"Ground Zero mosque leader says gay people were abused as children"

fancydude

Raphjd - I said some Muslims and then in parentheses said (I Stress some) go back, it is not edited for today and yet you come back and say I said ALL Muslims.

It is not official Catholic, Lutheran or any mainstream Christian church policy to bomb people or sanction terrorism. I specifically said several times that I exempted abortion clinic bombers and went further to say they are the lunatic fringe. Find ONE Catholic school that preaches hatred for everything non Catholic, or one western democracy where the official policy is the annihiliation of a country such as Israel and I'll eat my words. This removal of Israel from the map is however, the official policy or was until very recently of many Middle Eastern countries WITH the support of the vast majority of the populace and virtually all their religious leaders. Nothing in the west comes close to this. Actually though, I dont' have to eat my words, because I've asked for information and correction.

Why am I "desperate.."? I'm not. Instead of so many examples, I should just say plainly that I don't think Christianity compares to Islam. Does this mean I think the USA is blameless? No, I've read The Shock Doctrine and Confession of an Economic Hitman. By all means lay the blame where it belongs. Still I think most people would prefer to live in a western style democracy than a Muslim theocracy given a choice. Although I could be wrong. Many Russians supposedly long for the days of the communist state where they didn't have to think or plan or decide. The Pope doesn't need to apologize for anything that wasn't done in the name of the Catholic church and I said so plainly. Frankly, I'm not sure apologizing for things that happened 500 years ago does a lot of good but it may be a "nice" thing to do if sincere. My ancestors didn't own slaves, for example but if they did, should I apologize? Economically, I make less than half of what many Blacks (and southern Whites) make working in auto plants and many many of them came up from the south. This is not to say slavery has no legacy, but it sure didn't impact everyone equally. All Whites are not rich simply by virtue of being White and all Blacks are not poor even with slave background.

Whatever Bush or Clinton or FDR did, they did as political acts which have little or nothing to do with religion. Certainly they were not acting on behalf of any specific Church and that is my main point. There are a million think tanks and opinions in a modern free society as large as the USA and if one wants to dig around AFTER the fact, one can always find a group that said this or that. Most scientists said in the 50's that nuclear power would produce electricity so cheaply it wouldn't even be metered. Oh if that had only come to pass. I don't know anything about the PNAC - if it is some sinister force that had a great impact on our government then I've got something to research. On the other hand, people have discussions all the time of what it would take to change this or that in society. That hardly means they are planning it. Some of the very best scenarios that seem oh so logical turn out to be complete bunk, no matter how good they sound on paper. (and yet despite spending untold hundreds of billions, we haven't taken over Iraq, have we?) This does not mean that I'm naive or unaware that the media is in cahoots with politicians or he who pays the piper calls the tune. But if we're going to argue or discuss, please at least use what I actually wrote.

fancydude

You mention slavery was justified by the Bible. Yes it was, but tell the whole story. Slavery was practiced all over the world for most of the world's existence. And in many parts of the world it still is, albeit sometimes illegally. That doesn't make it right, but people are a product of their times. And as I mentioned on another thread with you I think - people couldn't choose between being a slave and getting a job at the corner Walmart! That option wasn't there. People evolved. Being a serf in medieval Europe was essentially being a slave. Working for script and not cash in 18th century America was essentially being a slave. African countries (ie African people) were the slave sellers, the Hutus murdered the Tustsi by the hundreds etc. etc. etc. and yet when anything ever comes up about the African continent it is only White Europeans who are the villains. ONLY them.

Perhaps the US did have a hand in 9/11, obviously we'll never know for sure. But for you to completely ignore what I said - anything other than proof is conjecture - makes discussion meaningless. There are people who said the USA didn't really land on the moon. And on it goes. I also clearly said I didn't recall what the polls said, that was a made up example - and you bring it into the discussion as if it were fact.

But I must say this - we have a huge divorce rate and unwed birth rate. I would say based on that plenty of people in the USA ignore religion completely or it is a social activity only, not a guide to living one's life. If GWB wore religion on his sleeve, it was to get elected. To appeal to enough of that segment of people who VOTE. Reagan promised a lot of things to the religious crowd too and delivered zero.

I do see that preachers that spew hate influence crimes, but oddly things are slowly getting better. We have SSM in several states and civil unions in others. (Just 20 years ago, that it would occur was positively fantasy land/unthinkable and yet we have it) Social change is like that. No one is ever on board 100%.

Actually, I have gone to church my whole life and I never heard anything about homosexuality in the Catholic church on Sunday! There is an encyclical by one of the Popes in the last 20 years that says, believe it or not, homosexuals are persons of sacred worth. Yes, it continues on by saying we must be celibate and it is morally disordered. But the words 'we are evil" aren't there. When I was much younger and went to confession about it I was treated with great compassion. (now I laugh about it and would NEVER go to confession about my sexuality) Yes, that is only my story, but it is the truth.

If you want to keep going tit for tat, we can - I delivered typewriters to this fundy church and they had a big sign about "outreach". I asked one of the women working there - the church was right next to Dearborn. She said many Muslim women came there because their husbands would beat them when pregnant to lose the baby if the ultrasound showed it was a girl. They wanted boy babies. How often do you think this happens with Christian marriages?

fancydude

I haven't said anything that shows I'm angry. Because I'm not. We disagree and I'm trying to explain my ideas. I'm not sure if you''re angry or not - seems like you might be. One last attempt:

1. A serf is not an indentured servant. Being essentially owned by a company that pays you in script is not a choice. Contracts, however unfair, are enforceable by police, courts and jails. If there are no other options I wonder how freely the indentured servant's choice was. Not only that, who do you think came up with the indentured servant idea? The poor person or the rich person with power? Hmmm.

2. You said flatly "the Bible sanctioned slavery" as if that made everything in it invalid. I responded by saying tell the whole story, It will be difficult indeed to discuss anything if I have to know by heart everything you've ever posted. For me to say 'people evolved' is not endorsing or showing my beliefs in any way. Most people in the world have some sort of rights and are no longer property of the king. I use of the words "people evolved" to convey that idea. Would "societies evolved" be better? However, to the heart of the matter - I don't pretend to have all the answers about God. Perhaps an analogy will serve - children are born into this world, otherwise obviously people would die off. Growing up is essentially the same for all, birth, growth, learning and pain; sorrows and happiness, illness and death. Why must there be pain to learn? Why must everyone experience sadness? But that is the way it is, the best parent cannot prevent any of those things. I think that is how it is with the world development. For centuries most people couldn't read. Vaccines were only invented 70 years ago. None of this proves God doesn't exist. It means we are the two year old child who is yet to understand and yet even as adults (religious or atheist alike) there are still many things beyond our understanding.

3. I said as plainly as I know how more than once there are hundreds of think tanks and opinion pieces written every day. You can find someone who said almost anything you want AFTER the fact. I've also said that I do not remember the opinion polls but they were from US News, not Rush Limbaugh. I said I will research PNAC. what do you want?

I have no idea why GWB does what he does, I'm sure you never ever ever heard me defend him, since I can't stand him either.

I also say I do understand about preachers spewing hate (which you did not put in quotes!) but I mention same sex marriage and the other stats about divorce etc. not to dispute you but to agree religion's role is diminishing. You don't see that, you mention only GWB.

Your last point about Asia, where did I say it was "just Muslims?" I thought this post was about the Mosque at Ground zero which means Muslims…..

raphjd

I give up.

You have a way of disconnecting my responses to what you wrote, so there is no point continuing further.

Spintendo

@fancydude:

as I mentioned on another thread with you I think - people couldn't choose between being a slave and getting a job at the corner Walmart! That option wasn't there. People evolved.

I remember this, and it didnt quite make sense there at first. But I understand its reason for being put forth. This inductive (allowing for) view of religion — slavery as a corollary to the times — contrasts with my and raphjd's deductive (not allowing for) view of religion for one particular reason — as an example of parts of the Bible that had to be there, because of the times, and therefore that edict and many others should be acceptable — as a way of bringing in the back door (slavery justified=Bible OK) what won't fit in through the front (slavery is abhorrent=Bible not OK). I can see no other reason why this was brought up, other than to imply justification for it being there in the first place.

But notice how other timeless provisions in the Good Book are not directly mentioned by him: Children out of line? beat them with a rod {Proverbs 13:24,20:30, and 23:13-14}; Children talking back to parents? kill them {Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13, and Matthew 15:4-7} in addition to provisions that we stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshipping graven images, and practicing sorcery. These are not mentioned, and for good reason — it is only by ignoring such barbarisms that the Bible can be reconciled with life in the modern world.

His argument shows that religion has nothing underwriting it other than the unacknowledged neglect of the letter of the divine law.

fancydude

Raphjd - you can quit discussing if you like but I'll say this - you are cherry picking! Or you completely change the focus! So what if GWB wears religion on his sleeve. Prove or even postulate he is acting in concert or at the behest of an organized religious group.

If he acts on his own religious beliefs, or belief system if not religious, don't we all do that?

I think I've tried to respond to almost everything you've put forth.

I did find a poll - a commenter posted a link to Investor's Daily on Huffington Post - 84% of Egyptians want a theocracy. 73% want adulterers stoned etc. **** STuff like that - I may have the numbers a bit off. But when you criticize Christianity, you have to go back centuries to St. Augustine! If you say the Pope doesn't condemn violence and I say he did, you say not soon enough. This is not rational discussion.

Spintendo - Slavery and the Bible was brought up in post #12 by Raphjd. I didn't mention all those other things because I'm not trying to reconcile the Bible with modern life. I said that because the Bible sanctioned slavery at a time when there were not other job options, does not make the entire book invalid without telling the other side.

The fact that slavery, servitude and the divine right of kings existed at one time is a fact of history, is it not? A fact is not me trying to "allow" for religion as you say or disallow/disapprove of the practice, it is simply stating a fact.

**** I later read the comments - one alleged this link (which said it was Pew research) was bogus -so I went to to the actual Pew website which said Egyptians are about equally divided on the question "does religion play a large or small role in government" but then a very large number (I don't recall exactly, it was well over 80%) felt Islam's influence in politics was positive. So the answers to the first question don't seem to convey the Egyptians true feelings. I can also say that whenever Farahkan is mentioned in the Detroit newspapers, they always tiptoe around what he says and so I called the editorial desk. They told me if they printed what he actually said (the really controversial stuff) they would get thousands of telephone calls. So there you are - the media censoring out actual statements by their own admission.

# this link appears legit: http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/#prc-jump

85% of Nigerian Muslims and 58% of Egyptian Muslims favor the death penalty for those who leave the faith
54% of Egyptians favor gender segregation in the workplace

If only the above is true, that doesn't sound bizarre to you? What in Christianity compares to this?

fancydude

I think anyone reading this with a neutral eye can see that I have not exempted Christianity from scrutiny. I've invited you to compare very specific situations with pointed questions and you've ignored most of them. I'm well aware that Christianity isn't just flowers and puppies.

I've specifically said lay the blame where it should be. I acknowledged the US had their own terrorists before you mentioned it. I know capitalism has some terrible excesses, I cited the books I"ve read thinking that would be enough, but apparently not. So here's an example: I know that the USA meddles in the affairs of other countries and our corporations do some terrible things like sell poor countries seeds that don't reproduce so they have to buy again from these corporations. But none of that is religiously motivated, it is just plain human greed. I've even agreed with you about the diminishing role of religion and I get accused of anger where there is none.

It is clear that in Christian societies people have much more freedom, especially women. This alone cannot be highlighted enough. The governments do not act on behalf of a Church or specifically for religious leaders. That is probably why the founders of the USA tried to separate Church & state. Most people would prefer to live in a western style democracy. You asked me to say which is better for Gays, Christianity or Islam? Well, if I remember correctly, a Muslim theocracy executed two young men by hanging last year for homosexual relations. Name a primarily Christian country where the government did the same.

I doubt if we'll discuss anything in the future so I could be nasty here or pious and wish you peace and I can't really do either one. It is just kind of sad and unfortunate that I've typed so much for you to ignore or twist and then try to lay all the blame at my feet.

Spintendo

@fancydude:

one alleged this link (which said it was Pew research) was bogus -so I went to to the actual Pew website…...

Pew is actually a great think-tank, they do a lot of fascinating stuff there.

Fancydude you say that youre not biased towards Christianity and I believe that you believe that to be true. And while its pretty well known that people don't always 'speak their minds', it is suspected that people don't always 'know their minds'. Finding out about those possible divisions can be kinda fun and completely fascinating…. so I was wondering if you might be interested in taking this test, its called an implicit association test, from Project Implicit which is out at Harvard (so you can be sure it's not some silly online test).

hxxps://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

if your interested in seeing how it works, and taking the test online, go to that website and click on "demonstration." It will then present a long list, go ahead and choose the one marked "Religion IAT". It asks some questions to get a baseline and then consists of reacting to words that appear on the screen. Theres actually a lot of IATs that help to reveal biases in people, it can be pretty interesting, and understanding those divergences between what we think we know and what we really know is what these researchers out at Harvard are trying to do. The demonstration tests are just that- demonstrations, with no data collected, except for the "featured" tests, which change weekly I believe.

fancydude

Spin - I don't think I ever said I was unbiased towards Christianity - being raised that way, and more or less still practicing (as in the love your neighbor stuff ; not the: I've committed mortal sin if I miss Mass here and there - or Gay sex!) - I don't know if that is even possible. I try to be objective about other religions. I've already said and demonstrated in the previous exchanges that Christianity isn't without its flaws. If I argued that as a practical matter, it is more forgiving and more compatible with democracy than often unyielding theocracies - for that I will not apologize. Where would you like to live- the USA (or most of Europe?) or Iraq? Esp. as a Gay male?

I did try to take the test and it got stuck and wouldn't move when I was identifying the "good" and "bad" words. Obviously I didn't get to the "interpretation" part since I didn't complete the modules, but I would have had a lot more faith in it if had asked my age & religion, location etc. AFTER it interpreted the raw test data! I may try it again after rebooting my computer. I would like to know, if there is a general way to answer this without prejudicing my taking the test: What does it prove to ask if I'm warm or cold about a specific religion? I know very little of actual practice of Buddhism nor do I know any Buddhists personally. I think this would be true in reverse for many of them. I live in a primarily Christian area of the USA although we are getting more Muslims all the time, though the language and cultural barriers prevent much interaction. I have tried to interact: I have offered all my Muslim neighbors home canned fruits and things, speak to their children, give them books (which they politely accept and say thankyou, + return the washed jars) but I have received nothing in return. Nor do the adults who can speak english initiate any conversations. However, I only just thought of this now, so as to the test itself I was trying to answer how I felt about the religion in general, not about specific individuals. My French teacher in high school mentioned that people in other countries think the streets are paved with gold in America, refugees romanticize about their country of origin since it was often a forceable relocation; "forgetting about the horrors" of what they left behind….I take all this into consideration when thinking about specific people. Also my Muslim neighbors are from Bangladesh and Pakistan as were the students in my ESL classes at the library. I found them extremely eager to learn and courteous. They would stand up everytime the teacher (me) entered the room! Thanks for the interesting information.

As to the Pew research - if you go back to where I first linked, (that Poll that was supposedly legit from Pew research posted at Investor's Business Daily) it seemed to be bogus. I wasn't suggesting for a minute that Pew research as an organization is bogus, just that particular poll. A commenter suggested that it was presented as Pew but actually wasn't. But then when I got into what I presume is actual data of what Muslims think about government, etc. on Pew Globals' site ; gender separation at work etc. I guess it might be legit after all. Am I expressing myself clearly?

notquiteme

somehow i think the religious talks get a bit out of hand nowadays.

Spintendo

@fancydude:

but I would have had a lot more faith in it if had asked my age & religion, location etc. AFTER it interpreted the raw test data!

The reason why it asks you your opinions of different religions at the beginning (the hot & cold feeling questions) is to establish them before the test is taken, since the test itself could influence what opinions are offered (the observer-effect). Then it can compare and contrast the "you" as you see yourself with the "you" who responds to the word associations. ….After the test is finished i think it asks you what your religion is.

fancydude

Spin - it asks how you feel about this or that. Then demographics then the words. Which is why I made the comment I did about interpretation first then ask demographic questions!

Spintendo

Right on.

So was the score you got surprising? or was it just what you expected… I took the weight IAT the other day and it told me I was moderately biased against large people....and i thought i had a good tolerance for the weight-challenged... heheh oh well ???

fancydude

Spin - it locked up (is my DSL connection too slow maybe?) In my previous (long) post, I only asked you two questions - which each only require a one word response - any particular reason for no answer?

Spintendo

I apologize for overlooking your questions. Allow me to answer each one now:

@fancydude:

Spin Where would you like to live- the USA (or most of Europe?) or Iraq? Esp. as a Gay male?

I would like to live in Varennes, a city outside of Paris.

@fancydude:

I would like to know, if there is a general way to answer this without prejudicing my taking the test: What does it prove to ask if I'm warm or cold about a specific religion?

First, the difference between two types of attitudes: explicit and implicit.

Explicit attitudes and beliefs are ones that are directly expressed or publicly stated. For example, the question asking for your liking for particular religious groups before you take the IAT is an example of your explicit or consciously accessible attitude. The standard procedure for obtaining such direct expressions is to ask you to report or describe them.
An implicit attitude is not so straightforward. One example is a stereotype, which is a belief that members of a group generally possess some characteristic (for example, the belief that women are typically nurturing). An implicit stereotype is a stereotype that is powerful enough to operate without conscious control.

Implicit and Explicit attitudes dont necessarily have to agree, in fact it is more often the case that they dont. There are two reasons why direct (explicit) and indirect (implicit) attitudes may not be the same. The simpler explanation is that a person may be unwilling to accurately report some attitude. For example, if a professor asks a student "Do you like soap operas?" a student who is fully aware of spending two hours each day watching soap operas may nevertheless say "no" because of being embarrassed (unwilling) to reveal this fondness.

The second explanation for explicit-implicit disagreement is that a person may be unable to accurately report an attitude. For example, if asked "Do you like Arabs?" many Americans will respond "yes" because they regard themselves as unprejudiced. However, an IAT may reveal that these same Americans have automatic negative associations toward Arabs. Americans who show such a response are unaware of their implicit negativity and are therefore unable to report it explicitly. The unwilling-unable distinction is like the difference between hiding something from others versus something being hidden from you. In order to see if the two "agree" You must compare the two.

The IAT does this by asking you to pair two concepts (e.g., christian and good, or islam and good). The more closely associated the two concepts are, the easier it is to respond to them as a single unit. So, if christian and good are strongly associated, it should be easier to respond faster when you are asked to give the same response (i.e. the 'E' or 'I' key) to these two. If Islam and good are not so strongly associated, it should be harder to respond fast when they are paired. This gives a measure of how strongly associated the two types of concepts are. The more associated, the more rapidly you should be able to respond.

@fancydude:

Am I expressing myself clearly?

Your skills as an interlocutor could use some polishing. It is very possible that you, as I suspect, possess an automatic preference for Christian based mythology as opposed to Islam based mythology. I also suspect that you have absolutely no clue that you have that preference. Everyone has ways of being that are in some way not as "correct or fair" as we would like to think they are.That test is one practical way to remain alert to the existence of that preference, recognizing that it may intrude in conversations here in this forum. Identifying them is the key!! In that way you could decide to embark on consciously planned conversations here in the forums that would compensate for known unconscious preferences and beliefs. This would involve posting in ways that you would not naturally post– for example, pointing out morally repugnant items in the bible and condemning them first, instead of pointing out possible excuses first. Identifying effective mechanisms for managing and changing unwanted automatic preferences is a goal that I believe everyone either has, or should have, shouldn't they? The good news is that automatic preferences, automatic as they are, are also malleable.

:cool2:

notquiteme

took the test, but i'm not quite sure about its accuracy because it becomes kind of a memory game. just my thoughts. no offense intended

fancydude

Spin - I will have to re-read your entire answer- but just for now "am I expressing myself clearly" referred to Pew Research - (whether or not the link on Huffington Post to the Investors Business Daily was legit")since your very first reply was approximately "they are a reputable group and do some fascinating stuff" Email and live conversation for that matter can always be interpreted more than one way, unfortunately.

Modified after this:

I visited France, Italy and Switzerland many years ago and the people of France, the food, culture, history - it was wonderful. I can see why you would want to live there. Many of the people I went with were very obnoxious about making it known they were from the USA and got some probably deserved poor treatment, I was much quieter and most of the natives thought I was from England.

Okay, I pretty much understood implicit vs. explicit although I readily admit that I wouldn't have expressed it nearly as well as you - so I have no problem agreeing with "…skills as interlocutor could use some polishing." I'm kind of amused though when you say "... I suspect you have an automatic preference for Christian based mythology vs. Islam based mythology." First I don't see why it was necessary to add the word "mythology" so tell me why you did? Second I already said very explicitly I think Christianity allows for much greater freedoms for its citizens, generally. And most Christian countries are much more tolerant of non Christian religions than vice versa.

If this is not true, then we have to figure out what the truth is. Do we base that on our own experiences or what we read? Or both? Which sources are valid? Is what I read or experience invalid and what you read and experience valid? Or are research and opinion polls often invalid or don't tell the whole story? There are many complaints against the USA - I don't doubt for a minute that a great many are true. So why are people continuing to flock here instead of leave?

Which brings me to the test - I readily admit I know little of my Muslim neighbors. I know more about my ESL students but not enough to have "hot or cold" feelings about Islam. I do know I have treated both with the utmost respect and have been well liked enough to have been invited to student homes and functions, which no other teacher has been. My personal positions do not interfere with objective decisions. We voted on the call to prayer being broadcast - many people were against it - I voted to allow it. If the Church bells can ring, so can the Mosque broadcast the call to prayer. I will again take the test, but I don't think it is going to give me any major surprises!

notquiteme

I think i was relatively blessed to have gone to an international school here in the Philippines, where I encountered people of various religions. I would say that a lot of my classmates (probably due to their attendance to a foreign school) were a bit more open-minded about the whole religion thing. We even got invited to their celebrations

I was also exposed to various religions, and I haven't found any particular objection to worship/prayers, but i DO have objections to harming a fellow person. I don't think this is particularly true of any religion (except Buddhism) so I think I'm a bit more rational about things.

But wait… I've seen evidence of religion interfacing all other activities in Muslim life in the real world. The Muslim jewellers here will NEVER make a crucifix for anyone. Now I doubt we attach too much importance to not making crescent-shaped jewelry.

On the other hand, I've also seen an American get furious at a nepalese classmate because his bag had the reverse-swastika stitched on his bag (which was in no way the red and black one of the Nazi regime) because of what he felt was an affront to him. I told him that in Nepal, the symbol (which is the reverse of the german one) is actually the symbol of their god, or the sun. I'm not sure this is a good example to talk about, though.

Spintendo

@fancydude:

I already said very explicitly I think Christianity allows for much greater freedoms for its citizens, generally. And most Christian countries are much more tolerant of non Christian religions than vice versa.

Religious moderation springs from the fact that even the least educated person among us simply knows more about certain matters than anyone did two thousand years ago—and much of this knowledge is incompatible with scripture. Having heard something about the medical discoveries of the last hundred years, most of us no longer equate disease with sin or demonic possession… while having learned about the known distances between objects in our universe, most of us find the idea that it was created six thousand years ago impossible to take seriously.

Such concessions to modernity do not suggest for even a moment that faith is compatible with reason, or that our religious institutions are open to new learning: rather, it is that the utility of ignoring (or "reinterpreting") certain articles of faith is now overwhelming. This modern view of Western religion is nothing of the sort.... the Western religions are "modern" through no choice of their own, because they know that anyone who looks up in the sky and sees that humans can fly inside of large metal machines called airplanes will have conceded that we have learned a few things about physics, geography, engineering, and medicine since the time of Moses.

You have to remember that Western religions are more modern and liberal not by choice; The barbaric and blood-soaked period of time when the Catholic Church held real and actual power over much of Europe 500 years ago, has today been sidelined by the neglect of a more well-informed and educated society. If anything it's our institutions of learning that deserve that credit, not the Vatican.

@fancydude:

If this is not true, then we have to figure out what the truth is. Do we base that on our own experiences or what we read? Or both? Which sources are valid? Is what I read or experience invalid and what you read and experience valid? Or are research and opinion polls often invalid or don't tell the whole story? There are many complaints against the USA - I don't doubt for a minute that a great many are true. So why are people continuing to flock here instead of leave?

That is an excellent question… We believe most of what we believe about the world because others have told us so. Reliance upon the authority of experts, and upon the testimony of ordinary people, is the stuff of which worldviews are made. In fact, the more educated we become, the more our beliefs come to us at second hand.

How do you know that falling from a great height is hazardous to your health? Unless you have witnessed someone die in this way, you have adopted this belief on the authority of others. This is not a problem. Life is too short, and the world too complex, for any of us to go it alone. We are ever reliant on the intelligence and accuracy, if not he kindness, of strangers.

This does not suggest, however, that all forms of authority are valid; nor does it suggest that even the best authorities will always prove reliable. There are good arguments and bad ones, precise observations and imprecise ones; and each of us has to be the final judge of whether or not it is reasonable to adopt a given belief about the world.

:cool2:

fancydude

Spin - I noticed you again didn't answer a question - you pick up the quote immediately after.

However, my first quote is speaking of now and is contrasting Christianity with other religions, some in particular are seeking to go backwards and not forwards. Speaking in generalities you advance the notion all religions are equally primitive which I say is demonstrably not true. There are of course, exceptions - name anything human besides death and taxes that is true all times and everywhere - that doesn't exist!

Very true disease is not equated with demonic posession and sin so much as previously due to medical science - strangely though western medicine is more and more acknowledging the link between mind and body - prayer and religion aid people in changing their consciousness! Do not think that I am dismissing your point. The Bible itself says nothing of how old the earth is, that is fundamentalists counting back the generations listed in the Bible and extrapolating the age of the earth. The Catholic Church for sure never made such a ridiculous claim. Which while we're at it, you advocate that I must condemn certain aspects of the Bible in order to post here, without offending? I've been respectful; that is all that should be required. Judging by the various posters, and society at large of which the people participating here have shown themselves to be well aware of alternate points of view, I see no reason why it is necessary for me to make both sides of an argument, only to acknowledge what is true and to ask questions. Which I've noticed by the way you ask no questions of me, you only dispense knowledge and most of the time ignore questions I ask you!

I happen to know a nun personally who made an improvement to rocket fuel and she also happens have taught organic chemistry for years so I don't know if I can accept your premise that religious institutions are not open to learning. True enough the movement of western religions toward modernity is not often by choice, but sometimes it is. However, other countries have the same technologies, same access to information. Why are some of their religious leaders pushing to go backwards? Which raises another very legitimate question - why did Democracy come out of a Christian background? Perhaps that compatibility I mentioned was symbiotic? The only other thing I would say is that governments now start the wars instead of the churches and kill millions of people. Is this any better or have we just exchanged one problem for another?