On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 11:09:30 +1100, "Yowie"
 blethered:

>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>news:fj9sn3hd9dd1228fr81cpfgerh26gr8027@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:30:54 +1100, "Yowie"
>>  blethered:
<snip>
>>>Colossians 3:11
>>>Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian,
>>>Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
>>>
>>>Some people take that to mean that only Christians are equal with each
>>>other, but thats not my interpretation - I read it that *everyone* was 
>>>made
>>>by God, therefore *everyone* is equal - including women! A radical thought
>>>for 2000 years ago. Heck, a radical thought for today!
>>
>> I sorta read it as 'everyone is equally god's
>> property/creation/concern [delete as applicable]' rather than being a
>> comment on how people were supposed to treat one another in every day
>> life.
>
>Fair enough. The Bible is very open to interpretation. No doubt I am putting 
>my opwn biases onto it, too.

And no doubt I am doing likewise. <:-)

<snip>
>
>I dunno - I guess it depends which way around you wanna play a "book" 
>religion. Some people think that the Bible is the unalterable word of God 
>and any deviation from what is written in said 2000+ year old document is 
>heresy, 

Right... so, how do they get round the many translation issues then?

>and others see that God is unchanging but people aren't, so the 
>Bible is a record of stuff that happened to 'Godly' people 2000 years ago 
>and is good for general lessons and examples, but should not be taken 
>literally.
>
>You wouldn't be surprised to know that I fall into the latter camp :-)

No. <g> I'd tend to think that meself, since there are just too many
problems with the other option. Either way, to be honest, it doesn't
really worry me.

<snip>
[....]
>>> I found fundamentalism was starving my brain, looked 
>>>at
>>>it critically and jumped allt he way to hard athiesm.
>>
>> You have a scale then?
>> 'Fundamentalist-----------------------------------------Hard Atheism'?
>> Made me think now, which is unfair when I am uncaffeinated. ;-) I
>> think I'd put fundamentalism and hard atheism next to each other, and
>> my scale would have fluffy-funny-newage on the other end of the scale.
>> <g>
>
>In one aspect, I can see how fundism and hard athiesm are next to each 
>other - they do seem to have alot of similarities (the ranting, and a lack 
>of accomadation for other beliefs come quickly to mind), and I suppose the 
>opposite that is agnosticism or even total apathy tot he subject.

Well, yeah. See my previous post, I have adjusted slightly. <g> Unless
we're talking about the pH scale of religious belief, in which case I
prefer the one quoted there ^ ;-)

>
>But going from someone who *fervently* beleived to someone who *fervently* 
>disbelieved (Was a big fan of Acharya S at the time) seemed like a *huge* 
>jump.

I can see how, in some respects, but not in others. 

<snip>
>
>The underpinning of 'accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour' (and 
>thereby becoming a Christan rather than just acknowlding there is nowt wrong 
>with the teachigns of Jesus) is first accepting that you need a lord, and 
>need to be saved (and saved from what?).

Well, quite.

>
>>>Thems the Quakers.
>>>I still like doing the odd circle, but Quakers (at least the ones I know)
>>>don't really care whther I do the circle thing or get down on my knees 
>>>with
>>>hands clasped together, or do the Hakka - if I find that the best way to
>>>commune with God, then good luck to me, it seems. Quakers have a great 
>>>deal
>>>of respect for an individual's relationship with God, and do not preach.
>>
>> I've read a bit about some Quakers in history, by golly they can be
>> right stubborn if they feel they have to be.
>
>And have done alot og good vai that trait, IMHO. The smuggling of slaves out 
>of the south via the 'underground railway' strikes me as an extremely 
>brave - and stubborn - thing to do, something i have great admiration for.

<nods> Oh yeah. 

>
><snip>
>
>>>I guess I'm veering into "why and  how does a religion develop and why do
>>>people believe that particular one rather than another different one"
>>>territory.
>>
>> Well go on then. :-) <waits>
>
>Grak! Thats a whole topic in itself.
>
>First of all, why do people beleive in stuff there is no empirical evidence 
>in? 

Em... hmm.

>And then
>2---+47 
>

Well quite. ;-)


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."