Ask500

You led with, "Not taking the bible as the word of god does not sound very Christian to me."

It probably doesn't, but appearances to the contrary, it is. The Bible is the Word of God, but it is not literal. IE: limited to the explicit meaning of a word or text. This is a necessary concept because we, in the West think of non-fiction works as being explicitly true, (though it also may be true in other ways) Fiction is not explicitly true and is thought of as being explicitly untrue for a purpose. (usually entertainment) The Bible (and a few other religious books) does have meaning beyond the explicit meaning of a word or text, And the explicit meanings are often provably false. People argue that it shouldn't be that complicated, but it is just as complicated as reading and understanding a scientific text. No less and no more so. In the West, we are carefully taught scientific thinking to the exclusion of every other way of thinking. It has allowed us to make great progress scientifically and benefited all of us. The Bible uses, at best, a very loose approximate of scientific thinking. There are parts of it that make no sense scientifically when read literally. Most of it is understandable if translated to sciencespeak. Some people like me don't trust the other translators well enough to bet my life on. So I have studied the linguistics of meaning for all my adult life. It was not because I wanted to be the expert, but because there is a ton of contradictory "truths" out there and God said "I" Am the truth. My faith says that this is one of the basics that I either accept or don't. Set up in scientific logic... If God is the truth, the Word of God will be the imported truth of God. The Bible is contradictory in places, so can not be the truth UNLESS we misunderstand what God is saying. Therefore, to read the Bible literally (scientifically) is to deliberately read to misunderstand God.

Most people in the West have very little religious education. Even people that went to Sunday school every week don't know any more than those that take science for 45 minutes per week. Most of that time is taken up learning what to believe. That is generally passed on from the founders of the sect. The scientific translation is often totally out of date by the time the students are told what to do. Catholics addressed this problem by producing a literate priesthood. For many centuries, they were the only ones that could say what God wants people to do. Martin Luther marked the time when the Bible started to be read by the Laity. Technology and scientific thinking exploded while thinking about what God is and why he is that way went forward at a much slower rate. As the gap widened, it became more and more difficult to mediate between the two types of thought. The two types moved forward at different rates. In 1800, mainstream religious thought was that slavery was a necessary evil. By 1900, we understood that slavery was a sin before God. God didn't change, but our understanding did. This was roughly the same time frame for the knowledge of germs and the necessity of an antiseptic operating room. The Methodist Church developed an administrative system that allowed it to expand at the same rate as the US Rail system while the Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterian and Reformed churches were still associated with their historical countries of origin. All this is to illustrate the changes in belief that came with greater spiritual understanding.

At around the turn of the 20th century, technology exploded into worldwide use and understanding. Religious thought trended forward, but didn't explode like scientific thought. This left most theological thinkers as self taught amateurs and most Christians being unable to do more than regurgitate what they had been told. That's where we are today.

Now none of this makes me an expert. It just means that my faith is weak enough to need all the extra information. That information can only come by getting enough information to accurately read the Word of God without having to depend on strictly scientific thought.

The prohibition against Muslims killing Muslims is explicit in the Koran. In Christianity, it is inferred, but not prohibited.

Buddhists generally believe that you are reincarnated after death. In order for the world to stay in balance, you will inevitable suffer for the bad you do and inevitably be rewarded for the good you do. (Karma) As a result, if you do bad things and are to suffer for it, you may as well continue to torture and kill, if you began that way, because you are going to pay the price either way. There is no forgiveness. (in Christian terms)

Why do you assume God would create us without the ability to evolve? I don't believe there is such a thing.

Think of something as simple as building a computer. The first Apple would do everything Steve Jobs required of it, but it can not even communicate with today's computers. In just a few years, it has increased in power and usefulness exponentially. Now, try to imagine what the Apple will be like in just 100 years. It would not only be incredibly advanced, but would not be suitable for today's computing environment. It could not be perfect for 10 years ago, now and 100 years in the future. It can only be perfect for one of the three times, or it can evolve. Evolution IS the perfect way to make a human.

You wish religious people could have the freedom to pursue happiness, however illogical I may find it.

In theory, I want the same thing, but in the US, our Declaration of Independence and the preamble to our Constitution identify the rights given from God as the basis for our self government. Without that basis in law, there are only the rights that we can take and enforce. That's no different than any Communist or Fascist government. It's the radical idea that set us apart from every other government on Earth. Our whole idea of rule of law rather than the capricious rule of man is defined by those God-given, inalienable rights. They can't be one without the other.

What you said is true, but I infer that you believe self directed values are not a bad thing, where I believe that it leaves us open to the dangers of government by personalty, not law.

Not all, but many. Like any value system, each choice can lead to it's own problems. I find many of the solutions of secular humanism to be acceptable trade-offs. I also find Mormonism acceptable in a pluralistic society for the same reason. Not because they are right about God, but because they are fine, upstanding people if they stick to their values.