Close-mindedness

[Kirangel]

Roman

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

I never questioned them on the creation but from knowing them I very highly doubt that they would take the creation as a literal 6-days.

People never cease to amaze me. You may be amazed yourself if you start to dig a little deeper.

 

I could have met more who take it literally and just not have known it, I don't question everyone about it.

Bingo.

 

I honestly don't know how many xians in my area believe in the literal 6-day/6000-year story, but that's just because I don't talk about it with a lot of people offline. As for online, I've seen plenty of people who believe it. A few of them actually believe the world is flat and the moon landing was faked, among other such nonsense.

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

Roman

 

But of course... Aren't they the ones who decided which books to include in the first Bible?

[Ouroboros]

Kir,

 

Since you barely didn't even know that there are people that believe in the 6-day creation, please follow this link to one of the most prestigious websites promoting the idea of creationism and literal interpretation of Genesis, i.e. 6 days etc. And they also defend Noah's Ark if you can believe that.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

[Kirangel]

I think the situation is that Kir lives in some area where the majority are very liberal Christians and she maybe never had a chance of going outside and see how other people think? I don't know. She can probably fill in the blanks here.

Possible, but unless she lives in a cave, underwater, or has never watched tv in her life, it doesn't seem likely that she wouldn't know of the existence of creationists, fundamentalists, etc. Her arguments look like she thinks we're misrepresenting the bulk of christianity, because of our disenfranchisement with it or something, and that more christians than not are a. informed, invested and understanding of their faith, having reached valid conclusions that are completely justified, and b. that their beliefs are therefore at least nearly as moderate as her own "non-christian" viewpoints, the fundamentalist view apparently being a fringe standpoint or something.

 

That's what I see, anyway.

 

The ones I'm around are Catholic, or more moderate christians, I have never had the pleasure of directly dealing with fundies who reject evolution completely, think dinosaurs walked with humans and believe in a literal 6-day creation. Even on-line I haven't run into many of those types, the Christians in this one group I'm in right now were disgusted by the Creation Museum, they don't really look too highly on the fundies, it gives them a bad name.

 

I'll be honest though, I do see them as being on the fringe I always have. I think you all may be misrepresenting the bulk of Christianity especially since the largest denomination is made up of Roman Catholics whose Catechism does not teach the literal 6-day creation, and they are open to evolution saying that faith and evolution are compatible. That doesn't seem very anti-science does it? I'm willing to bet that Roman Catholics are not alone in this, and I'm not convinced that Christians who reject science make up the majority of them. I also will not claim that most of them do not challenge their faith because again, many of the ones I know have at one time or another in their lives. It gets frustrating after a while for me to see people conclude that Christians are all brainless when it comes to their faith, I know ones who have examined it fairly extensively.

 

Well, I am starting to believe that it may just be my corner of the world that's different especially since I seem to stand alone with this, but I run into a lot of moderates on-line as well. I would need numbers to be convinced of it.

[Kirangel]

Kir,

 

Since you barely didn't even know that there are people that believe in the 6-day creation, please follow this link to one of the most prestigious websites promoting the idea of creationism and literal interpretation of Genesis, i.e. 6 days etc. And they also defend Noah's Ark if you can believe that.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

 

 

I don't know if I want to look, I think I was happier believing that the ones I knew made up the majority, I still want numbers.

 

I know they're out there I always knew, but I shrugged them off as being on the fringe.

[Kirangel]

Roman

 

But of course... Aren't they the ones who decided which books to include in the first Bible?

 

It was God!!!

 

Then the protestants ruined it because it didn't fit into Martin Luther's world so he had to get rid of some.

 

haha, yeah they debated over it for a while, I think up until the council of Trent.

[Jun]

Ozzy Catholics don't believe literally in the 6 day creation or Adam and Eve - at least at the churches and schools I was involved in. At school we learned about evolution and that "God" created the world to evolve.

[Dhampir]

The ones I'm around are Catholic, or more moderate christians, I have never had the pleasure of directly dealing with fundies who reject evolution completely, think dinosaurs walked with humans and believe in a literal 6-day creation. Even on-line I haven't run into many of those types, the Christians in this one group I'm in right now were disgusted by the Creation Museum, they don't really look too highly on the fundies, it gives them a bad name.

The problem with these types of counters is that the arguer is at least partially guilty of the inference, and they therefore focus on the most outstanding aspect of it. See there are different, many different, flavors and degrees of fundamentalism, and I can guarantee that whether it extends to literal six day creationism (and there are plenty of those) or not, they are in EVERY group, even Catholics.

 

I'll be honest though, I do see them as being on the fringe I always have.

They're not. Never have been.

 

I think you all may be misrepresenting the bulk of Christianity especially since the largest denomination is made up of Roman Catholics whose Catechism does not teach the literal 6-day creation, and they are open to evolution saying that faith and evolution are compatible.

According to statistics I don't have on hand at present, the bulk of believers, at least in America, reject the concept of evolution. Furthermore, 1. the RCC is not the largest denomination in this country, 2. they don't make up the majority of believers, 3. are composed of members as fundamentalist as any other denomination. I understand, though I could be wrong, that compatibility with science is not a fixed thing with them anyway, as the current pope has issued certain doctrinal changes that fly in the face of what the previous one set down.

 

I also will not claim that most of them do not challenge their faith because again, many of the ones I know have at one time or another in their lives. It gets frustrating after a while for me to see people conclude that Christians are all brainless when it comes to their faith, I know ones who have examined it fairly extensively.

Well, first of all, EVERYONE questions their faith, no exceptions. What happens after that is what causes the frustration with those of us that have experience dealing with friends and family who are believers. Additionally, although I have dealt with many christians who are educated, a simple search, both online and in "meat space" will find that at least as many are largely, or completely uneducated about their faith. It's not a matter of knowledge for the majority of believers; they're not brainless, they're just not motivated to learn. Why, because it's what they've been brought up with, it's what they almost unequivocally believe is right, and if they are active with their faith, which many who are a part of the christian majority do not, they generally have someone telling them what their holy book says their entire lives.

[Dhampir]

It was God!!!

R-Really? So the Catholic bible is absolutely, positively god's word? And you're not a christian 'cuz why? Are you a part of one of those groups that thinks they're not christian because of their particular interpretation, such as the House of Yahweh? We just had a guy on here like that. I mean, I can see you're still a believer, but your description says you rejected christianity, but how does one do that and still embrace the christian god?

[Jun]

It was God!!!

R-Really? So the Catholic bible is absolutely, positively god's word? And you're not a christian 'cuz why? Are you a part of one of those groups that thinks they're not christian because of their particular interpretation, such as the House of Yahweh? We just had a guy on here like that. I mean, I can see you're still a believer, but your description says you rejected christianity, but how does one do that and still embrace the christian god?

 

House Of Yahweh? This from Wiki -

 

 

Yisrayl Hawkins (born Buffalo Bill Hawkins) is the founder of the House of Yahweh, globally known for predicting that nuclear war would start on September 12, 2006. The House of Yahweh, a non-profit religious organization based in Abilene, Texas, believes it follows the one true faith as revealed by the Creator from the beginning and was re-established again in what they believe are the prophesied end times. Hawkins claims to be descended from Jewish immigrants who fled persecution in Europe.

 

In 1974 his brother J. G. (Yaaqob) Hawkins returned from a seven-year visit to Israel claiming he had found proof of Yahweh's name. Shortly after he formed the first House of Yahweh congregation in Odessa, Texas. He preached distinct doctrines that his brother agreed with, such as the necessity of referring to the Creator as Yahweh and the Messiah as Yahshua, as well as following the Torah and the Jewish festivals.

 

In 1980, Bill (who later legally changed his name to Yisrayl) Hawkins began The House of Yahweh Abilene at his home. Hawkins says he and his brother were prophesied in both the Old and New testaments as the "Two Witnesses" prophets sent by Yahweh to prepare the world for the Second Coming of Yahshua the Messiah.

 

[Kirangel]

According to statistics I don't have on hand at present, the bulk of believers, at least in America, reject the concept of evolution. Furthermore, 1. the RCC is not the largest denomination in this country, 2. they don't make up the majority of believers, 3. are composed of members as fundamentalist as any other denomination. I understand, though I could be wrong, that compatibility with science is not a fixed thing with them anyway, as the current pope has issued certain doctrinal changes that fly in the face of what the previous one set down.

 

World...largest in the world. Benedict? I haven't paid attention but John Paul II has said that evolution of man is compatible with the catholic faith. I couldn't find statistics in a quick Google search.

 

R-Really? So the Catholic bible is absolutely, positively god's word? And you're not a christian 'cuz why? Are you a part of one of those groups that thinks they're not christian because of their particular interpretation, such as the House of Yahweh? We just had a guy on here like that. I mean, I can see you're still a believer, but your description says you rejected christianity, but how does one do that and still embrace the christian god?

 

Simple, I don't embrace the Christian God and I did reject Christianity. The God portrayed in the OT is cruel, I do not see the good in him and I do not see truth in the way the Christians have thrown things together. Jesus is cool, I like him...the version of him in the bible and the gnostic texts, he's not as inspiring in the Qur'an (from what I've seen). I'm not an atheist and I do look for partial truths among traditions.

[Dhampir]

World...largest in the world.

Yeah... That's what I meant when I said this:

2. they don't make up the majority of believers

They're the largest denomination, but one still must factor in the Church of England, and all of protestantism, and if you really want to, the gnostics. They are not the majority.

 

Simple, I don't embrace the Christian God and I did reject Christianity

I brought it up because of

It was God!!!

You say you've done your homework, then in practically the same thought, you say that "Catholics are the true christians", as if on one hand, it matters who's a true christian or not, having rejected it wholesale as you say (I say 'as you say' because I have to take your word for it; it just doesn't look that way), and on the other hand, as if that statement is true. It's not.

When you said the above, I looked for a joke, but I couldn't find it.

 

Whats more, you stand in strong support of Catholicism, whence came the idea that Jesus was divine, holy, and more than a man, amongst other hard-to-believe (read: impossible) things, whilst maintaining the belief that not only did Jesus most likely exist but whose existence is supported by evidence you've yet to present as far as I'm aware and which is agreed upon by most theologians and historians (which I'm sure I've never or only rarely heard before), but also, that Jesus was just a regular man, who was all the good things the bible says about him and none of the bad things.

 

These things don't add up. It's inconsistent. And odd.

[Dhampir]

House Of Yahweh? This from Wiki -

Crazy, right. In my own defense, when I was a part of it, I didn't actually know about this:

 

In 1980, Bill (who later legally changed his name to Yisrayl) Hawkins began The House of Yahweh Abilene at his home. Hawkins says he and his brother were prophesied in both the Old and New testaments as the "Two Witnesses" prophets sent by Yahweh to prepare the world for the Second Coming of Yahshua the Messiah.

And also that they're supposed to die (one of them is already dead) and be resurrected before that all can happen

[Jun]

The God portrayed in the OT is cruel, I do not see the good in him and I do not see truth in the way the Christians have thrown things together. Jesus is cool, I like him...

 

Aren't "God" and "Jesus" the same being?

 

Jesus is cool -

Matthew 10:34

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:

I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 

Luke 12:51

Suppose ye that I am come

to give peace on earth

? I tell you, Nay; but rather

division

: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 

Yep, cool if you like warfare and division among family members. "Jesus" is as bad arse as his daddy in the sky.

 

Let's not forget "Jesus" love for non-believers -

Luke 19:27

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and

slay them before me

.

[Japedo]

The Catechism of the Catholic church takes the position that the 6-day creation is not literal, although the Popes never made a claim of infallibility on that one.

 

Yeah sorta like Purgatory..

 

So if a Catholic wants to view it as literal then that's fine, it would not be a sin.

WTF... Sin?

 

 

You claim that Catholics are the only true ™ Christians, I'm willing to bet Greek orthodox will debate that matter with you. Of course all Christian groups claim to be the true ™ and only way to gawd.

 

 

I disagree with you on faith, it is a strong belief which in some cases may be backed by reasoning and logic it's not always blind and it's not always based solely on a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

 

From websters

Main Entry: 1faith

Pronunciation: 'fAth

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/

Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>synonym see BELIEF

- on faith : without question <took everything he said on faith>

 

Again, I'd like for you to point me in the direction of all this reasoning and logic you keep claiming. I look forward to reading it, thanks again.

[Kirangel]

They're the largest denomination, but one still must factor in the Church of England, and all of protestantism, and if you really want to, the gnostics. They are not the majority.

 

They are the largest Christian denomination in the world, according to the CIA Worldfactbook they make up around 17% of the 33% Christians population.

 

 

When you said the above, I looked for a joke, but I couldn't find it.

 

For the record, I wasn't being serious. I'm glad that's cleared up.

 

whilst maintaining the belief that not only did Jesus most likely exist but whose existence is supported by evidence you've yet to present as far as I'm aware and which is agreed upon by most theologians and historians (which I'm sure I've never or only rarely heard before)

 

I do believe that Jesus most likely exists and I think that those who don't are the ones grasping for straws. History is not science class, historical methods have been applied when studying his historical existence, not only Christian theologians but non-believers as well have concluded that he existed. I've presented some evidence to back my reasoning already. We don't need to get into that here though. My support for the historical Jesus has nothing to do with my religious convictions or in this case lack thereof.

 

I respect Catholicism and their old customs, I won't deny that but that doesn't mean that I share their religious beliefs. I like the tradition of the church, I love the old Cathedrals in Europe. The artwork produced for them is amazing.

[Kirangel]

Yeah sorta like Purgatory

 

??? Purgatory is established dogma of the Catholic Church.

 

You claim that Catholics are the only true ™ Christians, I'm willing to bet Greek orthodox will debate that matter with you. Of course all Christian groups claim to be the true ™ and only way to gawd.

 

I wasn't being serious. My bad, I forget the internet doesn't clearly show the sarcasm ,I thought I made it clear, but I read over it again and realized I didn't.

 

 

As for the dictionary definition, I don't see why you posted it, I agree that faith is: "3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs"

 

I don't really feel like defending Christian dogma right now, maybe later. Usually I get the ontological argument, teleological...they like philosophy, and even science. Pascals wager is irritating, it frustrates me when they use it mostly because it makes intelligent conviction null and void. Go talk to them directly if you want answers, if you're interested I can ask a few who are more than able to debate if they are willing.

[Jun]

I do believe that Jesus most likely exists and I think that those who don't are the ones grasping for straws.

 

Exists? As in the present tense? Then where is he? He's certainly not over in Jerusalem fighting to protect the "Holy Land."

 

History is not science class, historical methods have been applied when studying his historical existence, not only Christian theologians but non-believers as well have concluded that he existed.

 

Pardon? Please direct us to these conclusions and how they came about them.

[Japedo]

Yeah sorta like Purgatory

 

??? Purgatory is established dogma of the Catholic Church.

 

Yes but how many Catholics Believe it Kir? You say that 6 days creationism isn't taken literal anymore even though there is Buybull verses that say it's so. However the buybull has no baring on this particular Cult dogma of purgatory it was created by the cult. I'd like to also add that Limbo has been done away with officially only recently. Funny how Dogmas can change with one persons decree... The thought of burning baby's just wasn't appealing to the followers anymore I guess.

 

 

You claim that Catholics are the only true ™ Christians, I'm willing to bet Greek orthodox will debate that matter with you. Of course all Christian groups claim to be the true ™ and only way to gawd.

 

I wasn't being serious. My bad, I forget the internet doesn't clearly show the sarcasm ,I thought I made it clear, but I read over it again and realized I didn't.

 

 

As for the dictionary definition, I don't see why you posted it, I agree that faith is: "3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs"

 

I don't really feel like defending Christian dogma right now, maybe later. Usually I get the ontological argument, teleological...they like philosophy, and even science. Pascals wager is irritating, it frustrates me when they use it mostly because it makes intelligent conviction null and void. Go talk to them directly if you want answers, if you're interested I can ask a few who are more than able to debate if they are willing.

Well you are the one making the claims, if you don't feel like backing up the claims perhaps you should resist making them? Just a thought. You have made the claim a few times now that Faith is founded in reason in logic, I asked for proof of the claim. Telling me to go find it myself pretty much gives me the answer I already knew, you made an empty claim and tried to push it as fact.

 

The reason I gave you the dictionary definition is to show you that there is zero reason or Logic founded on faith. Faith is believing with out proof, it's why it's faith.

[Grandpa Harley]

Roman

 

But of course... Aren't they the ones who decided which books to include in the first Bible?

 

It was God!!!

 

Then the protestants ruined it because it didn't fit into Martin Luther's world so he had to get rid of some.

 

haha, yeah they debated over it for a while, I think up until the council of Trent.

 

The Council of Trent was th19h Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. It was convened three times between 13 December 1545 and 4 December 1563 in the city of Trent (modern Trento, Italy) as a response to the theological and ecclesiological challenges of the Protestant Reformation. Basically it set the Bible in stone... but even then Luther was still accepting the output of Catholic Bishops (which is something I take great pleasure in pointing to 'We don't need no steenking bishops' proddies)

 

Purgatory always made more sense than Hell, since it allowed one to 'burn off one's sins' instead of eternal damnation... the proddies only have hell... and that's a Hotel California deal, just without the colitas and with a lake of fire...

[Kirangel]

I do believe that Jesus most likely exists and I think that those who don't are the ones grasping for straws.

 

Exists? As in the present tense? Then where is he? He's certainly not over in Jerusalem fighting to protect the "Holy Land."

 

Existed...obviously. I keep talking about the historical Jesus...historical as in past which would imply past tense.

 

History is not science class, historical methods have been applied when studying his historical existence, not only Christian theologians but non-believers as well have concluded that he existed.

 

Pardon? Please direct us to these conclusions and how they came about them.

 

Look at the world today, the da vinci code, the tomb of Jesus, the Jesus who escaped and went to Kashmir. People want to disprove him, it's like the new in thing. I gave my reasons...most of them in the 'Not a Christian' thread, go back there for reference. I said why I lean more towards there being an actual historical figure. The best argument that you all have come up with is that there were no records found during the Life of Jesus. You reject the notion that oral tradition was something practiced by the Jewish people. Multiple writings were recovered by more then one author and for some reason you find it more likely that stories were completely made up or influenced by one another and that people who were diligent with oral tradition somehow were stupid enough to fall for stories that had no basis in reality. Paul's letters and the gospels were written independent of one another, but in a relatively close period of time which suggest that stories of Jesus were already circulating.

 

Listen, if you want to disprove something that has been established as history then thats fine, it's possible he didn't exist but the burden of proof lies with you because it's already been established. I've given my reasons, I've seen evidence for and against it and I still say that there is more likely a historical Jesus.

[Ouroboros]

I don't know if I want to look, I think I was happier believing that the ones I knew made up the majority, I still want numbers.

 

I know they're out there I always knew, but I shrugged them off as being on the fringe.

I saw some Gallop poll from 1997 saying that 47% of American's believe in a Young Earth Creationism, which is creation within the last 10,000 years.

 

Here's another website btw: Institute for Creation Research

 

And here's a newer poll: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007...ts_N.htm?csp=34

[Kirangel]

Yeah sorta like Purgatory

 

??? Purgatory is established dogma of the Catholic Church.

 

Yes but how many Catholics Believe it Kir? You say that 6 days creationism isn't taken literal anymore even though there is Buybull verses that say it's so. However the buybull has no baring on this particular Cult dogma of purgatory it was created by the cult. I'd like to also add that Limbo has been done away with officially only recently. Funny how Dogmas can change with one persons decree... The thought of burning baby's just wasn't appealing to the followers anymore I guess.

 

 

You claim that Catholics are the only true ™ Christians, I'm willing to bet Greek orthodox will debate that matter with you. Of course all Christian groups claim to be the true ™ and only way to gawd.

 

I wasn't being serious. My bad, I forget the internet doesn't clearly show the sarcasm ,I thought I made it clear, but I read over it again and realized I didn't.

 

 

As for the dictionary definition, I don't see why you posted it, I agree that faith is: "3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs"

 

I don't really feel like defending Christian dogma right now, maybe later. Usually I get the ontological argument, teleological...they like philosophy, and even science. Pascals wager is irritating, it frustrates me when they use it mostly because it makes intelligent conviction null and void. Go talk to them directly if you want answers, if you're interested I can ask a few who are more than able to debate if they are willing.

Well you are the one making the claims, if you don't feel like backing up the claims perhaps you should resist making them? Just a thought. You have made the claim a few times now that Faith is founded in reason in logic, I asked for proof of the claim. Telling me to go find it myself pretty much gives me the answer I already knew, you made an empty claim and tried to push it as fact.

 

The reason I gave you the dictionary definition is to show you that there is zero reason or Logic founded on faith. Faith is believing with out proof, it's why it's faith.

 

You don't have your facts straight. Christian groups will interpret the bible in different ways. The Catechism of the RCC teaches that it shouldn't be taken literally (the 6-day creation). The bible doesn't say 'I God created the world in 6 days each consisting of the literal 24 hour days'. They also use the bible to support purgatory. Again...its one denominations interpretation over another's. Limbo was NEVER accepted dogma. It was something that they were debating as a possibility. They do not do away with established dogma.

 

Do not say I did not back up my claims because I did, I provided some of the philosophical discussions used. Do you honestly want to sit there and tell me that you do not think that there are any Christians who back up there beliefs with reason and logic? It's not a radical idea. If you look at philosophical arguments in favor of God you can see that many if not all are made up of statements of logic... like, A equals B and B equals C therefore A equals C. I didn't think that it was necessary for me to go out of my way to start arguing in favor of God, that is not my job, I mean I'll play the part of the apologists for the purpose of discussion and furthering knowledge but it's not something that I go around doing everyday. I did however give you a few of the philosophical arguments they will use. I like the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy on-line. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

 

(that will take you to a discussion of the ontological argument, you can see for yourself the reasoning and logic they use)

 

Faith is believing with out proof, it's why it's faith.

 

Only one line in your dictionary definition suggested that it was without proof, meaning that that is not applicable in every case. You chose one definition and ignored the rest!

[Kirangel]

I don't know if I want to look, I think I was happier believing that the ones I knew made up the majority, I still want numbers.

 

I know they're out there I always knew, but I shrugged them off as being on the fringe.

I saw some Gallop poll from 1997 saying that 47% of American's believe in a Young Earth Creationism, which is creation within the last 10,000 years.

 

Here's another website btw: Institute for Creation Research

 

And here's a newer poll: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007...ts_N.htm?csp=34

 

That's embarrassing, I question the sample though the number seems awfully small, they could have done better then that. (for the USA Today one)

 

Okay, so I'll concede for now about the numbers in the US unless I can come up with other information. blah, now I feel really bad for all of you who get to deal with the more active proselytizing ones. My christians are laid back and cool and don't believe dinosaurs walked around with people