progressive christianity

[English]

imo, religion = bull. none of them appeal to me in the slightest.

& i don't agree with progressive christianity.
if you're going to be a Christian, you should follow the proper christian religion and it's rules, instead of following some adapted rules to make it easier.
it's kind of an easy option.

I personally disagree with your opinion! Fair play if religion doesn't appeal to you, but to call it bull is quite unfair really! I'm not a Christian or whatever, but you gotta have some respect to people who are (and I think quite a lot of your friends are aswell!)

Religion has a lot to do with interpretation and therefore Progressive Christianity is just another interpretation of it that holds Christian characteristics/structure just not as 'extreme'.

[hobo]

I personally disagree with your opinion! Fair play if religion doesn't appeal to you, but to call it bull is quite unfair really! I'm not a Christian or whatever, but you gotta have some respect to people who are (and I think quite a lot of your friends are aswell!)

Religion has a lot to do with interpretation and therefore Progressive Christianity is just another interpretation of it that holds Christian characteristics/structure just not as 'extreme'.

that's why i said "imo", so nobody would be offended by me calling it bull :}

& yeah, but this just seems like an easy option for people who don't want to have to follow christianity's stricter rules.

[FlyingJesus]

Why not follow a religion to the extreme? It's interpretation that's more dangerous. What are known as Muslim "extremists" don't actually follow the religion to the extreme, they just pick and choose like in progressive/liberal Christianity, and that's where the danger lies. Also, if you really believe in God, why would you need to question His word? Surely if it was meant to be open to interpretation then that would have been said, rather than the instructions and laws as they are.

[Mentor]

I know what you mean but i still think what you're saying is the same as being agnostic. If you're agreeing that there is no evidence either way then how can you argue that you're being scientific about it and yet leaning towards one side.

Because nothing is more logical than something. Your claiming it would be just as scientific to assume when your blind/curtains blows open, that a giant marshmello thats invisable came up and pushed it. Its far more logical to assume it was just the wind, yet in that instance since you likely wernt monitering it or checking in ant great detail you dont actualy have any proof ether way...

The sames true of god. Thus i dont accept the option of there being a god at all since its non-suggested nore implyed but any form of evedence avaible. In the same way i also dont belive harry potter exists, yet theres more evedence he does than there is for a judo-christanic god.

Now would you concider your selth an a-potterist (someone who doesnt belive harry potter is realy) or a potter-nostic (someone whos unsure) takeing in to account theres no evedence to say ether way?

Do you follow?

Why not follow a religion to the extreme? It's interpretation that's more dangerous. What are known as Muslim "extremists" don't actually follow the religion to the extreme, they just pick and choose like in progressive/liberal Christianity, and that's where the danger lies. Also, if you really believe in God, why would you need to question His word? Surely if it was meant to be open to interpretation then that would have been said, rather than the instructions and laws as they are.

Not nessarly theres quite a bit in the quran about killing and murdering non-belivers, as there equaly is in the bible. no holy book ive ever read has truely been very peaceful the whole way though, although peace is the underluying message, to take that you have to ignore a great deal of violence thats also contained "/
Also christans DO NOT belive the bible is the work of god. It was written by men, thus is imperfect. Its not the literal truth, much of it is just experessions from the time period idiots today confuse.

"a son of god" was pretty much any person who was particualy religious, alot of people, not just jesus, it was applied to almost everyone, after all if u accept the bible, everyones the "son" god. its just people misread it and take an expression literaly. Belive it or not, even 2000 or so years ago, they had slang, expressions, and methods of literaly expression. most the writers were likely also poets, and that shows in how they write. Takeing it literaly is not takeing it how it was meant, so accepting it is writen in the way is not really picking and chooseing.

[Concentric2]

Because nothing is more logical than something. Your claiming it would be just as scientific to assume when your blind/curtains blows open, that a giant marshmello thats invisable came up and pushed it. Its far more logical to assume it was just the wind

If i were investigating scientifically what caused the curtains to blow open then i wouldn't make any such assumptions.

yet in that instance since you likely wernt monitering it or checking in ant great detail you dont actualy have any proof ether way...

I agree - we don't have any evidence that there wasn't a giant invisible marshmellow so that might be the case.

The sames true of god. Thus i dont accept the option of there being a god at all since its non-suggested nore implyed but any form of evedence avaible.

I also agree that we shouldn't waste time thinking that there might be a marshmellow and try proving it, because there would be an infinite number of things to investigate. But you can't say that just because nothing we've investigated so far suggests there is one that it's more unlikely that there is.

Now would you concider your selth an a-potterist (someone who doesnt belive harry potter is realy) or a potter-nostic (someone whos unsure) takeing in to account theres no evedence to say ether way?

potter-nostic.

[Virgin Mary]

If i were investigating scientifically what caused the curtains to blow open then i wouldn't make any such assumptions.


I agree - we don't have any evidence that there wasn't a giant invisible marshmellow so that might be the case.


I also agree that we shouldn't waste time thinking that there might be a marshmellow and try proving it, because there would be an infinite number of things to investigate. But you can't say that just because nothing we've investigated so far suggests there is one that it's more unlikely that there is.


potter-nostic.

People apply logic to things with ambiguity I guess. I think it's more logical to believe something created everything rather than everything blew up out of nothing then randomly formed everything. People will think the opposite, each to their own.

[N!ck]

People apply logic to things with ambiguity I guess. I think it's more logical to believe something created everything rather than everything blew up out of nothing then randomly formed everything. People will think the opposite, each to their own.

But the theory is that there was just a load of energy, which exploded, creating everything that we have today.

The big bang theory is probably the most beleived in scientific theory of the creation of the universe, but there are other scientific theorys.

[Mentor]

Technicaly speaking the big bang theory has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. The theroy simply states that a "big bang" took place near the beginning of the universe and is what send all the planets shooting out, plus accounting for everything from background radiation to the universe explanding (as shown by red shift)

But like evolution it gets confused alot, half of the internets christans cant tell the difference between evolution and a-biogenisis in the same way nearaly all of the internte cant tell the difference between the big bang and the universes creation.

[N!ck]

Well technically I should have put "universe as we know it", but several definitions from google support what i said. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...G=Search&meta=

Also wiki states that it happened at or close to the creation of the Universe. No-one con be really sure though as they weren't there . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

[Virgin Mary]

Why didn't gravity pull it back in? >;S