Damn, Satan! That’s far better than quoting scripture!
The difference, of course, is she came right out and said: “I know that’s an over-generalization.” In your OP, you didn’t do this, opening a significant possibility for someone to misunderstand you.
Frankly, I think you should just apologize to each other and be done with it. You are both intelligent enough to see what happened here, and to know that neither one of you is an idiot. But I know you’ll do whatever you want any way. That’s the fun of this board!
(Never mind me. I’m delusional! 
)
Grasping at straws. It was obvious that I was talking about a generalization as well.
Well, obvious to everyone but you and her.
Jesus, Satan, you really don’t let things go, do you?
The same things you’ve accused jodih of can be thrown back at you: despite repeated explanations of jodih’s motives for questioning your OP, you continue to state that she was “confused” about your position.
She stated several times that she assumed that you hold the position that you have repeatedly made more clear. It is because of that assumption that she was questioning your wording in the OP.
She stated it several times. What are you, an idiot?
Rich
I am a Christian and the thought of the big bang is absurd.
Newtonion mechanics says: (on earth) An object at rest tends to stay at rest.
While astronomy says: (in space) an object in motion tends to stay in motion.
So, after the big bang, how did these flying planets stop and start orbiting in intricate patterns (some even opposite to others)?
And the 5 stable nuclei left after the BB:
hydrogen-1
hydrogen-2
helium-3
helium-4
lithium-7
Shouldn’t have even survived a blast that reached 10,000,000,000 degress Kalvin, or even 10,000,000 Kalvin for that matter!
And yes, it was 6 literal days!!!
I have responded to Jedi’s post by starting a new thread, The Big Bang, at http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000529.html (I think this thread got cluttered up enough that it was worth it to start anew).
Jedi 667,
You have GOT to be kidding. You know, the Bible is a great book. I know, because I read it entirely when I was of the age to make a more or less adult choice as to what to do with my religion (I was raised slightly catholic, and read the bible when I was 15). I’ve never considered myself a REAL christian since. I did however appreciate the value of the Bible as a book which holds some eternal truths (anyone who really lives according to the 10 commendments is basically one righteous dude !) and beautiful analogies and cryptical stories that could certainly guide one in making difficult decisions.
HOWEVER.
It is also a book that was penned down some 1600 years ago after 4 centuries of verbal transport, exageration, devotion and sorrow. Not quite the settings if one desires to keep a story pure and true. This is OK though, as long as you don’t take things too literally.
I’m not even getting into various translation errors.
So, yeah, around the year 0, a charismatic healer with some political talents must have lived somewhere in current Israel. And he probably WAS crucified. But did his Dad create the world in six days ? Hardly. Did the guy walk on water ? My best guess is he probably was a decent swimmer, but no, walking seems unlikely.
My advice is to value christianity and the Bible all you want, just filter out the outrageous parts. Everybody knows there’s a certain amount of bullshit to any fictional story. Then please accept the fact that a book that originated like the Bible did may also be holding some half-truths and exagerations, even if they DO serve a point or illustrate a principal.
Failure to do so will often be seen as fundamentalist behaviour. Sorry to break this to you, but that’s the way it is - with all due respect.
These days, when asked to describe my religion, I usually say somthing like “pragmatic agnostic” or something. Sounds cool, and it’s the truth. Seek validity and doubt everything unprovable. If there IS a God, he would never disapprove of such an intelligent attitude.
Coldfire
“You know how complex women are”
- Neil Peart, Rush (1993)
I tend to agree, Coldfire, though most everyone here knows that I push the idea of a personal relationship with God, because I think life is more enjoyable that way. (Not, I hasten to add, with the image of God that the typical right-wing Christian has, with the One who loves His creation, including us). I doubt strongly he’s going to be sending the sincere seekers after truth who frequent this board to listen to Styx for all eternity (well, they were threatened with punishment administered by Satan!) just because they did not recite some magic formula that “saved” them.
As for the Jesus Myth and the reality behind it, we ended up with a “not proven” verdict on the Resurrection thread here. Suffice it to say that something happened about 30 AD that caused a dozen Jewish men to go around claiming that their lives had been changed by a series of events that were reasonably easy to check out at the time, and which have strange metaphysical implications. David is operating on the working hypothesis that it was an urban legend; I reject that for reasons good to me.
But that does not mean that I threw my brain into the baptismal font and never pulled it back out. If God had wanted to teach earth science, he never would have chosen the Jews.
Just jumping in here for a moment to say that I take the Bible far too seriously to take it literally.
Coldfire, while you did make some good points, I would ask that you not confuse the issue by bringing up topics better left to another thread, i.e., whether there is any factual relevance to the New Testament. These arguments don’t seem very appropriate in trying to convince a fundamentalist that the stories of Genesis might be a metaphoric, as opposed to a scientific, explanation.
The book we call a ‘bible’ is only a ‘book’ because the Old and New testaments are physically bound together. IMO, the authors, source materials, and content are so varied, that by trying to lump them all into one book that might have some ‘outrageous parts’ only causes these fundamentalists to cling more tightly to their (IMO incorrect) assumption that trying to debunk the literal interpretation of any part of it (specifically the stories of creation, using the current scientific theories of evolution, etc) is an attack on the entire ‘book’ and the ‘truths’ held within.
I am no way saying that you should not question the factuality of the New Testament (even as a Christian I do it nearly every day of my life). What I’m trying to say is that I think you will find it more effective in debating fundamentalists to limit the battle to the literal interpretations of creation (which seems to be the real topic of Jedi’s post).
And we definitely agree on one thing:
Jedi, you have GOT to be kidding!
SpoonsJTD,
I suppose you’re right. My generalistic approach regarding the factuality of the bible has little chance of convincing fundamentalists. Then again, I was merely voicing my opinion regarding a general attitude towards the bible, no matter how important this book (or indeed rather, books) is to you.
I don’t have any illusions whatsoever that I will be able to convince ANY fundamentalist of my beliefs and disbeliefs. For the simple reason that the very term “fundamentalist” implies a larger that life devotion to a certain belief or conviction: not the sort of people that are generally openminded towards rationality and well-supported arguments…
But your point is noted, and you’re also right in stating that this should probably be a thread of its own.
Coldfire
“You know how complex women are”
- Neil Peart, Rush (1993)
Coldfire: to quote you: “For the simple reason that the very term “fundamentalist” implies a larger that life devotion to a certain belief or conviction: not the sort of people that are generally openminded towards rationality and well-supported arguments…”
Oh my, that just sounded so condescending, but maybe I am missing something here…Sorry if I misunderstood you.
I don’t know if I am “fundamental” or not, but I have certain deeply-held beliefs that are not really open for debate. They are personal beliefs, and if they seem irrational to the non-religious mind, fine. I do not know that I speak for all people who hold simular beliefs, but I think many of us can consider ourselves open-minded on many things. We all are entitled to believe certain things, and not be grilled about them, as long as we don’t go out of our way to make them other people’s business. (Not that I am accusing anyone here of doing that, but it does sometimes happen.)
I can understand if someone wanted to argue with me if I had some homophobic or racist viewpoint, but unless a religious viewpoint directly instructs someone to be hurtful to someone else, I don’t get what the big deal is. I consider the mere belief that God created the World (not via Evolution) to be something that really wouldn’t matter to anyone else. Unless a person was trying to force this belief down others’ throats (and I am aware this does happen sometimes) I just don’t get what the big deal is. I have argued with people who really, really seemed bugged that I might possibly accept the Creation theory. I kept on asking them “Why do you care?” I reasurred them that I did not intend to hurt anyone else, or impose my belief on any unwilling minds. I never got a straight answer about why my personal private belief was apparently so offensive to others.
Sorry for the ramble, it’s late, and I am probably totally off topic now.
. . . is reminded why he stays the hell away from the GD forum.
“Oh we were brought up on the Space-Race, now they expect us to clean toilets. When you have seen how big the world is how can you make do with this?”
Pulp, “Glory Days”
Yosemitebabe:
I fully agree with the statements you made. Religious beliefs can be personal and not open for debate to a person. As a non-religious person I’ll just have to accept that and move on, just as you would have to accept that my views on the same matter might be opposite to yours. What I was trying to refer to by defining “fundamentalists”, were the sort of people that try to push their ideals and beliefs down your throat no matter what. There’s two things I’d like to say to such people:
- Stick with your beliefs, and I’ll stick with mine;
- If you choose to get into an argument with me based on your own relgious beliefs, and then fail to recognize the facts that I bring up in the discussion (“The world REALLY was created in 6 days”, “No it was not. Carbon dating shows that, for example, dinosaurs were extinct before modern humans even came into existence”, “Ooooooh don’t you see that’s just the way God WANTS us to see things ?”, etc. etc.), consider yourself labeled: FUNDAMENTALIST.
Yosemitebabe, with your post you have clearly put yourself in the “non-fundamentalist christian” category
As for Jedi-667…
Coldfire
“You know how complex women are”
- Neil Peart, Rush (1993)
Kameryn and I don’t post much. We just “lurk.” I am sorry you cannot seem to respect either of us. We remain anonymous for our own real-life safety. I think that I speak for both of us when I say that neither of us will apologize for our beliefs. I do also believe that neither of us will be visiting these boards any more. I began visiting only because I had a question about an urban legend type thing, and all either of us find here are cursing and slandering of each other. And I am not just talking about the “BBQ Pit.” I will say goodbye now, forever.
www.leftbehind.com
I agree, both of us are sorry we ever came here in the first place. You can reply and say whatever you want because NEITHER of us will be back!
Good riddance… Anyone who leaves with that as their epitaph, I don’t give permission to stay anyway! That applies to both Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum above, by the way…
Yer pal,
Satan