arrgh.. why don't people read systematic theology!?
549069
Obviously someone has never LOOKED at a systematic theology, or they'd know that there is no way to read a systematic theology without intense bibly study.\n\n\nSystematic Theology is (one of a few) great way to study the Bible. Every believer should do this, at least in supplement to regular devotional study.\n\nIt forces you to ACTUALLY STUDY, not just read stupidly. Alot of folks get upset about studying the Bible through theological works, but, especially until you get into more debated topics (and even then, it helps understand the debate) it really clears up WHY the church teaches what we teach, and where I think the reasoning is stoopid.\n\n-Stephen
936187
I read about a third and stopped.  Dr. Bock is a competent writer but it's very old ground that's been plowed over for two hundred years and he's added absolutely nothing new with one more traditionalist book for the laity. \n\nI think you can pretty much sum up the psuedepigrapha with one admittedly subjective distinction: the non-canonical material is even sillier than the material that made it in, and it doesn't take more than a long magazine article to explain what it is and why it's not canonicial.
164393
I agree with what you are saying. And I think some christians get hung up on certain scriptures about same sex relationships because they don't understand those scriptures in context. \n\nGood articles on that here:\nhttp://www.mccchurch.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Resources/SexualitySpirituality/Sexuality_Spirituali.htm\n\nFollow up: Do you see what I mean about all the people who don't understand those scriptures in context? Not one of them can be bothered with reading the articles and learning something new. It is a shame to see people so close minded.
1184102
You are right it is there in black and white. instead of reading for themselves most allow themselves to be lead by another who most likely has his own ideas and traditions of men. and don't forget for almost all religions there is money involved. We can figure the Bible out just read it , it is so simple to understand.
657228
It's very clear to me that they realise that a proper education will lead an inquisitive mind away from literalist readings of the Bible. This will allow for a more secular next generation, which will have fewer churchgoers. Fewer churchgoers means less in tithes. And less money in tithes means that the religious powers-that-be can no longer live large on the money of their parishioners. Additionally, when they don't have blind followers, they become emperors without clothes on.\n\n(edit: to honeybearmartin: "Wouldn't teaching about God, love, forgiveness, and the general message of being a good and decent human be something that all adults would want to teach kids?" If you erase one word in that sentence, I would agree with you 100% and I think you'll find that God, love and forgiveness needn't be the same thing at all.)
640335
I think I am just a little bit dumber for just reading that. seriously. You should spend your time becoming better educated. once you have a pHd, then I will read your foolish questions. \n\nAnd about my belief in God...it still remains.
657385
Well, how pleasantly surprising to find that only 75% of the people responding to this are ignorant proselytizing judgmental morons...I was expecting something like 90-100%.\n\nHonestly, how is Christianity supposed to keep its flocks on the straight and narrow path (that leads to the collection plate) if they don't do a little scaremongering?  And you, my friend, are the perfect target...why, your NAME, according to my religion, implies evil incarnate; I might as well take my preacher at his word and not bother to find out anything more for myself.  I'll just keep my eyes and ears closed to anyone that might try to enlighten me on the subject...they're only after my soul, of course; they will only lead me astray...if I just trust in the people to whom I give my money I'll go to heaven and be all right...\n\nAhem.  Sorry.  I just get going.  No, seriously, it's the name, buddy.  Most people in the US are Christians and your namesake is their arch-nemesis.  But you don't need to be told that, am I right?  It probably wouldn't do a lot of good, but you could put a link with your question to a site that might enlighten the uninitiated.
218582
Funny how Christians can explain away the incest as "necessary" to populate the world. Another example that people can blindly accept the words of the bible.\n\nWhy can't god just create more humans so that they don't have to inbreed? Or does god PLAN for us to inbreed??? Utter bulls**t!
837696
When I was a kid I went to church, and I really liked the sign on the wall that read, "God is Love." \n\nThen I started to read the Bible, and in shock and dismay I read about an angry, murderous, misogynist, spoiled brat of a deity who is in seeeerrrrious need of a time-out. Or a spanking, for preference.\n\nI could not reconcile the two in my head, and I decided that I really believe in Love over anything the Bible had to say. So, when the two clashed, the Bible lost. Later studies of the history of the Bible confirmed my hunch that it was a man-made document and not divine.\n\nOver the years, my study of religions made me start to think that people's religious experiences had some interesting things in common... and perhaps all the personification of deities are mere metaphors for something bigger even than 'God', and are well-meaning but misguided attempts to define something indefinable.\n\nSo THAT's what I really believe in... not a deity and most certainly not the Christian deity, but something more abstract.
782102
You make good points. My problem with organized religion is that it has WAY too strong a grasp on some people. A lot of times I see questions here that ask, "What do you guys think about (insert any topic related to spirituality)?" -- and all too often, the answers you get are this: "Nope, I don't like it, because it's not in the Bible."\n\nThat's the mindset that people have. If it's not in the Bible, it has no value whatsoever. The truth is limited to that ONE holy book and all other holy books which may have different interpretations are totally worthless. -- I just don't think that's a healthy mindset to have. There's a lot of great stuff out there and people are missing it when they just delve right into one religion and never bother to look anywhere else. A lot of those Eastern religions and belief systems have some really valuable teachings, but nope... if it's not in the Bible, forget it. I just wish some people opened up a bit more.
95264
I looked at the reviews of the books you mentioned on amazon.com. From what I can tell, I am afraid they do not offer much in the way of solid technical arguments or new discussions or reasons that creationism or a young earth hypothesis must be chosen over the current dominant accepted theories. The "experts" in the book "In Six Days" offer little that has not been dismissed before as specious arguments. Unfortunately, although these 50 gentlemen have PhDs, they are offering opinions in areas well outside their areas of expertise, in most cases. Many of arguments violate well-known scientific principles and laws.  \n\nI do applaud the creationists for trying to compile books that state their arguments and reasoning. We definitely need more of these, and we need to approach this subject with more intellectual honesty and integrity than has been evidenced in the past. \n\nI myself feel I could write a far more compelling book supporting faith that would be far more careful, if I was so inclined. I feel more of a general awe of creation, somewhat similar to that of Einstein, or Thomas Jefferson, or Newton. \n\nIt is disappointing and disconcerting that so far, these kinds of products produced by the religious community have hurt more than they have helped, have discredited those of religious faith and cast them in a bad light. They have tended to lend support for the opposite point of view, and have not succeeded as intended I am sorry to say.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \n\nAddendum:\n\nYes I am being honest. I have often been struck by some of the most amazing structures in science when I have been doing scientific investigations or learning about science. Unfortunately, I did not keep notes. I think that this is where religious people should direct their attention if they want to grasp the incredible majesty of creation. And it has the advantage that it is beautiful in structure, and unassailable, and compltely scientifically rigorous. \n\nHowever, I am not sure how many people of faith want to undertake a 15+ year journey into abstruse mathematics and physics, or are willing to approach it with a completely open mind. In fact, what I would ask is, if one is absolutely sure of one's faith, then would it not make sense to allow science to continue to unravel the mysteries of nature? After all, if you are positive what the conclusion will be, let them bolster your arguments with facts. If I am not mistaken, this has been the Vatican's approach for some decades.
322388
You are interested in opinions, and you will get as many as there are people; all different, proving nothing, determining nothing, getting closer to nothing. \n\nYou answered one of my questions "Is there truth outside of God's truth?" Since you didn't leave your email open, I could not respond to you, except to answer you here. Why are you so concerned about the religion of others? I don't see the point of your question.\n\nI probably wouldn't have bothered hunting you down, until you left that last one-liner: "Search for your own truth, not one provided to you by others." Cheap shot, without reason or knowledge. You are very young and presumptuous and quick to apply labels from your limited learning and experience. You have no idea how many decades I have researched truth, have only started keeping a list of references in the last nine years, and already have over 700 books on that list, so unless you have read a thousand books, we may not even be able to have a decent discussion, especially when you think truth is something broad, general, changing, and temporal, like an opinion, or some rationalized belief, or based on perception. Base your premise on something solid before you pontificate.\n\nIf you are still interested in truth, read my Essay on my web site at :  www.members.cox.net/b2fnow\n\nthe Essay defines truth; you will find it in the Articles\nthen read the article "Finding Truth"\n\nthese will clear up a lot of your confusion\n\nOh yes, it doesn't matter which religion or no religion; ultimately it is about truth. Christianity is about a relationship with God, and is non-denominational.
669746
While it's certainly nice to want to embrace some of the tenets of Christianity the cost of actually believing is far too great.\n\nI could never put aside my belief in reason and embrace intolerance just because some book has levied a threat against disbelief.\n\nEvolution is undeniable. We see it at work every day. Dog breeds, anti-biotic resistant strains of germs are both evidence in favor of evolution. I know, I know microevolution versus macroevolution. However, seeing it in any capacity lends credence to the greater argument. \n\nOur knowledge base is still in its infancy. Six-hundred years ago the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Now we know better. What will we discover in the next six-hundred years?
51485
I've already answered a similar question. \nI could say that many people don't know enough of the living world that surrounds them; that could be blamed on education, personal interest, or whatever. \nBut ultimately it is about the time and effort that it takes to learn, understand, question, doubt, and find out if the "truth" that they're selling you is anything like what really happens. \nI think faith is absolutely respectable. I know that most of the times it helps people cope with life in a better way. But it's not science; and scientists object when someone tries to pass it as such (intelligent design and so forth). Belief is dogmatic; you believe that there is a god who created everything because you do. From that point you can use whatever observations you make to support your viewpoint (only think of the many interpretations that have been derived from the Bible - shudder- ).\nSometimes it may seem that scientists are also trying to sell dogmatic ideas, but that's because usually one is compelled to provide statements that are shorter and simpler than what we know or think. \nThat's why I started saying that it takes more effort and more thinking. If you study, if you learn and really observe the natural world, you can't help but seeing the links of similarity that connect all of us. \nIt is each person's choice.
810916
It's, indeed, hard to grasp something as ambiguous.\nSo many religions have this "End of all things" theme, so it's confusing.\nThat's why I just stopped caring, and started living realistically, and reading books that make sense, i.e. Darwinism.
601160
I highly recommend reading Christopher West's Theology of the Body for beginners.  Rocked my world for sure and does an awesome job of answering your question.
186914
Ugh, Why do so many creationists answer questions in the science section when they don't know what they're talking about?\n\nYou will find an excellent explaination of this in "Finding Darwin's God," by Ken Miller.  Also look at his homepage.\n\nThis idea of irreducible complexity from Michael Behe has been thorughly debunked.  The ones that have been illustrated are either not IC or could have resulted from a REDUCTION of redundant systems.  Or have resulted by using parts adapted for OTHER functions.\n\nRead what Calimecita wrote, at least she bothered to understand what she's talking about.  I am so worried about the education system in this country.