I have been both amused and distressed by the amount of religious
rhetoric, conspicuously christian, popping up on the list lately.
Scott Ott writes in LO14887
"...you have to take a pretty 'a la carte' approach to the
Bible if you want to come out with a story about man's 'latent'
goodness, or even compassion."
Taking an ala carte approach to religion is the status quo for all
dominant religions in the world today.
We can start off with Leviticus. Let's see;
They (the christians) threw out the animal sacrifices, and the
disgustingly misogynistic text regarding women's' menstrual cycles,
but they kept an entire section regarding human relationships and even
reinterpreted "man shall not lie with another man" as an indictment
against all homosexuality. This is interesting because Leviticus is
anally specific regarding the types of relationship that are
disallowed. It doesn't say "woman shall not lie with another woman" .
There is even a prohibition of a mother-son relationship, but nothing
regarding a father-daughter relationship.
Wasn't the Church of England's' break with Rome based on the
establishment of divorce? Clearly a sin in Catholicism, accepted in
Protestantism. As is, of course, Birth control. Here we have an
entirely new and politically powerful institution based the rejection
of established doctrine.
Steve Barnett writes in LO14960
"It (christianity) is arguably the basis for the success of modern
science."
Wasn't Galileo branded as a heretic for his studies of the Cosmos that
proved that the earth was NOT at the center of the solar system?
Wasn't Pasteur chastised by the church for his experiments disproving
spontaneous generation?
Don't the Christian Scientists wholly reject medical science,
believing that only prayer is good for what ails you?
Then we have the categorical rejection of the theory of evolution.
I would agree with Mr.Barnetts' assertion only in that great
achievements in science have been made in spite of christianity, not
because of it.
Both of these threads lean towards interpreting various dogma and
doctrines to develop your own personal philosophy. If Mr. Kerr wishes
to believe in the inherent goodness of Mankind (and I second that
emotion), then he should be heard and learned from, not derided for an
"improper" interpretation of a scripture wholly interpreted and
written by men.
To Believe in a supreme being (an origin) is to reject the idea of an
infinite universe.
To reject an infinite universe is to close your mind to possibilities.
To close your mind to possibilities is to inhibit your ability to
learn and limit the power of the mind.
Do I believe in a god?
no.
Could I be wrong?
yes.
JHC
--JAMES_H_CARRINGTON@HP-Chelmsford-om1.om.hp.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>