On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:09:16 -0400, Carla Hunt <carla.hunt.b at oncogene.com> wrote: > James Griffin wrote: > >>> Warning: Discussion of religious viewpoints here. If such is >>> unpleasant, don't read further >>> >>> >>> * >>> >>> >> >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> >> People pick and choose which commandments apply. What we like to do >> are those we select as no longer applicable. Stuff which is not nearly >> so clear - but which disgust us, condemn the practitioners to being >> tortured beyond all understanding forever and ever without hope of > parole. > > ahhhh, but if the bible is truly the inspired word of god, then i'm > betting god meant for all those commandments to apply, not for people to > pick and choose. really how you look at a religious text depends on your > world view - as in whether or not you believe in god as real entity or > you > believe that religion is some kind of cultural or societal (is that even > a > real word?) construct that ancient peoples (and some not so ancient) use > to explain the unexplainable around them. looking at it from the first > point of view, if god was powerful enough create the world in all it's > glory (as stated in the bible), then surely god was powerful enough to > make sure that the correct message remained intact in the text. in that > case, why would you pick and choose what to believe and follow? just a > thought. > But would "god" interfere to the extent required to maintain a "pure" message in the bible? This is the same omnipotent being that isn't fixing <insert horrible calamity of your choice> because we humans have free will and should be taking care of it ourselves. Personally I don't believe any of it, and I'm not exactly the most knowledgable theologian so my comments aren't worth much. I just couldn't resist adding them. -- Everything works in Theory. I need to learn how to program in Theory.