I have no problem with religious folk whatsoever as long as they're harmless & don't maintain that their religion is anymore superior than any other.
You & I are (thankfully) in agreement that the existence or nonexistence of God is an un-provable feat; which was my main gripe with Statler.
The Bible doesn't say specifically the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, but people who want to believe the writings of the Genesis to be a literal historical account rather than a metaphorical lesson, will add up the lives of the characters in Genesis from Adam to Jesus.
Again I'm with you in that I don't think it should matter to any Christian. I think too many Christians try to defend their young earth ideas, or defending the literal interpretation of Noah's Ark, Jesus's miracles, this, that, & the other. I don't think the historical accuracy is what you should be focusing on, but rather the positive teachings that come from the stories. Be the religion OF Jesus, not the religion ABOUT Jesus. The whole point of it should be about being more Christ-like, & not trying desperately to convince everyone to simply believe in him. This is where I think far too many Christians have gone astray.
About a year ago I talked for over an hour with one of the zealots who come to the campus & try to spread the word of Christ. Normally I'd tell them I don't have time, but I had an hour between classes & out of curiosity I agreed to talk to him. I asked him, "If a man lives a completely moral life, but was born in India & is a Hindu, & has never even heard of Jesus; will he go to Heaven? Is the criteria for getting into heaven simply believing in Jesus, or actually being Christ-like?". He told me he wouldn't get in to Heaven unless he accepted Jesus Christ as his lord & savior.
That is, in essence, precisely the problem I have with too many religious folk. It's too much about "joining the team", rather than merits of actions.
Last edited by rob19; 09-19-2012 at 02:00 AM.
I would still love some sort of answer to my question. How the hell can Newt Gingrich lead the polls in an election, with everyone fawning over him signing(his third or fourth) "anti-divorce" contract, yet atheists cant have a hope in an election? I would think its much worse to be repeatedly betrayed by someone of the same faith than to trust someone who consistently follows a slightly different ethical guide.
I wish there were more than one path to God. I really do. But unfortunately that's not what Jesus told us. What you are suggesting is acceptance, not tolerance. There's a difference between the two that has been glazed over in today's politically correct society. Hindus, Muslims, Shintos, etc are free to practice their beliefs however they choose. That's tolerance. However I don't have to accept their beliefs as equally valid as my own. That would be acceptance.
Enjoy your burrito.
Again I find it disappointing that the measuring stick for your Heaven is more slanted towards "joining the team", rather than merit of action. For whatever reason I have a hard time imagining a scenario where Jesus is up at the pearly gates & is judging the hypothetical man's life I mentioned before; see's that he's about as morally upstanding as you could ask for from a person, & is like "well does he believe I sacrificed my life for his sins? "No?", well than **** that guy". It comes off as insecure that Christ would so badly want the "credit".
Not to mention the fact that about 99% of humanity lived & died before Jesus was ever born. /Shrug
So like I have said in the past and I will say until I die, there are certain theories that could be all inclusive, meaning everyone is right, Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Creationists, Evolutionists all could be wrapped into one large theory that encompasses everything, the only thing you have to do is redefine a few things that mankind deem as "known" but really are only relative definitions based off the unknown.
"Frank's Redhot - I Put That **** On Everything!" ~ Ethel