If I were to let loose with all I think is silly in Christianity (or religion in general), I'd offend a good portion of those very people I want very much to cordially and politely correspond with. I have my feelings and beliefs, as do they; I'm not going to change their mind, and if I did, I might very well be doing a disservice to the individual.

In such a structure, to my mind, no good can come from telling someone that their most innermost, personal and intimate beliefs are foolish (even if I believe this to be the absolute, most worthy truth of all) - this, from some lofty place of presumed dispassion. Where we disagree, let's acknowledge that, but I fear that much of our culture has degraded civility and respect. Not all fur that can fly should.

Respect is best shown - and best appreciated - in those very cases where its often most difficult to show.

Thanks

I'm not sure I can get the excat meaning, but I think you say God promised NEVER to annihalate us in any way, which I would disagree with.

I agree that interfering with other's faiths is both ruthless and pointless.

No, this is not what I meant.

God promised to never annihilate us with floods. But, considering there is a thousand different ways god may annihilate us, this promise seens pointless. I mean, whats the point of promising someone you wont inject toxins on then if you shot then in the head later?

I agree that we shouldnt interfere if we can help it, but sadly faith often interferes with those who have none. Actually I would say that those who have a religion interfere with those who dont more than those who dont interfere with those who have. And then there is someone calling you a murderer for taking part in an abortion, you cant help questioning their beliefs.

P.s: I know that some people without religions also oppose abortion, but some religions formally oppose it, such as the christian ones.

No, this is not what I meant.

God promised to never annihilate us with floods. But, considering there is a thousand different ways god may annihilate us, this promise seens pointless. I mean, whats the point of promising someone you wont inject toxins on then if you shot then in the head later?

A flood will kill indiscriminately, at Judgemen Day you will be judged individualistic, thus each person will have an exclusive judgement, and not be judged collectivly, contrary the flood.

This is not how its written on the bible, at least, not on the earth's side. It speaks of great disasters happening on earth before the point where god judges all. But, given, its not quite a total annihilation, if I remember well.

I agree that a literal interpretation of the Bible is silly. But the Bible is a profound collection of books. And Christianity is a complex concept that includes not only crude superstition but great philosophers, musicians, painters, sculptors, architects, etc. The incarnation myth is something special, and if looked at the right way is the Exit from superstition and idolatry.

Hello Reconstrusto,

If, indeed, the revalation-annihilation takes place - There wont be anybody left to give it credit - Therefore is unprovable after the effect.
We each accept - that ultimately - all life on earth will conclude with the last existing lifeform dying out, but something that cannot be reflected upon has no basis in general discussion, or does it?

The books therein are fascinating, I agree - I learnt more about psychology from the Proverbs than in any modern textbook.

Thank you and fare well.

Mark...

I should probably make it clear that by Exit I mean that the incarnation myth can be interpreted as a form of humanism. For me, to oversimplify, man is "divine." But it's a complex issue, of course.

Yes, proverbs is a great book. The way I see it, psychology is metaphorical. All science is metaphorical, to some degree. And this diminishes the difference between literature and philosophy and science.

It seems to me that much of modern psychology hides its metaphoricty in Latin-inspired jargon.

If it was a total annihalation, there wouldn't be anything left to judge.

There would be the souls =)

Art tells us much more about the medieval time period than reading the works of Galileo ever could.

If there's souls, then what was the idea of the flood?

All things shall perish from
under the sky
music alone shall live
music alone shall live
music alone shall live
never to die...

All science is in attempt to make concrete a very abstract reality. In that regard art is attempting to do the same thing, but art allows for a level of truth that science can't deliver. Nothing can be revealed to anyone reading the Bible as a scientific journal, but by reading it as a piece of art, the essence of its stories are revealed. Art tells us much more about the medieval time period than reading the works of Galileo ever could.

Good question. but there ARE souls, at least on the christian view, as far as I understand.

Anyway, im tired of discussing what the christian interpretation of the flood would be, since im not christian. Lets go back to... well, I think the thread is mostly over.

Nor am I christian, but I like to discuss, I see it no different than a laywer defending something he deep inside abhore.