General Forum > Open Forum

The Christian Agenda

(1/4) > >>

Feral:
My own religion holds that the universe is the results of the actions of gods. I do not see any real theological difference between the idea that the universe was created by this or that god and the idea that the universe was created by a random accident. The dry cosmologies of the mathematicians are really just poorly written renditions of liturgy; the liturgy of my faith is really just a flowery and over-written suggestion of what the mathematicians say is so -- order is implicit in chaos.

theangelopenshereyes:
Hey dude hate to break it to you but I dont think many people still believe that the sun orbits the earth. :P
And I prefur the idea of a God created earth than our existances just being a random accident.

Feral:
LOL. I will probably have the occasion to quote the revised version as well some time... I agree with it entirely, with but one exception. If a person is going to insist (as but one example) that the world is little over 6,000 years old, and if they insist upon doing so in a university environment, there are simply going to be at least some people who form a remarkably negative opinion of that person's intelligence and sanity. There is no getting around it. The evangelicals would have it that, because this (and dozens of other examples) is a religious belief of theirs, such negative opinions are 'insensitive' at best and (as is quite commonly claimed) 'persecution.'

Now, certainly I have no hard feelings at all toward evangelicals, but a person who whole-heartedly believes that the planet is 6,000 years old or who believes that it floats stationary in space with the sun revolving around it is a moron. If the evangelicals insist upon calling that "religious bias" or "intellectual condescension" then so be it.

Mogul:
OK, I shall correct the sentence:

Nobody has hard feelings towards evangelical Christians because of who they are, but because of what they think, say and do to other people.

 :R

Feral:
I shall be quoting you now, you know. :) This is a very nicely formed example.

There is but one possible problem with it -- as with some Gay-identity advocates, it is not at all uncommon for cultural attributes like what one thinks, says, and does to be claimed as a portion of one's identity, as part of who one is. Many Gays take considerable offence at the idea that there is nothing at all wrong with who they are, but plenty wrong with what they say, think, and do because of who they are.

It remains a fact in many situations that from, time to time, "you’re told that much of what you believe religiously is not just wrong, but worthy of mockery." This applies to beliefs that are not religiously based as well. Not all people agree. Indeed, sometimes the level of disagreement is very high. When two persons have strongly-held beliefs that contradict each other there will, of course, arise occasions where one shall tell the other that he is just plain wrong.

In a material world, something which is demonstrably untrue is just not true, no matter what religious ornamentation has been applied to the religious belief. Sometimes the appearance of such untruths in conversation are worthy of compassion and sympathy, sometimes they are worthy of discussion and debate, and sometimes there is nothing left but mockery. If I say the sky is blue and you say the sky is green (and a solid sphere), then one of us is an idiot. You will have to excuse me if I lack the humility to assume it is me.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page