Post by: Anonymous on May 02, 2005, 01:01:00 AM
Post by: cherish wisdom on May 02, 2005, 01:24:00 AM
We don't handle snakes and dance around or anything weird like that.
...the people have a right to keep and bear arms.
-- Patrick Henry and George Mason Debates
Post by: BuzzKill on May 02, 2005, 11:46:00 AM
There Are different definitions of cult - But the LDS meet them all.
An organization is not exempt, Just b/c you are happy while in one, and feel it is doing you good.
There is one major factor in defining a cult, the LDS meet that many others do not - the existence of writings outside of the Bible, considered to be equal to, or even superior to the Bible in authority an value.
The Bible is in disagreement with many Mormon beliefs and practices. The very heart of Mormonism is condemned in the Biblical scriptures as the great lie of Satan himself.
Mormonism teaches that Satan told the truth and the Eve fell up.
What Joseph Smith had to say takes precedence over Moses and Isaiah and Jesus Christ Himself - and THAT alone makes Mormonism a cult. But the LDS meet all the other factors as well.
Post by: Anonymous on May 02, 2005, 01:47:00 PM
Quote
Church services are similar to those at Christian churchs
What an odd thing to say. Don't Mormons follow Christ's teaching, and are therefore Christian?
Post by: BuzzKill on May 02, 2005, 02:15:00 PM
No, and therefore No.
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 02, 2005, 04:28:00 PM
I dont know the exact phase transition from cult to 'religion', but its just an emergent property of what I already said... how long its been around and how many people believe in it.
Anywhere, from where I stand, theres either a god or there is not, and youre all arguing about which men who "had visions" and wrote shit down is right or not. Its rather irrelevant to the reason people are here in the first place.
One VERY relevant thing is the apparent cultural connection between the LDS and Utah businessmen, politics, and the programs, however.
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.
--Thomas Jefferson
Post by: BuzzKill on May 02, 2005, 07:20:00 PM
Psychologist have another - which has nothing to do with religion or age as a defining factor - but rather how people are controlled.
For Christians, the definition of a cult would be any group that wears a Christian mask; Speaks a kind of Christian language; but teaches a message of salvation and of Jesus Christ that differs from the New Testament message; and which has a book or collection of writings they give greater weight to than the Bible; and which believes its members are the only ones saved.
A Sect would be similar, except the salvation message would be Biblical, and the Jesus they teach would be the Biblical; and they would have no writing considered superior to the Bible - but they have this 'we are an exclusive bunch' mentality, and can be hung up on many trivial factors that really have nothing to do with salvation (legalistic) and controlling.
As a Christian, I tend to refer to groups like WWASP and Amway as 'Cult Like'. But Joseph Smith is the founding "prophet" of a cult by the Christian church's definition.
About this:
from where I stand, theres either a god or there is not, and you're all arguing about which men who "had visions" and wrote shit down is right or not. Its rather irrelevant to the reason people are here in the first place.//
I disagree - But you wouldn't need to be a prophet to guess as much. :smile:
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 03, 2005, 03:17:00 AM
Thats fine for your psychological sake,I really have no problem with it, but I do when it comes into a treatment or or scientific setting. You might as well make people believe anything to 'fix' them!
BTW... Penn and Teller ripped the bible to shreds! "Bullshit" is a great show. The bible is just a mix of different cannonical works that the council of Nicea (sp?) decided in committee that would "be" the bible. And dont even get me started on the gnostics and the gospel of thomas. This is all what human beings wrote and argued over what should be in it or not.
Its a bunch of writings from a bunch of people and all of them say they have the best idea of what God or Jesus wants, yet neither of them speak anymore. I think jesus was a great man on earth and would love to have him show up again... but I dont like how all these different sects are thinking they have his true word. When he speaks to me personally, I'll know what he wants. Until then, I'll be a good person on my own accord.
Well, I'll close on this: Jesus set a much better example than his deciples did. I'd rather cut them out of it. Also, the reason I said:
"from where I stand, theres either a god or there is not, and you're all arguing about which men who "had visions" and wrote shit down is right or not. Its rather irrelevant to the reason people are here in the first place.// "
I meant reason people are at fornits, not on earth. All I know rationally is my mom gave birth to me, a lot of people think they know the 'true word' of... whatever, and I want to be a good person now. So, here I am. :wave:
668: The Neighbor of the Beast
--Anonymous Postman
Post by: Anonymous on May 03, 2005, 07:10:00 AM
Post by: bandit1978 on May 03, 2005, 08:43:00 AM
They insist that their path is the only way to get to "heaven".
I am amazed at how many Americans compare everything to the bible, like that bible is the absolute and final truth.
I used to believe some of that, but the older and wiser I get, the more I understand the need to study other religions and philosophys, like Hinduism and Buddhism.
I guess that, for Christians, the major obstacle in searching for enlightenment or god or whatever, is that which has them thinking that anything that is not in the bible or related to Jesus is evil.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 03, 2005, 11:36:00 AM
Oh, well then, I will ingnore Micha and Moses; Isaiah and Ezekiel; Hosea and Daniel; Zechariah and Jeremiah - because if Peen and Teller say it, I know it Must be So!
// I think jesus was a great man on earth and would love to have him show up again... //
Either Jesus is God, or He is insane. There is no middle ground. If you feel He is good, then you ought to take the time to read what He said. If you think He was insane - why call Him good and say you'd like to see His return? BTW - He will show up again, and one way or another, you will get to see Him.
// is that which has them thinking that anything that is not in the bible or related to Jesus is evil. //
No, No - Not at all. There is much the Bible doesn't speak to that is good. What is evil, is teaching a false Christ - and spreading the great lie.
`
Post by: cherish wisdom on May 03, 2005, 01:32:00 PM
I don't feel that the LDS church is cultish. I guess that any church, club or organization could be defined as a cult. To me a cult is a group or organization that controls your life in a negative way. The LDS church has been nothing but postitive. It has given me much comfort and the doctrins have touched my soul and sprit. I also believe in the Bible and have found much comfort when I study it. I believe in a GOD who loves everyone regardless of their religion. A merciful God who is there for all who need inner peace and security.
Cops; you wake `em up you gotta dance with `em. They lead.
-- Jack McNulty
Post by: Anonymous on May 03, 2005, 03:22:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 03, 2005, 05:00:00 PM
How much of your money they want.
How much of your time they want.
How insistent they are on you persuading your friends to join up or cutting them off as bad influences.
How much they encourage members to cut you out of their lives if you change religions or change denominations.
How much they want you to slavishly copy the leader/founder of the religion or cult---Forex, the Christians do want "Christlike" behavior, but nobody insists that you dress like him, eat a 0 AD Middle Eastern diet, learn and speak Aramaic, or carry a cat-o-nine into Jewish Temples to flog bankers. :smile:
Part of the difference between religions and cults are religions have gotten enough time and distance from their founders to *generally* be based on philosophical, moral, and ethical *ideas*---not giving all your time and money to a central charismatic leader who you slavishly ape and obey unquestioningly.
Probably not all religions start out as cults.
The difference between a religion and a cult is all about control.
Timoclea
Post by: bandit1978 on May 03, 2005, 06:22:00 PM
As opposed to joining your religion and your god? Don't you understand that she prays to the same god that you do, the same one that the Muslims do?
Your faith is much more similar to theirs than you know, and that is so sad that you cannot appreciate that. You turn it into something negative, negativity NOT being from God (the original source of love), but from the other side ("satan", you would call it. The original source of hate and fear).
That is what is so dangerous about churches.
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 03, 2005, 11:44:00 PM
So, why is it people pick and choose what they believe out of it? And why does it contradict itself? Its right and good when it says to do morally reprehsible or contradictory things? Uhhh no, its not. Also, FACTUALLY, its written down by men, and FACTUALLY, people decided whats 'in the bible' and whats not. So, please excuse my lack of enthusiasm about it.
Also, to me, if jesus was a good but insane guy, a good guy who was manipulating the spiritual situation of the time in Judea, or the actual son of god, it has no direct impact on how I live my life right now.
Whether I'm going to an afterlife or the ground to rot, I'm still going to wake up tomorrow and try to live a good life and be good to people. I dont require a punishment or reward to do so.
As far as faith goes... its hard to 'just believe'. If I go to hell because I cant make myself believe something, I dont care. Its not a concious choice to believe or not, Sorry. I'd like to, though. Would give me great peace of mind.
Sorry to make a big deal about faith - but its all it is. If there is a rational basis for it, its not a belief. Beliefs are things held as 'true' without evidence.
"The FARC is part of the history of Colombia and a historical phenomenon", (President Pastrana) says, "and they must be treated as Colombians". ... They come and ask for bread [aid from Washington], and you give them stones.
Robert White is a former American ambassador to Paraguay and El Salvador, and former No. 2 man with the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, is president of the Centre for International Policy in Washington D.C.
Robert White
Post by: Anonymous on May 04, 2005, 12:25:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on May 04, 2005, 08:22:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on May 04, 2005, 08:40:00 AM
That is very small minded. If "god" is the original and ultimate source of Love, then why would you think that path to him/her is so narrow?? Do you seriously think that everyone else is going to "hell"?
I know, it's pointless to debate with Christians. We can only wish them the best and hope that they will find enlightenment from that small, narrow place where they reside.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 04, 2005, 10:09:00 AM
The anon talking about works vs faith has a point. I am unaware of any cult that doesn't require works to earn salvation - and this is impossible, according to the God of the Bible - You can Not earn forgiveness, redemption - No matter how hard you try.
Niles, I think I could help you see how and why Jesus is who he said He is if you really want to look into it. Feel free to email me. Or just read The Book for yourself.
I very much like the book of Isaiah; he is an old testament Prophet and his revelations are clear and to the point and poetically expressed. It is the writing of the prophets that prove the Bible is the Word of God. Isaiah is not alone, but he is my personal favorite. If you have never read the New Testament - you might do better to begin with reading the Gospels - then the prophets - So you'll better understand what you are reading when you do read the prophecies.
As for the "latter day " prophets - they fail the test of a Prophet of God, simply be being wrong so often. I'll grant you, they are right from time to time; b/c they do have a powerful and extremely intelligent entity giving them their information. But he is just a good guesser; and that is why he is often wrong.
God's prophets are never wrong - b/c God Knows and sees to it what He tells them comes to pass.
Post by: Anonymous on May 04, 2005, 10:19:00 AM
Post by: bandit1978 on May 04, 2005, 10:31:00 AM
Buzzkill, I think it is you who doesn't see "the simplicity of it". "God" is original love, pure and simple. You do not have to follow any prophet to find love, nor follow these specific little rules. Just spread love- love others, love yourself, love the Earth, and you will be happy! It's really quite simple.
"I believe in God, I just give him more credit than that" -Bill Maher
Post by: Anonymous on May 04, 2005, 10:47:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-05-04 07:31:00, bandit1978 wrote:
" Just spread love- love others, love yourself, love the Earth, and you will be happy! It's really quite simple."
::heart:: ::heart:: ::heart:: ::heart:: ::heart:: ::heart:: ::heart:: ::kiss::
Spreading love to all people wrapped up in these programs. I feel like we've all been dragged down into a world none of us expected to be in.
Post by: Anonymous on May 04, 2005, 12:56:00 PM
Yea, verily, thou shalt have a corncob up thy butt.
Geez, you people take yourselves so seriously.
Timoclea
Post by: Anonymous on May 04, 2005, 01:11:00 PM
Post by: bandit1978 on May 04, 2005, 01:31:00 PM
Anyway, "God" is all encompasing, non-discriminatory, absolute love. "Satan" is the one who wants you to fear, and discriminate, and feel guilty.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 04, 2005, 02:49:00 PM
You are right, Love is the greatest gift; the one we are to strive for above all others. But you seem to think loving the creation is how you achieve salvation. Sorry if I misunderstand. I would say you must Love the Creator; and He will give you the gift of love for others. But Love of God comes first - and if you Love Him you ought to want to get to know Him - and I suggest the best place to do that is the Bible.
Earlier, I was simply trying to explain that you can know the Bible is the Living Word of God, b/c of the Prophecies contained there in. The point is, there is actually evidence that The Book is True. That's Why God gave us the Gift of the Prophets.
As for Love making you happy - Sure, It can. It can cause severe unhappiness as well. Love is not Peace, or Joy or Patience; But it is the greatest gift - and I hope you won't settle for an imitation.
Post by: bandit1978 on May 04, 2005, 03:36:00 PM
What I am saying is, it is ignorant and small-minded to think that the bible is the *only* way to know God, and that Jesus is the *only* way to God, and that the bible is the *only* way to know Jesus.
My relationship with "God" became strongest when I stopped reading the bible and learned about other philosophies, and I became close to Jesus when I take care of people (which is why I became a nurse), and also when I started studying literature (found outside the bible).
So, I know first hand that the bible is not necessarily the best tool for everyone to learn about history and God, and in fact, it is not necessary to read the bible in order to know Jesus.
Post by: Deborah on May 04, 2005, 03:44:00 PM
And prohets have been wrong, or made suggestions that were appropriate for a given time in history. And many have interpreted 'the word' in such a way as to use it for justification to hurt other people.
The only 'word' is the golden rule. Treat others as you would have them treat you. If everyone possessed respect for self and others, including the non human inhabitants of the planet, it would be a very pleasant place to live. Might even look like the garden of eden.
Post by: Anonymous on May 04, 2005, 04:00:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-04 10:11:00, Anonymous wrote:
"pretty serious subject, where you'll spend eternity! Jesus said, "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'" Matthew 13:14-15"
Well, if I'm going to spend eternity, I really want to comparison shop first, and I'm just not the type to spend all I've got in one place.
Nor am I the type to mistake a hard-sell advertizing campaign for a decent product.
I mean, you wouldn't know it to listen to their commercials, but there really are more than Coke and Pepsi on the shelves. It's not a binary choice between them and, for myself, I kinda like rootbeer.
Mostly, I'm inclined, personally, to spend some of my eternity on the Summerland and another goodly chunk of it on a dozen or so medium-challenging Reincarnation Vacations. Or maybe one every century, you know, do the tropics, Disneyworld, see the Everglades, maybe Rome, love a trip to Paris. Alaska would be nice at least once.
So much to do, so much time.
Next to all that, the eternal cocaine trip (or is it heroin?) you're selling sounds a bit boring, ya know?
If endless (boring, mindless) bliss is your product of choice, I've never been an anti-drug fanatic. Go for it.
But your "paradise" just isn't that appealing for me. Sorry.
And I'm not to keen on buying the overflow hotel, either.
So I won't.
I've just never, since adulthood, had much use for deities that got off on torturing the folks that didn't buy the hard sell. Strikes me as deeply psychopathic.
Gee, you get to be tortured forever or your "reward" is to be drugged up out of your mind living with a vicious psychopathic killer forever--(talk to Nadab and Abihu, or a bunch of innocent Egyptian kids who had the bad taste to pick the wrong parents about that).
How long do you figure you'd live there before he got bored and started having some of those "eternally" saved "falling"? A week? A year? A thousand years? If once you're out, you're out, it kinda doesn't matter.
Neither choice sounds like a winner to me.
And even if you were *right*, that would make eternity truly a lose-lose situation---in which case there's *nothing* to lose by choosing a better option on the apparent plate of choices.
When you get right down to it, the only way your "God" can be considered a nice person is if you define "Good" as whatever it is your "God" feels like doing at the moment on a whim. And I've got no use for a god who achieves being "good" only by redefining "good" to a much lesser standard than he expects of us lesser mortals.
No sale.
Timoclea
Post by: Anonymous on May 04, 2005, 04:04:00 PM
I don't think I want a god who can't be a nicer person than that.
I've got better things to do than sit around making excuses for the very bad behavior of flawed gods.
T.
Post by: Anonymous on May 04, 2005, 04:10:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 04, 2005, 04:15:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-04 13:10:00, Anonymous wrote:
"There is only one God, but there are two places for eternity, Heaven and hell."
:scared: :flame: :silly:
Post by: BuzzKill on May 04, 2005, 07:46:00 PM
Well then Bandit, you think Jesus, all the apostles and Paul are ignorant and small minded. I disagree. I think they gave us the Truth - God is God - and the scriptures are His Living Word. If God is God, then there are no other gods - and no other way by which men can be saved than by His grace.
// My relationship with "God" became strongest when I stopped reading the bible and learned about other philosophies, //
"God"? Which god? There are many entities that are very happy to have you mistake them for God - but they are imposters leading you astray. Only God is God.
//and I became close to Jesus when I take care of people (which is why I became a nurse), and also when I started studying literature (found outside the bible). //
Entirely possible. But is also possible you have grown close to a false Christ. In light of your other comments, this would be my guess.
Deb:
// And prophets have been wrong,//
No, not the Biblical prophets. It either happed just as they said - or is about to happen. There is much disagreement over how to inturperate the various latter days prophecies - but I think the plain sense makes sense. Every thing about the life, ministry and death of Jesus happened exactly as the Prophets said it would - and I think the same will be true for the Second Coming. Others disagree. I think they are in for a surprise.
// or made suggestions that were appropriate for a given time in history.//
This is true. They often gave short term prophecies having to do with current events. Their unfailing accuracy in the short term matters, is what designated them as Prophets, and is why their words have been so carefully protected and carefully preserved - even tho they themselves were often the most hated men in the region. They often had some very "ignorant and small minded" messages for the kings and peoples they were speaking to. But they passed the test of a Prophet of God. They were correct in every instance when they spoke for God. Their words, when speaking for God, are Holy and will unfailingly come to pass.
//And many have interpreted 'the word' in such a way as to use it for justification to hurt other people. //
True. But this is not God's doing. It is what happens when people seek to bend the Word to their will - they end up deceived by the Great Liar.
// The only 'word' is the golden rule. Treat others as you would have them treat you. If everyone possessed respect for self and others, including the non human inhabitants of the planet, it would be a very pleasant place to live. Might even look like the garden of Eden. //
Well, it is not the only word - but it is important - and someday Deb - the world will look like Eden.
Timoclea - well Wiccans will talk like that :wink:
Really, maybe you should give some thought to the difference between God and His creation. God need not live up to your (or my) expectations! If you don't understand something (disagree with God) maybe you ought to take it to Him and see if He can help you understand or at least have Peace with it. Or, you can continue to try and turn the tables, and attempt to make God accountable to you - tho I don't believe you will be so bold when meeting face to face.
Post by: bandit1978 on May 04, 2005, 10:05:00 PM
Again, if you want to be on that narrow path, fine. But you are really in no position to judge others' paths.
And again- "I believe in God, I just give him more credit thant that" -Bill Maher
Post by: Anonymous on May 04, 2005, 10:47:00 PM
I was a Christian until I actually sat down and read the Bible. I read the Old Testament---you know, the parts they rarely quote in sermons or Sunday school?
Your god is a monster.
Maybe I *wouldn't* be brave enough to say it to his face because if he exists he's a big enough and powerful enough and mean enough bully to scare the crap out of anyone.
But nothing you can say will make your god a nice person. *If* he exists:
He's *still* going to be the same psychopathic bastard who murdered Uzza for trying to keep his toy tent from tipping over.
He's still going to be the same total creep who tortured Job just because Job liked him and then acted like new kids could *ever* make up for a parent's grief at the monstrous, premeditated, malicious, needless slaughter of the old ones.
He's still going to be the same nitpicky bastard who told an obnoxious half-truth, designed to mislead, to the first man and woman there were--this guy couldn't stay truthful for a single generation.
And then Ananias and Saphira told a stupid lie to make themselves look good and he murdered them on the spot for it.
Among other things, he's a horrible hypocrite.
Maybe, if he exists, he *is* so scary I wouldn't say any of this to his face, but *if* he exists and *if* the Bible is true, he's a psychopathic bastard.
He's not responsible to *me* for him being a psychopathic bastard.
There's just no conceivable reason for me thinking living forever and ever with such a capricious monster would be a *good* deal.
If your god exists, as depicted in your book, it's a lose-lose situation and the only good in the world is the good we ourselves make, so I might as well get busy making it.
You, or your god if he's out there, can bully people all you want---but that doesn't make him "good".
And any god that's good only by definition is one I've simply got no use for.
Timoclea
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 04, 2005, 11:57:00 PM
Why do you pick and choose what you follow?"
I said that a few pages ago and I still dont have an answer for that, from anyone.
Whats the deal? I wear mixed fabrics and eat a non-biblical diet. I wasnt stoned as a bad kid... nobody follows the laws about wet dreams or periods... Whats the deal?
If triangles had a God, He'd have three sides.
--Old Yiddish proverb
Post by: bandit1978 on May 05, 2005, 01:27:00 AM
I also find their deity, "God", to be mean and vengeful. I think perhaps they are trying to look toward something good, the creator, the original source of love, the light, or whatever; they have just been misled or manipulated into believing that this entity is jealous and vengeful and should be feared; and I think that the church and community leaders have been instilling these ideas for many years, for propoganda purposes, or to exact more money out of people, or to control people and keep them in line, and to promote patriarchy and repress women.
I think this is very sad, and I feel bad for people who view creation/ or it's creator in this manner.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 05, 2005, 09:39:00 AM
Timocela - I do understand why you feel as you do about the Old Testament's seeming harshness. I too have read it and thought Geez - thats difficult to understand. I have given the "problem" a lot of thought. I don't know if I can explain my thoughts very well - but it, for me, comes down to God is God. He knows things far beyond our understanding. He has His reasons and we are in no position to question Him.
Being God, He can see the consequences of any action or inaction that might take place. Perhaps, by His apparent harshness, much greater evil was avoided. Perhaps, the world entire, would have come to a tragic end long before now, otherwise. The thing is - we don't know and can't begin to imagine the reasons behind these troubling things - but if we believe in God, then we have to trust His judgment over ours.
I believe the strict law, as it existed prior to the Birth of the Christ, was for a couple of reasons.
One, for the health of individuals and society. I think much of it was designed to prevent disease in a world were people had no notion of germs, so God had them do a lot of washing for a lot or reasons.
The harsh rule toward rebellion, was in my mind, necessary in the world they lived in, to keep society such as it was, safe and functional. Designed perhaps, to keep society from degenerating into the state we have today, to soon.
But also, I think the Law was designed to prove to God's people that they could never earn their own righteousness. Jesus came not to abolish the Law - but to fulfill it - so that we do not have to live under the condemnation of it.
God, being Holy, can not commune with sin. We are all sinners - no matter how hard we try to follow any law. God came to us, as He promised He would, and lived and taught in such a way that we could see how we should try and live (Deb's Golden Rule)and how we should trust and honor God; How to pray so that out prayers have meaning and effect; to explain what eternity is like - for the people of God and all others - and finally to pay the price for the sins of men - so that by believing and trusting in Him, we are found blameless and with out sin (because He took it all upon Himself for our sakes: Isaiah 53; John 3:16) and there by able to commune with God. This is the Salvation message.
God Loves you and wants to bring you home. But He won't force you. He uses no escort service :wink: And only He can judge you b/c only He knows you - I do not, b/c I can not - and I would be judged by the same measure I use on you, if I tried.
Post by: Anonymous on May 05, 2005, 10:42:00 AM
We believe the Bible to be the God breathed Word of God. Its inspiration is verbal and total. Its authority is absolute. Its ORIGINAL manuscripts are inerrant. (Matt. 5:18, 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21)
We believe that all Scripture is to be interpreted in a plain, normal, or literal manner IN LIGHT OF HISTORY, GRAMMAR, LITERARY DEVICES AND CONTEXT.
We believe that salvation is a gift of God in grace and is received by man through personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ whose precious blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins.
We believe that dogmatism and intolerance are virtues when foundational doctrines of the faith are in dispute. HOWEVER, regarding less clearly revealed doctrines, dogmatism and intolerance are vices. Humility and the preserving of unity are virtues Christians should manifest regarding less exhaustively revealed issues.
Furthermore, Christians today face many issues which the Bible does not directly address and are issues of Christian liberty (ex. the nature of schooling which a particular Christian family chooses). Regarding such issues each Christian is to be guided by the principles of Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8-10.
Often, different Christians will validly come to different conclusions regarding such issues. Regarding thise issues, Christians are not to judge one another or demand that others conform to their viewpoint.
Above are some of the doctrinal statements of a Bible believing church. The Bible records many sins and evils, but as history not as "how to's".
T, if you really want to ask the hard questions, I'll give the e-mail of someone who has been on both sides of the fence and has investigated exhaustively all sides. He would be happy to share with you the truths he has found.
Post by: Anonymous on May 05, 2005, 11:40:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on May 06, 2005, 09:26:00 AM
He will be betrayed by a friend Psalm 41:9/Matthew 26:49
The price of his betrayal will be thirty pieces of silver Zechariah 11:12/Matthew 26:15
His betrayal money will be cast to the floor of God's temple Zechariah 11:14/ Matthew 27:5
These are only 3, but if you want more I'll type more.
There are many prophecies about his birth, life, resurrection that were written more than 400 years before it happened.
"Jesus wasn't the only Jew to be born into the tribe of Juday, in the city of Bethlehem, and buried in a rich man's tomb. Is it possible to believe that some of the details of Jesus' life
just happened to coincide with all those Old Testament prophecies?
For the answer to that question, we need only turn to the science of statistics and probabilities. Professor Peter W. Stoner, in an analysis that was carefully reviewed and pronounced to be sound by the American Scientific Aflliation, states that the probablility of just eight prophecies being fulfilled in one person is 1 in 10 to the 17th power. That is 1 in 100000000000000000.
If you were to take that many silver dollars and spread them across the state of Texas, they would not only cover the entire state but also form a pile of coins two feet deep! Now, take one more silver dollar, mark it with a big red X, toss it into that pile, and stir the whole pile thoroughly.
Then blindfold yourself, and starting at El Paso on the western border of the state, walk the length and breadth of that enormous state, from Amarillo in the panhandle to Laredo on the Rio Grande all the way to Galveston on the Gulf of Mexico, stooping just once along the way to pick up a single silver dollar out of that two foot deep pile. Then take off your blindfold and look at the silver dollar in your hand. What are the chances that you would pick the marked coin out of a pile of silver dollars the size of Tx? The same chance that one person could have fulfilled just eight messianic prophecies in one life time!" this quote is from Josh McDowell's book Beyond Belief to Conviction. Look at the stats! That is why I believe what I believe. It is not blind faith as you say.
Post by: Anonymous on May 06, 2005, 09:43:00 AM
The point of religion is to help you be a better person--where "better" means kinder to others, more disposed to offer them help, and to avoid harming them.
Help, and harm, are both defined by the recipient either as the competent adult he or she is, or (if he/she is not an adult or is mentally incompetent to manage his/her affairs, what he/she would reckon help or harm to him/herself if he/she *were* a mentally competent adult---in the context of his/her own worldview).
In other words, I accept no weasel wording that could justify the Inquisition torturing and burning people "to save their souls" with a weaselly, "Well, if *I* was lost *I'd* want somebody to save *me*--especially if I was as recalcitrant about it as *he* is!"
If you ever once accept that weasel-wording, any religious fanatic of *any religion* can use it to justify doing anything he/she likes to *anyone* else on the grounds that the fanatic knows it's good for his victim's "soul."
There are always hungry people you can hand a sandwich. There are always sick or depressed or upset people who could use a kind word. There are always people whose day would be brightened by a smile.
If your religion makes you unsure of whether offering a sandwich, a kind word, or a smile to some specific person would truly help or truly harm them, you always have the option of leaving that person alone.
A good person helps as much as he/she can, while first avoiding doing active harm.
The purpose of religion is to help you be a better person.
If your religion, whatever it is, is helping you be a better person, then I'm all for it--for you. Because I'm all for you being a better person.
My religion already helps me be a better person.
If someone's religion does not help him/her be a better person, he/she is doing it wrong.
Timoclea
Post by: Anonymous on May 06, 2005, 09:52:00 AM
Post by: BuzzKill on May 06, 2005, 04:21:00 PM
This is another example of blaming God for the evil men do.
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 06, 2005, 06:26:00 PM
I'd MUCH rather cut through all the human bullshit and literary crap (the bible itself is just an amalgamation of works that was canonized at Nicea, not a singular thing!) and believe in something higher.
I dont have faith in human beings at large! I dont have faith in large orginizations not being corrupt!
Now, you can give me stuff from the bible as proof of the bible, but that ultimately becomes circular logic. Its true because it says it is? Uhhh, sorry, that doesnt cut it.
Now, if I look at EXTERNAL evidence, I see things referenced to, and I see that some things did exist. The Romans did exist. Jesus did exist. Noahs flood is currently theorized to be a catastrophic (but not global) flood to have occured either on the euphrates/tigris river, or even in a larger sense, the Black Sea.
The bosporous used to be a portal, basically. The black sea was lower than sea level and the bosporours kept it from filling in so fast it would be at sea level. Well, naturally, if it broke and it filled into the black sea, the flood would have been pretty damn big, and catastrophic for the inhabitants.
So, someone set out with the right equipment and a boat and found out that close to the shore along the black sea, it seems to have been flooded not too long ago (geographically speaking) and to have been suddenly flooded. They also found TONS of artifacts. And, in the time range that they predict that it happened, once abandoned settlements that were far (before the flood) of the black sea were re-settled, which were now, naturally, closer to the now larger black sea.
I cant believe Noah had an arc filled wth animals from the whole 7 continents of the world plus food for each. Its ridiculous. God would have had to intervene and create an extradimensional arc like that Dr. Who's phone booth thingy for it to be possible at all. Plus, the scientific questions of where the water came from (and where it went) are unaswered as well. I suppose that had to appear from a pocket universe and go back into it? Where was the wormhole? Didnt the radiation blast the hell out of anything nearby?
Science, and especially HISTORY can be used with religion, but the problem with looking at something with a scientific perspective (lets look for evidence, and draw a conclusion) versus a religious one (heres my conclusions, lets look for evidence) is that you cant really do it that way. You dont go about having an assuption and finding evidence to support it. Its not how things are done.
But well, I degress. I could take the bible as parable and as stories to learn from, not to necessarily take literally. I dont eat gefilte fish, I dont eat kosher, I wear mixed fabrics, I dont leave town until nightfall if I get semen in my bedsheets and I dont have to destroy anything a mensturating woman sits on. Yet the bible says so...
I could take it as a story to learn from. I could also take it as a fairy tale. I cant take it literally. Too much of it is ignored or picked-and-chosen from. I also cant 'just believe' by choice. Nobody can. Its as simple as that.
Come in the evening, or come in the morning; Come when you 're looked for, or come without warning.
-- Thomas O. Davis (1814-1845): The Welcome.
Post by: Anonymous on May 06, 2005, 06:42:00 PM
(http://http://www.crazynews.net/dp/files/2-239.jpg)
Post by: Anonymous on May 06, 2005, 06:51:00 PM
fish stick jesus
(http://http://newmexiken.com/images/2004/11/FishStick-thumb.jpg)
grilled cheese mary
(http://http://homepage.mac.com/goyaboy/iblog/C1488389013/E201614229/Media/bvm.jpg)
the jesus bruise
(http://http://www.brendanloy.com/blog/images/jesus-bruise.jpg)
and the jesus x ray
(http://http://img28.exs.cx/img28/3053/f8-jesusxray.jpg)
got any more 'difficult' questions ?
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 06, 2005, 07:27:00 PM
Lets open with a salvo of unfulfilled prophecy:
(All the following were written nearly 2000 years ago...)
Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] 'When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes'.
Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], 'Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom'.
Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], 'Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power'.
Mark 13:30: [After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says] 'Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place'.
Mark 14:62: And Jesus said [to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD] 'You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven'.
Rom 13:12: The day is at hand.
1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none.
1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is passing away.
Phil 4:5: The Lord is coming soon.
1 Thess 4:15: We who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord.
Hebrews 1:2: In these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.
Hebews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and shall not tarry.
James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is at hand.
1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times.
1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is at hand.
1 John 2:18: It is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming.
Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)...to show to his servants what must soon take place.
Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] 'I am coming soon'.
Rev 22:6: And the Lord...has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.
Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] 'Surely I am coming soon'.
Now, lets get off a potshot of failed omnipotence!
1:19 (Judges 1) And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Ok, so Mechanized forces are impervious to god's powers... that must explain WW2!
And now, how about some contradictions:
God can do anything:
Gen.18:14
"Is any thing too hard for the LORD?"
Jer.32:17
"Ah Lord God! ... there is nothing too hard for thee."
Jer.32:27
"Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for the Lord?"
Mt.19:26, Mk.10:27,
"With God all things are possible."
God CANT do everything:
Jg.1:19
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
Mk.6:5
"And he could there do no mighty work."
Heb.6:18
"It was impossible for God to lie."
Ok, ready for more? I'll give some links so I dont totally flood this page out.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/c ... _name.html (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/i ... _book.html (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/by_book.html)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/)
There is the main page. But, I'm going to leave on a positive note...
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/good/long.html (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/good/long.html)
There is good stuf in the bible. The top of good has a random passage from it, one that speaks to me. Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it. -- Proverbs 3:27
I have the power of a mind and a conscience. Yet I never had the bible on my mind when I got into this in the first place, except the bewilderment that this could take place if a god existed. However, even the skeptics will admit there is some good in that book. But theres a ton of bullshit in the way. Nobody on this thread who is a total believer can't dodge that anymore.
Our youth can not understand why society chooses to criminalize a behavior with so little visible ill effect or adverse social impact... These young people have jumped the fence and found no cliff.
Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
Post by: BuzzKill on May 06, 2005, 08:10:00 PM
Niles, when I say Prophecy Proves you can believe the Bible - I am referring to the fact that the events as described by the prophets have happened, exactly as they said they would.
History proves the Prophets spoke for God. So, you can believe what they say. You need not walk in darkness; for Prophecy is a light shining in a dark place.
The examples are far to numerous to relate.
One example that caught skeptics by surprise is the discovery of Tyre. Skeptics once pointed to Tyre as proof that the Bible was in era. There was not one iota of evidence that this great sea Port spoken of by the Prophet Ezekiel ever existed. Then they found it.
I do not recall the archeologist name - but he wrote of realizing what he had found - Looking over at the fishermen close by, spreading their nets on the rocks to dry - and having the hair on his neck stand up - b/c he remembered Ezekiel 26 vs 3-6.
Turns out Alexander the Great scraped Tyre bare, just as God said would happen; and it became a place for fishermen to dry their nets - just like God said, threw the prophet Ezekiel.
As the anon poster pointed out - the prophecies about Jesus are very numerous. There are in excess of 300 about the first coming (all perfectly fulfilled) and I have read there are more than 700 about the second coming - and I expect they too will be perfectly fulfilled.
In fact - we have lived to see many of the prophecies about the latter days take place. Some one could still debate - like the signs in the sky; but others there is no debate what so ever - Israel is. This too, was thought by scoffers to be proof the Bible was full of non sense.
There is prophecy after Prophecy, about Israel existing and being the center of the world's attention in the latter days. This was considered to be absolutely impossible. No nation in the history of the world had ever been reborn after ceasing to exist. The Jews were scattered would wide and had no real interest in returning to the devastated and dry land they called Zion. Well, you know the history. God said it and He did it - in the face of truly impossible odds!
Another interesting thing - Isaiah spoke of a nation being born before the birth pains - who could think it, he writes , b/c nations are born after the war, the rebellion, not before - yet this was to be how Israel came to be - a nation would be born and then the birth pains - and this is just what happened - Israel was declared a nation - and then all of the middle east declared war on this new nation, with the intent to drive them into the sea - and they should have not had any trouble doing so. Look at a map. Consider what this infant nation was up against. Yet they prevailed and even gained territory. This should not have been possible. But God means what He says, and so it was.
A seldom quoted prophet explained about another impossible thing God planed to do - which He did - return the language to the people. Zephaniah tells us in chapter 3 vs 9, that when the people return He will give them back their pure language. Israelis today speak Biblical Hebrew - a language that had been long dead, was brought back into common use. This is another thing that has never before been done in the history of the world. But with the new nation having citizens from al over the globe, they needed a common language - and they decided it would be Biblical Hebrew. I just think this is all So cool.
Back to Ezekiel - His words found in chapter 37 are about how a dead Israeli nation, would be brought back to life.
Jeremiah is full of these regathering prophecies; and so is Isaiah, and many others as well.
And what might be the most important point - the prophets put these events in the Latter Days - just prior to the coming of the Lord. Jesus Him self tells us that when we see the fig tree bloom, we should look for His return. Mathew 24 vs 32. This is an example of prophetic symbolism. Israel is the Fig tree. With Prophetic symbols, they remain consistent threw out the Bible. For instance - Jesus is often referred to by the Prophets as the Rock; or the Corner Stone. Oil represents the Holy Sprit. Not black oil - the oil used to make lamps shine.
May your light shine bright.
Real quick Niles - much of what you are posting will happen; and soon is a relitive term. Consider eternity. Now consider a couple thousand years. And time is about up.
John explains the misunderstanding you mention at the top there. Its toward the end of his gospil I think. Check it out. [ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-05-06 17:19 ]
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 06, 2005, 08:34:00 PM
I gave a big, long list of unfulfilled prophecies that were imminent... TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO! Now you're telling me NOW is the end times? PLEASE. Hell you ignored my posts from EARLIER. Stop dodging!
The bible says god cant drive people away if they use iron charoits, so wtf do you think would happen if they were in tanks? Gee I dunno :rofl:
Its really, really pathetic. Either admit theres a ton of bullshit and I just called it out, or try to refute it. Stop doging it.
Marijuana clearly has medicinal value.
Thousands of seriously ill Americans have
been able to determine that for themselves,
albeit illegally. Like my own family, these
individuals did not wish to break the law but
they had no choice.
--Lyn Nofziger, former deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee
Post by: BuzzKill on May 06, 2005, 08:38:00 PM
You happened to sneak one in on me, is all.
I did a quick edit just to provide some kind of responce. Your post is rather lenghty and would need a lot of responding.
Do you want to take this off the board?
BTW - are you reading my posts? :wink:
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 06, 2005, 08:48:00 PM
Playing games and dodging what I've brought up here isnt going to make you 'win' in any way.
Those things, said, did not happen. Period!
You brought up a 'jesus figure in the clouds'. Wow, you saw something in a cloud. Heard of inkblots? You see what you want to.
You keep saying these prophecies prove the bible... WHERE!? You bring up Tyre, etc, but since when did Tyre not exist? Alexander sure as hell took it when he kicked civilizations ass from iberia to india, thats for sure.
Yes, perhaps a while ago, skeptics said tyre didnt exist, and then found that it did exist. Thats good, science works by going by evidence. When it was found, they knew it existed.
However, YOU dont seem to acknowledge when I bring up a ton of unfulfilled prophecies. If you BELIEVE, no amount of evidence contrary to it will convince you otherwise, so I guess I might as well quit posting to this thread. Its really, really immature for you to do this!
But yes, Israel is here, and Tyre was. Congrats! What about all that biblical bull that you just ignore? What about the LOOONNNNGGG list of unfulfilled prophecies? Why do you ignore that?
What about all those stupid rules about women on the rag, or getting semen on your bedsheets, or what to eat or wear, or stoning children, hmm? What about that?
WHY DO YOU IGNORE IT? You understand the absurdities, unfulfilled prophecies, and the contradictions. Ugh. This pointless if youre going to act so childish about this!
It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations with all their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous.
--Gloria Steinam, women's rights activist
Post by: BuzzKill on May 06, 2005, 08:50:00 PM
God is not powerless Niles.
It was Judah who couldn't rout them b/c of the iorn charoits. It was a case of not having faith that God would do something seemingly impossible. Judah lacked faith and so didn't trust God and didn't try to rout them.
Its the same reason Jesus did no miricals amoung those who had no belief.
You do seem interested Niles and if you want to delve as deeply as all this - I do think we should take it off the board.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 06, 2005, 08:57:00 PM
I am not ignoring you.
I am not a whiz bang typist or any kind of expert theologian.
I can not respond to all you wrote with out spending a great deal of time on it. It will require some time and effort and I can't just zoom it out at cha.
And while this thread is somewhat appropriate for this kind of discussion - I think we have gotten to the point of having hijacked it.
I enjoy this kind of debate Niles and have no problem with continuing - but I do think we should take it off the board at this point.
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 06, 2005, 09:02:00 PM
Um... ok. Must be grammatical issue then. I'll give it a "either or". But to me, it looks like the LORD was with Judah, and he(LORD) drove out the people on the mountain, but not those in a valley with iron charoits.
However, you're still dodging ALL of the prophecies that I listed that did not come true, Period. Stop it!
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/c ... ounts.html (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html)
What about that, huh?
Lessee... first account is:
Humans were made AFTER the animals, at the same time, (adam and eve).
The second one is:
We were made BEFORE the animals, with eve made from adams rib.
Ok, whats your excuse now? BTW, I still havent forgotten all those things saying the end is at hand and this generation will not die out before the end comes... and yet they did. Why do you continue to dodge that?
Edit: I give up. Believe what you want, but reason and rebuttal is right there, with the bible as source. Just dont think I'm going to let you live it down, or that I support religious anything as a source of policy or treatment of anything, anywhere, at any time.
And for the record, I dont want to be "right", I want to know the truth. People who are "right" but incorrect are the kind of people I'm out here to fight against. I'm on this forum because I care about kids and find it rather disgusting that abuse goes on. I'm also somewhat ticked that religion, be it mormonism or protestants, is used to prosthetylize or as an excuse to torment children.
"Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked." Psalms 82:3-4. I think I'll close on that. I'm not saying the bible is totally full of crap, but there is a lot of i there, it was written by human beings, and what parts are contained was decided... by human beings, who were probably swayed as to what they wanted it to be.
I want to get away from the people and the BS and get with something thats pure. The bible is not pure. What I've said speaks for itself. Now, I'm gonna go play Starcraft. :grin:
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys[ This Message was edited by: Nihilanthic on 2005-05-06 18:12 ]
--P.J. O'Rourke
Post by: Anonymous on May 06, 2005, 09:45:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-06 06:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"So..you will just ignore the facts and stats that say Jesus is who He says He is? Man has misued religion, God hasn't. Doing what feels good to you in the name of religion is what gives religion a bad rap. Ignoring the facts and stats of Jesus are just like ignoring the facts and stats of the abuse that goes on in WWASP. It won't make it go away no matter how much you want to close your eyes to it. You've asked the hard questions and came up with answers that work for you. Isn't that what program parents say and you attack them?"
Nope. Program parents say there's no right or wrong.
I say there *is* right and wrong, in the form of help and harm, and that the actions of everyone--including any deities that may or may not be out there---is covered by that definition of right and wrong.
It is not doing harm to allow harm to come to someone without making it happen--to simply not intervene. But affirmatively acting to cause harm, is harm.
But nobody can perfectly avoid all harm unless they do nothing at all and just lay down and die. So net harm has to be balanced against net help when one acts---but always the measure of harm or help is from the perspective of the sentient person/entity acted upon as a competent adult.
The program people say the ends justify the means.
I *don't*. While you can't avoid some harms--the lady with only one thing you let in front of you at the grocery store means everyone behind you has to wait longer--allowing indirect harm is different from causing direct harm. While you can't really avoid some harms, it's much, much more important to avoid doing harm and to pick and choose the good you do so that you do as much good with as little harm as possible.
Just suffice it to say that Wiccan ethical theorists can debate the fine nuances forever.
But in our case the kicker is in the enforcement mechanism--you get what you give, threefold. You can't be perfect, but you *will* be automatically held responsible for your means as well as your ends.
Program people believe they can cheat.
They believe that if they get the ends they want, it doesn't matter what means they use. And in the process they cause great harms. And the Program Parents reap the consequences of their harms when their kids grow up and won't have much, if anything, to do with them.
And I firmly believe that what goes around comes around and that the program owners and managers and the particular staffers doing the harm will get theirs.
I just believe that part of the process is helping the wheels of justice turn on along their merry way.
Program people believe they can cheat, and do harm as a way of getting what they want, and get away with it without taking the natural consequences of the harms they do. They believe they can dodge their karma.
They aren't the first people I've seen who think they found a dodge, and they won't be the last. I haven't seen any of the dodges work yet, and I expect I never will.
That you even for a moment would make the mistake of thinking a Wiccan would think the ends justify the means shows your utter ignorance of that which you are criticizing.
To a Wiccan, "the end justifies the means" is one of the ultimate moral obscenities of all time--approaching blasphemy, really.
Timoclea
Post by: BuzzKill on May 06, 2005, 10:13:00 PM
Niles - again, I am not ignoring you. I simply don't have the time just now to spend on an adiquate responce. I only ment to spend a few minutes on line before taking care of my critters and getting a shower after a long day of yard work.
Now, I am really just very tired.
I can hardly get me fingers to hit the proper keys or clearly see the screen.
I will give you a more detailed responce when I can - but it might be a few days. Tomorrow is Derby. Big day roun here. Then Mothers day. Then I am going to have to find time to get some stuff done around this house as it is a dusty cluttered mess. I've let things go in favor of yard work. Still have a lot of yard work. I enjoy it but it wears me out.
Anyway, I don't know that I can do much better than I've done if you aren't willing to consider that from God's perspective He was/is returning soon. All of those prophicies are about the second coming (except at least one rapture verse I noticed) That seems to be your biggest issue. . .
But anyway - I just didn't want you to think I am dodging. Nuthing could be further from the truth. I'll get back to you - soon :wink:
Timocela - Not ignoring you either. We'll "talk" more later.
Post by: bandit1978 on May 06, 2005, 11:27:00 PM
It really is pointless to debate these things with Christians. They really are set in this way, and are not open to change.
They just need to keep that stuff out of the government, out of the (public) schools, out of doctors' offices and pharmacies.
It is totally sad how some people are so convinced that we are living in "the last days". That sort of thinking is very egotistical.
This "last days" theory is also an excuse for people to continue polluting and destroying the environment. One politician (okay, I really don't remember which one. A House representative, I think) *actually said*, when questioned about pollution and shouldn't we try to keep the earth clean for the coming generations, "I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY MORE GENERATIONS WILL BE HERE BEFORE CHRIST RETURNS".
These people can make any claims to salvation as they want...it doesn't change the fact that they will reap the repurcusions (whether through karma, or judgement by God, or whatever) for DISRUPTING THE ECOSYSTEM, AND DESTROYING THE EARTH, IT'S ATMOSPHERE, AND THE CREATURES WHO LIVE HERE; basically for failing to respect and live in harmony with the earth and with each other.
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 07, 2005, 01:06:00 AM
You can believe what you want, but beliefs are best held when there is no evidence, not in SPITE of them.
And this isnt a 'end times' thing, its you saying the bible is proven through predictions. Well, sorry, theres a ton that didnt come true!
WTF are you expecting me to go by evidence wise? And, there still is nothing to say about the bibles self contradictions and explicitly horrible things such as stoning children (why are we on this forum, again?) and stupid laws about food, women on the rag, and spunk in your bedsheets, and just absurd shit like god cant drive out men in iron chariots from valleys.
Now, I'm not against spirituaity or religion. I am very much for people realizing what they are and keeping them in their place - beliefs and only beliefs. You dont set policies based on armageddon's predicted time to occur, or a book that was written by hundreds of people, over hundreds of years, collected and canonized by committe (of people) in Nicea, that contradicts itself, is full of absurdity, clashes with math and science, and perscribes things like stoning children, or said stupid laws about periods, semen, food, and whatnot.
A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another; shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement
Thomas Jefferson
Post by: Anonymous on May 07, 2005, 07:42:00 AM
Post by: BuzzKill on May 07, 2005, 01:14:00 PM
I am just popping in for a sec between various other activates. Niles - I will work up a more point by point reply - but for now I thought you and maybe others might want a few links on this subject to browse around on.
I haven't had a chance to really look at yours Niles - but I will.
Here are a few you might want to look over:
http://www.levitt.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=14 (http://www.levitt.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=14)
Teaching forum on Christian doctrine by a Messianic Jew
http://www.lamblion.com/Articles00.php (http://www.lamblion.com/Articles00.php)
Prophetic articles on various subjects
http://www.apologetics.org/welcome.html (http://www.apologetics.org/welcome.html)
Welcome page:
?A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions!!?
A shrewd insight?from the great atheist, Friedrich Nietzsche. Here, the great thinker has crafted a principle aimed at piercing the smug slumber of unexamined beliefs. Donning the robe of Socrates, he calls for self-examination at the deepest level?down even to the bedrock of cherished assumptions and beliefs about ultimate reality. Every man and woman?theist, monist, naturalist, or nihilist--is exhorted (in the language of philosophy) to boldly expose one?s own metaphysics to possible falsification.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 07, 2005, 01:17:00 PM
Would you please write or Pm me?
Post by: Timoclea on May 07, 2005, 02:24:00 PM
I'm not saying you should learn about my religion, heck, if you don't want to proselytize me, I'm a-okay peachy with that.
I'm just saying it's weird to have someone god at me and try to debate my morals and ethics based on their assumptions of what those may be---where their assumptions just have no real relationship to my beliefs and morals and ethics at all.
Some of these posts are like watching someone try to convince a Buddhist that animal sacrifice is wrong, or try to convince a Muslim that they really shouldn't be polytheistic. Um, hello? Not very effective. :lol: :lol: :lol:
(Those aren't mean laughs, it really is funny.)
Timoclea
Until you've lost your reputation,you never realize what a burden it was or what freedom really is.
MARGARET MITCHELL
Post by: Timoclea on May 07, 2005, 02:25:00 PM
T.
All religion is dumb. It's one big story they're feeding you so you'll behave on Earth. If there is a god, then he's a prick.
--Howard Stern, American radio personality
Post by: Timoclea on May 07, 2005, 02:25:00 PM
T.
All religions have been made by men.
--Napoleon Bonaparte, French emperor
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 07, 2005, 08:27:00 PM
Theres a leap involved because it very much is circular(logic). You cant prove a religion! If you could PROVE any religion, thats what we'd all be following!
However, you, being a believer, see it as totally true in your eyes. I cant "Just believe". Its not that its a choice I didnt want to make, its that I cant just believe in the bible anymore than I can believe in a damn seminar.
Edit: I can believe if I see something happen miraculously. I managed to clog up the radiator in the car we were delivering 250+ sunday newspapers (probably the thermostat) when I put some stop-leak into the coolant tank because its IMPOSSIBLE to put it into the radiator cap ( there isnt one) on the car. We had steam billowing out, yet the tank water was still cold. Yet, the car *HAD* To make it.
So, I figured why not, I'd pray that it would work, and if it did work I'd admit it here. Here I am, and it worked, so yeah. There you go :smile:
However, it still doesnt change the fact that the bible was written by men and has a lot of bull in it :razz:
...it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds..
--Samuel Adams
Post by: BuzzKill on May 08, 2005, 11:56:00 AM
If you don't want to believe you wont. Its just that simple. But you did mention you wish you could believe, b/c if you could, if would give you a sense of peace - and I assure you that is true. But there is no way to breach such a solid wall of denial. You say you would have to have a miracle; Perhaps your on the road to Damascus. . . Time will tell. I should warn you tho - when you demand miracles, you might get miracles, provided by the Great Liar to bring you more tightly into his grasp.
I logged on thinking I might look over your links - but now I think why bother? Its not like I'm much interested or troubled by skeptical thinking. I am very familiar with most of it anyway. Many of my best friends have been intelligent and articulate atheist and we have been over these things many times. The point being - I am familiar with the arguments and not likely to run across anything I haven't grappled with already. And you have no real interest in what I might say.
I hope you will take the time to actually read the gospels, in their entirety, for your self; and you might also find it enlightening to read the letters to the Romans and Hebrews. I have never approved of Proof text, taken a verse here and a verse there. I believe this leads both believer and skeptic astray. The verses lose their full meaning when taken out of context and can lose their meaning all together.
I do have a thought or two on your concern about the 'I am coming soon' prophecies. Once again, let me say, as far as God is concerned, the return of the King, is coming soon indeed. Also, bear in mind the message given to the disciples was not Just for the disciples. It was meant for the church - the entire church age. The church was given many signs to look for in regard to the second coming; so we might be better able to judge when it becomes "soon" from our perspective. There is a very definite time table which begins when the anti Christ enters the temple and declares himself god. You needent look for the Second Coming until after that event.
The rapture, on the other hand, could take place when ever God decides; and it could be literally at any moment. This is why the believer is told to Look up and be watchful and to keep in mind they could be called home at any moment. Of corse - this is true of those dying as well - As you never know when that will occur.
There may be a way to know the time of year that the rapture will occur. . . I find the following very interesting.
There are several different Kinds of prophecy in the Bible. I spoke already of prophetic symbols - but there is also symbolic prophecy. For instance, the Feast of Israel all have a prophetic meaning. For those interested, the following is a link to an article about it, with a quote from it following:
http://www.lamblion.com/articles/prophe ... ews-10.php (http://www.lamblion.com/articles/prophecy/Jews-Israel/Jews-10.php)
The Prophetic Significance of the Feasts
What the Jewish people did not seem to realize is that all of the feasts were also symbolic types. In other words, they were prophetic in nature, each one pointing in a unique way to some aspect of the life and work of the promised Messiah.
1) Passover - Pointed to the Messiah as our Passover lamb whose blood would be shed for our sins. Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover, at the same time that the lambs were being slaughtered for the Passover meal that evening.
2) Unleavened Bread - Pointed to the Messiah's sinless life, making Him the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Jesus' body was in the grave during the first days of this feast, like a kernel of wheat planted and waiting to burst forth as the bread of life.
3) First Fruits - Pointed to the Messiah's resurrection as the first fruits of the righteous. Jesus was resurrected on this very day, which is one of the reasons that Paul refers to him in I Corinthians 15:20 as the "first fruits from the dead."
4) Harvest or Pentecost - (Called Shavuot today.) Pointed to the great harvest of souls, both Jew and Gentile, that would come into the kingdom of God during the Church Age. The Church was actually established on this day when the Messiah poured out the Holy Spirit and 3,000 souls responded to Peter's first proclamation of the Gospel.
The long interval of three months between Harvest and Trumpets pointed to the current Church Age, a period of time that was kept as a mystery to the Hebrew prophets in Old Testament times.
That leaves us with the three fall feasts which are yet to be fulfilled in the life and work of the Messiah. Because Jesus literally fulfilled the first four feasts and did so on the actual feast days, I think it is safe to assume that the last three will also be fulfilled and that their fulfillment will occur on the actual feast days. We cannot be certain how they will be fulfilled, but my guess is that they most likely have the following prophetic implications:
5) Trumpets - (Called Rosh Hashana today.) Points to the Rapture when the Messiah will appear in the heavens as a Bridegroom coming for His bride, the Church. The Rapture is always associated in Scripture with the blowing of a loud trumpet (I Thessalonians 4:13-18 and I Corinthians 15:52)
6) Atonement - (Called Yom Kippur today.) Points to the day of the Second Coming of Jesus when He will return to earth. That will be the day of atonement for the Jewish remnant when they "look upon Him whom they have pierced," repent of their sins, and receive Him as their Messiah (Zechariah 12:10 and Romans 11:1-6, 25-36).
7) Tabernacles - (Called Sukkot today.) Points to the Lord's promise that He will once again tabernacle with His people when He returns to reign over all the world from Jerusalem (Micah 4:1-7).
*******
It's an article worth reading in its entirety if the subject intrigues you at all.
Timocela - my Wiccan friend :smile:
I don't pretend to know much about Wicca. The only Wiccans besides yourself that I have known, have mostly been young women that seem to be "playing witch". I have read numerous articles - but I don't know that any two of them agreed on more than a point or two. I have the impression that Wicca is for the practitioner, pretty much what they want it to be - sort of fluid and open to change. I admit this is just an impression. Another commonality I have noticed is a great prevalence for occultic activity among Wiccans. But, this might be a result of playing witch, an not actually part of your belief system. I don't know. But as a Christian - the occultic aspect of Wicca is what makes it objectionable. Not that I mind that you are Wiccan - but I couldn't be. I have read that Wiccans worship Lillith, the wife of the great horned god (thats what the article said) And Nature, somewhat like the Druids. In any event, it seems to be pagan; and this is not something a Christian can give a nod and a wink to. My opinion is that while Wicca might be something you believe helps you be a better person, it can not save your soul. Only Jesus can do that for you, and you will not find Him through any occult or pagan practice.
Post by: Anonymous on May 08, 2005, 12:44:00 PM
There are many prophecies about his birth, life, resurrection that were written more than 400 years before it happened.
"Jesus wasn't the only Jew to be born into the tribe of Juday, in the city of Bethlehem, and buried in a rich man's tomb. Is it possible to believe that some of the details of Jesus' life
just happened to coincide with all those Old Testament prophecies?
For the answer to that question, we need only turn to the science of statistics and probabilities. Professor Peter W. Stoner, in an analysis that was carefully reviewed and pronounced to be sound by the American Scientific Aflliation, states that the probablility of just eight prophecies being fulfilled in one person is 1 in 10 to the 17th power. That is 1 in 100000000000000000.
If you were to take that many silver dollars and spread them across the state of Texas, they would not only cover the entire state but also form a pile of coins two feet deep! Now, take one more silver dollar, mark it with a big red X, toss it into that pile, and stir the whole pile thoroughly.
Then blindfold yourself, and starting at El Paso on the western border of the state, walk the length and breadth of that enormous state, from Amarillo in the panhandle to Laredo on the Rio Grande all the way to Galveston on the Gulf of Mexico, stooping just once along the way to pick up a single silver dollar out of that two foot deep pile. Then take off your blindfold and look at the silver dollar in your hand. What are the chances that you would pick the marked coin out of a pile of silver dollars the size of Tx? The same chance that one person could have fulfilled just eight messianic prophecies in one life time!" this quote is from Josh McDowell's book Beyond Belief to Conviction.
Post by: Antigen on May 08, 2005, 01:28:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-08 09:44:00, Anonymous wrote:
"What about this stuff. How can all that just be coincidence?
Well, because none of us living today were there at the time. People who want to believe in the prophecies believe that it all happened just so. But take into account that, even though they lived in the same region/culture and very near the same time when this particular Christ story played out, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John's stories contradict each other in significant ways and Paul sits down on all of them. Never mind the other John, that peyote munching radical. He tells an entirely different story.
Again, I just wish you people would open up a psychic hotline and leave the kids out of it. You're welcome to your fantasies and to turn a buck from your fellow believers. But please, leave the kids out of it. They're just children. Go pick on someone your own size!
Every man thinks God is on his side. The rich and powerful know he is.
--Jean Anouilh, French dramatist and playwright
Post by: Anonymous on May 08, 2005, 02:17:00 PM
I've been Wiccan for seventeen years.
Wicca *is* a neopagan religion, and Wiccans *do* practice magic. But "magic" for us has a jargon definition as "the art of causing change in accord with will" so the term includes a lot--everything from hypnosis to what might best be described as prayer with props.
Wicca is extremely fluid in the belief systems included, but the three points on which the overwhelming majority of Wiccans agree, and would consider anyone who does not agree who calls what they do "Wicca" to be just incorrect, is the Rede, the Law, and the Lady. Almost all Wiccans who are seriously religious and have been Wiccan for any appreciable length of time would hold to the long version of the Rede, which actually includes the Threefold Law. All Wiccans revere at least one female deity. All Wiccans but the Dianics, and they're a smallish minority, revere male and female deities in pairs and *most* at least in some sense hold with the principle that all female deities are aspects of The Lady, and all male deities are aspects of The Lord, and the Lord and Lady are both aspects of a unified divine Source or Essence of some sort. It is both true and false to say that most Wiccans are polytheistic. Many if not most Wiccans look at the divine as too big for the human mind to possibly comprehend in its entirety and the aspects as a way of looking at the divine that the divine, the Gods, accept for the sake of dealing with the limitations of the human mind. Most Wiccans would find that an acceptable way of stating a complicated concept and a complicated theology, even if it is not their personal favorite analogy.
I suppose there are a few Wiccans who might occasionally use Lillith as the particular face of the Goddess invoked in a particular ritual they wrote themselves for a particular celebration, but she's just not terribly popular. The Horned God is, but is a metaphorical representation of the phenomenon of many medium to large game animals having horns and is therefore generally associated with the hunt and metaphorical thanks for food, just as corn and grain and certain trees are metaphorically associated with the male divine principle (the Oak King and the Holly King), and fruit and wine are typically associated with the Lady. Requests for bounty of the simple sort in daily life, and thanks for same, are very important parts of our interaction with the divine.
The closest Christian analog I can think of is your prayers of thanks before you eat.
We give thanks, too, it's just our regular timing for doing so is different.
Theologically, Wicca might be best thought of as a theological extension of Neo-Platonism with philosophical lessons incorporated from Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism.
I've talked theology with Hindus before and even though the specifics of practice and names of deities differed, our theology was similar enough that we could smile and nod and say right, right, right---and the specifics of practice in both religions are secondary to the general philosophical framework.
Wiccans differ from Hindus and Buddhists in some of the fine points of reincarnation, karma, and the ultimate goal/purpose of being here. It would be *close* to accurate to say that the general Wiccan goal is to become something largely analagous to a bodhisatva or guide, rather than personal nirvana. Most Hindus' or Buddhists' goal is to achieve perfect compassion or enlightenment and get off the wheel. Most Wiccans' goal is to achieve a form of enlightenment particular to us, not easily put into words, stay on the wheel (with perhaps occasional Summerland recuperative breaks), and smooth the path for others.
Many of us believe you're on the wheel, too, but don't know it. We don't try to save you, because our faith tells us that there's nothing to be saved *from*. Well, except for the inevitable consequences of harmful action, which we strongly encourage others not to incur in the first place.
The Tao that can be told is not the Tao.
Wiccans can generally empathize and heavily agree with that sentiment. To us, it's obvious that any religion that can be fully described in words is missing something significant.
You obviously take our beliefs to be much more fluid than they are. While there's a lot of room for individuals to differ on any particular belief other than the core three, there is overwhelming overlap on the general body of belief. It's a bit like the way Christianity can differ a very great deal depending on which denomination you're looking at. Compare the Catholics to the Coptics to the Gnostics to the Episcopalians to the Christian Identity folks to the Mormons. *Big* differences.
Most of the Wiccans who fall far outside the norm are either very new and very ignorant, or faddists who are playing at the religion, or, well, just oddballs within a minority religion that none of us are going to disturb on *their* path as long as it's helping them be a better person. Most of the Wiccans who fall far outside the norm are also self-initiates who have had very little contact with the larger Wiccan community, who got their religion, more or less, off the back of a cracker box. Many of them are very sincere (at least for the moment), and very, very ignorant.
Part of that is we're victims of our own "success"--even though we don't proselytize, some people have obviously found what they've heard of of our religion relevant and metaphorically signed themselves up without telling anyone---usually because they couldn't *find* a (reasonable) teacher. It's a bit like Scots-Irish immigrants to the colonial and early-American US--their heritage was Presbyterian, but to be a Pres. minister you had to be ordained, and there weren't enough ordained Pres. ministers to go around, and you didn't have to be ordained to be a Baptist minister, so a lot of backwoods Scots-Irish Presbyterians ended up Baptist. With some corresponding "issues" in doctrine over the years, locally, related to their lack of formal education in Divinity.
It looks more amorphous than it is because we're not rejecting the ignorant, but those of us who've been around awhile can't teach the newcomers fast enough---and some of the faddists just don't want to be taught, or they aren't located where we are, etc. It can be hard for them to find us because very, very few of us looking for students--it's just not what we do.
Timoclea
Post by: Anonymous on May 08, 2005, 02:35:00 PM
To be a Pres. minister you had to go to college and have formal divinity schooling to *get* ordained, and Baptists didn't have to. I don't know how common some form of ordination was among Baptists despite lack of formal schooling.
I know large parts of the Church of Christ just don't "do" ordination. My dad's retirement job is Preacher at a local country church of that denomination, just because he's pious, educated, and a good speaker. And it helps that he's a local boy who made good and came back home to retire.
Some Wiccans do a form of ordination, many don't. Roughly the difference between "high church" and "low church." Gardnerians roughly equal Episcopalians in level of formality and orthodoxy, Eclectics roughly equal small town non-denominational. Very orthodox Gardnerians frequently do not consider non-Gardnerians "really Wiccan" but simply generic Neo-Pagan. More mainstream Gardnerians consider the initiates of the more established traditions, or initiates of Gardnerian offshoots with a Gardnerian "lineage," Wiccan, but not self-initiates. Or measure self-initiates by how closely their practices adhere to the original Gardnerian standard--or at least the published portions of it. Some of it's snobbery, but for some of it, theologically and doctrinally speaking, they have a point.
If you really care about knowing Which Witch is Which, the standard reference is _Drawing Down the Moon_ by Margot Adler (yes, the same one from NPR). Unless there's a new edition out, it's a bit dated, but still basically relevant. It lists traditions (Wiccan version of denominations), their rough genesis, and rough doctrine and theology.
Timoclea
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 08, 2005, 07:16:00 PM
I either believe or I dont, but its not like it would be effective to act like I do if I doubted, becuase according to the big rule book in the sky I'd still go to hell.
Do not confuse critical thought and inability to believe with a desire or choice NOT to. I don't feel like listening to double speak from a christian when I get it from programmies on a regular basis.
As per your reply... you basically dodged anything I had to say about it. "I logged on thinking I might look over your links - but now I think why bother? Its not like I'm much interested or troubled by skeptical thinking."
Thanks... :grin:
Impiety: Your irreverence toward my deity.
--Ambrose Bierce
Post by: cat girl on May 08, 2005, 08:56:00 PM
Post by: BuzzKill on May 08, 2005, 10:24:00 PM
All I meant by my last post was this very thing. I will not be able to do "good enough" for you Niles - no matter how hard I try.
I may not have given you a point by point, but its not fair to say I dodged (tho I knew you would) I answered the questions posed by the verses you listed - I just didn't do a point by point.
After your earlier post, I felt making the effort was pointless. And make no mistake - it is an effort. It does not come easy for me, and as I suggested before, to give you a detailed point by point would take me all morning and probably afternoon as well. Its too much effort when I can't see it making the slightest difference.
For instance, I did explain we are no longer living under the law. But you keep going back to the question of the Law. This was all debated and settled back in the first century by Paul and Peter. For more on this, see the Book of Acts, and Romans.
The so far unfulfilled prophecies Will be fulfilled - just as exactly as the ones I quoted you, and the hundreds of others I didn't list. If there are some we don't understand - we will someday. Once upon a time; and not so long ago; the vast majority of Christendom had no idea what the re-gathering prophecies were about. They Couldn't mean what they said, b/c all that was totally impossible. They meant just what they said - and now Christians the world over understand them very clearly.
If you are really interested in any of this - I have provided you with the resources to learn as much as you like, and from teachers far more able than I.
As for your skeptic links - again, I was willing to look it over and try and tell you what I thought - but I have come to feel, that too, would be pointless; and why waste my time? I AM familiar with the arguments and I am not impressed - just as you are not impressed by my responses.
Faith is important Niles. God puts tremendous value on the Faith of His people. Great things can be accomplished by Faith. But He knows about those who need more than faith, and He has supplied them with plenty of proof. Maybe what you need to do is read your Bible and ask Him for proof.
Who made you the way you are? Well of corse God made you Niles - but He lets you make of it what you will. He has clearly blessed you with many gifts. If you have a thorn or two in your side - well, don't we all?
This, I think you got backwards:
belief is no conscious choice. Delusion is, however.
Timocela - thank you for the explanation of Wicca. I really did find it interesting. I'm not surprised at you and the Hindu having so much common thought. I would have guessed as much. But your faith and mine are at opposite ends, and there is no middle ground for us. On at least one thing we can approach agreement - God is far to great for the mind of man to comprehend. Of corse, as a Christian, I would argue that this is why we have such a need for the Messiah - to help us understand God and to heal our relationship with Him. But even so, it is far beyond our abilities to comprehend the reality of God - there are mysteries, and there may always be. Paul tells us that for now we see, as threw a glass, darkly; but that one day we shall see Him and then we will see clearly - so I think many of the things that endlessly puzzle us now, will someday be made clear. I expect many lightbulb moments.
Post by: Anonymous on May 08, 2005, 10:34:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 08, 2005, 11:30:00 PM
Whatever flavor, there is a common thread that runs through all.... the Golden Rule.
If everyone treated others the way they would like to be treated the world would be a far better place. It really isn't more complicated than that.
How many people have suffered and died defending the misbelief that 'their way' is the only way?
Pah-ooeeyyy!
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 09, 2005, 03:57:00 AM
"The so far unfulfilled prophecies Will be fulfilled"
It stated EXPLICITLY that the generation around at the time it was first spoken according to scripute would not all be dead before the end of the world came.
Well, they're all dead!! How the hell can that come true!? IT CANT!
Now, back to this shit. How is it a CHOICE to believe or not? Yeah. Delusion is a choice people make quite often. Look where we are! It happens all the time!
However, all this crap you say about proof, etc, bla bla bla, faith being important.. it makes no sense that a deity would expect billions of people to go by faith alone (and pick the right faith based on chance, specifically the chance that they were born to a family that would teach them the proper religion. I can say almost certainly that if you were born on the ganges river you'd be a hindu.) or on "proof" that only seems to reveal itself when someone fudges and draws connections and interpretations based on... scripture thousands of years old, translated over and over.
Why not just say "Hi Chris! This is god, not an illusion. You seen bruce almighty? I could do that if you need proof...." or just talk to everyone as a child, hrn? Thats not too much of a stretch for an omniscient, omnipotent being, is it? Its not.
The 'proving' comes out of your mouth and the mouth of other believers. There isnt any proof. Youre just speaking of metaphor, symbolism, and parable, while in the other ear I hear about how literal the bible is.
And there are two creation stories in genesis and they contract eachother. I already posted that.
How do you explain that? How do you explain a prophecy that EXPLICITLY STATES the present generation will not all be dead before armageddon comes?
You cant. You cant prove anything and you cant defend against what I bring up. You do, however, creatively dodge any inquisition I make and attack me for being at fault for not just taking what is fed to me - and resist having to analyze what you yourself believe because you want to continue to believe.
Gilcrease would say its a choice to be deluded into not following him and his seminars. Think about that. A program parent would be pulling the same tricks you do on me.
I bet you feel mad or scared right now. Well, I dont care. Its your problem. Just dont attack me and accuse me of shit when you, yourself are on exceptionally shaky ground, dodge shit, and then attack ME instead of the topic at hand!
The Internet is now safe for free speech.
-- Christopher A. Hansen on the overturning of the Communications Decency Act
Post by: BuzzKill on May 09, 2005, 10:53:00 AM
This is an example of a "proof" text leading you astray. Read it in its entirety. He is talking about the last days; the generation He is speaking of, is the generation that sees Israel re-established - and THEY are still living - tho they are getting old.
You won't accept this (don't believe it) And I do - So we are at a stand off. I see no point in continuing the debate.
For my part - I am amazed that you can so ignore such obvious evidence that God is; and has proven it to us threw His Prophets.
Recent history validates the prophets as speaking for God. It isn't ancient history and so in dispute. The prophecies described exactly what was going to be - and the impossibility of these things was no hindrance to God what so ever. How can you not take note, and so take interest - and admit that since the prophets were so correct about all these things - they can be expected to be correct about all the rest?
There are many things I don't understand Niles. There are questions I can not answer. But I can look at what I do understand, And it proves to me that God is God and that Jesus is the Christ. This being the case - I am willing to trust that all the rest will be understood someday - in other words - God has proven His trustworthiness to me.
If He falls short of your demands and expectations - well, what can I do about that?
I have tried to tell you things which I suspected you were unaware of. Many people are. I grew up in a congregation that never mentioned a single prophet or the existence of prophecy. I knew nothing of it until my freshman year of high school. I found it fascinating. Still do. Its always possible others will as well - so I do like to point these things out. But if you remain unimpressed and still feel your Nihilistic philosophy is the more correct - What could I ever say that would make a difference?
PS - no Niles, I am not mad or afraid. Not at all.
And, if you feel attacked I can only say that was unintentional. I certanly never intended to "attack" you. Frankly - I don't see how you could think that - but if you do, I'm sorry.
Anon, thank you for the kind words.
*
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 09, 2005, 04:13:00 PM
He made me as I am but its my fault for being that way, right?
:wstupid: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warrio ... dodger.htm (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm)
Its all a matter of which interpretation you adhere to. Attacking me for not seeing it is so much of a logical fallacy in an arguement. Same for not once fessing up to the points I made. Oh, now its a matter of that generation is the one that sees israel reborn. Sure. Care to quote the whole scripture yourself?
You know, it is pointless, you can't present anything except your own articles of faith as 'evidence' and resort to belittling me if I dont buy it!
I'm done with this thread.
An individual who should survive his physical death is beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.
--Albert Einstein
Post by: BuzzKill on May 09, 2005, 07:36:00 PM
I hope it has not been your intent to attack or belittle me.
I Can quote the entire chapter - but as I have said - its a lot of work! Would it help if I did? I doubt it. Besides, it would be far more simple for you to open a Bible and read it for yourself. Do you have a Bible? If not, I'd be happy to supply you with one.
The Bible is not mis-translated; a fact strongly supported by the dead sea scrolls. They agree word for word with the modern translation. It has never been edited; Nothing has been omitted - The Hebrew scribes would not dare to edit or omit what they believed to be the words of God.
Proof of this, is in the simple fact the histories are not sanitized. The most powerful people in the land, Kings and Queens, were exposed in many embarrassing ways by the Hebrew Prophets - and they couldn't do a thing about it - because these men spoke for God. Well that's not true - they often tortured them and beat them and starved them and threw them in pits of filth - but they couldn't do a thing to change what they had written - b/c it was the words of God. The accuracy of their prophecies proved this to be the case. So, there has been no editing or omitting from scripture.
It is sometimes a puzzle. I have mentioned this. I too am often puzzled. But I see enough that I do understand, to trust God. I don't know why you can't (or won't) Niles - but I am not attacking you for it. On the other hand, I see no reason to sit back and let you misrepresent my Faith for your amusement.
Post by: Anonymous on May 10, 2005, 05:58:00 PM
Post by: BuzzKill on May 10, 2005, 09:20:00 PM
Looks like a garden snail to me.
:wink:
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 07:50:00 PM
Buzzkill:
Religion: Oh holy Jesus that will lead me and other faithtfull to Heaven and eternally punish everyone else...why? because he loves you silly. Because of him I believe in talking snakes,talking bushes, talking Donkeys, people rising from the dead and ignore all evil in the book.
Cult: The other non provable, non visible, supernatural guy. Lets talk about how silly he is!!!
This thread might as well be: Superman...the world's savior. Batman, all believers are evil cultists.
Buzzman, get a grip!!!!
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 08:00:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-04 07:19:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Actually Jesus says the way IS narrow. I know you guys hate Bible verses, but in Matthew 7:13-15 JESUS says, "Enter throught the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and braod is the road that leads to destruction; and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." "
Hey, its Bible verse Time!
Gather your children round people, and lets tell the tale of a prophet of god and how he gets god to deal with children who are not respectable. Go ahead, get the kiddies, pop some popcorn, turn the lights down and lets learn! Lets even use a version even the kiddies can understand....
Elishas First Miracles
19Now the leaders of the town of Jericho visited Elisha. "We have a problem, my lord," they told him. "This town is located in beautiful natural surroundings, as you can see. But the water is bad, and the land is unproductive."
20Elisha said, "Bring me a new bowl with salt in it." So they brought it to him. 21Then he went out to the spring that supplied the town with water and threw the salt into it. And he said, "This is what the LORD says: I have made this water wholesome. It will no longer cause death or infertility.[c]" 22And sure enough! The water has remained wholesome ever since, just as Elisha said.
"Elisha left Jericho and went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, a group of boys from the town began mocking and making fun of him. "Go away, you baldhead!" they chanted. "Go away, you baldhead!" 24Elisha turned around and looked at them, and he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of them. "
Wow, the kiddies said, "Get out of here baldie", and god sent two bears to rip them to shreds.
HOW DARE THEY? Thank you god for showing us how to deal with our disrespectfull kids, disembowel them!!!.
Post by: Anonymous on May 11, 2005, 08:20:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 11, 2005, 08:23:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-09 16:36:00, BuzzKill wrote:
Do you have a Bible? If not, I'd be happy to supply you with one.
The Bible is not mis-translated; a fact strongly supported by the dead sea scrolls. They agree word for word with the modern translation. It has never been edited; Nothing has been omitted - The Hebrew scribes would not dare to edit or omit what they believed to be the words of God.
Hey Buzzkill, I HAVE A BIBLE. In fact, I got em all! Every version. And since you have proclaimed it the inerrent word of GOD, we are now able to explore the NATURE OF YOUR GOD according to his own word. Isn't that special.
Lets start with war...sure he is a bloody bastard and wants people to kill, but what of the women and children, what are we to do with them Buzzkill?
hmmm....
"And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. "
Hey, not bad. we get to get all bloody, then rape women and children! What a deal.
thank you God!!!!!
Wait you say, do we really get to rape em? Show me some support for that, otherwise I, the great Buzzkill, ain't raping nobody!!!
Okay buzzkill, you are free to unzip but you gotta hold her captive a little while first....
"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."
Hey Buzzkill even tho you got to wait a while, you get to shave her head and kick her out later if she is a lousy lay!!!
Damn, Im starting to think God is pretty one sided here.
Buzzkill, you may ask, but surely I can only rape CAPTURED women, not just any women on the street.
OH right you are Buzzkill! Damn your sharp. BUT, there is an exit clause! Just marry her and pay her father, and all is well!!! What fun!!!!
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
Oh, surely Buzzkill, you must think...but what of married women, can I rape them Too? Eh, perhaps not a good idea, my man..because then you BOTH GET THE DEATH SENTENCE. Good call buddy!!!!!
" If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."
And my good man Buzzkill, what does Jeessuss think of all of this? Surely he must rebuke the old testment, surely? Right?
Right?
Care to further quote scripture?
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 08:27:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 08:58:00 PM
BUZZKILL, LOCK YOUR DOORS AND TRUST NO ONE, GOD SAID YOU ARE BUT MERE CHATTEL.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 11, 2005, 09:30:00 PM
We've been over the problems with the Livitical law and I gave the best answer I can already. If its not good enough for you, then please accept my regrets.
I will add than Jesus did point out that the law was given in recognition of the hardness of men's hearts.
I think what made Noah different was that he believed in and trusted God. He tried to live a godly life. No doubt, like all men, he sometimes failed. I grant you there are aspects of the Noah story that seem weird; and some that, by today's standards, seem perverted. But, I don't get to judge Noah, or his sons and daughters, and neither do you. I tend to view the fact that the story is given to us, warts and all, so to speak, as evidence we can trust the testimony of the scriptures. As I've tried to explain, there is much I am puzzled by and do not understand. But there is enough I do understand to feel God is God and that I can trust Him. I'm sure you disagree.
I do not mind that you disagree. I am sorry if I have seemed pretentious. Wasn't my intent.
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 09:44:00 PM
My point, while maybe crude, is that my post was really a parady of yours, coming here and insulting others belief systems. Then you have the gall to proclaim the bible, one of the most violent, hatefull bloody books in the history of the world, is the direct word of a supernatural creator that requires constant ego gratification and created us soly to Worship him. What a rediculous notion.
And Yes, I do get to JUDGE the bible, including the myth of Noah. After all, it is me who reads it and then decides if it is worthy of consideration. It is not. It is a collection of ancient fables.
Don't even get me started on the flood and Noah. The whole damn thing is just unbelievably oversimplistic,non-scientific and impossible.
So Buzzkill, in conclusion, what you did was come here and pick a fight with the mormons based soley on their belief system, only you got the atheist riled up enough to respond.
Your religious arrogance is offensive and no less silly than the mormon account of the supernatural. The difference is you rarely see Mormons initiating that kind of thing, it almost always is fundie christians.
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 09:46:00 PM
We are not only supposed to take babies and smash them against rocks, we are supposed to be HAPPY when we do it.
A loving god?
B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.
The christian god is actually derived from an ancient polytheist war god. It is not even an original jewish idea...
Post by: BuzzKill on May 11, 2005, 09:51:00 PM
I'm not to worried about the law as it was given prior to the fulfillment. You might want to consider Jesus' attitude toward women. He was the first to speak out about women's rights, maybe ever.
He settled an argument between Lazarus's sisters by making it plain that it was OK to sit and talk; debate and learn, instead of cleaning house, if that's what you wanted to do.
He didn't condemn the woman taken in adultery and instead shamed the crowd so anxious to do so.
He treated the women around Him as important persons - as loved and valued by God as any man - in a society were they were chattel; and in a part of the world where they still are, if they are not lucky enough to be Christian or Jewish.
As for the quote above - Yes it reads as if its God's vengeance. It might have been. I'm not altogether familiar with that verse. However, It might also have been a statement of what their rebellion against God would bring upon them as a natural consequence of their rebellious actions.
See, I think God's laws for man kind are for his greater good. I think we break them at our own peril. Not because God is going to strike us down, but because the natural consequences are going to be negative. Its these natural consequence God is trying to protect us from by directing us not to do the various things that are considered sin. There are spiritual consequences as well - and they might well be worse than the other - but in any case - there are good reasons to obey God's directives. He made us and He knows what is good for us and what isn't.
So back to your verse - *could be* that God knew their actions would have this result - Maybe He withdrew His protection from them, as they no longer asked for it, or wanted it - being in rebellion as they were. So they suffered the consequences of their actions. Maybe. This IS often the case.
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 09:51:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-11 18:30:00, BuzzKill wrote:
I will add than Jesus did point out that the law was given in recognition of the hardness of men's hearts.
"
No, Jesus said that he was here to uphold ALL the old testament laws.
1Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
READ YOUR BIBLE BUZZKILL
Care to discuss Jesus' take on slavery?
Your god is the war god...read your history books as well, the ones left that were not destroyed by the conquering Crhistians.
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 09:56:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-11 18:51:00, BuzzKill wrote:
See, I think God's laws for man kind are for his greater good. I think we break them at our own peril....
He made us and He knows what is good for us and what isn't....
.knew their actions would have this result...
Hey, I just Won a bet!!!!
I told my friend via instant messenger that upon your being confronted with absolute proof your god is a vengefull bastard, you would do the two step shuffle and start justifying these biblical words.
Well, Buzzkill, welcome to a long history of justifying rape, murder, incest, animal sacrifice, and torture and maming children....
ALL FOR THEIR OWN GOOD!!!!
Thank you god!!!
Post by: BuzzKill on May 11, 2005, 09:57:00 PM
You have your reasons and I have mine - and they seem much to far apart to be reconciled.
This long dissertation of mine has grown of its own accord. I have not done anything more than try and respond to others with what limited abilities I have. I AM sorry if that offends you.
That is NOT what I said Greg.
&
came to fullfill the law - fullfill, not uphold.
There is a diference.
[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-05-11 19:01 ]
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 10:01:00 PM
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Care to play the "quote Jesus" game Buzzkill? I think you need to critically examine what it is you are devoting your life to here.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 11, 2005, 10:04:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 10:07:00 PM
"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God who shall be punished with everlasting destruction."
VENGEANCE, Buzzkill, not mercy, not compassion, but Jesus shall take VENGEANCE...
This is the fable you have signed up for.....
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 10:11:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-11 19:04:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"What do you think that verse means Greg?"
What I think is not important. The words stand on their own.
Oh, we could now play the "justify and twist the meaning to make it a kinder gentler VENGEANCE filled Jesus", but I am doubtfull he ever existed, whatwith this passage being written some 60 years after his supposed death, by someone who claimed to walk with him. Therefore, loose interpretation is meaningless to me, it is the content that I think YOU should critically examine.
That would put this apostle in his 90s, eh? The average lifespan in circa 90 ad was around 35.
Something is fishy here my good lady...
Post by: BuzzKill on May 11, 2005, 10:20:00 PM
If you don't want it, God will not make you take it.
If its a fable - its the only fable that has had such power to foretell what will be; or to have such power for change and redemption.
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 10:20:00 PM
Damn, you opened a hornet's nest.
Jesus telling his followers to obandon their wives and children...
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 10:21:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 10:23:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-11 19:20:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"There is Grace, Mercy and Salvation for anyone who wants it Greg.
If you don't want it, God will not make you take it.
If its a fable - its the only fable that has had such power to foretell what will be; or to have such power for change and redemption.
<
Reverting to a special pleading debating tactic Buzzkill? That is the bastion of the weak my lady.
Answer to the Violence, hatred, VENGEANCE, etc, etc, etc of your religion, or just concede the point and say you believe because you like it.
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 10:24:00 PM
That is what you are alluding to, isn't it?
Post it, lets take a looksie!!!
Post by: BuzzKill on May 11, 2005, 10:29:00 PM
The words do stand on there own. But there are a lot of other words. But basicly, He was just warning that Following Him would be a divisive thing. He is Lord and Savior. He comes first. This can and will cause problems (espically in the latter days) and He was giving warning.
I'm logging off for tonight. I'll see you guys tomorrow.
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 10:49:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-11 19:37:00, Anonymous wrote:
"At first I thought this was a joke. It's not. :eek:
http://objective.jesussave.us/kidz.html (http://objective.jesussave.us/kidz.html)"
heheheheehe
and I quote:
"If you find an Atheist in your neighborhood,
TELL A PARENT OR PASTOR RIGHT AWAY!
You may be moved to try and witness to
these poor lost souls yourself, however
AVOID TALKING TO THEM!
Atheists are often very grumpy and bitter and will lash out at children or they may even try to trick you into neglecting God's Word."
Don't talk to them Kiddies...they may TELL YOU THE TRUTH about JAAESSUS!!!
oh my, how funny!!!!!
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 10:55:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-11 19:29:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"I know what I think it means Greg. I have thought about it. I just wondered what you thought - if you had thought about it.
The words do stand on there own. But there are a lot of other words. But basicly, He was just warning that Following Him would be a divisive thing. He is Lord and Savior. He comes first. This can and will cause problems (espically in the latter days) and He was giving warning.
I'm logging off for tonight. I'll see you guys tomorrow.
"
BALONEY.
Again, you see thru rose colored glasses...Jesus says FORSAKE your family and you shall get a hundredfold back for your sacrifice, not the other way around. You are reading it and getting out of it the Jesus you want, not the jesus who spoke. Take the bible for its word or dismiss it for what it is but to twist and turn it into something palatable is intellectually bankrupt.
Care to read it again?
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
He was saying, LEAVE ALL THIS BEHIND AND I WILL REWARD YOU A HUNDRED TIMES YOUR LOSS.
No concern for the wife, the kids, the families of the FORSAKEN....right Buzkill?
Now tell me Buzzkill, how is this Woman friendly, to command men to abandon their wives and children and follow him?
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 11:03:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-11 19:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"http://objective.jesussave.us/shutdown.html
"
Oh my, that is so funny, and it is funny because they take it serious. "DONT TALK TO ATHEISTS..ALERT YOUR MOM, DAD OR PREACHER!
hehe
they might as well say... CALL 0, ask for GOD and have the atheist smited!
hehee
Unreal that this is 2005 and this crap goes on. These unfunny part is these people involve themselves in our government and want to push this crap on the rest of the world.
And that "lamby" character...who boy, maybe they should dismember it and burn it to please god a la animal sacrifice in the old testament? Man, that would be even funnier!
These people that run this website are morons!
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 11:15:00 PM
Talk about dishonest propaganda!!!
Unreal!
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 11:24:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-11 20:12:00, Anonymous wrote:
"you gotta read this...
http://objective.jesussave.us/propaganda.html (http://objective.jesussave.us/propaganda.html)
You'll alternate between rage, incredulation hysterical laughter. :flame: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: "
Yes, Evolution is unscientific...better we believe the "science" of talking snakes, angels raping women and creating a race of giants, boats with two of all kinds of animals on them, magical people rising from the dead,people created from clay and ribs,light created before the sun, Adam the first man naming all the animals in the world,animal sacrifice to please god, and a god that murders and orders the rape and destruction of innocent women and children...among hundreds of more absurdities.
Yep, that science sure is evil....and that bible...SCIENTIFIC BEYOND CRITICISM!!!!!
Tell me someone, what does it take to buy into this mindset?
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 11:28:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-11 19:56:00, Anonymous wrote:
"from the quiz..
Kid: Proffesor, what are fossils and where did they come from?
Answer: fossils are the buried remains of the wicked men and animals that perished 4000 years ago in that flood.
::bigsmilebounce::
Anyone ever stop to think that any substantial flood leaves a sediment deposit that is readable in the strata, and that a worldwide flood would leave massive evidence in the sediment layer all over the world, and that NONE EXISTS?
Hell, even major ancient comet impacts can be read in the worldwide strata layer...where is the flood evidence in the strata? Creation science Answer... misappropriate the fossil record and claim it as evidence of the flood. Conjur up superduper supernatural explanations for where all the water went.
If ever there was a modern day misnomer, it is "creation science" That is like saying "supernatural mathematics".
Science 101 people. YOU CANNOT START WITH A FOREGONE CONCLUSION AND GO LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE, DISMISSING OR REDEFINING ANYTHING THAT TENDS TO LEAD AWAY FROM YOUR FOREGONE CONCLUSION. IT NO LONGER IS SCIENCE, IT IS DOGMA. THIS IS WHY SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE CALLED THEORIES, TO GIVE ROOM FOR NEW INFORMATION TO CHANGE, MODIFY OR CORRECT THE CONCLUSION. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "CREATION SCIENCE", IT IS RELIGION DRESSED UP LIKE SCIENCE , A DRAG QUEEN IF YOU WILL, PRETENDING TO BE SCIENCE. Take this knowledge and use it to think. Class dismissed.
Now, it is nothing new, this "creation science" fraud. Hell, back in the dark and middle ages if a scientist even whispered things such as "the stars don't seem to be revolving around the earth" or "I think the earth may be round" the HCIC (head christians in charge ie; the catholic church) would torture him as an infidel and he would die a excrutiating death. "creation science" is the modern day version of this time honored christian tradition of squelching the voice of science.
Why? Because the bible stories fail in the light of real science. There was no flood, the earth isn't 6000 years old,snakes donkeys and bushes can't talk, people don't raise from the dead, and an omniscient god doesn't need to create beings for the sole purpose of "glorifying" him. Omniscient beings don't get mad, don't have ego "issues", dont' seek vengence and don't kill and maim, rape and plunder, and don't get pleased from burning animal flesh.
Further, god killing himself on the cross and then rising for eternity in perfect heaven..get this....IS NOT REALLY A SACRIFICE, now is it? A real sacrifice is having your babies dashed against rocks and then your head shaved, nails cut and then raped by a middle eastern ancient hebrew man that hasn't bathed in a month, all with god's blessing.
This is just unreal that a book written by a bunch of barely literate people that condradicts itself on almost every page and is ultraviolent, cruel, misogynic, and advocating slavery could be taken as the literal word of supernatural god thousands of years later, and also attemped to be used to discredit good science.
Believe in God all you want, but when you march these books out, the Koran, the bible, etc...be ready for people to actually read them and think about what was written, not try to conform the words to a modern day society.
They are not nice books, they are not Loving and full of grace. In the inverse, they are the books that have for the last several thousand years, marched people off to kill and enslave people. Today, as we speak, people are dying thruout the world in the name of "pick you favorite god". Jews vs palestinians, American christians vs middle eastern fundies....and on and on and on. It never stops until and unless we move past this ancient, bloody, rediculous unsupportable supernatural world view.
End of rant.
Post by: GregFL on May 11, 2005, 11:56:00 PM
Post by: Deborah on May 12, 2005, 12:08:00 AM
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 01:23:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-05-06 06:26:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The authority comes from fact. God fulfilled no fewer than twenty nine specific prophecies spoken at least five hundred years earlier about him, all in one day!
He will be betrayed by a friend Psalm 41:9/Matthew 26:49
The price of his betrayal will be thirty pieces of silver Zechariah 11:12/Matthew 26:15
His betrayal money will be cast to the floor of God's temple Zechariah 11:14/ Matthew 27:5
These are only 3, but if you want more I'll type more.
Sure, give us more, because these three are all a product of backward looking wishfull thinking.
Suppose I, for example, stubbed my toe today. In my delusion state I believe I, the modern day son of god, have my events and experiences forecast in the bible and I flip thru furiously until I find a passage "and on this day, his toeth was stubbith"
Viola, A prophecy! Never mind the bible doesn't say, in the year of 2005, gregfl, a brilliant (ha) survivor of an abusive rehab,will stubbith his toeth... So sayeth the lord. Hell, it says stubbith toeth and it happened!! It isn't important that it happened to another guy in a battle 2000 years ago, it is now a prophecy! This is the mindset of those of you that have such weak faith in your own story you must search for connections that are not there.
This is what you and the other dishonest bible thumpers are doing. We must dismiss New testament Prophecy about Jesus on intellectual grounds because it was written after his death, and a prophecy written after it happens, well, is not a prophecy at all, is it?
That leaves us with old testament propecies as they relate to Jesus. Lets explore your old testament references...
you claim "he will be betrayed by a friend and cite Psalm 41. Great. We must assume you are talking about Jesus, but this passage is old testament PAUL talking about his personal life and asking god to take care of it for him.. This is intellectually dishonest wishfull thinking, backward looking frantic searching.
Prophecy is forward looking...IE: if it said And Judas will betray the Virgin born son of God in 200 years, now we would be onto something. READ YOUR BIBLE IN CONTEXT because this entire passage has NOTHING to do with Jesus.
Next, you say "his" price of betrayal will be 30 pieces of silver and cite Zechariah 11:12. Again we assume you are talking about Jesus but in this passage we now we found you have JUMPED TO YET ANOTHER GUY , they are not talking about JESUS and The betray by JUDAS at all, but instead are talking about what was occuring to Lebanon ,and relating a personal experience by and as told by Zechariah, a 'prophet' in the bible. To wit:
And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.
And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
Now, this is the 'prophet' Zechariah describing an event that happened to him. No mention of the future, but of an event occuring then and now. Then later we have new testament writers adopting this story as a prophecy, but This was not "and Judas will throw thirty coins on the floor of a temple" this was "I gave the potter at the temple 30 coins because god told me to".
Prophecy? with a bunch of creative writing and wishfull thinking..er...whatever.
Your third example is really just the second one again.
Your prophecy is just creative backward looking, and not only are you and modern day christians guilty as hell of doing this, so were the new testament writers.
Buzzkill, here is what I recommend you stop doing. Stop taking christian websites and speaker verbatim because....THEY ARE DISHONEST AS FUCK.
IF someone says ...X is a prophecy fortelling Greg Stubbing his toe in the bible. Go to the passage. Figure out who is talking about what. If indeed you find one "prophecy" that is clear and concise, indisputable and not "backward looking"..well, you may amaze even yourself.
You certainly would amaze me.
Bible prophecy is another intellectually dishonest lie told by people with an agenda.
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 01:43:00 AM
They put out non specific information and let others fine tune it for them.
The psychic like John Edwards may say " I sense a presence, a male presence, has anyone had a father die, starting with a B. IF no response is had, the get even more broad... How bout a son, an uncle, a close friend? Still no answer from the credulous...the dip further, maybe this was a child, a distant friend that use to be close? They keep ignoring their misses until they get a hit...
Dipshit Debbie pipes up, My Cousin Bruce Died in a car accident 3 years ago, and our physic says "YES, this is what I see"! He then fine tunes his "prediction" to match the reactions of his willing participant.
If he was a real psychic he would say, with a degree of accuracy, "your brother bruce is going to die tomorrow" but no, we don't hear that.
See the difference?
Lets talk about Faith Healers for a second, because they are GUILTY AS FUCK as well. A common ploy, among many ploys of these guys, is calling out non-specific healings. "Someone right now is being healed of Sugar diabetes..please come forward". Bullheaded Bettie Jumps up on stage, proclaims she is better and attributes it to this statement. Now that she is hooked, he makes her jump thru all the signs, dancing, fainting, etc. Another willing participant in a passion play of self fraud. A real Healer would make a finger or thumb grow back, and arm or leg, heal a real sick person. Same trick used but with a slight modification.
You Bible prophecy people use this same self- deluding mind trick, but you USE IT ON YOURSELVES and you are even worse because you take SPECIFIC EVENTS and twist them and ignore the context they were written in to convince yourselves of a supernatural occurance where none exists.
Now a real "prophecy wouldnt pussy foot around. It would name dates and times, people and events. You just don't see this in the bible, you only see vague backward viewing references, text taken out of context and ignored.
BULLSHIT X 10.
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 01:49:00 AM
That is funny as hell, because it makes so much sense!
Thanks for posting that.
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 12, 2005, 09:04:00 AM
Ok, I think its time we went back to taking on programs and program parents instead of people who are on our side, isn't it?
Still, nice little flamewar!
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't.
-- Anonymous
Post by: Anonymous on May 12, 2005, 12:42:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 01:03:00 PM
The point of the thread was never debate. The point was to belittle all mormons by claiming one religion the superdaddy supernatural while the other one a cult.
The later entries were a parody of this dangerous mindset that leads people now and thruout history to killing each other in the name of the lord. It is absolutely hysterical to watch someone belittle other people while professing belief in things like the genesis story. COM'N!
Amen. Now go and please god by dismembering and burning a bull on the alter. Be sure to first seperate the fat off the kidneys, or you may be Smoted!
Post by: BuzzKill on May 12, 2005, 03:59:00 PM
(stolen from the internet--author unknown)
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands
of gods claimed by other religions, but feel
outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.
I do not deny the existence of thousands of gods. I, in fact, believe in them. I just don't believe they are God. I believe they are the fallen that rebelled with Lucifer. I believe they do have "super natural" power and there by lead many astray.
9- You feel insulted and 'dehumanized' when
scientists say that people evolved from lesser life
forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim
that we were created from dirt.
I don't feel dehumanized at all - but I think that theory is in error. I can see why anyone might believe it - The gorillas seem so like us, it is difficult not to assume kinship. My personal thoughts are God gave the animals many of the attributes we'd prefer to think ours alone. (Well, not I - I delight in the wit and wisdom found among the animals - but I mean man kind in general) I think we recognize a kin ship with the great apes b/c we share the same creator. The same God that gave you courage and fidelity (if you have any) is the same God who gave it to your dog (if you have one) And is the same God who gave the great apes empathy and a sence of humor. I believe it to be a mistake to look at the similarities of design and assume this indicates one being evolved from the other. I believe what it indicates is, we all have the same designer.
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem
believing in a Trinity god.
Personally, I do not laugh at them. I believe they are worshipping actual spiritual beings. I believe these powerful and intelligent sprits delight in leading people away from the light of God and into the darkness.
The trinity is one of the more mysterious aspects of God. But it isn't false, just b/c people have difficulty understanding it.
The concept comes from the many varied verses of scripture that refer to each: the Father, Son and Holy Sprit, as God.
In my own attempts to figure it out; I have used the human hand as a model. Just as your palm, fingers and thumb each serve a different function in the operation of your hand; and all together can be correctly referred to as 'a hand' - the Triune nature of God is the Father, Son and Holy Sprit - each being individual and operating in our lives in different ways - and each being correctly referred to as God.
7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the
'atrocities' attributed to Allah, but you don't even
flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered
all the babies of Egypt in 'Exodus' and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in 'Joshua' --
including women, children, and animals!
I don't worry about Allah at all.
I do flinch at some of what I read in the OT and have wondered why such things were. I have explained my thoughts on this earlier in this thread. In short - I don't have an answer - but I trust that God does.
6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and
Greek claims about god sleeping with women, but you
have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit
impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who
got killed, came back to life and then ascended into
the sky.
Again, I do not laugh.
Nor do I think Greek and Roman "mythology" to be totally myth.
I do believe in the Virgin Birth, the Divinity of the Christ; His death for our sakes and His resurrection on the Third day - and His ascension into Heaven.
I believe if these things were not so, the disciples would never have been willing to face rack and ruin to proclaim these things far and wide.
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for
little loop-holes in the scientifically established
age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find
nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by
pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and
guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations
old.!
Personally, I don't think anyone knows how old the planet is - neither creationist or evolutionist. Very intelligent and learned men disagree on this point, so I am hardly able to argue it. I do believe those so sure the earth is billions of years old, to be as incorrect as those who think it is only 6 thousand.
4- You believe that the entire population of this
planet wi th the exception of those who share your
beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival
sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of
Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the
most 'tolerant' and 'loving'.
I am not so sure Hell is eternal. I think *maybe* one of the more awful aspects of Hell might be the knowledge that you are a spiritual being capable of everlasting life; but that it will instead be brought to an end. Jesus speaks of Hell as the outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. I think *maybe* this is the result of deep regret at the soul's eternal separation from God - weather or not the soul exist in Hell eternally. I do believe there is a Hell - but I personally feel the nature of it is (for the time being) open to debate. I wonder if Dante might have been onto something, and that there are circles of Hell, Just as there will be different degrees of reward for those in Heaven.
I never claimed Christianity was tolerant. It should be loving, and if it isn't then something is wrong and needs fixing - but there is much that should not be tolerated with in the church.
3- While modern science, history, geology, biology,
and physics have failed to convince you otherwise,
some idiot rolling around on the floor, speaking in
'tongues,' may be all the evidence you need.
Myself, I would be concerned for the overtaken roller, that they are not taken over by the Holy Sprit. I do believe speaking in unknown languages to be a genuine gift of the Holy Sprit - but the demonic can manage this too; and when you read how this gift manifested in the early church, and compare it to what often takes place today - Well, I fear many are fooled by evil sprits. I have seen things in churchs that gave me a very uncomfortable feeling and I do not think it was God acting upon those people. I think many are seeking after an experience rather than God - and so they get an experience that isn't God. But, I do think there is a genuine gift, and I have seen it and believed.
I also tend to believe history and science and so on. These things have nothing to do with the other.
2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it
comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be
evidence that prayer works. And you think that the
remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
I don't know what my own personal success rate is - but I have seen prayer answered and I have seen miracles. Not only do I believe Prayer works, I believe it to be tremendously powerful and far to little utilized by most Christians. God does sometimes say no. And sometimes the prayers are answered in such a way that it is only in looking back that you can see how God worked things out; and sometimes there are miracles.
1- You actually know a lot less than many Atheists
and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and
church history -- but still call yourself a
"Christian."
This is far to often true. This is why the average cultist can so easily recruit members from the Christian denominations.
I don't doubt that you are better able to quote chapter and verse (never a skill of mine) and I am sure you are generally a lot smarter ( I feel somewhat like a donkey on the track with a thoroughbred. I plod along at a steady enough pace for a donkey; but I can't match the rapid pace you set) Even so, I do know what I believe and why.
I think you are being willfully blind, and you think I am a deluded fool.
So, we are at an impass.
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 04:17:00 PM
Post by: BuzzKill on May 12, 2005, 04:27:00 PM
I'm curious tho, have you never had any kind of spiritual experience? Anything that defied a natural explanation? Never seen or heard anything that made you wonder?
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 04:29:00 PM
Someone else posted that list Buzzkill. There are several Anon posters in here not in support of what you have posted, but understandably many atheists are "not out of the closet" because of the extreme societal prejudice on those not believing in hocus pocus.
Doubt it?
Check out this....posted by another anon poster here.
"If you find an Atheist in your neighborhood,
TELL A PARENT OR PASTOR RIGHT AWAY!
You may be moved to try and witness to
these poor lost souls yourself, however
AVOID TALKING TO THEM!
Atheists are often very grumpy and bitter and will lash out at children or they may even try to trick you into neglecting God's Word.
Very advanced witnessing techniques are needed for these grouches. Let the adults handle them."
http://objective.jesussave.us/kidz.html (http://objective.jesussave.us/kidz.html)
This is not an isolated person posting this hate, either. There are churchs and websites advocating the rounding up and inprisonment of atheists in this country. Further, our ex president even said Atheists don't deserve ANY RIGHTS in this country.
Thank god for the constitution, or whatever is left of it anyway...
Another example of DANGEROUS RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS and why atheists are scared to come out of the closet...
http://www.tencommandments.org/heathens.shtml (http://www.tencommandments.org/heathens.shtml)
to wit:
"Atheism is so heinous and does so much harm that there is desperate need for legislation against it. It is not an ideology, philosophy or demonic religion which should be allowed to exist and flourish in any society. Every atheist should be regarded as high criminals by all governments who have no right to live on the earth"
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 04:31:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 13:27:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"I have explained as best I can why I believe Greg. It won't serve as proof for you and that's beyond my control. If I could produce proof that would satisfy you I would - but of corse I can't.
I'm curious tho, have you never had any kind of spiritual experience? Anything that defied a natural explanation? Never seen or heard anything that made you wonder?"
I never said proof, I said evidence. They are wholey two different things.
And first you must define "spiritual". It is a term bantered around by the religious that has a moving definition. Define the word for me and I will answer your question.
Post by: Anonymous on May 12, 2005, 05:33:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 05:37:00 PM
Starting with last first "have I ever seen anything that made me wonder"?
I would have to ask.."wonder about what"? because of course things make me wonder..the birth of my kids, the concept of infinity, negative numbers, mean spirited people, many things make me wonder.
But I am going to assume you mean "wonder about the supernatural" and the answer is yes.
but In order to explain, you must understand my journey from SPIRITUAL christian to atheist. Here goes.
I was never much of a believer as a child. In fact, I used to skip sunday school by getting in the back of the line when called out of church, and then stopping while everyone else continued along to class. Then I would run down to the lake and catch tadpoles. This usually ended with a spanking, but to me it was worth it. Most of my childhood was spent not being forced to go to church.
Fastwarded to age 14. I was an intellectual if troubled kid and By this age I had read many novels including Moby Dick, Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, and the entire works of Edgar Allen Poe. I was a science Junkie and a space race follower. I had little doubt that god existed but didn't really know why, only that everyone I knew believed and it must be true.
I suddenly found myself in drug rehab and underwent a phsychological "reconditioning" that had an effect on me that I was aware of but wasn't allowed to even question. I set my brain on autopilot and figured I would sort it out later. During this very time my father and his wife started attending "foursquare penecostal church" and started lobbying for me to attend along with my sister. They had to get special permission from the Seed but eventually the seed allowed it and we started attending service.
Initially I was horrified but intriqued by what I saw. People were babbling and yelling out in nonsensical fashion things that could not be understood and falling down, fainting, etc. Immediately pressure was put on me to "go forward and accept the lord". I hedged. For several weeks I hedged, but eventually the pressure, the faint pushes from behind during the calls, the "Greg will go when the lord calls him" comments, all together worked on my brain enough that one day after the pushes and pressure, I succumbed and went up, nelt down and the preacher "layed hands on me" and called for the "holy spirit" to enter my body. i started crying and actually babled out some nonsense in "toungues" and had a genuine physical sense of something entering my body.
WOW. I was "saved". Emotionally I felt it but intellectually I HAD TO KNOW MORE. All these things going on around me were certainly signs of a supernatural world, and I became convinced the Rapture was going to happen ANY MINUTE. I accepted that our church was god's chosen people and we all were going to heaven in the rapture.
This was the summer before 9th grade. I got a Bible and opened it up and started reading. I read from page one and stopped at the end of revelations. My bullshit alarm was on rapid fire and I started going thru, comparing passages from one book to the next, studying bible prophesy and generally giving the bible a good skeptical review, paying particular attention to our church's particular obsession, the rapture. What I found to my horror that the bible DID NOT support what they were saying, and that in fact the rapture was more akin to a bad acid trip than a prophecy that applied to the 1970s.
During this journey for the truth, I realized that the god of the bible was not as represented in the church, and I stopped believing totally.
The whole schmeel took about maybe, three weeks. I, after reading the bible, KNEW that something was deeply wrong with the dogma going on at church, and the bible itself was inherently flawed and not as represented. I also observed that if the belief inn God was based on this book, there was no reason to believe in God.
What I didn't understand was the phsycological events that occured at that church. Understanding came much later in life.
As I got older I tried to engage christians in intellectual debate and came across wall after wall of hate, damnation, and isolation and ostraciation. My atheism was used against me in my divorce. I came to understand that it is not really the belief so much that drives people to be christians, but the societal pressure to fit in to normal society. Don't believe and people don't allow their kids over your house, don't go to your business, and whisper about you behind your back. Proclaim your belief, and people leave you alone.
I must admit in certain periods of my life, this pressure to be a part of society overwhelmed my integrity, so I just lied. I lied to my wife, my kids, my business associates, and proclaimed a belief I didn't have.
This is no longer true. My father barely speaks to me because of my views.
I am an atheist. I am proud of this because it requires integrity and a brain to be an atheist.The term Atheist means "not a theist". It is not a religion, a group, a club, a thought system. It is merely lack of belief in supernatural god. We are all atheistic towards The many gods, I just include one more.....YOURS.
I do NOT believe in anything supernatural because I see no evidence that overrides logical explanations. So, saying that, BUZKILL, when you assume the supernatural, I ask for evidence. Not proof, evidence. When the evidence sways in your direction, I will believe you. So far your evidence is merely dogma, and you use the bible as evidence of the bible.
I hope this helps you understand where I am coming from.
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 05:49:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 14:33:00, Anonymous wrote:
"greg, how do you eplain the prophecies of Christ written 400 years before His birth being so accurate? The Anon posted some of them and statistics that show that it couldn't just be coincidence."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ANSWERED THE ONES POSTED. They are not prophesy, go back and read the passages in context.
Jeeus..you guys are so dogmatic, you ignore everything that tends to lead you towards rationality.
Statistics show no such thing. You can't jump from illogical association to statistical improbablity, the two things aren't compatible. You see prophesy because you want to and because it is in the interest of christians, in absense of anything logical to justify their beliefs, to invent associations wher they don't exist. Further, the New testament writers had the old testament available and were quite capable of inventing events or "adjusting" events to correspond with the old testament. Now, if the bible wasn't chock full of contradictions on events, I would say that wasn't likely, but the bible cannot even agree on things such as what happened at Easter!
SHOW ME THE MONEY. "prophecy" is just a fancy way of saying they predicted the future with clarity and accuracy. Show the passage that does this, and explain it by looking forward, not backward. Eliminate all other possible explanations and you may have something.
Bible prophesy is akin to Nostradamous prophecy. It is all vague and open to very loose interpretation. READ YOUR BIBLE ANON.
Post by: Antigen on May 12, 2005, 06:36:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 14:33:00, Anonymous wrote:
"greg, how do you eplain the prophecies of Christ written 400 years before His birth being so accurate? The Anon posted some of them and statistics that show that it couldn't just be coincidence."
That's easy. What happened at the height of the Roman Empire was pretty predictable to whomever might know how the Sphynx and pyramids really came about. The Christ of the Bible was not unique in any way. There were a growing number of polular rebels in those days, just as there are now. The way this all works, I think it's very likely that, after the next dark age, the messiah will look a whole like like OBL.
And yes, numerous religions also predict a noble martyr coming any time now who is remarkably like OBL.
Truth does not have to be accepted on faith. Scientists do not hold hands every Sunday, singing, "Yes gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! Amen.
--Dan Barker, former evangelist and author
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 06:54:00 PM
Thats right folks....Christianity lifted this idea from the pagans, along with just about every other myth they engage in.
Engage brain..think....reject dogma...learn the truth.
Here is a starting place..a story that far predates the new testament and possible source of the christ myth
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm (http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm)
"Horus of Egypt
The stories of Jesus and Horus are very similar, with Horus even contributing the name of Jesus Christ. Horus and his once-and-future Father, Osiris, are frequently interchangeable in the mythos ("I and my Father are one").41 The legends of Horus go back thousands of years, and he shares the following in common with Jesus:
Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger42, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.43
He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old.44
Horus was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes "John the Baptist."
He had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
He walked on water.
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc.
He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish ("Ichthys").45
Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father.
Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story.
In fact, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis - the original "Madonna and Child"48 - and the Vatican itself is built upon the papacy of Mithra49, who shares many qualities with Jesus and who existed as a deity long before the Jesus character was formalized. The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version it replaced50. Virtually all of the elements of the Catholic ritual, from miter to wafer to water to altar to doxology, are directly taken from earlier pagan mystery religions.
Post by: Antigen on May 12, 2005, 07:28:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 15:54:00, GregFL wrote:
Virtually all of the elements of the Catholic ritual, from miter to wafer to water to altar to doxology, are directly taken from earlier pagan mystery religions..
And heres some research and reporting on that:
http://www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com ... rmacratic/ (http://www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com/nontesters/pharmacratic/)
It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep
the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages.
--Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798
Post by: BuzzKill on May 12, 2005, 07:56:00 PM
Post URL: http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... 130#102324 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=9422&forum=9&start=130#102324)
Thank you for explaining all this.
I am sorry for the hate and rancor you have come up against. This is not how Christians are supposed to behave toward others; believers or not; and I regret that it is so common.
When I say my best friends have been agnostic or atheist I mean it. Its the truth. Some still are. None were ever shy about it.
My own story is actually similar in some ways.
Not unlike yourself - I would much rather catch tad poles than go to Sunday School - or any kind of school.
The church I grew up in was really more akin to a social club than a Christian Church.
In my teens I took an interest in the occult (tho I didn't know then, that was what it was)and took up various related activities. I became known as the girl who could read palms. I had a very active and energetic Ouija board. Sometimes we got rapid fire answers - with the thing moving so quickly we could not keep out fingers on it. After a while - simply holding my hand over the board was enough to get responses. Sometimes it just rocked back and forth never actually stopping on any letters - and several times flew across the room and hit the wall.
This scared me, b/c it was so clearly not a game and I knew it wasn't Me doing these things.
Then the haunting (for lack of a better term) began.
I thought I was loosing my mind. I was fairly calm about it - just figured I'd eventually snap and that would be that. Its amazing to me now - looking back - what I took so calmly as evidence I was psychotic.
Then one night when the whispering and giggling began in the hall, I realized my dog could hear it. She was very afraid of it - trembling and sniffing the air. I shoved her with my foot - and told her to go get 'em - and she curled up into a tighter ball against me and wouldn't budge. This upset me.
Far better to be crazy than to have what ever This was going on!
In response, I started reading my Bible.
I had never not believed. I was just typically ignorant.
As a result of what I had been experiencing, I knew the super natural was real. I wanted to learn more about it, and how it related to the Bible.
My walk has been steady since then, and I feel I now understand pretty well what was going on in my home and why - and that it is not something a Christian ought to have anything to do with.
As for the gifts of the Holy Sprit - I use 1st Corinthians, chapters 12, 13 & 14 as my guide.
Anything that presents itself in a way disruptive to the edification of the people is not God. I fear many a Christian is being lead astray and ought to be praying for the gift of discernment; rather than the gift of tongues.
My concern for you Greg (if you care) would be that you were taken into a congregation that was enthralled by the super natural; sought out this particular manifestation; and wasn't exactly discerning about what spirit brought it about.
And there you were, under the stress of the seed crap - already conditioned to go with the flow and wanting to please. *Maybe* you were open to the influence of spirits that did not have your best interest at heart. *Maybe* that is why when you opened the Bible and read, you found yourself influenced to view all you read threw a negative lens.
Have you read much CS Lewis? I really like some of his work. I believe "The Screwtape Letters" to be inspired.
He sums up in the preface, the two mistakes so often made by men on the subject of demons:
There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail the materialist or the magician with the same delight.
People can make similar mistakes about the nature of God. They center on what, from their point of view, is harsh and hateful, and so turn away. Or, they see Him as loving and forgiving to the point they think there is no judgment for sin - the teddy bear in the sky syndrome. God is in reality far beyond any man's ability to contemplate. He has reveled Himself to us threw the prophets and threw Jesus, the Christ. You can know Him; tho not perfictly; And you will have a warped and incorrect knowledge of God, if you only considered either the judgment or the mercy of God.
For Greg and Ginger:
I couldn't disagree more strongly with your judgment of the prophets. I'm sure there is little point to belaboring the issue - but the prophecies are very detailed and exact, and not at all arbitrary or easily guessed.
Greg, some of your criticism has been that what I call prophecy, was really only an event in the life of the prophet. Your right to a point - lots of prophecy is like that - but it is still prophetic about events to come. That's why it was written down, and not just lived and forgotten. For example: the 22ed Psalm. This was written by David, in response to his own problems and troubles. However, in it, he gives us the lament of the Messiah, as He suffers for our sakes; and describes the torments of crucifixion perfectly; long, long before the Romans put the practice into use. He even describes the Roman solders diving up His clothes; gambling for His robe.
I feel this is ample evidence. This, is all the proof I need.
Oh, about the Pagan infiltration into Christianity - I know. I do not agree that it runs as deep as you are saying - but certainly there is much that takes place in church and in Christian celebration that has a Pagan origin.
Post by: Anonymous on May 12, 2005, 07:59:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 08:01:00 PM
All these years I wondered.
:grin:
Post by: Anonymous on May 12, 2005, 08:10:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 08:11:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 16:59:00, Anonymous wrote:
"greg, do you even believe in Jesus as a historical figure? You know, a real person that truly lived about 2000 years ago?"
Nope.
Evidence supports the entire christian religion as a compilation of ancient myths. Further, the christ/Jesus myth has ancient roots that predate the new testament.
question for you..do you ever actually read what I write? If not, why not? Have you looked at the links I have provided? Do you agree or disagree? Do you have specific comments? Are the links good points or total fabrication? Do you believe "all atheists are high criminals?
Is this a discussion, or do you just occasionally throw some dogma at me and hope it sticks?
Here I go again..even tho this feels like a one sided brain drain, I will play; Christianity appears to be an amalgamation of Pagan myths that the christians adopted to assimilate the conquered into. Since I don't subscribe to dogma, this is just a theory of mine based on all information I have gleaned to date, including reading the bible several times cover to cover and also studying individual chapters in todo. However, this theory of mine is subject to change with new information. Provide me with some evidence that tends to disprove my theory,and thank you in advance for the intellectual discourse.
Post by: Anonymous on May 12, 2005, 08:15:00 PM
Post by: Antigen on May 12, 2005, 08:19:00 PM
I think there really was a single dude like that, but he wasn't the only one. He was just the one most mentioned in years to come and probably attributed w/ the acts and legends of a lot of different guys. Sort of an amalgam.
I think the Jesus Christ described in the Christian bible is no more or less real than Robin Hood.
What is a committee? A group of the unwilling, picked from the unfit, to do the unnecessary.
-- Richard Harkness, The New York Times, 1960
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Drug war POW
Seed `71 - `80
Straight, Sarasota
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
return undef() if /coercion/i;
Post by: Anonymous on May 12, 2005, 08:28:00 PM
Post by: Antigen on May 12, 2005, 08:32:00 PM
So Plato and Aristotle are pretty easy to swollow. This other character, well we like Paul Bunyan and Davie Crocket. And there may even have been people by those names. But do we have to believe that the one was 20 feet tall and the other a time traveler?
Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1500 years.
--John Adams, U.S. President
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Drug war POW
Seed `71 - `80
Straight, Sarasota
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
return undef() if /coercion/i;
Post by: Anonymous on May 12, 2005, 08:40:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 08:41:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 16:56:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"Responding to this:
Post URL: http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... 130#102324 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=9422&forum=9&start=130#102324)
For example: the 22ed Psalm. This was written by David, in response to his own problems and troubles. However, in it, he gives us the lament of the Messiah, as He suffers for our sakes; and describes the torments of crucifixion perfectly; long, long before the Romans put the practice into use. He even describes the Roman solders diving up His clothes; gambling for His robe.
I feel this is ample evidence. This, is all the proof I need.
Thanks for sharing your story. Buzzkill, You can believe in spirits and demons , ghosts and gods and angels all you want, that is your perogative, but to ask others to believe more than testimony is usually required.
And as far as your prophecy quote goes, with all due respect Buzzkill, here you go again. This passage describes all of Paul's fears, including being killed by Bears, stabbed by a sword,the Lions mouth, the horn of the UNICORN, and yes, of course, nailed to a cross. Criminals and heretics were routinely nailed to crosses. Just because someone from the old testament fears this, IT IS NOT A PROPHECY FOR JESUS. In fact, it speaks of a time when all would know this god, NEVER ONCE MENTIONING THE SON OF GOD. In addition, it talks of Fearing god, not a merciful god. This prophecy FAILS and again is backward looking.
Where does it say Jesus or the son of god will be in 400 years hung from a cross? The answer is it doesn't. This isn't prophecy, this is again Wishfull thinking. READ THE PASSAGE IN CONTEXT and stop trying to fit a square into a circle.
Further, PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE OF UNICORNS EXISTING. Is there a fossil record?
Oh my, it never ends.
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 08:47:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 17:40:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Would you be open to reviewing historical evidence, not supplied by a religious person, but by scientists and historians, that supported the fact that Jesus was a real man that walked the earth, had a following and was crucified?"
Can you not read? I SAID BRING IT. First, keep in mind that even proving he existed does not prove he is supernatural, any more than proving Joseph Smith existed proves he is a prophet of god. Second, I am going to do you a favor , Don't, I repeat, Don't, fall into the trap of quoting these sources.
NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES
Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.
Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus got born in 37 C.E., after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E. after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.
Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which got written around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although there occur many disputes as to the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happend after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, it can only provide us with hearsay accounts.
Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. who mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ." But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius birth occurred after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.
Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.
The above sources get quoted the most as "evidence" for Jesus by Christians. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian), some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (cira 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - cira 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (cira 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). All these people got born well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.
As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply looking at the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of the post writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves
(the above is a cut and paste, not my words.)
Post by: Anonymous on May 12, 2005, 08:48:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 08:51:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 17:28:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Do believe Plato and Aristotle were actual people that lived and breathed on the earth? If so, why? What evidence did it take to convince you of that? typing this sounds harsh, but i do not mean it to be. I am just trying to put more than one question in a post."
Do I think they existed? Yes. There are books they wrote. There are independent corroborations they existed during their lifetime by non partial sources. There are no Supernatural claims like "they rose from the dead" and "they were born of a virgin". there are other reasons that would lead me to believe they existed.
However, that being said, if you have some NEW information that tends to discredit that, I am willing to change my thought on this. Are you willing to critically examine whether Jesus existed or not?
And no, it doesn't sound harsh. In fact, it is a very old apologetics argument.
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 08:52:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 17:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I can't find unicorns in my Bible. Could you please give me the book, chapter and verse?"
Anon, in all due respect, you aren't reading very well. I was responding to a direct passage given to me by Buzzkill...Psalm 22.
Also, use a non apologetic version of the bible..try the King James Version. Some of these new bibles are editing out the FUN mean evil stuff.
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 09:00:00 PM
Unicorns
Job 39:9-12
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
Deuteronomy 33:17
His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
Numbers 24
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
and of course, the aforementions Psalm 22. There are posibly more. The bible also contains a race of giants, the offspring of angels sneaking down to have sex with women!!!!
Post by: Anonymous on May 12, 2005, 09:00:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 12, 2005, 09:05:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 09:06:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 17:15:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I have met lots of people that do not believe that Jesus is the Christ, but I can't say that I have ever met anyone that believes he never even existed as a man. "
Im sure you have. Most well read non-believers don't engage the ill informed in debate on these matters. All it does is get you hated.
But this is the internet!!! In person, people would be yelling, crying, praying, and locking their doors.
Long live the internet.
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 09:07:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 18:05:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Thanks for the references. I will check other translations. There really is no need to be sarcastic or belittling. I am impressed with your's and Buzz's knowledge, but Buzz's grace."
no surprise there.
But thank you too!
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 09:24:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 18:00:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I appreciate the respect given. My Bible says bulls and wild oxen. I first went to Psalm 22. I will check other translations. Thanks"
some of the newer versions are editing out 'controversial' passages or outright changing them.
How honest is that? What does it say about the bible being the word of god?
Post by: Anonymous on May 12, 2005, 09:31:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 12, 2005, 09:39:00 PM
Anyways, as for evolution. I think that evolution is the most plausible. All animals and creatures are seperated into groups/genus/etc. Why would animals be related to each other if they did not evolve from a similar organism?
Human DNA apparently has very similar qualities to primates, which is why humans are in the family (I guess XD). We are homosapiens, right?
Anyways, the thought that god created everything doesn't make sense. Why would he create things that have died out and others have come from those? Like a lot of the animals around today never used to exsist way back when, they just came about recently.
You can see examples of evolution in simple adaptation. Animals will adapt to their surroundings (except for humans of course) and this happens right now. It doesn't take millions of years for it to adapt, it would take it millions to evolve completely though.
Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that I don't buy that god created everyone. Even if he did, he obviously included evolution into the picture.
Post by: Anonymous on May 12, 2005, 09:40:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 18:31:00, Anonymous wrote:
"greg, I have met one Christian that is as well versed and knowledged as you. I am hoping he will join this discussion. I would love to read the debate! Hopefully this can continue. I have to go, but will be back tomorrow. Again thanks!"
Cya!
Post by: Antigen on May 12, 2005, 09:53:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 18:24:00, GregFL wrote:
On 2005-05-12 18:00:00, Anonymous wrote:
What does it say about the bible being the word of god?
Maybe "the kingdom of God is within you" really means, litterally, "get over yourselves, it's all in your heads!"Patient memoirs are a kind of protest literature like slave narratives or witness testimonies.
Anonymity Anonymous (http://fornits.com/anonanon)
return undef() if /coercion/i;
Post by: BuzzKill on May 12, 2005, 10:38:00 PM
I don't know what animal was actually being described but I could ask some Jewish friends if they can give any insight.
Greg (and Ginger)- I disagree :wink: But you know that, don't you.
For me, the 22ed psalms is pure and profound prophecy. It seems so clear to me, it is hard to believe you or anyone could dismiss it - but you do; and so do many others. I don't. For me, it is very real evidence that Jesus not only existed but that He is who He claimed to be. Isaiah 53 as well - and so many others.
Why do you think the men who wrote the New Testament did so? If it is all myth & lies, why would they be willing to die for it? If they had not seen these things (and I believe they did) where would they get the courage to publicly proclaim the Gospel message; when it meant persecution and death - These same men who had run scared before the resurrection, are afterwards preaching in the streets a risen Christ. Why?
I am sure you have some kind of response diametrically opposed to my view point; but for me, this too, is solid evidence Jesus was; and was who He claimed to be.
Post by: Antigen on May 12, 2005, 10:47:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 19:38:00, BuzzKill wrote:
For me, the 22ed psalms is pure and profound prophecy. It seems so clear to me, it is hard to believe you or anyone could dismiss it - but you do; and so do many others. I don't. For me, it is very real evidence that Jesus not only existed but that He is who He claimed to be.
Karen, that makes no sense. I've got a book here that, in chapter one, suggests that twins might be psychic. Then in chapter 22, by God the twins in this novel demostrate psychic ability! Does that prove anything at all?
No, it doesn't, it's self referencing. All your example proves is that the people who spun the tales in the New Testament had read and generally believed the Old Testament.
But what difference does it make anyway? I think religion has it's place, but it's essentially legand and mythology. Our legendary heros manifest all that we aspire to and our legendary villans serve the opposite purpose. That's all good and useful and fine, so long as you don't take it too, too seriously. You should never trust a person's intentions or integrity simply because they tell you the fairy tales you like to hear. That would be taking it too seriously.
If you think yourself too wise to involve
yourself in government, you will be governed
by those too foolish to govern.
--Plato
Post by: Antigen on May 12, 2005, 10:50:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 19:38:00, BuzzKill wrote:
If it is all myth & lies, why would they be willing to die for it?
If that's a good argument for Christianity, is it a good argument for radical Islam?
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
--Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor
Post by: BuzzKill on May 12, 2005, 11:33:00 PM
It may not be a good argument - but it is significant to me.
As for the psalms, I just don't see it that way Ginger. The writers of the New Testament had no influence on Rome devising crucifixion; or what David described in his lament.
I'm logging off tonight. I'll look back in tomorrow.
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 11:35:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 19:38:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"I actually prefer the translations that mention the Unicorn.
Me too. It gives a fantasy element to a fantasy book.
Quote
For me, the 22ed psalms is pure and profound prophecy. It seems so clear to me, it is hard to believe you or anyone could dismiss it ......
I didn't dismiss it, I went searching for a rational explanation for your claim. Unfortunately it leads away from the supernatural.
22 psalm seems clear to you because you want it to be. I have gone back and read the text in context in 5 different versions of the bible. In fact, your basic premise that it was written prior to cruxifictions in history and thereby evidence of a supernatural prediction of the future is flawed. It was not. In fact, Rome had been cruxifying Jews for many man years prior to the writing of the new testament.
cruxifictions in history predate the bible by many hundreds of years and this particular myth predates even the old testament, that is, a god as man dying and rising to heaven from the dead.
cruxifictions in history..this has been verified to at least 330 years before jesus:
"Though born in a dungeon, Krishna was said to be of royal descent. He is said to have descended into Hades before returning to Yiacontna. One of his names is ?the Good Shepherd?. An Indian prophet , Nared Saphos, or Wisdom, visited him, consulted the stars, and pronounced him a celestial being. He cured a leper; a woman poured some ointment on his head, and was cured of her disease. Fellow shepherds chose him to be their king, and he washed the feet of Brahmins. He had a dreadful fight with the serpent Caluga. He was crucified between two thieves, went to hell, and afterwards to heaven??
http://livingheritage.org/babylon.htm (http://livingheritage.org/babylon.htm)
In actuality, it isn't even an original idea to christianity but instead was a common pagan god/myth. cruxifiction and ascenction into heaven.
What is very suspect of your premise that psalm 22 is a prediction of the future is that viewed from the old testament forward there is no prediction of the son of god at all, no evidence of a future, nothing. It is someone relating their fears, but from the new testament backward several phrases are directly lifted such as "why hath tho foresaken thee". What this indicates is that the new testament writers were trying to match their fable to existing text and instead of being evidence of a supernatural prediction, instead becomes evidence of human creative writing in the new testament, written many many years after Jesus's supposed death with the old testament as source material and also after the likely deaths of the apostles as well, if they existed. This is why apostalistic accounts in the bible sometimes refer to themselves in third person, because they didn't write them! Or if they existed, and they wrote them, they were in their 90s, and the average age in the first century was 35 years old. what is blantantly obvious is that something is amiss here.
If you remove your dogma for a minute and really attempt to understand what I just said, you will perhaps understand what probably occured here. That the christian warrior sect grew and as they conquered neighbors and attempted to assimilate the pagan people into their religion, that they created a myth based on Pagan religions is not surprising at all.
Quote
Why do you think the men who wrote the New Testament did so?
I have explained this above.
Quote
If they had not seen these things (and I believe they did) where would they get the courage to publicly proclaim the Gospel message; when it meant persecution and death - These same men who had run scared before the resurrection, are afterwards preaching in the streets a risen Christ. Why?
There is no historical evidence this is true. What there is historical evidence of is that some 60 years after Christ's supposed death, these things started to be written down. But during and immediately after Christ's alleged life, there is no independent contemporary historical sources. None save a few fraudulent passages inserted into texts. this is highly suspect.
But lets entertain for a moment it is true..why would they do it? I can answer like this...
why do modern day muslims strap bombs to their bodies and fly planes into buildings? Is this solid evidence of their god?
Why did Joseph Smith take the time to write the mormon bible? Is this evidence of his divinity?
Why did Kamakazi pilots pray to their god, strap themselves into planes and take a one way trip into american ships? Did this validate the Japanese Belief that they were go to heaven upon impact?
These are all examples of the extremes people go to in the name of god. Your god deserves no special pleading. Because one does something is in no way evidence of righteousness.
Post by: GregFL on May 12, 2005, 11:39:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 19:47:00, Antigen wrote:
"Quote
On 2005-05-12 19:38:00, BuzzKill wrote:
For me, the 22ed psalms is pure and profound prophecy. It seems so clear to me, it is hard to believe you or anyone could dismiss it - but you do; and so do many others. I don't. For me, it is very real evidence that Jesus not only existed but that He is who He claimed to be.
Karen, that makes no sense. I've got a book here that, in chapter one, suggests that twins might be psychic. Then in chapter 22, by God the twins in this novel demostrate psychic ability! Does that prove anything at all?
No, it doesn't, it's self referencing. All your example proves is that the people who spun the tales in the New Testament had read and generally believed the Old Testament.
"
Bingo! and like I said, looking back you can match...looking forward you cannot. This is true of all books and of all "prophecy". Again, real future predictions aren't clocked in extreme ambiquity. You can "prove" anything you want by frantically searching backwards for matching references.
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 11:13:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-05-12 16:56:00, BuzzKill wrote:
. *Maybe* you were open to the influence of spirits that did not have your best interest at heart. *Maybe* that is why when you opened the Bible and read, you found yourself influenced to view all you read threw a negative lens.
Have you read much CS Lewis...
He sums up in the preface, the two mistakes so often made by men on the subject of demons:
There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils.
Yes, I have read some CS Lewis Buzzkill. I find it interesting in the context it is written but no very different than modern day thought stopping christian apologetic arguments. He seeks to prove the bible with the bible.
So in the final analysis, this is your thesis, It was a devil or demon thrusting those people down in the church, making them profess Jesus as their savior and asking the "holy spirit" into their lives? and this demon caused me to read the bible "thru a negative lens".
My dear Lady, please. My world is not occupied by evil spirits, ghosts, goblins, demons, angels, or gods. These are all the intellectual property of the credulous. You are the one guility of reading the bible thru a lens, but it is rose colored and painted with the film of illogic and unreason.
I demand credible evidence before I accept anything and rarely accept anything at face value. The bible was an exception because I was young and I had experienced a physical phenomena and people were sharing the experience around me. When I set out to read it, I did so from the vantage point of a "saved" christian. I wanted to know EVERYTHING about Jesus and God, and I fully expected to find evidence to support what I was hearing from these people, fully expected to find bible prophecy indicating support for Isreal's reestablishment and shortly thereafter the world would experience rapture. I did what most christians never have, I read the bible IN CONTEXT. It seemed important to me at the time, and whatwith being socially isolated, I had the time. No supernatural being led me thru the bible, on the inverse, my very real ability to reason and draw conclusions based on evidence came into play. What I found was a god very different from what I was told he was, and ancient myths that were impossible, cruel and mean, and downright silly, and supposed "prophecy" that turned out to be mere wishfull thinking and fraudulent. The more I read the more I realized the whole thing was made up just as the Roman and greek gods that preceeded him.
I am a science Junkie, always have been. No, I am not a scientist but I believe in the scientific method. This method closely resembles one of my life philosophies.. skepticism. Skepticism sounds NEGATIVE, but really it is a life affirming POSITIVE way to view everything. You take absolute foregone conclusions and throw them out the window. You look at everything and try to arrive at truth based on the evidence available.
You may see a story of Jesus on a piece of toast for example and automatically see "jesus" or a "demon" at work. Immediately this piece of toast moves out of the natural world and into the supernatural realm..
I, on the other hand, look for all possible explanations, and look for the simpilist most likely explanation. How many pieces of toast are there in the world?(many) How many christians?(many) Is there a phenomena that causes people to see familiar things in abstract objects and designs (yes)? Is there an actual magical being called Jesus? (inconclusive)would he be likely to manifest himself on a piece of burnt rye bread?(not likely). Are their fraudulent images and artifacts of Jesus in the world?(yes). How many (Mucho).
Conclusion...this is highly unlikely to be true. Notice "highly unlikely" because room is always allowed for new information.
This is a way of training your brain to think, Buzzkill. You have not critically examined one piece of information I, Ginger, Nithalantic (by the way, I just went back and read your posts on earlier pages..around 5...most excellent !) or any of the anon posters have brought up. YOu haven't resolved the inhumanity, the contradictions, the competing myths that predate and resemble the Jesus story. Instead, you throw them out and embrace the bible "feelgoodie" stories or dismiss them as "mysteries" never considering the ramifications of the nature of god that advocates and demands murder, rape and slavery. You take "prophecy" at face value without coming to terms with the loose means of backward assocation and never consider that the writers of the new testament had these texts as their blueprint. I could go on and on.
Meanwhile, I have taken each and every piece of "proof IE: prophecy" you have thrown out and shown you a logic valid explanation as to how this is likely not supernatural but wishfull assocation and creative writing. You have ignored it.
In the final analysis, this thread was very interesting to me, and I hope to you. What I got out of it was that the credulous really just want to prothelise and aren't interested in intellectual discourse. You and your anon poster share this trait. Someone will spend great time to engage you with well thought out arguments, and you come back with shallow and hollow responses.
It may be time to move on. I hope if nothing else, you will understand when you make supernatural proclamations, that the proclamation itself is not evidence of the supernatural, and that the supernatural realm you base your entire life on is dismissed by many many more people than you previously thought. The accuracy of the bible is not a foregone conclusion, and calling competing religions cults because they don't follow your supernatural book verbatim is arrogant and unfair.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 13, 2005, 11:22:00 AM
I personally do not believe, as you do, that the gospel accounts of Christ's crucifixion were written to describe the 22ed psalm; Or Isaiah 53; But I knew you would make that argument with regard to the words from the cross and the solders gambling. What for me is undeniable evidence of the Holy Spirit's influencing the words of David, is the accurate description of the pains of crucifixion - long before anyone was crucified and able to report first hand what it was like; some One Thousand Years before Jesus was walking the streets of Jerusalem.
In my opinion, your comparing the disciples to Joseph Smith or Mohamed is considerably flawed. The disciples were relating first hand accounts that were very likely to get them arrested, tortured and murdered. There was no earthly reason to do this. No power or wealth would result.
The same can not be said of the others you list.
The comparison with the radical Islamist seems especially absurd to me. They seek out their own deaths so as to cause death for many more. The disciples did no such thing - they sought to bring life; and were willing to face painful death to do it. I contend they would not have done this for a lie or a myth.
The kamikazes? Well, judging from the accounts given by Japanese survivors of WWII, they mostly didn't want to do that- but their culture was such that they faced ruined if they didn't - so they more or less had no choice. So, this ia also an inapropreate comparison.
Frankly, I don't think there is anything to compare with the change in the disciples behavior after the resurrection.
Something changed them. Something sudden and radical, that turned a bunch of trembling, frightened, defeated men, into bold, unwavering, proclaimers of the Gospel. In my opinion, that something is the fact of the Risen Lord.
Greg, you seem to put a lot of faith in the late dating of the gospel accounts. I can't think why. It seems understandable enough to me that the first (and so oldest) accounts would be pretty much disintegrated by the passing of time. I don't think we can expect to be able to find them; or to prove their age if we did. When the various books were written, and by whom, is a topic of constant debate. Personally, I feel the authors can be believed - and I do believe them. I don't much care when they wrote - but I don't believe it was at as late a date as your sources claim.
As to the Unicorn - there is a great deal of debate on what the animal actually was; tho it is understandable why the King James translators used the word Unicorn in their translations. It seems some argument can be made that some such creature did exist; and apparently, the Unicorn best fits the idea of it, when translating the text into old English.
Quote:
III. It was an early opinion, and the opinion was probably entertained by the authors of the Septuagint translation, and by the English translators as well as by others, that the animal here referred to was the unicorn. This animal was long supposed to be a fabulous animal, and it has not been until recently that the evidences of its existence have been confirmed. These evidences are adduced by Rosenmuller, "Morgenland, ii. p. 269, following," and by Prof. Robinson, "Calmet, pp. 908,909." They are, summarily, the following:
(1) Pliny mentions such an animal, and gives a description of it, though from his time for centuries it seems to have been unknown. "His. Nat. 8,21." His language is, Asperrimam autem feram monocerotem reliquo corpore equo similem, capite cervo, pedibus elephanti, cauda apro, mugitu gravi, uno cornu nigro media fronte cubitorum duum eminente. IIanc feram vivam negant capi. "The unicorn is an exceeding fierce animal, resembling a horse as to the rest of his body, but having the head like a stag, the feet like an elephant, and the tail like a wild boar; its roaring is loud; and it has a black horn of about two cubits projecting from the middle of the forehead."
(2) The figure of the unicorn, in various attitudes, according to Niebuhr, is depicted on almost all the staircases in the ruins of Persepolis. "Reisebeschreib. ii. S. 127."
(3) In 1530, Ludovice de Bartema, a Roman patrician, visited Mecca under the assumed character of a Mussulman, and among other curiosities that he mentions, he says, "On the other side of the caaba is a walled court, in which we saw two unicorns that were pointed out to us as a rarity; and they are indeed truly remarkable. The larger of the two is built like a three-year-old colt, and has a horn upon the forehead about three ells long. This animal has the color of a yellowish-brown horse, a head like a stag, a neck not very long, with a thin mane; the legs are small and slender like those of a hind or roe; the hoofs of the fore feet are divided, and resemble the hoofs of a goat. Rosenmuller. "Alte u. neue Morgenland, No. 377. Thes ii. S. 271, 272."
(4) Don Juan Gabriel, a Portuguese colonel, who lived several years in Abyssinia, assures us that in the region of Agamos, in the Abyssinian province of Darners, he had seen an animal of the form and size of a middle-sized horse, of a dark, chestnut-brown color, and with a whitish horn about five spans long upon its forehead; the mane and tail were black, and the legs long and slender. Several other Portuguese, who were placed in confinement upon a high mountain in the district Namna, by the Abyssinian king Saghedo, related that they had seen at the mountain several unicorns feeding. These accounts are confirmed by Lobe, who lived for a long time as a missionary in Abyssinia.
(5) Dr. Sparrman the Swedish naturalist, who visited the Cape of Good Hope and the adjacent regions in 1772-1776, gives, in his Travels, the following account: Jacob Kock an observing peasant on Hippopotamus river, who had traveled over a considerable part of Southern Africa, found on the face of a perpendicular rock, a drawing made by the Hotttentots of an animal with a single horn. The Hottentots told him that the animal there represented was very like the horse on which he rode, but had a straight horn upon the forehead. They added, that these one-horned animals were rare; that they ran with great rapidity, and that they were very fierce.
End quote
Most contend the actual animal was a rhinoceros; others think a large antelope. What ever it was, it was large, and very wild (never domesticated) and powerful - with a horn or horns.
As for the historical record - More and more evidence is being found that the people and places of the Bible did exist and that the Biblical history is accurate. For example:
The book is entitled A Test of Time: The Bible From Myth to History (Century Publishers, Lon don, 1995). It was written by an Egyptologist by the name of David Rohl who is currently completing his doctoral thesis at University College in London. The book was converted by the BBC into a highly ac claimed television series called, "Pharaohs and Kings." The book has not yet been published in the United States, but it is scheduled for publication in July by Random House under the title, Pharaohs and Kings.
Link to article about this:
http://www.lamblion.com/articles/other/ ... /RI-19.php (http://www.lamblion.com/articles/other/religious/RI-19.php)
[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-05-13 08:35 ]
Post by: BuzzKill on May 13, 2005, 11:33:00 AM
I am fully aware Many people disagree with me on these things. I am not at all surprised at the numbers of those who are on your side of this debate.
As for defining a cult - I was clear enough, I think, that I was giving a Christian definition - and that there are other definitions. I don't think that is arrogant or unfair.
I can't argue science with your same skill - but I believe science leads one to Biblical conclusions - if one isn't to deeply committed to the dogma of random chance and eons.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 13, 2005, 12:05:00 PM
The First Book of Carl Pagan
1. In the beginning there somehow existed a single spot.
2. And this spot was with out form, and of undetermined size; and darkness was upon the spot. And an unexplained ? Big Bang,? moved upon this spot.
3. And the Big Bang caused a great light: And so there was light.
4. And the resulting caos divided the light from the darkness.
5.And man eventually called the light day; and the darkness, he eventually called night. And the years and the centuries where the First ion.
6. And somehow, the stars, planets and galaxies evolved.
7. And all matter and energy resulted somehow from this unexplained Big Bang: and so it happened.
8. And man eventually called the result, the cosmos. And the years and the centuries where the Second ion.
9. And water somehow evolved, and dry land evolved after ions of evolution: and so it happened.
10. And man eventually called the dry land earth; and the collecting together of the waters, called he seas: And it was a good chance arrangement.
11. And thru some yet discovered chemical reactions, Life sprang up; and Life began as a one celled organism.
12. And eventually, the organism evolved into the grass, and all plants, trees, fruits and vegetables upon the earth. And so it happened.
13. And the years and the centuries where the Third ion.
14. And the stars divided day from night; And eventually, man used them to chart his horoscope; and he eventually called this Astrology.
15-18. And the stars gave light to the earth, as it so happened to evolve.
19. And the years and the centuries where the Forth ion.
20-22. Then from the plant life evolved sea creatures of all kinds; which evolved into lizards; which eventually evolved into birds of all kinds.
23. And the years and the centuries where the Fifth ion.
24-25. And then, all other land creatures evolved; which all evolved from the original one celled organism; And without leaving any traces of transitional forms in the fossil record.
26-30. And then monkeys evolved; Further than all other creatures; Developing reason and language, with superior intelligence, becoming Man.
31. And the years and the centuries where the Sixth ion.
2
1. Thus it happened; In complete contradiction to ?The Second Law of Thermodynamics,? the cosmos evolved.
From the new uncredible version
Michael D. Varnell
The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
The universal law of decay; states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder.
The natural tendency of complex, ordered, arrangements is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.
Due to the second law of thermodynamics, everything eventually falls apart and disintegrates.
The chemical processes which sustain the life of our bodies becomes less efficient as we grow older. Left to themselves, all chemical compounds tend to break apart into simpler materials, rather than become more complex.
An overall and universal principle of change in nature which is downhill, not uphill, as evolution requires.
? Origins?
Paul S. Taylor
Films for Christ
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 12:06:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-13 08:22:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"When exactly Rome began crucifixion, I don't know. But back when David was writing the psalms, there was no Rome, and no notion of crucifixion.
I have been over that in detail. Cruxifiction predates Rome and was practiced in earlier relgions and earlier Jesus like deities were supposedly cruxified.
Did you read anything I posted?
Quote
In my opinion, your comparing the disciples to Joseph Smith or Mohamed is considerably flawed. The disciples were relating first hand accounts that were very likely to get them arrested, tortured and murdered.
And I demonstrated by timeline why the bible was not written by the disciples. I also presented earlier competing Jesus/myths that had 12 desciples to you.
You have not responded. Have you not read anything I have posted?
Quote
The comparison with the radical Islamist seems especially absurd to me. They seek out their own deaths so as to cause death for many more. The disciples did no such thing - they sought to bring life; and were willing to face painful death to do it.
and many a christian soldier has marched off to his death, killed in the name of god, and advocated other's death and destruction. So what?
Quote
The kamikazes? Well, judging from the accounts given by Japanese survivors of WWII, they mostly didn't want to do that-
Your conclusion fails to take the histrocity of what acually occured. These young men were isolated and convinced their sacrifice would assure their place in eternity. How else would they convince a 20 year to go on a one way trip to death? Only religion has that power.
Do some research.
Quote
When the various books were written, and by whom, is a topic of constant debate. Personally, I feel the authors can be believed
Not really. They have pretty much nailed down when they were written, and in some cases are pretty sure by whom.
Who has this information? The Catholic church. They were Christianity, Buzzkill, in the first century. What is their take?
"The New Testament was not written all at once. The books that compose it appeared one after another in the space of fifty years, i.e. in the second half of the first century."
Jesus Died in 32 ad, if we are to believe the myth. Assuming the apostles existed and were roughly his age, this would put them all WAY OVER THE LIFESPAN AGE OF MAN IN THE FIRST CENTURY WHEN THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN.
I have said this before. Did you read my words or just dismiss them?
How much clearer and close to the source do we need to go? Your sources did not even exist at this time, the catholic church OWNS the history of the bible.
Quote
As to the Unicorn - there is a great deal of debate on what the animal actually was; tho it is understandable why the King James translators used the word Unicorn in their translations. It seems some argument can be made that some such creature did exist;
The debate only exists among those trying to justify the absurdities in the bible.
The only argument that can be made that The Unicorn existed is that it is listed in mythology . So was Pegasus, the winged horse. Do you believe in him too? If not, why not? Is it because it is the mythology of a competing god/myth?
You follow with..people "wrote it existed". People write that bigfoot exists all the time. Is that proof? Lepracauns were written about as well. Proof?
Think, Buzzkill, think. There is no reason to believe the myth of the unicorn, unless you just want to! When science demonstrates their existence, as science has demonstrated the dinasour, then you can accept these myths at face value. Until then it is wild speculation.
Quote
As for the historical record - More and more evidence is being found that the people and places of the Bible did exist and that the Biblical history is accurate.
This is a fallicious argument at its core.
Because a book lists historical places does not preclude it as a book of myth and inaccuracies.For example, Because the movie "texas chain saw masscre" lists Texas,for example, and it is demonstrative that there is a Texas, Are we to therefore assume this movie is a historical an accurate portrayal in its entirety? This is absurd.
In addition, there are many easily demonstrated contradicted accounts of history in the bible, starting with the first chapter, genesis. There are blantant glaring historical differences from the gate.
check this out.
The two contradictory creation accounts. First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Gen.1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image. Gen.2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen.1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen.2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Historically accurate? The bible can't even get the story of Jesus's supposed rise to heaven at Easter straight, there are varying accounts as to what happened.
Please.....
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 12:10:00 PM
Quote
The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
The universal law of decay; states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder.
typical dishonest approach by creation science. What the "second law" really states is a CLOSED system moves from order to disorder. The earth is anything but a closed system. This analogy FAILS MISERABLY.
Why is the earth not a closed system? anyone with a shred of scientific knowledge knows the answer to that.
Buzzkill, don't denegrate your argument by cutting and pasting things you don't understand.
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 12:30:00 PM
Is your source credible based on the above observations?
Post by: BuzzKill on May 13, 2005, 01:41:00 PM
I read it Greg. I also respond. Maybe not with answers that satisfy you - but I have responded. The crucifixion question, for instance: You gave the number of years before the time of Christ at what - 330 something? I'd have to go back and look. David was writing the psalms 1000 years before the time of Christ - and well before anyone was crucified.
// many a christian soldier has marched off to his death, killed in the name of god, and advocated other's death and destruction. So what? //
They might compare to the Islamist; but not the disciples.
// Your conclusion fails to take the histrocity of what acually occured. These young men were isolated and convinced their sacrifice would assure their place in eternity. How else would they convince a 20 year to go on a one way trip to death? Only religion has that power. //
Not in oriental culture. Fear of disgrace is extremely powerful - and according to the men I saw interviewed - this was the force behind the Kamikazes.
// Who has this information? The Catholic church. They were Christianity, Buzzkill, in the first century. What is their take? //
The Catholic church begins its history with the conversion of Charlemagne. I know Catholics disagree - I know all about the Catholic notion Peter was the first Pope - and I would dispute that. Charlemagne didn't come along until long after the church was well established with the gospels and letters written and in circulation.
// "The New Testament was not written all at once. //
Of corse it wasn't. I only question anyone being able to say with certainty exactly when any one book was written.
// esus Died in 32 ad. Assuming the apostles were roughly his age, this would put them all WAY OVER THE LIFESPAN AGE OF MAN IN THE FIRST CENTURY WHEN THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN.
I have said this before. Did you read my words or just dismiss them? //
Pretty much dismissed them - but I did try and explain why.
// The only argument that can be made that some sort animal exists is that it is listed in mythology. //
The Unicorn quotes are not from Mythology. However - I am Not stating a dogmatic belief in Unicorns! I will say, maybe; and why not - but I don't know. However, my point was, that what ever the animal actually was, for the King James translators, the animal that best seemed to fit the word they were attempting to translate, was Unicorn.
Which brings to mind another complaint of yours - all the "good" stuff being edited out. Not so. New translations are needed because language is a shifty thing. Words don't always retain the same meaning and can become misunderstood as a result. The words of a translation may change - but only b/c the meaning of the word has changed with modern use. To retain a correct translation one needs to update from time to time.
The Carl Pagan post - I simply thought it a good enough response to the question of weather one could be dogmatic about random chance and eons. I didn't imagine anyone would take it seriously.
Second law of Thermodynamics and a closed system - I don't know about that. I really don't. But I have never see it defined that way. Seems to be a pretty much accepted law of nature - unless you are touting evolution.
With regard to Genesis; my personally belief is the God created man and beast. My take on the description Moses gives us, is that Man came after the animals, and that Eve Came after Adam. I don't take the second example you give as contradicting the first. I think it was a simple case of Moses reiterating that God had made the beasts - " And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field"; not, "Then out of the ground. . ."
But Greg, just like I told Niles - there are plenty of questions I have no answer for. There is still much that puzzles me. Still, there is enough that I feel I do understand, to trust the rest is also trustworthy - and I expect to understand it someday.
Greg, about this:
i started crying and actually babled out some nonsense in "toungues" and had a genuine physical sense of something entering my body.
What do you think that was? I'm seriously asking and really do wonder what you think about it.
PS - (I always forget something)
Your life span thing - I'd have to dispute that - at least for tha time in that region. Jesus was 33 when he began His ministry - and He wasn't considered an old man. Anna and Simon, at the Temple, are examples of the very aged, still being around - tho it was admitted each was an exception.
Yes, I guess I'm proving the Bible with the Bible!
Do you think they were lying about their ages?
:wink:
*
[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-05-13 10:48 ]
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 01:57:00 PM
Quote
Pretty much dismissed them - but I did try and explain why.
Then we are done.
And not really did you attempt to explain why, you you just twisted and turned, much like your above post. That post probably took you all of what, 5 minutes? Meanwhile my responses have been thoroughly researched, sincere, thoughtfull and direct to your questions and comments.
Example: I provided you with a Written Text that was traced to 330 years before the new testament. You then turn that into "cruxifiction at 330 years before the new testament", and use that date to confirm your flawed thesis that Old testament paul Conjured up the idea of Cruxifiction before it ever existed!!!! This is an intellectually bankrupt discussion if ever there was one.
You are not prepared for this discussion, nor or you willing to put in the time to educate yourself enough to make rational counter-points. Meanwhile I have sincerely spent many hours responding to your requests. Your counter response is to demand more explanation from me, but never to contribute. Is your approach just to sit back, make trite responses, then not back them up?
Unless you have something new or sincere to add, I am afraid I am not going to contribute any more to this discussion.
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 02:01:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-13 10:41:00, BuzzKill wrote:
Greg, about this:
i started crying and actually babled out some nonsense in "toungues" and had a genuine physical sense of something entering my body.
What do you think that was? I'm seriously asking and really do wonder what you think about it."
And here we go with more demands for well thought out answers, followed by Trite one minute responses.
No thank you. Many here reading already know enough about group behavioral dynamics to understand these processes people put themselves thru.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 13, 2005, 04:02:00 PM
I have tried to give you responses to your points of contention. I have in fact, given some of these things a great deal of thought, and spent a good amount of time looking for articles and verses and so on.
//Example: I provided you with a Written Text that was traced to 330 years before the new testament.//
OK -
//You then turn that into "crucifixion at 330 years before the new testament", //
Isn't that what your saying? That this is proof that men were crucified 330 years before the NT age?
//and use that date to confirm your flawed thesis that Old testament paul Conjured up the idea of Cruxifiction before it ever existed!!!!//
No - I point out that David wrote a description of crucifixion 1000 years before the NT age - and that this was well before crucifixion was practiced - even given your dates that place it several hundred years before Jesus.
//This is an intellectually bankrupt discussion if ever there was one.//
I'm sorry you feel this way.
I never claimed to be any kind of intellectual tho.
//Meanwhile I have sincerely spent many hours responding to your requests. //
I don't think I've made more than a request or two; which could be answered pretty simply. If you have spent time on this, it wasn't as any kind of Favor to me - now was it? You've spent just as much time and effort as you felt like spending. No more and no less.
I am puzzled at your seeming anger toward me for not meeting your expectations. If you don't think my arguments are convincing or well thought out - Fine - I'm not up to your standards - but why be so angry about it?
I'm often distracted and preoccupied and sick, and so not up to my owne standards - but I try anyway.
//Unless you have something new or sincere to add, I am afraid I am not going to contribute any more to this discussion.//
I could not be more sincere than I've been. I can't think of anything new that would be likely to move you - tho if you want to make a detailed study of prophecy, there is A Lot that hasn't been covered here. But I think you need a better teacher than you have in me.
// And here we go with more demands for well thought out answers, followed by Trite one minute responses.
No thank you. Many here reading already know enough about group behavioral dynamics to understand these processes people put themselves thru. //
Be fair Greg, I didn't demand anything. I asked a question. I do wonder. If you want to tell me to bugger off, thats your right. But you seem to have answered - it was the power of suggestion; group dynamics. OK. Thats all I wanted to know - what you thought it was.
I need to make a correction. The old folks who were waiting to meet the Messiah at the Temple: the old guy was named Simeon; not Simon. Its in Luke; Chapter 2 vs 25 and on.
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 04:03:00 PM
She has already professed her unwaivering belief not only in the god of the bible, but ALL gods. She also believes in demons, ghosts,spirits, unicorns, fortune telling , supernatural power of Ouija boards, Poltergeists, and on and on.
All that would be fine if this was a spirited debate. Since it has been confirmed that what I have responded with has been dismissed offhand, I am suspicious that much of it hasn't even been read.
So, what we have is more like an interview with the interviewer not really all that interested in the opinions of the interviewee.
Sorry folks, but "ASK THE ATHEIST" is no longer playing in this thread. I hope it has been entertaining and enlightening for some, and not too boring for others.
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 04:20:00 PM
I just found this...
Read a Science new article on the second law of thermodynamics. Think about how "creation scientist" use the term to discredit evolution.
What is this law really about?
Does modern science support entirely the theory, or is their some new discoveries that tend to indicate not all systems behave according to the law?
Is it about heat loss ie: entropy, or is it really about the inability of an organism to evolve?
If this law has been misrepresented, why would they do this?
Is there an agenda?
Does the christian faith have a history of doing this?
IF so, to what extremes have they gone to in the past to squelch the scientific understanding of the physical universe?
Is this intellectually dishonest?
Why isn't the earth a closed system?
Taking what we now Know about this law and its application, Are there other examples of systems not going from order to chaos?
How about an human embryo? doesn't it go from simple to extremely complex? Doesn't it maintain heat?what system is it in? Is this an open system or a closed system?
How about the earth...Is it losing all its heat or receiving heat from other sources? What type of system is this?
Finally, does the "creation science" argument offer an alternative, or is it just throwing rocks?
These question will either bring you to the conclusion that "creation science" is lying or is intentionally misleading people. Ask yourself why.
from the scientists mouth....
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2572 (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2572)
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 04:34:00 PM
You claim to indicate that you can trace timelines in the bible. This is a highly disputed claim with people who study the bible. Even bible verses contradict themselves hugely, and further, the time lines are based on the age of people who are, in the bible, professed to live up to almost a thousand years.
In other words, your statement that Paul wrote psalm 22 1000 years before the new testament is based on a supernatural premise that man lived for 13 times his current lifespan, and 28 times the lifespan of the average 1st century man.
Your timeline is not scientific but the inverse, based on a supernatural premise that science has been unable to demonstrate one iota of evidence for, and that is the silly notion that man lived for many centuries in the old testament.
The entire problem with christian apologetics and "Creation science" is that there is no attempt at intellectual honesty but instead, and going back to one of my original points that has been summarily ignored, it STARTS WITH A CONCLUSION AND FRANTICALLY SEARCHES FOR SUPPORT, NEVER ALLOWING ANY ROOM FOR CORRECTIONS OF THE BASIC PREMISE.
In other words, Buzzkill, you are spewing dogma and ignoring reasoned discussion. That is the problem.
There is no anger my lady, only an impasse..
Post by: Timoclea on May 13, 2005, 04:47:00 PM
I asked myself why.
Mostly, on the issue of what the Second Law of Thermodynamics does or doesn't say, and what the scientific terms in it do and don't mean, my answer to "why" is pretty much that they're just either stupid or ignorant.
It's not politically correct to call anyone stupid.
It's like all of us admit that there are stupid people in the world, but it's considered really rude to in any way point out who they are.
A *few* of the people who misquote the 2nd Law of Thermo are merely ignorant.
Most of them still don't understand the 2nd Law of Thermo and why it doesn't say or mean what they think it does after a very careful, precise, detailed explanation in very small words.
Someone who's never had the 2nd Law of Thermo explained reasonably well and misquotes it is merely ignorant.
Someone who wouldn't, or didn't, understand it even with a competent explanation is stupid.
It really is that simple.
They're not dishonest, they're just stupid.
Stupidity is not a character flaw. I've known and do know and like some very nice people who, through no fault of their own, are stupid.
There's nothing inherently wrong with being stupid. It's certainly better not to be, but it's not like anybody chooses it on purpose.
But a lot of the things wrong with public policy or society that go counter to what should be good sense happen because there's a critical point that most people are too stupid to understand. It's a fundamental flaw in democracy, but all the alternative systems are even worse.
There's no point in arguing with someone who misquotes the 2nd Law of Thermo. You can ask them to listen to an explanation and explain it briefly. But if they continue to argue with you about it, trying to convince them is just a waste of time.
Some people are not capable of understanding why certain arguments they make are just factually, and/or logically wrong.
If they not only don't "get it" but can't "get it," debate is pointless.
They're not bad people, but debating them is pointless.
Timoclea
Never let your sense of
morals get in the way of
doing what's right
--Isaac Asimov
Post by: Timoclea on May 13, 2005, 05:22:00 PM
In any closed system, entropy increases.
"Entropy" does not really mean "disorder." Entropy means heat. A lot of people say entropy means disorder, but there are a lot of kinds of disorder, and heat is a specific kind of disorder. Heat is the kind of disorder the 2nd Law is talking about. But it's talking about it in a very complicated way.
"Closed System" means an area in space that no energy is entering or leaving, and that no matter is entering or leaving.
"Closed System" is talking about that whole area as a whole. Entropy can decrease in one part of that closed system. The 2nd Law just says that if Entropy does decrease in one part of the closed system, it increases a just a little bit more than the decrease somewhere else in that system.
What the 2nd Law really says is that every time you do anything, or anything does anything, some of the matter or energy escapes as waste heat. Even if you're using heat as the energy to do something some of the heat is wasted.
The 2nd Law can't say anything about what happens to life on Earth because the Earth always has more energy coming in from the Sun. The extra energy coming into Earth causes weather and chemical changes in ways that mean evolution can happen without breaking the 2nd Law.
The 2nd Law doesn't say evolution *does* happen.
It also doesn't say evolution can't happen.
Creationists who try to use the 2nd law either leave out the part about the Closed System, or don't understand what Closed System means, or they think they understand what Entropy is but really don't.
It would be like me saying the 1st of the Ten Commandments says: Thou shalt have no other.
And then saying that that means I can only own one book.
Or a smarter me saying the 1st of the 10 C's says: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
And then saying that that means I can only own one book, because I think the word "gods" means paper thingies with writing on the inside.
Get it?
Timoclea
Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.
--Ambrose Bierce
Post by: Antigen on May 13, 2005, 05:47:00 PM
Buzz, I don't see a big difference between the radicals of Islam or Japan and those of Roman times. In all cases, religion had a role in unifying them against their respective oppressors. In all cases, the 'gospel' for which they sacrificed their lives was one of rebellion or resistance against a ruler or invader.
I think you're making a huge intellectual mistake when you assume that the only, or even the main reason early Christians rebelled was over some moot philisophical point of belief. It wasn't. The Roman Empire was a secular government. Cesar really didn't give a flyin' run at a rollin' doughnut what the peasants believed, how they prayed or what not, so long as they continued to peacefully work for the empire, pay their taxes and not make trouble.
The Christ(s) of Roman times incited rebellion against the Roman Empire. They didn't martyr themselvs over dogma, they (and people all over the empire who subscribed to many different legends and cultures) martyred themselves for a much better reason; freedom. The Roman officials only required the rebels who acquired some political or social power to renounce the belief that they owned themselves and didn't owe their lives and productivity to the empire. That was the whole conflict. Those who wouldn't tell their followers to forget about it and get back to work in the fields or the mines or on the road crews were publicly and severely punished. It didn't work out too well till the Catholics took over the Roman Empire. That really seemed to confuse a lot of people for some time to come.
And that's what's happening now. I don't care whether someone speaks in terms of a Great Spirit like a lot of No American native cultures or about gods and holy ghosts or fairies like the Finish ppl do or about Robin Hood and his merry band or about LOTR or Star Wars. It doesn't matter at all, so long as they're talking some sense and not confusing a good morality play w/ factual, historical record.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Drug war POW
Seed `71 - `80
Straight, Sarasota
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
return undef() if /coercion/i;
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 06:58:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-13 13:41:00, Cayo Hueso wrote:
"Greg, I appreciate the efforts you put into this. ......
(Buzz, that is in no way meant as a dig towards you. It's just honestly how I see most people of your conviction. I'm glad it works for you and you're happy with it but I just can't wrap my brain around it.)A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows."
Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain", American author and humorist
Thanks For that!
I think you accurately See Buzzkill's efforts too. I believe she is sincere, just incapable of engaging this conversation outside the boundaries of her dogma. That is okay, she isn't the only one.
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 07:00:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-13 14:22:00, Timoclea wrote:"
"2nd Law of Thermo, explained in very small words. It's still an approximation, but unlike the approximation used by the creationists, this one is actually close enough to not distort the fundamental meaning of the 2nd law:
In any closed system, entropy increases.
"Entropy" does not really mean "disorder." Entropy means heat. A lot of people say entropy means disorder, but there are a lot of kinds of disorder, and heat is a specific kind of disorder. Heat is the kind of disorder the 2nd Law is talking about. But it's talking about it in a very complicated way.
"Closed System" means an area in space that no energy is entering or leaving, and that no matter is entering or leaving.
"Closed System" is talking about that whole area as a whole. Entropy can decrease in one part of that closed system. The 2nd Law just says that if Entropy does decrease in one part of the closed system, it increases a just a little bit more than the decrease somewhere else in that system.
Biiingggoooo!
More grey matter steps up to the plate...
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 07:26:00 PM
You profer "christian scientists" (ha) that claim the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution do so because of ignorance or stupidity.
I beg to differ. Sure, the followers of the religion, the mostly scientific ignorant american masses, pick up that banter and run with it, but the actual people at the top of this effort to squash science know what it is. They get it crammed down their throat at debate after debate, and their response is to roll out of of the topic and throw more stones.
So my point of disagreement is this. When someone like Buzz takes up the banter, she is doing it sincerely out of dogma and out of scientific ignorance. Agreed.
But the "creation science" movement?
Nahhh, they are a bunch of liars with an agenda.
They know better...
They also know Evolution is one of the most evidenciary supported theories in all of science, yet they say "evolution is just a theory" to ring the bell of the scientific ignorant. Then, instead of providing an alternative theory, they march out distortions, lies, ridicule, and then try to make their audience choose between the two. It is a snake oil side show.
Reference Buzzkill's cut and paste about 'Carl Pagan' as an example. This page takes one of the most brilliant scientific minds ever, Carl Sagan, and belittles him and attributes silly words to him that aren't his, takes an actual scientific theory and distorts it, and then leaves it hanging for you to choose. This isn't ignorance, it is a sophisticated Ruse.
Most laymen don't even understand what a scientific theory is and this is a dishonest attempt at discrediting science, not an honest alternative scientific theory.
So, my conclusion is, "creation science" is a continuation of the time honored christian attempt at directly stopping science, because science shines the light away from their superstitions.
It is anything but real science. There is not one existing creation account that holds up under the scrutiny of the scientific method.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 13, 2005, 08:02:00 PM
Well good. Glad to hear it.
I too get tired of repeating myself.
But I do want to stress, I did not discount your time line off hand. After giving it some thought, I decided it was not accurate. Men were not old at 30, and there is no way to know exactly when the first copies of the Gospels and letters were written.
I do read what you write - but often times I have to read some, and logg off, and come back and read some more. No doubt I do miss stuff - but I don't intend to.
// You claim to indicate that you can trace timelines in the bible. This is a highly disputed claim with people who study the bible. Even bible verses contradict themselves hugely, and further, the time lines are based on the age of people who are, in the bible, professed to live up to almost a thousand years. //
I claim nothing of the sort. I wouldn't dare. But there are plenty of historians who do place David's reign One Thousand Years before the time of Christ. I am not aware of this being in dispute.
The long life spans you mention were before the flood. You'll notice a dramatic drop afterwards. David was after. I have heard a good sermon on why they had those long lives - but no doubt the whole thing would just be more myth to the fairytale, as far as your concerned.
//In other words, your statement that Paul wrote psalm 22 1000 years before the new testament is based on a supernatural premise that man lived for 13 times his current lifespan, and 28 times the lifespan of the average 1st century man. //
No, see this isn't so. David lived a long life - but more or less what men today might expect. I don't know if we are told how long David lived, but it was not over 100, I am pretty sure. We are told he reigned in Israel for 40 years; and we know he spent a number of years running from Saul, tho if we are told just how long, I don't know about it. We know he was a young man when anointed by Samuel, tho it doesn't say how young. My *guess* would be David was over 70 but less than 100 when he died. For a list of the generations between David and Jesus you can read over the first chapter of Matthew.
My understanding of the second law of Thermodynamics is (I admit) very simple - things left to themselves tend to fall apart and break down. Up keep is necessary to keep anything from deteriorating. I can look in the mirror in the morning and see this law at play. Build a house and let it sit for a few decades, unlived in and untouched. It will need repair. The Earth does indeed have a source of "maintence" if you will. But even so, life on the planet shows no signs of evolving Up to more complicated forms - and never has. Plants and Animals become extinct, or adapt to change; but you don't have them evolving into something else entirely.
Evolution does of corse take place - but in a horazonal line - one bird may evolve to have a longer beak than its neighbors on the next Island over - the moths living by the power plant may be much darker than the same type moths living in a protected woodland a hundred miles away. This is observable and often noted.
What has not been observed is one kind of creature becoming another kind of creature. Man and Ape co-exist. Fish, birds, reptiles and amebas all co-exist. They do indeed have a similarity of design - but they are still each obviously not the other. Plant and Animal species have come and gone and that is a fact - but there is no evidence that one ever became the other.
Evolutionist are beginning to back peddle - and now teach that "evolution" is a process of random chance "useful" mutations. Never mind the fact that mutations are normally not useful and are in fact detrimental to the integrity of the creature - this is how we came to have such diversity of life on the planet. And if I find that more implausible than intelligent design, I am stupid. OK. Thats seldome been in doubt.
// I don't see a big difference between the radicals of Islam or Japan and those of Roman times. In all cases, religion had a role in unifying them against their respective oppressors. In all cases, the 'gospel' for which they sacrificed their lives was one of rebellion or resistance against a ruler or invader. //
But the disciples were not revolutionaries. Neither was the Messiah. Many of the Jews turned away from Him when they figured this out. They were looking for the conquering Lion of Judah; and instead got the Suffering Lamb of God. The Lion of Judah, they will get next time.
As for unicorns and such like - I do a little doubt such a beast is living today. But, way back when? Why not? There is nothing especially fantastic about the notion of a unicorn.
The sprit world, I do believe in. But, Maybe I'm psychotic after all. They say that you never know when your insane.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 13, 2005, 08:53:00 PM
http://www.darklightimagery.net/ (http://www.darklightimagery.net/)
It belongs to a cousin of mine who also very much admires Carl Sagan. So much so, his first born is named Sagan.
Anyway - it is a really beautiful web site and you might enjoy it.
Anyone might.
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 09:20:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 09:23:00 PM
Your cousin is a talented Photographer.
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 09:26:00 PM
{{{{{{{{SIGH}}}}}}}}
You totally don't understand Evolution or the concepts I have left with you, and , I don't even know where to start without getting very circular in my responses, so I won't.
Post by: GregFL on May 13, 2005, 10:01:00 PM
Here is one that should illicit some thought.
http://www.cosmoetica.com/B125-DES76.htm (http://www.cosmoetica.com/B125-DES76.htm)
Just corrected the above link.
I also read this essay that attempts to illustrate the historocity of Jesus by a professor of philosophy.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... over2.html (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html)
contained herein are also many pro-christian essays. I have read most of them. I think this is an example of a more intellectual representative from the christian camp, so I present it here for examination as compared to a critical review of the evidence.
While Both are persuasive in methodology and are good writers, Notice the difference in the two methods of the writers.
The first essay provides evidence and actual text for review and looks at alternate and likely explanations and even examines claims for the other side. The second one hangs on weak presuppositions and declares the gospels "historically accurate" based on 'there wasn't enough time for legend to establish itself'.
Further is goes on to assume the gospels as historical accurate without critically examining this claim..for example he could have examined this claim by looking at passages criticised for being historically inaccurate or contradictory (of which there are many examples) and explaining why the critics are wrong. He does no such thing.
Then he marches out time worn "evidence" such as Joseph Flavious, and this supposed evidence when actually studied is actually a serious problem even if it is a genuine entry into the text by Flavious. Worse, it been declared a forgery for many many years due to serious issues with writing style and the fact that it was obviously written by a christian. Flavious was not!.
He also alludes to other historians without mentioning the weakness and controversery surrounding these reference nor the fact that none of them were contemporaneus.
His final thesis is to shift the burden of evidence away from the document and onto the reader. This is an amateur debator's trick and for a doctor of philosophy to do this is so intellectually dishonest, one must bring his motives into question. Yet, it is done time and time again in the world of the credulous.
This is the difference between critical thinking and wishfull thinking, and I am afraid many people would read the second essay and assume it is a logical conclusion and base this on convincing writing style, authority of the author, and the positive conclusion reached.
It is not. It is a conclusion based on a predetermined closely held dogma, not examination of the available evidence, and the conclusion is derived by avoiding the evidence, omitting key points, marching out controversial references without alerting the reader to such, and shifting the burden of proof.
We are stuck basically with one the two mind sets illustrated in both the articles presented here. Examination of evidence, or drawing a conclusion and then trying to make the evidence fit.
food for thought.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 14, 2005, 11:37:00 AM
Thanks for the Kudos to my cousin. I think he's brilliant - but I'm partial.
Post by: GregFL on May 14, 2005, 11:46:00 AM
Post by: BuzzKill on May 14, 2005, 02:08:00 PM
:wink:
Your Turn.
http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/t ... bible.html (http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/trustworthinessofthebible.html)
(Some Quotes)
Just about anyone can assert just about anything, but this does not constitute proof of the claim. Proving it is another matter. For instance, just about anyone can file a lawsuit, but proving their case is a different issue. So it is with this charge. {Bible's Historical inaccuracy}
First, what does archaeological research have to tell us relevant to our concern?4 How does the Bible match-up with secular history and facts? Montgomery writes:
Far from avoiding contact with secular history, the New Testament is replete with explicit references to secular personages, places and events. Unlike typical sacred literature, myth, and fairytale ("once upon a time ..."), the gospel story begins when "there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed....
Modern archaeological research has confirmed again and again the reliability of New Testament geography, chronology, and general history....To take but a single striking example: after the rise of liberal biblical criticism, doubt was expressed as to the historicity of Pontius Pilate, since he is mentioned even by pagan historians only in connection with Jesus' death. Then in 1961 came the discovery at Caesarea of the now famous "Pilate inscription," definitely showing that, as usual, the New Testament writers were engaged in accurate historiography.
{Apostil's/Disciple's tetstimony} These individuals were trustworthy witnesses, honest men who sacrificed much, often their very lives for the beliefs. They had no reason to lie or suffer or die for what they knew to be untrue, nothing to gain everything to lose. They had every reason to rethink or recant their position, particularly because not only was the early Church marked for persecution, but often especially the leaders. To say the least, it was costly to be a disciple of Christ.
Second, certainly in the case of the New Testament, since most of it was written and circulating at such an early date (relative to the events recorded) there was no time for the accrual of myth or legend or "editing" by the early Church.10
John W. Montgomery points out based on the objective evidence--manuscript and other evidences--that "the time interval between the writing of the New Testament documents as we have them and the events of Jesus' life which they record is too brief to allow for communal redaction ["editing" or tampering with] by the Church."11
After a through examination and application of the three standard historiographical and literary tests for discerning the authenticity and trustworthiness of an alleged ancient document Montgomery concludes: "On the basis, then, of powerful bibliographic, internal, and external evidence, competent historical scholarship must regard the New Testament documents as deriving from the first century and as reflecting primary-source testimony concerning the person and claims of Jesus...."12
The scholar Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, who served as the director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated based upon the existing Greek manuscripts of the New Testament:
he interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.13
http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm (http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm)
(Some Quotes)
Approaching the Bible
In order to examine the evidence for the resurrection we must place ourselves in the historical situation. The events surrounding the life and death of Christ didn't occur at a place where we can gain no knowledge of them. Rather, they occurred in history, on earth, and were recorded by men who witnessed the events.
When we approach an ancient document such as the Bible or another ancient document such as Tacitus' History of Rome (115 A.D.) we must come to the text with an understanding attitude. This does not mean that we assume the text to be 100 per cent true. But we need to be able to ask the right questions. In the first century much less writing took place than does in our time. Many were illiterate, few could read, much less write, and paper or parchment (leather) to write on was expensive. The incentive to fabricate was not as it is today. In other words, The National Enquirer, could never have been published at this time. A high regard was given to writing and the luxury to create fictional material was virtually non-existent, for instance there was no such thing as a novel or a newspaper, although there were artistic writings such as poetry. The Bible however, is a much different kind of literature. It was not written as a poem or story, although it also contains poetry. It was for the most part written as history and is intended to communicate truth throughout.
The gospel of Luke begins:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word [Paul, Peter, etc] have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Lk 1:1-4)
Luke was not an apostle, he was however the companion of Paul and probably dictated some of his letters. Luke tells us that he is writing in consecutive order because the other gospels, Matthew, Mark and John, are written more by topic than chronologically.
How do we know anything historically? There is no "scientific" proof that Lincoln was the president. We cannot recreate him in a laboratory or bring him back to life. We cannot reproduce the experiment. We cannot calculate an equation that tells us that he was. But we can assert with a high degree of probability that Lincoln was indeed our president and was assassinated in 1865. We do this by appealing to historical evidence. Many people saw Lincoln. We have some of his writings and even his picture, not to mention his likeness on our pennies. But none of this "proves", in a scientific sense, that Lincoln ever lived or was the president.
The kind of evidence used in historical research is the same kind as that used in a court of law. In a courtroom case certain kinds of evidences are appealed to in order to determine what exactly happened, eyewitnesses are questioned, motives are examined, and physical evidence is scrutinized such as fingerprints or journal writings.
It is the same kind of evidence that we appeal to in order to establish Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Granted, the evidence is not as great as that for Lincoln, nor as recent. But it is better evidence than we have that Plato ever lived, or Homer, or many historical figures that we take for granted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Evidence Outside of the Bible
Often people are uncertain about the existence of Christ, but few scholars would disagree that a man named Jesus lived roughly between 2 BC and about 33 AD. History documents that this man was not a myth but a real person and the historical evidence for this is excellent. For instance, the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D., records the events surrounding Emperor Nero in July of A.D. 64. After the fire that destroyed much of Rome, Nero was blamed for being responsible:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition [Christ's resurrection] thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. (Bettenson, p. 2)
In about 112 A.D. the Roman governor of what is now northern Turkey wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding the Christians in his district:
"I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. . . whether those who recant should be pardoned. . . whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name. . . . Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished. . . the very fact of my dealing with the question led to a wider spread of the charge, and a great variety of cases were brought before me. An anonymous pamphlet was issued, containing many names. All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence. . .and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do." (Bettenson, p. 3)
These passages indicate that Christianity was wide spread in the Roman empire within 80 years of Christ's death. Again, these are eyewitness accounts, not historians looking back years later.
The popular historian Will Durant, himself not a Christian, wrote concerning Christ's historical validity, "The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity" (Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, p. 555). And again, "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels" (Ibid., p. 557).
It is a substantial thing that an historian who spends his life considering historical facts should affirm the reality of Christ's existence as well as the rapid growth of the early movement.
The Jewish historian Josephus,writing for the Roman government in the 70's A.D. records some incidental things regarding Christ and the church. He confirms that John the Baptist died at the hand of Herod (this same incident is recorded in the gospels) as well as the death of, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. . . he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, ch. V, p. 20; Book XX, ch. IX, p. 140 ). Again we have sources external to the Bible that demonstrate the historical reliability of the text. Josephus, who was probably alive during the time of Christ, is attesting to the reality of his existence. What this also tells us is that within 40 years of Christ's death, the knowledge of who he was was widespread enough that Josephus could reference him and expect his readers to know exactly who he was talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Accuracy of the Biblical Records
The question often arises when discussing the biblical records, "How can a document that has been copied over and over possibly be reliable? Everyone knows there are tons of errors in it." While it is true that the documents have been copied many times, we often have misconceptions about how they were transmitted. All ancient documents were copied by hand before the advent of the printing press in the 16th century. Great care was exercised in reproducing these manuscripts. When we think of copying manuscripts we often assume that one copy was made and then another from that and another from that and so on, each replacing the copy it was reproduced from. This is not how manuscripts copying worked. Copyists were usually working from one or two documents that were very old. They would make many copies of their source copy, all the while preserving their source and comparing the copies they have made.
Josephus tells how the Jews copied the Old Testament. "We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them" (Against Apion, Book I, sec., 8, p. 158). Josephus statement is no exaggeration. The Jewish copyists knew exactly how many letters where in every line of every book and how many times each word occurred in each book. This enabled them to check for errors (Shelly, Prepare to Answer, p. 133). The Jews believed that adding any mistake to the Scriptures would be punishable by Hell. This is not like the modern secretary who has many letters to type and must work hard to keep their job, and consequently feels that mistakes are inevitable. Great care is exercised with scriptures when someone holds a conviction such as this.
But even with the great amount of care exercised in copying, errors have crept into the manuscripts. No one questions that spelling errors, misplaced letters, and word omissions have occurred. What is not true is that these errors have gradually built up over time so that our copies look nothing like the originals. This view was commonly held until recently.
In 1947 the accuracy of these documents was confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls were found in caves in the dessert near the Dead Sea by a shepherd boy. Before the discovery of these scrolls, the earliest Old Testament manuscripts we had were from about 980 A.D. The manuscripts discovered in the caves dated from 250 B.C. to shortly after the time of Christ. In careful comparison of the manuscripts it was confirmed that the copies we had were almost precisely the same as those which date over 1000 years earlier. Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer said that even though there is such a difference in dates of the manuscripts, "they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more that 95 per cent of the text. The 5 per cent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling." No other historical literature has been so carefully preserved and historically confirmed.
When we come to the New Testament we see a similar phenomenon. There are over 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts in existence. This is by far more than any other historical documents, which usually have maybe a dozen copies from very late dates. The New Testament manuscripts are many and old and they are spread over a wide geographical area. What this enables the New Testament historian to do is collect manuscripts from Jerusalem and Egypt and Syria and other places and compare them for variations. And variations do exist, but as with the Old Testament they are relatively few and rarely important to the meaning of the text. What these manuscripts demonstrate is that different families of texts existed very early that were copied from the original or good copies of the original. This allows us to trace the manuscripts back to the source as one would follow the branches of a tree to get to the trunk. Aside from the manuscripts themselves, "virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325)" (Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, p. 136).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Reliability
There is one more important feature of the Bible to examine before we move to the evidence of Christ's resurrection, that is their historical reliability. Unfortunately I cannot go into the history of this topic. Many critics have challenged the historical accuracy of the Bible and have been proved wrong. Let me provide one example. Historians questioned the accuracy of the accounts surrounded Pontius Pilate's crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate found nothing wrong with him and was reluctant to crucify an innocent man. The Jews put pressure on Pilate saying that if you refuse this "you are no friend of Caesar" (John 19:12). At which point Pilate gave in to the Jews. This did not fit any historical records we had of Pilate who was a cruel and dominating man, not likely to give in to a group of Jews whom he hated. Many believed that this account was historically inaccurate because of the way in which it portrayed Pilate.
Later it was discovered that Pilate had been appointed by a man named Sejanus who was plotting to overthrow Caesar. Sejanus was executed along with many of his appointees (Delashmutt, Sejanus, p. 55, 56). What this demonstrated was that Pilate was in no position to get in trouble with Rome. The Jews had him in a tight place. If word returned to Rome that Jerusalem was in rebellion, Pilate would be the first to go. The gospel account was confirmed as accurate.
Many facts recorded in the Bible have been challenged with the same result, later archeology confirms the reliability of the biblical records down to the smallest detail. A respected Jewish archaeologist has claimed that, "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference" (Shelly, p. 103). This is a strong statement for any archaeologist to make because if it were not true, he would quickly be condemned in his own field.
The conclusion that one draws from this material is that the Bible is a reliable historical document. Its accuracy has been proved numerous times. Its historical inaccuracy has never been demonstrated. So that when we approach the Bible, we do so with a good amount of confidence that what it records actually happened. If this is true, then we need to come to terms about what the Bible claims. We cannot dismiss it out of hand because we were not there, regardless of the difficulty of what is said.
Post by: GregFL on May 14, 2005, 04:52:00 PM
This argument that because the bible lists actual places and events, it is therefore a valid historical document. This author goes one step further into absurdity and says since it isn't written in similar writing style to fairy tale and myth than this somehow validates that it is historical and accurate.
Please buzzkill, you are circulating the same argument over and over. This is flawed logic at its core and is easy dispensed with. These arguments are written for the weak of mind.
Using that flawed logic, The mormon bible is also a valid historical document, because it also lists veriviable places, times and events. Therefore you must accept it in its entirety.
And what of the Koran, it lists many actual people, places, times and events. Therefore using this logic, we must accept this document as historically accurate as well.
But Wait! They all three conflict each other. They can't all be right, and all be historicaly accurate. They are mutually exclusive books.
Very simply and quickly, this entire idea is dismissed out of hand.
I really am tiring of making this point, Buzzkill.
[[[[[[[[[[[sigh]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
The thesis you sight above is so replete with logical errors that it becomes a parody of itself.
How about this statement:
"Second, certainly in the case of the New Testament, since most of it was written and circulating at such an early date (relative to the events recorded) there was no time for the accrual of myth or legend or "editing" by the early Church."
THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN YEARS AND YEARS AFTER THE SUPPOSED JESUS EVENT.
This same fallicious argument could be used for the book of Mormon, except the Book of mormon was written immediately, thereby by this silly notion,The Book of Mormon demands more validation from you then the bible. As well, Rev Sun Moon wrote by his own hand during his own life that he was the incarnate son of god. Therefore, he is. Idiocy I say!!!!!
and finally, the bastion of the apologetic shows up...special pleading...
"The Bible however, is a much different kind of literature. It was not written as a poem or story, although it also contains poetry. It was for the most part written as history and is intended to communicate truth throughout. "
Er, no, no and no. It was not written to convey history, it was written to convey religion and it CONTRADICTS ITSELF ON ITS OWN HISTROCITY OVER AND OVER.
Lets stop recirculating the same argument over and over please.
Post by: GregFL on May 14, 2005, 04:57:00 PM
Quote
The conclusion that one draws from this material is that the Bible is a reliable historical document. Its accuracy has been proved numerous times. Its historical inaccuracy has never been demonstrated.
Either the author is a fool or a liar, or both. The bible as a historical document is easily refuted and this fact is indisputable. The bible cannot even agree on important events such as the ascention, it contradicts itself over and over on the historicity of these important biblical events. The bible is one of the most contradictory books that has ever existed.
But you already know that Buzzkill, because it has been brought to your attention repeatedly in this very thread, but not just by me but by several anon authors, Nithalantic and our Wiccan. You have refused to critically review this. Sticking your fingers in your ears and then repeating this nonsense does not validate it one iota.
Please don't march this argument out again in this thread unless you are willing to address the contradictions in the bible already brought to your attention as early as page 4 or 5.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 14, 2005, 08:18:00 PM
I think they are good sound arguments.
I also think you ought to read your own apologist with a more critical eye.
You read that the Biblical NT writing were writen Long long after that fact and (it seems) you are happy to assume This must be true.
Yes, there are arguments given, but I find them at least as faulty as you find mine - at the very least.
Cayo is right ya know - we each think the other is spouting biased bunk.
Post by: GregFL on May 14, 2005, 08:58:00 PM
I presented the author's thesis on the lack of historic Jeasus and haven't declared my support for it in its entirety only said it should illicit some thought and then compared the way he critically reviewed the evidence as compared to the apologetics method, making a point on the lack of critical examination in the apologetic's method.
[[[[[[[[[[[sigh]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
You just don't understand these arguments and terms, do you?
And you again force me on the merry go round of circular argument.
YES, the question is "Did Jesus walk the Earth" that was being addressed by my link.
YES, your response was to counter the above argument with claims That bible is historically accurate thereby the document itself is evidence of jesus.
NO, that argument is not sound as the inaccuracy of history as depicted in the bible is blatant and obvious, and has been quoted to you in this very thread and unanswered. You need to expound on this by showing the examples of historic inaccuracy are error ridden or Concede the point and pick another argument or just declare "faith".
Now, Buzzkill, saying "I found your arguments faulty" and then stopping there is ::bangin::
It is a nothing argument
Saying I am wrong about when the gospels were written is not enough, you have to provide evidence I am wrong or just declare you are making it up. You have not.
Who supports this position, that the gospels were written in the second half of the first century long after Jesus' death?
Virtually all the major bible scholars, including The entire body of apologetics you site, including the link you posted above. Since you declare said Link "good arguments" for your history assertion, but fail to realize your link doesn't support your contention, then I can only assume you didn't read your own link or are not able to analyse your authors' position.
Jeeus, Buzzkill, you appear to be Incapable of carrying this conversation forward. This is why I stopped before, and why again I declare this conversation over.
You are a nice lady, but intellectual discourse, shall we say, is not your cup of tea.
Post by: Antigen on May 14, 2005, 09:23:00 PM
Quote
Man Has Documents From U.S., Other Governments:rofl:
POSTED: 10:28 am EDT May 11, 2005
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- What would Jesus do -- if he couldn't get a driver's license in West Virginia?
Mr. Jesus Christ has hired a lawyer.
Peter Robert Phillips Jr. has been using the name Jesus Christ for about 15 years. But he never got court approval for a legal name change.
He already has a U.S. passport, Social Security card and Washington, D.C., driver's license bearing the name Jesus Christ.
Christ moved to West Virginia, where officials have refused to issue a license or vehicle title with his adopted name. A judge in Washington refused his request for a legal name change, saying some people might be offended.
Now, Christ has won a victory in an appeals court, which has ordered a lower court to hold more hearings on the name change request.
http://www.clickondetroit.com/automotiv ... etail.html (http://www.clickondetroit.com/automotive/4475718/detail.html)
By the year 2000, we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God.
--Gloria Steinam, women's rights activist
Post by: GregFL on May 14, 2005, 09:44:00 PM
Post by: Timoclea on May 14, 2005, 11:45:00 PM
If I were the judge, that's what I'd quote and grant the change.
Timoclea
Speak gently! 't is a little thing Dropp'd in the heart's deep well; The good, the joy, that it may bring Eternity shall tell.
-- G. W. Langford: Speak gently.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 15, 2005, 10:56:00 AM
I know what the term "apologetic" refers to - And I understand it isn't exactly the proper term for your skeptic's editorializing - But I also feel one could argue he is doing the same for his unbelief as the apologist is doing for their belief - So I used the word.
I did explain why I feel your skeptic's argument is faulty - I think more than once - tho not in that post.
I've read the links I posted and I do think they support the historical accuracy of the scriptures in a sound and scholarly manner. You seem hung up on "written long ago" - I think we are just defining long ago differently - and if you are saying these writers support your ascertain that it was a generation after the fact, then you didn't read them.
I think you are to ready to nit pic my deficiencies, and I think it is so you can avoid asking yourself, if despite the deficiencies, there might be something to what I say.
I'm sure you'll want to proclaim what a ridiculous notion that is; So I'll save you the trouble - Of corse, its a ridiculous notion!
Post by: Anonymous on May 15, 2005, 11:11:00 AM
WE AGREE!
:grin:
Post by: GregFL on May 15, 2005, 11:36:00 AM
There is a lack of evidence to support a historical Jesus.
There are similar pagan myths predating the supposed life of Jesus.
Christianity appears to be an amalgamation of early Pagan and Hebrew myths.
The bible is contradictory on key points of Jesus' supposed life.
No evidence has been presented to support the supernatural, and Jesus is proclaimed to be a supernatural being with supernatural powers.
Given this, I have A LACK OF BELIEF in a historical Jesus. I do not proclaim it as fact but merely that an examination of the evidence tends to lead away from Jesus as an actual person and to Jesus as an almagamation of pagan myths, including Krisna, Mythra, and Horas of Egypt, as particularly damning pre-Jesus myths with extreme similarities to the Jesus story.
For these and other well thought out reasons, I am atheistic towards christianity. This means one thing and one thing only, I HAVE A LACK OF BELIEF. It is a strong position, meaning I can back up why I feel that way with strong logical arguments.
What we have witnessed in this thread is a weak intellectual defense of christianity. When a christian says "I believe because I feel it" or I believe because of faith", the argument is over. No one can argue with that and it leads to a handshake of mutual disagreement.
When a christian comes out an argues from a gnostic position, they get slavered, creamed and lambasted on the facts. This is because arguing a supernatural being without evidence is next to impossible. Fabricated evidence, dishonest changing of the meanings of words, and essays that omit and twist information are available for the unsuspecting christian, and they innocently link to them and further get deeper and deeper into the arena of credulous nonsense.
Now, like science, my atheism is subject to modification with new evidence. In other words, it is not dogma. If someone can present anything other than a weak argument (im sorry Buzzkill, you couldn't) I will examine said evidence and modify my position.
Thank you kind people for enduring this thread. I hope in some way at the very least, someone understands atheism a little more and drops the fear and hate of people that lack belief in a supernatural superman in the sky.
Post by: GregFL on May 15, 2005, 02:57:00 PM
I don't even know where to start on the blantant misrepresentations contained in the NEW Text from cut and pastes you went back and added to your old posts.
This is done...so sayeth the atheist...
Post by: Timoclea on May 15, 2005, 05:30:00 PM
The phrase "The Second Law of Thermodynamics" already means something, and it's not that.
When certain Christians say evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, basically they're lying to try to make their argument sound good.
Lying may make people who don't know any better think the person making the argument is wise and intelligent and learned and making a really good case, but it's not a good way to persuade people who aren't stupid.
The only thing I can conclude is that the Christians pushing anti-evolution are intentionally lying for the purpose of preying on the stupid.
Timoclea
It is one of the most beautiful compensations of life, that no man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
Post by: BuzzKill on May 15, 2005, 06:16:00 PM
I don't even know where to start on the blantant misrepresentations contained in the NEW Text from cut and pastes you went back and added to your old posts.
This is done...so sayeth the atheist...
///////////////////
I have altered nothing. Not one jot or dot.
I can't think why you'd say that - unless maybe you did as I have on occasion, and simply missed a post or two - But I have changed nothing.
Timocela - I'll take your word for what the second law is. It was a physics professor who I first heard discuss the problem of the second law and evolution - and he seemed to think it presented a problem - but if you say it doesn't, OK - it doesn't.
Weather it does or not - I find the hopeful monster version of evolution pretty far fetched - much more so than intelligent design.
As I have said - I know creatures do evolve - but I don't think there is any evidence that one kind of creature evolved into another.
The various (and very few) examples of transition have all turned out to be faked, or still living creatures, or clearly one kind of creature or another, despite having features of more than one - not unlike today's platypus or penguin.
Post by: Anonymous on May 15, 2005, 08:30:00 PM
Whatever, Heres one for you...
[[[[[[[[KISS]]]]]]]]]
By the way, your statement on evoution is another creationist mistatement. There have been damn few frauds in palentology, and care to figure out who discovered these frauds?
Creationists?
Nope! It was other scientists.
I think evolution is a whole nother topic, but Timoclea, you are spot on with your assessment.
Ginger, care to start a couple new Forums?
How about
Religion and atheism
&
Science and alternative theories
GregFL
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 16, 2005, 09:54:00 AM
Evolution, creationism and the second law
Creationists often claim that biological evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, citing that the law states that entropy spontaneously increases. Evolutionary biologists point out that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to a closed system, which the Earth is not since it receives megajoules per second of energy from the Sun. Nevertheless, it has been pointed out that the universe may be considered an isolated system, so that its total disorder should be constantly increasing.
Some creationists claim that entropy never decreases, but this cannot be true as it would preclude any decrease in entropy, including things like the formation of a snowflake.
Now, as a thought experiment.. putting together a car, or the formation of a snowflake, or learning something and ordering the disordered neurons in your head, or writing data to a chaotic hard disk, is 'decreasing entrophy'.
But yeah, we have an energy source, its called the sun. And also, the second law really has more to do with something like.... mix salt with water. You wont have salt and water spontaneously seperate. Or if metal rusts, it wont spontaneously unrust and give off oxygen. Increased chaos could be as simple as the heat your head gives off when you learn something (hah, there is more disorder from the heat your melon gives off than the order gained by reading this right now!) or the bodyheat from metabolism, etc.
It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution! And even then, as creatures powered externally by food (or the sun for plants) it wont apply to them anyway.
So, now, I'm gonna stop violating the second law of thermodynamics by organizing area on Ginger's hard drives with my words, and go do my thing. Later
:wave:
Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.
Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798
Post by: GregFL on May 16, 2005, 11:15:00 AM
Never mind they are clueless not only about this, but all other law of thermodynamics.
Or, as per example the tirade above, you can profer that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus saying that there are no contemporaneous historical writings during his life as one piece of evidence of this. You can qualify this by telling people not to cite Author's that existed after his death.
The next ploy...here come Pliny and Josephus and the others that wrote these things (if they were indeed written by them..there is scholary debate) MANY years after his death. They were not first hand accounts, none of them. No matter how many times you point this out you are ignored, the conversation shifts, and bang...here they come again.
As a bonus You also get the watchmaker's argument which basically rests on this "the universe exists and all things that exist must have a creator. Therefore God Exists".
Next, it is pointed out that GOD EXISTS, therfore he must have a creator. This argument sets up an illogical conclusion that goes on for infinity.
So what do the creationists do? They say...Ah, but God always existed.
Excuse me? This violates your own argument Mr. Christian. Christian response.."no it doesn't, the rule doesn't apply to god"... ::bangin::
Using this argument we can observe that the universe exists. God we don't see.
So we know that the universe exists. We apply this rule to god....
Either God does not exist, or God was created by something else, meaning he really isn't god.
But you cannot make the point with these people. They will shift the subject, and later in the conversation, they will say, "well, the universe must have a creator therefore God exists".
In other words, when you introduce reason and logic into a dogmatic conversation, the religious get real "creative" with their arguments. I have been debating religion for years and have listened to the very best minds in the world..Massimo Pilgiucci and ex preacher Dan Barker to use two examples, debate creationists and fundies. No point of logic ever sticks and the same arguments are rehased over and over. It is frustrating to say the least because the christian debators are intellectually dishonest not just to their opponent but to themselves as well.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 16, 2005, 12:45:00 PM
IF traditional evolution were true - there would be millions of not billions of transitional fossils - Hundreds between each major change. From fish to lizard to bird would involved many hundreds of transitional animals.
Its reasonable to assume at least some few of the hundreds would make it into the fossil record.
There are none.
SO, evolutionist now argue that evolution is the result of the genetic mutations I have mentioned.
A fish rather suddenly became a lizard. Then the lizard suddenly mutated into a bird - and so on.
I find that extremely implausible.
If such a thing is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth, we could reasonably expect to see it happen on occasion still. But we don't.
Yes, mutations happen all the time - but they do not result in a new kind of animal; rather they tend to make the animal they happen to much less likely to live long and prosper.
So, I find it ill-logical to believe that evolution in the traditional since took place; or that random chance mutations are responsible, for the wonderful diversity of life on the planet.
So, how did it get here?
God.
And God has always been.
THAT is one of the mysteries beyond man kind's understanding.
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 16, 2005, 01:07:00 PM
Because all it does is fill in the gaps in reasoning and evidence.
A fish did not suddenly become a lizard!
Go study evolution for a change, will you? Its fish-amphibian-reptiles (fork) to mammals on one side, and on the other dinosaurs and then to birds on the other. Ever seen a Coelacanth? How frogs have tadpoles? That even HUMAN EMBRYOS go through the previous stages of evolution that all mammals went through? We had tails and gills in the womb before they dissolved away, Karen.
Ever seen a birds legs? Awful scaley, huh? Or, rather, ever compared reptiles and dinosaurs to birds? Funny, innit? Or how about other homologous structures throughout the reptile-and-higher vertebrates. We all roughly have the same skeletal structure!
A skull, backbones, one upper and two lower arm/leg bones, same kind of hip and shoulder setup *though there are modifications, like how cats have no collar bones*... and whatnot. And if you cant see the similarity between humans and primates you really must be trying really hard to not see it. I have seen PLENTY of hairy old men that look just like apes! Oh, and socially, we act remarkably like apes, too. Go study some chimps or mountain gorillas sometime. Oh, and Koko can talk with sign language. Shes the gorilla with a cat.
Now, anyway... yeah, there are gaps in the fossil record. Playing the numbers digging for bones in the rock strata means youre more than likely not going to find all you want to.
There isnt a whole lot of transitional fossils, but guess what? There is plenty of evidence for the transitions that are currently theorized, proof in terms of DNA and resulting protein structures (DNA just tells a body how to arrange cells, and how to put amino acids together to make proteins that make the cells and do all the little things in bodies that living things do, proteins are literally natural nanomachines if you know that term) and in just analysis of their skeletal and body structures.
Wanna try a tasty experiment? go eat something reptilian and then eat some chicken. Do they taste similar? Are their proteins similar? Yep, your tongue and genetic analysis will agree.
Edit: Talk Origins on vertebrate fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)
I'm gonna go to bed now, had trouble keeping a good sleep schedule throwing my paper route lately.
We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again---and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.[ This Message was edited by: Nihilanthic on 2005-05-16 10:14 ]
Mark Twain
Post by: GregFL on May 16, 2005, 02:31:00 PM
Now, many people believe in evolution and God. This is not surprising because these people emotionally want to believe in god but intellectually see the absolutely overwhelming evidence for natural selection and evolution. So, they appease both sides of their brain.
Then there are the Fundies like our kind sweet lady Buzzkill. they desperately want to validate the bible and so they go searching for red herrings like the missing link and previous frauds in Paleontology, and try to draw absurdities out like "where is the link between monkeys and Men?
The answer is there is no link, we share a common ancestor, we are not derived from Chimpanzees. Look at this page and click the skulls of starting at chimp and ending at modern man. Notice the transitory differences between the brain cavities, the brow and the jaw bones. I recommend reading each page
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/homofs.html (http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/homofs.html)
...it is fascinating.Where are the mention of all these different types of ape-men in the bible? Why don't "creation scientists" acknowledge the existence of these transitory types but instead try to shine the lights on the handfull of fraudulent skulls that science has eradicated out of the record years and years ago?
Just like the christians before them, modern day christians refuse to allow the scientific method its due, but instead choose to promote their superstitous book and have it trump science and reason.
It won't work in the long run.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 16, 2005, 03:04:00 PM
A Coelacanth?
Yes, I know all about these buggers too.
A Greek Fisherman pulled one up off the bottom of the Mediterranean not long ago - still very much a Coelacanth - wet and flopping.
There are no transitional forms in the fossil record - the fossil Coelacanths are identical to the modern Coelacanths and so it seems they never did get around to becoming anything that lived on land - lizard or amphibian or otherwise.
This lack of transitional fossils is exactly what left traditional evolutionist scratching their noggins and wondering where they all were. There should be millions of them. . . .
But since there aren't any - then it must be there were a bunch of sudden changes - yes that's it -
And so it goes.
Ape men?
No Greg - they are either an ape, or a man.
There are various types of apes; and various types of men - but no ape-man.
The illustrations you are so familiar with that show the transgression from an ape walking on its knuckles to an upright walking man, are 9/10ths fictional. It illustrates what evolution theorizes happened - not what they have any actual evidence of. And the thing is - there should be Lots of evidence if evolution happened.
I have already delt with the similarities found in the diversity of Life - and why I think that is.
I find the extreme resemblance of a marmoset skull to a man's fascinating - but not proof of evolution.
Post by: Anonymous on May 16, 2005, 03:48:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-16 12:04:00, BuzzKill wrote:
There are no transitional forms in the fossil record ...
This lack of transitional fossils is exactly what left traditional evolutionist scratching their noggins and wondering where they all were. There should be millions of them. . . .
Millions of what? The fossil record is rich indeed.
Quote
But since there aren't any - then it must be there were a bunch of sudden changes - yes that's it -
You say this right after you were linked to two scientific websites REPLETE with examples of transitional fossils.
I think any discussion with you needs one of these every few paragraphs....
[[[[[[[[[[[[sigh]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Quote
Ape men?
No Greg - they are either an ape, or a man.
There are various types of apes; and various types of men - but no ape-man.
You are wrong, they are neither, they have characteristics of both apes and man. Read the links, Buzzkill. Look at the skulls, and compare them to a the skulls of modern Chimp, and ape, and then to modern man. You can see the transitory changes clearly if you WANT TO.
One of your statements is interesting...various types of men? Where? I look around and see one type of man...Homo Sapiens. Are you saying there are other types? Where are they? The fossil record supports your theory but indicates they died a long long time ago. You have record of these ape men (or ape-like if we are splitting hairs)
Quote
The illustrations you are so familiar with that show the transgression from an ape walking on its knuckles to an upright walking man, are 9/10ths fictional. It illustrates what evolution theorizes happened - not what they have any actual evidence of. And the thing is - there should be Lots of evidence if evolution happened.
there is massive evidence for evolution.
Yes it illustrates what evolution theorizes and yes it is supported by evidence. You misuse the term "Theory" as it applies to science suspiciously like the dishonest creation websites do. I think you are a victim of propaganda....
you keep alluding to the myth created by religious creationists that the theory of evolution lacks evidence. Evolution is one of the most scientifically supported theories in all of science.
Stop sticking hot pokers in your eyes...go back and actually look, compare, and read with an open mind. Whether that is possible remains to be seen.
Post by: Anonymous on May 16, 2005, 05:17:00 PM
Maybe you should do this when it comes to the evidence in support of who Christ is.
Post by: GregFL on May 16, 2005, 07:23:00 PM
The evidence points to a compiled myth.
Nice red herring.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 16, 2005, 07:42:00 PM
Well it seems to me, it be you trying to poke me eye out.
OK - the transitional creatures - you say there are some?
You will admit there should be many hundreds of them; that in fact the transitional creatures ought to out number the designated creatures, b/c there would be many of them over the eons, between say a fish and a frog? How many can you name?
Different kinds of men - What I mean is, say the difference between the tiny men recently found in New Zealand (or was it New Genuie?) and Neanderthal - or you. You and Neanderthal and the tiny men are all very clearly men. None of you is suspected of being an ape-man, tho all of you differ from one another and all have ape like qualities.
The apes - them and their fossils I can't name - but I have never heard anywhere that any of them were ape-men.
The two or three things that seem to put a fossil in one category or the other - man or ape - have so far been clear in each fossil found.
Yes there are striking similarities (which I find fascinating) I would say this was true at the beginning just as now - and that there is a reason for it that has nothing to do with kin ship.
Science has had to rethink of late, just what is it that makes men different from the animals. Many of the things once thought ours alone, are also talents and gifts of the animal's. Emotion, self awareness, language and tool making have all been proven to exist among the animals. This is wonderful and hugely interesting - but no one has seriously suggested these animals are human.
Despite all these very significant things held in common by animals and men - they are still clearly not men. I'm simply saying the same holds true for the fossil record.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 16, 2005, 07:55:00 PM
About this:
Where are the mention of all these different types of ape-men in the bible?//
In my opinion - the Bible Limits the men it describes and the history it gives b/c it is dealing with the Blood line of the Messiah, and history of the people threw which God would make Himself known.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 16, 2005, 08:16:00 PM
This is for anyone who may be reading and wondered what I mean when I say I think it was the resurrection that accounts for the sudden and dramatic change in the attitude of the apostles and Disciples.
I've always felt this particular song explains this well - but its not intended as any kind of 'Proof' - I'm not that big a fool.
The gates and doors were barred and all the windows fastened down;
I spent the night in sleeplessness and rose at every sound
Half in hopeless sorrow and half in fear the day
Would find the soldiers breakin' thru to drag us all away
And just before the sunrise I heard something at the wall
The gate began to rattle and a voice began to call;
I hurried to the window and looked down into the street
Expecting swords and torches and the sounds of soldier's feet
There was no one there but Mary so I went down to let her in;
John stood there beside me as she'd told us where she'd been.
She said "They moved Him in the night and none of us knows where;
The stone's been rolled away and now His body isn't there!"
We both ran t'ward the garden, then John ran on ahead;
We found the stone and empty tomb just the way that Mary said.
But the winding sheet they wrapped Him in was just an empty shell;
And who or where they'd taken Him was more than I could tell.
Well, something strange had happened there, but just what I didn't know;
John believed a miracle but I just turned to go.
Circumstance and speculation couldn't lift me very high
'Cause I'd seen them crucify Him, then I saw Him die.
Back inside the house again the guilt and anguish came;
Everything I'd promised Him just added to my shame.
When at last it came to choices, I denied I knew His name;
And even if He was alive, it wouldn't be the same
But suddenly the air was filled with a strange and sweet perfume;
Light that came from everywhere drove shadows from the room.
Jesus stood before me with His arms held open wide;
And I fell down on my knees, and just clung to Him and cried.
He raised me to my feet and as I looked into His eyes,
Love was shining out from Him like sunlight in the skies
Guilt in my confusion disappeared in sweet release
And every fear I'd ever had just melted into peace
CHORUS
He's alive! He's alive, He's alive and I'm forgiven!
Heaven's gates are open wide:
He's alive, He's alive, oh He's alive and I'm forgiven
Heaven's gates are open wide
He's alive, He's alive, hallelujah He's alive
Post by: GregFL on May 16, 2005, 09:17:00 PM
[[[[[[[[[[[[[SIGH]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Post by: Anonymous on May 16, 2005, 09:43:00 PM
Post by: BuzzKill on May 16, 2005, 10:36:00 PM
In my opinion, my conclusions are sound. :wink:
I have read Lots of articles over the years in many journals and magazines and am not ignorant of what your sites no doubt argue - but will you please just check your links and make sure they are good?
Anon, your welcome.
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 16, 2005, 11:28:00 PM
Also, beliefs dont mean diddly squat - especially if theres evidence and science and facts floating around, like in the modern era.
Running interference for Karen is nice, but to be blutnly honest, she got her head handed to her. She (and you) cling to beliefs like a widly flopping palm tree in a storm of reality.
Thats all fine and dandy, but you could at least grow up to be an adult intellectually instead of 'nuh uh' us like a child. Which you two basically are doing. Its just an approved sense of immaturity because "adults" get awfully pissed off if you challenge their beliefs.
But yeah, whatever, spew what you want and bluntly ignore us. At LEAST recognize that its a BELIEF, NOT FACTS, NOT evidence, that you hold. A belief, and ONLY a belief.
I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.
--Frank Lloyd Wright, American architect
Post by: GregFL on May 17, 2005, 12:50:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-05-16 19:36:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"//You haven't looked at any of our material, that is why you keep drawing these irroneous conclusions.....//
In my opinion, my conclusions are sound. :grin:
Post by: Anonymous on May 17, 2005, 06:58:00 AM
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 17, 2005, 07:37:00 AM
That is, they believe a good heathen will go to hell and a bad christian will be forgiven - but hey, we're all bad, original sin, bla bla bla.
Personally, I dont know what the hell is going on, so I try to be a good person period. If I still get damned for it, well, then I'll be damned.
Forgive, O Lord, my little joke on Thee and I'll forgive Thy great big one on me.
--Robert Frost, American poet
Post by: GregFL on May 17, 2005, 09:19:00 AM
It assumes the following.
There is a god.
God is a universal concept.
People view god differently thru culture.
Several problems with this. First, there is no evidence of the supernatural, so that is just a sweeping claim. second, the history of God, or Gods rather, is very different. Our particular favorite God is the God of the Bible, a very different god than is worshipped by other cultures. I think the argument that we all worship the same God oversimplistic. For one thing, many many people reject the notion of a supernatural God in charge of the Universe. Also, many people believe in religions with Multiple gods. How can you worship the same god and multipe gods at the same time?
Is worship of Zeus the same as worship of Yahweh (the polytheistic hebrew war God of of Paul that morphed into christianity's "one god" concept).?
Is worship of Satan the same as worship of Buddah?
In my opinion no. These concepts offer vastly different manifestations of morality and a view of the universe. For instance, Buddism teaches a very different world view than Christianity, which postures we are all just evil Hell bait that are being tested for heaven.
By the way, here are a few interesting links on Yahweh and polytheism...
http://www.rhewitt.com/God/god_of_gods.htm (http://www.rhewitt.com/God/god_of_gods.htm)
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/brutal.htm (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/brutal.htm)
Post by: BuzzKill on May 17, 2005, 03:09:00 PM
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm (http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm)
My personal thoughts are, that this is one more Great Lie being spread about to ensnare those so willing to believe without question such lies. But I would think that, wouldn't I? That alone shields you from having to take seriously anything I might say. If you can be brought to the point of denying Jesus ever even lived - you can be kept from ever giving the issue of Salvation any thought at all - And this saves the Great Liar the trouble of working to keep your mind off such troubling subjects as your eternal soul and its salvation. He is very clever.
But you each have your own free will - and you each may believe and live more or less as you please.
Free Will is an important Christian concept and one you would do well to spend some time considering.
You each (Greg and Niles) have indicated that you must have proof. Niles, I think you were saying God should just make Himself known to you. Consider for a moment - if He did make Himself known to you - Would you have any ability left to deny Him?
He wants your Faith and Love not because you are forced to give it but because you chose to give it. To allow you this choice, He must take the chance you will turn away. You may walk in darkness or in the Light - but the choice must remain yours to make.
All this being said, I want to be clear - I bear you no ill will for not being for swayed by any argument I might make. I do realize many would and I find that regrettable. I feel it is due to their not understanding it isn't the job of a Christian to convince unbelievers to agree with us. We are only called to present the truth as best we are able according to the gospels. It is not our responsibility to turn stony ground into fertile soil, and we shouldn't be offended or angry when disagreed with.
So, if you guys will just kindly hand me back that platter with my head on it . . .
Lets give one another a wink and a smile and go on our separate ways.
Love you guys.
PS.
You do make some important points in your last post above. The Biblical God is not the same as the god/gods of any other faith. He is very clear on that point.
Post by: Anonymous on May 17, 2005, 03:27:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-17 12:09:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"Well I know Greg and Niles will Poo-Poo anything that cast a critical eye on their "intellectual" editorialist; but for others who might wonder about the Christian point of view on the Jesus Myth:
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm (http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm)
Why would you say that? I have read EVERY LINK you posted. YOu cannot say the same. Don't cast stones in glass houses....
Quote
you can be kept from ever giving the issue of Salvation any thought at all - And this saves the Great Liar the trouble of working to keep your mind off such troubling subjects as your eternal soul and its salvation. He is very clever.
<
Unfortuanately for you, this argument isn't. I have told you I was "saved" in a penecostal church. I know ex evengelical preachers who are now atheists. All these people, including me, appear to have given this MUCH MORE thought than you.
Quote
You each (Greg and Niles) have indicated that you must have proof.
And this is "proof" you never read what I post. I have never asked for proof. I have asked for evidence, a concept you can't seem to grasp.
Quote
Niles, I think you were saying God should just make Himself known to you. Consider for a moment - if He did make Himself known to you - Would you have any ability left to deny Him?
Right, and then this little charade game would be over. Ask yourself why a god described as omniescent and omnipotent would need to create a universe for the sole purpose of getting worshippers and then also describe himself as angry, vengefull, sad, etc. These are all human concepts. You have created your god in your own image.
Quote
He wants your Faith and Love not because you are forced to give it but because you chose to give it. To allow you this choice, He must take the chance you will turn away. You may walk in darkness or in the Light - but the choice must remain yours to make.
Silly human concepts. At least in the old testament, when he came to kill, mame, rape or torture, he showed his face.
Quote
You do make some important points in your last post above. The Biblical God is not the same as the god/gods of any other faith. He is very clear on that point."
Right! But he also makes it clear that THERE ARE OTHER GODS.
Yours is the war god. Have fun in eternity worshipping him. Remember, eternity is a long time...one slip and its off to the Lake for you!!!
Post by: GregFL on May 17, 2005, 03:35:00 PM
Tell me you did not link me to another "Tacitus and Josepheus apologetic site?(and even your author admits to fraud in Josephus and misleads throwing out 66ad..when was this written..hint..long after 66ad)
Also, THIRD CENTURY writers as evidence for Jesus? Hannibal existed therfore Jesus did? Comparing the pagans to the Jesus/myth only works when you "cast a large net?
That is perhaps the lamest link you have provided yet...
No..no...nooooooooo my brain is melting!!!!
Post by: GregFL on May 17, 2005, 03:36:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-17 12:17:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Quote
On 2005-05-17 12:09:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm (http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm)
And this saves the Great Liar the trouble of working to keep your mind off such troubling subjects as your eternal soul and its salvation. He is very clever.
I try[/b] to read your posts all the way through, I swear I do but I just can't. I get to things like the above and its all just so preposterous that I can't even go on.
Great Liar....hmmmm would that be Cardinal Law???"
I am trying to take the high road and analzye everything she posts even as she admits she ignores and dismisses everything I post.
My brain hurts.
:grin:
Post by: GregFL on May 17, 2005, 03:40:00 PM
Who Created Satan? Why isn't he in the creation story? Did he predate the earth? Have the angels (and demons) always existed? Are they immortal? If they always existed, then God couldn't have created them. If he created them, Then why did he do a such a crappy job they were able to pull off a coup in Heaven?
Hmmm...christianity is not montheistic after all..there are multiple gods..we just call them Angels, Satan, and Demons.
There is a universe, existing in existence, chockerblock full of these Gods, and not one of them bothers to show himself.
Very interesting indeed...very interesting in the context of absurdity that is.
Post by: GregFL on May 17, 2005, 03:44:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-17 12:09:00, BuzzKill wrote:
Free Will is an important Christian concept and one you would do well to spend some time considering.
Okay, I will consider free will. But, you must answer some question for me to help me analze it. Please just answer, no editorializing.
1) is god omniescient..ie: does he know everything past present and future?
2) is free will absolute. We are free to make any decisions we wish with respect to our life?
Thanks for the answers.
Post by: Anonymous on May 17, 2005, 10:57:00 PM
Do we have it or not? can someone answer my questions above?
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 17, 2005, 11:40:00 PM
What a load of hogwash!
What just and good god would require belief on the grounds of no evidence? If that were the case, then it would be so much of a religious crapshoot! Playing spin the wheel of eternity and hope BY CHANCE you were either born to or convert to the right religion.
But oh, wait, before you were saying that the bible had proof. Flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop......
See, this brings me back to point #1. RELIGION IS BULLSHIT. If I have any spirituality left after this little fiasco of a thread, its definitely not going to have a damn thing to do with any human middlemen.
Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.
Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798
Post by: Anonymous on May 18, 2005, 10:07:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-05-17 20:40:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
"God wants me to be free to BELEIVE, but not free to know. If I knew, I couldnt deny, and thus I could not choose to believe?
What a load of hogwash!
Since it is such an erroneous gamble what-with all the various gods, different religions, different sects of religions, even different secs of christianity..all professing they have the answer and way to Eternal bliss...How about this?
the "what if" hypothesis...
God is hiding on purpose and has created all these phony religions for stupid humans to become elitist and kill and discriminate with. It is a test of character.... Come Judgement day, He is going to award only Those Strong enough to not believe based on no evidence. He wants all ass-kissing scared of death humans in HELL, buring for eternity.
Tell me, is this any more or less ridiculous than all this other supernatural hocus pocus?
And please don't write back and tell me I have flawed logic, I don't believe this any more than I believe in Jesus rising from the dead or talking snakes tempting women with magical fruit.
No one has bothered to answer my free will questions. I think they know this won't stand up to critical review....
Post by: GregFL on May 18, 2005, 12:16:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 18, 2005, 01:24:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-17 12:44:00, GregFL wrote:
"Quote
On 2005-05-17 12:09:00, BuzzKill wrote:
Free Will is an important Christian concept and one you would do well to spend some time considering.
Okay, I will consider free will. But, you must answer some question for me to help me analze it. Please just answer, no editorializing.
1) is god omniescient..ie: does he know everything past present and future?
2) is free will absolute. We are free to make any decisions we wish with respect to our life?
Thanks for the answers. "
Have you people just given up? If free will is an important christian concept...lets talk about it. Somone please answer my questions...
Post by: Anonymous on May 18, 2005, 01:28:00 PM
Yes, you have free will to choose. This is important to God. Free will is important to God. God wants you to come to him by faith. When you realize this, you will see the grace of God.
Post by: GregFL on May 18, 2005, 01:42:00 PM
Lets take an example. Lets say that God knows tommorrow at 8 oclock that I am going to steal something.This fits your example perfectly, the omniscience of an all knowing god?
With me so far?
But...there is a problem...no matter which way we answer this, a problem for christian dogma comes into play. Lets explore!
If God knows EVERYTHING, and he knows I will steal something tomorrow at eight oclock, then I cannot change what god knows will happen. Therefore, I must steal tommorow at 8 oclock.I have no choice in the matter.. It is predetermined...I HAVE NO FREE WILL.
DAMN!!!!!
But wait......
If I have free will, if I am free to change my mind and not steal tomorrow at 8 oclock, if the ultimate morality of this is my decision, then God does not know everything, because the future is determined by a choice I will make. Then God can't forsee the future.
Double Damn!!
Someone please tell me...BUZZKILL, help me out here.
Do I have free will, or is God omniscient?
Which closely held Christian dogma is wrong?
Comn...help me out here!!!!
Post by: BuzzKill on May 18, 2005, 04:36:00 PM
There is nothing I can say that will make the least bit of difference to you; or that you can say that will impress me.
I have grown weary of you accusing me of not reading your posts or responding to your comments or links (its not my fault if the dam thing won't open for me)When I Have responded and explained my thoughts on the subject, at times, repeatedly.
I feel that I am getting no thoughtful reply to anything I have said and that the various points I have made have been willfully misunderstood.
I have grown weary of having my intelligence questioned for no more reason than I question the scholarship, integrity and agenda of your sorces.
I'm perfictly willing to let you and Niles have the feild.
But anyway - as to your new line of questions - Yes, God is all knowing. But this is Not the same as making you do anything. You do what you will. It seems to me you are trying to cast blame on God for not Making you do what you should, b/c He knows what wrong you will do. Its up to you weather you are a blessing or a curse to the people around you.
I'll close with some Floydian scripture.
Its been running threw my head.
All alone, or in twos -
the ones who Really love you -
walk up and down outside the wall.
Some hand in hand.
Some gathered together in bands.
The bleeding Hearts and Artist make their stand.
And when they've given you their all -
Some stagger and fall -
After all -
Its not easy -
Banging your heart against some mad buggers wall.
Post by: GregFL on May 18, 2005, 04:49:00 PM
And you accussing me of not reading your points? After I have in detail responded to you and then you responded by pasting what, 5 or so Tacitus and Josephus apologetic websites in response to providing contemporaneous evidence of Jesus?
After you admitted you dismissed what I was writing and didn't even go to our links?
hehe...typical. Very typical.
Which is it Buzzkill...do you have freewill or is god Omniscient?
Wanna answer it or continue to tap dance?
Buzzkill, thanks for playing!
Post by: GregFL on May 18, 2005, 04:53:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-18 13:36:00, BuzzKill wrote:
It seems to me you are trying to cast blame on God for not Making you do what you should, b/c He knows what wrong you will do.
What a disengenious tuck and dodge of the question, like I was really talking about stealing something tomorrow at 8. :lol: :lol:
This is a micro example of your responses in this entire thread.
Buzzkill....Omniscient or Freewill...which is it?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Post by: Anonymous on May 18, 2005, 05:23:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 18, 2005, 05:26:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 18, 2005, 05:30:00 PM
Quote
anon wrote:
okay, I am not all knowing, but it doesn't take an all knowing parent to know what their child will do when given free will. If I offer my child a tuna sandwich or a peanut butter sandwich, I KNOW she will pick the tuna one. However, I didn't MAKE her pick the tuna one. Now, if I KNOW that and I am not all knowing, then how much more will my heavenly father KNOW about me?
You do not Know anything, you assume based on your child's prior behavior. Your child could develop a craving for peanut butter and you don't have this knowledge before hand! This type of stuff happens all the time. Your analogy is horrible!!
This is very different than knowing a future absolute. IF a supernatural being knows the future absolutely, it predetermines the outcome. If the future is absolute, then it is also not able to change. If it is unable to change, you have no free will. If you have freewill, then the future is not certain, it is based on a future decision. In that scenario, God cannot know the outcome because of "free will.
Think about it.
Now,Anon, since you have piped in... which doctrine is wrong...Free will or omniscience?
Post by: GregFL on May 18, 2005, 05:30:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-18 14:26:00, Anonymous wrote:
"And Buzz, your posts are still be read with great respect by others that are not posting! We thank you for your intelligence, time, effort and energy. "
you speaking for all lukers or just yourself? Who elected you the lurker spokesperson?
Aren't you really just trying to boost "jesus's side" in this argument?
comn, you can tell us.
:grin:
Post by: GregFL on May 18, 2005, 05:34:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-18 14:23:00, Anonymous wrote:
"okay, I am not all knowing, but it doesn't take an all knowing parent to know what their child will do when given free will.
Man, I just re-read that again. Are your proposing that you know with certainty all decisions your child will make?
What a load of crap!!!
Post by: Anonymous on May 18, 2005, 05:50:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 18, 2005, 06:20:00 PM
If god knows the future absolutely, then you have no free will, you are pre determined to behave in the manner and fashion god knows you will. It is a simple logical conclusion.
What a twisted justification argument you use.
Which is it..do you have free will or does God know the future?
Answer the question.
Post by: GregFL on May 18, 2005, 06:38:00 PM
4 people at work, eh? Do you work at an evangelical church?
:grin:
Post by: Anonymous on May 18, 2005, 06:44:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 18, 2005, 06:48:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-18 15:44:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I know you do not understand. But I have no problem with God knowing the future and the decisions I will make because He knows me. I am sorry you don't have experience with relationships like that. One does not preclude the other. As far as where I work...NO I don't work at a church, but I am blessed to work with other believers. You make statements that make God little and with no more power or understanding than man. He is Creator and there is no way for man to understand all of His ways. I cannot expect an ant to understand human emotions any more than I can expect man to understand all of God's ways."
hmm...I guess your thesis is, you can't think this thru.
I am talking about YOU, not god. If god knows what you are going to do tomorrow, can you change the course of that knowledge? Do you have to behave as god Knows, or can you change it? The answer is...if you can change it, God doesn't know...If you can't change it, you don't have free will, you are pre-determined to behave in a certain fashion. This is an indisputable fact. Think, Anon...it isn't really all that painfull!
BTW, I am a reformed Born again christian. Don't patronize me by saying "I don't have experiences with relationships like that". If you were following this thread as close as you claim, you would have already known that. Further, I am the father of two children, one 22 years old. Your example is absolutely based on a false pretense, you Do not know how your kids will behave with free will. Please!
your entire response above is known as "special pleading" and it does not hold water.
Answer the question...is it free will or Omniscience that is wrong?
Post by: Anonymous on May 18, 2005, 07:48:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 18, 2005, 08:30:00 PM
This right here tho is evidence of the non- logical, anything goes mentality of the credulous. They refuse to allow logical arguments to enter their brain because it interfers with their foregone conclusion.
Just like "creation science", it is self induced sillyness
Post by: GregFL on May 18, 2005, 09:30:00 PM
lets say that god lets me ask him two questions.
My first question is this... I ask God to tell me the yes or no answer to question # 2, without telling him what the question is. He answers yes.
Can I now phrase the 2nd question just to make god give me the wrong answer to question # 1? What if I say, are you evil?
Can I do this forcing god to answer NO to question # 2, thereby rendering his first answer incorrect?
If so, Doesn't that make him not omniscience?
If no, doesn't that mean I don't have Free will?
:grin: :grin: :grin:
Post by: ` on May 18, 2005, 11:36:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-18 15:47:00, Cayo Hueso wrote:
"Oh My God! Those last couple of anon post just about made my head asplode! :nworthy:
Post by: Anonymous on May 19, 2005, 01:04:00 AM
Anon,
How can you call Greg illogical when believeing in God is illogical? My Dad and I were discussing Christianity one day. I was asking him how he could believe in something with out proof, wihtout logic. He is a mathamatician and a very logical man. He told me, "Thats just it. Faith is illogical. You have to believe something you cant see, touch, or smell, or have any hard proof it exists." It is weird to me this extremely intelligent man could beleive something so out there. I am a reformed reborn Christian as well. One day I was thinking about God and I realized there was a possiblilty that life could just be it and then you die there is no Heaven or Hell. We just die and thats it. It freaked me out and since then I just cant believe the hypocritical biased Book anymore. I cant believe that Christians are so very judgemental and quick to hate, when that isnt the way Jesus was. He talked about damnation alot, but he also spoke of he that cast the first stone, and love thy neighbor, love the sinner hate the sin.
My dad brought up and interesting point though. Jesus existed. Therfore you either believe he was a raving lunatic or he really was the son of god. But I also believe, being that the Bible was written by fallable men, they convieniently left things out to further thier cause.
The bible was written and canonized by men. Man left out an extreme amount of biblical testimony by other sources outside the twelve apostles. And that being the case, how can one believe in a biased book that not only causes people to shut out and hate others, but it has caused wars and problems for many. And not just Christianity other religions do it too.
My husband wanted to retort as well. He said
"god may know your choices when they are made, but he can only influence your decision, as can the devil. Hence, he knows the choice, but cannot make it for you, or presume to know what choice you will make. Thousands of factors go into decision making. God is listening not deciding."
And another thing, it is weak to have your only argument be that God is so above us that we cant possiby understand his plans. Evertime I ask my Dad about Christianty and theres something he cant explain, he responds the same way you do. God is too powerful to understand, it is not something we need to understand to beleive, ect. Wheres my freakin answers? Shouldnt they be in the Bible? Why are there so many loopholes and unanswered questions and they still expect us to swallow it without knowing the whole truth?
Seems like a big conspiracy to me.
Amanda
Post by: Anonymous on May 19, 2005, 08:29:00 AM
And Amanda, for me it would take more faith to believe that all of creation just happened, by chance, without purpose, something this wonderful just sprung into being from nothing and no one. That in itself is faith. Your faith is in what you see. There are lots of things I can't see, but I still know exist by evidence of behavior. I know my husband and children love me. This is evidenced by their behavior. I can only see the results of that love and feel the implications of that love. But I can't see love. When they are out of town, I can't see them, but I still know their love. I can have faith in an unseen God, because of the evidence of His creation. To me, it is only logical that a creation has a creator.
Post by: GregFL on May 19, 2005, 09:34:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-05-19 05:29:00, Anonymous wrote:
"From what I know of God, thru reading His words, God would already know your questions and instead ask you one. This seems to be what Jesus did with the Pharisees.
Nice Bob and weave! Can't address the question directly, can you?
What a Joke!
Quote
I can have faith in an unseen God, because of the evidence of His creation. To me, it is only logical that a creation has a creator."
Now you are in a logical dead end. If the universe needs a creator, than so does the creator, and this brings you into an infinite inpass.
You are just inserting "god" into every place that you don't have understanding...your death..the universe..infinity..the beginning of time..the beginning of life.
Why can't you just say "I don't know"?
Will your head fall off?
:grin:
Post by: GregFL on May 19, 2005, 09:39:00 AM
I would say this tho, a couple assumptions you make are not foregone conclusions.
Did Jesus exist? There has been debate on this topic since the gospels were written. At this point, it is so entrenched in mythology that we may never know. And no, he didn't have to be a raving lunatic if he wasn't the son of god. Many people think that they are the incarnation of God and appear fairly rational...look at our modern day example Rev Sun Yun Moon. Many people say "god is in me". Doesn't this sound crazy? Do these people act crazy? Usually no.
Your conclusion about omniscience and free will is one theory that can't hold water, god cannot know what we are going to choose and give us free will. If he knows we are going to do something in the future, then we are compelled to behave this way. My two questions to God are evidence of this. Read back and with your sharp open mind, you will get it.
Thanks for the response.
Post by: GregFL on May 19, 2005, 09:57:00 AM
When a religious person says
"I believe because I have faith, it is not based in logic, I feel it"
well, who can argue with that? It is when these people try to step up to the plate with logical arguments, "scientific" conclusions based on their relgious book, and foregone conclusions about concepts such as Creation, then their argument gets silly real quick.
Post by: Anonymous on May 19, 2005, 10:09:00 AM
Most raving lunatics are not at all like sane people think we would be, even off our meds.
I haven't known many schizophrenics, but I've known a lot of other bipolars.
People who are crazy, even before meds, can and could go through long periods of stability just because the diseases wax and wane on their own.
And you can be in a period of relative stability and still believe God is talking to you. In fact, a lot of raving lunatics are hyper-religious because that's one of the areas of the brain frequently affected by what we've got.
I suspect that throughout human experience, raving lunatics have been labelled holy men or holy women and had their visions and teachings followed by others.
It certainly explains Mohammed better than anything else. Guy at 41 years of age, in a cave, decides an Angel is talking to him. Riiiiight. And half of what he was so arsed about at all his neighbors in Mecca, and why he had to run away to Medina in the middle of the night in the first place, was because his friends and neighbors who lived with him and should know thought the man was a dangerous raving lunatic.
One of the bigger differences between Mohammed and Jesus is that Mohammed happened more recently so perhaps we have more information or people were noticing different things, already, to write down.
And Jesus appears to have been a much nicer person.
But I have no problem at all with believing that Jesus was a very good person, and a very wise person, and also a raving lunatic. Because those three things are not as incompatible as people without a major mental illness, or without a close family member with major mental illness, think they are.
I think that either the information about Jesus has been reported and distorted very selectively *or* he was a raving lunatic, or a bit of both.
Having a cow at the banking people in a Temple, throwing over tables, grabbing a whip and running around after them beating on them----all that isn't exactly the *normal* way of dealing with a bad policy.
It was effective. It was probably even a good idea. But not exactly normal.
Crazy people have those kinds of violent rages. Frequently at things that would have hacked other people off, too. Other people would have just chosen to exercise more control than to start throwing tables, yelling out accusations, and beating the crap out of semi-random examples of the whole group of people making them mad. Normal people, even if they were as upset as Jesus appeared to be, would have handled that differently.
So yeah, I think he was a nice, wise, lunatic who nevertheless said a lot of important things.
Timoclea
Post by: GregFL on May 19, 2005, 10:16:00 AM
The credulous argument is a weak and emotional argument. That is why you witness them ducking logical questions, because direct answers lead them away from their foregone conclusions.
To me, this is not how I wish to live my life, by a set of absolutes based on illogical and silly assumptions like Woman was tempted by a talking snake into eating a magical fruit, Or God murdering 42 children by sicking bears on them because they called one of his prophets "baldy". I could go on and on. I think two thousand years ago, it probably made some sense in the context of that ancient society. Today in 2005? It is unreal people accept this stuff at face value and choose to dismiss hundred's of years of science and reason.
But hey, if others wanna use this as a blueprint for how they process information, that is their choice.
Just don't come a knocking on my door wanting to convert me with this sillyness.
Post by: Anonymous on May 19, 2005, 02:54:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 19, 2005, 03:41:00 PM
In the Bible, it says it is a sin to be gay, right? It says it once in the old testament and once in the new. But the bible also says alot of other weird things in the old and new testaments too about how we should live our lives, but most Christians dont follow those rules. Its like they pick and choose what rules they want to follow and not the ones they dont. I think thats ridiculous. And maybe saying Jesus was a lunatic was a bit extreme. He has soem good things to say. And Greg, My brother the theologin told me there was documented fact from more than one culture that Jesus exsisted. Is there a link you can provide to give me some info on the opposite?
Thanks
Amanda
Post by: Anonymous on May 19, 2005, 03:45:00 PM
Amanda
Post by: Anonymous on May 19, 2005, 04:39:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 19, 2005, 05:56:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 19, 2005, 06:18:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-19 12:41:00, Anonymous wrote:
"And another thing,
In the Bible, it says it is a sin to be gay, right? It says it once in the old testament and once in the new. But the bible also says alot of other weird things in the old and new testaments too about how we should live our lives, but most Christians dont follow those rules. Its like they pick and choose what rules they want to follow and not the ones they dont. I think thats ridiculous. And maybe saying Jesus was a lunatic was a bit extreme. He has soem good things to say. And Greg, My brother the theologin told me there was documented fact from more than one culture that Jesus exsisted. Is there a link you can provide to give me some info on the opposite?
Thanks
Amanda"
Next, your brother will be marching out tactitus and Josepheus.
Yes there are links...look thru this thread.
Post by: GregFL on May 19, 2005, 06:21:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-19 14:56:00, Anonymous wrote:
"You have quoted all things from the Old Testament. I know those things have been explained to you in earlier posts, so go back and re read the things Buzzkill told you. Those posts are very researched and represent what most Christians believe today. I am sorry you are stuck in the Law. Try reading the New Testament and see the grace brought by Jesus."
Yeah, god was wrong back then!
Oh wait, that makes him not omniscience!
:rofl:
You are so illogical, it is mind numbing.
Post by: GregFL on May 19, 2005, 07:51:00 PM
Like almost everything you have said, that is an erroneous conclusion.
Post by: GregFL on May 19, 2005, 08:00:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-19 13:59:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Yes this has been around before but I guess it needs repeating.......
Anon, you can point out the absurdities, contradictions, cruelty, and scientific absurdities all you want..The truly credulous will just do the twist as evidenced by "anons" response.
Quote
. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
"
er, sure it is, unless changing it helps clear up these absurdities and contradictions...then you just say "JESUS, NEW TESTAMENT" and viola, it all dissapears.
why can't you understand this?
:grin:
Never mind the cruely, contradictions and absurdities in the new testament...that is a whole nother book to justify and make excuses for.
Post by: GregFL on May 19, 2005, 08:25:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-19 17:03:00, Cayo Hueso wrote:
but shit, it seems like the explanantions and stories change every time someone calls Bullshit on your book.
OMG, how true that statement is.
When you bring up the absolutley GLARING fallicies, they just fling doodoo against the wall, hoping to divert discussion from the point. Take Virtually ALL the points I have made, not one logical response, not one "hmmmm"...nothing. Just appeals to god and Jesus' superduper supernatural powers.
Why is the bible true? god inspired it.
How do you know that? It is written in the book
How do you know what was written is accurate? God inspired it
How can you be sure of this? It is written in the book.
What about Jesus, How do you know he existed? It is in the book
But how do you know its true? It is god's inspired word.
This is a summation of their entire circular argument.
Post by: Anonymous on May 19, 2005, 09:50:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 19, 2005, 10:13:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-19 14:56:00, Anonymous wrote:
"You have quoted all things from the Old Testament. I know those things have been explained to you in earlier posts, so go back and re read the things Buzzkill told you. Those posts are very researched and represent what most Christians believe today. I am sorry you are stuck in the Law. Try reading the New Testament and see the grace brought by Jesus."
You said "Buzzkill has EXPLAINED TO YOU.....go back and read the things Buzzkill TOLD YOU..
Shit man, can't you even be honest about little things like this? Must you just be contrary for the sake of being contrary? Do you know how to have a discussion about philosophy without Poopooing the other's arguments with Nonsense?
DAMN!
Okay, I got another one for you.
:grin:
You say God knows everything....YOU DO SAY THIS, so please don't deny it.
You also claim we are god's creation.
Wouldn't god Know, before he created anyone, that large numbers of SPECIFIC people would never accept him with just faith? That others would never "hear his word". That still others would "be deceived" by other religions.
Wouldn't god know all this EVEN BEFORE ALL THESE PEOPLE WERE BORN?
Therefore, isn't god just creating people for the SOLE PURPOSE OF TORTURING THEM FOR ETERNITY?
How do you resolve this with an all loving god? Is Yahweh a sadist? Does he really like all this blood, burning animal smells, and people gnashing and burning for eternity? Why is all this part of his "perfect plan"?
And please don't say "free will" because even if we assume this, and assume he is all knowing, THEN HE KNOWS IN ADVANCE, BEFORE YOU ARE BORN, that he will torture you for eternity.
Jeeus, I can hardly wait...what are you gonna do this time...The polka dance?
:grin: :grin:
Post by: GregFL on May 20, 2005, 11:58:00 AM
Anyone care to respond past this point, I can only come here maybe once or twice a day for the next two weeks.
CYA. and remember....
Jesus Slaves!!!!
Post by: Anonymous on May 20, 2005, 12:07:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 20, 2005, 12:18:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 20, 2005, 02:33:00 PM
"work".
He claims the bible and science are in harmony.
Talking snakes tempting women with magic fruit is in harmony with science?
Earth created before the stars, sun and moon in harmony with science?
Light being created before the sun in harmony with science?
Dr Ross plays gambler's advocate and concludes that the life on this planet couldn't have happened by chance. Then he jumps from this erroneus conclusion right to God.
Dr. Ross is full of Jesus (and shit) , not science.
Sorry.....
BUT,. if we accept a couple of Ross's premises..that the big bang occured Billions of years ago and that evolution is real, how do you reconcile that with the bible timeline of 6000 years.
Which is it, evolution or the bible? Are you just picking things you like out of Ross' absurd unscientific postulations and dismissing the rest?
Is this intellectually dishonest?
Of course it is...
And why haven't you responded to my proposition above? Does your god create people with the foreknowledge that he will torture them for eternity in hell? If so, why so? Is this consistent with a "all knowing loving god?
Aren't you just slinging more dogma and ignoring or poopooing these philosophical arguments?
check yourself.
Post by: GregFL on May 20, 2005, 02:38:00 PM
"At first, Dr Ross appeared to be an answer to many an academic who wanted to maintain belief in billions of years, but did not want to be classed as an ?evolutionist.? (Because of the phenomenal influence of the mainstream creation movement (e.g., AiG, ICR), many in the church were aware of the inconsistency of positions such as Theistic Evolution ??God used evolution?).
The teachings of Dr Ross seemingly allowed Christians to use the term ?creationist,? but still give them supposed academic respectability in the eyes of the world, by rejecting six literal days of creation and maintaining acceptance of billions of years.
However, AiG speakers and writers have spent considerable time alerting Christians to the fact that in reality, Ross?s position still has the same basic compromise of evolutionary theory with Scripture as does Theistic Evolution, and ultimately undermines the authority of the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Through such efforts, I have noticed in recent times that many who previously embraced Ross?s teachings are now realizing how bankrupt they are?how much they undermine God?s Holy Word?and how such teaching can lead people away from the Gospel."
Post by: GregFL on May 20, 2005, 02:44:00 PM
" Ross?s persistent assertions of science being in full agreement with his particular beliefs, without any factual evidence, reveals that his books are propaganda tools having little to do with either science or the question of the existence of God."
http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/bibl_scien ... 0SCIENTIST (http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/bibl_science/ross.htm#ROSS%20AS%20A%20SCIENTIST)
Ross apparently isn't much different than most christians as he interprets the bible to fit his conclusions. For example, he "adjusts the meanings of words like day and week in Hebrew to arrive at Billions of years.
yawn.
Apparently no one believes this crackpot except himself and the scientifically and/or scripturally ignorant. You can't claim on one hand "the bible is scientifically accurate" then on the other claim the world is billions of years old. Nor can you ignore the glaring unscientific items in the bible that rely of the supernatural.
Now, stop playing fling the dogma and answer my questions...and try to be honest this time and don't just go searching for outs like "god wouldn't answer that".
These are philosophical questions designed to make you think. When answering philosophy, you must try to respond with honesty and integrity.
Try it! You may like it!
Post by: GregFL on May 20, 2005, 02:57:00 PM
"It is not fear, but rebellion against their Creator. They love the darkness of their unrighteousness rather than the light of the God?s holy truth"
Then they site bible passages that would lead the ignorant reader to conclude that all positions not consistent with young earth creation are "evil".
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... s_full.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0823ross_full.asp)
:wstupid:
In a nutshell, "Believe with me my supernatural book or love the darkness you evil god hater"
This is the dogma you have signed up for....
Post by: Anonymous on May 20, 2005, 04:58:00 PM
thats what my brother says about sin. what an easy answer. Its ok to sin because all you have to do is repent and poof! You are forgiven! So people like my step mom who claim to be Christians and people like "Rev" Phelps can do what they want to others as long as they ask forgivness.
Amanda
Post by: GregFL on May 21, 2005, 02:54:00 AM
Someone answer my last questions please
Post by: Anonymous on May 21, 2005, 08:15:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on May 21, 2005, 09:32:00 AM
There are many things I don't understand, yet rely on, electricity, television, telephone, cell phones and the wireless internet! I don't need to understand the nuances of these things to accept their benefits and also sometimes their, if you will, their curses. These are just little things, things much less important and less complicated than God. I will not claim now or ever to have all the answers about God. No one can. Well, I guess they can claim, but there is no way to really know, just as there is no way to really know exactly how everything began. Many Christians do not believe in a 6000 year old earth. Honestly, I don't really care how old the earth is. But I know it is important to many for some reason. I have been told that the original word used in Genesis for day is the same one that is used when the Bible refers to an age which could be years. There is also scripture that says a day for the Lord is like a thousand years. So, the earth age, universal flood vs. regional flood, I don't see those as important.
I am trying to answer you honestly and I do hope that you don't see me as trying to cram anything down your throat. I am also not trying to belittle or be sarcastic or avoid. I am trying to be genuine. You are asking questions that I have asked myself before. I find that many people start looking, seeking answers and when they think they have found it, they stop. Clinging for dear life to the answer they have found because they so desparately want to be right. Unfortunately, I think, that keeps people from growing. There is nothing like doubt to make you look deeper and learn more.
The written word, or in this case, e-mail word, doesn't express sentiment. I hope you understand that I am truly enjoying your posts. Not in an entertainment value, but because they do make me think, re-evaluate. Your posts do not make me question my faith, but rather my ability to express my faith. I must always be ready to give an answer for my hope. You have shown me once again, that I need to be more ready.
I am going to try another analogy. I know it is not the perfect one, but maybe it can express a little how I view God. I have a three year old. By the way she is precious! I love her dearly. She is able to understand what I tell her, but she is not yet able to understand the why's of everything I tell her yet. There are times she needs to obey just because I tell her to. Sometimes those things could be life saving. Like, STOP! At that moment there isn't time to explain that a car is backing out of the parking lot and doesn't see her. She just has to trust that I have been faithful in my instruction and obedience is necessary. And please don't just pick at and point out the holes in this analogy. It would take a book to cover everything I have thought of regarding it. Just read it, trying to see the heart of it. As a child of God, I don't really need to know the why's of everything. He has been faithful to me so many times that I need to sometimes just obey. And I know.... what about cow killing, and sister selling...He doesn't ask us to do that. The Bible reports history as well as how to live. Just because the Bible says people did some things, doesn't mean they were always approved of, or ordered. God did have requirements in the Old Testament that are no longer required. Much of what is reported I see as foreshadowing of His ultimate plan. I also see those arguments as deversions. And, I do not think they were originally yours, but Niles.
This is getting soooooooo long I don't even know if you will care to take the time to read it. Your last question is the one I have been struggling with the most myself. It is one that I have thought about alot over the last year. I do see it as much more relevant than the age of the earth, or the flood issue, or cow burning. I know you are familiar with the Calvinist vs. Armenian debate. I admit to you now that I am not as familiar with it as I should be. I have really just started digging into what I believe regarding it. It is a debate that has gone on since scripture. No man KNOWS the complete answer.
I do believe in an all knowing, all powerful, ever present, all loving God. I am going to try and answer and explain my answer to your question about God creating people for the sole purpose of damnation. Please do not think that I am saying this is the definative answer and is God's word. This is just my thought. As I continue to read, pray, and research, this thought could change!
I believe, God created everything and everyone. He chooses and loves each person. He gives them free will to choose Him or not. He knows what their choice will be. He has the power to change that choice but doesn't exercise it. Those that do not choose Him will still further His purposes and plans and be used to show His glory. The Pharoah in Egypt at the time of Moses could have let the people go at any time, but God knew he wouldn't and so God's power was shown then. Yes, many died. It is a sad story as well. But God also gave a way out. He told the people how to avoid the angel of death. Those that obeyed were spared. I see God as faithful and just, as well as loving. Justice is not always happy, neat and pretty. I don't know why He chooses to do the things He does the way He does, but this is where faith comes in. The Bible talks about a loving, merciful God, but also about a jealous, just, God. I think His wrath is as great as His love. He has proven to me that He is faithful, just, merciful and loving. So I must trust Him in the things I do not understand. I don't believe this to be blind faith. Blind faith is when there is no evidence. There are many evidences in my life where only a loving God could have rescued me from my actions. So, back to the cell phone, t.v., and all that other stuff I don't really get....I have found when I suffer the "curses" of them, like computer crashes and the sort, it is 99% of the time not the computer, phone, or t.v.'s fault. It is usually something I have done wrong. I either failed to read the directions, or misunderstood them. I think that is true with people. When people act in horrible ways using God as an excuse, I very much believe they have misunderstood, or just used God. When they see God as not doing what they think He should, it is because we have miss read the directions, the Bible, or misunderstood it. It doesn't mean that the directions were written wrong, just that my finite, untechnological mind, doesn't get it.
Sorry this is so long. Greg, I hope Costa Rica is wonderful. That is a place I have always wanted to visit. I love beaches, jungles, and fishing. I hear all are great there! I hope you are there for pleasure. If it is business, I hope you have time to make it pleasure as well. Thanks for your time here.
Post by: Anonymous on May 21, 2005, 12:00:00 PM
But Christians still judge and do dishonest things. All the forgivness factor does is makes it eventually ok for them to act that way. And I only have this connection to the church because of my parents. It wasnt soemthing I just felt and believed in as an infant on. It was ingrained in me to believe the bible. There is just too much misinformation, too much hypocrasy, too much fear involved in the bible to make me want to believe. I dont think scare tactics are a good way to make someone belive you. In America yes that works alot. But those of us who have a mind of our own can see through the bullshit and cant ignore the unsettling truth that Christianity dosnt make a whole lot of sense. I just cant beleive in something simply because I will go to hell if I dont and that seems like the main reason people believe. Its the difference between doind something because you feel in your heart it is the right thing to do, and doind it because you are afraid of getting in trouble.
Amanda
Post by: Anonymous on May 21, 2005, 12:08:00 PM
In reply to what you wrote to Greg, you may not understand cell phone, electricity, ect. But there is evidence and hard proof it exsists and you can learn to understand it. I dont understand Geometry very much, but I can sure as hell learn. The only book to learn about god and jesus is the Bible and it dosnt explain a whole lot and the stuff it dose explain it dosnt make alot of sense, and not because we cant understand it, but because in all reality, it just dosnt fit. And we dont see miracles or burning bushes or any proof god exists anymore. We just are supposed to trust this really old book written by men a long time ago and trust that they are telling the truth and not leaving stuff out. There was alot about Jesuss' life that wsa left out. Many years of information that no one talks about. I woudl like to know more about that before I just jump into believing soemthing.
Amanda
Post by: GregFL on May 22, 2005, 12:12:00 AM
You said you don't know, don't profess to know, only believe because you have faith.
This is an honest straightforward answer.
I disagree but that is an argument I can respect.
Most of my points in this thread were to debunk the absolute silly and ridiculous notions that people can prove their faith thru science or history. It can't be done, and when these arguments are brought to someone who is familiar with the falicies of these arguments, those people are exposed for being ignorant, dishonest, or both.
Your argument above is neither.
GregFL...shakes the hand of anon thru cyperspace.
Post by: GregFL on May 22, 2005, 12:13:00 AM
Today I had dinner overlooking a georgeus valley. LIfe is good on this fascinating planet.
Post by: Anonymous on May 22, 2005, 12:28:00 AM
Post by: GregFL on May 22, 2005, 01:11:00 AM
I live a pretty good life.
Post by: Antigen on May 22, 2005, 02:30:00 AM
Never let your dogma run out in front of your karma!
Don't laugh when you leave this courtroom, thinking you have beat the system because you have looked these things up yourself. We are going to get you down the road.
Washington Superior CourtJudge Rebecca Baker
Post by: Anonymous on May 22, 2005, 09:35:00 AM
When you buy a computer, it comes with an instruction book. There is only one instruction book for it. If you don't understand something, or just don't want to read the instructions, you may hire an expert, ask a trusted friend, or purchase other books about computers to help you learn. The Bible is the ultimate instruction book for me on how to live my life. When I don't understand, or want/need more information, I read other books by authors I trust, I ask trusted friends, go to my pastor, or seek information thru the internet from other ministers or pastors. These people are all mere men, but many of them have studied more, researched mor and have more life experiences to give them more insight. Just as you can get a computer geek that thinks he knows how to fix your computer and can ruin it by messing with it's original intent or design, you can find many religeous geeks that have very odd ways of interpreting the scriptures and it messes with God's original intent or design. Often you will find that the religeous geek hasn't read the entire instruction book himself, or bothered to study the text in context of the period it was written. So, while maybe you can learn geometry. I will never be able to learn tech stuff. I can memorize junk, but that is not applied knowledge. The same is true with the Bible. I know lots of so called Christians that have memorized lots of scripture but don't apply it. Maybe that is the case with your step mom. I know lots of loving, Christians that have little memorization of scripture, but know how to live out who Jesus is. I hope that God puts more of those people in your path. My job as a believer is to show Christ's love, mercy and grace to all I encounter. I am not to convince you of anything with words, but my actions should speak for who I am and who He is. When they don't I have failed. Thru a forum like this, I cannot convince you of anything. Words are just type. I admire you for your thoughtfulness and encourage you to keep seeking. Once you stop asking questions and think you've got all the answers, you quit learning and growing.
Post by: Anonymous on May 22, 2005, 10:25:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on May 22, 2005, 10:44:00 AM
Who We Are and What We (And God) Believe
Our Bible Based Policy Against The Unsaved
As most churches liberalize themselves and reject the commandments written by God in the Holy Bible, the Landover Baptist Church continues to do exactly what scripture teaches every Christian to do. And that is to keep the temple of the living God a clean vessel, untarnished by even a hint of fellowship with the unrighteous.
"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 1:9-11).
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (2 Corinthians 6:14-17).
We pray that God sends his Holy Spirit upon this Christian Nation and opens up the hearts of other Bible believing Christians so that they will adopt the same Bible-based policy that has kept our church strong for nearly 217 Godly years. For a list of common-sense reasons for keeping unsaved people out of your church click here.
About Us
We are a Bible believing, Fundamentalist, Independent Baptist Church. We are 157,000 members strong. Our Church Campus is located in Freehold, Iowa and rests on 35 acres of some of the most beautiful country you'd ever care to set your eyes upon. Our church holds 28 paid pastors, 131 paid deacons, 412 full time staff members, LCA (Landover Christian Academy), LCU (Landover Christian University), 11 fully equipped chapels, Four 2,000 seat sanctuaries, Three 5,000 seat main sanctuaries, the world's largest Christian Mall, a Christian Amusement Park (Landover Bible Theme Park and Red Sea World), A PGA 18 Hole Golf Course, 3 Fitness Centers, 4 Olympic sized swimming pools, Landover Village, Landover Towers, Landover Retirement Community, Center For 2 Churches On Every City Block Foundation, Leviticus Landing (An Exclusive Gated Executive Christian Community for Platinum Tithers?), Exodus Acres (Gold Tithers' Gated Community), *27 Developments, Landover All Purpose Multi-Temple, Spa and Resort Center, Fire Department, 100,000 seat amphitheater, 12 Television studios, 2 radio stations, A Christian Circus Camp, Retreat Center for Republican Candidates, 3 Corporate Christian Office Parks, hot springs, 8 cemeteries, and 243 fully certified Christian police officers.
A Godly Warning
We Believe in the WHOLE Bible (1611 KJV). We don't throw out the parts that make us feel uncomfortable, like the book of Leviticus. We bid you greetings, friend. We do not read, eat, consume, digest, or 'try on' any product that is not made and manufactured by born-again, Bible believing, Fundamentalist Baptist Christians, and we would have you know that we condemn anyone that does, and pray as King David did, 'against them' for a quick end and a speedy journey to a very hot place, where they can spend out all eternity honoring our Lord and Maker in a literal lake of fire, Amen. Please find our site a blessing.!
Christian Attire
Click Here For an Invaluable True Christian? Resource on Proper Womenly Attire
We believe that when a person first gets saved, the first thing they should do is buy a suit and a tie. If the individual is a female, then a dress not raised over an inch above the knee is acceptable. Clothing is perhaps the most important thing about being a Christian. If one is not properly clothed and fully representative of what God would want them to appear like.. well then, that person is probably not saved. Our motto is "get saved, get to a Christian Clothing store, and get fitted for the kingdom." Anyone who does not conform to the dress code at Landover Baptist will be fined no less than $300.00 a violation. It is a privilege to be a Christian and we believe that it is about time folks started acting like it!
Christian Behavior
A man should act like a man, and a woman should act like a woman. That about sums it up. We will go into further detail here by stating that all authority is granted to Pastor Deacon Fred Smith. This is in full accordance with Romans 13. If you are not familiar with Romans 13, well then we suggest you read it. A good ten or twelve readings of Leviticus wouldn't hurt either. Our pastor sometimes uses his godly authority to invoke the Lord's Law from the Bible in Leviticus. This is sometimes too much for some folks. If they refuse punishment, then they have the option of paying a $500.00 fine plus expenses accrued by the planning committee of Levitical Law Implementation. If you haven't cracked a Bible in a few years.. then Landover is not for you.
General Rules
The following violations will result in a monetary fine of no less than $200.00 as to be determined by Church Pastors and Elders: Failure to show up at church on time, Failure to attend a church service without written permission from a pastor or other agreed upon authority, Church parking lot violations, Single males or females caught in the houses of members of the opposite sex without proper supervision, out after curfew, failure to tithe, failure to perform Christian Service obligations, Use of a church key without proper permission, Sleeping and/or horseplay during church services, reading of 'crime oriented' comic books, possession of alcohol outside of Post Communion Party regulations, idol worship, inappropriate dress in town or in church, dress related to 'counter-culture' movement, beards are not allowed except with special permission from Pastor Smith himself, long earrings on women, use of tampons is strictly prohibited, men with earrings or jewelry of any kind, hugging, possession of pornographic material (except for widowed or single men over the age of 65), failure to identify oneself to a church authority, failure to answer a call slip, witchcraft, dancing and/or skipping, association with Catholics, Presbyterians, Mormons, Methodists, Unitarians, Episkypols, or any other occult activity (unless under supervision by Dr. J. Edwards), failure to conform to rules and regulations, failure to submit to authority, the questioning of church authority is not tolerated and may result in dismissal, failure to bring at least one new guest to church a week, failure to win at least one soul a week, disrespect, lying, stealing, cheating, plotting, failure to have a demon-possessed infant sterilized, attendance at non-Christian owned picture houses, and rock music. General Rules are subject to change at any time without notice. Members are expected to find out what the new rules are within two hours. Let us note here, 'A Christian who is interested in doing their own thing, will not feel comfortable at Landover.. we would even go as far to question whether or not that individual is a Christian to begin with.
Visiting Landover Baptist
You will want to make your reservations 2 years in advance for any service where head Pastor, Deacon Fred is preaching. (Please be patient, we are booked solid) Cost is $75.00 per person. Other services and guided tours can be arranged by calling the Landover Information line at: 1-900-976-7867. Reservations for church attendance and payments to hear the gospel of Christ can be arranged through a Christian extension of Priceline.com ticket sales (keyword: priceline.com - landover baptist church ticket sales)
*Affordable housing opportunities available for so-called "minorities" within 100 miles of church campus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note - If you do not have the same beliefs as we do, you are going to burn in Hell forever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by: Anonymous on May 22, 2005, 07:18:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 22, 2005, 08:45:00 PM
Amanda, then keep learning, asking questions and look for people that have studied and know what they are talking about. Write down some of the things that Buzzkill has said and that Greg has said and take them to a third party, off the internet, and ask face to face. Go to a Bible believing church and ask a pastor. Then find an atheist you can face to face with. Honestly, I have never met one as well knowledged as Greg. But then, read for yourself. Form your opinion from the knowledge you gain. Don't take just one or two peoples thoughts and claim one for your own. Whatever you believe, you need to own. Don't ride on someone else's faith. And yes, being an atheist takes faith too, faith, that there is not a God. I am sure there are things that you enjoy the benefits of without understanding them exactly. Don't decide to ignore the possibility of God just because you do understand Him. Keep learning, asking, know that you will never have all the answers. Just keep looking.
Post by: Antigen on May 22, 2005, 09:56:00 PM
All of these holy texts have been passed down through generations. All of them seek to weave a history and ethos that works backward from experience to something like reason or reconciliation. All of these cultures have created for themselves gods and spirits that embody the best and the worst of us and to explain and make some sort of sense of great tragedies in our histories.
There was a great flood. I believe that. In fact, I think there have been a good many great floods in our history. Probably none that were actually Earthwide. But many that effected all of the then known Earth; known to the weavers of legend and myth. And, not surprisingly, all of the major and most of the minor religions have a tale of a great flood. Not insignificantly, they also nearly all have various forms of the classic tragedies; the prodigal son, thwarted young lovers, tyrants and heros and long lists of cautionary tales.
If you can, entertain for a moment that our European Anglo Saxon version of religion and history is no more or less valid than the Hinus or the Islamists or the Budists or Confucians or the native American spiritual traditions or the Fairies in Finland. When you take a broad look at all of these religions and traditions, it seems clear that they're all stories; well told sometimes and often taken too, too seriously. But they all seek to explain What Is®
What Is® is the laws of nature which no man can fully comprehend and no man or beast or object can ever break. The law is swift and sure; you drop it, it will fall. You neglect it, maybe not today, but eventually it will rot or break or die. This law is all knowing, all encompassing, and evidently loves each and every one of us because it has allowed us to be born and survive.
That's a pretty accurate description of the suspect, isn't it? I could go on. You could probably fill in plenty of good examples for me.
But that's all God is. God is just all that we don't understand and can't control. Your prayer requests don't really compell the universe to suspend it's laws for your favor. If that were true, we'd be screwed because there are like 1000 times as many islamists as Christians. So if their prayers cancel out ours... :eek:
Good thing we don't really have that kind of power or the entire specise and half the rest of the plant's population would be toast!
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
Anonymity Anonymous (http://fornits.com/anonanon)
return undef() if /coercion/i;
Post by: Anonymous on May 22, 2005, 10:11:00 PM
And if you beleive that God is real and so over our heads, then no amount of studying a book written by men will ever give you an explanation or understanding of God.
And I know many people who arent christians that live by the same principles as Jesus and are good sweet kindhearted people. You believe they belong in hell because they dont think Jesus is the only answer?
I know how oyu feel about this. I was once a hard core Christian. I was just like you. So I get it. And I know why you need to "spread the word". If you didnt, you would not be practicing good faith. I understand it, but dotn beleive it. And I appreciate your views. Just hope you can see through the BS of religion as well.
Amanda
Post by: Anonymous on May 22, 2005, 10:17:00 PM
Amanda
Post by: Anonymous on May 22, 2005, 10:20:00 PM
:nworthy: Amanda
Post by: linchpin on May 23, 2005, 09:49:00 AM
Post by: Antigen on May 23, 2005, 09:52:00 AM
All religion is dumb. It's one big story they're feeding you so you'll behave on Earth. If there is a god, then he's a prick.
--Howard Stern, American radio personality
Post by: BuzzKill on May 23, 2005, 11:30:00 AM
If that were true, we'd be screwed because there are like 1000 times as many islamists as Christians. So if their prayers cancel out ours...
This is why God doesn't always comply. We often don't know what's really in our best interest - and often wish harm on others.
This is why the Christian when praying adds - Thy will be done - it is an acknowledgement that altho we think we are asking for something good and helpful - we could be wrong.
God is not a gene in a bottle. He is not in the business of granting all the petitioners wishes - or even any of them. But Prayer does have an effect that can not be explained and this has even been demonstrated scientifically. Actual controlled studies have been done that left the scientist scratching their noggins. Prayer has an effect that can not be explained.
God does answer prayer - especially, I think, when it will help with someone's spiritual walk and growth.
I have seen some minor miracles - not the sort of thing that would get written up in papers - but none the less - miracles.
And while I hate to keep hammering the same point over and over - The Biblical record is different from all other sacred writing due to the prophecy it contains. I have only mentioned a few here - but there are many hundreds of examples and they are very much specific and to the point and correct.
This is The difference. It is a very significant difference. It is proof that God is; and that He has reviled Himself to mankind through the Hebrew Prophets.
Bout this:
If that were true, we'd be screwed because there are like 1000 times as many islamists as Christians.
This is not actually true. Counting Christians is often done by counting members of Catholic churches and the major denominational church rolls.
Many Christians are not members of any organized church - myself among this number.
And world wide - this is more true than here in the US of A.
And in the last few years there has been a pouring out of God's Holy Sprit all over the world, that gets little to zero attention in the western press. Millions of people in Africa and South Korea and China, the old Soviet block, are on fire with new found faith in Christ. The winds of Revival are blowing in Ireland as well. Many are rediscovering the Love of Christ.
No one is counting them.
Post by: Anonymous on May 23, 2005, 11:45:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-05-23 08:30:00, BuzzKill wrote:
But Prayer does have an effect that can not be explained and this has even been demonstrated scientifically. Actual controlled studies have been done that left the scientist scratching their noggins.
I don't think they're really scratching their noggins. I think most of them have attributed that to the power of suggestion or the placebo effect.
Quote
I have seen some minor miracles - not the sort of thing that would get written up in papers - but none the less - miracles.
More likely that you've seen things you can't explain. That does not mean they're 'miracles'.
Quote
And while I hate to keep hammering the same point over and over - The Biblical record is different from all other sacred writing due to the prophecy it contains.
Not really and this has been explained to you at great length by Greg and you really do just dismiss the research and evidence he's provided to you.
Post by: GregFL on May 23, 2005, 12:59:00 PM
:grin:
Post by: Antigen on May 23, 2005, 01:53:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-23 08:30:00, BuzzKill wrote:
This is why God doesn't always comply. We often don't know what's really in our best interest - and often wish harm on others.
If God is omnicient and omnipotent, then God always knows what's best w/o our advice and would never dream of changing things just because one imperfect, unknowing individual requests it.
Well, the laws of nature are omnipotent and omnicient (for all intents and purposes). Also accutely responsive to our every move, however completely impassible and insensitive to our wishes.
That's God! The only way in which it makes sense to believe that prayer has any effect is that it has an effect on the person doing the praying. If you start out every day by spending 30 seconds concentrating on a certain goal then, throughout the day, you'll be more mindful and tend to notice things you can do to help meet that objective, whatever it is. But "god" doesn't really alter the natural order of things to make the car come to you or a person's health or mood improve or to fulfil any wish.
I tell ya', I learned a lot about living from some of those fine Christians who educated me early on. But, as it turns out, the useful stuff is absolutely no different from the useful stuff contained in every other religion I know of.
Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
--Alexander Hamilton
Post by: BuzzKill on May 23, 2005, 03:04:00 PM
That is the common dismissive argument; but it is wrong. In one study, the subject was simply bacteria in a petre dish. I can't find the articles now, but they were in a main stream media magazine - Time or Newsweek. I don't recall exactly what the effect being asked for was - But I do recall they got the effect they were asking for and it was dramatic and undeniable; and the over seeing scientist were really surprised and amazed. Those praying were just asking for God to act upon the bacteria to show the power of prayer. The placebo effect does not apply to bacteria.
The other studies you refer to, have to do with hospital patients, and how much better in general those receiving prayer did, than those who did not. The interesting thing here is, the patients didn't know they were being prayed for.
Something is going on here. Call it what you will, but in a case like this, it can't be the power of suggestion or the placebo effect.
// More likely that you've seen things you can't explain. That does not mean they're 'miracles'. //
I have seen miracles - close up and personal miracles.
// Not really and this has been explained to you at great length by Greg and you really do just dismiss the research and evidence he's provided to you. //
Yes, really.
I do dismiss what Greg has said and provided - but I would quibble with the word 'just'. I have my reasons, and I feel they are very good, and sound, and based on reason.
From my perspective, it is Greg who is refusing to look honestly at the evidence abundantly found in Biblical prophecy.
He likes to point out the Jesus Myth books and web sites as proof that Jesus never was. I can counter with other web sites and books that say the accuracy & scholarship behind such claims is extremely faulty; in some cases non existent. He ignores those, and writes it off as just more Josephus history. There is much more to this than Josephus- but he is significant and means a good deal more than Greg likes to consider.
My personal thought on this Jesus Myth phenomenon, is that there is wishful thinking in Hell as well as on Earth.
// If God is omnicient and omnipotent, then God always knows what's best w/o our advice and would never dream of changing things just because one imperfect, unknowing individual requests it. //
Certainly God doesn't need our advice. Quite right. If the world were living in God's perfect will, we would no doubt have little need for the petitionairy prayer. However - we are living in a world that is not operating in His will. Not only is He willing to consider acting on behalf of a person's request - He often does. Far more so than we have any notion of. He tells us, Ask - Please ask. . . For He wants to protect and Bless us; but He will not interfere where He isn't wanted. Once again, we have Free Will.
// But "god" doesn't really alter the natural order of things to make the car come to you or a person's health or mood improve or to fulfill any wish. //
Well, yes and no. I think if a person *needs* car and asks for a car, God will provide a car. This is not the same thing as Janice expecting a Mercedes Benz - but if there is a need, and you take it to God, He will provide. It might be the kind of car that keeps you walking by faith (praying the thing will start each time you get in) but I actually know of cases were people got cars as a result of praying with need.
I have personally seen people's health (mental and physical) changed dramatically as a result of prayer. I also know of cases were such prayers went unanswered. I don't know what makes the difference, but I am willing to trust that God does and leave it in His hands.
As for prayer just effecting the one praying - No thats just not the case. Praying for others, I think, is the most powerful kind of prayer we can make. I wish we all did more of it.
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 23, 2005, 04:02:00 PM
Whats the reason to say no to that?
If you ask the Government for the right to assemble you deserve to be told no .
--Jim Lesczynski, Manhattan LP chair, on "unorganized" gathering @ Central Park
Post by: Anonymous on May 23, 2005, 05:59:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 23, 2005, 07:55:00 PM
amanda
Post by: miseducated on May 23, 2005, 08:25:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-23 14:59:00, Anonymous wrote:
"to whom are you praying and in what faith?"
Nihilanthic, this isn't as stupid a question as it first appears to be. Let me give you the lowdown on how to get through to God with a relatively simple request such as yours.
First of all, if you have an issue regarding unemancipated minors, first you have to file form HC-117, declaring your intent to bring such subject matter before God. This form must have the signature on it of seven saints, any seven, it doesn't matter.
The following topics should be handled as follows:
To get the kids out you're going to need form HA-22567, Relocation of the Domicile of a Minor. Use a separate form for each individual, and fill out in triplicate.
To reform a "school" or any kind of institution, you've got to have a form ACH-55487, filled out in duplicate and carrying the signatures of the Presidential Shoe-Shiner and the First Lady's Ass-Kisser. Modify these instructions according to the Nation-State for which you are signed up.
To get justice, you are going to have to clarify your wishes to God using form YT-67235, which covers the subjects of Justice, Revenge, Smiting, Goading, and Stymying. For each form you may choose only one of the five above-mentioned specific requests. This form requires no additional signatures, but you must be very specific about your request, outlining in the greatest possible detail the desired results.
You will find that when these forms are filled out properly and handed to the proper representative of God -- which these days is a man who lives on the San Diego boardwalk who is one of the only living persons with a direct line in to God -- that saying "no" is not only not an option for God, but something he just really doesn't even want to say!
God is waiting for you, Nihilanthic, to develop a close, personal and bureaucratic relationship with him.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 23, 2005, 09:03:00 PM
Whats the reason to say no to that?//
Who says He said No?
There is much taking place, and more on the horizon, and you may see your prayer answered. If you do, I would suspect it is b/c of prayer - for many are praying about this. I personally do think it is primarilaly a spiritual battle. I think there is a diabolical intelligence behind the program and those like it. That's why I pray about this - but Niles - why do you?
// To go even further, if this "god" cared about its people, why would it let this sort of travesty happen? Oh yeah, right. His "plan". Yeah that's a perfect reason. I hope this plan plays out soon cuz this world as we know it is going to be blown to smitherenes by the assholes who run the show. Unless that is the plan. Hmm...
amanda //
No Amanda - the tormenting of teen agers is not part of God's plan. You are forgetting about the other powers that be. There is much evil in the hearts of men. Each person decides for themselves how much, or how little, free reign they will give the evil in their hearts. Others often suffer as a result. But without it - you would have no ability to decide for yourself who you want to serve and how you want to live. Its the price of free will.
One thing somewhat related I'd like to note - God is able to take the great evil done by men and turn it into greater good. If we are doing our best to walk in His will, we can trust that He will turn sorrow into Joy. There is nothing anywhere in the Bible that says Christians are free of pain or illness, suffering or sorrow - just that He will see us threw it and will Bless us b/c of it, if we remain faithful. And occassionally, we do get miracles.
Post by: Antigen on May 23, 2005, 10:12:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-23 18:03:00, BuzzKill wrote:
//I've prayed to god to get those kids out of those blasted programs, or reform them to not hurt them, and get justice for those that hurt the kids, Karen.
Whats the reason to say no to that?//
Who says He said No?
There is much taking place, and more on the horizon, and you may see your prayer answered. If you do, I would suspect it is b/c of prayer - for many are praying about this. I personally do think it is primarilaly a spiritual battle. I think there is a diabolical intelligence behind the program and those like it. That's why I pray about this - but Niles - why do you?
I think it's safe to say he's being facetious, Karen. We know people do pray these prayers and they're not immediately, demonstrably answered.
Everything that's happened (anywhere, anytime) is the result of the laws of nature. Intelligence is, evidently, a pervasive part of this universe, even lower critters posess some measure of it. It's all part of the vast and complex equation.
You can take everything you can't see or explain and attribute it to the will of your invisible friend. I do exactly the same. I just don't pretend it's a being who favors me over anybody or anything else.
Not a big difference, really.
You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, intelligent enough.
--Aldous Huxley, author
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Drug war POW
Seed `71 - `80
Straight, Sarasota
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
return undef() if /coercion/i;
Post by: Antigen on May 23, 2005, 10:14:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-23 18:03:00, BuzzKill wrote:
No Amanda - the tormenting of teen agers is not part of God's plan. You are forgetting about the other powers that be.
Wait a second here. I thought this guy was omnipotent? How can anything interfere w/ the plan or will of an omnipotent being?
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher.
--Ambrose Bierce
Post by: BuzzKill on May 23, 2005, 11:45:00 PM
I don't either.
//I think it's safe to say he's being facetious//
Maybe so. But he did also say he prayed about the broken down car. How bout it Niles - ya joken around or being serious?
//How can anything interfere w/ the plan or will of an omnipotent being?//
It can't. But no one said His plan was being interfered with. I said tormenting teens was not His plan. I was pointing out something that isn't; not what is, God's will. Part of the will of God for every person is to allow them to function with their own free will - which means they must be able to chose evil, even if it isn't what He would want them to do. The power of God is unaffected by what any individual might decide. His plan for the redemption of His creation is unaffected. His ability to intervene is unaffected.
There is another side to this suffering thing tho - I do think God can use our suffering to teach us and strengthen us - and so while sin and suffering are not God's will for us, He can use it to Bless us and make us better persons, a blessing to those around us. One example of this would be Corrie Ten Boon's suffering at the hands of Nazi Germany. You won't see many examples of greater suffering, or greater blessing resulting from it, than this little lady's story.
Post by: Angola Cheeba on May 24, 2005, 12:03:00 AM
Not Buying It!
Amanda
Post by: Angola Cheeba on May 24, 2005, 12:08:00 AM
Amanda
Post by: Angola Cheeba on May 24, 2005, 12:13:00 AM
In fiddler on the roof, remember the main charachter when he was describing how he appreciated what he had, but would it be disturbing some grand plans to give him a little wealth and prosperity and less trials?
Sure you can learn from suffering. I learned never to spank a child after my step mom beat us all the time and intimidated us with bull whips. I learned how not to act. But I would have learned that by her showing me a good example as well. It wasnt necessary for me to endure (and still endure) years and years of mental and physical abuse.
Amanda
Post by: Angola Cheeba on May 24, 2005, 12:14:00 AM
I found it informative on this very topic. It speaks of how myth plays out in our lives, and how religion is very much a myth. Even if you dotn beleive that is so, go to your local library and check it out and tell me what you think about it.
Amanda[ This Message was edited by: Angola Cheeba on 2005-05-23 21:17 ]
Post by: BuzzKill on May 24, 2005, 10:05:00 AM
And you don't have to. That is you exercising your free will.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 24, 2005, 10:14:00 AM
No, not so.
There were consequences to Adam and Eve's decision to trust the liar over God; but it wasn't their destruction. Nor mine, or many, many millions of others.
Post by: Cayo Hueso on May 24, 2005, 10:23:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-05-23 21:03:00, Angola Cheeba wrote:
"Actually, humans had a chance at "heaven" on earth wiht eden correct? Oh yeah and women screwed that up and now we have intense excruciatin pain when we bring life into this world as our punishment right? And all human kind was brought into destruction by eve right? Cuz of her sin? :silly: :wave:Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
--Denis Diderot, French encyclopedist
Post by: BuzzKill on May 24, 2005, 12:48:00 PM
And yet. . .
Consider the animals - They do have labor - but it doesn't appear to pain them unless there is some kind of problem.
Post by: Nihilanthic on May 24, 2005, 01:01:00 PM
She believes because she believes. Belief 'just because' is fine until you hurt others.
Just Becausers come out of, and run, programs all the time. I'm done with this thread. Although, I am amazed this is almost as long as my damn answers thread (which I need to resurrect sometime :grin:)
No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats---approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
--Lazlo's Chinese Relativity Axiom:
Post by: Cayo Hueso on May 24, 2005, 01:13:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-24 09:48:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"Point taken!
And yet. . .
Consider the animals - They do have labor - but it doesn't appear to pain them unless there is some kind of problem.
"
Actually that's not true. I've seen a few horses and a few cows give birth, none had any complications and it quite obviously hurt. I think they're just a whole lot better at dealing with pain than we are. When one of my dogs was about 2 she broke her leg, badly. Joe Theisman kind of bad. I know it hurt like hell but she never made a sound.
Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."
Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger, 1916, Ch.9
Post by: Antigen on May 24, 2005, 01:52:00 PM
In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn?t speak up because I wasn?t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn?t speak up because I wasn?t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn?t speak up because I wasn?t a trade unionist. Then they came for Catholics, and I didn?t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
--Protestant minister Martin Neimoller
Post by: Anonymous on May 24, 2005, 02:08:00 PM
Amanda
Post by: Anonymous on May 24, 2005, 02:10:00 PM
Post by: BuzzKill on May 24, 2005, 03:14:00 PM
I'd say myself, that the animals I have sat with seemed more anxious than in pain - but maybe it's the relative quickness of the uncomplicated birth for most animals that makes it seem easy by comparison.
Dogs - gotta love 'em.
I once had a Gordon setter, with a joint disorder that is painful - and she used to embarrasses me screaming her head off when it hurt. People would come out of their houses to see who was killing the dog! She'd take a wrong step fall over and start screaming. I had it operated on and fixed. Another little dog got hit by a car and also did a lot of screaming. But he wasn't so bad off really, and had a full and complete recovery. I also once had a Beagle who would scream and cry loudly every time he got a bath - but I don't think it really hurt anything other than his dignity. But our old Boxer dog - she would tolerate great pain and never do more than wyne softly and wait for help. Dogs are as different as people from one another.
Niles, I think you're being unfair, accusing me of being a 'just becauser', Just because you don't like my responses. I have given reasons for why I believe what I believe. I don't think I have once said - just because.
// But you have to admit women are not portrayed as important or even really good in the bible. //
No, I do not have to admit this, nor agree with it. I don't believe its true. There are many Biblical women who are shown to have great courage and virtue and resourcefulness and tremendous value. Off the top of my head:
Debra, Ruth, Esther (my favorite old testament history, is the book of Esther)Sara and Rachael and Hagar, and Bathsheba, The Queen of Sheba; In the New Testament you have several Marys and Martha and the woman at the well, and the woman with Faith.
Yes, they lived in a patriarchal society but they were very much valued and important persons.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 24, 2005, 03:19:00 PM
On this we agree!
So, we do have some common ground. :wink:
Post by: Anonymous on May 24, 2005, 05:13:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 24, 2005, 05:17:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-24 14:13:00, Anonymous wrote:
You might want to look at a Bible study that explains some of the context of the passages to you.
But those are other's interpretations of what the bible says. How is that any different? She's just to accept what other people tell her it means? I think she's doing a fine job on her own.
Post by: Anonymous on May 24, 2005, 05:24:00 PM
Post by: Angola Cheeba on May 24, 2005, 11:29:00 PM
Post by: Angola Cheeba on May 24, 2005, 11:36:00 PM
Ive done my research. Ive read "What the Bible is all about", "Mere Christianity", ect. It still dosnt make sense to me. Not that Im an idiot and dotn understand the "Jackob begoteth joseph who begoteht so and so" and on and on. I understand the writing. I just dotn think the stories add up. It is hypocritical and strange.
My neighbor is the sweetest most awsome dude ive met. He is a Christian. We talk about it sometimes when I BRING IT UP. He never forces his beliefs on me or makes me uncomfortable. So I do know some Christians who arent assholes. However, I know Hindus who are great as well, and Buddists, and athiests, and....
Post by: BuzzKill on May 25, 2005, 11:28:00 AM
If you define apostle as a believer who was an eye witness to Jesus' life, ministry and death, then you have to include Mary Magdalene.
Jesus had many women devoted to Him and who are spoken of very highly in the gospels and letters. You do them a grave dis-service writing them off as being dipicted as insignificant, devious, evil creatures.
It was a woman, loved and greatly valued, who was the first resurrected by the power of the Holy Ghost working through Peter. Book of Acts, chapter 9 I think.
Christ Himself often made it clear how valued they were.
God is referred to with a masculine pronoun all threw out the Biblical text - so I accept that somehow, for some reason that I don't really understand, it is correct. It has never bothered me a bit. I am one strongly opposed to the re-writing of the text in neutral terms, or adding the female pronoun next to the masculine. That is a perversion of the text, and so a false teaching. If a person wants to redefine the nature of God, they need to admit they are not Judaic - Christians, and go on and join the wiccans in the woods.
// Why didnt god choose to have a dughter? Becuase can you imagine a society so hateful and demeaning towards women following a WOMAN diety? //
You are grossly mischaracterizing the nature of Judaic patriarchy. I feel society today is far more hateful and demeaning to women than it was in Biblical times. Yes, they had the subservient role in society; and by today's standards it is viewed as intolerably sexist - but remember that was then, and this is now. Women did in fact need more protection then, and this was provided by the patriarchal nature of society. This has been so in every society threw out the ages - up until the advent of widely available birth control. When it comes to evaluating the relative worth of the female sex in these societies, the Judaic version was the most liberal in recognizing the worth of a woman and in allowing them some personal rights under the law.
I think your quite right that a female Christ would not have been acceptable. Common sense seems to say so. But how is this so offensive to you that you would discount the salvation message as a result? That, to me, defies common sense.
// So I do know some Christians who arent assholes. However, I know Hindus who are great as well, and Buddists, and athiests, and.... //
Sure hon, I know. I know them too. But weather someone is an ass hole, or not, is not the deciding factor. And those Hindus? Some of them still throw women on the funeral pyre to burn alive with their dead husbands.
Post by: GregFL on May 25, 2005, 01:11:00 PM
:grin:
Only women have pain in childbirth? OMG, what a silly notion..I used to watch my cat go crazy with pain during childbirth. You say these things because you want to believe them.
Someone else said you need faith to be an atheist.
Another erroneous notion.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god.
you need no faith to have no belief, you need faith to believe in something.
Do you have Faith that the easter bunny does not exist?
Do you have faith that leprechauns arent real and make magically delicious breakfast cereals?
Go look the word faith up. Atheists dont have faith, they lack faith in your supernatural god.
Post by: Angola Cheeba on May 25, 2005, 01:19:00 PM
YOUR bible protrays Mary as a scandelous hooker. And YOUR bible never once says they consider her an apostle. Your great book left that out. Hey, I dont think women are scandelous evil creatures. Christ was the ONLY one who made women valued. And the Jewish rabbis at the time were angry because Jesus did that.
It is a perversion of the text for the men who wrote it to only refer to god as a man. God is not a man. God does not have connotations of male or female. So if i choose to refer to god as a women, I am being sacreligious? Hmm.....
Ok, you are so confusing. How can you say that women were given rights and were treated liberaly when you just said that they would never follow a woman Christ? When you say they wer treated better then women in other societies, that dosnt mean they were treated well. now in the middle east, if a women commits adultry, BOTH the man and woman are murdered. Before only the woman was. WELL! That means women are treated SO much better now! Im sorry, but I just cannot listen to a message from a bunch of sexist, hypocritical, lying people. The Catholic church is leaving things out of the bible. I want ALL teh testimony on the bible, not just what they feel I need to know. And women were raped all the time, beaten openly, told to be subserviant and do their "duty" as a woman back in the day. Tell me, how is that being treated well?
Have I not said like three times in this thread that I hate organized religion? Not just Christianity, but ALL organized religion? I am not in favor of Hindus or Christians or whomever. If a religion causes harm and injustice to others then I am against it.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 25, 2005, 01:46:00 PM
No it doesn't. This idea is part of traditional thought - but it is not found in scripture.
Besides, even if it is true that Mary Magdalin and the woman caught in adultery are the same person - she was treated with mercy and forgiveness and it was her accusers who left, shamed.
And yes - I think society today treats women in a more degrading manner that they were treated in the time of Christ.
Am I trippen? No, not lately.
HI Greg ::bandit:: [ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-05-25 10:50 ]
Post by: Anonymous on May 25, 2005, 08:53:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 25, 2005, 08:53:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 25, 2005, 09:45:00 PM
Hasidic communities would be a good approximation.
The Amish are, of course, way too modern and liberal for the purpose.
I would think anyone *not* being disingenuous about the way she wanted to be treated would move to one of those places.
On the other hand, I suspect some of the "how women are treated" objections have to do with how *other* women are treated---namely, that we can make choices that certain other people don't approve of.
Call me crazy, but being sold off by my dad to some rapist for one to half a dozen cows just doesn't appeal to me.
Timoclea
Post by: Anonymous on May 25, 2005, 10:09:00 PM
Actually that is one thing I like about the Wiccan religion. Very woman friendly. And earth friendly. Many Christians say this earth was made for us to use and therefore it is ok for us to mistret it if we choose to. I just dont agree with that.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 25, 2005, 10:32:00 PM
Nor would I want to live way back when - not even 100 years back when. I like air conditioning and refrigerators and washing machines and hot running water, far to much to want to time travel to were these things didn't exist. Well, not to stay. If I could go visit, I would.
I used to think I might like the Amish life style - until I saw a documentary or two about them.
I like being able to vote and own property and all like that - but had I been living two thousand years ago, I expect I'd of had other things on my mind.
I expect, much depended on what kind of family one had - then as now. If your father, and later husband, were kind and considerate, it was probably not such a bad life. Just as now. If they were selfish pricks, it was no doubt a major problem, and hindrance to ones health and happiness- then as now.
But what I was talking about is degradation - the objectifying and de-humanizing of persons. I think we have more of that now, than what likely existed then, in the Judaic communities. I'm not dogmatic about this - I could be wrong.
I was also trying to point out to Amanda, some of the impressions she has on how women are depicted in the Bible are not based on actual scripture.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 25, 2005, 10:43:00 PM
OK - where do you get the idea this is what Christianity is about? Granted - you might have some sect you can point to - but the faith over all? No mamme. This is another one of your mis-conceptions.
//Many Christians say this earth was made for us to use and therefore it is ok for us to mistret it if we choose to. I just dont agree with that.//
I can't agree with this either. Many *people* don't give a rattz azz about the environment - it has nothing to do with their faith - they are just selfish and or ignorant - weather or not they are Christian.
From my Christian perspective, The Earth is God's creation; and we are to treasure and protect it and appreciate the wonder of it.
Post by: Anonymous on May 26, 2005, 12:17:00 PM
They're women who have *chosen* to enter beauty pageants, or wear a bikini to the beach or pool or water park, or take a part in a commercial, or a music video, or a TV show or movie.
They're women who have made *choices* based on what *they* want and don't see themselves as "degraded and objectified" at all.
If you don't want to be ogled, move to a Hasidic community and dress like the locals. You guaranteed won't be.
Come to think of it, I haven't had a whole lot of problems with that myself after passing, oh, about 35.
Not that *I* saw it as a problem, mind you. :smile:
It looks very much to me that you're complaining that *other* women have choices to do things you don't like.
In what ways are you forced to be a "degraded" sex object?
(Which is what I presume you mean.)
If you are, you must look a heck of a lot better than me. I just look like a frumpy middle-aged housewife, myself. A bit past the wolf-whistle age.
I never hear about women being "objectified and degraded" by being set to work scrubbing floors or toilets, for example. Or being consigned to work in daycares as "mother-objects."
Timoclea
Post by: Anonymous on May 26, 2005, 12:26:00 PM
T.
Post by: ` on May 26, 2005, 12:44:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-25 19:32:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"Well I don't like the idea of being traded for cow either. But back then - having ones father offered something as vital and valuable as a cow for your hand was an indication of your great value..."
yeah, your value was approximately that of the cows for which you were traded.
Post by: Deborah on May 26, 2005, 02:03:00 PM
From my Christian perspective, The Earth is God's creation; and we are to treasure and protect it and appreciate the wonder of it.***
The most political, out-spoken ?Christians? absolutely are not in favor of protecting Earth.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15814 (http://www.alternet.org/story/15814)
Why Ecocide Is 'Good News' for the GOP
Excerpts:
The federal government -- with Republicans in control of the White House, Congress and the judiciary -- has launched the largest rollback of environmental laws and regulations ever. The Bush administration seems determined to undo much of the good done since Earth Day 1970, when 20 million Americans defended the planet in the biggest mass demonstration of U.S. history.
Nevertheless, beyond all these more obvious anti-environmental motivations there lies a more deep-seated inspiration. Difficult as it may be to believe, many of the conservatives who have great influence in the Bush administration and now in Congress are governed by a Higher Power.
In his book "The Carbon Wars," Greenpeace activist Jeremy Leggett tells how he stumbled upon this otherworldly agenda. During the Kyoto climate change negotiations, Leggett candidly asked Ford Motor Company executive John Schiller how opponents of the pact could believe there is no problem with "a world of a billion cars intent on burning all the oil and gas available on the planet?" The executive asserted first that scientists get it wrong when they say fossil fuels have been sequestered underground for eons.
The Earth, he said, is just 10,000, not 4.5 billion years old, the age widely accepted by scientists.
Then Schiller confidently declared, "You know, the more I look, the more it is just as it says in the Bible." The Book of Daniel, he told Leggett, predicts that increased earthly devastation will mark the "End Time" and return of Christ. Paradoxically, Leggett notes, many fundamentalists see dying coral reefs, melting ice caps and other environmental destruction not as an urgent call to action, but as God's will. In the religious right worldview, the wreck of the Earth can be seen as Good News!
Some true believers, interpreting biblical prophecy, are sure they will be saved from the horrific destruction brought by ecosystem collapse. They'll be raptured: rescued from Earth by God, who will then rain down seven ghastly years of misery on unbelieving humanity. Jesus' return will mark the Millennium, when the Lord restores the Earth to its green pristine condition, and the faithful enjoy a thousand years of peace and prosperity.
The Republican Party platform in Bush's home state warns of what to expect from a federal government guided by religious right radicalism. The Texas platform "reaffirms the United States of America as a Christian Nation," and seeks to nullify the separation between church and state. It would abolish the EPA, and the Departments of Energy and Education. It dismisses global warming as "myth." And it promotes public school education "based upon Biblical principles," not upon secular humanism, which teaches Darwinian evolutionary theory and a scientific worldview.
Texans have paid the price for their leaders' anti-environmental stance. During George W. Bush's time as governor, the state gained the honor of having the dirtiest air in America. It also ranks 47th in water quality, and has the seventh-highest rate of release of toxic industrial byproducts.
The anti-science movement has also extended itself into the classroom. Last fall, the Texas Board of Education rejected several environmental science textbooks, including one entitled "Environmental Science: Creating a Sustainable Environment." Critics forced the book ban primarily on ideological grounds, calling the text "vitriol against Western civilization and its primary belief systems." Another science book was approved only after the publisher agreed to remove entire sections on climate change.
Should efforts to de-emphasize the teaching of evolutionary theory actually succeed, one wonders how we could hope to confront tough environmental problems. How, for instance, could we train scientists to fight the virulent new strains of bacteria that have evolved resistance to potent antibiotics? Or, another example: In his book "The Beak of the Finch," science journalist Jonathan Weiner tells how the U.S. cotton industry is threatened with collapse because of Heliothis virescens, a moth that has evolved total resistance to all pesticides.
Frustrated entomologist Martin Taylor notes the irony of the equivalence between the Southern Cotton Belt and Bible Belt. "It's amazing," Taylor notes, "that cotton growers are having to deal with these pests in the very states whose legislatures are so hostile to the theory of evolution. Because it is evolution itself they are struggling against in their fields every season. These people are trying to ban the teaching of evolution while their own cotton crops are failing because of evolution. How can you be a creationist farmer anymore?"
For those who think the teaching of environmental science is safe in our schools, or that evolution vs. creationism is a dead issue, listen to this comment from Tom DeLay, one of the most powerful men in Congress. He suggested that the Columbine, Colorado school shootings occurred "because our school systems teach our children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial mud."
DeLay agrees with Ford executive Schiller that, despite the fossil evidence, the Earth is only thousands of years old. Such willful ignorance of science informs the religious right approach to the environment, and the embattled Earth will bear the consequences.
Post by: Anonymous on May 26, 2005, 02:11:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 26, 2005, 03:57:00 PM
Ok first off eve came from adams rib or so they say right? so man came first according to the bible.
And like i said, there are no apostles that the bible says are apostles that are women. And jesus was a man. And god is considered a "man". And you even admitted that no man woud have followed a woman jesus. So yeah, I take that as men are more important and more trusted.
Well look at the fucking "Christian" president. He could fucking care less about the environemt. And like deb pointed out, many prominent christians could care less too. But like i said, Wiccans are loving to the earth. Tim can probably testify to that. I like that about that religion.
Post by: Anonymous on May 26, 2005, 04:06:00 PM
Post by: BuzzKill on May 26, 2005, 04:19:00 PM
As for the choice factor - with the examples you give, I'd tend to agree - but people can feel pressured into some of these choices; and some of them are made as a result of degrading life experaince.
As for the objectification you allude to (not being bother with for awhile) Very few women do object to this kind of "admiration". Or men either, I suspect. Personally, I never minded a compliment, or a wink and a smile; But I have always minded very much being groped by some stranger or having some crude remaked directed at me. So, this is really a matter of degree, isn't it?
The anon talking about the value of a cow -
Well, they are valuable even now - but then? A cow was life itself. Cows and goats and sheep were very valuable indeed, back in the time we are talking about.
Deb - I would have an argument or two for the Ford exec if we were to have the chance to talk. IF that is what he said (and to be fair, he may well have been misquoted) then he is wrong. Futhermore, there are a lot of Christians who have doubts about George dubya's "belife system". His father was without doubt a real New Age man - He spoke openly about ushering in the New World Order. Dubya also seems to lean in this direction; and both father and son are members of Skull & Bones - but so is Kerry - and so have been many, many powerful men before them. They would be the rascals who thought up the dumbing down of America. See Ginger's post in the 'Have you read it' forum:
Post URL: http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =24#105508 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=10166&forum=24#105508)
While many Christians do think environmental and natural disasters are going to take place - they are not in favor of hurrying it along.
This is the agenda and affect of the anti-Christ; and to suggest Christians ought to be working to bring it about, is as wrong minded as those who Paul admonished for teaching we should sin as much as possible, to increase and magnify God's grace!
Its true there are passages of prophecy that describe an Earth in trouble. Some of this is of natural origin, earthquakes increasing and so on. Much of it is no doubt caused by the evil men will do.Some of it will be God's judgment - but there is nothing men can do to bring it about or stop it. So, the Ford exec is way off base with his comment; and George Dubya may be in the back pocket of the anit-christ. But, IMO, most any president would be. I suspect Kerry would not have been the improvement you dream of.
But what I object to, is the blanket statement that Christians don't care about our environment. Sure, some are ignorant and selfish and careless; but this is true of people in general - not Just Christians. For example - my neighbor has spread Diazanon all over his two acre lawn - to kill the earth worms - to discourage the moles. I asked him not to do this when he mentioned the plan. I explained how it would kill many many birds and pollute the ground water. But, as I am picking up dead birds every day now - it seems he didn't care for my advice or respect my request. He is agnostic. So, I could say: Agnostics don't care about the environment and are terrible polluters; b/c of my neighbor's example; and besides, as they don't believe in God they don't care about His Creation or worry about answering for their actions - Therefore - they are all selfish pricks who use up all they can and destroy at will. I could say that, and be just as correct as Amanda was in her comment.
Amanda:
// Ok first off eve came from adams rib or so they say right? so man came first according to the bible. //
Yes, God first created Adam - but it was your "Therefore" comment I object to. The order of creation is not an indication of the relative value - not at all. If you have been taught this, then you have been taught wrong.
The definition of an Apostil is what I said - a believer who was an eye witness to the Life, ministry Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This includes Mary Magdalene. No, she was not one of the 12 - but I would suppose it would have been problematic for a woman to trapse around from town to town as the 12 did. And no doubt, it would have given a wrong impression. Never the less, she was an important person - loved and valued.
// And you even admitted that no man woud have followed a woman jesus. So yeah, I take that as men are more important and more trusted. //
OK Amanda, consider - even today - there have been no female presidents. I expect Hillary to give it a try - but it won't fly. This has more to do with the hearts of men, than the will of God. And I'll tell you something else - women would not have tolerated it - and largely wouldn't today. Women Hate taking orders from other women. It rubs the average female against the grain to have another tell them what to do. Its not just the prejudice of Men that make a female US president unlikely - and would have made a female Christ less effective. None of this means what you take it to mean - that God undervalues the girls - People do - God loves all equally.
Post by: Angola Cheeba on May 26, 2005, 08:22:00 PM
But the Christians Ive heard that are against the environement use that very excuse that god made the earth for us and we can abuse it.
The whole Bible is filled with a favor towards males. It woudl not be written that way, had men not writeen it. But because the human slant is in there, and at the time, women were not considered so great, they made it more male centered. If it is like you say and God favors all humans the same, then why is the bible written that way? Wouldnt the people write it the way god wanted and not the way they wanted it? I think if god really had written it, then there woudlnt be confusion about this.
Thats my point. I feel that because god did not personally write it, men put a slant on it they felt was necessary. I dotn feel it was and therfore I dont feel it is the exact testimnoy of god and cant believe it. I want all the info the way it was supposed to be written. And, well, i think its pretty lame.
There HAVE been female presidents. Just not USA female presidents. So no that isnt true. And most anyone dosnt like to be told what to do. Ive worked for many women and liked it. And men and liked it. Adn some i didnt. But I think you are outdated in thinking many women wouldnt like a female pres. You do not know that, and I know many women who WOULD like a female president. I think the reason men dont want one is because they dotn feel safe with a woman in charge. And pooh pooh on that. Oh, certainly it isnt just men. But when a society teaches its citezens to make women less powerful and to think of women as sex objects and docile creatures, then it isnt one person or anothers fault. It is societies fault. And we can change that one attitude at a time. Why not start with religion?
Post by: BuzzKill on May 26, 2005, 10:08:00 PM
You make the assumption that b/c men are the spokespersons and they ones out in public doing the street preaching that the women had no value. I am only trying to explain this is not a valid assumption.
The role of men and women, in most any society, has for most of history, been different. I don't think this is an accidental quirk of fate. There are basic differences in the psychology of the sexes that seem to be hard wired. For instance, men tend to get their sense of identity and self worth from their employment. How they are perceived at work can have a huge effect on their over all sense of worth and well being.
Women on the other hand - even if they do work outside of the home, tend to derive their sense of self worth from hearth and home. They do care that they are respected at work - not saying otherwise - but their sense of self worth is more tied to home and family.
These differences seem to be present from birth. Nature, in this case, over rides nurture.
Children raised in gender neutral environments; meaning they are not encouraged to play 'sex appropriate' role games; or play with such toys; Once given the opportunity - little boys will grab the cars and guns; and little girls the dolls and toy phones.
And then too, we have the obveious difference of child bearing. This is and has always been a factor in the roles of the sexes in society.
I think God knew what He was doing balancing out the needs of families and society in such a way.
And as far as God is concerned, both are of equal value. Its people who under value the woman's role in society.
I am not saying a woman ought not be able to work at what ever kind of job she wants - or that she shouldn't be paid equally well as a man doing the same work. But I am saying a woman's role in running her household and raising her family is just as valuable as the role men play by working at a job with a living wage.
I do think the traditional role of women in the home is hugely important for the health of families and society - and I think this has for to long been denied.
But back to Biblical writings - You should consider, that as well as being a book about God, filled with prophecy and revelation, it is also a history book. When you read the Biblical text, you are getting a snap shot of the society that existed when the book was written.
Far from what you take as being in era, and so not trust worthy - the Bible records these people and places very accurately. The history and sociology you so object to, proves the trustworthiness of the Biblical text.
The president thing - I was talking about the US of A - and I did mention that later in the paragraph.
I know other nations have had female heads of state. Great Briton for one; India and Argentina and no telling how many others. They've done a good job too. I even saw on the History Channel where they think one of the ancient Egyptian Pharos was a woman. But she wore a fake beard and passed herself off as a man so as to rule unopposed. They think.
And there are several noted women who have lead armies. There is Deborah and Joan of Arch and the Celtic mom who got angry and took on Rome, who's name I can't recall - but the point being there are always exceptions to the general rules.
As for the US of A - I know you are right - More and more are far more ready to cast a vote for a female US president. Hillary might even prove me wrong. But I am thinking it will be a while longer - that still more often than not, there will be a gut reaction against a woman running that exist in both sexes.
And of corse your right women can and do work well together. I am trying to explain something more subliminal. An undercurrent in the make up of most females that resist being under the authority of another. In the work place, it can be and more often is subdued; not often present on a conscience level. But in a voting booth? I don't know - I suspect it will keep many from voting the way their rhetoric would indicate. But I could be wrong.
*[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-05-26 19:11 ]
I keep forgetting stuff :roll: 'bout this:
//made the earth for us and we can abuse it. //
Are you sure your not hearing "Use" and thinking "abuse"? Its not the same thing. Of corse we are to Use the Earth - How can we not? We can use the various things the Earth provides to live comfortable lives with out abusing the enviroment. If you don't believe this - then you best unplug every electric thing in your home and figure out some way to heat your home with out using any natural products - you get the idea. But you don't need to do that - b/c we can use these things and not destroy or even hurt the Planet. [ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-05-26 19:21 ]
Post by: Anonymous on May 26, 2005, 10:26:00 PM
Post by: BuzzKill on May 26, 2005, 10:40:00 PM
http://xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm (http://xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm)
Post by: Anonymous on May 28, 2005, 04:20:00 PM
No. The main charachters in the book are men. And they seem to favor men. I just dotn see a supernatural being or diety as being human, so why call god a him and why woudl it be sacriligious if I didnt? Because of sexism.
And still today, the church acts as if women have no vaule. No women popes. No womne can be priests. Women still have to wear "appropriate cloths" to church (not all the time, but you deffinetly get judged and stared at like an asshole if you dont). I just feel it is a sexist book. You do nnot. Ok. We dotn agree. That is ok too.
To respond to your role of men and women in history statement, we do not live in that societry anyomore. We SHOULD NOT live in that mindset now. We have too much knowledge and too much past history to coorect us. I just dotn like people who continue to choose to believe it cant be changed because we are "different". So what?? White people are different from black people in skin tone. Does that mena it is ok to treat either like shit because of skin color? Of course not.
Women have the same thing too. It is more how their looks are percieved that effect theri sense of well being. And that simply should not be.
I dont think these days many women care about their home as their worth. I think it is more derived form looks as we are a society that places worht on looks.
And the little kids playing w/toys. Bullshit. That is a societal thing. We teach our kids to play wiht gender appropriate toys. My niece has dinosaur, cars, trucks, dolls, ect. She likes the dinosaurs and the trucks the most. And she likes her dolls to. Can you imagine though in our homophobic society if a little boy played with dolls? He would be called gay and told not to do it, unless his parents werent assholes.
I think WE DID THAT. God had nothing to do with how we developed our society. You said yourelf god can only influence desicion. She dosnt make them for us. We make our society our way, not gods.
In regards to the bible as a history book thing. I woudl liketo quote ben harper.
"As long as someone else writes your history, it will always remain no more than a mystery."
I dotn beleive history is accurate. and the bible even more so.
K- whre is the historical proof of all this? Take the word of the bible for it?
No no. Ive heard many Christians say god gave us the earth for man to use and therefore they can drive as many SUVs and throw away as muvch plastic and paper as they want. I use a fireplace. And I dont have AC (in my car either.) And I walk as much as possible.
Well, I guess we will not agree on this issue. I thank you for putting in the time to respond though and I appreciate the input.
Amanda
Post by: GregFL on May 28, 2005, 06:08:00 PM
THAT is the biggest load of crap in this entire thread.
Wait until I get back home..I will be happy t post many biblical references absolutely pointing out what this is..a laughing mockery of the truth.
Post by: BuzzKill on May 28, 2005, 10:21:00 PM
Amanda - the kids and toys thing is something that has been proven by amazed sociologist. No one expected the results, but there you have it. With no prompting at all, children gravitate to what you would call gender biased toys; and the children the study had been raised in homes that strictly withheld such toys as guns and barbies; and were effort was made to be careful the children were not prompted to play with dolls over cars ore vice versa. Mom's interviewed after the study weren't nearly as surprised as the sociologist - one mom commenting her son would turn the carrot he was served for lunch into a "gun," even tho they never allowed guns, or games or TV that included guns.
Even so, there are always exceptions. Lots of little girls would rather play cops and robbers than play house; and boys surely do exist that prefer playing house. What was surprising was, that the tendency to pick one over the other, wasn't nurture - but nature.
Oh, and the personal toy/game preference has nothing what so ever to do with ones sexual orientation. I was a little girl who very much preferred playing with the boys. I had a great plastic dinosaur collection; and always preferred to be the Indian when playing cowboys and Indians. The Indians were the bad guys, but The Indians got to yell and run around and carry on in ways the coy boys/girls couldn't. The girly girls stayed on the swing set (base) pretending it was their cabin; and I got to smear mud on my face and stick Blue Jay feathers in my hair and do war woops! So much more fun. I had a couple buddies who I worked on diggin out a frog pond, under a locust grove, and we spent lots of summer days working on that mud hole full of tad poles.
Archeology has proven the accuracy of the Biblical histories over and over again. You might enjoy a book called 'the Stones Cry Out'. It covers some of this.
// still today, the church acts as if women have no vaule. No women popes. No womne can be priests. Women still have to wear "appropriate cloths" to church (not all the time, but you deffinetly get judged and stared at like an asshole if you dont). //
Well, not being Catholic I am not to concerned about this - but where I think you miss the mark, is in thinking that not being made priest or Pope lessens a person's value. It does no such thing. Women are, and always have been, the glue that holds the church together. God refers to the church as His Bride. This indicates a very high value on female responsibilities and identities. And by the Church, I mean all believers - not just one sect or denomination - but all who accept Christ as Lord and Savior.
As for clothes - well hon, what are you wanting to wear to church? I mean, appropriate clothes are important in many places and situations - and its not like you are expected to dress up and the guys get by with a tank top and flip flops! The service I attend is a very laid back "college" atmosphere - and I attend in my Jeans and a T-Shirt. I wouldn't go in wearing the shorts and ragged shirt I clean the barn in - but I don't dress up.
Over on the 'have you read it' forum, Ginger posted this:
Post URL: http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =24#106374 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=10166&forum=24#106374)
Interesting, and perhaps worth pointing out, John the Revelator described exactly this - One world (an apostate) religion. And one world government (tho there will be rebellions) and a one world currency is suggested by the absolute control over "money" the world leader will have. Also, that men will marvel and think all this is the greatest of wisdom (a thousand points of light?) and most will be seduced by it. Its happening. Did you know the official EU logo is a woman riding a beast?
Post by: Anonymous on May 28, 2005, 10:42:00 PM
Im sure many things go into little boys gravitiating toward things little girls do not. What tv they wathc and how the charachter (girls and boys) react to each other and what toys they play with, what books they read, ect.
Ill read it.
No, Its that a woman CAN NOT be a preist and a woman CAN NOT be a pope. IT has NOTHING to do with how saintly they are. A woman could be MORE saintly then the pope, but good luck tryign to be pope.
I should be able to wear whatever hte heck I want to church! IT is a fucking house of worship not a popularity contest and anyone who stares at someone and rudly comments to them for wearing a Jimi Hendrix t shirt is a fucking hypocritical bastard. If I was going to the Rits Carlton for dinner it woudl be different. But this "god' shoudnt give a crap what I wear as long as my heart is in the right place.
Amanda
Post by: Anonymous on May 29, 2005, 08:43:00 AM
Post by: BuzzKill on May 29, 2005, 09:45:00 AM
I don't have stats for you Amanda - I don't know that anyone has stats on that study - but its true and it was much talked about in both print and TV media. It might have been Date Line or Frontline or both that did an episode about it. I read articles in the news magazines - it is not something I pulled out of my hat.
What they did was set up a large play room with a one way glass so the kids could be observed as they played.
Then groups of young children were brought iin and allowed to play at will while the psychologist observed. I think that is one mistake I made - I think it is more likely the researchers were Psychologist - but I don't really recall.
Anyway - over and over the children played in the typical gender biased roles with no prompting at all - and these were kids being raised by "liberal" college educated parents who had made a conscience decision to avoid all gender biased prompting. In their homes they had cars and dolls and blocks and the kids played at will. There was no parental interference - and the kids were not school age yet, so as to be influenced that way.
It was really very interesting.
As I mentioned, those making the study were fairly amazed at what they saw happening as it was the opposite of what they expected. They thought the kids would group up in mixed gender groups and play all kind of things, with all kinds of the toys - but it didn't happen.
They split off into boy /girl groups with the girls mostly gathered together, relatively quietly over by the fake kitchen playing house.
The boys were far more loosely gathered - but still playing together, in a louder more aggressive fashion with the guns and cars and blocks.
The more interesting thing to me was the surprised comments coming from the other side of the glass.
As for your choice of clothing - did you not put on the Hendrix shirt for the very purpose of instigating reaction from your elders? Did you not get exactly what you wanted? Would it kill you to show some respect and put on something more neutral? Not that I have anything against Jimi - but he does have a certain image that doesn't mix well with church attendance. You know that. I very much suspect thats why you wore it. And Amanda, no one likes to be disrespected. It was disrespectful.
Post by: Anonymous on May 29, 2005, 04:44:00 PM
All religions make me sick
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions suck
They all claim that they have the truth
That'll set you free
Just give 'em all your money and they'll set you free
Free for a fee
They all claim that they have 'the Answer'
When they don't even know the Question
They're just a bunch of liars
They just want your money
They just want your consciousness
All religions suck
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions suck
All religions make me wanna BLEAH
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me ILL
Post by: Anonymous on May 30, 2005, 10:27:00 PM
Amanda
Post by: Anonymous on May 30, 2005, 10:37:00 PM
Its not that I want a woman to be pope. I ahve a problem with the fact that it is not acceptable for one to be pope. It is DISCRIMINATION. Oh the media discussed it. Well then it must be unbiased and true! :roll: I could give a crap less about what some right wing biased corperate owned media has to say on the subject. Unless you tell me that it is scientifically proven wiht all the details of the study I dotn see how you can base it in fact. How old were the childern? Had they been exposed to "gender approppriate" toys before? Had they seen role playing on tv of roles played by men and women? Did their parent teach them gender roles, ect. Kids learn alot at a suoper young age. All these factors play a part.
Not at all. I did it because I like Jimi. No more psycholgical analisis is needed on that. My parents made fun of me for dressing "like a homless person". They talked down to me about my cloths. I wore perfectly nice clothing. Just the image they didtn like. But somehow me fitting into my "proper girl cloths" made me a better person. Their opinion not mine. And my parents made church so villy unpleasant that I could care the less what they thought was appropriate or not. They should not have cared either. They just wanted to protect heir church image. They didnt want their "friends" to see their kid dressed like a "hoodlum". And pooh pooh on that. I can dress how I want. Oh my god lady! You are so just as bad as they were. Disrespectful to whom? Was I making them listen to Jimi? Was I saying god is a piece of shit? Was I mocking their religion? NO! I was respectful. I was quiet and listened. I think what you wear has NOTHING to do wiht your faith. And if oyu think that then you are as crazy as my freakin parents were. And I feel sorry that you judge peopel by their clothing. Geez.
Post by: Anonymous on May 30, 2005, 11:42:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-28 19:21:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"Greg - I did not say women were treated better. I said they were less degraded. Amanda made the comment that women were not valued and were degraded - I was arguing they did have value, and were less degraded than women today.
"Less degraded than women today."
That is the most asinine, uneducated, wishfull thinking piece of intellectuall doggie doo You have spoken yet.
Tell Me Buzzkill, is God mandated Rape degrading?
Is taking women captive, shaving their heads, killing their babies by smashing them against rocks not degrading?
How about being sold by your father to another man? Degrading?
I am convinced you have no interest in the truth, only supporting your warped dogma based on a world full of supernatural boogiemen.
Tell me, is this degrading, to be considered just another piece of PROPERTY of the man that owns you?
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
And what of Jesus? He said you could never divorce under any circumstances unless the Wife was guilty of fornication. No mention of divorce if the man was similarly guilty. Further, divorcing her made HER guilty of Adultery.
" But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
Is this degrading?
And Pauls teachings of women?
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
Degrading?
How about Lot, who offered his daughters to a mob of men that were out to rape to angels (silly concept) and then later IMPREGNATED his own daughters...all to cause god to call him a "righteous man"
Is this degrading to the raped children by the God pleasing pedofile Lot?
This is but a small smattering of examples of your "less degraded" biblical women.
Buzzkill, this entire discussion has cast you as a very intellectually dishonest person. You seem to have very little interest in historical accuracy at all but only want to redefine everything in your narrow supernatural world view.
"less degraded than women today"
What a pile of shit that statement is.
GREGFL
Post by: Anonymous on May 31, 2005, 01:03:00 AM
:nworthy: :nworthy: :nworthy: :nworthy:
Post by: BuzzKill on May 31, 2005, 03:39:00 PM
That is the most asinine, uneducated, wishfull thinking piece of intellectuall doggie doo You have spoken yet. //
Well you are entitled to your opinion Greg. But it is just your opinion. My opinion on most of what you say, is much the same.
//Tell Me Buzzkill, is God mandated Rape degrading? //
Tell me Greg, where did God mandate rape? I need chapter and verse so I can look it over see what your talking about. I am pretty sure you are not understanding something important to the meaning of the text, if you think God mandated rape.
//Is taking women captive, shaving their heads, killing their babies by smashing them against rocks not degrading? //
Again I need chapter and verse.
//How about being sold by your father to another man? Degrading? //
Today, yes of course. Then - no it wasn't. If the father was offered anything for a daughters hand in marriage - it was (I'm guessing) a huge compliment - as usually, the father was expected to pay the groom a dowry. Poor girls, with out a large dowry, were/are, at a disadvantage. It was the way society was all over the world at the time - and still is in large parts - and this doesn't mean this was ever what God wanted for His people.
This is an example of human tradition being mistaken for God's word. No where does God mandate that marriage be arranged in this way - but men began the tradition, and kept with it, and as it is described and mentioned in scripture, it has been viewed by some as the way it should be - because it is the way it was - and this is how the traditions of man, can take precedence over the word of God.
We are warned away from the traditions of man for this very reason. See Matthew 15. Colossians 2 vs 8. The Isaiah verse quoted in Matthew is, Isaiah 29 vs 13
//I am convinced you have no interest in the truth, only supporting your warped dogma based on a world full of supernatural boogiemen. //
You are convinced wrong. Truth is very important to me. I believe the Prophets and Apostles have taught the Truth. I think there is just tons of evidence that this is so. You, on the other hand, I think are deceived by the Great Liar; and will believe anything that supports the lies with out question or reflection.
//Tell me, is this degrading, to be considered just another piece of PROPERTY of the man that owns you?
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." //
Is your wife your neighbor's? No, of corse not. And your neighbor isn't to try and get her from you, or to wish she, or anything else that is yours,
were his - but rather is to be happy with his own. And no doubt his wife would be more honored by this as well.
This does not mean a wife is property. Yes, I know wives and daughters were (and in parts of the world still are) considered property - but again - what you have here is a tradition of men - not a commandment from God.
//And what of Jesus? He said you could never divorce under any circumstances unless the Wife was guilty of fornication. No mention of divorce if the man was similarly guilty. Further, divorcing her made HER guilty of Adultery.
" But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
Is this degrading? //
You completely miss the point of this teaching. What was being said was, it is wrong for men to set aside their wives for the multiple and petty reasons allowed under the law. Jesus was telling the men he was talking to (and the churchmen today as well) that they are to keep and protect their wives for as long as they might live - and that it is wrong to think God approves of men casting out their wives for burning dinner.
He was talking about the sanctity of marriage and the seriousness of the convenient between man and wife. In God's eyes the two really do become as one; and Jesus was pointing out the seriousness of separating them by divorce; that as far as God is concerned, they are still married. The only justifiable reason for divorce is adultery - b/c if adultery has taken place, then the marriage convenient has already been broken. Even so - He does not say they must divorce. Only that in this case, they may divorce. This is a recognition that remaining married to an adulterer would be demeaning and more than can be expected of any man or woman.
He wasn't casting blame on the woman unjustly divorced by her husband - but rather blame on the hard heartedness of the husband - and pointing out to him the terrible situation he has placed his wife in. He was teaching that she must not be so demeaned.
//And Pauls teachings of women?
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Degrading? //
Degrading? No I don't think so. This was the accepted custom of his day. What he is saying is that the woman needs to be respectful and hold her tongue in church and not be starting arguments. I suspect he had good reason to make this suggestion. The authority he speaks of is spiritual authority - and it is true that he is teaching men are supposed to be the spiritual leaders in church and in the home - but this does not mean that if men ignore their responsibility, women can not pick it up. Rather, that this is the responsibility of men - that women have other responsibilities. But in no case are these responsibilities to be left undone if one or the other falls short.
//How about Lot, who offered his daughters to a mob of men that were out to rape to angels (silly concept) and then later IMPREGNATED his own daughters...all to cause god to call him a "righteous man" //
I have always been bothered by this situation in Lot's story; and it is one of the things that is occasion for debate in Christian circles. Myself - I tend to think those who say Lot was attempting to protect the guests in his home, above all other considerations, as was the custom then among God's people, to be closest to the truth. Note that the Angels interceded and kept all in Lot's house from harm.
As for the situation with his daughters, it seems incest was not the abomination then, that it is today. If I recall correctly, it was the daughters who had the idea - So I'd argue if that's case - if they were degraded by this, it was their own choice.
//Is this degrading to the raped children by the God pleasing pedofile Lot? //
I am certain there is nothing that indicates Lot was a pedophile.
He pleased God by wanting to honor God and live rightly; even tho all around him were exceedingly evil. We are not told Lot was perfect in all he did, nor Abraham or Isaac or Jacob, just that they were Faithful.
//Buzzkill, this entire discussion has cast you as a very intellectually dishonest person. You seem to have very little interest in historical accuracy at all but only want to redefine everything in your narrow supernatural world view. //
Intellectually dishonest? Why? B/c I don't think you have cornered the market on Truth? B/c I think you are deeply deceived?
I would argue it is you with no interest in historical accuracy and you who are wanting to redefine times and events to fit your narrow spiritual point of view.
//"less degraded than women today"
What a pile of shit that statement is. //
I disagree.
Post by: Anonymous on May 31, 2005, 05:25:00 PM
(http://http://worldofwonder.net/images/jesus-1.jpg)
Post by: Anonymous on May 31, 2005, 05:29:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-29 13:44:00, Anonymous wrote:
"All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions make me sick
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions suck
They all claim that they have the truth
That'll set you free
Just give 'em all your money and they'll set you free
Free for a fee
They all claim that they have 'the Answer'
When they don't even know the Question
They're just a bunch of liars
They just want your money
They just want your consciousness
All religions suck
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions suck
All religions make me wanna BLEAH
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me ILL
"
Post by: Anonymous on May 31, 2005, 05:42:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on May 31, 2005, 06:20:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on May 31, 2005, 09:45:00 PM
great job
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Post by: Anonymous on May 31, 2005, 11:54:00 PM
Amanda
Post by: Anonymous on June 01, 2005, 08:17:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on June 01, 2005, 08:17:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on June 01, 2005, 04:19:00 PM
Amanda
Post by: Anonymous on June 02, 2005, 07:16:00 AM
Post by: Nihilanthic on June 02, 2005, 02:32:00 PM
I can tell you one thing, though. This thread is damn near eternal!
Both sides have repeated their logical or faith-based points until theyre blue in the face, but still won't shut up! :rofl:
A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother.
--Anonymous
Post by: GregFL on June 02, 2005, 03:26:00 PM
The bible is the word of god.
The bible isn't
Young earth creationists
Old earth creationists
The TRUTH is, no one knows.
I Don't know, and you don't either. The difference is, some people's minds are as locked as fort knox.
Give me some new information to consider and I will believe in God if the evidence sways in your direction. Some of you people won't readdress your positions in spite of any amount of evidence.
Nithalantic, I agree. The subject matter is beat to death...
Post by: Anonymous on June 02, 2005, 03:29:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on June 02, 2005, 05:44:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on June 02, 2005, 06:04:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-02 14:44:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Greg, you once said it doesn't take faith to be an atheist. How do you know there is no God? What evidence swayed you to believe that God doesn't exist?"
I don't "know" any such thing.
Also, for me To believe in something requires evidence. The evidence presented to me to date suggests there is no supernatural world whatsoever and that the biblical accounts of creation and the flood are fiction. Further, the much touted "prophesies" of the bible are non-existent and backward looking wishfull thinking, similar to the Bible code.
So to answer your other question, There was no evidence that swayed me to not believe. You are buthering logic here. Correctly stated, there is not sufficient evidence presented to date to convince me that the God myth is based in reality. What really happened was as a young man, I believed, went exploring, read the bible and lost my faith because the evidence was sorely lacking and God, as presented in the bible, was sorely different than as presented by the people selling the myth.
I don't profess to know the mysteries of the universe, nor am I arrogant enough to propose I have solved them all in one single swoop with the adoption of a 4000 year old mythical pre-modern man story about how and why this universe exists.
"I don't know, and you don't either"
Tom Leykis
Post by: Anonymous on June 02, 2005, 06:08:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on June 02, 2005, 06:17:00 PM
Agnosticism is someone who believes he doesn't have sufficient knowledge. You can be a theist or an athiest and still be agnostic.
Atheism is one that lacks belief in a god or gods.
I am both. I am an agnostic atheist. Someone who generally believes in god but doesn't understand why, this person is really a agnostic theist.
By the way...
You are an atheist as well, in all other god's other than the one you profess your belief in. My atheism just includes one more god...yours.
If someone asked you, for example, if you believed that Zeus was the supernatural creator of the universe, you would I think be atheistic towards that position.
Post by: GregFL on June 02, 2005, 06:23:00 PM
A strong atheist believes there is no god and sets out to prove this. I think philisophically this is an untenable position, similar to religion, because it doesn't leave room for new information.
The default position is not religion, it is not "strong atheism" or even agnosticism, it is atheism. Everyone is born this way and learns their religion thru cultural influences. This is why the religion you are is dependent statisticaly on WHERE you were born.
Atheism is not a dirty word, it is merely a lack of belief in a supernatural god.
Post by: Anonymous on June 02, 2005, 06:52:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on June 02, 2005, 08:00:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-02 15:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Greg, I am glad that you state that you are not closed to the learning of new information when it comes to God. Neither am I. When we quit looking, asking, seeking, that is when we become closed and dogmatic. I believe many Christians and atheists are this way. Unfortunately, they are the ones that give everyone a bad name. There is no way anyone can prove or disprove the existence of God. It has to be a proponderance of evidence and your decision of faith has to be based on probability. No, I should say, your decision of faith SHOULD be based on probability. I do know some real head cases that believe in some very out there stuff that has NO evidence other than their great imagination. Anyway, I am a Christian, but still learning, seeking, studying, and not closed to anything when it comes to God. By the way. Hope you had a great trip!"
Thanks! Actually, had to rush back due to a death in the family, but all is well. Just got back to my house today.
I am open to new evidence for god. So far unfortunately, the evidence I have reviewed keeps pointing me in another direction. I could be wrong,however at this point I suspect I am not.
Love your post. I only wish to point out one thing...
"no one can disprove god"
Your statement here. The answer is of course your statement is true because no one can prove a negative. I cannot prove god doesn't exist, because in the supernatural realm, you can just adjust and adjust ad nausem.
For example, suppose I believe that bigfoot exists. you cannot disprove that either.
Bigfoot exists.
How do you know?
I saw him.
How do you know you werent mistaken?
I just know
How come there are no fossils?
They just haven't been found yet.
How come no bodies have been recovered?
They have, the government is hiding the evidence.
And on and on.
Now, what happens when I endow him with supernatural powers? It gets impossible to argue the negative...
How come so few have seen him?
Because he chooses who he comes to.
HOw come no fossils?
He is a spirit?
How do you know?
He told me.
ad nausem
Go ahead and try it, it is a fun exercise in logic and skeptical thinking. You absolutely positively can take both sides of the argument and argue into a draw every time.
From this vantage point then in order to arrive at weather something is likely or not likely to be true, one should dismiss this idea offhand and adopt a more rational way at arriving at the truth, and the scientific method gives us a clue on what is reasonable.
That is, always allow for new information and before you believe something fantastical or supernatural, require strong evidence.
What is strong evidence? That is up to the individual to decide. Personally, I throw out testimony, I throw at anecedotal evidence and the more outrageous the claim (supernatural bigfoot) the more evidence I require.
This works for me. Others just choose to be credulous. Evidence of that attitude exist in this thread, the constant adjusting of the position to keep the foregone conclusion intact.
Anon, thanks for your participation in this thread. I absolutely love discussing religion with people who are open to listening to other people, even when they disagree. On the other side, it is an exercise in frustration discussing religion with most dogmatic people because they either bail to intelectual dishonesty or get mad or frustrated.
Post by: Anonymous on June 02, 2005, 09:01:00 PM
I still believe in miracles and the beauty of life, and I'm certainly not jaded...
I believe in striving for goodness, love, justice, kindness, and compassion. I just don't need a monotheistic entity to validate my direction or values. (Oh! Wait a minute--apparently, I do!)
Anyway, this thread reminded me of that dinner party and how I treaded lightly and diplomatically on an issue instead of asserting my naked truth.
So, thanks for the thread.
Post by: GregFL on June 02, 2005, 09:18:00 PM
My father has screamed those very words at me. My ex wife used my atheism to try to smear my name during my divorce.
George Bush Senior, while vice president, gave his take on atheism during an interview....
August 27,1987,
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens,
nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle
the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on Atheists.
Here is the rub. People don't really care what god you believe in, as long as you believe in something supernatural. However, unbelief outrages people to the point of violence and bigotry. Why? Hell, who knows? But it is anything but easy being true to your self in this religiously bigoted society. That is why so many people who don't believe still go to church and profess they are christians, sometimes their life as they know it depends on it!
Read this website I am going to link you to. It is an outrage and calls for the inprisonment of all atheists worldwide and calls us all criminals. While this would seem totally outrageous to some, the real telling aspect are the letters sent in to this guy from other christians praising his webiste.
http://www.tencommandments.org/heathens.shtml (http://www.tencommandments.org/heathens.shtml)
the letters of support...
http://www.tencommandments.org/ (http://www.tencommandments.org/)
On the left side, click "view our registry"
[[[[[[sigh]]]]]]
Post by: Anonymous on June 02, 2005, 09:20:00 PM
I have met lots of atheists that frustrate me with their close mindedness as well. Religion is a facinating discussion. Too many people are just afraid of it or afraid of being wrong. I for one don't mind being wrong and admitting to it. It just means I've learned something and that is always something to be proud of!
Gotta get to the dishes, but look forward to more discussions.
Oh..just to throw one more question at ya...do you believe in absolute truth?
Post by: GregFL on June 02, 2005, 09:33:00 PM
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
SO, if someone believes in another god and tries to talk to you about it, you should kill them, even if it is a family member.
Anyone who reads the old testament has to understand that if this god existed as the Isralis represent he did, that this guy was anything but loving and forgiving.
The only conclusions that make any sense are the following
There is no God.
The bible is mistaken in the nature of God and therefore not the word of God.
God is a bloody war Spirit that wants you to kill all that don't believe in him.
Or
Killing, stoning to death, smashing babies, raping women and other such stuff, when ordered by god, are holy and good things.
I know where I stand...
Post by: GregFL on June 02, 2005, 09:36:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-02 18:20:00, Anonymous wrote:
Oh..just to throw one more question at ya...do you believe in absolute truth?"
Thanks for the sentiment. My step father died at 88 years old. He was my supporter thru my seed ordeal, and a real nice old guy who never spoke bad about other people.
As far as absolute truth, you must help me here. I think the term has a specific meaning in the christian community, but I have seen it used several different ways.
What do you mean by this?
Post by: bandit1978 on June 03, 2005, 09:16:00 AM
While staying faithful to Jesus himself, I explored other things( science, nature, sociology, Wicca...). I was inspired by Jesus, and I realized that many paths are good, and work for different people. I think instincitvely, I always knew that.
As I recently read in a book about Hinduism- "God's house has many doors"
I came to be a very "spiritual" person, and well-rounded (I like to think).
My current boyfriend is aethiest. For awhile, I had a problem with that. Like, he couldn't float in a pool at night and look up at the stars and feel their wonderful energy...he just doesn't believe it! I thought, what can I possibly share with this person?
He is very smart- a PHD (physiology) and MD. But he doesn't believe in any sort of "metaphysics"!...just because he has not studied it or seen the evidence or proof. I tell him, just because you have not seen it does not mean that it is not so, and you should have an open mind. I guess we just believe in different science.
Lots of Christian people really freak me out, like how they say it's their way, or eternity in hell. I do feel sorry for them, because I think they are missing out on a lot by shunning other paths. But I also feel like my boyfriend is missing out on so much, by shunning all paths. He is from China (his grandparents were Buddhist), and he has no desire to go to a temple to meditate or read or pray or anything!
Is there anybody here who is spiritual in any sense, and has dated or married an aethiest? I am becoming more comfortable with it, but would like to hear from others.
Any input is appreciated. Thanks.
Post by: GregFL on June 03, 2005, 10:31:00 AM
Respect the man for having some intellectual integrity.
And if you believe "gods house has many doors", tell me how you reconcile that with christianity or Islam, who basically think everyone is going to hell but them and justify these beliefs with their respective holy books? You say you are "faithfull to Jesus", but this attitude flies right in the face of the teachings of the new testament...
"spriritual" is just another way of saying superstitious. It denotes a belief in a supernatural world that remains unseen.
Post by: GregFL on June 03, 2005, 10:34:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on June 03, 2005, 11:22:00 AM
Again, sorry about your step dad. It is always hard to lose someone you respect and love. Not to be used in discussion, but just curious, was he a religious man?
I want to get back to you with the absolute truth stuff, but right now don't have time. But just wanted to say that I agree with you about the many paths or doors leading to Heaven or God. I used to think that way, but when studying the Bible further, it clearly states that is not so. So I had to choose which to believe. I don't see any way to reconcile the many paths with either Islam or Christianity.
Post by: GregFL on June 03, 2005, 12:26:00 PM
He was a kind man, never spoke mean about anyone. He loved my mother in a way I have rarely seen any other man love another woman. He was my advocate and always believed in me, even when others in my family did not. He never judged anyone for their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
He was also an alcoholic and a chronic smoker. In the last 20 years or so he was able to shift his alcoholism to where he only drank a little wine, but he drank every day. The smoking in the end killed him, just as surely as it is killing my mother.
Was he religious? If so, he never spoke about it. He never went to church except when my mother wanted to go. If I had to garner a guess, I would say no, he was not a believer.
Post by: Anonymous on June 03, 2005, 10:42:00 PM
Post by: bandit1978 on June 05, 2005, 03:08:00 AM
I don't read the Bible or Koran, only studied it as a child at school. I think much of it is nonsense. Occassionally, I may read a bit of independent writings on, like, Mary Magdalene or Jesus or something.
I don't really find these "holy books" to be valid or truthful. I benefit much more from being out in nature, especially at the beach, surfing, or meditating.
I realize more and more that a majority of Americans are members of a dangerous cult that calls itself "Christianity". To me, Jesus teaches tolerance and love for all, and just how dangerous a ruling government can be, and I think that many Christian churches have perversed that.
I understand that my boyfriend has "intellectual integrity". Personally, I just try to think bigger than that. I mean, if Christopher Columbus (in addition to commiting genocide), if he and everyone else just waited around for evidence that the earth was round, if they didn't just take a chance and go out to check it out... I've experienced so many "supernatural" things myself- both by chance and also by actively seeking such things- that I absolutely believe in such things. Sometimes I feel like my b-friend is jaded, and thats kind of sad.
I certainly would rather marry an aethiest than someone who believes that the first woman was made out of a man's rib. But I would like to see him realize the amazing energy that comes from the earth and the stars and all that.
Post by: GregFL on June 05, 2005, 11:18:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-05 00:08:00, bandit1978 wrote:
"Greg- I don't need to reconcile *anything* with the Bible or Koran. I look to Jesus for inspiration- being kind to the poor and sick, for example. Not that that is always easy.
I don't read the Bible or Koran, only studied it as a child at school. I think much of it is nonsense. Occassionally, I may read a bit of independent writings on, like, Mary Magdalene or Jesus or something.
I don't really find these "holy books" to be valid or truthful. I benefit much more from being out in nature, especially at the beach, surfing, or meditating.
I realize more and more that a majority of Americans are members of a dangerous cult that calls itself "Christianity". To me, Jesus teaches tolerance and love for all, and just how dangerous a ruling government can be, and I think that many Christian churches have perversed that.
I understand that my boyfriend has "intellectual integrity". Personally, I just try to think bigger than that. I mean, if Christopher Columbus (in addition to commiting genocide), if he and everyone else just waited around for evidence that the earth was round, if they didn't just take a chance and go out to check it out... I've experienced so many "supernatural" things myself- both by chance and also by actively seeking such things- that I absolutely believe in such things. Sometimes I feel like my b-friend is jaded, and thats kind of sad.
I certainly would rather marry an aethiest than someone who believes that the first woman was made out of a man's rib. But I would like to see him realize the amazing energy that comes from the earth and the stars and all that. "
Great Answer!!
you sound just like my oldest siser. She believes that Jesus was a "teacher" connected to the universal power, here to deliver a new message of peace and love (she is an old hippy). She calls herself a christian and prays along with the other christians, but her faith hardly resembles the fundies.
She has studied the bible and understands the old testament, the polygamous war god worshipped by the Jews (yahweh), and rejects that entire concept.
I disagree with her, pointing out that Jesus said he was here representing this same god, but she rejects that and says the god jesus spoke of does not resemble the god of the old testament at all.
She is wrong in a scriptural sense, but she doesn't believe the bible as an accurate portrayal of God at all. In fact, she thinks the church itself is a corrupt institution, and to understand Jesus, you must go back to "ancient christianity", which was basically when christianity was pre church post Jesus. She doesn't believe in the ascention or any of the magical events in the bible, believes in science, and really doesn't believe in heaven in the same way christians do. She instead believes (or wishes to believe) in her own immortality as somehow a connection to the universe.
She has a kind of faith that is totally non judgmental, yet she still calls herself a christian.
While I think her christianity is a function of wishfull thinking, I would much rather have a world full of idealistic worshippers than the followers of the war gods of Islam and Christianity.
As far as your personal supernatural experiences, have you eliminated all other rational explanations, such as pyschological phenomena, pre sleep conditions, fear, stress, etc? You don't have to answer, because this is a personal thing, but what I witness is many "supernatural" occurances around stressfull events. For example, my step father just died, my mother announced at the wake that every time she approached the flag at their house, it would begin to wave. My other sister confirmed this (the other one who sees supernatural evidence of her dead son and cries if anyone suggests there is no afterlife) and it was presented as evidence of my step father contacting us. I have seen many similar events proclaimed as supernatural when in fact these people (my family who I love) in every tragic circumstance go looking for anything to match a supernatural sign. we have many such lore in my family, and I have been around most of them, and I see nothing like they claim. Why do they do it? Why is death or fear of death or serious disease almost always associated with these events? What is the motivator?
By the way Bandit, you sure you aren't my sister?
:grin:
Post by: Anonymous on June 05, 2005, 11:33:00 AM
Post by: GregFL on June 05, 2005, 11:38:00 AM
No supernatural presense necessary.
Post by: GregFL on June 05, 2005, 11:40:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-05 08:33:00, Anonymous wrote:
"If I took a piss on the bible, would I go to hell?"
I suppose that depends on whether you believe in the bible or not, and also depends on which bible you chose to desecrate (christian or muslim).
Where are you stationed?
:grin:
Post by: Anonymous on June 05, 2005, 12:02:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on June 05, 2005, 12:08:00 PM
It seems in war, both sides really cling to religion, but from a strict interpretation of the text.. isn't murder not very 'kosher', on both sides?
How do they go about justifying this? Shouldn't the army chaplains be telling the troops not to kill?
I also notice the hardcore peace activists are usually religious, but then so are a lot of the pro-war people. Its strange..
Thanks in advance :???:
Post by: BuzzKill on June 05, 2005, 12:55:00 PM
The Old Testament God, is God, and Jesus was clear about the relationship they shared. There is no reason or excuse to doubt Jesus claim to His place in the Trinity. If you disbelieve this, then you are not Christian - but rather a new world order believer who teaches a false Christ.
Jesus is very compassionate and tolerant - but also very clear: He is the Way, the Truth and The Life and no one can be saved from death and judgment apart from Him. When you consider the price He paid so you might escape death and judgment, you might begin to understand just how patient, kind and compassionate God is.
Following is a link to an article on who Jesus says He is.
http://www.lamblion.com/articles/doctrinal/CD/CD-05.php (http://www.lamblion.com/articles/doctrinal/CD/CD-05.php)
Post by: GregFL on June 05, 2005, 02:02:00 PM
Tell me, why was his death any different, presuming he existed, than these other jews?
In addition, if his message was peace, and the god he represented message was war, death, dismemberment, rage and punishment, how is it he is "fullfilling" anything?
by the way, I said that very thing "jesus came to fullfill" earlier in this thread and you dismissed it offhand, citing a semantical difference. What gives you the right of special interpretation to these words?
And if as you suggest, the old testament God is god, then no thank you, I will take my chances with either no god or some other god...that guy is a bloody killer!
Post by: GregFL on June 05, 2005, 02:08:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-05 09:08:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Okay, okay.. I have a serious question now. Is it okay to kill people in war from a strictly Christian standpoint?
It seems in war, both sides really cling to religion, but from a strict interpretation of the text.. isn't murder not very 'kosher', on both sides?
How do they go about justifying this? :???: "
This is reprenstative of the "wiggle room" many christians, and especially fundies, claim.
First you hear them waxing philosophically about the ten commandments, talking about how strict, how important, how serious, etc these commandments are.
One of them is "thou shall not kill". There is no special circumstance, it merely says "Thou shall not kill".
The fundies are also usually the first to endorse the death penalty and war, often citing other sections of the bible.
Go figure.
To me the commandments are over simplistic and present their own set of moral problems in situational instances. How does "tho shall not kill" work when someone is attacking your family and leaving you a choice between killing them or them killing you and your family? Which is more moral, stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving child or letting her starve to death? Does "tho shall not steal" overshadow letting someone die of starvation?
The ten commandments .....Don't work in real world moral choices.
Post by: GregFL on June 05, 2005, 02:13:00 PM
yawn.
Post by: GregFL on June 05, 2005, 02:39:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-05 09:08:00, Anonymous wrote:
Is it okay to kill people in war from a strictly Christian standpoint?
It seems in war, both sides really cling to religion, but from a strict interpretation of the text.. isn't murder not very 'kosher', on both sides?
Thanks in advance :???: "
Well, well, well. First, it depends on what text you are reading. The christian old testament? It is repleat with instructions on killing your enemy, killing the children (happy is he who dasheth the little ones against thy stones), and kidnapping and raping the surviving women, stoning people to death for working on the sabbath,a prophet of god cursing 40 children in the name of god and then immediately two bears mauling them all to death. Murder is a fact of life in the old testament, but remember "tho shall not kill". Kind of contradictory, eh?
The Koran? There are instructions on killing all infidels. The entire book glorifies murder and war.
Post by: Anonymous on June 05, 2005, 02:43:00 PM
Post by: BuzzKill on June 05, 2005, 06:06:00 PM
Thou shall not kill - this is (as you point out) one of the areas where Christians disagree. Many believe it means no life is ever to be taken and they oppose the taking of any life under any circumstances. In war, they would be the conscientious objectors. They would oppose the death penalty.
Others believe that the more correct translation would be 'you shall not murder' - and my NKJV does read that way. These people point out, that not all killing is murder. It is recognized by all of history and most cultures that taking life in a time of war is not murder. Likewise these people often justify the death penalty by believing it is necessary to equate to justice in some case where murder has taken place under especially heinous conditions.
This is one of those issues, that while important and well worth debate - it is not a salvation issue. In other words - you can hold to either point of view, or sit the fence, and your salvation is not at risk.
However - the other issue - Who Jesus is - IS a salvation issue. What side you are on there, determines your eternal state.
I know you don't believe this Greg. I don't expect to change your mind. My concern here, is for the person who says they believe in Jesus, but then goes on to describe a false Christ. They might want to look into What Jesus said about Himself - and what the Bible says about Him - as we have no other trustworthy source of information.
All else is what people imagine ought to be; or what they wish was; what they feel is right. It is usually an attempt to bring God down to man's level - to make God no more than a glorified man - or to make God nothing more than a "force" for men to channel. This allows a person to say they believe (which they imagine is enough; as if they are doing God a favor believing in Him at all) but to avoid the censure and hostility that comes from believing in Jesus as He presents Himself; and as He is described in every Christian Creed. The World is OK with a make believe Jesus; but the Real Jesus - He is not so well accepted. Not by the world.
Any christ, other than the Christ of scripture, is a false christ, and there are many of those. Following them, leads not to salvation, but to death and judgment. And so, it is very important that this be pointed out to anyone flirting with false ideas about who Jesus is.
For anyone wanting to look up The Ten Commandments, they are found in Exodus, chapter 20.
Post by: GregFL on June 05, 2005, 06:54:00 PM
Quote
This is one of those issues, that while important and well worth debate - it is not a salvation issue. In other words - you can hold to either point of view, or sit the fence, and your salvation is not at risk.
The NKJV, the kinder more gentler translation, eh?
And then we have the more modern ones that really castrate the intent of the scriptures...
And what a silly concept, you can violate one of the all important ten commandments of god and not risk your salvation.
The only religion that would believe such a trite concept is one that says you only need accept a god in your heart, and you can do this after a murderious raping spree, and still go to heaven.
Oops!
:eek:
Post by: GregFL on June 05, 2005, 06:56:00 PM
Link me to the new testament scripture that says this.
Talk about wiggle room!!!!!
Who talks to god and makes sure he agrees with the war? Is both sides getting a "don't worry about murder..get out of hell free card" the minute some political person signs the war declaration? What about before war is declared..a military action like say vietman or the first Gulf war which really weren't wars? Is it okay to kill just soldiers, or is killing the women and children okay as well?
Tell me oh wise interpreter of the bible...is this murder?
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/i ... -tab-web-t (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dpicture%2Bchild%2Biraq%2Bwar%26toggle%3D1%26ei%3DUTF-8&h=428&w=640&imgcurl=www.nomorebush.premiumfinder.com%2Fwar-gallery%2Firaq-child.jpg&imgurl=www.nomorebush.premiumfinder.com%2Fwar-gallery%2Firaq-child.jpg&size=36.9kB&name=iraq-child.jpg&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomorebush.premiumfinder.com%2Fwar-gallery%2FWounded-iraq-children.htm&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomorebush.premiumfinder.com%2Fwar-gallery%2FWounded-iraq-children.htm&p=child+iraq+war&type=jpeg&no=2&tt=479&fr=FP-tab-web-t)
Buzzkill, you are amazing.
Post by: GregFL on June 05, 2005, 07:01:00 PM
Quote
.... but to avoid the censure and hostility that comes from believing in Jesus as He presents Himself;
Oh Puleeese!
Believing in Jesus is a ticket to easy street in this country. Give yourself a slap on the face.
Try being a muslim, a wiccan, or an atheist in this country and you will understand what censure and hostility really is.
You are amazingly distorted in your perception of reality.
Post by: GregFL on June 05, 2005, 09:00:00 PM
Quote
For anyone wanting to look up The Ten Commandments, they are found in Exodus, chapter 20
or here...
http://www.tencommandments.org/ (http://www.tencommandments.org/)
You may notice some, er...unpleasantness in this interpretation of the ten commandments and its application to modern day man.
You may also notice some unusual quotes and traits that God assigns to himself in this passage...
"Thou shall not have any other Gods before me"
Is this an admission that there are other gods?
"I, The lord your God, am a jealous god"
Could this be true, that an omniscient being is really jealous? Or is it more likely we created him in our own image?
"visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the four fourth generations of those who hate Me"
Could it really be all the bad luck you have had in your life was due to your great great great grandfather's relationship with god? Is this what a loving god would do?
"but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male servant or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you"
This one is very interesting. Wouldn't god just take the opportunity here to tell you slavery was wrong instead of instructing you how to make your slave behave?
"you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Would a lord god really lump your neighbor's wife in among his ox, donkey, slave, and all other property of the neighbor?
This is not a god, the god of the old testament, that I would want anything to do with...anymore than I would be interested in the god of the Koran.
Post by: shanlea on June 05, 2005, 09:04:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on June 05, 2005, 09:09:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-05 18:04:00, shanlea wrote:
"I always had trouble with the Jesus Saves perspective. The idea that the ONLY portal to salvation is through Jesus. Thus, you can be a total asshole and be saved if you give your heart to Christ; but you will not be saved if you don't--even if you are a loving distributor of good deeds and a good heart. I value justice, and that is NOT just. "
I too, as a young man, post christian, still wasn't clear on my beliefs on a higher power..but I was relatively certain that religions that were not much more than exclusive afterlife clubs were toxic and dangerous.
I agree, that concept of salvation is really unjust. It damns to hell the vast majority of people who ever lived. What type of omniscient being would do such a horrible thing?
rarely do you hear of such inane cruelty. One has to watch a "hellraiser" flick in order to approach the extreme cruelty doled out by God and Jesus in the bible...nashing of teeth, flesh burning for all of eternity..for merely not believing in a god that if he exists refuses to show himself. Yet the believers call them loving and forgiving.
Something is really amiss in this whole thing....
Post by: BuzzKill on June 05, 2005, 11:04:00 PM
No Greg - the language has just been brought up to date.
Language and word use changes. As a result, to keep the translation accurate it needs updating from time to time.
This is not changing the meaning - but keeping the meaning intact.
// And then we have the more modern ones that really castrate the intent of the scriptures... //
Yes, there is some of this. The meaning of the original text is completely disregarded in these cases and it is appalling.
// And what a silly concept, you can violate one of the all important ten commandments of god and not risk your salvation. //
Greg - this statement proves your complete lack of understanding of the Salvation message. We all, break all the commandments, all the time. All are sinners. All who admit this, and who believe Jesus paid the price for their sin, and who call Him Lord and mean it, are forgiven and acquitted and will never face the second death. This doesn't mean one can live a sinful life with no regard for right and wrong. That is evil; and to call oneself Christian and live that way is doubly evil. The Christian is to strive to live as Christ Like a life as they can - and it is generally a gradual process. This is were calling Him Lord comes in. But the point here is, people are always going to make mistakes, and sin, in thought, word and deed - no matter how hard they try not to. There is no way for a person to live a sinless life; and so all fall short and miss the mark. God Himself, b/c He loves us so, paid the price we can never pay for ourselves, and all we have to do is thank Him and accept it and be reconciled to Him. Or not. He lets us decide for ourselves if we want to call Him Lord and Savior.
When I say what one believes about the 'do not murder' commandment is not a salvation issue, I mean just that. Your salvation has nothing to do with this. Your degree of reward in Heaven might - but not your salvation. Your salvation depends on what you believe about Jesus Christ.
As for you 'war time murder' comment - I wasn't talking about scripture. I was talking about world history and culture. Except for war crimes perpetrated upon civilians; we do not charge people with murder when they shoot others in war. This kind of killing isn't considered murder. There are those who disagree. I did mention that.
I think God recognizes that men in general have little choice in the matter, when it comes to war. I think, quit possibly, it is the leaders who take men into war who will be held accountable for the mayhem, and especially so, if it is an unjust war. But that is just my personal opinion.
// Believing in Jesus is a ticket to easy street in this country. //
You have a point. It does help, in this country, if a person claims to be Christian of some sort in various circumstances - but I assure you, it is difficult to actually live a Christian life, and not be censured and ridiculed. Our culture in general is post Christian, just as is Europe, tho to a lesser degree. As a result, you have a lot of folks who want to evoke Christ's name, but who shun His message. He speaks of these folks in Matthew 7vs21-23.
However, in large parts of the world it is very dangerous to be Christian, and the persecution of the Saints across the world in general is growing.
// "Thou shall not have any other Gods before me"
Is this an admission that there are other gods? //
No Greg. But men do worship many other gods, anyway. He is telling His people not to do this. It is the sin of idolatry.
// "I, The lord your God, am a jealous god"
Could this be true, that an omniscient being is really jealous? Or is it more likely we created him in our own image? //
Its true that God does not want His people following after idols. It does anger Him, and its what we best understand as jealously.
Threw out the scriptures His idolatrous people are depicted as harlots. His feelings and thoughts on the matter are explained as that of a husband with an unfaithful wife. I think, rather than (as you suggest) we made Him in our image; He has explained Himself in a way that we can understand.
// "visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the four fourth generations of those who hate Me"
Could it really be all the bad luck you have had in your life was due to your great great great grandfather's relationship with god? Is this what a loving god would do? //
I think (just my opinion) that this is a warning that living an evil life will have consequences down threw the generations. They will not have the protection and blessing of those who are Faithful; and the consequences of their iniquity will be long lasting. Consider what we know today about how abused children grow to abuse their children - the vicious circle of abuse and poverty that results. I think this is the kind of thing he was warning against. If a person is living according to God's law, then he won't be doing the kinds of things that destroy children, and children's children.
// "but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male servant or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you"
This one is very interesting. Wouldn't god just take the opportunity here to tell you slavery was wrong instead of instructing you how to make your slave behave? //
I don't think this is about slavery. Remember - the people who He gave these laws to had just left slavery behind in Egypt. I think this is more about no one having to work on the Sabbath - not even your servant - which could be a slave - or a hired worker. You give them this day off. Slavery, I think, is one of those things that were always a part of society, and the scriptures that speak of how to treat slaves was in recognition of this fact of life. No where is slavery spoken of as the will of God. Nor is it forbidden. It was treated as a fact of life with standards of decency and care commanded. I don't know why slavery was not forbidden. I can only think, that for some reason I don't understand, the question of slavery, was to be left up to the society and culture of the people to decide for themselves.
I am sure that those who were slaves will have the highest seats of honor in Heaven; for those who were the least will be the greatest - those who were last, first. We are all called to have servants hearts and to be servants to those in need.
// "you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Would a lord god really lump your neighbor's wife in among his ox, donkey, slave, and all other property of the neighbor? //
Why not? I think in terms of my neighbor's wife; his dog; his car; his boat; his pool - They are all his and not mine. I am not to want what is my neighbors. I am to be satisfied and grateful for what I have been blessed with - not always wanting what others have. I have no problem with this.
// This is not a god, the god of the old testament, that I would want anything to do with...anymore than I would be interested in the god of the Koran. //
And this is your right and privilege.
Post by: Anonymous on June 05, 2005, 11:13:00 PM
Quote
Greg - this statement proves your complete lack of understanding of the Salvation message.
I proves no such thing. I understand it completely. I just reject the notion outright. The Salvation "message" just makes your religion an exclusive club based on thought stopping exercises, and no thanks, I was already a member of one of those when I was a teenager.
Thanks anyway.
Gregfl
Post by: GregFL on June 05, 2005, 11:15:00 PM
So, ted bundy, who admitted to seriel murder and also professed to be saved prior to his death sentence, gets to go to heaven. He justs gets a smaller house? Maybe a house of silver instead of gold?
Com'n!!!
Post by: GregFL on June 05, 2005, 11:17:00 PM
Buzzkill, I have to respond one at a time, because your writings are just so offbase! This statement alone is incredibly naive.
Post by: GregFL on June 05, 2005, 11:23:00 PM
"he didn't mean jealous, he meant angry".
Give me a break. You twist everything to make it more palable.
even when you twist it, omniscience and anger do not go hand and hand.
Slavery is well mentioned in the bible and condoned by god. Calling a man servent something else is dishonest, and I think you know this.
Goodnight, this is just more of the same. You refuse, outright refuse, to do anything but justify and weasel out of the tough stuff.
Post by: BuzzKill on June 06, 2005, 10:00:00 AM
Short on time this am and not wanting to go over and over things anyway - but thats not what I siad.
Ted Bundy? I doubt he is saved. I doubt he was capible of repentence. But I don't get to dicide that. God alone gets to weigh Bundy's soul and judge if he is justified.
It is possible to be a great sinner and to repent and be saved. I simply doubt this is the case with Ted Bundy. I don't think he was remorsful and I think he would have loved to be able to kill some more - but I can't know that. However God does - no matter what the man says, God knows every secret of his heart.
Post by: BuzzKill on June 06, 2005, 10:05:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on June 06, 2005, 10:08:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-06 07:00:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"Not what I said Greg.
Short on time this am and not wanting to go over and over things anyway - but thats not what I siad.
It's not? Here is your quote...
"Its true that God does not want His people following after idols. It does anger Him, and its what we best understand as jealously. "
buzzkill....please. You ability to carry on a cohesive conversation is low.
GregFL
Post by: Anonymous on June 06, 2005, 10:49:00 AM
Quote by Buzzkill:I don't think this is about slavery. Remember - the people who He gave these laws to had just left slavery behind in Egypt. I think this is more about no one having to work on the Sabbath - not even your servant - which could be a slave - or a hired worker. You give them this day off. Slavery, I think, is one of those things that were always a part of society, and the scriptures that speak of how to treat slaves was in recognition of this fact of life. No where is slavery spoken of as the will of God. Nor is it forbidden. It was treated as a fact of life with standards of decency and care commanded. I don't know why slavery was not forbidden. I can only think, that for some reason I don't understand, the question of slavery, was to be left up to the society and culture of the people to decide for themselves.
I am sure that those who were slaves will have the highest seats of honor in Heaven; for those who were the least will be the greatest - those who were last, first. We are all called to have servants hearts and to be servants to those in need.
________________________________________________
How about the scriptures were written by self serving men that condoned slavery? I have found the bible to be one of the most hateful readings in my life. I don't believe we have a God that would drown everyone on purpose because he's angry, nor do I believe he "sent fire from the sky" to punish someone for homosexual acts. The God I worship is a loving and forgiving God, not one that enjoys vengenance.
Post by: GregFL on June 06, 2005, 11:31:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-06 07:49:00, Anonymous wrote:
How about the scriptures were written by self serving men that condoned slavery? I have found the bible to be one of the most hateful readings in my life. I don't believe we have a God that would drown everyone on purpose because he's angry, nor do I believe he "sent fire from the sky" to punish someone for homosexual acts. The God I worship is a loving and forgiving God, not one that enjoys vengenance."
Anon, I agree wholeheartedly. Buzzkill's post above is more revisionist wishfull thinking, as usual. She says "No where is slavery spoken of as the will of God."
Once again the onerous is on me to correct her and then watch her backpedal.
Okay, Slavery as the will of god....
here god BLesses abraham by giving him lots of slaves...
_________
"And the LORD hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses."
__________
Here he blesses Isaac with many slaves....
____________
"Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold: and the LORD blessed him.
And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great:
For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants: and the Philistines envied him."
____________
Here god instructs you on how to sell your daughter as a slave...
___________
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
___________
God tell you how to buy a hebrew slave and tell you after seven years, you gotta let him go, but hey, you get TO KEEP THE WIFE AND KIDS!
__________
"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. You can buy one, but you must set him free on the seventh year. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
____________
If the hebrew slave refuses to leave his wife and children, you are to thrust an aul thru his ear and he is yours forever...
_________
" And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
Here are instruction for selling a thief into slavery to pay for what he stole (if you don't kill him on the first day)...
_____________
"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
___________
Here god tells you to buy some heathens in your neighborhood, and you get to keep them and even pass them and their offspring down to your children...at least if you are Hebrew, you get off after seven years...but of course without your kids...
_________
"Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever"
__________
Here god instructs on how to make slaves out of people captured in war....
____________
"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee."
___________
There is much much more in the bible that condones and even demands slavery. Buzzkill isn't in this conversation to be honest. She is out to justify her foregone conclusion, that the god of the bible is "good".
This is just not true. If there is a god, and he resembles this guy, he is a monster.
Post by: GregFL on June 06, 2005, 11:52:00 AM
Here god tells you that if you beat your slave to death, you will be punished. But if he lives at least two days, you will not be punished because after all, HE IS YOUR PROPERTY. I guess a slow painfull beating to death is okay...as long as it takes a couple days...
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
and then, if you do beat them so hard you poke out their eye, or knock a tooth out, well then, your punishment is...You gotta let them go. Isn't that just terrible!!!!
"And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."
Yep Buzzkill,and as you say his rules on slavery are..How did you put it?
Oh yeah....
"It was treated as a fact of life with standards of decency and care commanded."
You really believe this?
Post by: BuzzKill on June 06, 2005, 01:05:00 PM
Yeah, I do.
I did and do admit there are things I don't understand and do wonder about. This is one of those things. But recognizing that God is God, I trust that He knows what He's doing.
I don't know why there wasn't simply a declaration that slavery was to be abolished. I can make guesses about it, but a guess is all it would be.
As for the rules concerning servants - My thinking is that having these rules is a great improvement from having none. Prior to the law being given, there were no rules on these issues at all, and each man did what seemed right to him - and often that was none to right.
Standards of fairness and decency were set - and while them may seem archaic and brutal by our standards, they were extremely generous and compassionate by the standards of the people living in that day and time. And Far, Far more decent and generous than the way slavery was practiced by the American South for hundreds of years; or anywhere else in the world, ever, for that matter.
I don't think Slavery was ever the will of God for men; although he never forbid it (and I don't know why) No where can I find that He ordered it.
BTW -I can't find where God promised Abraham to bless him with servants. He made many promises to Abraham, which He kept - but I can find no reference to giving Him an abundance of slaves.
Can you tell me were you got this? There are other verses I have asked you to provide, if you don't mind.
It does seem that God has a perspective on slavery very different from modern sensibilities. It does seem as if He is leaving the question up to society and culture to determine - and I assume He has good reason, weather or not I am able to understand it.
Post by: GregFL on June 06, 2005, 01:14:00 PM
There is nothing to wonder about. God orders the enslavement of people in the old testament, orders disfiguring them, lets you beat them, and even sell your own daughters.
"As for the rules concerning servants - My thinking is that having these rules is a great improvement from having none."
So beating them to death but giving them a two day window for wiggle room is better then nothing, eh?
This is your definition of a just and fair god?
Once presented with the error of this statement
"No where is slavery spoken of as the will of God."
you go from this...
"It was treated as a fact of life with standards of decency and care commanded."
to this.....
"Standards of fairness and decency were set - and while them may seem archaic and brutal by our standards, they were extremely generous and compassionate by the standards of the people living in that day and time."
When presented with obvious glaring, outragous conduct of god in the context of slavery.
backpedal, backpedal, backpedal....
You are as predictable as an atomic clock.
Post by: GregFL on June 06, 2005, 01:28:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-06 10:05:00, BuzzKill wrote:
I can't find where God promised Abraham to bless him with servants. He made many promises to Abraham, which He kept - but I can find no reference to giving Him an abundance of slaves.
Can you tell me were you got this? There are other verses I have asked you to provide, if you don't mind.
Genesis 24:35
"And the LORD hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses."
Quote
It does seem that God has a perspective on slavery very different from modern sensibilities. It does seem as if He is leaving the question up to society and culture to determine - and I assume He has good reason, weather or not I am able to understand it.
No, it has been pointed out to you that god ORDERED people to take slaves in the bible, that god INSTRUCTED men on how to enslave captured peoples, god Instructed people on what children they owned by birthright, instructed his people on how to even drive an aur thru the ear and mark your slave, and on and on.
You don't "understand" because that is your escape clause to keep you from facing up to this stuff. The elephant in the room is that the God of the bible is not a nice guy, and in order to avoid that obvious conclusion, you bail to "I am not able to understand".
You do understand Buzzkill. the conclusion is something is amiss with the bible, and especially the old testament, but this is not acceptable to you because you are working from a conclusion and not really open to exploring the text of the bible. Yet you post here in order to prothelize. I think that is a mistake.
Yes, you understand Buzzkill. You are smart enough to really get that The bible is an ancient fable, written by ancient men who kept slaves, sold their daughters, murdered babies and raped women, and killed people for minor things like stealing, and they wrote a religious book to justify their actions.
The conclusion is obvious. The Bible is authored by men, not God. No omniscient being would inspire such a hate filled, violent book.
Whether you will face up to this or not is in your hands. You can still be a christian and accept the truth.
Post by: ` on June 06, 2005, 01:38:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-06 10:28:00, GregFL wrote:
"...you post here in order to prothelize. I think that is a mistake."
yeah, because GregFL sure is making you look pretty dumb and the "god" of the bible look pretty bad. but carry on. it is quite satisfying to see the x-tian b.s. lose round after round.
Post by: GregFL on June 06, 2005, 01:51:00 PM
Quote
I don't think Slavery was ever the will of God for men; although he never forbid it (and I don't know why) No where can I find that He ordered it.
Here, in Deuteronomy, he orders them to kill everything in the city but to keep the children and women "as thy own".
What do you think that means? You think they went willingly with the men that just killed their fathers and husbands? they were to go in this city, kill all the men, and enslave the women and children, at god's ORDER.
" And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee."
and I had already posted this ORDER in Deuteronomy for enslaving captured people...
"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. "
This is tiring Buzzkill. You don't see because you have blinded yourself to the words of your own holy book.
Post by: GregFL on June 06, 2005, 02:00:00 PM
"Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, "
Yet, you see nowhere where god Orders slavery, even after posted for you to read.
OF THEM SHALL YE BUY.
Not an order?
:silly:
Post by: BuzzKill on June 06, 2005, 08:04:00 PM
"And the LORD hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses."
This isn't, as you suggested, God saying He would bless Abraham thusly - but rather, Abraham's oldest servant declaring him so blessed. Really, in context, he is kind of braggin about what a rich man Abraham is, to impress Laban with what a good match it would be for his daughter, Rebecca, to marry Abraham's son, Isaac.
Manservants and maidservants were apparently as common as illegal nannies and gardeners are today - and even more accepted, as it wasn't breaking immigration or tax law. It was simply not viewed as an evil in society - and God doesn't demand that it be seen as such. Maybe there are things about society then, that made slavery more beneficial than evil. I'm just speculating - but maybe for some people it was what kept them alive - somewhat like the welfare system today. Maybe if it had been forbidden, many would have gone without food and shelter. Maybe. Anyway, as I said, for what ever reason, God did not forbid it; and I Trust Him to do what is just at all times, weather or not I understand it; even if, to me, with my limited and flawed human understanding, it seems unjust. Even as I puzzle over God's acceptance of slavery, I can see that it would certainly be better to be a servant in a Hebrew household, than a Roman - and far better than starving or begging on the streets.
God allowing the keeping of slaves is not the same as ordering it. Saying a man may go free if you put out his eye, may not seem like justice - but this is the only law there has ever been allowing any kind of consideration for the servant at all. And other than the Hebrews in Biblical times - no such consideration has ever been given.
// OF THEM SHALL YE BUY.
Not an order? //
I don't think so. I'd like to look it up and read it in context - but my guess is it is permission, not an order. And, as hard as it seems - Maybe it was more merciful to allow the buying of people over starving them or killing them - which may have been the only other alternatives.
I have always been much more troubled by the order to kill all in the land they were to conquer than by the slavery issue. I don't understand it and have already been over this very early on with Timocela. God, being God, could see the results of all possibilities; and I trust He justly judged what was the better course to take. Maybe, with out that apparent brutality, the world would have become far more evil than it is. For instance - maybe we would all be living under something like Nazi rule otherwise. You see - I don't know - but I trust that God does. Indeed, I know God does, and so I trust Him.
As far as being a nice guy - Greg, you just can't put God in any such box. Not nice guy, or bad guy, or any kind of guy at all. He is God. He owes us no kind of explanation what so ever. Especially considering our overwhelmingly rebellious nature. He has gone to great lengths to try and help us live rightly and honestly; despite our constant tendency to live wrongly and dishonestly. He has given us the more sure word of Prophecy so we can know that He is in Heaven and that His word is True - And He came to us and explained personally what the meaning of the law,( as men had so greatly misunderstood it - following it to the letter but ignoring the heart of it.) And finely paid the price of our sin, so we could be redeemed and found blameless and be reconciled with Him. This goes far beyond being a nice guy. This is being a patient and merciful God.
You keep wanting to talk about the law which puts me at a disadvantage - as I am not living under the law - and no Christian ever has. As a result, I've not troubled myself with it much. You'd do better debating this subject with a learned Rabbi. I am doing the best I can with my limited knowledge and study - but its very limited and I am mostly guessing. I really wouldn't want anyone to take my words on these subjects as "Gospel".
" prothelize ?" No - thats not my aim. Thats not something I do Greg. I make it a point not to bring the subject up, as I don't want to trouble the uninterested with it. But I will debate, discuss and explain as best I can, with anyone who shows an interest. You are very clear that I'm not doing such a good job. I'm sorry for that; and I can only ask you, and any one else reading, not to judge the subject by the lack of this messenger's skill.
Post by: Anonymous on June 06, 2005, 08:09:00 PM
You don't think.
You fundies are all similar, the bible is the inspired word of god, until it says something bad, then you attribute it to someone else...
yawn.
Of them shall ye buy
is not an order.
LMAO at Buzzkill
backpedal, backpedal, backpedal.
40 pages of it
Post by: Anonymous on June 06, 2005, 08:21:00 PM
I can't help but wonder if all the people that support the bible will be the real ones to burn in hell. For a large portion of my childhood I sat in fear listening to the preacher yell at the congregation they would burn in hell if they did not do X, Y, Z. I just don't belive a loving God would hurt people no matter what period of history it was.
Post by: Anonymous on June 06, 2005, 09:22:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on June 06, 2005, 09:24:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-06 17:04:00, BuzzKill wrote:
" Genesis 24:35
As far as being a nice guy - Greg, you just can't put God in any such box. Not nice guy, or bad guy, or any kind of guy at all. He is God. He owes us no kind of explanation what so ever. Especially considering our overwhelmingly rebellious nature. He has gone to great lengths to try and help us live rightly and honestly;
Wrong wrong and wrong. It is my JOB as a rational thinking human to access the available information and arrive at a belief system that makes sense to me. I owe it to myself.
If roughly half the world worships a god of slavery and murder, and the other half worships a god of murder and slavery, should I just close my eyes and pick the one that I was culturally exposed to?
You may but I don't operate that way. I can access the available information all I want. The god of the bible has not gone to any lengths to make us live "rightously, but instead has encouraged murder, rape, torture, animal sacrifice, carnage,and slavery among other things.
some people believe in a higher power and reject this old testament presentation of god. They may even believe Jesus came to represent God and correct a message that had been given out wrong. I can respect that. At least this shows a desire to shine light on representations of goodness and justice.
those of you bible literalists have a big job explaining away this stuff. In fact, it can only be done if you allow yourself to close your eyes, ears, and dumb yourself down and resort to making excuses for this god such as "at least this was better than nothing", or "these were his chosen people", etc ad nausem. You hear all types of these dishonest justifications for the text of the old testament.
You have backed yourself into many corners in this thread and you just simply spin out. There is an answer, and that is the old testament was written by a bunch of not too nice men that were justifying their violent nature thru their religion. Anyone who believes this is representative of an omniscient being doesn't understand the term Omniscient, and anyone who can read this crap and believe in this god is kidding himself.
Or you can just say I guess that god can be whatever he wants and doesn't owe us anything or any explanation...he can burn, murder, drown at will. This is pretty much what you have indicated in your last response.
That begs the question...why would anyone worship such a being? How could you feel good about this?
Don't answer, I can't stand it anymore...
Post by: GregFL on June 06, 2005, 09:45:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-06 17:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
I can't help but wonder if all the people that support the bible will be the real ones to burn in hell.
There is an atheist ex-preacher named Dan Brown. He once said during a debate when someone for the zillionth time marched out pasqual's wager...(paraphrased)
"what if there is a god and he will only reward those intellectually honest enough to reject god based on no evidence." Maybe he is gonna send all the believers in the evil god of the bible to hell"
hehehe
and to close with a quote from Tom Leykis
"I don't know, and you don't either".
In the final analysis, that is the truest statement made in this entire thread.
http://www.ffrf.org/about/bio_dan.php (http://www.ffrf.org/about/bio_dan.php)
Post by: GregFL on June 06, 2005, 09:55:00 PM
the Easter Challenge...
http://www.str.com.br/English/Atheos/stone.htm (http://www.str.com.br/English/Atheos/stone.htm)
when you really study this stuff, what other conclusion can a thinking person come to other than the bible is authored by men, not inspired by the supernatural?
Post by: BuzzKill on June 08, 2005, 05:21:00 PM
I truly have no wish to keep a debat going that everyone has grown werry of - as seems to be the case.
However, there might be readers who would like to see the following links.
I myself am going to refrain from any more comment on these subjects, except to say - as I often have before - anyone who wants to take this off the board and continue the conversation via email is welcome to write.
Explains how the notion of slavery in the New World varies from what was the case in OT and NT times. Might be of interest.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html)
A Quote: The same, of course, can be said of Israel. For example, even in wars on foreign soil (e.g., Deut 20.10,10), if a city surrendered, it became a vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming serfs (mas), not slaves (ebed, amah). They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis--as Israelites later did as masim under Solomon, 1 Kings 5.27). This was analogous to ANE praxis, in which war captives were not enslaved, but converted into vassal groups: "The nations subjected by the Israelites were considered slaves. They were, however, not slaves in the proper meaning of the term, although they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]
Easter controversy:
http://www.5loaves2fishes.org.nz/phpBB2 ... .php?t=835 (http://www.5loaves2fishes.org.nz/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=835)
http://askelm.com/news/n010501.htm (http://askelm.com/news/n010501.htm)
http://www.lamblion.com/articles/doctrinal/CD/CD-03.php (http://www.lamblion.com/articles/doctrinal/CD/CD-03.php)
Dialog with a skeptic:
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egbl111/dialog_1_menu.htm (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egbl111/dialog_1_menu.htm)
Post by: Anonymous on June 08, 2005, 06:09:00 PM
Buzzkill, got any links that say rape in the bible was just consensual sex?
:lol:
How about any links that say killing little children was okay?
:lol: :lol:
Of special comedic value is the link where the author dishonestly makes it look like his article was written in newsweek!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Buzzkill, that article, "rethinking the ressurection", was NOT written by your author, but instead was an article outlining pretty much what I was talking about, that the ressurection has many conflicting stories and is even in total doubt by many bible scholars.
Buzzkill, two days later and this is the best you could do? Do something constructive..take the easter challenge!
GregFL
Post by: BuzzKill on June 08, 2005, 08:40:00 PM
Dave Regan wrote the artical as it appears on the link. I have the magizine it was in as well - and it also uses the Newsweek as an illistration - and thats all it is - an illistration.The point being the subject is of enough public interest that a totally secular magizine would put it on the cover. I can see where you might misunderstand the use of the Newsweek cover - but it is a misunderstanding.
I don't expect you to be impressed Greg - but other people might want to read the articals. Naturally, I think they are of merit, even very intresting - and naturally, you don't.
{Note: I see you meant the other article (I think) and I post it to show there is an understanding of the confusion about the "Easter events" and that there are various theories about it. I personally think the Thursday crucifixion and the two Sabbaths are the explanation that is most likely right.But the more important thing is the very real fact of an empty tomb. On that point all agree.}
But getting back to the subject of this thread:
http://www.howcultswork.com/ (http://www.howcultswork.com/)
A Quote:
Self Help & Counselling
Cults that use "self help" or counselling or self improvement as their base often target business people and corporations. By doing their courses and seminars they claim you and your staff will become more successful. Business people locked away in hotel rooms are subjected to quasi-religious indoctrination as they play strange games, join in group activities, and share their innermost thoughts with the group. Once you have completed one course you are told you need to do the more advanced course, which naturally costs more than the last. These cults will sometimes request that you do volunteer work and that you help recruit your friends, family and work mates. These groups specialize in creating powerful emotional experiences which are then used to validate your involvement in the cult. The religious overtones are couched in terms which don't sound religious. They usually come to the surface as you near the end of a seminar. Many people have been bankrupted by involvement with these cults.
[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-06-08 17:53 ]
Post by: Anonymous on June 08, 2005, 09:39:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-08 17:40:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"The author didn't intend for the reader to think it came from Newsweek Greg. But that news week does exist -
[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-06-08 17:53 ]"
BALONEY.
He put his name right over it. He displayed it promanently. He never referenced it was not his article.
That is one of the most blatant misappropriations of a magazine cover I have ever seen.
This guy is a thief.
Post by: BuzzKill on June 08, 2005, 10:21:00 PM
I'm not sure I understand if you think the artical on the link is the artical in the Newsweek?
If so, then no - the artical on the link is Not the same as the artical in the newsweek.
It is an artical written by Dave Reagan, published in the Lamp Lighter - illistrated with the magizine cover.
The on line version is the same as the Lamp lighter artical - newsweek illistration and all.
But, if it looks shady to you, it might to others - they should probably note somewhere it is just used as an illistration on the interest and importance of the subject.
[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-06-08 19:27 ]
Post by: Anonymous on June 08, 2005, 11:01:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on June 09, 2005, 01:37:00 AM
Posting silly links of inane justifications never helps either, not does it help to quote obvious plagarists.
Other than that, believe away. It is the bible literalists that I take exception with.
Post by: GregFL on June 09, 2005, 12:47:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-08 17:40:00, BuzzKill
{Note: I see you meant the other article (I think) and I post it to show there is an understanding of the confusion about the "Easter events" and that there are various theories about it. I personally think the Thursday crucifixion and the two Sabbaths are the explanation that is most likely right.But the more important thing is the very real fact of an empty tomb. On that point all agree.}
sigh....
An "understanding of the confusion" and "various theories about it" or mutually exclusive ideas, Buzzkill
Why Can't your supernaturall God-inspired book even get the story straight on what happened at Easter which is supposedly the event that is paramount to whether christianity is false doctrine or not?
Or as your quoted plagarist says "There is simply no way to overemphasize the importance of the Resurrection to the Christian faith, for the resurrection of Jesus is the Christian faith. Christianity stands or falls on the validity, the historical reality, of the Resurrection."
Yet the bible is all over the place on this event.
Unreal.
Your words here...
"But the more important thing is the very real fact of an empty tomb. On that point all agree."
By "all" I must assume you mean biblical scholars.
This is simply more wishfull thinking on your part. The only reference in any document to this supposed event is in the bible, and the bible is contradictory to the extreme. The ressurection of Jesus is in doubt by many biblical scholars, there is no universal agreement on almost anything in the bible by scholars of the bible and history.
check out these quotes.
Dr. Richard A. Horsley, Head of the Religion Department, University of Massachusetts, Boston:
"I think it would be a consensus among the New Testament scholars that none of the four Gospels are reliable, if what we mean by that is that we have an accurate historical report of Jesus. Each of these four Gospels has its own message, its own Gospel message that it is trying to convey to a community or a movement of people. And that message is delivered in a later circumstance from the life of Jesus. So we have to take that constantly into account when we're dealing with these Gospels."
Dr. Helmut Koester, Harvard Divinity School:
"How reliable are the Gospels is very difficult to answer because it's complex. None of the Gospels is written before the year 70?that is forty years after the death of Jesus. All the disciples were, most likely, dead at that time. So it's not personal memory that goes from Jesus' preaching and ministry to the Gospels"
. Amy-Jill Levine, Jewish New Testament Scholar at Vanderbilt Divinity School:
"I don't think people willy-nilly made stuff up. But, I also think they packaged their material about Jesus to fit their own needs, to fit the concerns of their congregation."
Dr. N.T. Wright, Canon Theologian, Westminster Abbey:
"The Gospels are written by people, maybe up to a generation or so after the time of Jesus and the people who've done the writing and the collecting of the evidence have shaped what they're doing to meet the needs of the Church."
John Dominic Crossa, professor of biblical studies Depaul University: Member of The Jesus Seminar.
"If there were, from the beginning, a detailed passion-resurrection story or even just a passion narrative, I would expect more evidence of it than is currently extant. It is totally absent from the Life Tradition, and it appears in the Death Tradition as follows. On the one hand, outside of the gospels, there are no references to those details of the passion narrative. If all Christians knew them, why do no other Christians mention them? On the other hand, within the gospels, everyone else copies directly or indirectly from Mark. If one story was established early as history remembered, why do all not "copy" from it rather than depend on Mark? Why do Matthew and Luke have to rely so completely on Mark? Why does John, despite his profound theological innovation, depend so completely on synoptic information? The negative argument is not that such a history-remembered narrative could not have happened. Of course it could. The argument is that we lack the evidence for its existence; and, if it existed, we would expect some such evidence to be available."
I could do this all day, Buzzkill. That is, quote biblical scholars that refute your assertions.
Don't bother quoting other scholars that agree the "empty tomb" was a likely event. I know they exist, but their evidence is flimsy and based on the bible itself.
Again, we are left with this. You believe in a book was god inspired that can't even get the most important story down correctly, the supposed supernatural ascension of Jesus' body.
Take the easter test Buzzkill...tell us in your own words what happened that day!
You can't do it, because there will be passages that contradict what you say, no matter what position you take.
The bible appears to be written by man creating god in his own image.
Post by: BuzzKill on June 09, 2005, 01:52:00 PM
No they aren't Greg.
Most Christians are aware that there are different ideas about when the crucifixion took place in relation to the resurrection; and most are aware of the various ideas on the subject - and most understand that one theory or another is correct - and all agree that what ever the case - it did happen.
// Or as your quoted plagiarist says //
If you want to insist hes a plagiarist you need to provide the plagiarized material.
// Yet the bible is all over the place on this event. //
No its not Greg. It tells the story from different perspectives with varying details given by the various authors - but all agree remarkably on the central facts. Furthermore - none of the varying details are mutually exclusive - all can be, and are, true.
Further more, if it were a lie, these men would not have been willing to die to proclaim it.
// By "all" I must assume you mean biblical scholars. //
No Greg - I meant the Gospel writers, and Paul and Peter, John, James and Jude.
I know what a bunch of deceived humanist today's seminaries are churning out, and so don't have much respect for the theologians they produce; the likes of which you have quoted. They are the Mothers and Fathers of the apostate "one world" church.
// I could do this all day, Buzzkill. That is, quote biblical scholars that refute your assertions. //
Sure you can. And so can I. You say the evidence is flimsy, and I say that is your deceived mind's wishful thinking. The evidence is profound and mighty; and has convinced many an honest seeker who began the search just as sure it was false as you are.
// Take the easter test Buzzkill...tell us in your own words what happened that day!
You can't do it, because there will be passages that contradict what you say, no matter what position you take. //
I think Gedion did a pretty good job with this. Thats why I posted the link.
// The bible appears to be written by man creating god in his own image. //
The existence of Biblical prophecy makes this impossible Greg. The Bible can be used to prove the Bible, b/c of the Prophecy contained in it.
When John wrote Revelations - how could he imagine the Whole world being able to witness anything? The whole world. No way could he, as a first century man, conceive of such a thing. But today? Not a problem.
How could he have imagined any one man's government, controlling all the worlds finances, to the point no one could buy or sell with out his permission? And yet today - we are very close. The technology already exist. In light of the problems with ID theft and organized crime, ect., I expect it will be sold to the world as a safety feature. No cash will solve many problems. Maybe even win the drug war. There will be no cards to loose or have stolen or forged - as all will carry 'the mark' that will serve as positive and reliable ID, and hold all their financial info- and probably much more besides - complete medical history perhaps. Its going to sound like a great idea, and the whole world will be grateful for the wisdom of the man who brings it about.
When he declares himself god (and he will) will you then believe? And who will you believe in then?
Do you think we ought to move this over to the Open Forum?
Post by: Anonymous on June 09, 2005, 02:28:00 PM
Samo ole, same ole, same ole.
I already referenced what your author plagarized. He did it in a very sneaky underhanded way because he didn't like what was in that article, so he misappropriated the newsweek cover, placed his name on it and pasted his trash under it. I hope newseek sues him. This is not the first case of this I have seen from christian authors who take a slash and burn approach to bible criticism.
I quoted some of the most well read minds in the world on the bible that approach the bible from a historical perspective. I quoted Jewish, catholic and christian scholars, and I quoted those who believe the ascension occured and those who think the ascension is merely a alegory and not a real historical story. Only ONE of them was a member of the Jesus seminary, and he has written many books and is a professor. Yet these people who have spent years and decades studiying the bible have come away knowing that the bible isn't historically accurate. Further, no comment from you on the assertion from these scholars of WHEN the new testament was written and WHERE the apostels were by then.
Of course.
You want to dismiss these scholars outright as well as a part of the "new world order". What a load of crap! I presented their statement only as evidence that your statement that "all agree" on the empty tomb was fallicious. You cannot even own up to this...
I asked YOU to take the Easter test. Your quote from that forum where that person attempted to apply a time line was anything but a "Good job". This person professed to nail down TO THE HOUR these various things, when all the great minds in the world cannot come to any conclusion because the text is so mish mashed and the histrocity is unsupported and obviously copied from one gospel to the next, inaccurately I might add.
Take the test in your own words Buzzkill and Let me point to scripture that indicates you are wrong after you list the events of Easter in the bible. I know and you know it can't be done without running into a contradiction, but you want to even say "various theories" and an "understanding of what occured" equal the same thing.
Garbage, plain and simple.
When it comes to this subject, your mind is a 50 year old rusty sprung bear trap, never to be opened.
Post by: BuzzKill on June 09, 2005, 05:44:00 PM
I beg your pardon - it be only 46 my friend. Rusty? No bout adout it.
Post by: GregFL on June 09, 2005, 06:52:00 PM
OMG so am I!
I take it all back.
::cheers::
Post by: Nihilanthic on June 09, 2005, 07:22:00 PM
The government is much more interested in preserving the purity of its ideology than it is in allowing patients to get effective medicine.
-- Ethan B. Russo, neurologist at Western Montana Clinic
Post by: GregFL on June 09, 2005, 08:03:00 PM
Post by: Nihilanthic on June 09, 2005, 08:28:00 PM
Thats what Buzzkills been doing the whole time.
Don't worry about temptation--as you grow older, it starts avoiding you.
-- Old Farmer's Almanac
Post by: BuzzKill on June 09, 2005, 10:09:00 PM
OMG so am I!
I take it all back.
Why don't you and I just close this thread. I think we both have made plenty of points that we wished to make.
In the end, you have your faith,and I have a lack thereof. We both made it clear what is motivating our faith or lack thereof.
to you.
Well, will wonders never cease? ::cheers::
Post by: Anonymous on June 12, 2005, 03:37:00 AM
Parents beware. Ask for references of folks whose girls did not graduate (the majority of girls who spend many months at Moonridge). The graduation rate is low, althought the average length of residency is high (8-10 months).
Post by: Anonymous on June 12, 2005, 10:25:00 AM
Oh .. that's right ... these are PRIVATE institutions.
The rules for publicly funded residential treatment programs don't apply to them.
And therein lies the problem ... and why some kids are being force fed christianity or mormonism as part of their "treatment".
Shouldn't they at least have a choice?
Post by: Anonymous on June 12, 2005, 04:52:00 PM
Post by: GregFL on June 12, 2005, 05:33:00 PM
Starting with the last first.
Nope. Never wondered. Actually know the history of why and when. Whats your point?
To the first anon....Your right. They are private institutions, and people should have the right to JOIN any private religious institution they choose.
But when you coerce under violence,lies, pressure, threats and isolation and court order people to be locked down and force fed religion...well now you have a real problem as you alluded to.
What a shame. Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave as we speak...
Post by: GregFL on June 12, 2005, 05:35:00 PM
Jefferson would bitch slap Bush on sight....
Post by: Nihilanthic on June 12, 2005, 06:18:00 PM
:grin: Hey, a man can dream!
Duct tape is like the force; it has a light side and a dark side and it holds the universe together.
--Jedi Knight school drop out.
Post by: GregFL on June 12, 2005, 06:20:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 25, 2009, 02:44:17 AM
You can say, for instance, that Mormonism is objectively less likely to be true than Christianity.
Why can you say this?
Because Mormonism is just Christianity plus some rather stupid ideas."
-Sam Harris
Mormonism: A Racket Becomes a Religion
By Christopher Hitchens
"If the followers of the prophet Muhammad hoped to put an end to any future "revelations" after the immaculate conception of the Koran, they reckoned without the founder of what is now one of the world's fastest-growing faiths. And they did not foresee (how could they, mammals as they were?) that the prophet of this ridiculous cult would model himself on theirs. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—hereafter known as the Mormons—was founded by a gifted opportunist who, despite couching his text in openly plagiarized Christian terms, announced that "I shall be to this generation a new Muhammad" and adopted as his fighting slogan the words, which he thought he had learned from Islam, "Either the Al-Koran or the sword." He was too ignorant to know that if you use the word al you do not need another definite article, but then he did resemble Muhammad in being able only to make a borrowing out of other people's bibles.
In March 1826 a court in Bainbridge, New York, convicted a twenty-one-year-old man of being "a disorderly person and an impostor." That ought to have been all we ever heard of Joseph Smith, who at trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad gold-digging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers. However, within four years he was back in the local newspapers (all of which one may still read) as the discoverer of the "Book of Mormon." He had two huge local advantages which most mountebanks and charlatans do not possess. First, he was operating in the same hectically pious district that gave us the Shakers and several other self-proclaimed American prophets. So notorious did this local tendency become that the region became known as the "Burned-Over District," in honor of the way in which it had surrendered to one religious craze after another. Second, he was operating in an area which, unlike large tracts of the newly opening North America, did possess the signs of an ancient history.
A vanished and vanquished Indian civilization had bequeathed a considerable number of burial mounds, which when randomly and amateurishly desecrated were found to contain not merely bones but also quite advanced artifacts of stone, copper, and beaten silver. There were eight of these sites within twelve miles of the underperforming farm which the Smith family called home. There were two equally stupid schools or factions who took a fascinated interest in such matters: the first were the gold-diggers and treasure-diviners who brought their magic sticks and crystals and stuffed toads to bear in the search for lucre, and the second those who hoped to find the resting place of a lost tribe of Israel. Smith's cleverness was to be a member of both groups, and to unite cupidity with half-baked anthropology.
The actual story of the imposture is almost embarrassing to read, and almost embarrassingly easy to uncover. (It has been best told by Dr. Fawn Brodie, whose 1945 book No Man Knows My History was a good-faith attempt by a professional historian to put the kindest possible interpretation on the relevant "events.") In brief, Joseph Smith announced that he had been visited (three times, as is customary) by an angel named Moroni. The said angel informed him of a book, "written upon gold plates," which explained the origins of those living on the North American continent as well as the truths of the gospel. There were, further, two magic stones, set in the twin breastplates Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament, that would enable Smith himself to translate the aforesaid book. After many wrestlings, he brought this buried apparatus home with him on September 21, 1827, about eighteen months after his conviction for fraud. He then set about producing a translation.
The resulting "books" turned out to be a record set down by ancient prophets, beginning with Nephi, son of Lephi, who had fled Jerusalem in approximately 600 BC and come to America. Many battles, curses, and afflictions accompanied their subsequent wanderings and those of their numerous progeny. How did the books turn out to be this way? Smith refused to show the golden plates to anybody, claiming that for other eyes to view them would mean death. But he encountered a problem that will be familiar to students of Islam. He was extremely glib and fluent as a debater and story-weaver, as many accounts attest. But he was illiterate, at least in the sense that while he could read a little, he could not write. A scribe was therefore necessary to take his inspired dictation. This scribe was at first his wife Emma and then, when more hands were necessary, a luckless neighbor named Martin Harris. Hearing Smith cite the words of Isaiah 29, verses 11–12, concerning the repeated injunction to "Read," Harris mortgaged his farm to help in the task and moved in with the Smiths. He sat on one side of a blanket hung across the kitchen, and Smith sat on the other with his translation stones, intoning through the blanket. As if to make this an even happier scene, Harris was warned that if he tried to glimpse the plates, or look at the prophet, he would be struck dead.
Mrs. Harris was having none of this, and was already furious with the fecklessness of her husband. She stole the first hundred and sixteen pages and challenged Smith to reproduce them, as presumably—given his power of revelation—he could. (Determined women like this appear far too seldom in the history of religion.) After a very bad few weeks, the ingenious Smith countered with another revelation. He could not replicate the original, which might be in the devil's hands by now and open to a "satanic verses" interpretation. But the all-foreseeing Lord had meanwhile furnished some smaller plates, indeed the very plates of Nephi, which told a fairly similar tale. With infinite labor, the translation was resumed, with new scriveners behind the blanket as occasion demanded, and when it was completed all the original golden plates were transported to heaven, where apparently they remain to this day.
Mormon partisans sometimes say, as do Muslims, that this cannot have been fraudulent because the work of deception would have been too much for one poor and illiterate man. They have on their side two useful points: if Muhammad was ever convicted in public of fraud and attempted necromancy we have no record of the fact, and Arabic is a language that is somewhat opaque even to the fairly fluent outsider. However, we know the Koran to be made up in part of earlier books and stories, and in the case of Smith it is likewise a simple if tedious task to discover that twenty-five thousand words of the Book of Mormon are taken directly from the Old Testament. These words can mainly be found in the chapters of Isaiah available in Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews: The Ten Tribes of Israel in America. This then popular work by a pious loony, claiming that the American Indians originated in the Middle East, seems to have started the other Smith on his gold-digging in the first place. A further two thousand words of the Book of Mormon are taken from the New Testament. Of the three hundred and fifty "names" in the book, more than one hundred come straight from the Bible and a hundred more are as near stolen as makes no difference. (The great Mark Twain famously referred to it as "chloroform in print," but I accuse him of hitting too soft a target, since the book does actually contain "The Book of Ether.") The words "and it came to pass" can be found at least two thousand times, which does admittedly have a soporific effect. Quite recent scholarship has exposed every single other Mormon "document" as at best a scrawny compromise and at worst a pitiful fake, as Dr. Brodie was obliged to notice when she reissued and updated her remarkable book in 1973.
Like Muhammad, Smith could produce divine revelations at short notice and often simply to suit himself (especially, and like Muhammad, when he wanted a new girl and wished to take her as another wife). As a result, he overreached himself and came to a violent end, having meanwhile excommunicated almost all the poor men who had been his first disciples and who had been browbeaten into taking his dictation. Still, this story raises some very absorbing questions, concerning what happens when a plain racket turns into a serious religion before our eyes.
It must be said for the "Latter-day Saints" (these conceited words were added to Smith's original "Church of Jesus Christ" in 1833) that they have squarely faced one of the great difficulties of revealed religion. This is the problem of what to do about those who were born before the exclusive "revelation," or who died without ever having the opportunity to share in its wonders. Christians used to resolve this problem by saying that Jesus descended into hell after his crucifixion, where it is thought that he saved or converted the dead. There is indeed a fine passage in Dante's Inferno where he comes to rescue the spirits of great men like Aristotle, who had presumably been boiling away for centuries until he got around to them. (In another less ecumenical scene from the same book, the Prophet Muhammad is found being disemboweled in revolting detail.) The Mormons have improved on this rather backdated solution with something very literal-minded. They have assembled a gigantic genealogical database at a huge repository in Utah, and are busy filling it with the names of all people whose births, marriages, and deaths have been tabulated since records began. This is very useful if you want to look up your own family tree, and as long as you do not object to having your ancestors becoming Mormons. Every week, at special ceremonies in Mormon temples, the congregations meet and are given a certain quota of names of the departed to "pray in" to their church. This retrospective baptism of the dead seems harmless enough to me, but the American Jewish Committee became incensed when it was discovered that the Mormons had acquired the records of the Nazi "final solution," and were industriously baptizing what for once could truly be called a "lost tribe": the murdered Jews of Europe. For all its touching inefficacy, this exercise seemed in poor taste. I sympathize with the American Jewish Committee, but I nonetheless think that the followers of Mr. Smith should be congratulated for hitting upon even the most simpleminded technological solution to a problem that has defied solution ever since man first invented religion."
-An excerpt from Christopher Hitchen's book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Spoils Everything.
Post by: Anonymous on April 25, 2009, 02:50:31 AM
God is not Great: how Religion Poisons Everything.
Post by: FemanonFatal2.0 on April 25, 2009, 09:41:53 PM
I recently caught a good documentary into the interworkings of religious cults on the E! network "THS Investigates: Cults, Religion & Mind Control" I wasn't able to find any clips or a torrent to download but maybe someone else can find one.
Here's another one I found, its not as good but it still resonates. The fundamentalist LDS communities seem to operate in the same manner as the WWASP programs, the similarities are uncanny.
Religion or Mind Control
Part 1 (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkmfPNxhmxA)
Part 2 (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap18uAFvA1M&feature=related)
Part 3 (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpsrLxuV-jU&feature=related)
Part 4 (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKkEwwRPAV4&feature=related)
Post by: Anonymous on April 25, 2009, 09:45:20 PM
Athiest, BTW,
Post by: FemanonFatal2.0 on April 25, 2009, 10:25:23 PM
Being an atheist I would think you would see things a bit differently than the systematically disillusioned masses.
Consider this for a second, Religions and Cults are really the same thing... just opposite sides of the spectrum. So most would assume a religion like Christianity (which is simply a watered down version of Catholicism and Judaism) would be at the positive side of the spectrum where as a cult like "Satanic Cults" (btw check out this hilarious article (http://http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/17668/satanic_worship_cults_how_you_can_protect.html?cat=25) ) would be at the very end of the spectrum. Where would Mormonism stand on that spectrum? Well I think if we categorized it according the the methods of mind control used and depending on the severity of the nonsensical doctrine (including any abuses and immoralities that are rationalized by the doctrine) You would find that Mormonism could very well be categorized as a religious cult. Of course I am more referring to the fundamentalist LDS church with members living in "communities" where its widely accepted to practice polygamy, as well as marrying off of teenage brides. The Modernized church of LDS may differ from the fundamentalist LDS communities in several ways, but I don't have any doubt that mind control still exists within the church.
Are you familiar with what mind control even is?
check this out Freedom of mind "B.I.T.E." (http://http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/d/dahn-hak/dahn-hak-bite-analysis.htm)
Post by: try another castle on April 26, 2009, 03:55:44 AM
Quote
We don't handle snakes and dance around or anything weird like that.
What the fuck is wrong with handling snakes and dancing around? That's some serious bad-ass hard-core pagan awesomeness right there. Even if they *do* invoke jesus.
If the mormons did that, I might have a little bit of respect for them. Snake handlers care about one thing: their love of and faith in god, which manifests in the snake dance (a very ancient custom, btw). Mormons, on the other hand, do things like shuttle money off to influence the voting of ballot measures in other states. (Which, btw, is unconstitutional.) You've got fingers in many government pies, trying to influence policy to make decisions based solely off of YOUR interests, as dictated by your religion. You run a whole fucking state, for fuck's sake, and you've got shitloads of money, power and influence to do so.
So maybe you guys don't dance with snakes, but you sure emulate their stereotype nicely.
I wish folks would stop bashing the snake people. I'd sit down and have a beer with any one of those people any day of the freakin week. Twice on tuesday, even. (Xcept I don't think they drink.)
I'd never sup with a die-hard mormon.
I don't care whether the Mormons are a cult or not. (They are barely a religion.) Rather, they are a controlling political interest, and that's all that concerns me.
Quote
Here's another one I found, its not as good but it still resonates. The fundamentalist LDS communities seem to operate in the same manner as the WWASP programs, the similarities are uncanny.
You *do* know that WWASPS was spearheaded by the Mormon church, right? Maia talks about it in her book. You wouldnt *believe* how many programs out there were started by Mormon interests.
Post by: Oz girl on April 26, 2009, 09:21:53 AM
I don't know if mormonism is. It certainly does not seem any more or less crazy than most & it's followers appear to be as socially diverse as any other. But it's links to this industry and the fact that it's more prominent senior members have been involved in particularly brutal schools like utah boy's ranch is a big worry. There is a certain protestant work ethic mentality and obsession with the evils of popular culture taken to seriously wierd extremes that is common to many mormon institutions within this industry but I am not sure whether this is part of the mormon churches philosophy or if they stumbled upon a wider cultural obsession and ran with it when it became evident that there was a dollar to be made.
Post by: FemanonFatal2.0 on April 26, 2009, 10:00:23 PM
Quote from: "try another castle"
You *do* know that WWASPS was spearheaded by the Mormon church, right? Maia talks about it in her book. You wouldnt *believe* how many programs out there were started by Mormon interests.
Yes, I am very well aware. Just making a comment as to the fact that the "cult-like" mind control exists just as much in the mormon religion as it does in the programs. Its funny how the modern Mormon church claims to have stepped out of the fundementalist ideals but as soon as they get the chance they channeled their uber mind control religion into a big business money maker.
Quote from: "Oz girl"
There is a certain protestant work ethic mentality and obsession with the evils of popular culture taken to seriously weird extremes that is common to many Mormon institutions within this industry but I am not sure whether this is part of the Mormon churches philosophy or if they stumbled upon a wider cultural obsession and ran with it when it became evident that there was a dollar to be made.
I'm pretty sure its a bit of both.
BTW when I was in CBS, the only church the upper levels were allowed to attend was the Mormon church.
Post by: Anonymous on April 26, 2009, 10:57:10 PM
Post by: Che Gookin on April 27, 2009, 05:32:32 AM
The Mormon bottles, the parties they throw out in the woods, to whatever else it is that they do to skirt their own rules never fails to provide quality amusement. But mainly the Mormon college girls.. God damn..
How many of them end up on, "Girls Gone Wild" over spring break?
Quite the few I'd wager to guess.
Post by: Anonymous on April 27, 2009, 05:59:51 PM
i got her really stoned and had sex with her.
then i played some music for her....the beatles....which she never heard or heard of before.
then she decided she wasnt mormon anymore.
Post by: psy on April 27, 2009, 06:45:31 PM
Quote from: "FemanonFatal2.0"
Quote from: "try another castle"You *do* know that WWASPS was spearheaded by the Mormon church, right? Maia talks about it in her book. You wouldnt *believe* how many programs out there were started by Mormon interests.
Yes, I am very well aware. Just making a comment as to the fact that the "cult-like" mind control exists just as much in the mormon religion as it does in the programs.
That's not true. I might not like the LDS church, but it's not quite a cult, and what their members go through is more along the lines of indoctrination, which is very different than thought reform. Read Singer's continuum of influence and persuasion, also her criteria of what constitutes a cult. Even i the LDS church were a cult, it's "thought reform" is nothing near what goes on in your average program.
The key thing for me is a lack of informed consent in a cult. You can't really say that people going into the LDS church (or any church) don't know what they're getting into. With a cult, you don't fully know what you'll be going through, much of the teaching is layers on layers of secrets, and the overall purpose of the organization is singular: to make money for those on top and debilitate people so a good portion of their time is spent in service of the group. The LDS church is pretty open about their purpose to spread their religion and promote their various agendas.
Post by: FemanonFatal2.0 on April 28, 2009, 01:25:48 AM
Quote from: "psy"
Quote from: "FemanonFatal2.0"Quote from: "try another castle"You *do* know that WWASPS was spearheaded by the Mormon church, right? Maia talks about it in her book. You wouldnt *believe* how many programs out there were started by Mormon interests.
Yes, I am very well aware. Just making a comment as to the fact that the "cult-like" mind control exists just as much in the mormon religion as it does in the programs.
That's not true.
In my experience they were almost exactly alike, given a few differences but the methods were wholly the same. Again I am not necessarily referring to the Mormon religion as much as the fundamentalist church and communities or "ranches" they operate. It's eerily similar. Remember that they had to have gotten this program model from somewhere, and as much as you'd assume that they got it from Straight and other programs before them, in the methods used its actually a lot more like a religion then a program. For Instance we never had any of the raps or silly songs except in the seminars and although the "therapy" was confrontational it was mostly used as peer pressure to uphold the doctrine of the program before it was ever used on a personal basis. Not saying Straight is not a mentor to the modern program just as much as the Mormon religion but I have to say that from experience I felt like the Mormon religion had a prominent existence in the program.
But again, you are talking to a person who believes that ALL religions are in some way "cult-like", and Mormonism is certainly not excluded.
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2009, 02:21:03 AM
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
Post by: Botched Programming on April 28, 2009, 12:01:48 PM
Quote from: "FemanonFatal2.0"
But again, you are talking to a person who believes that ALL religions are in some way "cult-like", and Mormonism is certainly not excluded.
I'm with you Femanon... For me I do not need to go to a church to express my beliefs. Many times I see people get so wrapped up into churches and get their thinking distorted. Take snake handlers, not much difference from any other religon, just some are more bizzarr than others.
For me I would rather spend time at a beach or doing anything that brings peaceful feelings inside me. I lived through confrontation while at Straight and while being brought had to go to church and found that kind of life is not for me.
Am I an agnostic... NO
Am I an athiest.....NO
Am I a christian....NO
I am a man of my own beliefs.
When it comes to Cults, what is the difference between The Moonies, Harry Krishnas, and Mormons or Jewish. I mean come on.... The Jews nailed the man to a cross for Pete's sake. Any organized religon is a cult. I personally like being a free man and not have to follow a set belief.
Religious people are like cattle, most can not think for themselves so they follow.
Botched
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2009, 12:46:32 PM
Quote from: "Botched Programming"
Religious people are like cattle, most can not think for themselves so they follow.
I don't think that's true. Some people just want to be part of a community of people with similar ethics/beliefs.
Post by: Botched Programming on April 28, 2009, 01:41:20 PM
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Botched Programming"Religious people are like cattle, most can not think for themselves so they follow.
I don't think that's true. Some people just want to be part of a community of people with similar ethics/beliefs.
Hence what I said above, they are like cattle...... Followers not leaders.
:blabla:
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2009, 03:04:51 PM
Quote from: "Botched Programming"
Quote from: "Guest"Quote from: "Botched Programming"Religious people are like cattle, most can not think for themselves so they follow.
I don't think that's true. Some people just want to be part of a community of people with similar ethics/beliefs.
Hence what I said above, they are like cattle...... Followers not leaders.
:blabla:
It's human nature to want to be part of a community/group. You are a leader of one, yourself. That's not must to brag about. You don't have to put down the choices of others to make yourself feel better your choice to be a loner, oops, I mean 'leader'.
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2009, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: "Guest"
It's human nature to want to be ............. Bahhh Bahhhhhhhhhhh Bahhhhhh
Sheeple
(http://http://www.realclimate.org/images/Sheep.jpg)
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2009, 03:16:30 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2009, 03:28:12 PM
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2009, 03:29:02 PM
i pulled out my desert eagle and started counting down from five.
i blinked
they were gone.
Post by: Botched Programming on April 28, 2009, 03:38:09 PM
Quote from: "Guest"
It's human nature to want to be part of a community/group. You are a leader of one, yourself. That's not must to brag about. You don't have to put down the choices of others to make yourself feel better your choice to be a loner, oops, I mean 'leader'.
Guest... I am no leader nor am I a follower. I am personally a free man who is not controlled or governed by a set definition of what my peers want me to be. I do not have to conform to a set standard of belief's that somebody else thought was good for them. Churches have doctrines that it's members have to conform to. As in all good cults you are told what to believe and live by their definition of right and wrong.
As far as cattle went.... I may have been wrong.... Lets go with sheep... In hymnals I have seen there is a religious song that is titled ..... "BRINGING IN THE SHEEP" so there is a leader telling people the same thing I am however I am being argued with because of my insite on this and the man of the cloth is leading his followers like sheep as they follow blindly. Also I am not putting down the choices of others, only letting people know that they do not have to follow others to be happy but to live and think on their own.
P.S.
Don't take it personal.... many people are just followers.
:feedtrolls:
Sincerely,
Botched
:peace:
Post by: FemanonFatal2.0 on April 28, 2009, 07:11:56 PM
Quote from: "Botched Programming"
I am personally a free man who is not controlled or governed by a set definition of what my peers want me to be. I do not have to conform to a set standard of belief's that somebody else thought was good for them. Churches have doctrines that it's members have to conform to. As in all good cults you are told what to believe and live by their definition of right and wrong.
Thank you for that. It may just be the way I have always been, but its very hard for me to just blindly accept illogical concepts on behalf of being part of a group. Id much rather make up my own mind, based on my own experience and what feels morally right.
It surprises me how gullible people can be.
Post by: try another castle on April 28, 2009, 08:34:28 PM
Quote
I mean come on.... The Jews nailed the man to a cross
That is the one thing that fills me with the most pride about my people.
I hope he comes back so we can do it again.
Fuckin hippie.
Post by: FemanonFatal2.0 on April 28, 2009, 08:52:23 PM
If i do in fact contract the Swine Flu I will be attending as many local Mormon church gatherings as I can find
and insist on hugging everyone.
Post by: try another castle on April 28, 2009, 08:56:14 PM
Quote from: "FemanonFatal2.0"
Just a quick announcement
If i do in fact contract the Swine Flu I will be attending as many local Mormon church gatherings as I can find
and insist on hugging everyone.
If you kept kosher you wouldnt have to worry about that. :P
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2009, 09:10:22 PM
but it would be amusing if you could get it from eating or being around pork, and/or only pork-eating people end up getting it.
i've been telling people for years, dont eat pork! it's unclean! they eat dead rotten things! but people dont listen....i've had to excuse myself from way too many bbqs and family gatherings at friends' houses because they were cooking pork. stuff makes me wanna vomit, it's as close to test-tube meat as it gets.
pork is nasty shit. so is shellfish. jews were really ahead of their time.
i bet mormons eat lots and lots of pork. you are what you eat afterall.....
Post by: TheWho on April 28, 2009, 09:18:43 PM
Post by: try another castle on April 28, 2009, 09:36:09 PM
Those little shit heads are so ugly, the least we can do is kill them.
I can't eat shellfish any more, once I realized that they were just big bugs. The only exception I make to this is crab.
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2009, 09:45:47 PM
Quote from: "Guest"
Nothing beats the smell of fresh bacon in the morning, cooking on the stove.
i too love to cook bits of my local precinct in the morning. i hate the kind of bacon they make out of actual pigs (the animal) tho.
yea castle i feel ya. while at my respective TBS which was located in the south, i loved my BBQ pork. i have since abstained from all pork. g-d told me to :-P
not only are shellfish big bugs, but they eat stuff that dies and sinks to the bottom (lobster) or rots and floats around (shrimp). as is, i'm weirded out by all the nasty diseases floating around in raw supermarket meat. pork and Shellfish adds a whole other dimension of uncertainty about all sorts of bacteria, viruses and parasites.
i like my lamb. theres nothing cleaner or more innocent than lamb. i mean, they dont even factory-farm them because the demand is so low, so by default most lamb is grass-fed and antibiotic-free. then theres that lovely venison...i shoot my one deer a year and savor the wonderful meat all year long. unfortunately, venison is not kosher (unless you are able to chase it, pin it down for enough time and cut it's throat, which in most cases results in dead human, not dead deer). i dont give a fuck though, venison is too good to care about kashrut laws.
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2009, 09:50:50 PM
Quote from: "FemanonFatal2.0"
Just a quick announcement
If i do in fact contract the Swine Flu I will be attending as many local Mormon church gatherings as I can find
and insist on hugging everyone.
I hope you're joking. How can you harbor so much hate for people you have never met based on a religious stereotype? How many mormons have you met, exactly? How did they offend you?
Post by: Anonymous on April 28, 2009, 10:33:03 PM
because they tried to convert me. because they are stupid and lack free thought. because they believe what can be considered an outright lie, a fallacy, through pure objective logic. because of the september 11 slaughter (i'm not talking about 2001). because of polygamy. because they take over entire communities and harass and shun everyone who doesn't convert out of the community. because they push their moral agenda on everyone else. because they are hypocrites. because i have yet to see any mormon do anything beneficial to society as a whole.
i lived in utah for a number of years, so i've met many many mormons.
if i were to believe that joe smith is a prophet i might as well believe i am a prophet and my dog heshie is a saint.
Post by: FemanonFatal2.0 on April 28, 2009, 11:14:48 PM
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "FemanonFatal2.0"Just a quick announcement
If i do in fact contract the Swine Flu I will be attending as many local Mormon church gatherings as I can find
and insist on hugging everyone.
I hope you're joking. How can you harbor so much hate for people you have never met based on a religious stereotype? How many mormons have you met, exactly? How did they offend you?
Not sure if your new here but I was imprisoned and tortured by Mormons.
and now that I think about it, every Mormon I have ever met was a bit of a stuck up bitch (or son of a bitch respectively).
so how about I just say this... Regardless of faith, race or general lifestyle choices, If I have to die in my prime I will take as many self righteous fucktards as I can down with me. Even if it is just on principal.
Post by: TheWho on April 28, 2009, 11:52:35 PM
Quote from: "soienvserogisehrgseorgush"
i'm not femmefatal, but i'll answer your question as if you were asking me.
because they tried to convert me. because they are stupid and lack free thought. because they believe what can be considered an outright lie, a fallacy, through pure objective logic. because of the september 11 slaughter (i'm not talking about 2001). because of polygamy. because they take over entire communities and harass and shun everyone who doesn't convert out of the community. because they push their moral agenda on everyone else. because they are hypocrites. because i have yet to see any mormon do anything beneficial to society as a whole.
i lived in utah for a number of years, so i've met many many mormons.
if i were to believe that joe smith is a prophet i might as well believe i am a prophet and my dog heshie is a saint.
I have met many non religous people who have tried to convert people out of their religion or convince them that religion is just merely a cult, but I wouldnt want to see all these people dead. They just firmly believe that people are better off without religion, but I wouldnt persecute them becuase of their beliefs. That is any awlful way to think.
Post by: Anonymous on April 29, 2009, 12:37:24 AM
Quote from: "FemanonFatal2.0"
I was imprisoned and tortured by Mormons.
for real? were you one of those teen wives or something? ive seen them on the tyra show and maury.
Post by: FemanonFatal2.0 on April 29, 2009, 12:42:10 AM
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "soienvserogisehrgseorgush"i'm not femmefatal, but i'll answer your question as if you were asking me.
because they tried to convert me. because they are stupid and lack free thought. because they believe what can be considered an outright lie, a fallacy, through pure objective logic. because of the september 11 slaughter (i'm not talking about 2001). because of polygamy. because they take over entire communities and harass and shun everyone who doesn't convert out of the community. because they push their moral agenda on everyone else. because they are hypocrites. because i have yet to see any mormon do anything beneficial to society as a whole.
i lived in utah for a number of years, so i've met many many mormons.
if i were to believe that joe smith is a prophet i might as well believe i am a prophet and my dog heshie is a saint.
I have met many non religous people who have tried to convert people out of their religion or convince them that religion is just merely a cult, but I wouldnt want to see all these people dead. They just firmly believe that people are better off without religion, but I wouldnt persecute them becuase of their beliefs. That is any awlful way to think.
O'RLY?
Let me ask you this....If I were responsible for the single most jarring experience of your life, don't you think it would be appropriate for you to hate me?... If I convinced your family that I would take care of you and then came into your home and dragged you against your will to a deplorable prison in a third world country and treated you with less respect then I would a sewer rat, beat you up on a regular basis and forced you to endure systematic torment.... might you even want me dead?
If it was part of my religious beliefs to treat other people this way, there in convincing myself that what I was doing to you and countless other innocent children was justifiable by my own personal governing "god", would you be tempted to judge that religion as a whole?
Furthermore, If every other person you met who adhered to that lifestyle was a complete and utter asshole, just like me, the one you really hate, wouldn't you be willing to see them all lying in a mass grave somewhere?....
no?... really?..... okay okay well either that's just my sick sense of HUMOR or the program REALLY fucked with my head.
:roflmao:
Seriously that was just a joke... If I got the swine flu I would go to the hospital and probably be fine in a few days.
:sue:
Post by: Anonymous on April 29, 2009, 10:33:06 AM
I'm surprised you don't seem to understand this simple idea. You can't generalize and hate people you've never met, just because they share the same religion as someone who harmed you. It's prejudice, plain and simple and there is no excuse for it.
Post by: Botched Programming on April 29, 2009, 11:08:16 AM
Quote from: "FemanonFatal2.0"
Quote from: "Botched Programming"I am personally a free man who is not controlled or governed by a set definition of what my peers want me to be. I do not have to conform to a set standard of belief's that somebody else thought was good for them. Churches have doctrines that it's members have to conform to. As in all good cults you are told what to believe and live by their definition of right and wrong.
Thank you for that. It may just be the way I have always been, but its very hard for me to just blindly accept illogical concepts on behalf of being part of a group. Id much rather make up my own mind, based on my own experience and what feels morally right.
It surprises me how gullible people can be.
You know Femanon you are absolutely correct. Our "Guest" that we have been talking to argues that it is human nature to be around people with like mind and beliefs. So I guess that you, Castle, and myself must have our own cult now :roflmao:
Ok... So now that I have regained composure here. I personally believe hate groups sprung up due to religious beliefs. If you are not of them them you are a godless infidel. Take the fighting over the holy land Israel and Pakistan have fought many years due to a difference of belief in religion.
And one last note, the churches are money making businesses so it's a competition much like Burger King vs McDonalds.
Post by: Anonymous on April 29, 2009, 11:26:00 AM
Quote from: "Guest"
I was robbed and beaten by someone claiming to be a Christian. Does that make every other Christian in the world just as bad as the one who beat and robbed me?
I'm surprised you don't seem to understand this simple idea. You can't generalize and hate people you've never met, just because they share the same religion as someone who harmed you. It's prejudice, plain and simple and there is no excuse for it.
it's a little different. a better analogy would be "I was robbed and beaten by every person i have every met who claimed to be a christian. does that make every other christian in the world just as bad as the ones who beat and robbed me?" probably. yes.
If every cow i ever saw was able to give milk, i would assume that every cow in the world is able to give milk. there are some exceptions, such as young, old, and sick cows, but they represent a small minority, they are the exception not the norm. what use is a living cow that doesn't give milk anyway? likewise a good mormon by kantian ethical standards is a useless mormon to the LDS church. therefore, they are a minority.
Post by: Botched Programming on April 29, 2009, 11:26:50 AM
Quote from: "Guest"
You can't generalize and hate people you've never met, just because they share the same religion as someone who harmed you. It's prejudice, plain and simple and there is no excuse for it.
Well tell that to Osama Bin Laden, or Adolph Hitler, or Sadam Hussan or even George Bush. it may not be right, however that's the way the world is.
Are there any perfect religions, why do people of different religions down and bash upon each other. Why can they not live in harmony. It is a concept that has been forced into their minds (brainwashed) that their way is the only way.
Take Femanon, Castle, and myself... I know we are of different belief's, but we don't choose to battle with each other over our personal opinions we don't try to push our beliefs down each other's throats.
Botched
:peace:
Post by: Anonymous on April 29, 2009, 01:03:18 PM
Quote
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly known as the LDS Church, or the Mormon Church) reported 13,508,509 members on record in the April 2008 General Conference.
None of you have met enough Mormons to judge 13 million people.
Post by: Botched Programming on April 29, 2009, 01:53:09 PM
wife (the one they are legally married to), and that the other wives (not
legal wives but married through the church) and their children are usually
all on welfare? I have heard a rumor that in some predominately Mormon
towns, up to 75 % of the population is on welfare.
Post by: Anonymous on April 29, 2009, 02:07:26 PM
they talk about goyim in their temple ceremonies and hate them.
I heard that all blacks love fried chicken and watermelon
and most (75%) of their adult male population smokes crack,
and most of their woman folk are on welfare.
Post by: Botched Programming on April 29, 2009, 02:36:25 PM
Quote from: "Guest"
I heard that Jews are all cheap and will rip you off and
they talk about goyim in their temple ceremonies and hate them.
I heard that all blacks love fried chicken and watermelon
and most (75%) of their adult male population smokes crack,
and most of their woman folk are on welfare.
Now guest... There you go bashing, I was trying to ask a legitimate question. It seems like my question cut you pretty deep. I got the question and answer when I was Googling LDS and your defensiveness makes it appear that maybe, just maybe you are guilty of doing what I was questioning.
As far as welfare goes, I personally do not believe that our tax payers should have to pay for children born out of polygamy. The dads should have to support both the legal and non legal wives and pay in full himself for all the kids.
:soapbox:
Post by: FemanonFatal2.0 on April 30, 2009, 12:09:48 AM
Quote from: "Guest"
I was robbed and beaten by someone claiming to be a Christian. Does that make every other Christian in the world just as bad as the one who beat and robbed me?
I'm surprised you don't seem to understand this simple idea. You can't generalize and hate people you've never met, just because they share the same religion as someone who harmed you. It's prejudice, plain and simple and there is no excuse for it.
You seem to miss the point here, what I said is that I was tortured by Mormons and it was their religion that excused that behavior. The Mormon religion (at least the fundamentalist church) condones child abuse, mind control and disrespect of women, it wasn't just the group of Mormons that were directly responsible for the actions against me it was their religion that gave them the excuse to do so. The honestly believe they were doing what god wanted and it was for my own good.
I'm sure not all Mormons are able to convince themselves that such behavior is okay, but many many of the Mormons I know have been just as judgmental and ruthless as those with whom I have had personal experience, its just part of the Mormon culture. I think that's morally wrong, being cruel to other human beings shouldn't be permissible by any religion or in name of any imaginary "god" no matter how widely accepted that doctrine may have become.
Its not just the Mormons who have been killing, torturing and conquering in the name of their "god", history explains this kind of religious hostility since the dawn of the conception of religion. Which really spells out loud and clear that organized religion is greatly responsible for most of the epic conflicts between the human species. But why is this still excusable today? when the enemy is now our own children or struggling drug addicts, why is it that conversion to a religion is still accepted as a solution when it has always been the problem? How is it that people can still follow in support and worship of some completely idiotic ideals and stand so steadfast behind a concept that is clearly a man made thought control system. It really just makes no damn sense to me!
All religions are cults, some aren't as harmful today as they once were but considering the history of religion there is NOTHING that separates a religion and a cult besides a varied doctrine and how widely conversion is accepted. The structure and methods have always been the same.
Post by: try another castle on April 30, 2009, 12:37:02 AM
Quote
I was robbed and beaten by someone claiming to be a Christian.
You mean as they were robbing and beating you they were informing you about their faith?
That seems highly inappropriate. :P
Post by: FemanonFatal2.0 on April 30, 2009, 01:02:20 AM
Quote from: "Guest"
I heard that Jews are all cheap and will rip you off and
they talk about goyim in their temple ceremonies and hate them.
I heard that all blacks love fried chicken and watermelon
and most (75%) of their adult male population smokes crack,
and most of their woman folk are on welfare.
umm actually considering that 37% of my states welfare funds are paid to blacks yet the overall population of blacks is only 7% I think that "most" is a pretty accurate assumption... and I'm pretty sure they do like fried chicken, after all it is delicious.
Post by: try another castle on April 30, 2009, 01:21:02 AM
Quote from: "FemanonFatal2.0"
Quote from: "Guest"I heard that Jews are all cheap and will rip you off and
they talk about goyim in their temple ceremonies and hate them.
I heard that all blacks love fried chicken and watermelon
and most (75%) of their adult male population smokes crack,
and most of their woman folk are on welfare.
umm actually considering that 37% of my states welfare funds are paid to blacks yet the overall population of blacks is only 7% I think that "most" is a pretty accurate assumption... and I'm pretty sure they do like fried chicken, after all it is delicious.
I like teh fried chicken. Does that make me a negra?
Post by: psy on April 30, 2009, 01:32:11 AM
Quote from: "try another castle"
You mean as they were robbing and beating you they were informing you about their faith?
Did they carve a backwards C into your cheek?
Post by: try another castle on April 30, 2009, 01:47:15 AM
Quote from: "psy"
Quote from: "try another castle"You mean as they were robbing and beating you they were informing you about their faith?
Did they carve a backwards C into your cheek?
I bet it was one o them jesus fishies.