To be clear, I have nothing against religious people telling me how their religion shaped their views of the world even if they include a scientific fact to back up their claim. But when school boards attempt to teach students that the Christian creation story is an equal to evolution and should be in science class, they go against the “wall of separation.” There is a place in education for the creation stories of every religion- it is in a Comparative Religion Studies class. I won’t rehash the other examples because the links are so clearly documented in the original post.

I would like to remind you that it was you, a Christian, who came to my blog with the shoulder chip. I’m appreciative that you have toned it down a bit and we’re able to have this discussion.

I can fit science into plenty of the Bible, but I don’t try to change science into something else to make it fit.

But it’s nice to know that you don’t have a hostile attitude toward Christians. I respect your opinion, although I disagree with it.

Just don’t think that ALL Christians are trying to wrongfully fit science into the Bible. Several will try to, but truthfully, most of us don’t. Though every Christian uses science and logic to explain his/her opinions, we’re only trying to explain our point. After all, no one would believe a Christian that used only spiritual experiences to explain his/her views.

Once again, I respect that you don’t have the wrong attitude about this, and I hope you know that I don’t either.

As far as hijacking mankind’s progress with regard to science, that is indeed what some Chritian organizations are trying to do. Here I am making points about the wall of separation and science and you attempt to hijack my post and wrongfully assume that I want to call Christians evil. I don’t believe that Christians are deliberately trying to harm the world, but I do believe they are trying to cram their views down the throats of many who care not to have science bastardized by religious belief. I would be as angry at any religion who made a point of changing science to fit its holy book.

Your only correct assumption is that I don’t believe the Christ message in its entirety; I certainly don’t believe that he walked on water, physically changed the properties of water to make it wine, or rose from a physical death to ascend into heaven.

You are obviously an intelligent young man so I’m betting that if you read the post again, you will find that I was not being hostile toward Christians, but toward the mostly Christian efforts to change science.

“it,” means your post.

Derek,
I found your blog after you were nasty on mine. Let me share some stuff with you.

1) My blog is political, not spiritual. I fight everyday as a county chairman for a political party so that you can run a blog with which I disagree.

2) The Bible is not science, nor is it an accurate history book. (I concede, in advance, that history books are not generally accurate.) It is a great book from which to learn the moral lessons from the time of its publication.

3) I was raised Christian, but now detest all organized religion. I don’t believe in God, but I believe that the Christ of the New Testament was a very enlightened individual who was persecuted in his time.

4) Perhaps I’m a “real” Christian; one who looks at the deeds of Jesus and tries to emulate them. I truly try to treat my fellow man as I wish to be treated. Or perhaps I’m a real Buddhist and am seeking nirvana. Maybe both are totally compatible with atheism. Whatever I am, your nastiness would turn me off to Christ if I were still seeking a god.

You seem to be a smart YOUNG man. Please don’t let your fervor ruin (what I hope is) your message.

Michelle
an atheist who believes in the message of Jesus and many other great philosophers.

_________________________________________________________________

Here’s my response.

1) I was/am aware that this is a political blog. I was just making a point.

2) Nothing except science is science. I never said, nor implied that the Bible was science. Also, it IS an accurate history book. We simply have a difference in opinions.

3) Once again, we have a difference in opinion.

4) I intend no “nastiness.” I’m only posting my view of it, though I may not communicate it well. I’m sorry if my comment would turn you away, but there are some who call themselves Christians, but really aren’t. To turn away from so many people because of the actions of a few, that is poor judgement. I don’t judge islam, just by looking at the radical muslims. I actually look at the religion, islam, and then judge for myself.

I doubt that you believe the message of Jesus Christ in its entirity. Though I do believe you look at the actions of Jesus, and try to emulate them to an extent.

Derek
A faithful Christian obviously with little communication skills.

The reason I even put in the second and third paragraphs, was because that has always been the usual response to Christianity, and I apologize if I offended you with that. Though, you did imply that you were going to debate, that or start thinking about it. That’s where the debate thing came from.

I agree that religion shouldn’t pretend to be science. But Christianity isn’t pretending to science.

Once again, if I offended you too much, I apologize.