Life, The Universe, And Everything. The Sequel.

[BuddyFerris]

My references to WWII were sound. Read the accounts of Nanking and tell me the US would have done the same. There were no Imperial actions against the troops for having done what they did; there was even imperial sanction for declassifying the Chinese as POWs so that they could be murdered with impunity. Tell me the US or the UK would have done the same. Seriously, K.

 

They would and they have...how many civilians were killed during WW2 by American bombs? during the 19th century American soldiers were known for rounding up native Americans and force baptizing them...then lining them up and shooting them. (cause hey they were saved now right? They gave blankets to them which they knew were infected with small pox to kill them off....and these people were civilians not soldiers...some of them small children. American soldiers can also be quite cruel on the battle field. You might remember a little bit of a social altercation in our country in the 60's over a place called Vietnam. It wasn't an issue because the American soldiers were over there having coffee and toast with the Vietnamese, they were killing an torturing civilians. Are you really this ignorant of your own countries history?

Just as a favor to me, K, read the accounts. I'd be interested in your honest comment. Here's a starting place; 1, 2

Buddy

 

Brian, stop squirming and answer the observations made...

OK, GH. Here's my thinking. We (US invaders/settlers) were royally screwed up in our appropriation of the land; as K points out, we treated (and thought of) the native Americans as lesser beings, savages, in need of our civilization or irrelevant to our advance. It was unconscionable; no adequate excuses. The conduct of our soldiers in the field was horrific. A hundred years later, we're in Vietnam and when soldiers are caught doing such things, they are prosecuted (at least some of them are.) Fifty years later, we're in Iraq, and a few occasions of inappropriate conduct surface; the follow-up is quick and harsh. Allegations of misconduct are investigated and prosecuted. We're more civilized as time passes, although freedom from armed conflict escapes us. The atrocities of Nanking would not happen under a US command today.

 

It would be nice if all the causal influences were easily visible.

 

Observing the Japanese conquest of Asia, they did indeed treat people who were different as lesser beings. The Tokyo government made no attempt to control the behavior, and even facilitated its' continuance.

The conquering Red Army raped their way through Poland and Germany; around 2 million German women and girls were victimized along with non-German women who happened to be in the way.

 

US & UK are charged with bombing civilian population centers; a change in acceptable tactics viewed as immoral.

 

There's not a lot to separate the players in war, nor will there likely be in the foreseeable future. We can only hope that the progressively refined respect for the innocent will extend further as the world changes.

 

So, you're correct, GH. The argument for a positive Christian influence in the conduct of nations at war is easily challenged by available accounts. I don't know that it would be accurate to claim an equality of immorality among the nations on the issue; it's too much like comparing bad criminals to very bad criminals. I'll concede the issue for now.

 

I'll admit, our dialog here (the collective us) has provoked a lot of thought for me, which I appreciate. I've had to revisit my conservative roots and to pursue lines of inquiry which I had thought were satisfied years ago. Legion has me reading Rosen's Life Itself, a fascinating work, and my stack of must reads is now 6 high for current study; the difficulty being that every point has an equally acceptable counterpoint, which effectively doubles the required reading. The most recent line has opened up for me the fact that Vietnam era atrocities included a list of confirmed war crimes by American soldiers that went well beyond My Lai. 1

 

This is more than I intended while vacationing in Hawaii; palm trees, volcano, parrots on the roof, and painful research. Up since 0330 (I'm still on East Coast time), time well spent, in spite of the fact that you guys are stubborn, biased, and occasionally insightful. (begrudging near-compliment, cleverly disguised as insult)

Buddy

[Sparrow]

Hi Buddy,

 

So, are you saying with all your posts that christianity has introduced something especially unique (i.e never existed before) or in some way introduced, for want of better words, a moral compass of some sort that never was in existance before christianity came into being?

 

Spatz

 

P.S: I once lived (briefly) in Hilo (on the big Island) some time ago.

[Vigile]

Allegations of misconduct are investigated and prosecuted. We're more civilized as time passes,

 

What?! That we invaded these countries in the first place without provocation escapes you? As I stated in the other thread and which you refrained from answering, are we somehow better because when we kill we do it with a grave continence?

 

Here's a hint. Those who are dead are dead. They don't care if those who killed them did it with a sword and a smile or under the auspice of misguided intentions. The result is the same and the offense is equal.

 

Christianity is impotent. It hasn't done a lick in restraining humans from being humans. And at times, it's just given them an excuse to be human.

[Legion]

Legion has me reading Rosen's Life Itself, a fascinating work, and my stack of must reads is now 6 high for current study...

I hope that is going well Buddy. I didn’t know you had so many books in your must read stack. Please don’t become discouraged. I am convinced that a collective effort to understand life and organisms can transcend many petty disagreements and arguments.

 

Gramps is reading it too, last I heard. Perhaps when you guys finish we can discuss it together.

[Grandpa Harley]

"OK, GH. Here's my thinking. We (US invaders/settlers) were royally screwed up in our appropriation of the land; as K points out, we treated (and thought of) the native Americans as lesser beings, savages, in need of our civilization or irrelevant to our advance. It was unconscionable; no adequate excuses. The conduct of our soldiers in the field was horrific. A hundred years later, we're in Vietnam and when soldiers are caught doing such things, they are prosecuted (at least some of them are.) Fifty years later, we're in Iraq, and a few occasions of inappropriate conduct surface; the follow-up is quick and harsh. Allegations of misconduct are investigated and prosecuted. We're more civilized as time passes, although freedom from armed conflict escapes us. The atrocities of Nanking would not happen under a US command today."

 

Simply because they didn't have the BBC, ITN, CNN, Al Jazeera, 60 Minutes, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show, even Fox News, on their tails, sniffing for 'news'. Thảm sát Mỹ Lai only came to light late in the day... And these lads were good God Fearing Christians, based on statistics alone. Same with the settlers heading West, and pretty much the same with Lynndie England (living proof that Cabbage patch dolls grow up) et al and the Abu Ghraib crew. Strange how no one above much Captain got it in the arse over that... You can thank media prurience rather than 'Christian Morality' for uncovering abuses done in the name of Mom and Apple pie...

[BuddyFerris]

Hi Buddy,

 

So, are you saying with all your posts that christianity has introduced something especially unique (i.e never existed before) or in some way introduced, for want of better words, a moral compass of some sort that never was in existance before christianity came into being?

 

Spatz

 

P.S: I once lived (briefly) in Hilo (on the big Island) some time ago.

Hello Sparrow.

An interesting question; don't know if I had inquired along that line before; perhaps it's so in the form if Christ's turning religion upside down (love your enemies) and inside out (God looks on the heart, man looks on the outside). Do you have thoughts on the subject? Or are we laying another clever trap for the naive champion of a lost cause? Surely that wouldn't be the case, as this forum is the epitome of objectivity and openness. (<-thinly veiled sarcasm, offered humorously,

Buddy

Hope to get to Akaka Falls (just north of Hilo); we're on the west side of the big island in Kailua-Kona which turns out to be a long way away. Hadn't expected that. You're fortunate to have lived here, however briefly; a paradise. I'd be tempted to stay if I were offered the opportunity.

[Ouroboros]

Buddy,

 

Here's a link to a website with quotes from old scriptures - several predates Jesus - about how to love your enemy: link

 

He wasn't the first, only the most popular under the late Roman emperors.

 

So tell me how and why God gave this revelation to other religious sages before Jesus, if Jesus was supposed to be first?

[BuddyFerris]

Allegations of misconduct are investigated and prosecuted. We're more civilized as time passes,

 

What?! That we invaded these countries in the first place without provocation escapes you? As I stated in the other thread and which you refrained from answering, are we somehow better because when we kill we do it with a grave continence?

 

Here's a hint. Those who are dead are dead. They don't care if those who killed them did it with a sword and a smile or under the auspice of misguided intentions. The result is the same and the offense is equal.

 

Christianity is impotent. It hasn't done a lick in restraining humans from being humans. And at times, it's just given them an excuse to be human.

Hi Vigile.

Didn't intend to leave your comments without response. Are we better because when we kill we do it with restraint? Yes.

 

You open an interesting question; what would you consider adequate provocation for beginning hostilities against another country?

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Buddy,

 

Here's a link to a website with quotes from old scriptures - several predates Jesus - about how to love your enemy: link

 

He wasn't the first, only the most popular under the late Roman emperors.

 

So tell me how and why God gave this revelation to other religious sages before Jesus, if Jesus was supposed to be first?

Tell me HanS,

What makes you think Jesus was the first revelation of God to man?

Buddy

[Vigile]

Didn't intend to leave your comments without response. Are we better because when we kill we do it with restraint? Yes.

 

How pray tell do we act with restraint? Cluster bombs and Napalm are restraint?

 

Just because we kill from a distance does not mean we do it with restraint.

 

You are buying propaganda if you think the US soberly and somberly acts only when all other alternatives have been explored and exhausted.

 

You open an interesting question; what would you consider adequate provocation for beginning hostilities against another country?

Buddy

 

Uh, well, an actual threat to our own safety might be a reason to protect ourselves.

 

Vietnam was based on domino theory and an out of control military industrial complex. Iraq has been based entirely on lies, and again, an out of control military industrial complex.

 

Both wars were not about protecting the security of the American people, but rather to protect threats to, and/or strengthen, its hegemony.

 

We are not better by any measure of the word.

 

Again, xianity is impotent; note I don't say that it is to blame, just powerless to change humanity.

[Mankey]

Buddy,

 

Here's a link to a website with quotes from old scriptures - several predates Jesus - about how to love your enemy: link

 

He wasn't the first, only the most popular under the late Roman emperors.

 

So tell me how and why God gave this revelation to other religious sages before Jesus, if Jesus was supposed to be first?

Tell me HanS,

What makes you think Jesus was the first revelation of God to man?

Buddy

Talk about cherry picking the bible. Only one way to get to Gods country club.....through Jesus.

 

And before that God himself spoke through the prophets to one tiny tiny portion of humanity....according to scripture.

 

Are you a new ager now Buddy? Yikes! I can't stand them. I think they are worse than many xer denominations. Way to much magical thinking. Its disgusting.

[Grandpa Harley]

"Surely that wouldn't be the case, as this forum is the epitome of objectivity and openness. (<-thinly veiled sarcasm, offered humorously,"

 

Offered humorously or no, you don't like it, then fuck off. Like you're 'objective'... hypocrite!

[Grandpa Harley]

Buddy,

 

Here's a link to a website with quotes from old scriptures - several predates Jesus - about how to love your enemy: link

 

He wasn't the first, only the most popular under the late Roman emperors.

 

So tell me how and why God gave this revelation to other religious sages before Jesus, if Jesus was supposed to be first?

Tell me HanS,

What makes you think Jesus was the first revelation of God to man?

Buddy

 

So, does that mean you believe other religions are equally valid as Christianity?

[Sparrow]

Hello Sparrow.

An interesting question; don't know if I had inquired along that line before; perhaps it's so in the form if Christ's turning religion upside down (love your enemies) and inside out (God looks on the heart, man looks on the outside). Do you have thoughts on the subject? Or are we laying another clever trap for the naive champion of a lost cause? Surely that wouldn't be the case, as this forum is the epitome of objectivity and openness. (<-thinly veiled sarcasm, offered humorously,

Buddy

Hope to get to Akaka Falls (just north of Hilo); we're on the west side of the big island in Kailua-Kona which turns out to be a long way away. Hadn't expected that. You're fortunate to have lived here, however briefly; a paradise. I'd be tempted to stay if I were offered the opportunity.

 

No trick question Buddy. I personally don't think there was anything particularly unique introduced by christianity. No special revelation about god or gods really. No special insights into a better living philosophy. Loving your enemies is not particularly special either as there have ben other beliefs that had a "make friends" or "lay down your weapons" philosophy well before "turn the other cheek". The "god looks at the heart, etc," philosophy was already in place in other eastern beliefs. So no, I don't see there is really anything special at all in chrisitianity.

 

To me, christianity is one of the three remaining (meanng most popular) expressions of the Abrahamic origins mythology.

 

In reality, it's just another middle-eastern mystic belief that evolved from it's post neolithic origins.

 

But perhaps you could enlighten me as to something that was particularly unique about christianity.

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

[Ouroboros]

Buddy,

 

Here's a link to a website with quotes from old scriptures - several predates Jesus - about how to love your enemy: link

 

He wasn't the first, only the most popular under the late Roman emperors.

 

So tell me how and why God gave this revelation to other religious sages before Jesus, if Jesus was supposed to be first?

Tell me HanS,

What makes you think Jesus was the first revelation of God to man?

Buddy

Wait a minute! Did you in the earlier post claimed that Jesus was the one first to reveal the idea of loving your enemy, or did I misunderstand you? It's not my claim, I thought it was yours, and very specifically to this case. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

 

But of course, I can accept that you believe that God revealed the same truth to other sages like Confucius etc. That's your belief, while my belief is that this idea has been around since early days of nature religions. I think it started because of the angry and mischevieous gods that one day is your friend, the next your enemy, and you better please them with some burn sacrifice. Does it sound very familiar to the Bible God?

 

-edit-

 

My post was based on this argument from you, please explain the bolded text:

Hello Sparrow.

An interesting question; don't know if I had inquired along that line before; perhaps it's so in the form if Christ's turning religion upside down (love your enemies) and inside out (God looks on the heart, man looks on the outside). Do you have thoughts on the subject? Or are we laying another clever trap for the naive champion of a lost cause? Surely that wouldn't be the case, as this forum is the epitome of objectivity and openness. (<-thinly veiled sarcasm, offered humorously,

It does sound like you do believe that statement (or maybe I assume too much), but on the other hand, maybe you don't and just wanted to start the debate about that particular subject?

 

If you do believe this, why (according to the quotes in my link earlier) do you find the same concept in other, and older, religions?

[dano]

Hey buddy, If God wanted to make a bunch of primates to live with him in heaven, why didn't he just make them in heaven?

 

Why bother making a a universe with billions of stars and, galaxies, and planets, and waste all that space?

 

Just another example of Bible gods lack of good judgment that goes along with the many instances where he lacks character, and poor planning.

 

The Bible is trash buddy! Its been made totally irrelevant by science.

 

Oh I forgot, you belong to a new age mystical religious cult that explains everything by saying "You will learn to believe, if you will only just believe"

 

What the hell. Who am I to complain? It worked for the Jonestown folk, and heavens gate, and the Mormons!

 

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, Buddy!

[Sparrow]

[quote name='dano' date='Sep 30 2007, 05:22 PM' post='309548']

 

Hey buddy, If God wanted to make a bunch of primates to live with him in heaven, why didn't he just make them in heaven?

 

... text ...

 

This is an excellant point Dano.

 

Why go through all this? Just make us perfect in the first place and create us in "heaven" directly. This really is one of the gems, one of those dead give-aways, that shows religion and belief is a load of hogwash.

 

The only way out of this is to invoke the "one of the mysteries that will be made open to us when we die" escape clause, or admit that it's a "god's ant farm" scenario and god is nothing more than some type of sick-minded monster terrorising his beloved creations who are living out some "divinely inspired" perverse fantasy.

 

Inevitably, you have to have at the conclusion that god is either a monster, or he doesn't exist.

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

[Grandpa Harley]

"God's Ant Farm" I'm going to steal that one...

[BuddyFerris]

Tell me HanS,

What makes you think Jesus was the first revelation of God to man?

Buddy

Talk about cherry picking the bible. Only one way to get to Gods country club.....through Jesus.

 

And before that God himself spoke through the prophets to one tiny tiny portion of humanity....according to scripture.

Mankey,

Tell me about the one tiny portion; who were they, do you suppose? Abraham wasn't first, you'll remember, but he's one whose story we're told. Were there others prior to him? Besides him? After him? Does the Bible agree with you, that God spoke only to that one tiny slice of humanity?

 

I know your preference is a fundamentalist viewpoint of the Bible, but c'mon pal. At least outgrow the narrow mindedness you so abhor in others. Does the Bible leave room for God to have done anything not recorded in the book?

 

Do you expect me to be a fundamentalist also? Must I conform to the mental and practical image you have of those whom you dislike?

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

Tell me HanS,

What makes you think Jesus was the first revelation of God to man?

Buddy

Talk about cherry picking the bible. Only one way to get to Gods country club.....through Jesus.

 

And before that God himself spoke through the prophets to one tiny tiny portion of humanity....according to scripture.

Mankey,

Tell me about the one tiny portion; who were they, do you suppose? Abraham wasn't first, you'll remember, but he's one whose story we're told. Were there others prior to him? Besides him? After him? Does the Bible agree with you, that God spoke only to that one tiny slice of humanity?

 

I know your preference is a fundamentalist viewpoint of the Bible, but c'mon pal. At least outgrow the narrow mindedness you so abhor in others. Does the Bible leave room for God to have done anything not recorded in the book?

 

Do you expect me to be a fundamentalist also? Must I conform to the mental and practical image you have of those whom you dislike?

Buddy

 

No, it doesn't. In fact it is quite specific. The only book know that states explicitly that 'all roads lead to god and he'll meet you like you want to be met' is the Bhagvagad Gita. Don't tell me you think Krishna was another Christ... or Rama... What about Osiris? Was he one? Mithras? Wotan? Buddha (who said he wasn't a God, but he wasn't Chrisitian so maybe he lied...)?

[Sparrow]

 

...text...

Mankey,

Tell me about the one tiny portion; who were they, do you suppose? Abraham wasn't first, you'll remember, but he's one whose story we're told. Were there others prior to him? Besides him? After him? Does the Bible agree with you, that God spoke only to that one tiny slice of humanity?

 

I know your preference is a fundamentalist viewpoint of the Bible, but c'mon pal. At least outgrow the narrow mindedness you so abhor in others. Does the Bible leave room for God to have done anything not recorded in the book?

 

Do you expect me to be a fundamentalist also? Must I conform to the mental and practical image you have of those whom you dislike?

Buddy

 

...text...

 

 

Hi Buddy,

 

With all due respect, you are a fundamentalist. You would not be here otherwise. Sure you’re a pleasant person, but this is more to do with your way of interacting with people than anything to do with your faith. You should look around the boards sometime and see some of the responses from some fundies. If being a nice person was the result of being a fundamentalist christian, they’d all be nice people willing to discuss all day, but they’re not.

 

Despite all this, you are a fundie, and you’re fundie because of the way you conveniently choose and cherry pick your points and attempt to re-clarify and re-classify your previous points which you’ve subsequently contradicted yourself on (now don’t be foolish and ask us to list them ... we just might).

 

Your last question “Does the Bible leave room for God to have done anything not recorded in the book?â€.

 

No it doesn’t – it doesn’t leave room. The Bible is supposedly the word of god. Purportedly, It has everything we need as god’s creations. Even the “End-Of-Days†aspects are in the Bible. Everything from the beginning of humanity till the end of humanity is there. There is nothing "more" to add or beg.

 

There are no additions, no subtractions, no “special†considerations that need to be taken into account if it is Tuesday and the moon is blue and rivers flow purple with yellow spots.

 

The Bible is a discreet package – it has always been viewed that way.

 

One pleasant (excuse me) fundamentalist, trying to make “special pleadings†and claim “special conditions†doesn’t alter the historicity of the situation, nor does it make the clear fabrication the bible is, any more valid, or any more sincerely the word of god, the thoughts of god or the deeds of god.

 

In fact, requesting special conditions and making special pleadings makes the whole thing that little bit more transparent.

 

It adds a little bit more of the hog to the hogwash and makes bullshit a little more beefier.

 

Regards

 

Spatz

[dano]

He wants us to see him as someone who is forgiving and turns the other cheek, but those qualities of forbearance and forgiveness don't always make you a good person.

 

Sometimes you just come across as a fool!

 

Especially if your agenda is to try and prove that an imaginary being is up in the sky watching every thing we do wrong, and he has people murdered (His only son) just so he can forgive us.

 

Way too much, lacking in logic and rationale.

 

Not courageous, not honoring God, just being a FOOL!

[BuddyFerris]

...text...

Mankey,

Tell me about the one tiny portion; who were they, do you suppose? Abraham wasn't first, you'll remember, but he's one whose story we're told. Were there others prior to him? Besides him? After him? Does the Bible agree with you, that God spoke only to that one tiny slice of humanity?

 

I know your preference is a fundamentalist viewpoint of the Bible, but c'mon pal. At least outgrow the narrow mindedness you so abhor in others. Does the Bible leave room for God to have done anything not recorded in the book?

 

Do you expect me to be a fundamentalist also? Must I conform to the mental and practical image you have of those whom you dislike?

Buddy

...text...

Hi Buddy,

 

With all due respect, you are a fundamentalist. You would not be here otherwise. Sure you’re a pleasant person, but this is more to do with your way of interacting with people than anything to do with your faith. You should look around the boards sometime and see some of the responses from some fundies. If being a nice person was the result of being a fundamentalist christian, they’d all be nice people willing to discuss all day, but they’re not.

 

Despite all this, you are a fundie, and you’re fundie because of the way you conveniently choose and cherry pick your points and attempt to re-clarify and re-classify your previous points which you’ve subsequently contradicted yourself on (now don’t be foolish and ask us to list them ... we just might).

 

Your last question “Does the Bible leave room for God to have done anything not recorded in the book?â€.

 

No it doesn’t – it doesn’t leave room. The Bible is supposedly the word of god. Purportedly, It has everything we need as god’s creations. Even the “End-Of-Days†aspects are in the Bible. Everything from the beginning of humanity till the end of humanity is there. There is nothing "more" to add or beg.

 

There are no additions, no subtractions, no “special†considerations that need to be taken into account if it is Tuesday and the moon is blue and rivers flow purple with yellow spots.

 

The Bible is a discreet package – it has always been viewed that way.

 

One pleasant (excuse me) fundamentalist, trying to make “special pleadings†and claim “special conditions†doesn’t alter the historicity of the situation, nor does it make the clear fabrication the bible is, any more valid, or any more sincerely the word of god, the thoughts of god or the deeds of god.

 

In fact, requesting special conditions and making special pleadings makes the whole thing that little bit more transparent.

 

It adds a little bit more of the hog to the hogwash and makes bullshit a little more beefier.

 

Regards

 

Spatz

Dear Sparrow,

I'm somewhat disturbed after all these years to discover that I am a f-f-fundamentalist!! The fundamentalist organizations may be equally disturbed to discover me within their ranks. The pillars of the last fundie palace begin to crumble, panic-stricken fundies run screaming, women snatch their children up and flee to the hills crying "Rocks, fall on us, for all we thought we knew has unraveled and return to fall upon us with references, footnotes, and reason!!!"

 

Dear lady, you may have stumbled unwittingly on the nearest thing to a telling insult so far. My congratulations. Let me also say with all humor aside that I understand your comments, at least to a degree, and your reticence in making any concession or agreement. It's a vulnerable place for folks with differing viewpoints.

 

For the moment, consider the following: that which you call cherry picking might also be seen as offering a more correct interpretation. Clarifications may well be just that. And the Bible may be what IT actually says about itself instead of what you prefer it to say. It may be precisely what it says and no more or less. It may not be the entire revelation of God to mankind (it makes no such claim). It may not be a record of everything God has done (it says it isn't). It may not be 'everything we need for life and godliness' (it says otherwise). You insist on my fundamentalist leanings. Let me say gently, you're a poster child for fundamentalism and the narrowest interpretation of the scripture, plus you doggedly hold to poor interpretation of passages without reason, even when offered better. That's the collective 'you', of course.

 

Perhaps most importantly, the Bible isn't isolated from history or literature, as I presume your 'discreet package' comment implies. It says of itself that it is intimately connected to people, places and times. It is, as it says of itself, God breathed. A fundamentalist view of such things, not unlike your own, would insist on much more being added. Surely everything God wants us to know is here (it's not), surely any contradictory document is demon inspired (unlikely), surely it contains only those truths relevant for every generation (??), and the KJV is the only inspired version. Oh please.

 

Several on the forum here have asked if I were open to having my mind changed. I am, but the information for consideration must be objectively evaluable, not high-intensity histrionics. You've done well in bringing conversation down to thoughtful levels; now try being cautiously objective, at least as a courtesy.

 

Ask yourself the following: "If Buddy were right on any issue, would I be able to hear it?"

 

Before you answer here, though, remember I'm not evangelizing. I'm not trying to undermine your convictions, just understand them. These dialogs run far afield in minor arguments over this point or that, but I don't think you or I will be significantly moved as a result of some point made or conceded. Even if I'm absolutely right on every point here, your position is unchanged. Should I be proven wrong on each issue here, my position would be unchanged as well. We've not yet even begun to approach the real issues of life, have we.

Buddy

[Alice]

The idea that the Bible is 'everything you need to know' - is around in a lot of christianity, so I can understand why people twould assume all christians think this is the only correct approach. In fact, once upon a time I thought this was the only approach - fundamentalist christians do see the Bible as King, (James usually) and that everything has to be viewed through the light of it's pages - interpreteted literally as if the Bible had been magically scribed by God himself

 

Here in the UK - I'm thinking that Buddy's approach would be seen on the liberal side of theology. My fundamentalist relatives would think Buddy was luke warm ...

[Grandpa Harley]

"We've not yet even begun to approach the real issues of life, have we."

 

Like 'why one needs an imaginary friend to have a moral compass'... Quite how someone who does have an imaginary friend thinks they can comment on reality is a little beyond me...