I suppose it has to do with “young earth” vs. “old earth” type arguments, involving evolution and such. Most “young earth” Christians I know believe that dinosaurs co-existed with people. I’ve never heard anyone say that dinosaurs never existed, though.

Well I know two that don't believe they existed at all, and several that believe they existed with man. I ask the two that don't believe at all whats with the skeletons at the smithsonian... they say "smoke and mirrors" which I find kind of scary.

I became a-theist at the age of 10 or 11 when a Christian pastor told me, when asked about dinosaur bones, that "they were placed there by God to test your faith."

It worked.

Nice, that just makes it seem like "santa" or "the easter bunny", to me, thats the worst possible excuse you could give a kid....
(attachment is just my new avatar)

(attachment is just my new avatar)

Ah, cause I was really wondering about that at first!

So I have to ask, do you believe in dinosaurs?

I asked the same question in bible class back in high school and was told that they were created because "God wanted a friend". It didn't sound like a good explanation to me but who am I to argue?

How very sad.

You know, that makes me think of the Calvin and Hobbs strip where Calvin asks his dad how they know the weight limit of a bridge.

His dad then explains that they keep driving bigger trucks over the bridge until it breaks and then they build it up exactly the way it was before.

At this point him mom looks at his dad and says, “If you don’t know the answer, just say so!”

I’m convinced that if more people read Calvin and Hobbs the world would be a better place!

Note: the point I’m trying to get across is that Christians don’t always have all the answers, nor do we have to. You can keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool or you can open your mouth and prove it. (I know, I prove it often )

I pity da foo who don't believe in dinosaurs....
(sorry, I had to test out my new avatar)

LMAO.

Well, I don't know if its sad...

It should be clear from my previous post that I think there is an important psychological/spiritual/moral/metaphysical teaching buried inside of Christianity. It is also clear (to me) that anyone who thinks that dinosaur bones were placed in the ground 6000 years ago by a stern, bearded old-man in the sky is never going to understand those teachings -- let alone be able to teach them. You might say he did me a favor.

I think Alan Watts, himself a former Christian theologian, makes a great comment when he says that "Christ was made irrelevant by being kicked upstairs." Meaning, that this metaphorical message has been made other-worldly and its imperative that each of us realize our true nature (which Paul called the Christ consciousness, and is elsewhere called the Christ in you) is not understood. By literalizing the metaphor, it effectively eliminates the need for personal, direct experience of the "ground", "Godhead" (Meister Eckhart), "nirvana", or whatever else you want to call it. The message to me was: you need to believe that Jesus is the son of God and was saved for you. The message of the Christian mystics (who don't literalize the metaphor) is that we are *all* "son's of God" and can realize our true nature of pure consciousness.

Clearly, I was never going to have that conversation with the guy with the strange ideas about dinosaurs.

Prior to about 6 or 7 years ago, I thought the whole thing was childish nonsense and that the only way to be a Christian was to be that kind of Christian. I don't believe that anymore, but I *do* still believe that any statement about reality must stand up to emperical, rational tests about that statement's validity. For me, that means that any kind of literal interpretation of the Bible, or the Upanishads, or the Koran, or any of the others does not stand up. While I used to leave it at that, I now believe that these authors (in some cases at least) may have been on to something that is almost universally misunderstood.

I think these extremely insightful people come around more often that people think. For instance, I believe that Walt Whitman, in Leaves of Grass, is referring to this Atman which is Brahman when he writes:

"There is that in me--I do not know what it is--but I know it is in me."

I like Calvin and Hobbes, too!

Jim

It wouldn't be trivial if it was (sic)* you or your spouse who cheated.

But that's just the point -- it wasn't him or his spouse -- nor was it any one of 300,000,000 other Americans nor their spouses. That is what does indeed make it trivial in the context of what is good for the country as a whole.

tanstaaafl.

*Element of uncertainty requires the subjunctive case, Bitt.

(and please -- let's not hijack this thread for a grammar debate, as much fun as that is!)

My point is that the Bush administration claims it was unaware that a hijacked plane could be used as a weapon. Honestly, it's not the sort of thing that would immediately pop to one's mind.

(Gee -- this seems to be my "Pick on Bitt" day...)

Here is an excerpt from an Amazon.com review of the Tom Clancy book "Executive Orders", published in October, 1996:



Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
Tom Clancy goes to the White House in this thriller of political terror and global disaster. The American political situation takes a disturbing turn as the President, Congress, and Supreme Court are obliterated when a Japanese terrorist lands a 747 on the Capitol.



Yeah -- whoever could think of such a thing.

tanstaafl.

The only thing I can say is that I know of many Christians who do not pursue faith as a means of acting superior and controlling others.

You, and the fomer Reverend West are very much in the vanguard of that group! (By that group, I mean the group who do not proselytize by trying to appear superior)

Even though we have greatly differing viewpoints, I must express how much I appreciate the well-reasoned and well-stated arguments you and mlwest have placed on this bbs.

tanstaafl.

(edited to clarify group definition)

the point I’m trying to get across is that Christians don’t always have all the answers, nor do we have to.

Yet, Christians usually don't extend that courtesy to non-Christians.

"Where did the Universe come from?"

"Well, we really don't know."

"There -- that proves that God created it, because you can't prove otherwise."

tanstaafl.

whoa. thats a damn good point.

And while we're on the subject, could someone please sum up the difference between Catholics and Christians in about 1 or 2 lines? I've never really understood.

And while we're on the subject, could someone please sum up the difference between Catholics and Christians in about 1 or 2 lines? I've never really understood.

From the FAQ:

"...Evangelicals hold that the Catholic Church has gone beyond Scripture, adding teachings and practices that detract from or compromise the Gospel of God’s saving grace in Christ. Catholics, in turn, hold that such teaching and practices are grounded in Scripture and belong to the fullness of God’s revelation. Their rejection, Catholics say, results in a truncated and reduced understanding of the Christian reality."

Interesting side-by-side comparison chart on that page, too. Shows you how much I know... I was baptized and communinized as a Catholic, and went to Catholic elementary school for two years, yet I don't know the difference between the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth of Jesus. I'm not sure if I never knew the difference, or just confused the concepts at some point.

As I read that FAQ, I couldn't but help reading the 'Denied' entries in the Quake III narrator voice.

Infallibility of the Pope (C):Required belief in matters of religious doctrine and faith. (Prot):Denied.

Sorry. Please go back to your debates. Pay no attention to the Atheist.

-Zeke

I don't know the difference between the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth of Jesus. I'm not sure if I never knew the difference, or just confused the concepts at some point.

Immaculate Conception

Virgin Birth of Jesus

And of course the banner for the "Ave Maria Singles" cracked me up for some reason. Maybe it was the catholic all girls boarding school with 400 nuns for 40 students that made me lose any respect for anything related to the catholic church.

And while we're on the subject, could someone please sum up the difference between Catholics and Christians in about 1 or 2 lines? I've never really understood.

I'll put in my understanding here. I hope it helps. But I never seem to be able to write anything in 1 or 2 lines. (If you must have it that short, though, simply read the two bolded phrases).

First of all, it should be noted that Catholics ARE Christians (though Protestants sometimes debate the title). The proper deleniation is between Catholics and Protestants (though technically I think the Anglican church is not considered Protestant since it did not come out of the reformation). The Catholic church is the historical church and grew out of the early Christian movement. The Protestant Churches split off later over two main issues. These two issues remain the main source of contention today:

1. The Authority of Scripture. The Catholic church maintains that only the Church may intepret scripture, and that the traditions of the church are equal in Authority to the Bible. Protestants believe that interpretation is a responsibility of the individual and the Church's authority does not extend to that of the Bible. Thus the reason doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary are such a sticking point. Protestants won't buy it because it isn't in scripture. Catholics MUST buy it because it is an official teaching of the Catholic church.

2.Faith alone. Protestants believe that a person is "saved" (meaning his or her sins are covered and that person may dwell eternally with God) by faith alone. No "good works" are necessary. So living a good life and doing more good than evil will not save a person. Only faith in Christ. The Catholic church teaches a slight deviation from this. I don't totally understand it, but I'll do my best. As near as I can tell, the Catholic church teaches that "good works" save a person, but that to do "good works" they must have faith in Christ. Or at least faith in Christ is one way to produce "good works". Like I said, I'm not totally sure.

This latter point was particularly sticky when the Catholic church was selling "indulgences" so that when a person knew he or she was going to sin he could pay for it in advance with good works (giving money to the Church, I think).

While these two points are still irreconcilable between Protestants and Catholics, changes have been made since the Reformation. The Catholic church no longer sells indulgences and their views on Salvation are (I belive) closer in practice to Protestants. Nonetheless, the issue of "works" in Catholisism is still very prevelant, as is the idea of the supreme authority of the Church. Of course, many Protestant churches also seem to adhere to the "supreme authority of the Church" even if not in name.

One thing is that you will find a lot of variation between Protestant churches. My best friend's church (for example) baptises infants. Mine does not, and both are very clear on their stances. However, while points of concern, none of these are deal breakers. My best friend and I have no problem worshiping at each other's churches and being accepted despite the variations in beliefe. All Protestant churches agree on certain major doctrines (this list is not mean to be inclusive)

Salvation by Faith Alone
Authority of Scriputre
The Return of Christ
The Trinity

Hope that (not short) explination helps.

Yet, Christians usually don't extend that courtesy to non-Christians.

True, but my statment wasn't aimed at non-Christians. I was saying that we lose more credibility with dumb answers than just saying "I don't know."

But you're right, it cuts both ways. Simply sticking "God" in the "I don't knows" doesn't prove much. I do happen to think that God is the best answer we have to the creation of the universe, but then I would think that wouldn't I?

Thou shalt not kill. Despite your assertion (I think it was you that wrote it), I've never seen that interpreted as "thou shalt not murder," until now. He's sent more people to the chair than any Texan gov. in history, has little regard for the slaughter of life due to the wars.

The Commandments are in the Old Testament, and whether the ancient word in question is better translated by "murder" or "kill", the Old Testament is stuffed with calls for judicial execution, and indeed with slaughterous wars.

Speaking of which, what ever happened to "turn the other cheek"? Does no one understand why violence is a circle?

"Turn the other cheek" is New Testament, and Jesus was IMO very much trying to show the contradiction between the two, to make the point that the harsh desert sensibilities of the Old Testament could be counterproductive in more advanced civilisations.

Peter

Despite your assertion (I think it was you that wrote it), I've never seen that interpreted as "thou shalt not murder," until now.

Oh, hey. I missed that the first time around. I can say without a doubt my translation (NIV) says "murder", and I think most other modern translations do as well. It is the King James version everyone knows that says "kill", and while KJV seems to be the most popular transaltion, it is rife with innacuracies.

As for the particular pasage in question, I'm not an expert on the orgional language used, but I've talked to people who are and have confirmed that the word in question is not simply implying that it is wrong to take a life. I believe the connotation is taking an innocent life, or unjusifiably taking a life. I'll look into it a bit further to make sure though.

"Turn the other cheek" is New Testament, and Jesus was IMO very much trying to show the contradiction between the two

Not quite, at least as I understand it. Jesus was not trying to show the contradiction between the old and the new, but the inadquacy of the old as it was being applied- it was being used as a power play for the religious elite. After all, Jesus was responsible for both.

it is rife with innacuracies.

Why I couldn't do the literal bible thing when I was still actively Christian. I'm thinking just about any version of the bible is going to be chalked full of innacuracies due to translation. Did you know that a lot of the early sculptures of Moses depicted him with horns due to a translation issues...

While it is true that even us evangelicals only believe the original documents were inerrant, the translations we have now are MUCH better than the KJV. Modern translations use much more source material (to weed out inconstancies) and they aren’t written for a king who might behead you if he doesn’t like what your translation ends up saying. It’s sad that so many people are locked into the KJV translation of the bible because there are so many issues with it (not the least of which is that it’s just hard to understand).

it is rife with innacuracies

Although the inspired version is the original greek, hebrew and aramaic, and any translation is going to have its flaws, I think I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the mainline translations (KJV, NASV, NIV, etc...) are EXCELLENT translations and do not differ on a single major doctrine.

Perhaps my language is too strong against the KJV, but I always recommend people not use it. While you are correct that the major doctrines are not different, there are significant differences between the KJV and most modern translations. The fact that it seems to be the standard people use by default concerns me a great deal. But "rife with innacuracies" was probably the wrong thing to say. Probably "it's not the most accurate translation available" is more correct.

And it should be stated empatically (as you did) that the places where modern translations differ or are unsure are never places of doctrinal importance. Things like dates of king's reigns and such.

(It's important to note that the KJV is the only version in the public domain. Publically publish NIV or something and folks get mad.)

It’s sad that so many people are locked into the KJV translation of the bible because there are so many issues with it (not the least of which is that it’s just hard to understand).

Well, true. For actually understanding the bible, I agree that a modern scholarly translation such as NRSV or REB is what you need. But for the bits you already know -- John 1, 1 Corinthians 13 -- nothing can touch KJV. Even though I'm not a believer any more, I still rate KJV as a gigantic human achievement. I can't stand dumbed-down bibles such as (the very popular and expertly-marketed) GNB or (worst of all) the Life Application Bible.

Peter

Certainly no other translation tried to be poetic in the way that the KJV did.