Is religious writing a suitable subject for discussion at scienceforums?

[cwes99_03]

Define missionary work. Make arguments on the interpratation of a text as toward its validity? Make arguments about the interpratation of a text as to what the text itself says? Scientifically argue the language of the text to prove or disprove a belief based upon the text used to support the belief?

[Boerseun]

Define missionary work. Make arguments on the interpratation of a text as toward its validity? Make arguments about the interpratation of a text as to what the text itself says? Scientifically argue the language of the text to prove or disprove a belief based upon the text used to support the belief?

No. We cannot scientifically prove or disprove anything regarding any faith. And we shouldn't attempt to do so. What we can do is to quantify the effects of different religions on society.

 

With missionary work I mean you as an individual shouldn't try to tell me that this, that and the other is true, because it says so in Genesis, and if I don't see your point of view I'm a sinner. A lot of posters here have made that mistake. Keep in mind that there isn't *only* Christians in the world. Don't try to use the Bible as evidence against my argument, for I will smite thee with my copy of the Q'uran/Torah/take your pick.

 

There are religion-specific forum out there, and they should be used for that purpose.

[cwes99_03]

Then you don't want a forum on theology, you want a forum on anthropology, with a thread on religions effect on history.

 

By all means use the Koran, Torah, whatever you like. I'm talking about going back to these texts and talking about what they actually say. Then taking from that a decision, that you yourself can make and does not need to be shared with the forum, as to whether those who 'adhere' to these texts actually follow their teachings, or only pay lip service, that is claiming to be a follower, yet not following the teachings.

I'm interested in a discusion of the texts and religions that claim to use them. I want to scientifically look at the words, their context, the original language, etc. to determine what it is that these texts say and understand the religions that use them better. This is what I see to be the type of discussions found in a theology forum on a science website.

[alexander]

First of all theology does not all of the sudden imply christianity or bible either cwes!

I'd much rather discuss the effects of buddha's writings on the developement of central asian philosophy then whether or not the bible provides enough evidence to prove itself to be true, there is a book discussion section, its not theology, its a discussin based on one persons interpretation of a religious writing, and whether or not the writing is the real word of God or someone else. Religion forum is the one you are looking for there, not theology! Theology implies "rational inquiry into religious questions" and how is it rational if your judgement is defined by "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe"?

 

as to:

Is there any evidence in the Bible

good question, i think that the evidence in the bible is however irrelevant to what it is that the bible is or claims to be.

, since that seems to be the text of choice in this thread, supported by science today that was not at first supported?

If you are imlying that bible predicted things, not at any greater extent then most other writers, Nautilus was a submarine cray ahead of its time for example.

Is there historical fact found in the Bible to add credance to the rest of the Bible?

historical facts in literature do not add credence to the whole story, havent you ever heard of myths? well those too at times have large amounts of historical evidence in them, that does not make Homer the creator of the Illiad and the Oddysey, doesnt make Romus and Remus the creators of Rome now does it?

Is there in fact excessive amounts of this, not just a little bit?

And Nostradamus's writing is almost fuly describing the past present and future, so?

Are there still things in this world not fully explained by science in biology, cosmology, physics, etc.

And what you are you implying? we didn't know how atoms split, so did that back in the day mean that god did it? noo .... it dint, because we discovered how it works didnt we?

that may be explained through other ways?

Here we go with the creationist story again, its for kids....

Have any of you critics actually sat down and studied the Bible, in its entirety, so as to have a basis for scientific denunciation of its teachings, or have you simply taken someone else's word for it, and a topical examination of the worlds religions, and decided it must be just a moral story?

The question is, if you have been taught to beleive what you beleive the bible is, why is it that you consider people that try to approach your religion from a historical or scientiffic perspectives, not the way you were taught it all worked, are offended enough by historical facts and figures to put people who may have read the bible more times then you have and studied every word sentence, word and letter of it, as well as many other religious writings as well as christian writings that did not get accepted it into the bible by Constantine and the Council because they contradict certain thin points of the bible that weaken its entire sceme by saying things like "Marry often kissed Jesus on the...".

And i have my reasons to critisize the biblical scriptures, I've studied some of them, but not from the stand point of this is all true.

Have you noticed that "there is only one god" isnt pronounced until Moses crosses the sea and is about to enter the Holy land with his followers?

[cwes99_03]

Don't break up my quotes if you are going to use them. Taking things out of context is what gets people into trouble when they try to make claims that the bible supports or doesn't support one thing or another. It also gets you into trouble when you take me out of context, because people see through it.

 

First of all theology does not all of the sudden imply christianity or bible either cwes!

Don't believe that I implied it did. I just said this thread seemed to be centering around the Bible.

I'd much rather discuss the effects of buddha's writings on the developement of central asian philosophy then whether or not the bible provides enough evidence to prove itself to be true

By all means, start a thread. You're a moderator, have at it.

there is a book discussion section, its not theology, its a discussin based on one persons interpretation of a religious writing, and whether or not the writing is the real word of God or someone else

There is a book forum for books, and then there is a theology forum for religious writings, and the study of religions.

Theology implies "rational inquiry into religious questions" and how is it rational if your judgement is defined by "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe"?

No, theology implies the study of religions. If a religion believes that there is a supernatural power, then it can be studied as to where their belief is based upon. It is a rational belief if there is evidence to support it. Check out my thread of religion vs. philosophy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwes

Is there any evidence in the Bible

 

good question, i think that the evidence in the bible is however irrelevant to what it is that the bible is or claims to be.

 

Quote:

, since that seems to be the text of choice in this thread, supported by science today that was not at first supported?

 

 

If you are imlying that bible predicted things, not at any greater extent then most other writers, Nautilus was a submarine cray ahead of its time for example.

 

I actually said this following sentence which you took out of context.

Is there any evidence in the Bible, since that seems to be the text of choice in this thread, supported by science today that was not at first supported?

Pretty clear that I was asking if there is evidence found in the Bible supported by science today that was not at first supported (by science)? In other words, is there scientific accuracy found in the Bible that 100 years ago scientists said was all lies, but today say, of course that's true? Yes, if you're interested I'll show you.

Nautilus was a submarine cray ahead of its time for example.

Don't know anything about Nautilus, did he write any religious texts? Does he write about belief in something supernatural?

historical facts in literature do not add credence to the whole story, havent you ever heard of myths? well those too at times have large amounts of historical evidence in them, that does not make Homer the creator of the Illiad and the Oddysey, doesnt make Romus and Remus the creators of Rome now does it?

You are correct. Does the Illiad put itself forward as a history book or religious text. If so, let's study it. Did the Greek myths put themselves forth as religious texts? Yes, they did, and people worshipped those Gods back then, and some still do today. By all means let them be studied in a theology forum if someone wishes.

And Nostradamus's writing is almost fuly describing the past present and future, so?

So if someone is interested in him and whether there was something supernatural about him, let them talk about it here.

 

Again you split my sentences and take them out of context.

Quote:

Are there still things in this world not fully explained by science in biology, cosmology, physics, etc.

 

 

And what you are you implying? we didn't know how atoms split, so did that back in the day mean that god did it? noo .... it dint, because we discovered how it works didnt we?

 

Quote:

that may be explained through other ways?

 

 

Here we go with the creationist story again, its for kids....

Are there things in this world that have not been explained by science, but seem to have an answer in the supernatural? Are there supporting scientific evidence that says the supernatural beliefs are credible? Why do you think i'm talking about creation? What about all the other miracles in the Bible? What about peoples' claims today for hauntings, or demons. or angels? And might I point out that the bible actually pointed toward a division of matter before molecules and atoms were even known. Before Greek philosopher/scientists began to theorize about the elements of earth, wind, fire, and water.

The question is, if you have been taught to beleive what you beleive the bible is, why is it that you consider people that try to approach your religion from a historical or scientiffic perspectives, not the way you were taught it all worked, are offended enough by historical facts and figures to put people who may have read the bible more times then you have and studied every word sentence, word and letter of it, as well as many other religious writings as well as christian writings that did not get accepted it into the bible by Constantine and the Council because they contradict certain thin points of the bible that weaken its entire sceme by saying things like "Marry often kissed Jesus on the...".

I saw the start of a question there, but no coherent thought came from it. I could try to guess at what you are asking, but I'll instead ask you to edit your post, or reply to this one to clarify.

Have you noticed that "there is only one god" isnt pronounced until Moses crosses the sea and is about to enter the Holy land with his followers?

Excellent question for the theology forum. Why don't you start a thread and we'll discuss it there. Until then it is off topic of this thread, and I won't delve into it.

 

So what we get (from me anyway) is that religious writing seems to be the perfect topic of discussion in a theology forum and the rules should be ammended to allow for quotations from religious writings, and writings about religious writings.

[alexander]

Don't break up my quotes if you are going to use them. Taking things out of context is what gets people into trouble when they try to make claims that the bible supports or doesn't support one thing or another. It also gets you into trouble when you take me out of context, because people see through it.

hey, that had a purpose, i did actually write a response to the full question at first, but then after my session timed out, i decided to split it, making it more fun to answer...

By all means, start a thread. You're a moderator, have at it.

first of all what does my status have to do with making a thread again? Besides i want it to come up in a discussion like the Bible seems to everywhere else you go...

No, theology implies the study of religions.

do i hear anyone think dictionary.com? lets see, "theology" - "The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions." look it up, notice no religious texts are mentioned, so theology does infact imply what i said it does...

Pretty clear that I was asking if there is evidence found in the Bible supported by science today that was not at first supported (by science)? In other words, is there scientific accuracy found in the Bible that 100 years ago scientists said was all lies, but today say, of course that's true? Yes, if you're interested I'll show you.

and i replied exactly to that!

Don't know anything about Nautilus, did he write any religious texts?

lol, have you ever read Jules Vern's "Twenty Tousand Leagues Under the Sea"? Nautilus is the name of the submarine....

here is a quick reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Thousand_Leagues_Under_the_Sea

Does the Illiad put itself forward as a history book or religious text.

history book that was to the near past not even considered that until recent archeological discoveries...

Are there things in this world that have not been explained by science, but seem to have an answer in the supernatural?

if you are asking that, assuming you are, perhaps, like the creation of everything, but trust me there are a lot more things described by the scientists that are not covered in the Bible...

Does the Illiad put itself forward as a history book or religious text.

sorry got lost in a thought, here:

 

The question is, if you have been taught to beleive what you beleive the bible is, why is it that you consider people that try to approach your religion from a historical or scientiffic perspectives, not the way you were taught it all worked, are offended enough by historical facts and figures to put people who may have read the bible more times then you have and studied every word sentence, word and letter of it, as well as many other religious writings as well as christian writings that did not get accepted it into the bible by Constantine and the Council because they contradict certain thin points of the bible that weaken its entire sceme by saying things like "Marry often kissed Jesus on the..." to have the wrong views, if you do not even consider theological discussion to have to be rational?

Excellent question for the theology forum.

yes it is, for the book forum, and the difference is, while this discussed the bible, it approaches it from a standpoint of what exactly it is that is written in it, not arguing that it is either right or wrong, although it does have a theological meaning, it simply asks the question about the text not a theological discussion question, theological version would sound like "could it be that the original bible never said anything about a single god, but infact just stated that people needed to worship one?"

seriously maybe we need something like the old religious forums forum...

[cwes99_03]

And again, he doesn't answer the questions.

 

You being moderator means you have more free reign on this site than others, so you aren't limited. I would have thought that that would be clear.

 

No, sorry I haven't read 20,000 leagues under the sea.

 

I've never seen the Illiad referred to as a history book. But if you say it is, talk about it. I also didn't include it in myths, because Homer was a well known literary writer. Of course, writers of fiction also can write fact.

if you are asking that, assuming you are, perhaps, like the creation of everything, but trust me there are a lot more things described by the scientists that are not covered in the Bible...

Of course I'm asking that, i asked it didn't i? It is in my post isn't it?

Thank you, apparently you believe creation happened and can't explain it scientifically. I'm of the same thought.

 

Quote:

Does the Illiad put itself forward as a history book or religious text.

 

 

sorry got lost in a thought, here:

 

The question is, if you have been taught to beleive what you beleive the bible is, why is it that you consider people that try to approach your religion from a historical or scientiffic perspectives, not the way you were taught it all worked, are offended enough by historical facts and figures to put people who may have read the bible more times then you have and studied every word sentence, word and letter of it, as well as many other religious writings as well as christian writings that did not get accepted it into the bible by Constantine and the Council because they contradict certain thin points of the bible that weaken its entire sceme by saying things like "Marry often kissed Jesus on the..." to have the wrong views, if you do not even consider theological discussion to have to be rational?

 

Quote:

Excellent question for the theology forum.

 

Seems you get lost in thought easily. So lost that you use someone else's quote to support yours, even though that's not how it was written, dont answer the request to make a readable sentence, though I'm thinking you attempted but failed (cause I'm not going to guess the actual question out of that), and then say it belongs in a forum when you don't even know what it is that you yourself are asking.

 

Laregly, I'm most confused by how you've turned this forum into a discussion of the Bible itself. Where as in all of my posts, I talked about various religions and how they could all be discussed here, you just seem to keep coming back to attack one of them. I believe you should go back to the forum rules for theology, especially as a forum moderator. Your comments could be misconstrued as offensive to Christians.

[Boerseun]

And again, he doesn't answer the questions.

 

You being moderator means you have more free reign on this site than others, so you aren't limited. I would have thought that that would be clear.

 

No, sorry I haven't read 20,000 leagues under the sea.

 

I've never seen the Illiad referred to as a history book. But if you say it is, talk about it. I also didn't include it in myths, because Homer was a well known literary writer. Of course, writers of fiction also can write fact.

 

Of course I'm asking that, i asked it didn't i? It is in my post isn't it?

Thank you, apparently you believe creation happened and can't explain it scientifically. I'm of the same thought.

 

 

 

Seems you get lost in thought easily. So lost that you use someone else's quote to support yours, even though that's not how it was written, dont answer the request to make a readable sentence, though I'm thinking you attempted but failed (cause I'm not going to guess the actual question out of that), and then say it belongs in a forum when you don't even know what it is that you yourself are asking.

 

Laregly, I'm most confused by how you've turned this forum into a discussion of the Bible itself. Where as in all of my posts, I talked about various religions and how they could all be discussed here, you just seem to keep coming back to attack one of them. I believe you should go back to the forum rules for theology, especially as a forum moderator. Your comments could be misconstrued as offensive to Christians.

Cwes99_03, I have to warn you to tone down. And don't worry about anybody being offensive to Christians here, because you are offensive to a whole bunch of Muslims, Bhuddists and Jews out there. You gotta be consistent. This is a Theology forum, not a Christian-exclusive forum. But what the heck. I digress. I just don't appreciate your tone very much.

[cwes99_03]

How am I being offensive to adherents of judaism, budhism, or islam?

 

I apologize to all, for anything I might have said that offended you as a religious person. If you were offended please send me a private message, and I will edit my post.

[Pyrotex]

Is religious writing a suitable subject for discussion at scienceforums?

 

Mostly NO. However, as a scientist, it is valid to discuss the cultures and beliefs that have affected the events of Human history. We can even discuss the current trend of many world religions toward militant fundementalism and/or political hegemony, such as Islam, Hindu, Buddhism and Christianity.

 

It may even be valid to have contributors from those religions to provide the fodder for discussion: "As you see by the posts of these three Religious Nuts, the tendency to knee-jerk reaction in the face of postulatory logic indicates a significant degree of rational disassociation..."

 

We can certainly discuss religious scriptures from the viewpoint of archeology, cultural history, or even the archeological history of how those scriptures came to be.

 

But arguing whether or not Adam and Eve will be resurrected or whether god encoded quantum mechanics in Genesis, or whether there is "one way" to heaven and what that is -- is akin to arguing whether or not Santa Claus will put you on his "naughty" list for having wet dreams.

 

Dealing with evidence and its consequences is valid in a Science Forum. Dealing with theological debate is NOT.

[Pyrotex]

Ok, to answer the original question of this thread;

this is exactly why i dont think that presenting biblical scriptures up for discussion is not something we should do. Look at what this thread turned into...

 

Amen and Amen.

 

The bottom line is this: when you invite TRUE BELIEVERS into a forum -- any forum -- they will turn it into a scripture-thumping revival tent meeting. They don't want to discuss, say, the Bible -- they want to discuss what it MEANS to them personally, and what it OUGHT to mean to you if you don't want to burn in hell.

 

There is an old saying -- I saw it first in Daniel C. Dennett's book, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" [an absolutely fabulous read] -- and I repeat it here at some risk of offending a few people, sorry.

 

Debating Science with fundementalists is like playing Bridge with monkeys. They think they have won the game when they eat the cards.

 

Having been a fundementalist, I can attest to its truth! B)

[cwes99_03]

It is rather unfortunate that Pyro thinks he knows everything from the bible from a short 6 weeks of attempting to read it cover to cover 5 times. It is even more unfortunate that Pyro attempted to learn what the Bible says first from what he calls a fundamentalist institution that blatantly showed that they did not understand the Bible.

It would be an unfortunate thing for anyone who had this experience. It would not be shocking either that someone would come away from that experience jaded and confused. But to then believe you know that this is the experience of anyone in any Christian religion, and that all religions must be this way (because yours was and you also know for an absolute fact that the Bible is flawed).

Of course the point of using Religious texts including the Bible, or Koran, or Torah, or Rig Veda would be to determine these things in a large forum.

Of course, to use these things, one would expect you to have studied them (maybe not even as deep as Pyro has) as one would study physics before trying to comment on the validity of Newton's laws.

However I would not try to learn everything about physics by reading Feyman's lectures 5 times through in 6 weeks and forming an opinion that for the rest of my life I refused to listen to any other viewpoints, even when those viewpoints have changed to reflect greater understanding, and instead beat ever person who disagreed with me over the head with my own understanding no matter how errant it might be.

[Pyrotex]

It is rather unfortunate that Pyro thinks he knows everything from the bible from a short 6 weeks of attempting to read it cover to cover 5 times. It is even more unfortunate that Pyro attempted to learn what the Bible says first from what he calls a fundamentalist institution that blatantly showed that they did not understand the Bible

 

Ahh, cwess. Why do I even bother with you? :confused: Your principle (if not only) rhetorical strategy is to misrepresent who I am and what I have said. And I feel obligated to set the record straight. [sigh]

 

No, it is not unfortunate.

No, I did not 'attempt' to read the Bible, I did indeed read it.

No, I did not 'attempt' to learn what was in the Bible, I saw with my own eyes what was in it.

No, I did not do this learning 'from' a fundy inst, I did this learning by actually going to the SOURCE.

Yes, the fundy inst 'did not understand the Bible'. You get a point for that one.

No, I said nothing about concluding that ALL religions 'must be this way'.

 

Yes, you CAN learn a great deal about Physics by reading Feynman a few times. Put it this way, you certainly won't learn ANY Physics by NOT reading Feynman. And you certainly won't learn ANYTHING about the Bible by NOT reading it for yourself.

 

Finally, I don't 'beat people over the head'. And I don't misrepresent them or their intentions.

 

What I AM, cwes, is your worst nightmare. I am a devout Christian who learned possibly more about the Bible in six weeks then you may learn in a lifetime, and used that experience to examine the underpinnings of MY faith. The upshot of this was that I became an EX-Christian, an EX-believer. And I did this NOT out of all the standard theological pat reasons that you have been taught. (Lust, arrogance, etc.)

 

What I AM, cwes, is an impossibility. Your religion says that one cannot turn away from true faith for rational reasons, for reasons having to do with Reality, Truth and personal Integrity. This just cannot be. But it is. I AM. And here I stand.

 

BOO!

[cwes99_03]

Ahh, cwess. Why do I even bother with you? :confused: Your principle (if not only) rhetorical strategy is to misrepresent who I am and what I have said.

Show me where I misrepresented what you said.

No, I said nothing about concluding that ALL religions 'must be this way'.

Sorry, I meant all Christian religions. That's why I say that yours was and you say you know for a fact that the Bible is (Bible=Christian book for those missing the point, and no I don't mean you Pyro, I know you understand that.)

 

Put it this way, you certainly won't learn ANY Physics by NOT reading Feynman.

Hmm, never read Feynman's lectures. Guess my Bachelor's in Physics is worth nothing afterall.

 

Finally, I don't 'beat people over the head'.

Funny you've mentioned talking with Christians is like playing cards/Bridge with monkeys like 3 maybe 4 different times. Since coming to this forum, you've certainly hit every thread dealing with Christianity that I've been in. You've particularly been vocal in the religious nuts forum where you constantly slam Christians for believing in teachings from the Bible which you insist is full of beans, without ever giving supporting evidence.

What I AM, cwes, is your worst nightmare. I am a devout Christian who learned possibly more about the Bible in six weeks then you may learn in a lifetime, and used that experience to examine the underpinnings of MY faith.

What you are is a someone who believes he knows everything, and only he is capable of understanding these things (some refer to that as a pompous windbag). I myself have been studying the Bible itself for nearly 15 years now, and have only recently decided on a particular religious group. I in turn like to discuss different religious ideas to understand others beliefs and understandings of the Bible. Thus I support and comment in the religion forum, without trying to put anyone down who comments there (though I may accidently do that time to time.)

The upshot of this was that I became an EX-Christian, an EX-believer.

I'll reconcile this with the above quote. You were a devout christian. Well, then again maybe you never were. You were a devout follower of men, and saw that these men were imperfect, and full of beans.

What I AM, cwes, is an impossibility. Your religion says that one cannot turn away from true faith for rational reasons, for reasons having to do with Reality, Truth and personal Integrity. This just cannot be. But it is. I AM. And here I stand.

How do you know what my "religion" says? Have we talked about this? Who says you turned away from true faith? Sounds like you turned away from a hypocritical religion (your description of it). Also, might I remind you that Judas also turned away.

 

You've been invited by several in the religious nuts thread to support your claims. You have always refused to do so. You have been proven wrong at least once in your ideas of what information the Bible holds, though you then said that the answers provided didn't answer your challenge (because you changed the wording of your challenge completely.)

Here you say that there should be no forum for theology, yet you constantly join yourself to it. 38 of your last 50 comments have been directly in the theology forum (possibly more but i only counted the ones with religion or christian in the title).

Make a decision, either there should be or shouldn't be. If you don't think there should be, you've voiced your opinion, apparently others have disagreed. You now have a choice, don't post in the theology forum, and enjoy the site, or leave Hypography. Personally, I believe you have a lot of interesting things to add to the other forums, and might learn a couple of things by reading the theology forum.

[Pyrotex]

I'm sure there are plenty of bible study forums on the 'net. Let's keep the self-righteous bible thumping out of the science forums. It sure seems like a waste of database space and CPU to keep this kind of stuff here.

 

The number of "bible-thumping websites", and specifically the number of people reading and contributing to those websites, is exceeded in the USA only by porn websites and E-Bay. IMHO. There is no scarcity of religious, semi-religious and pseudo-religious discussion today! I conclude from this that modern American culture is obsessed with Sex, Possessions and God, in approximately that order.

 

Hmmmm... :confused:

[Pyrotex]

Show me where I misrepresented what you said.

Did you not say that I "slam Christians" or "bash" anyone who believed in God, or at least, didn't believe as I did? I disagree that I "slam" or "bash". What I do is take a stand for my beliefs, and use rigorous logic in doing so. Furthermore, you interpreted my intentions as being, well, evil, not to put too fine a definition on that word. I would suggest that you "demonize" me.

 

Hmm, never read Feynman's lectures. Guess my Bachelor's in Physics is worth nothing afterall.

My BS in Physics turned out to be quite worthwhile. But only after becoming a computer programmer. And Feynman is awesome, especially listening to his taped lectures.

 

Funny...playing cards/Bridge with monkeys...without ever giving supporting evidence.

My sense of humor can be a little irritating at times. But the analogy is so accurate if one thinks carefully. Of course, bridge-playing monkeys are far more erudite and educated than the common monkeys one finds in a zoo. Does that help?

 

You now have a choice, don't post in the theology forum, and enjoy the site, or leave Hypography. Personally, I believe you have a lot of interesting things to add to the other forums, and might learn a couple of things by reading the theology forum.

 

Thank you. I actually have more options to choose from. But you have given me pause--why DO I post in theology forums? Especially since my respect for theology appears to be a tad less than reverential. Because I enjoy it. Because folks like you ask me really hard questions and make me think. Because you remind me of myself thirty years ago.

 

Ever see the movie, "Pirates of the Carribean--Curse of the Black Pearl"? Really great flick, isn't it? I especially like the scene near the end where Jack Sparrow and Captain Barbarossa are swordfighting in the cave. When the moonlight hits them, they are both raggedy skeletons, transformed into the 'undead' by the Curse. They stab each other repeatedly with their rapiers--to no affect, of course--they aren't really 'alive'. Even Barbarossa comments on this: "What's the point of this, Jack? We can go on fighting for all eternity and neither of us is going to win?" [paraphrase]

 

Thirty years ago, I had an epiphany. I was in grad school and my two best friends and I thumped the Bible with each other on a regular basis. They were of different denoms than I and our theological conclusions were far afield. My epiphany can be summarized by Barbarossa's quote above. Within a few months, I gave up religion as a serious, Bible-thumping pursuit.

 

What was the point of arguing whether full immersion was necessary to salvation when my Methodist friend had his verses which cast doubt on that? What was the point of arguing whether my other friend's Catholic interpretation was 'wrong' when he could stack up as many verses as I could and thump them just as loudly. Why argue why Jehovah had no power over iron weapons as stated in Judges chapter 1? We could go on arguing theology for all eternity and none of us was ever going to "prove" anything. I use the word "prove" to mean "remove all doubt".

 

I will give you a point--currently, my knowledge of the Bible is rather wan. Oh, I can do online word and phrase searches, of course, and I do occassionally research the Skeptics Annotated Bible just for fun,

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

but all the serious study and reading I did was indeed thirty years ago. However, that is not the prime reason I won't offer Biblical evidence for my arguments.

 

Ever 'believe' in UFO's or astrology; or have a friend that did? Ever try to argue with them? All their evidence is within their bounded, self-referential and self-consistent realm of books, videos, etc; their "scripture" if you will. Once you step into that realm and argue, using their "scripture", you have in a sense validated their realm with your presence. But if you stand without, what you say (and don't say) reveals your "ignorance" of their truth and evidence.

 

Have you ever seen the movie "Catch-22"? Another fine flick worthy of being revisited again and again.

 

I have many options here in Hypography. Perhaps more than you do, actually. In your position, it is very likely (though not necessary!) that you must now put all your effort into "demonizing" me. I understand why you may feel compelled to do that in order to maintain the "validation" of your belief system. Even the Bible itself says that I am a fool, and you've got to believe that, right? It's okay, cwes, I understand.

 

Go in peace. I will stop responding to your posts, if you wish. If I have in any way given offense, I do hereby apologize. If I have erred in any way by casting dispersions on your character or intelligence, I hereby retract them. I publically acknowledge that I accept your presence in Hypography without constraint.

 

I wish you a long and happy life. I wish the blessings of any and all gods that there may (or may not) be upon your head. I embrace your search for knowledge and truth. I want the whole world to know that... "This is a GOOD BOY!!!!!"

 

Did you ever see the movie, "Young Frankenstein"? Wonderful flick!!

 

I warned you, my sense of humor does have its rough edges. :)

[Tarantism]

well, the original question posed at the beginning of this forum turned out to be a good one. seeing as how i have participated in at least a few of the sort of discussions described in the first post, i will now give my thoughts.

 

(*disclaimer- this is an objective opinion by the author and should not be seen as anything but the forementioned. i am not a bludgerer of religion, nor am have i ever attempted to say anything negative about anyone elses faith, belief or lack thereof. ask goku if you dont believe me. :) )

 

religious discussion most definatley has a place in the Hypography forums. the key word in that statement being discussion because that is much different than an argument. this is important to understand, since most of the faithful here at Hypography seem to think otherwise, as do the "unfaithful". the only difference between the faithful and the "non"faithful, at least in my opinion is that the nonfaithful dont nessesarily need a reason not to fear death.

 

"why should i be frightened of dying, ive got no reason for it, you have got to go sometime..." - Pink Floyd, the Dark Side of the Moon.

 

HOWEVER i do also believe that religious discussions should not continue if those who have faith and those who dont continue to take things so personally. NOBODY HERE IS TRYING TO MAKE YOU LOOK UNFAITHFUL OR STUPID :) . (even though sometimes a christian will tell you that you are going to hell, but there is no reason that any athiest should be offended by this, seeing as how their own belief is that there is not heaven, therefore no hell, therefore who gives a damn.). each side must accept the others opinion first off, and then have an OBJECTIVE discussion from that point on.

 

please, i would like to continue having these discussions, but only if they are satisfying to all of our collective intellegance and not just banter, as has been diplayed earlier in this forum. argument is good, but attack is not (and no, i do not believe that what pyro was doing was religious bashing in any way, simply a very sarcastic way of expressing an opinion. see the humer.)

 

regards,

(((tarantism)))