Religious folks: Ever wonder why you tend to be less intelligent and less educated?

You will just have to have Faith that my education is up to a decent standard.

It is most ironic that when your education is questioned you list me a series of tangable facts about what you have done.
But when questioned about your religion, you give me absolutely nothing. Zilch! Cliches of worthless rhetoric doggerel, which clearly are aimed at those who are desperate for something to believe in. Some might say the stupid.

Do you believe in evolution?? Or is that another part of the Bible you choose to cherry pick whichever parts suit you.

When you look in the sky at night, do you see the stars that are millions of light years away. I do. You obviously can't as God clearly created the universe 6 - 10'000 years ago. how could the light have been travelling for millions of years.

These are clasic cases of religious folk ignoring blatant facts and selfishly fitting their own moral code into selected passages of a highly edited multi-authored book - never mind ignoring the passages which just don't fit.

Another Theological question for you to ignore

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
her?

 

Living in that period would have been extremely harsh...and you could get stoned for any number of things, problably some of them very minor...and you get the impression that a angry mob would do it at the drop of a hat...As for your question, why don't you tell me where it says to do that in the Bible. If everyone was stoned for their shortcomings (then and now)...Nobody would make it.

 

That's called evading the question -which is precisely what you are accusing me of. That's called hypocrisy.

I am not sure if I believe in evolution in toto. Intra-species evolution makes perfect sense, as does the survival of the fittest. The question is still out on inter-species evolution for me. I would bet the house that you haven't the faintest idea what the Roman Catholic Church's position is on that question. Never mind running off and googling it.

For now, I will tell you that your hostility towards religion is blinding. I honestly would have a hard time finding the fruit in continuing a discussion with someone as prejudice as you are. I may as well go find a Nazi and explain the beauty of Jewish culture to him. Or a Ku Kux Klansman and discuss the contributions of African and African American culture to American society.

You evaded the question about your education. Try this one:
Explain how the universe began. Be careful not to trespass on basic tenets of science and logic.

Try this one next: How did the human eyeball evolve?

 

Easy! Through evolution.

It's a bit too complex to be explained in a forum, but I suggest you try reading 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins whichs explains scientifically in great detail the evolutionary process involved for the human eyeball.

How about answering one of my questions then?

 

I have about 20 minutes (before 4 o'clock Mass, believe it or not).

The Torah has some tough rules in there. Dpw, the punishment for homosexuality was severe, the same goes for adultery and for any number of far lesser crimes. The problem with modern laypersons is that they pay no attention whatsoever to context or to the authority of the source. They ignore one and scoff at the very idea of the other.

Yahweh is the Perfect Being, the Necessary Being who holds all life in his hand. Sin is our slap in His face. Sin is also something that demands sacrifice, blood sacrifice after enough of it, by the perfect, and perfectly righteous God. Yahweh is indeed a God of love and mercy, but he is also a God of justice.

As human beings we have implemented finite and imperfect reflections of this justice instinct in our justice systems ...if this then that and so on. We have a compelling need to keep order and teach respect for the "good". God demands that at a far higher level. When Moses approaches God on the mountain, he is told to remove his sandals for God is present and therefore it is sacred ground. When Moses comes down from the mountain, his face is beaming with some supernatural light and the Israelites quake with fear and ask him to cover it... anyway, the point is that God is sacred and holy and the Israelites were commanded not to take that lightly.

God presented himself as awesome and beyond 'all that is'. His people were set apart from every other tribe extant in the Middle East at that time -everyone else -and I mean everyone else- was polytheist. To proclaim to the whole known world back then that "there is One God" invited serious problems. The world wasn't exactly tolerant back then.

God defended their dissent with his reality. He chose his people and taught them that they were to be perfect in order to commune with him or approach his presence. If they strayed, there was consequence for that. Severe by our standards. God's upped the ante in order to form a people worthy of Himself. Think about the greatest fighters training -they have to be "punished" to be "perfect".

So there were hundreds of rules. The Israelites, being human, failed and failed again. They were punished by the just God -usually be being vanguished at the collective level.... but the same God heard their cry, while they were enslaved by nation after nation, and inevitably sent rescuers -Moses, Samson, Gideon, the Maccabees and the like.

[Thus ends part I.]

 

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."




These are GOD's WORDS, as spoken to Moses.
This isn't the whim of an angry mob in harsh primitive times. This is DIVINE COMMAND, God's will. It's the Christian bible, this is what Christians believe.

 

You are correct with the above passage. But if I may point you to another passage
Acts 1:7-8
7) In him we have redemption through his blood,the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace That he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding.

Grace is God's voluntary and loving favor given to those he saves. We can't earn salvation, nor do we deserve it. No religious,intellectual, or moral effort can gain it, because it comes only from God's mercy and love. Without God's grace, no person can be saved. To receive it, we must acknowledge that we cannot save ourselves, that only God can save us, and that our only way is through faith in Christ. Forgiveness was granted through the shredding of animal's blood in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, now we are forgiven through the blood of Jesus, if we repent and ask for forgiveness. (NIV Life Application study Bible)

 

First, am I the only one who finds this thread's presence in the "Classic Boxing" forum a little bit perplexing?

Second, a higher average education level/IQ score among a given group compared with a second that believes something else really does not constitute a persuasive argument in favor of the first group's beliefs. For example, 100 years ago, ideas such as communism and eugenics were extremely popular among highly-educated, intellectual crowds, while your average Joe bartenders and janitors would probably have been much more likely to be followers of good old-fashioned capitalism and have never even given eugenics a thought. Judging by the history of the last 80 years (and what is now the consensus among highly-educated, intellectual crowds as well), the average Joes were right while the scientists and college grads were wrong.

I would imagine it goes something like this: most people come from families which follow traditional beliefs. People who don't receive higher education, which directly introduces one, both through subject material and exposure to peers, to alternate ideas, are more likely never to seriously question the beliefs they were born into and, by extension, to continue holding to those beliefs, while people who are presented with alternate belief systems as viable options are obviously more likely to choose one of those alternatives.

 

Don't even bother. It doesn' matter if you quote an entire passage urging something as literal as killing gays, there's always another passage from a thousands of years old book that can be interprated any way it's mostly sheep like followers.

It's an outdated collection of bull**** that doesn't fit into a world this far removed from when it was written. The only way to make it even remotely relative is to dissect it on a ridiculous level and be prepared to make apologies for every other passage.

 

"Am I the only one who finds this thread's presence in the "Classic Boxing" thread a little bit perplexing?"

No.

I enjoy these discussions once in a while, but I come to this forum to escape them. It seems some people want to discuss religion a great deal.

 

This is a point of contention; people in favor of persecuting gays and the like (though even they hardly ever seem to actually want to follow everything in the Old Testament) often interpret Jesus' words, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I come not to abolish, but fulfill" (Matthew 5:17) as an instruction that the Old Testament law is valid and operational. The operational word here is obviously the "fulfill" part, which comes across ambiguously in English.

If you've studied more than one language, you're probably aware that an exact word-for-word translation from one language to another is near impossible, as it is often the case that there is no exact parallel in another language for a given word. The word which is translated in English as "fulfill" (plerosai) is defined by Strong's Concordance (an authoritative, exhaustive cross-reference of every word in the King James Bible back to the word in the original text) thusly: "Literally to make replete/complete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.:--accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfill, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply." Hence, as I see it, within the verse, this word can just as easily be taken as meaning that he intends to, say, complete something he views as unfinished/imperfect, perhaps more validly than to say that it means he's reaffirming something already there, and I believe this is a more valid interpretation when the words are taken in context (read below).

You see, within the very same sermon, just a few sentences later, Jesus proceeds to directly quote and repudiate various Old Testament teachings. Exodus 21:23-27 (out of the Old Testament) reads:
"If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
In Matthew 5:38-39- again, during the same speech and just a few sentences after the prior quote which is taken by supporters of the whole "stoning-gays" idea as meaning that such laws are to in effect for Christians- Jesus tells his followers,
"You have heard that it has been said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' but I tell you not to use force against an evil man. And whoever strikes you on the one cheek, turn him also the other one."
Moreover, he states in Matthew 5:43-44,
"You have heard that it has been said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you to love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you".

Now, since "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is the central principle from which the harsher Old Testament teachings are derived, Jesus' repudiation of this teaching, in conjunction with instructions to A. not retaliate towards other people's offenses towards you and B. even return their offenses and persecution with love and altruism, would seem to me to pretty plainly indicate that he expects his followers not to follow various "death-penalty-for-X-minor offense" mandates. This seems even more obvious when one examines his other ethical teachings and his personal conduct. For example:

"Now early in the morning, he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in their midst, they said to him, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do you say?'
"This they said, testing him, that they might have something of which to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with his finger, as though he did not hear. So when they continued asking him, he raised himself up to them and said, 'Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone.'
"And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest and even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
"When Jesus had raised himself up and seen no one but the woman, he said to her, 'Woman, where are your accusers? Does no one condemn you?' She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said to her, 'Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.'"
-John 8:2-11

"Then they laid hands on Jesus and took him. And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. But Jesus said unto him,'Put your sword back in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'"
-Matthew 26:51-52

This sound like a guy who thinks we should stone gays?

 

You're no enemy ChrisPontius, I assure you of that. I wish you felt differently of course, but this forum is no place to convert anybody. There are things, I believe, that are meant to remain as mysteries to us, and and the acknowledgement that there is a God is strictly based on faith, and that's all I will say. Anyway, I look forward to your boxing posts as usual, and will stay in the realm of boxing in the future.

 

:good :good :good

 

I'm with you.

 

I wouldn't say gullible or less intelligent, certainly prone to a different mindset though.

Faith can be a matter of several things, the most common is simply conditioning through early childhood, religion can be a part of identity/community, it adds to the strength of a persons fervour.

Some people need an anchor point or strong constant in their lives, religion/faith gives it to them, whether they find it in early adulthood or later. Some turn to religion in times of crisis, finding the support they need, being social creatures if support networks aren't there, religion can be an alternative.

Some people need discipline, a stringent heavy hand over them, or clear guidelines for behaviour, perhaps there's an inability to self-moderate, so they idea of an imposing all seeing disciplinary force that offers reward is appealing. Some people have diificulty simply differentiating from proprietal and non-proprietal behaviour, having that outlined along with distinct reasononing can be helpful with those who have a awkward grasp of empathy.

Some people simply feel believing is simply more appealing than not believing, and a rational intelligent person can make that decision, and be conscious that a leap of faith has no empirical evidence to ultimately support it.

Personally though I find religion unnapealing, the most vocal men of faith often strike me as ignorant and trading on fear. At the end of the day a God that would condemn a man like Fred Hollows for his lack of faith is not one I care for, though I doubt he would, since I doubt his existence in terms of his representation in various religions. Who claim him for their own, claim the truth, and condemn others (with and without faith)... at the end of the day someone's lying.