Obviously, I would rather edit than delete any comment. I don’t have a problem with differences of opinion, good debate, etc. But I have found that name calling, etc. serves more to inflame and get personal then to actually talk about substance.

But since it’s your blog, I’ll allow you to censor all you want. The conservative right is good at that. Since we’re approaching the x-mas season, I’ll be sure to avoid that as well. And jsut to be sure, I’ll not abbreviate lacrosse by typing LAX, just to be on the safe side.

(Will snarky comments still be allowed, or will that also be banned in the new policy??)

On my blog, as in my house, I expect a certain level of respect and decorum, and would appreciate it if you would respect these wishes. I will be crafting a comment policy to address this, but from here on in you should expect that these types of things will constitute an edit or removal of said comments.

I love the people for the most part. A few of them even know all about me, and what I feel about the church. I just need to sit through some ridiculous sermons every once in a while, and deal with the pomp and circumstance. All in all, not a bad JOB- that’s all it really is, a job.

You’re most certainly correct- people can learn from fables. The difference being that the fable characters aren’t going to send you to a bad place if you don’t pay homage. To me, it’s like saying Santa Claus is going to give you a lump of coal. Well, I don’t believe in Santa, so I ain’t worried about his lump of coal! Likewise, I don’t believe or fear some invisible Sky Daddy. My supreme being is much bigger than male/female or any ancient text you can dig up. Nor does he care about what I eat, what I wear, or who I love.

I understand the positive thoughts idea. I actually use that phrase quite a bit and believe in some karmic principles (WE and we alone control our destiny here on earth).

“Your breed of Christianity”- this may have been an over simplification. What I meant was those sects of xtians who use a very literal interpretation of the bible, don’t allow critical thought on any subject, think evolution is a myth (global warming for that matter too), earth is 6000 years old, etc, etc. This breed isn’t generally concerned with you being a xtian unless you abide by all their rules,edicts, and interpretations no matter how outdated or assbackwards they may seem. In other words, it’s their way or no way. Know the type??

I am fully aware of what I dis-believe. I was raised Catholic, attended parochial school for 13 years, and continue to work for the RC church today. I think they’re full of crap, and that will never change. Once I began to think critically for myself, I was removed from the mindless masses, and I’ve been very happy since that day.

Science will always win in my mind. the observable, measureable, and quantifiable can’t be dismissed because of an ancient book of fables. Thankfully, there are churches that embrace differing thoughts including the belief in evolution, acceptance of homosexuality, etc. Two of these is the United Church of Christ and Unitarians. I’ve been in contact with them numerous times, and plan to join a Unitarian church at some point.

As I’ve said before, I do believe in a supreme being of some sort, but not your biblical sky daddy, with his questionable “historic” sources as evidence. That said, I have no plans to ever swallow your breed of christianity. You can pray until the cows come home, but they tend to just bounce off me.

Yeah, I’ll take the scientists, thank you kindly.

I have no problem with science trying to understand the way God’s universe works. What I have it a problem with scientists pretending that they’re omniscient stating that they know how the universe came about when all they can observe is that which we’ve seen for the past 100 years. Even if they could produce a test that could show one thing changing into another, they would then have the logical hurdle of proving that it happened “in the wild” whereas it took us scientists to invent.

Back to my point– it’s irrational to say that you cannot have a debate over an unprovable event in history between an historic account versus scientific hypothesis. Until, of course, there’s some kind of time machine where you could go back and actually look for yourself (in which case no one would believe it still, since we can’t even get everyone to believe that Islamic fundamentalists crashed airplanes into the twin towers…).

So, take your pick. Believe your scientists who are basically guessing if you want. (I know, oversimplification, but that’s basically the scientific method– make a hypothesis and either prove it true or false.)

And, of course, the fundamentalist, creationist side of the … erm… discussion cannot and will not acknowledge that science is about the task of understanding the universe and its workings, since that would implicitly deny the hand of the divine in day to day events.

These sorts of discussions are futile. We should just let them continue to pray for rain and ignore reality, because that is what they are going to do regardless of any appeal to intellect or knowledge. ( I know… I was one of them for a lot of years. Then I learned to actually THINK about what I read.)