I’m not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch, but I am probably the only person in America who has actually read the entire Warren Commission Report on the Assassination of President Kennedy.

Its fairly f**ked up, at worst, and ridiculously speculative, at best, but the most telling part of the so-called “investigation” can be found in Chapter 1: Summary and Conclusions - Conclusions: Section 3:

“Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds.”

Not necessary to any essential findings? … Uh, it is when your entire case rests on it!

In that same vein, I read with increasing frequency on this board how mainstream christianity (whatever the hell that is) largely ignores or no longer recognizes the old testament as bona-fide scripture. Really? Would that be the same “mainstream christian” organizations that cited passages from Leviticus (among other biblical tales) to convince their hypnotized followers to vote for California’s Prop H8 in 2008?

Its my take that if mainstream christianity no longer relies on the OT as accurate or factual, then mainstream christianity must, by default, dismiss the NT as well.

But what do I know?

This is the Gospel according to Timothy … “All religions die of one disease, that of being found out. “ -- John Morely

Timothy

Then the Churches are saying that it is "bona-fide scripture".

Anyone that says a church that uses a "Holy Bible" that includes the OT does not recognize the OT as scripture is speaking against the evidence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2011 02:17PM by MJ.

Possibly this is why the TSCC is now offering a stand alone NT.

truthseeker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Possibly this is why the TSCC is now offering a
> stand alone NT.

More likely it is because the OT and the BoM don't really jive with each other.

But the same issues about the literal nature of scripture applies to the BoM as much as to the OT



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2011 11:49AM by MJ.

That's right, it's the simplest explanation that is most likely the correct answer.

When you can not reconcile, redact.

From Merriam-Webster:

Fundamentalist:
a. a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching

b. the beliefs of this movement

c. adherence to such beliefs

Fundamentalists believe in literal scriptures, whether Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, etc, Most religions view scripture as being allegorical or symbolic and do not believe that the writing is a literal history. That is how they can read about the 6 day creation, 6,000 year old earth, universal flood, Christ's miracles, etc. They try to understand the point being made without accepting the book as being the literal truth.

Mormons by definition are fundamentalists.

That's why I was taught growing up over 50 years ago in a "mainstream" Christian church, that much of the OT was symbolic. Even in the NT starting with the four gospels, you have different people giving their view of events, the way any people would view the same events differently.

I think many "mainstream" Christians would sum up the entire Bible in one verse of "love your neighbor as yourself."

So, Timothy, not believing the OT as literal truth may be a new thought to former CULT members, but this has been around for at least 2 or 3 generations in "mainstream" Christian thought.

scarecrowfromoz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think many "mainstream" Christians would sum up
> the entire Bible in one verse of "love your
> neighbor as yourself."

Then why are there so many of them that quote the bible to restrict other people's rights? Where's the love in that?

scarecrowfromoz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's why I was taught growing up over 50 years
> ago in a "mainstream" Christian church, that much
> of the OT was symbolic. Even in the NT starting
> with the four gospels, you have different people
> giving their view of events, the way any people
> would view the same events differently.
>
> I think many "mainstream" Christians would sum up
> the entire Bible in one verse of "love your
> neighbor as yourself."
>
> So, Timothy, not believing the OT as literal truth
> may be a new thought to former CULT members, but
> this has been around for at least 2 or 3
> generations in "mainstream" Christianity.

+2. Actually there were people who believed the OT to be at least partly metaphorical as far back as the Latin Fathers.

"I think many "mainstream" Christians would sum up the entire Bible in one verse of "love your neighbor as yourself.""

I've read the Old and the New Testament many times in many languages. I would say that this is the worst summary of the Bible I have ever heard.

It isn't surprising that most mainstream Christians know little about the text they worship from.

"Main current of thought or behavior: the ideas, actions, and values that are most widely accepted by a group or society."

I would argue that the hardcore adherents in this country are, in fact, representative of the current thought and behavior that is most widely accepted.

What folks call "mainstream" is quite the minority.

Nothin' personal, Jim, but there are more so-called "fundies"

Timothy

I think the view of the number of fundamentalists there are, depends to a large extent on where you live. Since 9/11 the fundamentalism has increased. When people feel threatened they trend to move toward fundamentalism. I saw this with Islam in my years in the Middle East.

Fundamentalists are undoubtedly much more vocal, but that is not reflective of their numbers. They are better organized and have a presence that appears to be larger than they really are, much like Mormonism.

... I just don't agree with what you refer to as the "mainstream"

In this country, evangelicals have ruled the numbers game since the mid 1800s.

Timothy

You know I have found it is not a good practice to say something as a fact when you don’t have anything to back it up.

Secularism, Fundamentalism, or Catholicism?
The Religious Composition of the United States
to 2043
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (2010) 49(2):293–310

As of 2003, in the US, Catholics represented 28.3% of the population. Protestants other than Fundamentalists (Moderates, Liberals and Blacks) represented 27.5%. Protestant Fundamentalists represented 19.5%. No religion represented 17% and all others 7.2%. While Fundamentalist Protestants are a sizable group, they are far from the majority of US citizens. If you were not aware, Catholics have always been discouraged from reading the Bible and the Pope has said the faith has no problem with evolution and other beliefs incompatible with fundamentalism)

Based on expected growth rates the number of Fundamentalists is expected to grow between now and 2043, the number of “no religion” is expected to over take and surpass the Fundamentalists.

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/POP/pub/Skirbekk/JSSR%20US%20religion%20projections%20-%20June%202010.pdf



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2011 06:11PM by Jim Huston.

Jim Huston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know I have found it is not a good practice to
> say something as a fact when you don’t have
> anything to back it up.
>
> Secularism, Fundamentalism, or Catholicism?
> The Religious Composition of the United States
> to 2043
>
> As of 2003, in the US, Catholics represented 28.3%
> of the population. Protestants other than
> Fundamentalists (Moderates, Liberals and Blacks)
> represented 27.5%. Protestant Fundamentalists
> represented 19.5%. No religion represented 17%
> and all others 7.2%. While Fundamentalist
> Protestants are a sizable group, they are far from
> the majority of US citizens. If you were not
> aware, Catholics have always been discouraged from
> reading the Bible and the Pope has said the faith
> has no problem with evolution and other beliefs
> incompatible with fundamentalism)
>
> Based on expected growth rates the number of
> Fundamentalists is expected to grow between now
> and 2043, the number of “no religion” is
> expected to over take and surpass the
> Fundamentalists.
>
> http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/POP/pub/Skirbekk/J
> SSR%20US%20religion%20projections%20-%20June%20201
> 0.pdf


Good statistics and I'll second your point that Catholics are not Fundamentalists or Biblical literalists. However, they are not so much discourgaed from reading the Bibble as they were in the past. Fundes are louder and better organized but they are far from the majority.

Jim Huston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know I have found it is not a good practice to
> say something as a fact when you don’t have
> anything to back it up.
>
> Secularism, Fundamentalism, or Catholicism?
> The Religious Composition of the United States
> to 2043
> Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
> (2010) 49(2):293–310
>
> As of 2003, in the US, Catholics represented 28.3%
> of the population. Protestants other than
> Fundamentalists (Moderates, Liberals and Blacks)
> represented 27.5%. Protestant Fundamentalists
> represented 19.5%. No religion represented 17%
> and all others 7.2%. While Fundamentalist
> Protestants are a sizable group, they are far from
> the majority of US citizens. If you were not
> aware, Catholics have always been discouraged from
> reading the Bible and the Pope has said the faith
> has no problem with evolution and other beliefs
> incompatible with fundamentalism)
>
> Based on expected growth rates the number of
> Fundamentalists is expected to grow between now
> and 2043, the number of “no religion” is
> expected to over take and surpass the
> Fundamentalists.
>
> http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/POP/pub/Skirbekk/J
> SSR%20US%20religion%20projections%20-%20June%20201
> 0.pdf

+1. BTW, Catholics no longer discourage reading the Bible although that was very true in the past and they are definitely neither Fundies or Biblical literalists.Sorry, I was having trouble with this board and I didn't think the above message posted. Sorry for the repeat.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2011 07:22PM by bona dea.

I misspoke. I remember when the liturgy was given in Latin and reading the Bible was forbidden. That changed and the Bible was no longer forbidden, but was never encouraged. The Mass did expand at that point to include the reading of more scripture during services. I attended Catechism for a while with a friend when I was young.

Jim Huston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I misspoke. I remember when the liturgy was given
> in Latin and reading the Bible was forbidden.
> That changed and the Bible was no longer
> forbidden, but was never encouraged. The Mass did
> expand at that point to include the reading of
> more scripture during services. I attended
> Catechism for a while with a friend when I was
> young.

Yeah it isn't emphasized like it is with Protestants, but when I went to RCIA a few times with a friend, they did push Bible reading.Don't know if they do that all over or if it was just something particular teacher liked.

You all seem to have a lack of knowledge of Catholicism--so as a Catholic with some graduate level Catholic theology credits, let me give you some info:

Catholicism looks at the Bible as the salvation history of mankind. Though it is interpreted literally in a few places, it is not done so in all. Catholicism teaches the belief the the Holy Spirit resides in the Church (and it's people!) and the Church and it's scholars (the Magisterium, or teaching arm) do the research and translating and making sure the work is correct and uniform throughout all versions of the various published bibles and catechisms.

Now, and this is true back 2,000 years, if a person attended Mass daily over a period of three years, they would hear the Bible nearly in it's entirety. Attending only on Sundays means about 65%. The first half of Mass is called the Liturgy of the Word and is a Bible study: OT reading, Psalm, NT reading from the Letters (Epistles), and Reading from the Gospel, Homily (Sermon) on what the readings meant and what them mean in modern (and indvidul life).

Before mass printing and widespread literacy, there was no way to have personal bible study. Going to Mass meant hearing the bible and learning what Christ taught--and learning who he was and where he came from. Something a Church who ignores the OT would miss.

Now that we printing and literacy are not as big an issue in the US and Europe and other developing countries, personal Bible study is encouraged--along with the proper footnotes and study materials.

From an earlier post, you can see the Evangelical movement and literal interpretation of the Bible is only about 200 years old.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/

"An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible’s book of Genesis is 'literally true' rather than a story meant as a 'lesson.'"

But even if they are symbolic, what does Lot offering up his daughters for rape symbolize?

Oh, and here is another poll done by a different company that confirms the same thing:

http://legacy.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Bible.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2011 10:02AM by MJ.

I really wonder why the difference in the numbers. I would be interested in the methodology that was used in the ABC poll. The paper I referenced is from Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion and is based primarily on General Social Survey from 1972 - 2009.

Our starting year data (2003) are drawn from the GSS for the years 2000–2006. These years
were pooled together in order to increase sample size for the base population (N = 12,674) and
they are the only available survey years that include both minority religions (notably Hinduism
and Islam) and a separate Hispanic category. Figure 1 shows the ethnoreligious composition of
our base population in 2003.

As far as Old Testament teachings, they are primarily lessons about the importance of obedience.

Jim Huston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I really wonder why the difference in the numbers.
> I would be interested in the methodology that was
> used in the ABC poll. The paper I referenced is
> from Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
> and is based primarily on General Social Survey
> from 1972 - 2009.

Well, I posted two different surveys using different methodologies. All I have is your word about what the JSSR has to say. But you say the survey was "from 1972 - 2009" and what you quoted below (assuming it was a quote) states "Our starting year data (2003) are drawn from the GSS for the years 2000–2006." The two sets of dates don't jive, so SOMETHING is wrong in what you are presenting.

>
> Our starting year data (2003) are drawn from the
> GSS for the years 2000–2006. These years
> were pooled together in order to increase sample
> size for the base population (N = 12,674) and
> they are the only available survey years that
> include both minority religions (notably Hinduism
> and Islam) and a separate Hispanic category.
> Figure 1 shows the ethnoreligious composition of
> our base population in 2003.

That hardly reflects the entirety of the methodology.

>
> As far as Old Testament teachings, they are
> primarily lessons about the importance of
> obedience.

So, you are saying that a story about a father willingly offering up his daughters for rape, as lot did, is a lesson about "obedience" worthy of being canonized as scripture? I certainly don't think a story about offering up daughters for rape by strangers has any business being told as a "lesson" unless the person doing the offering is jailed for child endangerment. But hey, if YOU think a father offering up his daughters up for rape is a valid lesson in "obedience" then I guess there is no reasoning with you, because such a stand is unreasonable in this day an age.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2011 11:05AM by MJ.

more liberal ones are shrinking. Of course, the unaffiliated are growing the most, maybe there is hope.

Or not.

My point is that when you ditch the premise the rest of the argument falls apart.

Mainstream chritianity has openly denied the existence of its lord and savior? ... I don't think so.

Timothy

Jeffersonian Christianity
A good historical example is Jefferson, who was not mainstream in his day. He re-wrote the Bible, writing out all of the miracles and superstitions. He was a Deist and only accepted Christ for the moral values he taught.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm


Here is some information on "Liberal Christians"

The theology of liberal Christianity was prominent in the Biblical criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The style of Scriptural hermeneutics (interpretation of the Bible) within liberal theology is often characterized as non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered a collection of factual statements, but instead an anthology that documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within a historical or cultural context. Thus, liberal Christian theologians do not claim to discover truth propositions but rather create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender, social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding. Thus, liberal Christians do not regard the Bible as divinely inspired (God's Word), but subject Scripture to human reason.

In the 19th century, self-identified liberal Christians sought to elevate Jesus' humane teachings as a standard for a world civilization freed from cultic traditions and traces of "pagan" belief in the supernatural. As a result, liberal Christians placed less emphasis on miraculous events associated with the life of Jesus than on his teachings. The effort to remove "superstitious" elements from Christian faith dates to intellectual reformist Christians such as Erasmus and the Deists in the 15th–17th centuries. The debate over whether a belief in miracles was mere superstition or essential to accepting the divinity of Christ constituted a crisis within the 19th-century church, for which theological compromises were sought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

... who do not make-up the "mainstream"

The fundies do that.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2011 03:47PM by Timothy.

I know everything's big in Texas, but that's a might broad brush you're packin' there, cowboy.

Growing up in ETex, I attended one of the most liberal, mainstream churches around, the DoC. Even in the 80's they considered voting to allow gay ministers. (they didn't, but still impressive they considered it back in the day)

However, by NYC standards, that DoC church wouldn't be considered liberal or even mainstream.

Our church made a public open and affirmative of all people, (the gay thing) back in the early 90's. Many people left but the core is now larger than it was.

Our church sponsors a float in the annual gay pride parade and we have gays, blacks and women in the highest levels of paid clergy. We have had gays serve on our scout troop committee.

Of course there are literalist in the conregations (it's NYC and people come from all over the place)

Just saying that your exposure to "mainstream" in Texas does not make it indicative of the nation at large. You might not know this, but Texans are a pretty insular folk.

People get pretty Jesusy Down South, that makes them vocal, but not a majority.

Happy Texas Independence Day this Wednesday. Will be breaking out the Ro-Tel.

It's pick and choose re the OT and NT, though most will latch onto the Jesus thing. People will discard it all as myth or allegory or whatever until Jesus, and then, "Oh, that part's true!"

Even then, how or what Jesus does for us is also pick and choose.

That's why I brought up the single or magic-bullet theory.

Its not necessary to any essential findings, but we're going to base our case around it anyway.

Timothy

Jim? ... bona dea?

Timothy

Read my thread above. Nineteen point five percent of people in the United States believe in a literal Bible. That means 80.5 do not. Fifty six plus percent do not believe in a literal Bible are content to accept Christianity in some form or another and accept the Bible on some other basis, often allegorical. The Christians that I know are either Fundamentalists or accept both the Old and New Testaments as allegorical and have no trouble reconciling the Bible to not be a factual record. Maybe that is because I live in the East.

It should be noted that the Mormon Church has begun separating North American history from the Book of Mormon teachings. To me this is a precursor to an eventual admission that it is not "factual."

Russell M Nelson
Ensign July 1993
There are some things that the Book of Mormon is not. It is not a text of history, although some history is found within its pages. It is not a definitive work on ancient American agriculture or politics. It is not a record of all former inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, but only of particular groups of people.


Faust Ensign Jan 2004
It is important to know what the Book of Mormon is not. It is not primarily a history, although much of what it contains is historical. The title page states that it is an account taken from the records of people living in the Americas before and after Christ; it was “written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation. … And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2011 08:44AM by Jim Huston.

What does the story of Lot offering his daughters up for rape teach? That story of Lot teaches that families should be sacrificed to protect strangers.

Literal or not, the OT teaching suck, that is, unless one thinks sacrificing your own family to protect total strangers is a GOOD thing that should be considered holy scripture. Looking though the OT with all its incest, murder, etc., it is difficult to accept what it teaches even if you look at it as non-literal.

As far as what percent think the bible is literal? As far as the USA, your numbers seem a bit off...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/

More like 60% +

Considering catholicism "mainstream" is the first mistake in that, according to Jim's statistics, it represents only 28.3% of the US population.

That would leave 71.7% seeing things a little differently.

Take away the 17% who don't give a s**t and your left with 54.7% which is close to double the number of catholics and more in-line with the 60% plus mentioned in the Washington Times and other polls.

Again, "mainstream" would be the most "widely accepted" thoughts. At 60% plus, I just don't see that only a mere handful in this country take the bible literally.

Timothy



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2011 10:46AM by Timothy.

That would be a way of getting there, however you are including liberal and moderate Protestants as Bible literalists.

The difference may be in the specifics of what was asked. A person may reject much of the Bible as literal, but still accept the stories they grew up with as literal, ie the flood, virgin birth, parting of the Red Sea, etc. but reject a 6,000 year-old earth. If the ABC poll was based on this type of question, it would yield very different results than the study I quoted. You see Mormons do that with the JOD. They take the parts that support their belief, but reject everything else as being the leadership talking as men.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2011 11:30AM by Jim Huston.

... even though they fall into that "other" category of 7.2%.

Here, again, are the numbers you cite:

Catholics -- 28.3%

Protestants other than Fundamentalists (Moderates, Liberals and Blacks) -- 27.5%

Protestant Fundamentalists -- 19.5%

No religion -- 17%

All others -- 7.2%.

To suggest all moderate, liberal and black protestants view the bible as hokey and obtuse is a bit of a stretch, but I'll grant you half and take half (13.75%) for reasons of good form.

Add that 13.75% to the fundie 19.5% and the "other" 7.2% and that gives ya 40.45% as opposed to catholicism-and-friends 42.05%. Take away the 17% and its pretty much a dead heat if ya axe me.

Timothy

If you read the study you would have found that the "Other" category included Jews, Hindus, Muslims and other non-Christian groups.

If the ABC poll was given using specific Bible stories, many Catholics would say that they believed them, as well as many moderate Protestants. On the other hand, the only people I know that accept a "young earth" or Biblical creation as true are the Fundamentalists. Everyone else has accepted that the Bible is, at least in part, allegorical.

Timothy--

You wrote in this thread:

"I’m not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch, but I am probably the only person in America who has actually read the entire Warren Commission Report on the Assassination of President Kennedy.

"Its fairly f**ked up, at worst, and ridiculously speculative, at best, but the most telling part of the so-called 'investigation' can be found in Chapter 1: Summary and Conclusions - Conclusions: Section 3:

“'Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds.'

"Not necessary to any essential findings? … Uh, it is when your entire case rests on it!"

"In that same vein, I read with increasing frequency on this board how mainstream christianity (whatever the hell that is) largely ignores or no longer recognizes the old testament as bona-fide scripture. Really? . . . "
_____


Since you brought up this aspect of the assassination of JFK as an example of an essential factor in case-making, here's something you might find interesting, given that it relates directly to your mention of a particularly important element of the President's murder:

I happened to be in the Dallas area with a colleague of mine for a 20-year high school reunion for students of Richardson High School (Richardson is a North Dallas suburb, where I attended RHS through my junior year).

My friend John Stanley (who was not a RHS alumni but who was also interested in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy) and I decided to go down to Dealey Plaza, where I was standing across from Elm Street in the late afteroon, looking toward the Texas School Book Depository (where accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald worked).

I had my camera out, when someone came up to me and earnestly informed me that former Texas Governor John Connally was over at the Depository building.

I crossed Elm Street and went over to the Depository, where a black stretch limo was parked at one corner of the building--and out of which had stepped Governor Connally.

I had with me at the time a facsmile copy of the findings of the Warren Commission.

("Warren Commission Report: The official report presented to President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 21, 1964, By the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy," as "Delivered by Executive Order No. 1130 on September 24, 1964" (New York: Marboro Books Corp., a division of Barnes and Noble Books, Inc., 1992, 888 pp.)


I asked Governor Connally if I could have my photograph taken with him. He graciously agreed. (I still have that photo, which shows Governor Connally and myself standing next to his limo, with the parking lot of the Depository building and the railway control tower in the background, with me holding at my side my personal copy of the Warren Commission Report).

At my request, Governor Connally signed the book, writing, "John Connally Oct '92."

I asked Governor Connally if I could ask him a question and he said I could.

I inquired of him whether he had been shot with the same bullet that struck President Kennedy.

He quietly but firmly replied that he had not. He told me that he heard a shot, turned in an attempt to look at President Kennedy (who was sitting in the back seat) grabbing for his throat after having been struck by a bullet, then was himself (Connally) hit by another (i.e., a different) bullet.

It was a short, pleasant conversation. I thanked him and left.

Governor Connally died the following June, eight months after we spoke.



Edited 19 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2011 07:05AM by steve benson.

I've made an annual pilgrimage to Dealey Plaza on the anniversary of that horrible day since 1977. I was only six years old when the actual event occurred, but recall exactly where I was and what I was doing. I won't forget.

How cool that you got to talk to former Gov. Connally. I was there, but content to just see the man. If you're ever back, let me know. I'll buy lunch!

Timothy

what??? If you were not aware, Catholics have always been discouraged from reading the Bible
what??? i say this because i never heard that...I was
raised Catholic and my mother just told me that that statement was true....up until Pope John II...he advocated reading the Bible and that is still the churches stance....

The last time I had much to do with Catholicism I was 15. That would put me 40 years out of date. Sorry.