Christian Schools Bring Suit Against UC

[MolsonInBothHands]

This topic is hitting home today, so I will now jump in.

I understand the difference between scientific theory, and belief. I think that has been nailed down pretty well in this thread. Theories are based upon observation of measurable data and phenomenom, and are considered valid conclusions until more data is introduced that can prove otherwise. The theory of evolution is commonly accepted now, but it still takes a leap of FAITH in the science to extrapolate back to the beginning of the universe.

Some people claim that believers in Christianity have concrete, immobile beliefs that cause them to stick their heads in the sand when science makes an advancement. Making statements like that is an example of the intolerance you are accusing people with faith of having.

Simply put. I have faith there is something more to our existence than our time here on Earth. I have had very strong experiences, where I can say to myself, I KNOW this to be true. It would be difficult to label my beliefs are fact because much of my experience is not reproducable scientific data. It did happen, it was witnessed by others, and will probably never happen again.

I don't know what kind of label to put on my beliefs these days either. I respect any scriptures, whether it be the Bible, The Book of Mormon, or the Qu'ran, that encourage a person to be the best possible person they can, that encourage family values, and that encourage a relationship with god. Unfortunately, there are bad apples in any religion, who will twist divine words of inspiration into a means of profit or war mongering. I consider them a minority, but too much attention is focused on the minority, and not the people who give there lives to helping others in the name of their god. Why should I spend my time disrespecting and dismantling a system of beliefs that cause many people to work their own miracles for others?

In my opinion, the University should base entry on entrance exams, and interviews, nothing more. A person may have been raised in a Creationist envirionment by no choice of their own. To write off the possibility of that person adapting their belief system to new experiences is flying in the face evolution itself. I know my beliefs have changed over time, why can't theirs?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by MolsonInBothHands@Sep 1 2005, 09:02 AM
Unfortunately, there are bad apples in any religion, who will twist divine words of inspiration into a means of profit or war mongering. I consider them a minority, but too much attention is focused on the minority, and not the people who give there lives to helping others in the name of their god.

I disagree. I've read a lot of Saul Alinsky, and he wrote this true story in one of his books:

A rather wealthy man, feeling guilty about things he had done in his life, decided he would live the rest of his time living as Jesus would. He went to a poor part of town and started giving his cash away. Hundreds of people poured into the streets. A huge crowd gathered around him.. people who needed this money for food, rent, whatever.

Very quickly, a christian cop arrested him for inciting a riot and disturbing the peace. A christian lawyer argued against him and a christian judge found him guilty. For a lot of people, their religion is about being able to hate gays, pro-choice people, people of other religions and still feel good about themselves, while completely ignoring the words and ways of their saviour. It is a very, very few christians that openly want to help poor people, as this fellow in the story. It is the vast majority who want to help themselves, but still feel good about it. When the day comes that majority of christians live on just what they need, as Jesus did, then I'll believe claims that it is the minority causing all the problems.

[peter12]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate+Sep 1 2005, 11:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Devils'Advocate @ Sep 1 2005, 11:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MolsonInBothHands@Sep 1 2005, 09:02 AM
Unfortunately, there are bad apples in any religion, who will twist divine words of inspiration into a means of profit or war mongering. I consider them a minority, but too much attention is focused on the minority, and not the people who give there lives to helping others in the name of their god.

I disagree. I've read a lot of Saul Alinsky, and he wrote this true story in one of his books:

A rather wealthy man, feeling guilty about things he had done in his life, decided he would live the rest of his time living as Jesus would. He went to a poor part of town and started giving his cash away. Hundreds of people poured into the streets. A huge crowd gathered around him.. people who needed this money for food, rent, whatever.

Very quickly, a christian cop arrested him for inciting a riot and disturbing the peace. A christian lawyer argued against him and a christian judge found him guilty. For a lot of people, their religion is about being able to hate gays, pro-choice people, people of other religions and still feel good about themselves, while completely ignoring the words and ways of their saviour. It is a very, very few christians that openly want to help poor people, as this fellow in the story. It is the vast majority who want to help themselves, but still feel good about it. When the day comes that majority of christians live on just what they need, as Jesus did, then I'll believe claims that it is the minority causing all the problems. [/b][/quote]
Yeah that is the problem with alot of Christians these days. They love how they can get to together with other like minded people on Sunday and moan about how the earth is going to hell and then they just go right on living disgusting (sinful) lives for the rest of the week.

I do think many millions of Christians do live the life that Christ lived. You just won't find many among Western wealthy types.

[MolsonInBothHands]

You can disagree all you want. I don't care. Nor do I intend to sway others to my beliefs. I simply refuse to base my judgement on labels attached to a person: Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Jew, Black, White, or gay. I do draw the line at Oiler's Fans though.

Your little anecdote is amusing for many reasons. First of all, you have taken a huge leap in saying a cop, a lawyer, and a judge are a decent cross section of Christianity, and we can therefore judge all Christians as heartless. Secondly, pouring money into the streets in a poor part of town could very easily have incited a riot. If people are being trampled, or an atmosphere of looting breaks out, is it not the role of the three tyrants mentioned to protect our civilians? Hilarious. If nothing was done, and people killed, would it still have been the Christians fault?

I have seen a lot of hammering of the religious conservative on this board. By the way, I am not particularily active in any sort of organized religion, I just have strong personal beliefs. In my opinion the prejudices voiced towards people not willing to give up their faith in the name of science is every bit as intolerant as what is being accused. We all have beliefs, what gives you the right to be judgemental?

If they try to show you their religion, and that is crossing the line for you, I have no problem with you expressing your displeasure. The other side of the coin is people with faith have the right to show their displeasure with you lumping them in with the bad apples.

EDIT: A quote from Saul Alinsky on Wikipedia:

"The Radical may resort to the sword but when he does he is not filled with hatred against those individuals whom he attacks. He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbols representing ideas or interests which he believes to be inimical to the welfare of the people."

Hmm, it looks like he would like to lump 'em all together and cause a riot.

[Cheese]

just a quick aside to the above comments....Ill take the time to retort molsons stuff later...hehehehe

Watching the stuff happening in New Orleans on TV I was dumbstruck at the looters rambling thru the city. I wonder how many of them were regular church going people? How is that they justified stealing others property then saying that God saved them later?

[Hakan]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate+Sep 1 2005, 10:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Devils'Advocate @ Sep 1 2005, 10:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MolsonInBothHands@Sep 1 2005, 09:02 AM
Unfortunately, there are bad apples in any religion, who will twist divine words of inspiration into a means of profit or war mongering. I consider them a minority, but too much attention is focused on the minority, and not the people who give there lives to helping others in the name of their god.

I disagree. I've read a lot of Saul Alinsky, and he wrote this true story in one of his books:

A rather wealthy man, feeling guilty about things he had done in his life, decided he would live the rest of his time living as Jesus would. He went to a poor part of town and started giving his cash away. Hundreds of people poured into the streets. A huge crowd gathered around him.. people who needed this money for food, rent, whatever.

Very quickly, a christian cop arrested him for inciting a riot and disturbing the peace. A christian lawyer argued against him and a christian judge found him guilty. For a lot of people, their religion is about being able to hate gays, pro-choice people, people of other religions and still feel good about themselves, while completely ignoring the words and ways of their saviour. It is a very, very few christians that openly want to help poor people, as this fellow in the story. It is the vast majority who want to help themselves, but still feel good about it. When the day comes that majority of christians live on just what they need, as Jesus did, then I'll believe claims that it is the minority causing all the problems. [/b][/quote]
A f'in MEN!

I highly recommend the August Harper's article. Here's a link to the article. It's long but worth it for those who care

http://flashwalken.net/hakan/jesus%20saves.pdf

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally posted by Cheese@Sep 1 2005, 11:47 AM
just a quick aside to the above comments....Ill take the time to retort molsons stuff later...hehehehe

Watching the stuff happening in New Orleans on TV I was dumbstruck at the looters rambling thru the city. I wonder how many of them were regular church going people? How is that they justified stealing others property then saying that God saved them later?

I can't answer that, nor to me does it matter. I will take a guess that there are a lot of "Humanists" grabbing what they can right now too. I wonder how many people that volunteer, and send money are also church going people? Nevermind... those are positives, and really boring to ponder. I also wonder what some people who saw the looting in Baghdad, and accused them of being animals, are thinking now that the animals are a little closer to home.

Bottom line is, I can't imagine being there, or going through what they are. I can see looting for food, clothing, water, medicine, and even firearms in a scenario like that. However, pulling out a plasma TV and jewelry is a little different story.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by MolsonInBothHands+Sep 1 2005, 01:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MolsonInBothHands @ Sep 1 2005, 01:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cheese@Sep 1 2005, 11:47 AM
just a quick aside to the above comments....Ill take the time to retort molsons stuff later...hehehehe

Watching the stuff happening in New Orleans on TV I was dumbstruck at the looters rambling thru the city. I wonder how many of them were regular church going people? How is that they justified stealing others property then saying that God saved them later?

I can't answer that, nor to me does it matter. I will take a guess that there are a lot of "Humanists" grabbing what they can right now too. I wonder how many people that volunteer, and send money are also church going people? Nevermind... those are positives, and really boring to ponder. I also wonder what some people who saw the looting in Baghdad, and accused them of being animals, are thinking now that the animals are a little closer to home.

Bottom line is, I can't imagine being there, or going through what they are. I can see looting for food, clothing, water, medicine, and even firearms in a scenario like that. However, pulling out a plasma TV and jewelry is a little different story. [/b][/quote]
LOL...OF COURSE some church going Christian folk donate time/money/goods/sweat to causes. Thats not the issue, and I have no problem with anyone who feels the need to assist anyone. See the Humanist manifesto I posted much earlier in the thread. That doesnt make them a "good" Christian...or a God fearing Christian does it? It simply makes them good people. This entire discussion is on what basis do the people you talk about live their daily lives? Do they use the bible and ALL of its tenets to live their daily lives or do they pick and choose what suits them? Its my understanding by reading the retorts from most here that its the latter....they pick and choose what suits them.
In that case I specifically asked some questions that noone answered earlier.


so based on the writings of most Christians here it appears that you dont take the bible literally?
You pick and choose which verses to read literally and slough the rest off as allegory or metaphoric?
The problem is....how do you know which ones to read literally? Are the verses you take seriously the same verses that others do as well? If there is any doubt about which verses apply does it bother you when you wake up? Is the idea of "I know them when I see them" practical when it comes to a Christian standpoint, and is that what the Christian churches teach you?
If any of the Bible is non-literal, why can't it all be?
and finally....
IF the reason stands that you are able to pick and choose which versions you take literally, is THAT the reason there is conflict amongst religions?
Old-earth creationists claim young-earth creationists cling to an untenable position in the face of the evidence. Young-earth creationists denounce old-earth creationists as hypocritical liberals who have given in to atheist influences. As a result, creationism, unlike evolution, is not a unified position, but merely a group of inconsistent, conflicting arguments.

The only point I was trying to make re the people in New Orleans was how can they justify stealing property then suggesting God saved them out of the other side of their mouth? Is it selective choices in their bible? Humanists dont have that manifesto...and IF Humanists are stealing shame on them too.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Well I can't answer for Christians, since I don't feel particularily Christian these days. As for myself, I never ask myself whether something in scripture literally happened or not. I ask myself what the message being conveyed is. Is it worth noting as an example to use in my life, is there wisdom?

I have a hard enough time reconciling beliefs in my own head, let alone reconciling them with others. I am very curious to find out what is on the other side. If it is oblivion, then I will finally be able to sleep through the wife's snoring.

On that note, I have to end my participation in the discussion. It was therapeutic, thanks. I now have to travel to a funeral, my grandmother's. A 93 year old woman, Mormon, devout, faithful, and one of the most tolerant people I will ever have the privilege of knowing. I sure hope her faith is accurate, because if it is, she is one who deserves the pampering she is about to receive. -_-

[Cheese]

Originally posted by MolsonInBothHands@Sep 1 2005, 02:30 PM
Well I can't answer for Christians, since I don't feel particularily Christian these days. As for myself, I never ask myself whether something in scripture literally happened or not. I ask myself what the message being conveyed is. Is it worth noting as an example to use in my life, is there wisdom?

I have a hard enough time reconciling beliefs in my own head, let alone reconciling them with others. I am very curious to find out what is on the other side. If it is oblivion, then I will finally be able to sleep through the wife's snoring.

On that note, I have to end my participation in the discussion. It was therapeutic, thanks. I now have to travel to a funeral, my grandmother's. A 93 year old woman, Mormon, devout, faithful, and one of the most tolerant people I will ever have the privilege of knowing. I sure hope her faith is accurate, because if it is, she is one who deserves the pampering she is about to receive. -_-

A non Christian with religous beliefs then?
So where does that fit in in the list of religous represenatation posted earlier? Does that make you a Christian because you have "some" belief? Who would claim you to be part of their flock? If and when you fill out those forms that ask you what religion you are...what do you enter? Undecided?

[Flashpoint]

Originally posted by MolsonInBothHands@Sep 1 2005, 11:02 AM
Some people claim that believers in Christianity have concrete, immobile beliefs that cause them to stick their heads in the sand when science makes an advancement. Making statements like that is an example of the intolerance you are accusing people with faith of having.

First off, if the reader of this post is religous, please understand I am not blaming you. You were probably taken to a place of worship as a young child, and have been fed religion your entire life. It is hard to shake something like that. Even if you have serious doubts, you will attempt to hold onto it - witness several of the earlier posts. If the churches have you by the age of 4, odds are they have you for life.

Not your fault. Now to the post at hand.


Why is it intolerant to call people out for living in a fantasy?

If I told you I believed I could fly by flapping my arms really hard, you would say I was A) lying B) crazy. If it is B, I might actually believe I could fly, and you would (hopefully) try to dissuade me from jumping off a tall building to test it.

Suppose that there were a bunch of us "flappers" and we decided to try to deregulate the aviation industry - cause HEY! EVERYONE CAN FLY! They just have to BELIEVE hard enough! No, there is no evidence - but you shouldn't disrespect my belief. You can't prove I can't fly. So my theory is sound.

Tell me how my "flapping" story is any different from religon? The belief in something that cannot be proved? The difference is that usually you don't have people from the age of 4 getting together in large groups believing it together in an institution which has massive amounts of money and influence and can have a dramatic effect on public policy which alters "non-believer's" lives.

Religons advocate all sorts of silly things (like distain for gays, contraceptives, and women in the clergy), on the basis of an invisible man who lives in the sky. You figure that might pass me off a little? Public policy on the basis of a lie?

It vexed Galileo (who was brought before the inquisition for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe), and it vexes me - for having to put up with people saying "Evolution is just a theory and Creationism should be on par".


Yet, by me saying "You're nuts if you believe in God" is intolerant?

[Patek23]

Originally posted by Cheese@Sep 1 2005, 08:25 AM
so based on the writings of most Christians here it appears that you dont take the bible literally?
You pick and choose which verses to read literally and slough the rest off as allegory or metaphoric?
The problem is....how do you know which ones to read literally? Are the verses you take seriously the same verses that others do as well? If there is any doubt about which verses apply does it bother you when you wake up? Is the idea of "I know them when I see them" practical when it comes to a Christian standpoint, and is that what the Christian churches teach you?
If any of the Bible is non-literal, why can't it all be?
and finally....
IF the reason stands that you are able to pick and choose which versions you take literally, is THAT the reason there is conflict amongst religions?
Old-earth creationists claim young-earth creationists cling to an untenable position in the face of the evidence. Young-earth creationists denounce old-earth creationists as hypocritical liberals who have given in to atheist influences. As a result, creationism, unlike evolution, is not a unified position, but merely a group of inconsistent, conflicting arguments.

I've read, The Bible, The Old Testament, The Book of the Dead, The Toran, The Qu'Ran etc. I've never chosen to live by any of them but I do enjoy reading them. I live by how I want to and the way I feel I should. I'm not a christian so to speak but I do believe in god.

[MarchHare]

The theory of evolution is commonly accepted now, but it still takes a leap of FAITH in the science to extrapolate back to the beginning of the universe.

Don't confuse evolution with cosmology. Evolution states that different species on Earth share a common ancestor and through genetic mutations individual organisms that are better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce. That's it...evolution makes no claim as to how the universe itself began, nor does it disprove the existence of God.

Evolution is only a threat to people who take a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis. For Christians who believe it was metaphorical, evolution doesn't pose a problem to them. The former Pope, for instance, even acknowledged that there is overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, and therefore it's the position of the Catholic church that evolution was the manner by which God created living things.

Of course, creationism requires the existence of a god, but evolution could occur with our without one.

[Patek23]

Originally posted by Cheese@Sep 1 2005, 10:47 AM
just a quick aside to the above comments....Ill take the time to retort molsons stuff later...hehehehe

Aw man, did Bertuzzied hack into Cheese's account?

[Patek23]

Originally posted by Flashpoint+Sep 1 2005, 01:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flashpoint @ Sep 1 2005, 01:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MolsonInBothHands@Sep 1 2005, 11:02 AM
Some people claim that believers in Christianity have concrete, immobile beliefs that cause them to stick their heads in the sand when science makes an advancement. Making statements like that is an example of the intolerance you are accusing people with faith of having.

First off, if the reader of this post is religous, please understand I am not blaming you. You were probably taken to a place of worship as a young child, and have been fed religion your entire life. It is hard to shake something like that. Even if you have serious doubts, you will attempt to hold onto it - witness several of the earlier posts. If the churches have you by the age of 4, odds are they have you for life.

Not your fault. Now to the post at hand.


Why is it intolerant to call people out for living in a fantasy?

If I told you I believed I could fly by flapping my arms really hard, you would say I was A) lying B) crazy. If it is B, I might actually believe I could fly, and you would (hopefully) try to dissuade me from jumping off a tall building to test it.

Suppose that there were a bunch of us "flappers" and we decided to try to deregulate the aviation industry - cause HEY! EVERYONE CAN FLY! They just have to BELIEVE hard enough! No, there is no evidence - but you shouldn't disrespect my belief. You can't prove I can't fly. So my theory is sound.

Tell me how my "flapping" story is any different from religon? The belief in something that cannot be proved? The difference is that usually you don't have people from the age of 4 getting together in large groups believing it together in an institution which has massive amounts of money and influence and can have a dramatic effect on public policy which alters "non-believer's" lives.

Religons advocate all sorts of silly things (like distain for gays, contraceptives, and women in the clergy), on the basis of an invisible man who lives in the sky. You figure that might pass me off a little? Public policy on the basis of a lie?

It vexed Galileo (who was brought before the inquisition for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe), and it vexes me - for having to put up with people saying "Evolution is just a theory and Creationism should be on par".


Yet, by me saying "You're nuts if you believe in God" is intolerant? [/b][/quote]
haha, your not blaming him for believing that if he lives a good life than he gets rewarded, you think he's been brainwashed? that's my problem with you science is our god people, your such ******* to religious people. What if YOU are wrong? most of the religious people on here have taken into account the fatc that they could be wrong, what about you? you live your life going on all smug that you got everything figured out and than bam you die, you could just cease to exist and be right, but what happens if you see St.Peter standing right in front of you now what? I doubt there is heaven but I believe strongly in there being a super natural force, shinguard, what if we created by aliens? who knows? I refuse to trust science, science proves itself wrong every year, how am I supposed to rely on some of these "concrete" facts when in 20 years they won't, I don't believe in the bible because it's out of date, and I really doubt that Jesus existed. But why be so arrogant when you are relying on something that everything that "science" has proved will most likely be wrong or not the full story 100 years from now?

[MolsonInBothHands]

A non Christian with religous beliefs then?
So where does that fit in in the list of religous represenatation posted earlier? Does that make you a Christian because you have "some" belief? Who would claim you to be part of their flock? If and when you fill out those forms that ask you what religion you are...what do you enter? Undecided?

A non-Christian with spiritual beliefs would be more accurate I think. Your list of tenants as a Humanist make a lot of sense to me, and I respect them. However, I have a strong belief there is something more to our existance than our time on Earth. I also believe there are forces in play not explanable by science when discussing the beginning of time. I don't know the nature of it, and I don't try to explain it to anyone. To me it's personal, it's just a feeling that there is something more. So call me a whacko if you must.

I don't consider myself part of any flock, but when I encounter somebody who claims to be, I ask them a lot of questions regarding what they believe, much as you are now. Sometimes, I will encounter an interesting idea, and file it away. Other times, I come across fellow whackos, but I do my best not to judge.

I can't ever remember filling out a form with a religion question... I would most likely put N/A (ie. none of your business)

Flashpoint: Interesting points. Take a flying leap, and test your theory, I won't judge, and I won't try to stop you.

I hope you have noticed by now I am not much of an advocate for organised religion. I have reasons to be bitter at them as well. However, I do know many, many devoutly religious people, who have found fulfillment by being as such. If they aren't harming anybody, or in fact aid others because they believe it is their duty to do so, then who am I to say they're wrong?

Back to the initial topic: the University. Entrance exams and interviews should be the only basis for granting admission, and nothing more. Focusing on religious upbringing as a basis for rejection is intolerance in my opinion.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Did anyone see that Southpark when they showed everyone at the pearly gates with St Peter? It went something like this:

St Peter: Sorry you can't come in..
Muslim: But I was a good Muslim
Baptist: And I was a perfect Baptist
Jew: And I was an outstanding Jew
St Peter: I'm sorry everyone, the correct religion was...Mormanism. Mormanism was the correct religion.
Everyone: [disappointed] Awwwwwww
________
Ecig forum

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally posted by Fozzie_DeBear@Sep 1 2005, 02:38 PM
Did anyone see that Southpark when they showed everyone at the pearly gates with St Peter? It went something like this:

St Peter: Sorry you can't come in..
Muslim: But I was a good Muslim
Baptist: And I was a perfect Baptist
Jew: And I was an outstanding Jew
St Peter: I'm sorry everyone, the correct religion was...Mormanism. Mormanism was the correct religion.
Everyone: [disappointed] Awwwwwww

See. I should have listened to Grandma. :P

[MarchHare]

Back to the initial topic: the University. Entrance exams and interviews should be the only basis for granting admission, and nothing more. Focusing on religious upbringing as a basis for rejection is intolerance in my opinion.

Read the story again. They were rejected because they hadn't completed a high school science curriculum that the university deemed satisfactory. End of story. It's no different than if I tried to get into an Arts program but didn't have the required high school English prerequisites. They weren't rejected just for having a religious upbringing; there are thousands of Christian students at the University of California.

[Flashpoint]

Originally posted by MolsonInBothHands@Sep 1 2005, 03:33 PM
However, I do know many, many devoutly religious people, who have found fulfillment by being as such. If they aren't harming anybody, or in fact aid others because they believe it is their duty to do so, then who am I to say they're wrong?

The whole problem for me is that devoutly religious people DO harm me, and society at large. I am willing to say "Contraceptives are good, there is nothing wrong with being gay, and the women should have equal rights with men".

I like devoutly religious people fine. It is when they get together and start passing laws that apply to me that I have a problem.