RE: Here we go again.

Then, by your (narrow-minded, conservative) definition, they cannot call themselves Christian. By their definition, you cannot.

The Roman Catholic Church, for example, believes that scripture must be "interpreted", by a skilled, trained, professional. They've adopted the stance that the bible is never at odds with scientific fact - when the literal reading of the bible (talking snakes, and such) differs from scientific fact, it's the interpretation of the bible that's got to change.

Guess what - you don't get to decide who's a Christian and who's not. Neither does your pastor. Your whole "they're not real Christians" stance is just arrogance. You're positive that their interpretation is wrong and yours is right.

The entire last paragraph of your post is nothing more than your interpretation of whatever message is to be found in Christian scripture. To assert that it's the only possible correct one is arrogance far and away beyond anything we atheists have managed.

Even the notion that one doesn't "earn" salvation by works, only by faith, is mere interpretation. And a disgustingly self-serving one, at that. It says you don't actually have to be worthy of anything, you can be the most despicable blackguard in your village, but if you believe hard enough, you get rewarded.

Well, guess what? Not everybody thinks that's something a good deity would accept. Some think that one does have to earn a place in heaven through deeds.

I still think you're all selling bullshit, but pretending yours is the only true bullshit is arrogance beyond belief.

That's kind of my point. Do you think it's sane at all to call that an "attack on Islam"? You're doing essentially the same thing when you call Shanon's conjecture an attack.

Star This to Save in Your Profile