Choosing a faith

Indeed, there are. And I count you among them.

That goes back to why I started this thread a while back. We all serve something or somebody. It doesn't have to be a deity. If we believe in a deity it isn't the name of the deity that matters. It is the character of that deity and that deity's call on our lives. The name of the deity isn't the point.AS far as Christianity is concerned I agree that the issue becomes what to make of the Bible. As Christians we want absolute answers so it is tempting to understand the Bible as i was essentially dictated by God so that if we want an answer to a question of what we should or could do we have a place to go and get answers. The truth is though, that you can get pretty much any answer you want when you do that.Here is a quote from a book called Testing Scripture - A Scientist Explores the Bible. It is by John Polkinghorne who is eminently qualified as both a physicist and a theologian.Here is a quote from that book:

quote:

---

The Bible is in many ways a very complex book. The material in it was written over a period of about one thousand Often biblical writers years and the process of compilation ended almost two thousand years ago. The biblical writings originated in a variety of contrasting cultures, all with world views different in many respects from our modern, scientifically influenced understanding. Often biblical writers took over stories and insights from earlier ages, modifying them and developing them in ways that seemed appropriate to their own times and experience, producing a text that is many layered like an archaeological site. Much that we read in the Bible may seem strange to us, particularly in the Old Testament, where there are stories of war and violence that trouble us as being presented as if they were the express will of God. Sometimes when different writers are telling the story of the same events, as in often the case in the Gospels for instance, there are discrepancies of details that make it clear that we are reading human compositions, and not the result of an inerrant divine dictation. Despite these problems, all of which I shall have to confront in what follows, there is a great spiritual truth and beauty to be found in Scripture.

---

He also says a little further on:

quote:

---

I believe, that the nature of divine revelation, (in the Bible), is not the divine revelation of mysterious transmission of infallible propositions which are to be accepted without question, but the record of persons and events through which the divine will and nature have been most transparently made known.

---

In reading the Bible from that perspective, the message that I get is that we as humans are called toa life that is about serving others even at our own expense as taught and lived by Jesus.The Gospel writer John tells us that the "Word" became flesh, (clearly we are to understand he meant Jesus). but he did not say that the "Word" became a book of a collection of books.

Tangle, I don't mind being a dickhead. I've been called
a lot worse. I've even called others worse.We are good.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

United Church of God (UCG), apparently.Phat identified candle2's church as being UCG in his Message 2484 which also started the "United Church of God Teachings" subtopic and candle2 owned it. Other than that, Search did not yield candle2 naming it himself explicitly. Instead, candle2 reacted to my mention (Message 2500) of what the Calvary Church fundies thought of Herbert W. Armstrong, upon whose teachings UCG's are based, that, as I recalled, he was a candidate for the title of The AntiChrist -- though digging deeper, I should amend that they were instead more likely referring to Armstrong's son, Garner Ted Armstrong. candle2 "replied" directly to me with his Message 2503 which was a testimonial of his having formerly been a member of the Church of Christ (CoC) but left it after extended and contentious conversations with someone who disproved CoC after which candle2 apparently joined that man's church which is apparently United Church of God.I have to qualify that with "apparently" since candle2 never gives a straight answer and has to my knowledge and my research never explicitly stated which religion (ie, which one of the 45,000 different versions of Christianity) he belongs to. However, the reference to United Church of God and to Armstrong does seem to have hit a nerve since he starts his lengthy and content-containing "reply", Message 2503, with: Yes, my last sentence was clumsy, but unfortunately English lacks that useful feature of German, the ausgedehntes Eigenschaftswort ("extended adjective", but I don't know what it's called in English descriptions of German); eg, "his lengthy and untypically-some-content-containing 'reply'". English would require the entire restructuring of the sentence which would have completely disrupted the flow of the sentence. I was always taught that a sentence contains a complete thought and German tends to pack a lot more information into a sentence than English does. Your confusion is understandable, since they all look alike to us normals.A friend from Country Two Step comes from a narrowly niche fundamentalist church and I was surprised when she took umbrage at having such a label as that applied to her. There are a large number of fundamentalist-ish sects which are virtually identical to each other such that they all look the same to outsiders, but whose members are strongly aware of their miniscule and nit-picking differences such that only they have the Truth while those others are at best apostates and at worst heretics verging on atheists (OK, considering them atheists might be going too far, but not by much).One would need to study for the equivalent of a doctorate to learn all the minute differences between them and all for no good purpose. Since they are all essentially the same and yield the same bad results (including Christian Nationalism), lumping them together as "fundies" works just as well as being a very practical solution. ABE:

Dwise, you criticize where I get my information. Are you
serious? Naturally, I do not get it from atheist sources,
no more than you get your information from Christian
sources.Let me make some things clear to you:The whites in Lucy's eye were made up. You should know
that eyes don't withstand the ravages of time.Lucy's skeleton contained no hand bones, nor feet bones.To portray her with human looking hands and feet is to be
dishonest.To portray her with human looking eyes, and to pose her
as though she was thinking is also dishonest.It is also a fact that Lucy's pelvis was cut and reattached
as to be not so flared.It is also true that ten-an-a-half inch human footprints,
located a thousand miles away, and in the same strata,
served as indication that she walked upright.Imagine that, a three-and-a-half foot tall individual with
such large feet. Perhaps, she was a Bigfoot.Since man was created 6000 years ago, this blows their
date of several million years to pieces.

WTF?

Dwise, bone fragments assigned to an ape known as
handy-man were discovered among thousands of other
bone fragments of other animals.Since stone tools were found at this site, they jump to
the conclusion that these tools belonged to the ape,
which they now call early man.Based on nothing more than their misguided paradigm,
they assign qualities to this ape that true science would
never allow.All they really know is that the ape died. They do not know
anything else.Since the ape's bones were found among thousands of
other bones why did they not consider that the ape served
as nothing more than nourishment for real humans?The Bible state in Genesis 4:22 that man had mastered
the art of working with brass, iron, and other metals
centuries before the flood.After the global flood there were no means to further
produce iron. Iron and brass were no longer available
for the making of weapons.The only weapons available to them at that time were
made of stone, which consisted of arrow and spear
heads, as well as axes and such.The homo-habilis bones found at the site were killed by
real humans for food.Science is nothing more than a tool for gathering
information. To assign qualities to this ape that is not
observable is not science.To summarily dismiss an Intelligent Designer as Creator
of the universe is also not good science.If the premise is wrong (and there is no way to prove that
it isn't wrong), then all conclusions based on this premise
are wrong.Real science does not jump to conclusions.

So right off the bat you lie about what I wrote. Typical creationist! No, I asked you a direct question which you are evading with your lies! Jessica H. Christ! What is wrong with you?Here is what I did write in my Message 2508: I asked you directly for the source of your lies about Lucy et al. Instead of evading that question in typical dishonest creationist fashion (which reflects directly on your god and your religion in the worst way possible), ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!Jessica H. Christ! What is wrong with you? 
I need to go get my car smogged, so the rest of my reply will have to wait until I get back. Though if you actually read my Message 2508 to which you falsely claim to be replying, you will find that all your claims have been refuted. Also watch Erika "Gutsick Gibbon's" video paying close attention to the sections whose timemarks I gave you in my Message 2508. If you don't watch that video, then tell us why -- it had better not be your typical lame excuse that your stupid phone is too tiny to see anything on.In the meantime, ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!And please at least try to stop lying. I do realize that lying is an article of faith for you, but we do need to have a discussion here.

AZ, it is God's foreknowledge that allows Him to always
make the right decisions.People like you whine about something all the time. You
whine when God allows evil to happen, and you whine
when He does something about it.God allowed the Amorites to practice the depravity of
burning their children as an offering to Molech for 400
years before stopping it. He showed extreme patience.He stopped it by killing all the Amorites, including women
and children.He was not going to allow the children to mature and
return to the same evil practice.God destroyed Sodom because of their evil. But, here too,
He showed great restraint. He was willing to spare them
if He could find only 10 righteous people. There weren't
even 10.God's vengeance is not impulsive. Ir is not irrational, nor is
it filled with emotional outbursts.We, as humans, do not fully understand the gravity of
sin the way God does.God destroyed all humans except eight in a worldwide
flood because of their wickedness.He showed great restraint by not destroying it much
sooner than He did.God gives lives and He takes lives. It is appointed a time
for each of us to die.All of these dead, including the ones God personally
killed, will once again be brought back to life by this
God that you so fully despise.Each of them will then be given the chance for eternal
life, and life of complete joy.None of them, myself included, have earned this great
privilege. There is nothing anyone could ever do to earn
the right to eternal life. It will be a gift. However, it can be
refused.The few short years of suffering during this short life is
nothing compared to the life to come.God fully understands that pain and suffering can lead an
individuals to learn certain valuable lessons. These times of
suffering are not enjoyable but they are necessary.We are put through this because it is imperative that
we come to understand that God's way of "give" is the
only way to true happiness. We can learn that fully
during our present lifetime.You have no reason to be angry. If you don't believe in
God, then don't concern yourself that others do.And, if you do not want eternal life, there is no need for
you to fret; it will not be forced on you.0ildren

Be aware that he will never answer your question. Creationist never do and never will; I am just one of many who's been asking them "what are you talking about?" for several decades without ever getting anything close to a straight answer.There are basically two reasons why you'll never get an answer:

1. The entire enterprise of creationism is based on misconceptions, falsehoods, and deliberate deception (especially "purely scientific" "creation science" -- AKA The Game of "Hide the Bible" -- which was created as a legalistic deliberate deception for the purpose of fooling the courts). It depends on sowing confusion and hiding behind fuzzy language, so any act of defining and clarifying its terms would be counterproductive to creationism's mission of "... -- the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already." (Paul Ellwanger, author of the "Balanced Treatment" model bill on which Arkansas Act 590 was based, from the closing of a letter written to Tom Bethell, which was admitted as evidence and cited by Judge Overton in his Decision of the Court).
   ​
   This normally only applies to creationists higher up in their food chain which includes the organizations, spokesmen, producers of creationist claims, debaters, etc, whom I will refer to as "professional creationists" even though many offer their disservices for free. It does not usually include the rank-and-file creationists (at the bottom of that food chain) who mainly serve as consumers and regurgitators of creationist claims and arguments and hence can safely be assumed to be ignorant of the truth.
   ​
2. candle2 has no idea at all what an "evolutionist" is. He also has no idea what "evolution" is let alone how it works (evidenced by his claims of evolution requiring something like dogs giving birth to kittens, which is completely false). Nor any valid reason to oppose evolution. He doesn't know what he is talking about.
   ​
   Since he does not know what any of that is or means, he cannot explain any of it to anybody let alone provide any definition. Furthermore, his dogmatism provides strong disincentive to give the matter any actual thought, let alone engage in honest discussion.
   ​
   These are the followers who buy every lie that the professional creationists dream up and feed them. They don't know anything about the claims nor whatever underlying science there might be, nor even why any of the "problems" presented in those claims would be a problem (eg, candle2 thinks that his recently generated subterranean trace amounts of C-14 in coal or diamonds presents a problem for radiocarbon dating, but he has no clue why that would even be a problem, which it isn't as I have explained repeatedly). All the followers can do is memorize the claims without understanding them so that they can regurgitate them on command ... or as a Pavlovian response to one of their creationist dog whistles. Any and all attempts at discussing their own claims with these creationists will fail completely because they have no clue what they are talking about and so do not understand their own claims.
   ​
   Sadly, we only get the ignorant followers here, because the professionals know better than to deal with anyone who knows what he's talking about (ie, us). So all we can ask our questions to are the very ones who are completely incapable of answering those questions. Hence, candle2 will never answer your simple and legitimate question of what he means by "evolutionist."

This is why I know about creationists: candle2 is clearly a know-nothing creationism follower who is able to regurgitate creationist claims, but he knows nothing about those claims. All he can do is post them and repeat them, but he cannot answer any questions about them because he doesn't know anything about them (except that "evolutionists" -- whatever that is supposed to mean, which he also doesn't know -- have no answer for those claims, even though we do and do not hesitate to present our answers).Because of that, we know for a fact that candle2 will never tell you what an "evolutionist" is, no more than sensei, a weasel of the same stripe, ever would. Nor will he ever tell us what he thinks evolution is, or how it works, or why he opposes "evolution" (which he does even though he doesn't know what it is), nor whether or how "evolution" would conflict with Divine Creation or "God" (whichever one -- also, there is no conflict between actual evolution and Creation, but only if you don't misinterpret either or both terms).Instead, those terms serve as dog whistles, words devoid of any actual meaning but which serve as stimuli to trigger a Pavlovian response in creationists. This is the same thing we now see with the dog whistles Trump, DeSantis, Youngkin, FOX News, et al. constantly use to elicit fits of false rage in their MAGAt followers.  And that is basically what's involved in trying to talk with creationists and why we get the bad results that we do. Now we need to ask you what you are talking about:

• What is your understanding of "evolutionist"?
• What is "materialistic evolution" supposed to mean?
• What kinds of "evolution" do you think there are and please describe them.
• What do you think "evolution" is and how it works?

And finally as a bonus question: What are you talking about with your "Science of the Gaps" (SotG)?I've asked you about that before and to my knowledge you have never answered that question.The best that I can figure SotG is nothing more than refusing to resort to the worse-than-useless God of the Gaps; instead of just giving up with a "goddidit", you keep looking for an answer.If that's not what you are talking about, then please post a correction.

And when is that supposed to start? 400 years of roasted babies. Your god is a sick fuck. That justifies all manner of spiritually divined murder against humanity, doesn't it? If your god could do it then certainly his priests can, too ... in his name of course. Kill the ones the priests say deserve killing. Carry the cross up front. Then your god was there hovering around watching every time they closed and locked the shower doors at Auschwitz. He saw this, up close and personal, multiple times a day, for years. For years, candle2. And with all his power and all his love he did nothing. Nothing, candle2. The greatest anguish and suffering a person can know forced upon millions of his creation well within reach of his holy mercy and he does nothing. That was pure, unnecessary terror, unwarranted pain, unjustified mindlessly bloody evil. You and your gods accept and justify this as "necessary"? You and your gods are sick fucks.The greatest evils man can think. Those make up the minds of your gods. Those are the monsters you venerate ... the evils you worship and pray to.They are only delusions in your own mind. You carry the disease that infests the human soul. You believe. And with that you justify slaughter. All religion must be exorcised from the mind of humanity. Oh, candle2, I do not despise your gods. They don't exist.I despise the actions of their adherents. I despise the priests that excused, justified, fostered the killing of whole peoples in the name of a non-existent deity and do so even today. Gods that only the priest can talk to. Gods that only the priest can hear. And priests always aligned with, if not actually being the, local warlord. And I despise any that enable, justify, excuse the continuing evil of propagating your gods' voice.I despise you.

Thanks for the post. I guess my biggest problem with creationism is that it represents a way of understanding the Bible as being essentially God dictated. As a result we wind up believing in creation 6000 years ago and leaving us with a deity that commands and commits genocide. It essentially makes a false idol out of the Bible and holds the Christian faith up to mockery. If Christianity actually required me to accept those beliefs I wouldn't be able to call myself Christian.Fortunately, that isn't the case and actually even John in his Gospel tells us that he "word" of God became flesh. He didn't say it became a book. It is, as I've said numerous times it is "Christianity", not "Bibleianity".However, I would add that most literalists I know are pretty useful members of society and they don't actually believe the Bible literally anyway. Unfortunately so much of the focus has been on creationism which of course isn't just bad science but not science at all. Your suggestion is part of what I mean by that but also I see people on here that simply come up with something that science doesn't have an answer for yet, but hopefully will some day. However I would also agree that the place to look for the answers in with the scientific method. Goddidit is never an answer to a scientific question.

GDR, I belive that all life began 6000 years ago.I believe in variation within us, but an ape will always
be an ape; a dog will always be a dog; and, humans
will remain humans.

With all the evidence reality has provided, you still choose to believe a vicious ensanguined fairytale and its legacy of murder, terror and evil. You see and talk to ghosts, conjures of your own mind. You believe and practice the evil of an ancient book written to serve the priests not the people. You have lost touch with the reality of this universe. You’re a religious nutjob and your intellect, critical thinking skills and humanity are all shown to be terribly flawed.You celebrate the blood and the pain of your gods history and insist all others do likewise. You base life and death decisions on the blood-soaked creed of your evil monsters to disastrous effect and insist all others do likewise. You perpetuate this evil in the soul of humanity.Your evil, your religion, stalks the human mind. You are the evil one, the talking snake, pushing a fatal religious fantasy like a deadly drug. Our species suffers greatly from your lies.Your religion must end.