Dear Mr. Toletz, I believe you misread my ideas. The idea was not to discredit the Jewish religion or to support the Christian. I am only a history student and an agnostic. I only ask that people who say they believe should be consistent with their own religions, and that as Christians, those who have now fought to discredit Darwin's theories should take a look at their own origins and remember that Christ gave emphasis to the New Testament and the church had never insisted upon the literal truth of the Genesis. I don't judge whether one is true or one is false. But if so called Christians are to cast stones at Darwin for being incompatible with their belief, then I would ask those Christians to rethink their theology. What this has to do with the Jewish religion and the fact that the Muslims believe Jesus to be a prophet is beyond me. If you misunderstood this to mean that I put more faith in the Christian religion than the Jewish or Muslim, you are doing me wrong.
This was meant only as a plea for internal logic within the Christian religion (others as well). By saying that Christ (according to the Christians, God) gave the Christians the New Testament, and therefore, Christians (by being Christians) should pay more attention to the spirit of the New Testament instead of the Old has nothing to do with whether Christianity has supremacy over Islam or Judaism. Please read me correctly. As to your complaint about conclusions and antecedents: what are you talking about??? Are you talking about the two Testaments? Or are you talking about my logic? As to the two Testaments, according to the Christians (thus, applying to all who call themselves Christians), the New was brought by Jesus to replace the Old. The antecedent was discredited by Jesus and a new book was given to take it's place. As to my logic, the logic is very simple: If Christian, then follow the Christian religion. If following the christian religion, then emphasis on the New Testament. If emphasis is on the New Testament, then Old Testament has to be taken as allegory and interpreted symbolically, not literally. If Old Testament is not taken by its literal meaning, then there is nothing incompatible between it and Darwin's theory on evolution. If there is no contradiction, then Christianity and Darwin's theory can coexist. Anything wrong with that? What is your suggestion? Thanks, Marianne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Topletz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [OGD] Re: Dennis/Evolution > Marianne, et al > > You would do well to heed your own advice: > >"I would greatly appreciate it if people who do lip service to > >their religions would deepen their knowledge through study and > >thinking." > > Your benighted summary of Judaism and Islam is just as offensive as > fanatic diatribe: > > >"The Old Testament was never meant to be taken literally. It was > >a collection of myths, history, sanitary advice, and record of > >life of the wandering Jews in the Middle East. Christ gave the > >world the New Testament to replace the Old. He wanted to put > >emphasis on love, empathy, and forgiveness. The Old Testament is > >only meant for symbolic interpretation." > > This is not only opinion represented as fact, but also illogical as > it accepts the conclusion while rejecting the antecedent. If the > Tanakh (or Old Testament as Christians call it) were to be > accepted as truth, it creates a host of incompatibilities with the > doctrine of the New Testament. So in Christianity it is rather > important to reduce the Old Testament to "symbolic interpretation" > and "[not] to be taken literally" in order to avoid cognitive > dissonance. Being fully knowledgeable of the "Old Testament," the > Jews rejected Yeshua ben Yosef, aka "Jesus Christ," as the messiah. > This remains a blissfully uninvestigated pink elephant by most > Christians. The Muslims accepted the teachings of Jesus Christ as > a prophet (to my understanding) and not as G-D; however they give > greater accord to the Hadiths of Mohammed. > > >"This new round of fundamentalist thinking based on the fanatical > >and literal interpretation of the Old Testament is really > >frightening, as it is diametrically opposed to Christian beliefs." > > It sure is. However, subsequent before precedent is still > illogical. It is admiring the gilded roof of a house built on sand > and symbolism. > > >"At the moment, we have an uncannily large population of people > >who think they are believers of their religions without knowing > >the basics of their religions at all. " > > We sure do. And they would do well not to demonstrate unsound > thought nor give ignorant summaries while making an emotional > appeal, no matter what their beliefs. > > And just to add my own two cents: Evolution, if applied as a > scientific theory, is applicable to orchids. However, evolution > does have severe flaws just as creationism, and it would be > foolish to give either greater accord than its respective > limitations. > > Steve Topletz > > > _______________________________________________ > the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com > > _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
