Talk about God from a biology forum thread

[REASON]

the Holy Spirit speaks to the heart and lets anyone know right and wrong

 

What I find interesting is that the Holy Spirit's voice sounds so much like my father's and my mother's and my grandparents' and my teachers' and my coaches' voices. :shrug:

[Turtle]

the Holy Spirit speaks to the heart and lets anyone know right and wrong

 

Proselytizing again are you? :shrug: Since you do not seem to understand the right & wrong of that here at Hypog, I can only conclude your Wholey Spillit is lying to you. :eek:

 

proselytizing - definition of proselytizing by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

pros·e·ly·tize (prs-l-tz)

v. pros·e·ly·tized, pros·e·ly·tiz·ing, pros·e·ly·tiz·es

v.intr.

1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.

2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

v.tr.

To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.

 

preach (prch)

v. preached, preach·ing, preach·es

v.tr.

1. To proclaim or put forth in a sermon: preached the gospel.

2. To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with: preached tolerance and peaceful coexistence.

3. To deliver (a sermon).

v.intr.

1. To deliver a sermon.

2. To give religious or moral instruction, especially in a tedious manner.

 

 

Theology Forum Rules

This is not a forum for preaching the word of God (regardless of which one you may subscribe to). It is a forum for rational discussion of religious thought, and varieties thereof. How does science and religion interact? How does religion impact society? What is the role of religion in education? Why are wars fought over religious ideas? These are examples of topics we hope to see here.

 

This is not the place to discuss Bible verses, nor is it the place to explain why your religion is much better than the alternatives. There are plenty of forums for that on the web already. Please respect our wishes to maintain a forum which first and foremost concerns the scientific aspects of religion, and not the faith aspects of it.

 

Preaching will not be tolerated, and all our usual rules apply. ...

 

So, this is past tedious and knock it off. :)

[Moontanman]

Proselytizing again are you? :shrug: Since you do not seem to understand the right & wrong of that here at Hypog, I can only conclude your Wholey Spillit is lying to you. :eek:

 

proselytizing - definition of proselytizing by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

 

 

 

Theology Forum Rules

 

 

So, this is past tedious and knock it off. :)

 

I am going to have to defend goku on this one, i have been asking him questions about how he knows if the scriptures he goes by are right and wrong. I am trying to understand how he decides what is right and wrong. It goes back to science having people who check facts and to make sure what we are being told is true. Religion does not.

 

If indeed the Holy spirit is what tells people what is right and what is wrong then the question has to be asked how do you know what the holy spirit is telling you is right or wrong? I would like to know the answer to this question, his responses while less than informative so far are my fault for asking not his for answering.

 

So far the answer seems to be chasing it's own tail, I would like for goku to answer it, it does pertain the the theme of this thread.

[Turtle]

I am going to have to defend goku on this one, i have been asking him questions about how he knows if the scriptures he goes by are right and wrong. I am trying to understand how he decides what is right and wrong. It goes back to science having people who check facts and to make sure what we are being told is true. Religion does not.

 

If indeed the Holy spirit is what tells people what is right and what is wrong then the question has to be asked how do you know what the holy spirit is telling you is right or wrong? I would like to know the answer to this question, his responses while less than informative so far are my fault for asking not his for answering.

 

So far the answer seems to be chasing it's own tail, I would like for goku to answer it, it does pertain the the theme of this thread.

 

Mmmmmm...guess I have to throw you to the lions too then. :eek: These are questions for a religious forum, which we are not. 20 lashes well laid on for your baiting Gok Ooo to a beating. :shrug:

 

Speaking of baiting to a beating, there's always our little-sister site PostMagnet - Index for topics not suited under the Hypog ruleage, gods forbid.

[Moontanman]

Think again turtle, this is gokus thread and the question pertains to several questions about comparing science and religion. I think it's perfectly ok here.

[Turtle]

Think again turtle, this is gokus thread and the question pertains to several questions about comparing science and religion. I think it's perfectly ok here.

 

I have thought again & again, that's why I posted. It ain't God Koo's thread, it was cut out of another as inappropriate, and it aint his Forum either. I'm callin' it like I see it. You guys go ahead & do as you like and I'll criticize it as often as I see fit. :shrug:

[modest]

Preaching or not, did I miss Goku's answer to the question?

 

Goku, does your church forbid speaking in tongues and prophesying? I think I remember you saying your congregation is southern baptist, so the answer should be yes, the church does forbid those practices. This is in direct opposition to your "word of God" which clearly says people should desire to prophesy and nobody should forbid others from speaking in tongues.

 

The truth is, you church does not follow the bible. It would be rediculous if it even tried. Not many people are in to snake handling anymore. Church cannon reflects society's norms, not the book you've idolized. It is objectively ridiculous to believe the Baptist tag line that every word of the King James bible is fact or can be followed as such.

 

Grasshoppers don't have 4 legs, and all the world's animals can't fit in something the size of a luxury yacht. It's simply wrong. And, if God is wrong about the little things then you've kinda got to wonder about the bigger things—eh?

 

~modest

 

Moderation note: 43 posts related to this post’s “Grasshoppers don't have 4 legs” were moved to 18600, because they are a discussion of a particular Bible passage, not this thread’s discussion of the nature of God and relative superiority of religions.

[pamela]

originally posted by moon

If indeed the Holy spirit is what tells people what is right and what is wrong then the question has to be asked how do you know what the holy spirit is telling you is right or wrong? I would like to know the answer to this question, his responses while less than informative so far are my fault for asking not his for answering

Goku's belief tells him that it is right or wrong, for others who do not believe, this is their moral conscience

originally posted by Turtle

Mmmmmm...guess I have to throw you to the lions too then. These are questions for a religious forum, which we are not. 20 lashes well laid on for your baiting Gok Ooo to a beating.

Indeed, It is not fair to Goku to prompt questions that will illicit a response that does not adhere to this forum's rules. A private PM would suffice.

originally posted by Modest

Goku, does your church forbid speaking in tongues and prophesying? I think I remember you saying your congregation is southern baptist, so the answer should be yes, the church does forbid those practices. This is in direct opposition to your "word of God" which clearly says people should desire to prophesy and nobody should forbid others from speaking in tongues

Within the several sects of Christianity, there are diverse ideologies.

While some may believe in tongues, whereas others may simply believe in a "works" type of thinking. What satisfies one group may not satisfy another.

There are many books out there besides the Bible and each renders its own meaning to the individual reader. My interpretation of a book and your's could be very different. We are a diverse people with many types of thought, and we will disagree on many subjects. Whether one follows the Bible or follows a moral code, the bottom line is that we all treat each other with kindness and respect:)

[InfiniteNow]

My interpretation of a book and your's could be very different. We are a diverse people with many types of thought, and we will disagree on many subjects. Whether one follows the Bible or follows a moral code, the bottom line is that we all treat each other with kindness and respect

 

Some clarification of this concept about treating others with respect where religion and beliefs are involved seems in order.

 

 

Atheists Should Respect Religious Differences and the Right to Disagree - People, not Opinions, Beliefs, or Ideas, Deserve Respect & Consideration

"What does "respect for religious differences" mean, though? This is a very important question because "respect" seems to mean very different things for different people. Too often, religious believers will behave as though "respecting" one's religion and religious beliefs doesn't mean mere tolerance of a religion and acceptance of different religious opinions. Instead, they behave as though respect actually means deference to, if not some measure of admiration for, someone's religion — solely because the religion is important for this person.

 

It should be granted that a person's religion may be very important to them, even fundamental for the way they view the world, but this isn't enough to expect others to show admiration or deference towards their religion."

 

 

What is Respect? What Does it Mean to Respect Religion or Theism? If Irreligious Atheists Should 'Respect' Religion, What Does That Mean?

"What does it mean to 'respect' someone's religion or religious beliefs? Many religious theists insist that their religion deserves to be respected, even by non-believers, but what exactly are they asking for? If they are simply asking to be let alone in their beliefs, that's not unreasonable. If they are asking that their right to believe be honored, then I agree. The problem is, these basic minimums are rarely, if ever, what people are asking for; instead, they are asking for much more.

 

The first clue that people are asking for more is demonstrated by the fact that no one who asks to be let alone is denied this and few Christians in the West have any trouble with their right to believe being infringed upon. The second clue that people are asking for more is how they accuse atheists of "intolerance" not because atheists are infringing on anyone's right to believe, or because they are going around badgering others, but rather because atheists are being very critical of the content of those beliefs. It can be argued, then, that what religious believers are really asking for is deference, reverence, high regard, admiration, esteem, and other things which their beliefs (or any beliefs, opinions, ideas, etc.) are not automatically entitled to."

 

<...>

 

"Respecting religion in the sense of tolerating it is usually a fair request; but such minimal respect isn't what religious believers usually want. After all, there is little danger in America of most religious beliefs not being tolerated on a basic level. Some religious minorities may have legitimate concerns in this regard, but they aren't the ones making the most noise about getting respect. Religious believers also don't appear to be interested in simply being "let alone" to go about their religious business.

 

Instead, they seem to want the rest of us to somehow admit or acknowledge just how important, serious, admirable, valuable, and wonderful their religion is. That's how they regard their religion, after all, and sometimes they seem unable to understand why others don't feel the same way. They are asking for and demanding much more than they are entitled to. No matter how important their religion is to them personally, they cannot expect others to treat it in the same way. Religious believers cannot demand that nonbelievers regard their religion with admiration or treat it as a superior way of living.

 

There's something about religion, religious beliefs, and theism in particular which seems to increase a person's sense of entitlement and the demands they make on behalf of it. People can act brutally in the pursuit of political causes, for example, but they seem to act even more brutally when they believe that they have religious or even divine sanction for that cause. God becomes an "amplifier" for whatever happens to be going on; in this context, even more respect, deference, and reverence is expected for religious beliefs and claims than other sorts of beliefs and claims which a person might have.

 

It's not enough that people in the religious community want something; God also wants it and wants it for them. If others don't "respect" this, then they are attacking not just the religious community, but also God — the moral center of their universe. Here, "respect" can't possibly be thought of in the minimalist sense. It can't simply be "tolerance" and instead must be thought of as deference and reverence. Believers want to be treated as special, but irreligious atheists should treat them like everyone else and, perhaps more importantly, treat their religious claims and opinions like any other claim or opinion."

[Moontanman]

Goku's belief tells him that it is right or wrong, for others who do not believe, this is their moral conscience

 

This was not why this question was asked, it relates back to another question about how we that look to science for the answers could be sure we were getting the truth, the idea was that religion is the truth but science is just what people say. I was in no way trying to promote goku into breaking any rules and I still don't think he did. The question is not an isolated question, taken in context it is a part of this discussion.

 

Indeed, It is not fair to Goku to prompt questions that will illicit a response that does not adhere to this forum's rules. A private PM would suffice.

 

Again I will say this was not the point of the question nor could it be interpreted that way. Only when taken out of context does it seem so. A private PM would have taken away significantly from the discussion and left a fundamental question unanswered in the thread.

 

 

Within the several sects of Christianity, there are diverse ideologies.

While some may believe in tongues, whereas others may simply believe in a "works" type of thinking. What satisfies one group may not satisfy another.

 

While this is obviously true, the contention was that the bible is true, word for word, and that science is just what people say.

 

There are many books out there besides the Bible and each renders its own meaning to the individual reader. My interpretation of a book and your's could be very different.

 

Only the bible was in question here no other book or books. The idea was that why should we believe the bible or biology, which is true? The insinuation was that the bible is infallible and that biology is just what is being said at the time.

 

We are a diverse people with many types of thought, and we will disagree on many subjects. Whether one follows the Bible or follows a moral code, the bottom line is that we all treat each other with kindness and respect:)

 

I've given this some real thought, I was hoping you were being tongue in cheek and not serious. Different religions definitely do not treat each other with kindness and respect, no way, no how! As for different sects, cults or denominations I can't see it there either. I've been to enough churches to know that the main thing that keeps them from out right battle is the government and laws that would put them in jail. I remember specifically my Grandmothers church, Catholics were the main boogy men, the Pope was the anti-Christ and no tail was too tall if it described the habit of Catholics. Even in real life the people were hostile to catholics and they were sure the end of the world had come when JFK was elected president.

 

Other Sects of Christianity faired no better, from the snake handlers to the speakers in tongues to the Nazarenes to the Pentecostals, they were all instruments of Satan and should be avoided at all costs and kicking their *** if you got the chance was a good thing. Over the years I've seen many Churches that are more tolerant come around but those sects still jab at each other in private and even from the pulpit. I do not see a general respect and love each other attitude from different Christian sects, some of the modern nondenominational Churches might be more tolerant but the more fundamental they get the less they get along.

[pamela]

It should be granted that a person's religion may be very important to them, even fundamental for the way they view the world, but this isn't enough to expect others to show admiration or deference towards their religion."

Some may expect this being puffed up in religiosity, but not all

 

It can be argued, then, that what religious believers are really asking for is deference, reverence, high regard, admiration, esteem, and other things which their beliefs (or any beliefs, opinions, ideas, etc.) are not automatically entitled to."

here again, this is not the collective whole, but conjecture based upon those extreme fundamentalists that would choke religion down all of our throats. We need to repect the individual and their right to believe in what or whomever they choose. We do not have to admire or esteem what that ideology is.

 

Believers want to be treated as special, but irreligious atheists should treat them like everyone else and, perhaps more importantly, treat their religious claims and opinions like any other claim or opinion."

I could not possibly agree more with this statement:)

[Moontanman]

Some may expect this being puffed up in religiosity, but not all

 

I think the problem is that many do indeed require that everyone give them some kind of deference or their religion. to say all do is incorrect but enough to do to give everyone else a bad name. In some cases the religious can actually be violent if you do not give their beliefs reverence. This attitude of bloated importance to the religion of the person is wide spread and not a small or isolated thing. This idea of "importance" also give these people free reign to ignore reality, to try and get their ideas passed off as truth and science in schools, violate laws of the land with impunity, and other wise use their religion as an excuse to ignore what anyone else says or laws that are passed to protect others.

 

here again, this is not the collective whole, but conjecture based upon those extreme fundamentalists that would choke religion down all of our throats. We need to repect the individual and their right to believe in what or whomever they choose. We do not have to admire or esteem what that ideology is.

 

Again it is obviously not the entire body of religion that does this but it is most, one of the prerequisites of Islam and Christianity is to bring the world into the fold, to pursue and bring everyone to the fold, make believers out of everyone. It is a basic idea behind the religion to recruit by force of will, laws, and in some instances by physical force. To suggest other wise is disingenuous to say the least.

[CraigD]

I propose a Godwin's Law variant: “as a thread about the applicability of Old Testament laws grows longer, the probability that Deuteronomy 21:18-21 will be mentioned approaches 1”.

 

Deuteronomy 21 (KJV):

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

 

Due in large part to the parodying/t-shirt vending Landover Baptist “Church”, this is arguably one of the better known passages of the Old Testament.

 

Although I know several self-proclaimed Bible literalists with very stubborn, rebellious, disobedient sons, I’ve not known any of them to seriously consider stoning any of them to death, or attempting to chang US law to legalize such an act.

[pamela]

originally posted by Moon

This idea of "importance" also give these people free reign to ignore reality, to try and get their ideas passed off as truth and science in schools, violate laws of the land with impunity, and other wise use their religion as an excuse to ignore what anyone else says or laws that are passed to protect others.

It is their choice to ignore reality. The only schools passing off myths as far as i know, are the private Christian schools. Which impunative violations and which laws being ignored are you referring to?

 

Again it is obviously not the entire body of religion that does this but it is most, one of the prerequisites of Islam and Christianity is to bring the world into the fold, to pursue and bring everyone to the fold, make believers out of everyone.

tis true

It is a basic idea behind the religion to recruit by force of will, laws, and in some instances by physical force.

which religions are you referring to and can you cite examples of forceful tactics?

To suggest other wise is disingenuous to say the least.

Who is suggesting this?

[Moontanman]

Although I know several self-proclaimed Bible literalists with very stubborn, rebellious, disobedient sons, I’ve not known any of them to seriously consider stoning any of them to death, or attempting to chang US law to legalize such an act.

 

While the killing of disobedient children hasn't gained wide spread support the fate of adulterous women and homosexual men hasn't faired quite as well over the years. In the south until recently catching your wife in bed with another man could be used as a defense for killing her. Beating the hell out of your wife for nearly any reason but especially for adultery was also tolerated due to religious influence and beating or even killing a homosexual man could be justified simply by saying he made a pass at you. All this was based in religion and it's intolerance for these things.

 

On top of that were blue laws, blue laws were laws that limited the things that could be sold on Sunday. At their height about the only thing open on Sunday was the Church. There were also laws against sexual activity that was banned by the church. Oral sex, anal sex, almost anything but "man on top get it over with quick" was illegal in some way.

 

Not too many years ago in my state there was a case where a woman was seen through a window by a peeping tom to be performing fellatio on her husband, The peeping tom told and she was arrested and on charges of sodomy. Her "man" was not charged.

 

So religion has and does influence laws, in many cases quite arbitrarily. No i don't see anyone pushing for stoning unruly children to death and the laws have been changed to discourage beating the "hell" out or your children but religion has, and continues to try and influence laws. Prop 8 in California is an example of recent and continuing religious influence on our laws.

[InfiniteNow]

YouTube - Why does faith deserve respect? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg

[Pyrotex]

...this is not the collective whole, but conjecture based upon those extreme fundamentalists that would choke religion down all of our throats....

H. L. Mencken, who lived during the 1st half of the 20th century, and wrote for New York City newspapers, gave us many quotes. Quite a few concerned religion and are worth noting.

 

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

 

Another, which I cannot find at this moment, goes something like, ~~The most ridiculous view shared by otherwise educated Americans is that religious beliefs are inherently deserving of our respect and deference. Quite the opposite is true. There is nothing in religion that sets its beliefs above other beliefs, and frankly, most of them are quite silly.~~

 

Mencken also wrote several essays on this subject, pointing out that we traditionally call in a priest or cleric to "pray to god" before we start Congress, assemble for other civic meetings, mark the beginning of construction projects, convene political or other entirely secular discussions, and even high school football games -- and indeed, often include them in critical discussions that have nothing to do with religion. He found this an oppressive intrusion into our secular and civil life.

 

And note, none of this is limited to the Fundy Few. In his opinion, this was equally true of all christian sects he was familiar with.

 

Will laying my hand on a Bible actually motivate me to tell the truth? Wouldn't the collected works of William Shakespeare (suitably sheathed in a conservative leather binding of course) work exactly as well to that end? Why must our culture demand that the first works and the second does not?

 

The intrusion of religion and "faith" into our mundane secular activities is far more pervasive than you might have assumed. Take another look. :dust: