they hear what you said about their moms.

Really, religion started out being a way for Earthlings to explain the unknown, things like weather phenomena and plant growth. It's my understanding that values-as-moral guides weren't immediately included, and they were very basic forms in the west up until Hammurabi worked out his code of law. (please note this statement may or may not be accurate, as I do not have sources handy to double-check my findings and I am about to nap)


Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Maybe you should read Mere Christianity which is written by a former atheist about his logical conclusion that there must be a God.

Belief in a God or supreme being does not necessary constitute a belief in Christianity. It is a necessary precursor certainly, but it also requires belief in the existence of Christ as a supportive assumption.

I logically concluded there was a God earlier in this thread based on the fact that I cannot come up with a plausible explanation for the existence of the universe that involves no outside influence. However, I also jokingly theorized that Jesus may never have existed and that someone wrote up the Bible for a lark, only to have it accidentally be taken seriously. (Similar to the events in the parody Monty Python film The Life of Brian) It is not likely, but it is possible.

Which reminds me, I was particularly proud of myself for coming up with my jest on Buddha, so someone give me a cookie! :)

[imported_Akrabbim]

BTW, interesting note I heard... it's an argument that was brought up by Copleston (sp?) against Bertrand Russell. The point was that pure athiesm is self-defeating. Let me explain.

First, by pure athiesm, I mean the athiesm that believes "There is no God." I take that from the derivation of the word in Greek (I believe) in which you have "alpha" meaning "negative" and "theos" meaning "God". So, the word itself means "negative God", or, more correctly, "There is no God."

Now, as to why that self defeats. To state "There is no God" means that there is not one anywhere in the universe, or outside the universe, or in it, or whatever. To do so, you must literally have infinite knowledge of the universe. It's like saying, "There is no black rock with white spots anywhere in the universe." Unless you literally know about every square inch of the universe, you can't say that. So, to say that there is not a God anywhere in the universe, you'd have to have infinite knowledge. A God is a being with infinite knowledge. In essence, it's saying, "I'm using infinite knowledge to say that there is no such thing as a being with infinite knowledge."

Now, that's not to say that agnosticism can't be defended. It can. But athiesm, in its pure form, self-defeats.

That's just my two cents. Do carry on. :)

[imported_Eve]

Likewise, to say there is a god is to say you have infinite knowledge of the universe because you're stating that there is a god as a matter of fact, and you know it to be true.

To say there is a god, and to say there isn't a god are both POVs, but as someone stated earlier to state the existence of something as fact means you have the burden of proof. If you can not bring proof, then are you claiming to have infinite knowledge of the universe? To say everything is the fault of god, is to know the source of everything, and therefore to have infinite knowledge of the universe, according to the argument you present.

Sorry, the argument works both ways. Atheists however, aren't telling everyone to believe in something they have never seen, nor have no proof of - which is why they don't believe. I don't think that's the POV of someone who supposses to have infinite knowledge.

This argument supposes that there is a god, and those who think otherwise are arrogant.

[imported_Akrabbim]

That's not quite true. To state an absolute negative, you must assert that you know EVERYTHING about something, and can thus make that statement. To disprove an absolute negative, all you have to do is provide one counter example.

On the other hand, to say something exists, you don't have to know about everything else, just that one object. What you're claiming is that for me to assert that there is, say, a red rock in this universe, I have to know everything about this universe as well. That's just not true. All I have to know is the red rock. So, the argument does not work both directions. If it did, there would not be a single thing that could ever be proven to exist, because it would require infinite knowledge to do so.

And by the way, why is the burden on the one who says God does exist? If neither of us know the entirety of the universe, how can we assume by default He doesn't exist?

As for proof of God, there are more than enough arguments on both sides. There are extremely intelligent people in every field, some of which are thiests and some of which are athiests. Most often, the problem with faith in God is not with the facts, it's more moral. Aldous Huxley, for example, in his book Ways and Means, stated that he did not want for there to be a God. That's often the case... people do not want for God to exist. To refer to Huxley once more, he did not want a God because if He exists then it would have been a hamper on his sexual freedoms.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Akrabbim
And by the way, why is the burden on the one who says God does exist? If neither of us know the entirety of the universe, how can we assume by default He doesn't exist?


As stated here:



2) The burden of proof is always upon the believer, not the disbeliever. The fact that God cannot be disproven is irrelevent. There has to be evidence submitted as proof before that evidence can be scrutinized and either accepted or denied. The same axiom is applied to the scientific method. For example, the fact that I cannot disprove the existence of dark matter doesn't matter (yes, pun intended), because there has yet to be presented any significant, non-circumstantial evidence to support it's existence. Does it exist? Maybe. At this time, there is not enough evidence to support the conclusion that it does exist. The fact that there is not enough evidence to support the supposition that it does not exist is a secondary conclusion based upon the original conclusion, and is immaterial until the conditions leading to the first conclusion are altered significantly to affect it.


The "burden of proof" for any theory or supposition is on the presenter of said theory or supposition. As the person claiming this to be true, there must be evidence presented to support such a position if the statement is to be considered valid in the realm of proposed fact. Evidence, when presented, is scrutized to determine it's validity and veracity, and based upon such analysis, the supposition is judged valid or not.

If you want to be completely logical and scientific about it, nothing is truely "fact" in the truest sense of the word. There is mearly catalogued evidence to support certain premises. Those that have incredibly large amounts of evidence in support, with no credible or valid contradictory evidence, are consider fact, laws of nature, etc.

This is why the default premise is one of skepticism. Logic and reason is akin to constructing a house, for example. At the base are the key mechanisms and premises that support the rest of the logic building, and each step rests upon the strength of the previous statements. Assuming an affirmative statement would allow the building to be constructed through less than sound means, and with the inherent interdependancy, multiple layers of presumed affimatives can collapse very quickly under the lightest of scrutiny.

This concept has nothing inherently to do with atheism. It has everything to do with a very basic philosophy of human thought. We base our knowledge on observables. Things that have not been explainable by this are fodder for the realm of "faith," in which we postulate ways to explain what we do not understand, despite the lack of evidence to support those ideas.




As for proof of God, there are more than enough arguments on both sides. There are extremely intelligent people in every field, some of which are thiests and some of which are athiests. Most often, the problem with faith in God is not with the facts, it's more moral. Aldous Huxley, for example, in his book Ways and Means, stated that he did not want for there to be a God. That's often the case... people do not want for God to exist. To refer to Huxley once more, he did not want a God because if He exists then it would have been a hamper on his sexual freedoms.


While morality may be the driving factor in this for some people, I don't it's a fair assumption to claim that it is the major factor on each side of the argument. As Eve stated, many whom do not believe in God are simply applying a logical skepticism based upon a lack of evidence in support of the supposition that there is a supreme being. Choosing to accept that premise doesn't necessarily imply a lack of morality on any given person. Morality is, afterall, subject to interpretation and alteration at the hands of humanity, and is hardly intrinsic to a mandate from a divinity.

[Morgan Evanar]

I have this really amazing theory. God made the universe. God called it a day, and has been chillin' over a fat blunt for the past 14 billion years or so.

[Brian]

I have an amazing theory myself. It doesn't matter what religious theory is the correct one or who can prove what, only that each individual have a good idea on what faith is, and that those individuals are left to develop those ideas unimpeded by others.

So let's just let this thread die, k everyone?

kthx gg no re i luv u bubye

[Charley]

Originally posted by Brian
I have an amazing theory myself. It doesn't matter what religious theory is the correct one or who can prove what, only that each individual have a good idea on what faith is, and that those individuals are left to develop those ideas unimpeded by others.

So let's just let this thread die, k everyone?

kthx gg no re i luv u bubye

no?

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
I have this really amazing theory. God made the universe. God called it a day, and has been chillin' over a fat blunt for the past 14 billion years or so.


That's actually called "deism" or the clockmaker theory. The idea that God made the universe, wound it up, and let it go. Sort of interesting, actually, although ultimately this negates the entire Bible.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
That's actually called "deism" or the clockmaker theory. The idea that God made the universe, wound it up, and let it go. Sort of interesting, actually, although ultimately this negates the entire Bible.


It doesn't necessarily negate the Bible. Most deists believe that the Bible, and other religious texts, hold certain important truths and lessons for humanity to learn. They just reject it as being of divine influence (ie. dictated by God to the authors). They see it like any number of philosophical texts. They may not agree with it entirely, they just use reason to isolate what they perceive as being certain broad-based truths.

The clockmaker concept is just one part of faith for some deists. Others believe that God does intervene in human affairs from time to time. Like any religion, there are divisions of the generalized belief structure within deism, based upon a number of different ideas.


The other key point is that deists, like their Christian cousins, believe that God still exists, and that there will be an armageddon, a judgement day and an afterlife. Morg didn't exactly specify this part of his theory. If he's stating that God has completely disassociated himself from his creation and will never interact with it again, his idea is less akin to deism and more so to something like existentialism.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Actually I agree with that point of Deisim I think God doesn't intervien with the world. To me it is the only reason to explain stuff like the holocaust and the evil of the world. Otherwise I would end up seeing God as mean and cruel. Are there people who still practice Deisim? Just curious.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Since the Bible is full of God's interventions with Man, i.e. calling Abram out of the Sumerian city of Ur, choosing the nation of Israel, sending Jesus, etc etc, the thought that God is just distantly watching from afar sort of contradicts all of that.

And I wasn't intending to fill in all the corners of Deist theology with my comments, it was sort of an 'in-a-nutshell' statement.

[Figrin D'an]

Yes, Deism is still around. It's not nearly as prevelent as it was in the 18th century, when it reached it's height, but it is still practiced.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Lilaena De'Ville
Since the Bible is full of God's interventions with Man, i.e. calling Abram out of the Sumerian city of Ur, choosing the nation of Israel, sending Jesus, etc etc, the thought that God is just distantly watching from afar sort of contradicts all of that.


Contradictions, sure. Negate, not at all.

Two very different things, grasshopper.

;)

[Lilaena De'Ville]

When it contradicts something that claims to be the flawless Word of God, that sort of negates any belief in the Bible, in my opinion.

[Darth007]

Actually I agree with that point of Deisim I think God doesn't intervien with the world. To me it is the only reason to explain stuff like the holocaust and the evil of the world. Otherwise I would end up seeing God as mean and cruel.

What I believe is that God doesn't just cruelly murder people around the world, and that most of the time it is the Devil that intervenes and causes people to be evil and twisted. I see it as 2 equally powerful forces, good and evil, and that God doesnt win em all. If the world we're perfectly peaceful then life, sad to say, would be a bore. I also believe that everything happens for a reason, and that all we can do with a negative thing is look for a positive outcome of it, and to learn a lesson of some sort.

[imported_Eve]

I think LD was touching on this before...

To know good, you have to know what is evil. To experience and truly appreciate what goodness is, you'd have to know it's opposite. They say, "God works in mysterious ways" and "everything happens for a reason". Some would say negative things were also created by god (maybe in the form of the devil) so that good can happen.

Everyone agrees that to go through negative things makes one stronger. A negative happening as a means to an end in positive.

And like karma, or what goes around comes around. I have always seen it to be true in my life. People always get what they deserve (and sometimes that is negative). The negative act was entitled to one, but was justice for another (a positive).

Is this god's plan? Is it his/her intervention? It seems like a supernatural law that I've always seen come through, anyway. Weird... but SO good.

[Pierce Tondry]

Eve: Word.

Darth: I'd dispute your idea that a peaceful life would be a bore. Peacefulness doesn't necessary equate out to boredom, and negative things can still happen anyway. (natural disasters)

[Darth007]

Not nessascarily peace=boring(because no action), I think I meant a sinless life would be a bore. Just like the movie Pleasantville.

Actually Eve said it better than I did, all of what she said is what I was trying to get at. And I also agree that what goes around comes around, and that no matter how tough things seem to get, ya gotta stay strong and positive and be faithful that you'll get justice in the end.

[DarthHERA]

Forrest Gump:
I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze. But I, I think maybe it's both, maybe both happening at the same time.

This kind of makes sense to me.

Atleast, it helps me not to feel so at-a-loss about so many things.

[Doc Milo]

This concept has nothing inherently to do with atheism. It has everything to do with a very basic philosophy of human thought. We base our knowledge on observables. Things that have not been explainable by this are fodder for the realm of "faith," in which we postulate ways to explain what we do not understand, despite the lack of evidence to support those ideas.

But, do we not also place things in the "factual realm" that we personally may not have observed, that people in our generation may not have observed, but other people before us observed, and recorded it in the written word, for other generations? For example, history. History is full of facts about events that have taken place. If the history has taken place far enough back, no one left alive has actually observed these events. But we have books and letters and other things that have recorded these facts for future generations. Those accounts do not always all agree on the same event, for two people see the same event in two different ways, and four people see the same event in four different ways, and those that record history by interviewing people speak to different people who see the same event in different ways. Therefore, even though we have historical accounts of an event, we oftentimes have differing accounts of the same event; yet we, now, who have never observed this event, take the event to be a factual account in history.

Where am I going with this? Well, when believers point to the Bible, and its stories, as fact that God exists, we are often shot down by the non-believer. For some reason the Bible's accounts are not "factual" enough for the non-believer. The Bible does have accounts of people who had direct contact with God.

The non-believer points out the the Bible has contradictions. But, as shown above, two people don't often see the same event in the same way. There are often contradictions even in historical texts counted as factual. So why would the Bible be any different as an historical text in this regard? If we take the Bible as a legitimate historical text, and treat it as we would any other historical text, then the Bible has accounts of man directly interacting with God. The contradictions in the stories don't matter, because they can be explained as two or more people viewing the same event in different ways. What matters is the event itself -- that there are people who have had contact with God. Therefore, God does exist.

Now, I know I will hear that the Bible can't be taken as a historical text. And my question would be "why not?"

And if it's because no one now has direct observations -- then how do we know that the Crusades actually occurred, and were not merely the imagination of someone writing a story that people of another generation found, and thought it was true when it wasn't?

We accept on faith that the accounts of history that no one now alive has directly witnessed are true accounts and not made up stories. It's that same faith that is placed in accounts in the Bible, which leads me to use the Bible as my evidence in the existence of God.

[Pierce Tondry]

People believed in werewolves and vampires too. If you want to credit texts referencing supernatural phenomenon with validity, you must grant equal validity to all supernatural references, not just the ones you choose.

[imported_Akrabbim]

Well, not really. There's a difference in taking a text with thousands of historical copies near to the original that was witnessed and verified by thousands of people to folktales. If you apply the normal rules of historical validity to the Bible, it more than stands on its own.

As for the comment about evil being necessary for good to exist, I disagree. Good can be done for goodness sake, but evil is never done for evil's sake. Let me elaborate.

A man may do a good deed for several reasons: duty, love of the person, simple desire to do good, enjoying the feeling of doing said good, etc. But no man does evil for evil's sake. If a man kills for money, or pleasure, or power, those are, at their base, good things. Money is not evil... it can do great amounts of good. Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, but love is a good thing at its root. Pleasure is good, as well as power. All evil is perverted good. There is no evil that is not, in some way or form, good at its root. For that reason, good can exist by itself, while evil cannot.

As for my comment about morality being the deciding factor against God, I was not stating that it was the only reason. I'm sorry if it came across that way. My point is that many people don't WANT there to be a God, regardless of the evidence you show for His existance.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Doc Milo
But, do we not also place things in the "factual realm" that we personally may not have observed, that people in our generation may not have observed, but other people before us observed, and recorded it in the written word, for other generations? For example, history. History is full of facts about events that have taken place. If the history has taken place far enough back, no one left alive has actually observed these events. But we have books and letters and other things that have recorded these facts for future generations. Those accounts do not always all agree on the same event, for two people see the same event in two different ways, and four people see the same event in four different ways, and those that record history by interviewing people speak to different people who see the same event in different ways. Therefore, even though we have historical accounts of an event, we oftentimes have differing accounts of the same event; yet we, now, who have never observed this event, take the event to be a factual account in history.

Where am I going with this? Well, when believers point to the Bible, and its stories, as fact that God exists, we are often shot down by the non-believer. For some reason the Bible's accounts are not "factual" enough for the non-believer. The Bible does have accounts of people who had direct contact with God.

The non-believer points out the the Bible has contradictions. But, as shown above, two people don't often see the same event in the same way. There are often contradictions even in historical texts counted as factual. So why would the Bible be any different as an historical text in this regard? If we take the Bible as a legitimate historical text, and treat it as we would any other historical text, then the Bible has accounts of man directly interacting with God. The contradictions in the stories don't matter, because they can be explained as two or more people viewing the same event in different ways. What matters is the event itself -- that there are people who have had contact with God. Therefore, God does exist.

Now, I know I will hear that the Bible can't be taken as a historical text. And my question would be "why not?"

And if it's because no one now has direct observations -- then how do we know that the Crusades actually occurred, and were not merely the imagination of someone writing a story that people of another generation found, and thought it was true when it wasn't?

We accept on faith that the accounts of history that no one now alive has directly witnessed are true accounts and not made up stories. It's that same faith that is placed in accounts in the Bible, which leads me to use the Bible as my evidence in the existence of God.




Referencing a previous post:



... As the person claiming this to be true, there must be evidence presented to support such a position if the statement is to be considered valid in the realm of proposed fact. Evidence, when presented, is scrutized to determine it's validity and veracity, and based upon such analysis, the supposition is judged valid or not.



I never said that observables to do not include events whom no person living today may have witnessed, experienced or taken part in. Those are types of observables as well. And, yes, there can be different interpretations of historical events through the eyes of those having witnessed/experienced said events, and even contridiction. This occurs all the time when documenting history.

This is where testing the validity and veracity of the supporting evidence comes into play. History... credible historical fact... has significant corroborative evidence. The Crusades, to borrow your example, has more than just a few accounts to confirm that they did indeed take place. Some records of the specific events that took place during the Crusades no doubt conflict. I'm sure in certain battles, for example, there may be very differing interpretations of who was the victorious side, depending upon the side whose records are being examined. Despite that, even conflicting evidence can potentially hold certain commonalities, when examined closely.


The differentiation between a history text and a text with historical implication or significance is important.
Is the Bible a history text? No.
Is the Bible a text with historical implication or significance? Definately.

A history text is one that presents information as credible historical fact, researched and scrutizied, and verified via observables. A text with historical implication or significance is one that can contain certain aspects of historical fact, which can be independantly verified, but is not a definitive factual archive. Relgious texts aren't the only books that fall into this category. Personal diaries and journals do as well. The Diary of Anne Frank, for example, is not a text of history. It is not a factual archive of what took place during the Holocaust or World War II. It does, however, have historical significance and has been shown to contain elements of fact, which are verifiable through other sources, independant of the diary itself. The rest of it is an interpretation of events, including personal thoughts. It is generally assumed that the account is truthful, since it there are a lot of credible evidence to support things that are stated in the diary. But, certain things about it will likely never be known.

There are many, many things stated in the Bible that can be supported through external, independant evidence. Credible history doesn't dispute that a man called Jesus of Nazereth lived in an area where Israel and Palestine now exist, caused quite an uproar with the local population, and was ultimately crucified for what he said and did. There is other evidence, outside of the Bible's purview, to support this. There are also a great many things in the Bible that cannot be treated as historical fact, because there is not credible, independent evidence to support certain claims.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From a completely philosophical and logical standpoint, using the Bible as evidence that God exists would be akin to me using statements from a self biography to support the premise that I invented the wheel and am the secret ruler of the universe. If the Bible is indeed the "flawless Word of God," placed into the minds of it's various authors by God himself, he could claim whatever He wished. That doesn't mean that it is incontrovertable evidence that what He is claiming is true.

Again... it comes down to personal faith.

[Pierce Tondry]

The method of expressing opinions I used in this post may be offensive to some individuals, ergo I have covered it with spoiler text.


Originally posted by Akrabbim
Well, not really. There's a difference in taking a text with thousands of historical copies near to the original that was witnessed and verified by thousands of people to folktales.

I can photocopy my butt and have thousands of historical copies near to the original. I can verify it's my butt, too- heck, thousands of people can verify it's my butt. Any messages you happen to see in the picture of my butt, however, may or may not be from God.

See, taking the Bible completely at its word is akin to taking a dump in a box and slapping a guarantee on the side stating that the product in the box performs its intended function or will be replaced if it fails to do so. Unless the buyer opens that box (Bible) and subjects what's inside to testing and scrutiny, they don't know if they're purchasing quality brake parts or a large brown stinky lump.

Problem is, you can't test supernatural phenomena. By definition, those sorts of things just don't occur every day. Taking only the Bible at its word and not other sources is a form of bias, like it or not.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Brian that was a bit offensive. Make your point without referencing bodily functions next time.

[Charley]

^^^ agreed

[Jedi Master Carr]

Fig just answered my opinion on this, the bible wasn't never attended for a historical document, sure it has a historical importance but it is not history.

[Mr Dust]

Actually, according to the techniques used to determine the accuracy of historical documents, benefit of the doubt is given to a historical document UNTIL proven otherwise. Also, what makes everyone think that the Bible is not a historical document? Granted, the Bible's main point isn't to give a historical representation of the time, but the historical points it makes are more than accurate. Its accuracy level is beyond question.

[Pierce Tondry]

LD: I stand by my opinions and my method of expressing them as I think my choice of words conveys multiple pointed comparisons; however this is a PG-13 site and I sometimes forget that. Apologies to those I have offended- the text of my previous post has been spoilered and anyone not wishing to risk potential offense should not highlight the post.

[Jedi Master Carr]

It wasn't meant to be a historical document, they didn't write as history. I could go farther but I don't want to start a war on the subject. I just don't think the bible should be taken literally in every case.

[Mr Dust]

I still stand by my original point. Unless you have direct evidence to the contrary, any historical document is to be given the benefit of the doubt. And whether you believe that it actually is true or not, there are several passages in the Bible where it claims to be telling the truth as it was. The beginning of Luke, for example, where he is writing to Theophilus and saying how he is setting everything down in a careful and reasonable manner so that he will be able to get a true picture of the life of Christ.

And why should the Bible not be taken literally? If only in some cases, what's your criteria for choosing which parts are literal and which parts are not?