quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Well, baduffer, that is at least partly explanatory. It is something I think devalues the Scriptures myself, but that is more than ignoring it altogether. The problem is that too many people who say "don't take something in the Bible literaly," never explain what the alligorical way is supposed to mean. I guess I am trying to get a more specific Creation explaination of the Bible's meaning if its not taken literally. Probably the most important argument I have against taking such a thing too far is who has the authority to say what is alligorical and what is not? I mean, God and his prophets I suppose.
It all depends on whom you accept as a legitimate authority.
As for me the Bible is a outstanding history of the growth of a people and a religion and ultimately an excellent philosophy by which to live your life.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an interesting point, to those who say God made the universe with the appearance of age:
" The appearance of age asks us to accept that light from supernovas came from stars that never actually existed, and that the evidence for low oxygen was also faked. This makes God into a deceiver, since he created an appearance different from reality. Romans 1:20 says that God is to be "understood from what has been made." The apparent age claim says we cannot trust what has been made. "
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How ironic. By even claiming that thing, Bible literalists immediately contradict the Bible they claim is literally true.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots, if you are asking why I argue one thing one time and another another? That is because I usually disagree with parts of both views.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being LDS, like yourself Occasional, I'm wondering how you resolve all of the Creation stories being literally true with the obvious discrepancies?
For the non-LDS out there, we have even more versions than creedal Christians, five I believe, all with their differences.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, I don't make them alligorical, just not "scientifically" accurate. Not that I don't think they have meaning beyond the literal, but I don't see it as one or the other.
It is the same way I view the many versions of the First Vision. Not that the differences put the reality into question, but that some are of a different viewpoint and purpose behind the words than others. With creation, for instance, one might emphasis the viewpoint of God and another of Adam and Eve. One might be explaining the power of God's creative process and the other our mission as mortals. None of them, I believe, is supposed to be followed like a science textbook.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno about the books that the LDS possess, I only know the Bible. So, when it comes to Genesis, it's an important story, with an important point, but the events did not actually happen in our universe. Adam and Eve were not real people, they did not eat a fruit that made them mortal, etc.
That does not take away the importance, truth, of God-inspired nature of the document. Just the fact that it literally happened as stated in that book. (and which translation do you use, too, which is very important too! The King James Version is very inaccurate by modern standards, as a single example.)
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Adam and Eve were not real people, they did not eat a fruit that made them mortal, etc. "
This way of looking at it makes me believe that either A) the whole thing was made up by Man and has no religious value any more than any other book, or B) God is a liar. As it is, I see it as true, so far as those who wrote the information were given the amount of info they could understand; or were allowed to give.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This way of looking at it makes me believe that either A) the whole thing was made up by Man and has no religious value any more than any other book, or B) God is a liar. As it is, I see it as true, so far as those who wrote the information were given the amount of info they could understand; or were allowed to give.
Well, my opinion is that A is correct, but that's not really relevant to a discussion of biblical literalism.
B is not the only other option. Only if you believe that the bible was literally dictated by God to scribes and that he intended what was written down to be taken literally, and that His word survived unchanged to the present, is He a liar.
The fact is that the biblical text was written by many different people long after the described events occurred. Even the earliest biblical manuscripts that are still preserved today were written hundreds of years after the original versions. They are copies of copies many many times over. Changes were made to the texts, both accidentally and intentionally, during that time. Even amongst the manuscripts that are preserved, there are tens of thousands of differences, some of them quite substantial.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
God didn't write the Bible. Men did, over many centuries, for different reasons, and only piece by piece.
The fact (and it is a fact) that Adam and Eve were not real people does not make the stories worth less, unless the only value you place on them is literal historical truth.
"As it is, I see it as true, so far as those who wrote the information were given the amount of info they could understand; or were allowed to give. "
Let me try to explain it this way, then: The ones who wrote the information only had what they could understand. If God gave them the precise ways of how He created the world, in ways, say, modern scientists would understand, the people who wrote the Bible would have said "...what?"
The ones who wrote Genesis did not even know that the Earth was a sphere, and spoke of it as something different. If you are to say that it was literally true, you'd have to say the Earth is not a sphere, and that people going into space was impossible. (which it is not.)
The purpose of Genesis is not to give a precise report of how the universe was created, in specific order, with mathematical precision. That wasn't the point. The purpose of the story of Adam and Eve was not to tell the precise, real history of the earliest humans. Again, that was not the point.
The purpose was to teach about what he humans are, to describe that God, in His majesty, created the universe and all within it. It was to give a reason for the basic questions of humanity: Why we live, why we die, why we sin and why God did not make us perfect. This is an answer to that. It is not a historical document telling about real people, but a story created for our benefit. The kind of truth it deals with, in that particular book, is different than the kind you must have when describing and predicting the way the univsere actually works.
So, I believe God is not a liar and that Genesis is not worthless. It simply does not do what you think it does. It does not tell you how the universe or man was actually made, and if you asked the person who wrote it they would freely admit that they merely created it, and had no actual evidence that that was what happened, physically. (though they had God's inspiration, of course.)
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The fact is that the biblical text was written by many different people long after the described events occurred. Even the earliest biblical manuscripts that are still preserved today were written hundreds of years after the original versions."
I am not refuting this, but I also have problems with it deciding how I approach the text. What I don't believe is that the writings came out of nowhere and have not tranfered the reality of God's works and words. Certainly they are distorted according to viewpoint, accuracy, and opinion. However, to me not to the point of false or fiction literature without destroying value to myself.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because some parts of it are fiction does not destroy the value. The only thing harming it's value then is your bias against fiction, which is unfounded.
A story, such as Job, can be created to serve a theological point. In Job (which never really occured, btw.) the point is clear. The rhetorical point about God's nature is clear. It also contradicts earlier statements about God's mode of action. What it really is is a hint that the older forms was not accurate, that really, God is like THIS, instead of like THAT. (in this case, it talks about whether God punishes people in this world for their sins. The Deuteronomic thinking prevailing in earlier books claims that if misfortune falls upon you, it's because you're unjust. They claim God does this. In Job, that is refuted by creating a story about an innocent man, punished for reasons no mortal can know, but we know because we get to see God and Satan talking.)
And further, not everything by a long shot is fiction. Much is nonfiction, much is actually accurate historical documentation. Other things fit in neither of these catagories, like the psalms, which are poems. You can't say a POEM has to have literally happened, after all.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, I know the contradictions that make a literal interpretation of the Bible in which everything is absolute, factual truth impossible are there, because I've read them.
Because I read the Bible, and study it.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A good English translation, because I don't know Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Sorry, yes, I've read translations. But even so, my points remain.
The Deuteronomic writings give the view, as an example of contradiction, that God punishes those who are immoral. Job states otherwise, and Christ, who is irrelevent to you if I'm right, rivka, but not to me and Occasional, states outright that it's wrong.
Anyway, even in the MT, this is a contradiction.
So. Does God punish people in the physical world because of their actions, do those who suffer only do so because God punishes their sins, or are the later books, which contradict it, correct, in saying that the earlier ones are wrong?
A literal reading of the Bible would have to hold both as true at the same time. Which is doublethink, and the very definition of absurdity.
And God is not absurd.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The only thing harming it's value then is your bias against fiction, which is unfounded."
I have HUGE problems with fiction as Religion. If it ends up all fiction what I consider at least based on truth, then for me it is ALL a lie and I can no longer support it. I think even Job really happened, although put in theatrical form. I guess what I am saying is I cannot take it all word for word literal, but I cannot reject its basis in reality without destroying what I percieve as worth anything about my religious beliefs.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Job did not really happen. It was not a true event, Job as written did not live.
If your faith is so weak as to be unable to survive that, then I guess you have three choices.
Grow a stronger form of faith, abandon your faith, or ignore truth for fantasy.
Of those three, the third one is the easiest, but also the most evil of the three options. I urge you to a higher choice, to allow your faith to grow stronger than what it is.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
0Meg, given that I consider it close to useless to read the texts in question (those that I do not consider completely irrelevant, and your assumption in that direction is correct) without the context of the Oral Torah, I doubt we will come to any agreement regarding the contradictions that you perceive. (For example, I believe you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting Iyov. [Edit: Not your point about it being allegory, which I consider likely. Rather, its perspective on sin and punishment.])
As it happens, I don't take the creation story entirely literally. But for rather different reasons than you.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How DARE you judge my faith. You can judge how I percieve, express, and otherwise look at faith, but you have NO RIGHT to judge the amount of faith I have.
I think its time for a whistle blowing with your last post.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet you, Occasional, DARE to accuse all evolutionary scientists of being "in league with Satan".
It's a little late to be whistle-blowing after your own over-blown rhetoric.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "or the evidence is being misinterpreted"
This is the number one argument against (even here) evolutionary evidence. The second one is that evolutionary scientists are liars and in league with Satan. The only ones who bring up the "God is a liar" are the evolutionsts.
posted
Morbo, I was saying how Creationists view it, not how I view it. Sorry if you got the impression I was talking about my own views, but they are not. I actually believe in Evolution.
Yes I have sympathy for them because I think they get more vitriol against them than they deserve. I mean, a few here actually gave arguments that could be interpret making laws against their viewpoints.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, Occasional. It's not how I read your post, but I see your POV. You and 0Meg can continue your cage-match.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It can be frustrating to read someone posting "this is true, that is false" with such surety and no room for disagreement, but I can see it getting tiresome both to read and to type "in my opinion" or "I believe" in every post, or even worse in every sentence.
When combined with a "you" that could be either general or specific, it can get even more frustrating. This usually is more at issue in discussions of closely held beliefs, of which this thread is certainly an example. I ask you (specific but plural) to consider treading more lightly on such subjects, please.
Alrighty, PJ. When it comes to scientific facts like evolution though, to say "in my opinion" is a rediculous statement, as it is, in fact, pretty much the closest thing to absolute fact that we humans have. It and the things related to it, such as Einstein's theory of relativity, at least. (relativity is relevent to the age of the universe, for example.)
Being facts, for me to say "in my opinion" is absurd. They are true. That's how they are. It's no different than me saying that the earth DOES revolve aroudn the sun. There's no room for disagreement there. And there is no room for disagreement that evolution occurs. Just as I would not suffer one who claimed in all seriously that the sun revolves around the Earth, I do not suffer the notion that the Earth was made in six days. To do so, that is, to say it is just my opinion, just for the sake of not being confrontational towards people who believe falsehoods would in fact be me lying, and I do not come here to lie, and I refuse to lie about actual physical fact.
Rivka:
Without the Oral Tanak, (the Talmud, right?) you may be right. However, we Christians do not consider them canon. So go figure. I'm only going about the christian side of things. I'm not dealing with Judaism, which admittedly interprets things in a different light, and disregards much that I hold dear. Just as you disregard our New Testament, I disregard your Talmud, as an example.
Anyway, when it cmoes to Job, I've read much of the Deuteronomic writings, and I've read Job, and I've seen some differences, and I go with what I see. In Job, Job is given misfortune by God. His neighbors tell him to stop whining because he obviously must have done something bad to deserve it. The book, at least in part, at least those parts, are being satirical towards that point of view. Which is prevalent in some earlier portions of the Bible.
I could be misinterpreting it easily. I'm trying to understand the story, I act in an attempt to. I read it, I read things about it, I read other people's interpretations, I see connections. However, I AM a fallible human being. But I do see the contradiction between views. If you have a different interpretaion to show me, I'd love to see it, and why you see it. At the very least it'd be interesting to see, even if I disagree with it! That's learning, after all.
Occasional:
I may have crossed the line saying your faith is too weak. That was an improper way of stating my thoughts, and not quite accurate either, so I am sorry.
Many times, however, I feel those who believe in the things I'm arguing against judge my faith based on my beliefs in physical facts. That does not make it right, and in fact makes it even worse for me to do, as I should have thought about your feelings and empathized, as I've felt the same way more than once, and people had done the same to me. It was wrong of me.
Now, back to my statements before. You say you don't see the point of them if they aren't real, if Job didn't live, if Adam and Eve weren't really historical people, am I right? That it is in fact merely story, not worthy of worship.
My opinion is different. Whether they existed or not does not change the facts of the Hebrew people who wrote the stories, who had faith in God, and wrote in faith. The meanings are important, and I don't doubt God would work in many stories that didn't really happen. After all, His son loved using such stories. Why would God mind it if His people used stories that weren't literal fact to clarify views or show His desires?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I hate this thing. Not for the place itself (if they wanted to create a theme park based on Bible stories, no big deal) but for what it claims to be, i.e. science. This kind of fraudulent pseudo-science undermines all civilization.
And for the fact that the evangelical dude who masterminded this is trying sneak this viewpoints into the minds of people who don't know how the scientific method works.
It hurts civilization by trying to fool people that these myths are backed up by the scientific method and community...thus undermining the line between fact and fiction. How can people make good judgment calls for the good of the nation/human race/world if the method for determining reality, ie science, is misunderstood?
If people what to believe in myths or religion that is their own business...it is their Right. I don't have a problem with that. But to wrongly claim that the same people who discovered the Earth is 4.5 billion years now say it is actually 6000 is not cool.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, when people believe fraudulent pseudo-sciences like aura crystals, herbal remedies for cancer and creationism, they act in ways that are harmful and sometimes dangerous. It causes suffering that does not need to have to happen, and waste money on junk that does not help them in the least.
At the least, pseudosciences like those are a drain, or at the very least a cause of ignorance. And ignorance is not helpful in this world, and when ignorant people vote, they can do damage.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My only problem with criticisms of THIS particular museums is that people have been erecting museums for centuries now, and many of them have had exhibits that have been completely wrong.
Take the crystal park in Great Britain. It was one of the first dinosaur exhibits and their Iquanadon's anatomy is completely wrong. They amble around on 4 feet, and their thumbs were placed on their noses like a horn.
If we do not demand absolute truth and no speculation in traditional museums why should we even try to get in the way of a bunch of wealthy religious folks who want to build their own museum?
quote: My opinion is different. Whether they existed or not does not change the facts of the Hebrew people who wrote the stories, who had faith in God, and wrote in faith. The meanings are important, and I don't doubt God would work in many stories that didn't really happen. After all, His son loved using such stories. Why would God mind it if His people used stories that weren't literal fact to clarify views or show His desires?
I know this question was not directed at me so excuse me for presuming to respond to it. There is nothing wrong with symbols and parables being used to teach moral principles, but it's quite important that such a distinction be made. Do we go too far if we take everything at face value that is written in the Bible? Do we go just as far in the opposite direction if we write it all off as a huge set of parables, or even a gigantic allegory?
Christianity is no longer useful if all of its teachings are ideas and symbols of ideas. Not that Christianity must be useful, but it certainly takes itself seriously, what with all the writings that say, "This is the only correct way, and there is no other."
Whenever Jesus speaks in parables he very clearly states that He is doing so. If God wanted to use stories to illustrate points why not just identify the stories as just that, stories? Why is there so much attempt to describe mundane details that pertain more to historical accuracy then story telling ease? Why should we care about genealogies, records of who sacrificed what animals and how many?
Now I personally believe much of the Genesis account is symbolic. But I firmly believe that Adam and Eve actually existed, (There are enough other scriptures that specifically affirm their existance.) The specifics of the world in which they lived and how they came to be there is not something described in good detail. Because the Bible is vague on the question I do not attempt to form any strong opinions on the topic by squeezing any drop of literalism I can find.
If for whatever reason our scientific research was lost and future generations degenerated but eventually dug it all up. I would be VERY disappointed if future generations concluded that the A bombs dropped in Japan, the American revolution and the founding of the US, the Magna Carte, the renaissance, the protestant movement, were all symbolic occurances, devised to teach moral lessons.
To me Jesus as a savior is an utterly useless statement if he did not actually do what he described himself as doing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My only problem with criticisms of THIS particular museums is that people have been erecting museums for centuries now, and many of them have had exhibits that have been completely wrong.
Take the crystal park in Great Britain. It was one of the first dinosaur exhibits and their Iquanadon's anatomy is completely wrong. They amble around on 4 feet, and their thumbs were placed on their noses like a horn.
If we do not demand absolute truth and no speculation in traditional museums why should we even try to get in the way of a bunch of wealthy religious folks who want to build their own museum?
I agree to a point. Let them build it, but they shouldn't claim it is scientific.
....or use psuedo-science to "prove" (ie mislead) the Earth is only 6000 yrs old.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, true believers shouldn't care what science or anyone else says, since they already have their sacred tomes.
So by trying to highjack science these particular people DO care what others say about the nature of reality. And they fear it... fear that it will steal people away from the faith and thus taking the money and political power that comes with a large population.
So their faith is not faith... it's politics. And pretty shady politics, imho, since often the leaders of the "faith" are not the People but the handful of preachers who reap the wealth thrown at them for the promise of salvation. It's the same thing as the indulgences from way-back-when that the Protestants were so angry about they broke away from the Catholic Church.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll bet that these people who built this museum are less ignorant of science than the people who built up civilization in the first place.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because they are well informed doesn't justify their actions. You can use knowledge for good or evil.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, true believers shouldn't care what science or anyone else says, since they already have their sacred tomes.
I care about science very much, and I don't appreciate you telling me what I should and what I shouldn't care about.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you are different from them. You understand that whatever is real is true to your religion. That is good.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, true believers shouldn't care what science or anyone else says, since they already have their sacred tomes.
I care about science very much, and I don't appreciate you telling me what I (I count myself as a true believer) should and what I shouldn't care about.
quote:So their faith is not faith... it's politics.
It is presumptuous, and frankly rude, to make such claims about another's faith.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, you are different from them. You understand that whatever is real is true to your religion. That is good.
I find it rude for the creators of this museum to be so presumptuous that they feel they can contradict science and yet claim they use science. So either they are fools or they are trying to fool us. Either way they will hurt the general public with the false information. I'm not saying it's anything cataclysmic but it marks and contributes to the decay I see happening. Maybe I'm flat wrong or blowing it out of proportion, but that's how I currently see things.
And I'm not trying to attack anyone here on this forum, just the creators of the museum.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So either they are fools or they are trying to fool us.
My guess is that they honestly believe what they are teaching.
quote:Either way they will hurt the general public with the false information. I'm not saying it's anything cataclysmic but it marks and contributes to the decay I see happening. Maybe I'm flat wrong, but that's how I see things.
First of all, I think you're drastically overstating the affect they'll have. As someone else said, they're preaching to the choir.
That said, I understand how you feel. Heck -- I have similar feelings about, for instance, the pornography industry, or the idea that marriage between a man and a woman is just one of many equal choices.
Also, there are young-earth creationists on Hatrack.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, there are young-earth creationists on Hatrack.
That's fine. If individuals or a church want to think/preach that idea it's ok. I just don't like it when someone who is biased in those beliefs tries to sneak those ideas into a secular institution (or what has traditionally been secular), consequently implying the approval of the scientific community in the process.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just don't like it when someone who is biased in those beliefs tries to sneak those ideas into a secular institution
This is a private institution. It's their own museum. It's not like they're sneaking it into the Smithsonian, or any other scientifically respected institution.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Whenever Jesus speaks in parables he very clearly states that He is doing so. If God wanted to use stories to illustrate points why not just identify the stories as just that, stories? Why is there so much attempt to describe mundane details that pertain more to historical accuracy then story telling ease? Why should we care about genealogies, records of who sacrificed what animals and how many?"
Not nearly everything in the Bible is parable and allegory. There is a ton of actual historical documentation in it. Some of it is wrong, some of it is inaccurate, some of it the writers screwed up on, but much of it is, in fact ,accurate historical fact. Many of the books of the Bible describe real historical events.
Much of Genesis does not. By that I mean the Tower of Babel on backward, as an example.
The Hebrew people were crazy about genealogies. So they created a bunch of them, some true, some not accurate.
Jesus has two genealogies that are both different. Some go through mental gymnastics to try to put them both in (one was the genealogy of Mary, as an example of such a game. However, they wouldn't have cared about hers at the time, so to claim one of them was intended as such in an attempt to dodge the fact that they differ is to ignore history in an attempt to FORCE the Bible into saying something it does not say. Which is hubris, in my opinion.)
It's not clear in some cases, no. It takes study, more study than even I've had, to understand everything.
Anyway, the Bible is far from perfect. It was edited by many people over many centuries, and, in fact, the people who wrote each part believed different things. But the thing to remember is this: The Bible wasn't written for us. It was written for people who lived thousands of years ago, who understood references to things that no longer exist, analogies to things we totally don't get, ideas we no longer believe, and is talking to a people whose mindset is so different than ours, and who lived in such a different world, that to take it as being meant for us is to ignore the intent of the authors, who knew nothing of our world, and lived in a worldview that did not contain all the things we now know.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think some sects are too psycho about the whole "must interpret Bible literally word for word". Being a Christian has nothing to do with the age of the planet/universe or evolution. I don't understand the desperation some sects have in disproving stuff like this...a 14 billion year Universe with evolving life does not threaten Christianity in any way.
Heck, if the Roman Catholic Church, mother church of Christiantiy, can accept evolution and the age of the Universe then every sect can too.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, they wouldn't have cared about hers at the time, so to claim one of them was intended as such in an attempt to dodge the fact that they differ is to ignore history in an attempt to FORCE the Bible into saying something it does not say. Which is hubris, in my opinion.
Dismissing the possibility that it was Mary's genealogy by waving your hands saying that they wouldn't have cared about it seems to be as hubristic and trying to FORCE the Bible into saying what you want it to say as the idea that it it is Mary's genealogy.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think some sects are too psycho about the whole "must interpret Bible literally word for word".
I think it's in incredibly bad taste to label people's religious beliefs as "psycho".
quote:Being a Christian has nothing to do with the age of the planet/universe or evolution.
Well, it wouldn't have anything with being a Christian for you, if you were a Christian. Obviously, it is important to them. I don't think you can say "This is a legitimate part of your faith, while this over here isn't." You only get to do that with your own faith, not with others'.
quote:Heck, if the Roman Catholic Church, mother church of Christiantiy, can accept evolution and the age of the Universe then every sect can too.
What the Roman Catholic Church accepts or does not accept has Zero relevance on what I accept and do not accept as a Christian.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
