3leggedfrog

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on the topic of religion. This is just an amature’s view on what I see as a big problem with each of these religions. I am not trying to flame any religion nor am I trying to say what religion is better. I am also not the devil. I am ignorant fool who likes to rant. sorry. With that said, I believe no one should read this thread!

Dogma what a powerful thing this is. Don’t think or question about this aspect of our religion just believe and have faith. This is a big problem with Christian and Islam faiths. Dogma is not all bad. Don’t kill that’s a good one. Some of the questions we ask have no answer. What happens after death, who made the world and why…etc. Also another problem is did God or his messengers tell our religious leaders these tenets or was this political motivated. For an example the question in the catholic religion if you don’t believe in Jesus you are going to hell. Did Jesus, God or an angle really say this or was this political motivated by man to spread the religion (sorry Christianity for picking on you I could find another example from the other religions but this is the best example for most people who read this can relate to).

A problem that plagues Christianity is intolerance. If you don’t believe in Jesus you’re going to hell. Did a god who made the world and the universe really say that if I don’t believe in you I am going to hell. To me this smacks of human influence. Out of all the people in the world he, GOD, only told a very few people In only one place at one time who at the time did not have access to everyone else? the human influnce could be a priest who is a little overzealious wants the word to go out to all the people about his religion is the best might want to add this to his religion pretending that god said it. Humans are not above lying if they thought it was for a good cause. i am not saying that they did nor not. i am only saying that this might a possible explaination. another is hundreds of years of being the only teachers of reading and writing for the people who are your followers with a book that was written in a language that is common only to prist. now add a politicaly powerful prist who thinks God should have said this....

Another problem is forgiveness. Christianity are told to forgive everyone. For an example forgive thy neighbor and forgive him his trespasses. what happens if this person is not Catholic? this person is already going to hell why should we forgive them? another example is if the time comes when it is too dangerous to have a criminal around say a rapist murder who if given a chance will commit his crimes again they quote an Old Testament verse eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In modern times this means kill the bastard but humanely. Do you really forgive him if you kill him?

Next religion is Islam. Sorry Muslims but from my point of view your religion leads to a predisposition towards an oppressiveness enviroment (no I am not just talking about the Middle East). Well I like your ideas on all religions are the same. We all worship the same God. The pillars of wisdom are a great idea. Now the bad part, the Qur’an. The Holy book says a lot about what a person should do and not do. Not that’s all that bad but it does lead a person who is used to someone tell him what to do all the time to follow some strange politcal and religious leaders. the Qur'an is extramly specific on certian things. Dress this way. Do this and don’t do that specifically. This person is responsible for this in the family. For an example the father is responsible for the children after they are born. The women unlike American culture are not responsible for the kids feminist cheer here. the Qur’an spells out how a person should live all the time. What about the alternatives, other ways to live. Now the Shiites (one of the two Islam faiths) have the holy war jihad. Now don’t get me wrong the Shiites are not all bad but believing in dieing for your god and being straight to heaven is scary to me. Also scary if your wrong. Me I like the other faith that doesn’t believe in Jihad. But still the religion is too structured. It limits individual thinking. Is this good or bad? Well in my culture this is bad. I like free thinkers. They make me laugh. Christianity used to be like this until it fragmented. Now there is so many types of Christianity that this helps in the check and balance. If you don’t like it find a new Christianity religion.

Judaism nice religion but it is mixed up with a racial identity. Should I be more proud of my religion or my people? Who is better a full Jew or someone who is just new to the faith?

Wiccians’s deal with superstition to much for me to really like their religion although I do like their love of mother earth.


sorry about the sterotypes and please do not ban me!!!

To me religion should coexist with my life not dominate my life. But that’s just me.

The reson I am posting my thought today is because i was told today that I was going to hell. sigh... I wonder which one?

__________________
"enjoy life to the brim but do not spill it" quoted off my tatoo

"Iam myself every day."

TheKak

As a former Christian I would have to agree with the statement that religion limits individual thinking. Everything has already been thought out (albeit rather poorly in my opinion) for you and laid out in a book for your convienience. I asked questions all the time, always questioning and questioning things I read in the Bible, and though sometimes I got satisfactory answers, most of the time I was told that is what faith is, just believing what is there and not questioning things that appear wrong. Though I don't think all religion is bad, anything in its extreme is bad including religion (leading to holy wars and whatnot, how silly).

__________________
Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

ARTelevision

Humans everywhere are filled with superstition, out-of-control belief engines, perverse psychology, wildly irrational emotionalism, and an endless supply of wishful thinking. There's not a whole lot that can be done about this.

__________________
create evolution

SecretMethod70

Since you started out saying that you're "ignorant," let me try and educate you with the limited knowledge I do have.

As a practicing Catholic and a person who is presently takling a class on Catholic theology, I can tell you that this is 100% absolutely, positively false. Many Christian religions do believe this, and probably almost all did at some point. However, today it comes down to how literal the interpretation of the Bible is. Many more fundamental religions still believe that you must be Christian to "go to Heaven" (which is a bad phrase to use anyways), however since the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960's, the Catholic Church has held that a person can be "saved" no matter what their religion is, although they do hold that the Catholic Church holds the fullness of God's truth while all other religions do not have the fullness, but do have real truth nonetheless.

Putting on my fundamentalist hat, yes the Bible does say, when interpreted literally, that one must believe in Jesus Christ as your savior in order to be "saved." Again, it all comes down to how strictly you interpret text.

So, that pretty much addresses your entire post until the Islam part (which I can't speak for). One point though is that, the thing you like in Islam that all religions essentially worship the same God, is basically speaking what Catholicisms holds to - that all religions are formed in some part by God's revealing himself to humans, just that Catholicism is the fullness of those revelations.

The best I can say, without meaning to pass judgement, is that if the person who told you you were going to Hell was Catholic, they really know very little about the faith that they think they believe in. I could go on a huge rant about this, but people today take almost no initiative to actually understand their own religion and, thus, either reject it based on things they don't understand or misunderstand, or they follow strange things that they THINK they're supposed to but they're not (like believing non-Catholics go to Hell which, again, is so far from what the Catholic Church actually teaches it;s not even funny).

Unfortunately, humans will never be perfect and there will always be people who either choose not to seek definitive understanding of what their faith does and doesn't teach, or simply choose to ignore it for a more egotistical method of "believing."

Even more unfortunate is that people have experiences like TheKak where even the people that should know and should discuss these things with those who ask don't really explain or perhaps even understand themselves. Point being, the "flaw" in most religions comes from the people within them warping and/or not understanding the religion rather than the religion itself.

EDIT: Just did a quick google seach and found a random article that I think lays it out pretty well, so I'll quote the relevant section:

Just so that's not misunderstood, I'm just going to reiterate that, for Catholics, that's not to say Buddhists can't be "saved," but that is to say that the Buddha (or Mohhamed, or whatever) is not the being that does the saving.

EDIT2: And, just cause I hate seeing misunderstanding, an example of where the idea that one must be Christian comes from is this line from the Bible, said by Jesus: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"

A fundamentalist looks at that line and says that one must be Christian. The Catholic Church looks at that line and says that, while one may be "saved" in any religion, Jesus is the one that does the saving even if they don't acknowledge Him.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Thagrastay

The thinking that "All roads lead to Rome" (pardon the geographic reference, please), really is a dangerous one in the theology mix. The "God" of Islam is not the "G*D" of Judaism and Christianity by a longshot. Allah and Jehovah are two very distinct beings. Allah was the Arabic God of the Moon- one of dozens of Arabic tribal gods that were worshipped along the trade routes and especially in Mecca. Mohammed was an illiterate man who was contacted by an Angel who represented this particular god who encouraged him to get rid of the other tribal gods and unify the Arabic dieties into one religious system and diety-that of Islam. After this all took place, Mohammed took his ideas to the Jews and Catholics living in the area and got their input into it all and it was their ideas that he incorporated into the tenets os Islam. If you read the Koran you can see the heavy catholic influence there. The jews wanted nothing to do with any idea of adding this foreign god to their religion and they let Mohammed know so in no uncertain terms, as did the catholics, but he found a little bit more of a kinship there than he did with Judaism.
If you read Joseph Smith's account of Mormonism and his exploits with the angel Moroni, you will find similarities to Mohammed and Gabriel. The point to Islam is that Mohammed didn't write a single bit of it and none of the original documents he supposedly dictated exist. All the extent manuscripts of the Koran today are not originals, but are re-written and interpretations. Just like the Mormon documents. For relatively new religions, this is a sad state of affairs.
Jesus, the Christ stated flatly and unequivocally that "no one can come to the Father except through me." The scriptures also go on to state that "There is but one name which is given under heaven through which salvation is possible and that is Christ our Lord". This is pretty clear and exclusive territory. Throughout History, many have come saying they know the way, But Yeshua, Jesus was the only one until contemporary times who came saying He IS the way. Despite what the Vatican says or doesn't say. there is what the Bible says about Jesus. Since the Vatican supposedly derives it's Authority from the Bible, the Bible, you would think, supercedes the Vatican. Or does it? that's the real question Catholics have to ask themselves- Does Jesus outrank the Pope?
This is the quandry of western religions- not only, where does the truth lie, but just how much crap can human beings heap on each other in the name of God?
The Taliban is a great example of that when it comes to the Koran. David Koresh and Jim Jones are shining examples of it when it comes to Christianity. The Crusades, Dark Ages and the The Inquisition are wonderful examples of it for Catholicism. And during Jesus Time, He constantly referred to the Scribes and Pharisees and Saducees and hypocrites, and snakes and vipers who loaded down their follwers with so many rules and regulations that they made them twice as fit for hell as they were themselves. I wonder, If Yeshua were to meet a Bishop today how he would respond...

__________________
"That's it! They've got the cuffs on him, he's IN the car!"

SecretMethod70

Well, the issue comes in how you look at the religious experiences that these other people feel they have had. Now, either there are other "gods" as you seem to be claiming, contacting these people through their own "angels," or these are other people's interpretations (while not completely accurate perhaps) of the Christian God.

The Catholic Church doesn't teach relatavism by any means. It's a matter of having a much more rational view of God and the world that goes beyond demons and spirits and warring gods. The point in the Catholic teaching is understanding the universal wish of God for everyone to be joined in Him. Thus, He communicates in many varied ways through everyday human experience and, because of this, many world religions may be formed based on interpretations of these experiences. That's not to say that these religions hold the fullness of truth of God, but that they each come from God's communications to humans, however misinterpreted those communications may be in the particular religion. So, a muslim, while perhaps not being exposed to the FULLNESS of truth, is still being exposed to real truth of God and, so long as they wish it in their heart (i.e. being a good, loving person, etc) are perfectly capable of being "saved." What that person calls Allah is not doing the saving, but Jesus is, despite their not specifically worshipping Him. That's how "no one can come to the Father except through me" fits into this. Still, no one is saved but through Him, but that doesn't mean to say that they have to specifically believe in Him. That's also not to say that it doesn't make a difference if you believe in Him. The point is that "God" and "Jesus" are names we use, but just because someone else calls "God" "Allah" it doesn't mean that, fundamentally speaking, they are not referring to the same God. In the Catholic faith (and pretty much every other western faith) there is only one "God" and, thus, it is impossible for some other "Allah" to be communicating and not be "God." "God" is just a name we use and, unfortunately, creates a barrier between us and understanding that just because someone calls their "God" "Allah" or "Hare Krishna" it doesn't mean that they are worshipping some other "god" but only that perhaps they are not fully understanding the communications of "God" to them.

I feel like I'm talking in circles - and I probably am - but it's really imperative to understand the difference between relatavism and what the Catholic Church holds to be true here. It's not a denial of Jesus' statement or the Bible at all, but, rather, a different, more loving interpretation of it which represents the universal saving will of God to have all of His children joined with Him. Frankly, IMO, any other interpretation - namely one which you have to be Christian to even have the possibility of being saved - goes 100% against everything that Jesus taught about God's love and his Will for everyone to come to Him.

Thus, the extreme danger of the bastardization of the Bible through literal interpretation.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

irateplatypus

Christianity in its present state may have to rely on dogma in many ways, but I don't think forgiveness is a significant example.

We should forgive others, no matter what their creed, because we were given forgiveness by Christ... though we are all sinners. Religion has no bearing on the usefulness (and mandate) of forgiving your fellow man. If Christ offers complete remission of sin no matter the severity, we should definitely forgive those who chose/were born into a different religion. In short, the example of Christ shows that we have no leverage over our fellow man because our debt has been paid in full by Christ's sacrifice.

In response to the final wrinkle you placed in your argument, I think there is a definite distinction between forgiving someone and having no consequences for actions.

Sorry I could only to respond to just a portion of your post. Thanks for putting all that together, seemed like an intellectually honest approach to things.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

SecretMethod70

Thegrastay, btw, regarding the Vatican, one thing that's commonly misunderstood, by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, is that 99% of what the Vatican says is not final. Most of what the Vatican says is about as definitive as what any given pastor says - it's a religious leader making a statement about something. Now, what I referenced is in that 1% however. It was a decision made over 3 years of debates among hundreds of church leaders from around the world and it is a statement as to what the Catholic Church stands for in the same way as Luther's Catechism can be looked at as a statement to what he believes Christianity ought to stand for.

As I was walking back to my dorm room, I thought of a great example of the difference between relatavism and what the Catholic Church holds to be true. If you look at Buddhism and the teachings of the Buddha, one cannot tell me (at leat if you're Christian) with any sense of validity that the Holy Spirit didn't speak through the Buddha. Go pick up a copy of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1569751692/102-4612298-9136145?v=glance">"Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings"</a> by Biblical scholar Marcus Borg and it's there pretty much in black and white. The Buddha felt God when he became enlightened and good Buddhists feel God as well as they become full of compassion, serenity, and tolerance. In that way, Buddhism has some of the Turth of God in it. But that's not to say that Buddhism is equally as valuable as Catholicism in the view of the Catholic Church. The whole point is that, fundamentally, Buddhism comes from the same source as Christianity, but it is not perfect. It ignores the idea of a higher power among other things. However, the core teachings of Buddhism teach people to be loving, compassionate people, just as the teachings of Christianity do. In that way, God is speaking through both, while the Fullness of God's will may only be found in the Catholic Church (so they say). Buddha may have not called what he felt the word "God," but he felt Him nonetheless and, thus, he can be saved through Jesus. Hope that was a little more clear.

I don't think any religion can have any validity if it says some other faith is equally valuable. What's the point in believing in a religion if you can say you'd be just as well off believing in another religion? Catholicism doesn't say that. Likewise, I don't think any Christian religion is valid if it says that God is one who would say "you were a model human being but since you didn't specifically believe in Jesus as your savior I'm sorry but you're not saved." Catholicism doesn't say that either.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Thagrastay

The Holy Spirit did not speak through Buddha. Neither does He speak through the Dalai Llama, Sai Baba, Rama Krishna, Confuscious or Baal. In the Beginning was the Word and it is only through the Word that Salvation has come, and it is only through the shed blood of Meshiach Yeshua that atonement was made and all things made new again. There is but One name that is given under heaven by which salvation is possible, that of Yeshua, Meschiach. That is the name above all names.

__________________
"That's it! They've got the cuffs on him, he's IN the car!"

SecretMethod70

Well, my point being, that's a matter of interpretation. To reject an interpretation is one thing - to not see how it can be made is another.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

irateplatypus

C.S. Lewis once had an analogy I found interesting. This is a paraphrase of how I remember it. It has been quite a while since i ran across the original text.

he compared many other religions to candles. certainly, candles give off a certain amount of light. you are definitely better off with a candle in the dark than with nothing at all. a candle illuminates a few things, but is unable to convey the detail and scope of your surroundings.

Christ is like the sun. like the candle, the sun gives off light... but to an infinitely greater degree. knowing the light of a candle may be useful in understanding what the sun actually is, but having the sun makes the candle useless. the sun's nature is partially revealed in the candle, but it can do what no amount of candles can do: give the life that the sun gives.

a candle is only usefull until morning.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Thagrastay

Secretmethod, I am quoting the Bible, and have done so now, verbatim for the second time specifically for your benefit. I neglected to include the quotastion marks the second time around, but it is a direct quote nonetheless. How can that be interpretive? "His is The Name Above All Names- at which every knee will bend, every head will bow and every tongue confess that Yeshua (Jesus) is Lord" Another specific quote, directly from both the Christian and Catholic Bible. Is this interpretive as well?
I believe the problem lies in the fact that your own religion does not allow you to read it's own book, but instead fills your head with the dogmatic policies of interpretations of Religion! The very concept that started this thread to begin with.
All that is wrong with the western religions began in Alexandria with Augustine, when he talked the Popes into believing that the Romans Pontiffs and church had taken the place of the Jews as the Chosen People, and it has all gone down hill from there. But if you bother to read Leviticcus and compare it to the Catholic Mass, you will see what amounts to the the Latin version of the Hebrew Temple rites. and the Roman Catholics have done nothing but replace the Levites and Cohen all the way up to the High Priest! In direct contradiction to what is written in the Book of Hebrews, in which it states that there is now only ONE High Priest who serves on the Order of Melchezidek, and that is Yeshua, Meschiach! Jesus, Messiah!
Please- go READ your Bible. Compare WHAT it says and what it demands to what is being carried out and taught in the religion that goes on under your nose.
The same is true for anyone in a dogmatic sphere of oligarchal perversion. If you want to know what the truth is- by alleans, don't ask the people who claim to represent G*D- especially if that is who employs them! And especially if they take great pride in their employment and the pomp and circumstance that goes with it! Jesus was a humble man of no repute. He preached to the sinners of the day and ate with the Tax gatherers and whores and drunks and needy and sick and ill because those were the ones who truly wanted and needed Him with them. He despised the pride and arrogance of the Chief Priests and Pharisees and Saducess of His day who marched around acting Holy in their robes and garments and acted dignified- Jesus called them Whitedwashed tombs- clean on the outside but full of dead men's bones. "Hypocrites- vipers!" that was what Jesus called them then. Her would have a field day on them today!

__________________
"That's it! They've got the cuffs on him, he's IN the car!"

SecretMethod70

Thagrastay, it's like this...and this is starting to get beyond the intent of this thread so I'm likely not going to bother responding after this...I can understand how one would interpret the Bible literally, that's not an issue while I don't agree with it at all times. But not interpretating something literally is not a matter of rejecting that something as much as it is embracing the fact that the people of the times that wrote the Bible did not write literally nor did God speak literally at all times. Perfect example are the parables of Jesus. I suppose you can tell me that there actually was a specific man who fell victim to thieves on his way to Jericho that Jesus had in mind and exactly three people passed up this specific man, a priest, a levite, and a samaritan. Now, while I don't agree with the idea that Jesus' words are an historical account of something, I can understand where the idea could come from. Likewise, it's no rejection of the story of the good samaritan to say there was in fact no such specific man but that Jesus was only making a point through parable. Thus, when Jesus - more importantly, God Himself - speaks in parables (so long as you accept this point) and never says "now I am speaking in parable...now I am speaking in literal truth," the Bible is left open for interpretation...what is parable, what is literal truth, what's something inbetween? If Jesus is the Word of God, and Jesus speaks in parables, who's to say that parts of the Old Testament can't be more accurately looked at as sorts of parables than historical fact...namely the creation story.

The very issue and lack of understanding comes from the fact you think quoting the Bible "verbatim" is in itself all that is necessary to prove the Bible's intent. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong or right - that's not my place - but only that to not recognize that words can be taken with many meanings is astounding to me, whether you accept those meanings or not. I seriously and honestly wonder how you manage to read poetry if you look at language in this way.

To respond more directly to you, yes, it is open to interpretation. One can believe that everyone will recognize Jesus as their Lord in this life, or one can believe that this may be something to take place beyond this life. Interpreting the Bible is no different than looking at poetry, to use something I mentioned earlier. You may read a poem and take its words literally - and without the author to specifically question in person there's nothing to say you are wrong - and I may look at a poem and interpret it figuratively - and without the author to specifically ask, you may still say I'm wrong because "that's not what the author wrote." Although, we all know that most of the time in poetry given a figurative interpretation versus a literal interpretation, the figurative one is more likely to be accurate despite "what the words say." In regards to the Bible, I don't mean this as a proof that my belief of interpretation is more accurate than yours - again, who am I to know for certain - only that the Bible is much like poetry in this sense that it can be looked at from many different perspectives and many different meanings can be gleaned from it, all keeping the words of the Bible in high regard, in their own way. Point being that, just like in poetry, interpreting the Bible beyond "what the words say" is not a rejection of said words but only a different way of accepting said words.

Another example, which I won't bother expounding on too much because I think I've made my point, is the account of the Pentecost. Perhaps one can believe that cloven tongues like fire actually sat upon the apostles, but it's not a rejection of the truth of the text to say that that is a poetic description of an experience of "enlightenment" (for lack of a better word, and I mean this in no regard to the Buddhist use of the term) among the apostles. It still accepts the text as true and as divinely inspired, but it simply takes the words to intend something different. How one can expect to "convert" other people as most fundamentalist Christians feel is their duty without even understanding the basis for what others believe and the real human experiences which lead them to believe such things is beyond me.

To address more specifically your criticisms of my religion, which I mentioned moreso as a reference point for my beliefs than a source of my beliefs, there is nothing in Catholicism whatsoever which prohibits the reading of the Bible. Obviously, in fact, it is highly encouraged. Furthermore, and this is not to say there aren't some who would disagree with this, but only to say that those who do disagree with this go against what the Catholic Church stands for, there is nothing discouraged about questioning your faith in Catholicism. I obviously didn't come to my own beliefs without questioning them many times and bringing these questions to those who make it their life's work to deal with them. Of course, some gave more satisfactory and complete answers than others, as would be the case with any humans. Summarily, my point is that I don't believe what I believe because "the Catholic Church told me so"...in fact I don't know of a single Catholic who thinks that way.

As far as "dogmatic policies of interpretation" are concerned, it's so inaccurate a perception that I don't even know what you're talking about. Interpretation is something that was never discussed in the 8 years I went to Catholic gradeschool, or the 2 in which I went to classes leading up to my confirmation - and I would say at this point that, back then, I had no idea what Catholicism was about. Thus, the flaw in most religions today - especially Christian ones - that many people understand what they're "supposed" to believe and how they're "supposed" to live, but they have nothing of the limited understanding we're capable of concerning WHY. "The Bible says so" is not a why and that mentality can be looked at as the source for many evangelical failures past and present. One cannot convert someone without understanding that person and who they are...and the experiences which lead a person to have the faith which they do other than Christianity is part of that. And that's exactly why I'm astonished atthe concept that God, the all-loving, would punish non-Christian humans for the failures of their counterparts to be effective teachers. I would have told you I believed - and felt - that an all-loving God would not do that long before I learned that the Catholic Church believes the same. But I also believe, as does the Catholic Church, that there is something inherent in human beings, and in the understanding of Jesus' life and the Bible (key word being understanding - as in beyond just the words), which leads them to Christianity. I view most conceptions of "conversion" as nothing more than barriers to this as they give prime examples of Christians exhibiting the exact opposite ideals than those Jesus taught about - tolerance, compassion, understanding, etc.

Pointing out that there are flawed humans in Catholicism is a no-brainer. Anyone can say that about any religion. The rest of your statement goes to a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be Pope which I won't bother addressing because, frankly, I don't feel like it. Suffice it to say that non-Catholics place a much higher importance on the Pope than the Catholic Church even does.

Ultimately, it's not a matter of me thinking you should agree with me by any means. Continue to interpret the Bible in the literal way in which you see fit - that's a choice you and only you can make. I'm only trying to create an understanding that, while you may not agree with it, reading the Bible as something other than literal is not something that is blasphemous and heretical by default. Feel free to respond to me through PM if you wish, unless it actually has something to do with the original intent of this thread, in which case post it here.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Thagrastay

3leggedfrog-
I hope this then answers your question. The problem is clear. Is G*d to be taken literally or to be interpreted as allegorical? That is the problem with Western Religion in a nutshell. So, then it all comes down to faith, and that is something that cannot be argued. I wish you well in your pursuit and I do hope you have gotten some asnwers here. For my part, I am done in this thread.

__________________
"That's it! They've got the cuffs on him, he's IN the car!"

tecoyah

A literal interpretation, will still be reading the words of men.
The catholic version is still reading the words of men, as is christian, Muslim, and any other religion.
Anyone can say god talked to them, and they may even be correct, I don't know. What I do know is that GOD has never written a book, and likely never will.
The point is, you cannot live by the exact words of god, because no one knows what they are. If someone claims to know, they are selling something(non-literal).

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

3leggedfrog

hmm good points SecretMethod70 and Thagrastay. like i said before i am not a expert so please excuse my ingorance. every religion has its problems including athiesism but i was just in a ranting mood and decided to rant so i ...ranted lol.

just because i didnt reply doesnt mean i didn't read the responces. thanks guys! it still doesnt clear up much in my mind but then i think nothing will. i am glad that the pope is trying to clear up so of these problems. that means alot to me.

one of these days i will accept that this is just what "being" human intails but i guess i am, at least in my mind, trying to find solutions to basic human traits that come off as ugly to me.

sucks being an ethics and psychology student. no job prospects and acutly aware of a lot of problems that have no answers.

thanks for the replys guys.

__________________
"enjoy life to the brim but do not spill it" quoted off my tatoo

"Iam myself every day."