PDA

View Full Version : The story of the bible


Pages : [1] 2

Dave Lane
06-13-2007, 07:26 PM
Since this is buried in the creation museum thread and to celebrate my 5,000th post I give you this very interesting read that I hope will amuse, enlighten, ponder and in other ways find intriguing.

A Work in Progress

There are many Christian bibles. Several hundred in fact (and this number excludes the thousand-plus foreign language editions). Every group that has ever claimed the title ‘Christian’, from gnostic sects of the second century, through countless ‘heresies’ of the Middle Ages, to Mormons of the twentieth century, has had recourse to its own version of the holy testament.

This fine tuning of God’s word, which began at the very inception of Christianity, continues even in our own day. Though this plethora of bibles share a common core, many contain material omitted by others, and vice versa. Even where the content is ostensibly the same, verses have been removed or added, words transposed, rearranged or rephrased. Evidently, God, as the ultimate ‘author’ is endlessly searching for that fine nuance, that pithy turn of phrase.

What is not apparent, when we pick up the holy book, is the extensive editing that has prepared that volume for public consumption, and this editing applies just as much to the central story and its main characters as to any subsequent tinkering – more so, in fact. In the first two centuries of the Christian era, when a ‘Bible’ as such did not exist and the proselytes of the new faith were scouring the Jewish scriptures for confirmation of their heresy, many scribes turned their hand to ‘gospel’ writing. These publications were severely ‘limited editions’, painstakingly written by hand. Often untitled and unsigned these texts passed from hand to hand, in time acquiring the authority and aura of an antique and blurring the distinction between fiction, history and scripture.
Director's Cut

It was well into the second century before a number of these ‘testimonies’ were collected together and bound into a single volume. From the mass of available material ecclesiastical editors selected what would and what would not be included in the Good Book. But of course different editors made different choices.

Search the Bible in vain for the gospels of Thomas, Matthaias or the ‘The Twelve’; for the Acts of Andrew or Acts of John; for the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache; for the Shepherd of Hermas or the Apocalypse of Peter. Yet for the first two centuries of Christianity all of these were holy scripture, the revealed Word of God.

On the other hand rejected by the early church fathers were Paul’s letter to Philemon, the second and third letters of John, the second letter of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, all part of the canon after Christianity became the state religion!

Clearly the Big Guy had had a major rethink. Roman bibles after the fourth century hedged their bets and included ‘doubtful’ and previously rejected material at the end as ‘Apocrypha’ (‘hidden’). Clearly this was God’s rough draft, not really meant for publication. Luther kept the apocrypha in his bible whereas Calvin and most other Protestant reformers excluded them.

To regard this wholesale editorial selection and censorship, and the rewriting which accompanied it, as a function purely of the human mind, influenced by considerations of ambition and wealth, power and politics, is, of course, to lose sight of the hand of god; the divine, beavering away in overdrive in central Europe and the eastern Mediterranean centuries ago!





Keeping Current

In truth, if scripture were not to be regularly revised no one alive would understand a word of it. Through the centuries, vocabulary, word usage, syntax and grammar continuously change. The ‘Great Bible’ of 1539 was the first English ‘national’ bible, appearing after the break with the Pope and his Latin Vulgate. Though written in ‘English’, little of it would be intelligible to the twenty first century English speaker. A tad more digestible is the ‘Authorised’ King James Version, the earliest bible to introduce the numbering of sentences. Its magisterial tone, with all its ‘begats’ and ‘art thous’, merely ossifies the appealing authority and grandiose language of monarchical England in 1611. It was followed by a series of subsequent revisions including the Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, the Revised Standard Version of 1952, etc., etc.

The revisionist claim has always been made of ‘capturing the essential truth’ of the Greek and Hebrew originals – a neat trick when one considers that the originals were actually written entirely in capitals and without the benefit of punctuation or even spaces between words. Because of the high cost of vellum many words were truncated or abbreviated to squeeze more in – but at a cost of even greater ambiguity. As the original scrolls were copied, generation by generation, marginal notes, added by later clerics as personal interpretations or amplifications of obscure points, were written into the body of scripture itself. In this centuries’ long process of revision, many gospels fell completely by the wayside, not even making the apocrypha and known to us today only by chance survival.


Deceptive Arrangement

For the most part, each of the two ‘testaments’ of the Bible is made up of chapters, grandly styled ‘books’, with each ‘book’ set out in groups of paragraphs, confusingly called ‘chapters.’ Some ‘books’ are very brief indeed. The book of Ruth, for example, is barely two pages, 2,578 words in fact. The longest, Jeremiah, at 42,659 words, would make a pamphlet of reasonable length. Authorship of the Old Testament was largely a fifth/sixth century BC affair (with the ‘Chronicler’ not writing until the mid-fourth century); authorship of the New Testament primarily occurred in the second century AD. With all the revisions and re-writes the effort involved a good many people. Arguably, some of them wrote inspiring words – but in no sense is that the same as the words being inspired by a deity. The total compendium, though impressive and at times entertaining, makes torturous reading.

The ‘books’ are arranged in a particular order, one that appears to be an unfolding story – from Jews to Jesus, from Jesus to Church, from birth of the Messiah to a vision of the Day of Judgement yet to come. It appears to be chronological. It is not. The order is largely reversed. Exodus was written before Genesis. ‘Prophesies’ written after events are reassigned to an earlier authorship in order to establish their veracity. An ancient and heroic ‘history’ reflects the contingencies of a much later time. The final book, the ‘Revelation of St. John’ is the earliest, not the latest, part of the New Testament, save for the correspondence of St Paul, which itself pre-dates all the gospels – and not one of the favoured gospels took on their present form before 150 AD.

Similar liberties have been taken within the individual books themselves, with later additions used to preface or addend the original work. Mark is earlier than Matthew, yet its ending has been extended by borrowings from the later work. The ‘Revelation of St. John’, in its original draft a composite of several Jewish apocalyptic dramas, was later Christianized by a preface of ‘letters to the churches of Asia’.





No more true is this process of time-reversal or ‘back projection’ than of the life and times of the Jesus character himself, who began his existence as a celestial superhero, acquired an earthly death; subsequently was given an adulthood; and completed his career with a spectacular nativity!


The Church, in the sense of organisation, authority, assets and membership preceded rather than followed the justifying doctrine. As the organisation and its needs changed so the ‘testament of god’ adapted accordingly. Shuffling the confused jigsaw of stories back into the chronology of authorship proves very revealing.


Business Begets Bibliology

What becomes very obvious when the parts of the book are rearranged into the order in which they were written is that the story grew with the telling. For example, if we look at the central mystery of Christianity, the ‘Resurrection’, we find that in Mark’s gospel (the earliest) the visitors to the tomb find a sitting figure, ‘a young man in a white robe’ (Mark 16.5). He could have been anybody. Thirty years later the story is rather different: we can choose between the sudden appearance of ‘two men’, standing in ‘shining garments’ (Luke 24.4); or ‘a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven … His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow’ (Matthew 28.2,3).

Often an anachronism within the gospels provides a clue to the true authorship of the text. For example, all three synoptics have Jesus use the phrase ‘take up his cross’. This is Mark:

"And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Mark 8.34)

Matthew (16.4) and Luke (9.23) use almost identical words.

What’s ‘wrong’ here is that the crucifixion has not yet happened – the phrase belongs to a Christian Church a century or more into the future!

Each and every verse of the Bible is a testament to the needs and purposes of a particular time or place, whether to restate a gem of folk wisdom, upstage a rival story, assimilate a popular pagan myth, quash an opponent’s arguments or serve a current political purpose. Necessarily, and unavoidably, the compendium is rife with contradictions and inconsistencies.

Which (if either!) is correct, for example, in the fishy bread story?

"And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. And they did all eat, and were filled. And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes. And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men."

"And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people. And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before them. So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets. And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he sent them away."

The first quotation is from Mark 6.41,44: the second only a page or so later from Mark 8.6,9!

Did Jesus go ‘immediately' into the desert after baptism, as Mark tells us:

"And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him." (Mark 1.12,13)


Or did he take himself off to a wedding as John would have it?

"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him... The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Phillip... And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage." (John 1.32;43: 2.1.2)


Was Mark correct when he quoted Jesus that there would be ‘no signs’:

"And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation." (Mark 8.12)


Or was John nearer the truth when he says:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book." (John 20.30)



Creationism

By a convoluted process of interpolation, accretion and redaction, the whole compendium of fables and fancy was brought into being. The four Gospels had a precedent in the ‘sayings of Jesus,’ epithets of wisdom attached to a shadowy Christ figure. Progressively anthropomorphized into a human figure, a series of anecdotes, ‘reminiscences’ and stories were attached to his name.

go bowe
06-13-2007, 07:43 PM
hang on, you're about to be overwhelmed by those guys...

you know, the ones who say every letter in the bible is true, correct and received directly from God (even when inconsistent and contradictory?)...

i'm gonna go start a batch of popcorn and then settle in for this one...

Dave Lane
06-13-2007, 07:44 PM
hang on, you're about to be overwhelmed by those guys...

you know, the ones who say every letter in the bible is true, correct and received directly from God (even when inconsistent and contradictory?)...

i'm gonna go start a batch of popcorn and then settle in for this one...


Ought to be good :) Eat some for me Gobo!

Dave

Ugly Duck
06-13-2007, 08:24 PM
There are many Christian bibles. Several hundred in fact Yeah... but don't they all embrace the Talking Snake version of Creation? You non-believers can trash the Bible all you want, but you can't say the talking snakes aren't central to Christian philosophy. If you can believe in talking snakes, you can be a Christian regardless of how many different versions there are of the Bible.

Logical
06-13-2007, 09:06 PM
Keeping Current

In truth, if scripture were not to be regularly revised no one alive would understand a word of it. Through the centuries, vocabulary, word usage, syntax and grammar continuously change. The ‘Great Bible’ of 1539 was the first English ‘national’ bible, appearing after the break with the Pope and his Latin Vulgate. Though written in ‘English’, little of it would be intelligible to the twenty first century English speaker. A tad more digestible is the ‘Authorised’ King James Version, the earliest bible to introduce the numbering of sentences. Its magisterial tone, with all its ‘begats’ and ‘art thous’, merely ossifies the appealing authority and grandiose language of monarchical England in 1611. It was followed by a series of subsequent revisions including the Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, the Revised Standard Version of 1952, etc., etc.


I have been trying to make people understand this point forever, but no one will listen.

irishjayhawk
06-13-2007, 09:39 PM
I guess this answers my latest post in the other thread. Sorry for skipping over it. :)

I have a question (and asked in the other one too).

Why has "God's Word" not been updated in 2000+ years? Doesn't he have anything new to say? What about in regards to slavery? What about world wars, the invention called "the gun", cloning, abortion etc? Why is there no "God's Word" on that?

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2007, 09:48 PM
That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2007, 09:51 PM
What about in regards to slavery?You wanna fight about it?

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

Ugly Duck
06-13-2007, 09:53 PM
I have been trying to make people understand this point forever, but no one will listen.

But... isn't each revision inspired by God and is the Infallible Word of God?

Logical
06-13-2007, 09:56 PM
I guess this answers my latest post in the other thread. Sorry for skipping over it. :)

I have a question (and asked in the other one too).

Why has "God's Word" not been updated in 2000+ years? Doesn't he have anything new to say? What about in regards to slavery? What about world wars, the invention called "the gun", cloning, abortion etc? Why is there no "God's Word" on that?

God got bored, he is easily distracted. Look something shiny, oh that is just another star system.

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 10:02 PM
I guess this answers my latest post in the other thread. Sorry for skipping over it. :)

I have a question (and asked in the other one too).

Why has "God's Word" not been updated in 2000+ years? Doesn't he have anything new to say? What about in regards to slavery? What about world wars, the invention called "the gun", cloning, abortion etc? Why is there no "God's Word" on that?Some religions have "updates." I think the Mormons do.

irishjayhawk
06-13-2007, 10:06 PM
Some religions have "updates." I think the Mormons do.

:hmmm:

There's too much truth to that. If that's the best answer from believers, ROFL

Logical
06-13-2007, 10:17 PM
:hmmm:

There's too much truth to that. If that's the best answer from believers, ROFL

The Mormon God is more talkative, he represents.

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2007, 10:21 PM
God got bored, he is easily distracted. Look something shiny, oh that is just another star system.Fun fact: Television was invented exactly 1,994 years ago in the HD 28185 system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_28185). God went silent around the same time.

Coincidence? I think not.

SLAG
06-13-2007, 10:32 PM
i see no sources cited other

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2007, 10:39 PM
i see no sources cited otherFunny, I also see no sources cited:

http://imgred.com/http://wabashchristianmen.com/images/HolyBible_a.jpg

Logical
06-13-2007, 10:43 PM
i see no sources cited other

I am pretty sure these are the sources:

Sources:
J. Paterson Smyth, How We Got Our Bible (Sampson Low, Marston, 1930)
Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew (Harper Collins,1992)
Henry Hart Milman, The History of the Jews (Everyman, 1939)
Josephus, The Jewish War (Penguin, 1959)
Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism & Christianity (Routledge, 1988)
Karen Armstrong, A History of Jerusalem (Harper Collins, 1999)
Jonathan N. Tubb, Canaanites (British Museum Press, 1998)
Norman Cantor, The Sacred Chain - A History of the Jews (Harper Collins, 1994)

And I believe this is the website it came from

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/wordofgod.htm

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 10:46 PM
hang on, you're about to be overwhelmed by those guys...

you know, the ones who say every letter in the bible is true, correct and received directly from God (even when inconsistent and contradictory?)...

i'm gonna go start a batch of popcorn and then settle in for this one...

There are some who say every letter is true....however, in my experiences, the vast majority of "believers" do not conform to that caricature.

Don't let that fact, which appears to be more the rule rather than the exception....at least in my experience, detract from your entertainment in impugning the beliefs of others though. :shrug:

Entertainment for entertainment's sake, is underrated in my book. ;)

SLAG
06-13-2007, 10:49 PM
Thank you

I am pretty sure these are the sources:

Sources:
J. Paterson Smyth, How We Got Our Bible (Sampson Low, Marston, 1930)
Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew (Harper Collins,1992)
Henry Hart Milman, The History of the Jews (Everyman, 1939)
Josephus, The Jewish War (Penguin, 1959)
Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism & Christianity (Routledge, 1988)
Karen Armstrong, A History of Jerusalem (Harper Collins, 1999)
Jonathan N. Tubb, Canaanites (British Museum Press, 1998)
Norman Cantor, The Sacred Chain - A History of the Jews (Harper Collins, 1994)

And I believe this is the website it came from

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/wordofgod.htm

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 10:54 PM
It's a piece of literature.

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2007, 10:55 PM
It's a piece of literature.It's a divinely inspired piece of literature, dumbass.

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 10:57 PM
There is one idiot in our church that believes it word for word. In fact, he's taken it to the point that he doesn't believe the dinosaurs existed because they weren't documented in the Bible. However, most of the people I know see it as a guide instead of some infallible book.

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 11:00 PM
There is one idiot in our church that believes it word for word. In fact, he's taken it to the point that he doesn't believe the dinosaurs existed because they weren't documented in the Bible. However, most of the people I know see it as a guide instead of some infallible book.
Come on, Gerry. You and I are gonna take away all of their fun....of painting all believers with the same broad brush as simpleton/literalist/fundamentalist/redneck biggots who believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

Do you really want to play a part in ruining the fun of Christian bashing/Christian hating folks who.....seek validation through circle jerks like this?

Let's leave them to their silly fun.... ;)

Logical
06-13-2007, 11:06 PM
There is one idiot in our church that believes it word for word. In fact, he's taken it to the point that he doesn't believe the dinosaurs existed because they weren't documented in the Bible. However, most of the people I know see it as a guide instead of some infallible book.

Just curious has the idiot ever been to a museum that has dinosaur bones?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 11:07 PM
Just curious has the idiot ever been to a museum that has dinosaur bones?

Those are Jesus Lizards, and the devil put them there to get you off the scent of our Lord and Savior.

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 11:08 PM
Come on, Gerry. You and I are gonna take away all of their fun....of painting all believers with the same broad brush as simpleton/literalist/fundamentalist/redneck biggots who believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

Do you really want to play a part in ruining the fun of Christian bashing/Christian hating folks who.....seek validation through circle jerks like this?

Let's leave them to their silly fun.... ;)
I have no problem with people who don't believe; they tend to have valid points as well. I also don't see most of them painting with a broad brush. Someone poking holes in Slag's beliefs has little impact on my own.

Logical
06-13-2007, 11:08 PM
Come on, Gerry. You and I are gonna take away all of their fun....of painting all believers with the same broad brush as simpleton/literalist/fundamentalist/redneck biggots who believe the earth is 6,000 years old.

Do you really want to play a part in ruining the fun of Christian bashing/Christian hating folks who.....seek validation through circle jerks like this?

Let's leave them to their silly fun.... ;)

Just curious do you truly feel I am a Christian basher versus a religion basher? Don't you think most of these folks you are talking about are religion bashers not exclusively Christian bashers?

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 11:09 PM
Just curious has the idiot ever been to a museum that has dinosaur bones?I have no idea. I can tell you that he's a right wing nut job, though, as he talks politics perpetually.

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 11:12 PM
Just curious do you truly feel I am a Christian basher versus a religion basher? Don't you think most of these folks you are talking about are religion bashers not exclusively Christian bashers?

Makes no difference to me really. Christian basher, religion basher, Islamic bashers....those who engage in such crusades, are usually insecure in their own beliefs, and only seek to impugn and denigrate "believers" to make themselves feel better about their own beliefs.

FTR, there are PLENTY of believers who do the same thing to agnostics and atheists. And they are equally, misguided....and insecure, IMHO.

If one is secure in one's beliefs, whatever they may be, denigrating and impugning others for believing differently....is, well...to be kind, juvenile and petty. Of course there are plenty of juvenile and petty folks, who are both believers.....and nonbelievers, though.

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2007, 11:15 PM
Come on, Gerry. You and I are gonna take away all of their fun....of painting all believers with the same broad brush as simpleton/literalist/fundamentalist/redneck biggots who believe the earth is 6,000 years old. You're right. No (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3995803&postcount=11) one (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3995854&postcount=18) is (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4015477&postcount=207) that (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3996622&postcount=54) stupid (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4020651&postcount=268). Their existence is a myth.*

*its jesus lol

Logical
06-13-2007, 11:17 PM
....

If one is secure in one's beliefs, whatever they may be, denigrating and impugning others for believing differently....is, well...to be kind, juvenile and petty. Of course there are plenty of juvenile and petty folks, who are both believers.....and nonbelievers, though.

So debating to you is a sign of insecurity, as well as juvenile and petty?

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 11:21 PM
So debating to you is a sign of insecurity, as well as juvenile and petty?

"Debating" one's faith? Yeah. Pretty much.

It's not as if we are debating the gravity or the quadratic equation.

Faith is faith. Science is something entirely different. :shrug:

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 11:23 PM
"Debating" one's faith? Yeah. Pretty much.

It's not as if we are debating the gravity or the quadratic equation.

Faith is faith. Science is something entirely different. :shrug:

Like faith that the earth is 6000 years old and carbon dating is bullshit?

DaneMcCloud
06-13-2007, 11:25 PM
"Debating" one's faith? Yeah. Pretty much.

It's not as if we are debating the gravity or the quadratic equation.

Faith is faith. Science is something entirely different. :shrug:

Excellent post. The same can be said going the other way as well. No amount of quotes from the Bible is going to turn a non-believer into a believer.

I would venture to say that most non-believers are as well-versed in the Bible as those who chose to believe.

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2007, 11:25 PM
It's not as if we are debating the gravity or the quadratic equation.Evolution is scientific fact and scientific theory. Like gravity.

Their response? "BLAALALALLALLLLLLLAALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 11:25 PM
Like faith that the earth is 6000 years old and carbon dating is bullshit?

That sort of faith is embraced by, what....20% or less of Christians (at best, because there are even many "Evangelicals" who don't REALLY believe that--I know many of them.)

Don't let that keep you from painting us all with the broad brush of bigotry though. ;)

Logical
06-13-2007, 11:25 PM
"Debating" one's faith? Yeah. Pretty much.

It's not as if we are debating the gravity or the quadratic equation.

Faith is faith. Science is something entirely different. :shrug:

Personally to me you don't debate science or mathmatics, you might discuss them.

You debate beliefs, whether they be religious, political or faith in your favorite sport or sports team.

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 11:26 PM
"Debating" one's faith? Yeah. Pretty much.

It's not as if we are debating the gravity or the quadratic equation.

Faith is faith. Science is something entirely different. :shrug:You must be kidding. Debating faith can provide a lot of insight that one might otherwise not gain. I would guess that one would have to be pretty insecure in their faith to avoid opportunities to debate.

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 11:27 PM
Evolution is scientific fact and scientific theory. Like gravity.

I, and most Christians that I know, have NO PROBLEM reconciling Evolution and Creation. It's only the fundies and literalists, which you and others seem fond of caricaturing ALL Christians as.....that really believe that.

Next straw man? :shrug:

Logical
06-13-2007, 11:27 PM
That sort of faith is embraced by, what....20% or less of Christians (at best, because there are even many "Evangelicals" who don't REALLY believe that--I know many of them.)

Don't let that keep you from painting us all with the broad brush of bigotry though. ;)

Come on Kotter even out here in Kalifornia I am sure the percentage is significantly higher.

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 11:28 PM
I, and most Christians that I know, have NO PROBLEM reconciling Evolution and Creation. It's only the fundies and literalists, which you and others seem fond of caricaturing ALL Christians as.....that really believe that.

Next straw man? :shrug:Aren't you the one setting up that straw man?

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 11:29 PM
You must be kidding. Debating faith can provide a lot of insight that one might otherwise not gain. I would guess that one would have to be pretty insecure in their faith to avoid opportunities to debate.
Quite the contrary. I suspect you are misinterpreting my meaning of "debate." I'm certainly willing to discuss it (obviously), but for anyone to pretend they have facts or compelling EVIDENCE.....from either the believer, or non-believer, side in such a "debate"....is childish, in my view.

Aren't you the one setting up that straw man?

Not at all. Psicosis mentioned evolution; I didn't.

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2007, 11:29 PM
That sort of faith is embraced by, what....20% or less of Christians (at best, because there are even many "Evangelicals" who don't REALLY believe that--I know many of them.)

Don't let that keep you from painting us all with the broad brush of bigotry though. ;)Perhaps your faith in humanity is a little misguided (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/9863_polling_the_creationismevolut_12_30_1899.asp)?

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/US/20_a_new_creationismevolution_po_4_4_2007.asp
"30% of respondents chose the "God guided process" option, 13% chose the "God had no part" option, 48% chose the "created in present form" option, and 9% offered a different or no opinion."

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/7937_the_latest_polls_on_creationis_12_30_1899.asp
"'Do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence, or don't you know enough about it to say?' Thirty-five percent of the respondents said that evolution is well-supported by evidence, 35% said that it is not, 29% said that they didn't know enough about it to reply, and 1% expressed no opinion."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
God created humans in present form - 51%
Humans evolved, God guided the process - 30%
Humans evolved, God did not guide process - 15%

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581
Yes, I think human beings developed from earlier species. - 38%
No, I do not think human beings developed from earlier species. - 54%
Not sure/Decline to answer. - 8%

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 11:31 PM
Quite the contrary. I suspect you are misinterpreting my meaning of "debate." I'm certainly willing to discuss it (obviously), but for anyone to pretend they have facts or compelling EVIDENCE.....from either the believer, or non-believer, side in such a "debate"....is childish, in my view.



Not at all. Psicosis mentioned evolution; I didn't.Where did you get that definition of debate? From Princeton:

# argue with one another; "We debated the question of abortion"; "John debated Mary"
# consider: think about carefully; weigh; "They considered the possibility of a strike"; "Turn the proposal over in your mind"
# argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on"
# discuss the pros and cons of an issue
# the formal presentation of and opposition to a stated proposition (usually followed by a vote)
# argue: have an argument about something

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2007, 11:32 PM
Aren't you the one setting up that straw man?CLEARLY we're ALL painting EVERY Christian as a mouth-breathing retard. OPEN YOUR EYES YOU MOUTH-BREATHING RETARD.

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 11:33 PM
Perhaps your faith in humanity is a little misguided (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/9863_polling_the_creationismevolut_12_30_1899.asp)?

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/US/20_a_new_creationismevolution_po_4_4_2007.asp
"30% of respondents chose the "God guided process" option, 13% chose the "God had no part" option, 48% chose the "created in present form" option, and 9% offered a different or no opinion."

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/7937_the_latest_polls_on_creationis_12_30_1899.asp
"'Do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence, or don't you know enough about it to say?' Thirty-five percent of the respondents said that evolution is well-supported by evidence, 35% said that it is not, 29% said that they didn't know enough about it to reply, and 1% expressed no opinion."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
God created humans in present form - 51%
Humans evolved, God guided the process - 30%
Humans evolved, God did not guide process - 15%

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581
Yes, I think human beings developed from earlier species. - 38%
No, I do not think human beings developed from earlier species. - 54%
Not sure/Decline to answer. - 8%

So, you wish to cite a "Science" website to support your view....how quaint.

I suspect you wouldn't consider the sites I would produce to support my contention to be any more accurate/credible than I do the one you have cited. So what's the point, right?

I'm fine believing what I believe; I'm not the one seeking affirmation here, though....am I? :)

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 11:34 PM
CLEARLY we're ALL painting EVERY Christian as a mouth-breathing retard. OPEN YOUR EYES YOU MOUTH-BREATHING RETARD.I haven't noticed that and I doubt Kotter has either.

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2007, 11:35 PM
Here's Kotter.

So, you wish to cite a "Science" website to support your view....how quaint. Here's Kotter presenting a false dichotomy!

"Science" sites like CBS News and Harris Interactive...

SCIENCE VS RELIGION HURRRRR

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 11:36 PM
That sort of faith is embraced by, what....20% or less of Christians (at best, because there are even many "Evangelicals" who don't REALLY believe that--I know many of them.)

Don't let that keep you from painting us all with the broad brush of bigotry though. ;)

I wasn't the one who set them up as diametrically opposed entities with no degree of overlap from one to the other--as though faith never challenges science.

Sorry dude :)

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 11:36 PM
Where did you get that definition of debate? From Princeton:

# argue with one another; "We debated the question of abortion"; "John debated Mary"
# consider: think about carefully; weigh; "They considered the possibility of a strike"; "Turn the proposal over in your mind"
# argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on"
# discuss the pros and cons of an issue
# the formal presentation of and opposition to a stated proposition (usually followed by a vote)
# argue: have an argument about something

Debate involves reason, and scientific evidence. Religion, clearly....is not about that. Religion is about faith.

How does one "debate" faith? Seriously. Discuss, yes; "debate," no. Unless you misunderstand the whole concept of faith, IMO.

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 11:39 PM
Debate involves reason, and scientific evidence. Religion, clearly....is not about that. Religion is about faith.

How does one "debate" faith? Seriously. Discuss, yes; "debate," no. Unless you misunderstand the whole concept of faith, IMO.Those are the definitions of debate; I didn't make them up. I'm guessing that one could pretty easily argue or think carefully about their faith.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 11:39 PM
Debate involves reason, and scientific evidence. Religion, clearly....is not about that. Religion is about faith.

How does one "debate" faith? Seriously. Discuss, yes; "debate," no. Unless you misunderstand the whole concept of faith, IMO.

One involves thinking critically and the other involves...chanting in unison.

Now why would I value one over the other :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 11:42 PM
Here's Kotter.

Here's Kotter presenting a false dichotomy!

"Science" sites like CBS News and Harris Interactive...

SCIENCE VS RELIGION HURRRRR

Prove me wrong, then....ma'am. :shrug:

Because the usual suspects (religion bashing types) are out in force, to attempt their ceremonial and routine flogging and denigration of believers who would DARE to have faith in anything beyond mankind.

Other than Pitt, the usual suspects are unabashed and unrestrained in their willingness to caricature Christians as, pretty much....all the same.

Do you have evidence, or links to posts, which disprove that observation? I could have missed them, I suppose.... :hmmm:

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2007, 11:42 PM
One involves thinking critically and the other involves...chanting in unison.

Now why would I value one over the other :hmmm:You're goin' to hell, dude.

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 11:43 PM
...chanting in unison....

Yet another caricature, or stereotype....to which I am no party. Despite the fact I'm a "believer." Simply amazing, I tell you... :spock:

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 11:45 PM
Yet another caricature, or stereotype....to which I am no party. Despite the fact I'm a "believer." Simply amazing, I tell you... :spock:

Ever heard a hymn? Seriously dude....

Any mainstream Baptist church:

Refrain:
Trust and obey, for there’s no other way
To be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.

and you have anywhere from 10-2000 people uttering this in unison.

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 11:49 PM
You're right. No (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3995803&postcount=11) one (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3995854&postcount=18) is (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4015477&postcount=207) that (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3996622&postcount=54) stupid (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4020651&postcount=268). Their existence is a myth.*

*its jesus lol

Wow. I missed this earlier....sorry psicosis.

So, one believer....speaks for us all.

Lucky for you, we don't judge you by folks like...Rosie O'Donnel. :shrug:

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2007, 11:49 PM
Prove me wrong, then....ma'am. :shrug:OH I GET IT I'M A "MA'AM," AS IN NOT REAL*

Dave Lane: Something about the Bible; I dunno, it's really long
go bo: Mentions literalists, popcorn
Ugly Duck: Talks about talking snakes
Logical: Linguistic stuffs
Dave Lane: More popcorn. Where is the butter?
irishjayhawk: Regarding God's Harpo Marx imitation.
Ultra Peanut: Big Lebowski quote. How original.
Ultra Peanut: Bible quotes. How original.
Ugly Duck: Divinely inspired,
blah blah blah
SLAG: no sources doodz wtf
Ultra Peanut: ^ witty response ^
Logical: provides sources
Mr. Kotter: YOU GUYS ARE ASSHOLES!

*OH MY GOSH, JUST LIKE JESUS

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 11:51 PM
Ever heard a hymn? Seriously dude....

Any mainstream Baptist church:

Refrain:
Trust and obey, for there’s no other way
To be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.

and you have anywhere from 10-2000 people uttering this in unison.

It's a damn song. Atheist and agnostic types also regurgitate rote memorization of their rational attempts to justify their own beliefs. It's so damned predictable, it's funny. I see no difference between the two.

Whoopty-stinking doo? :shrug:

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2007, 11:51 PM
Wow. I missed this earlier....sorry psicosis.

So, one believer....speaks for us all. Math's not your strong suit, I see! That's five, and I never even began to claim they speak for "you" all. What I did claim, however, was that the "hands in ears" set was pretty well represented in an ongoing thread in this very forum, so anyone responding to them or otherwise acknowledging their existence is hardly grasping at straws.

Lucky for you, we don't judge you by folks like...Rosie O'Donnel. :shrug:What the Christ does that even mean?

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2007, 11:52 PM
OH I GET IT I'M A "MA'AM," AS IN NOT REAL*

Dave Lane: Something about the Bible; I dunno, it's really long
go bo: Mentions literalists, popcorn
Ugly Duck: Talks about talking snakes
Logical: Linguistic stuffs
Dave Lane: More popcorn. Where is the butter?
irishjayhawk: Regarding God's Harpo Marx imitation.
Ultra Peanut: Big Lebowski quote. How original.
Ultra Peanut: Bible quotes. How original.
Ugly Duck: Divinely inspired,
blah blah blah
SLAG: no sources doodz wtf
Ultra Peanut: ^ witty response ^
Logical: provides sources
Mr. Kotter: YOU GUYS ARE ASSHOLES!

*OH MY GOSH, JUST LIKE JESUS

Your own insecurities are speaking loudly. Too bad. Because you are wrong. In more ways than you know.

Logical
06-13-2007, 11:52 PM
So, you wish to cite a "Science" website to support your view....how quaint.

I suspect you wouldn't consider the sites I would produce to support my contention to be any more accurate/credible than I do the one you have cited. So what's the point, right?

I'm fine believing what I believe; I'm not the one seeking affirmation here, though....am I? :)

Since when are Harris Interactive and CBS science websites?

Ultra Peanut
06-13-2007, 11:56 PM
Your own insecurities are speaking loudly. Too bad. I guess I was wrong about you, then....gifted one.

Because you are wrong. In more ways than you know.Ooh, how ominous! It's about werewolves, isn't it?

Since when are Harris Interactive and CBS science websites?I'll have you know I can provide some sites!

I'VE SEEN SHIT THAT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 11:57 PM
It's a damn song. Atheist and agnostic types also regurgitate rote memorization of their rational attempts to justify their own beliefs. It's so damned predictable, it's funny. I see no difference between the two.

Whoopty-stinking doo? :shrug:

scientific axioms < A group of 300 people in the largest protestant denomination chanting that you can't be happy unless you trust and obey a ghost.

riiiiight.

Pitt Gorilla
06-13-2007, 11:57 PM
Wow. I missed this earlier....sorry psicosis.

So, one believer....speaks for us all.

Lucky for you, we don't judge you by folks like...Rosie O'Donnel. :shrug:I think you're losing it. UP never claimed that applied to all believers. I'm also pretty sure that not all "Atheist and agnostic types...regurgitate rote memorization...to justify their own beliefs" yet you seemingly implied that they do.

Ultra Peanut
06-14-2007, 12:00 AM
I'm also pretty sure that not all "Atheist and agnostic types...regurgitate rote memorization...to justify their own beliefs" yet you seemingly implied that they do.OHSNA

Logical
06-14-2007, 12:04 AM
Prove me wrong, then....ma'am. :shrug:

Because the usual suspects (religion bashing types) are out in force, to attempt their ceremonial and routine flogging and denigration of believers who would DARE to have faith in anything beyond mankind.

Other than Pitt, the usual suspects are unabashed and unrestrained in their willingness to caricature Christians as, pretty much....all the same.

Do you have evidence, or links to posts, which disprove that observation? I could have missed them, I suppose.... :hmmm:

Unrestrained, you have never seen me unrestrained. You should thank your lucky stars by the way.

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 12:05 AM
You folks might want to consider.....who is content and comfortable in their own beliefs, versus those who are seeking affirmation and validation through the denigration and ridicule directed toward those who disagree with them?

Think about it. Night folks. :)

Unrestrained, you have never seen me unrestrained. You should thank your lucky stars by the way.

Josh, Jim. Thanks for taking it easy on me. I don't know if my ego could have taken a savage beating from someone like you....mercy me. Praise JESUS!

LMAO

Ultra Peanut
06-14-2007, 12:08 AM
You folks might want to consider.....who is content and comfortable in their own beliefs, versus those who are seeking affirmation and validation through the denigration and ridicule directed toward those who disagree with them?

Think about it. Night folks. :)YOU WON THIS TIME, SUPERMAN! NEXT TIME YOU WON'T BE SO LUCKY!

By the way, the next time you deign to treat us with your presence, I'm curious to know the answer to one simple question. I know you haven't addressed several matters that have been brought to your attention in this thread, but this one, I hope, will catch your fancy:

What made you believe what you believe? Why did you settle upon your belief system as the right one?

BucEyedPea
06-14-2007, 12:11 AM
Dave Lane,
How come you do not credit your sources?
I asked you to cite your sources in the Creation Museum thread and you don't.
Why?


BTW this statement is a falsehood:
This fine tuning of God’s word, which began at the very inception of Christianity, continues even in our own day.
The Bible was not compiled until about 300 or so years post-inception of Christianity. It was compiled by St.Jerome of the RCC...not by some Bible-only Protestant. There was no Bible for over 300 years after the birth of Christianity.

Logical
06-14-2007, 12:19 AM
You folks might want to consider.....who is content and comfortable in their own beliefs, versus those who are seeking affirmation and validation through the denigration and ridicule directed toward those who disagree with them?

Think about it. Night folks. :)



Josh, Jim. Thanks for taking it easy on me. I don't know if my ego could have taken a savage beating from someone like you....mercy me. Praise JESUS!

LMAO

Don't be stupid Rob, I am pointing out the absurdity of your hyperbole. I am very sure that we are all being quite restrained unlike what you said.

Logical
06-14-2007, 12:47 AM
BEP I think I answered your question to Dave Lane before in this post. If you don't have me on iggy you can check this stuff out.I am pretty sure these are the sources:

Sources:
J. Paterson Smyth, How We Got Our Bible (Sampson Low, Marston, 1930)
Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew (Harper Collins,1992)
Henry Hart Milman, The History of the Jews (Everyman, 1939)
Josephus, The Jewish War (Penguin, 1959)
Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism & Christianity (Routledge, 1988)
Karen Armstrong, A History of Jerusalem (Harper Collins, 1999)
Jonathan N. Tubb, Canaanites (British Museum Press, 1998)
Norman Cantor, The Sacred Chain - A History of the Jews (Harper Collins, 1994)

And I believe this is the website it came from

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/wordofgod.htm

Logical
06-14-2007, 01:04 AM
Since when are Harris Interactive and CBS science websites?

Rob are you ever going to answer this question?

Ebolapox
06-14-2007, 01:10 AM
hey, the HOLY f*cking bible, son!

<img src="http://www.10goto10.net/wp-content/uploads/clerks2.jpg">

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 08:10 AM
... I am very sure that we are all being quite restrained unlike what you said.Yeah, denigration and ridicule of others for their religious beliefs is mighty restrained all right.....:rolleyes:
Rob are you ever going to answer this question?
Sorry, Jim. I needed to get some sleep last night. I kind of took it as a rhetorical question, frankly. I mean, those sites are fine. But they are hardly religious sites....and could be most accurately described as secular sites, that are much more "science-based" than religious based.

Polling and surveys, generally, although especially those which purport to measure religious attitudes are notoriously imprecise and.....can be quite misleading. First, the wording of questions....at least the ones I quickly perused, was not the best. Secondly, people of faith....often simply refuse to participate, or do so in a perfunctory manner when confronted by "surveys" such as these. Many, if not most, people are at least somewhat insecure in their own beliefs.....and the mixed feelings many have regarding reconciliation of faith and science, lead them to not take such surveys seriously. And finally, I'll see if I can find the data/story/polling later.....which is, in my view, more representative of mainstream believers, that have no serious issues reconciling faith and science (including evolution.)

Just as many secular/atheist/agnostic folks are unfairly lumped together religious folks as literalistic/fundamentalists, it's easy to mistakenly lump secular/atheist/agnostic folks together too. If you think I'm doing that, I'm sorry....because that's certainly not my intent. However, the direction of the conversation, including many of the remarks here....certainly reinforce the religion bashing/Christian bashing which is quite common among nonbelievers and agnostics that I often hear.

el borracho
06-14-2007, 08:28 AM
Is there any way to politely ask how believers reconcile the bible as the word of god when history shows that men have edited it?

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 08:39 AM
....What made you believe what you believe? Why did you settle upon your belief system as the right one?
That's a fair question. First though, FTR....I'm not trying to "win" anything here. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard that many secular/atheist/agnostic folks employ when they denigrate and ridicule "believers."

As for the question, nothing made me believe anything. I'm a big fan and subscriber to the notion of free will. And for the record, I don't believe that my belief system is right. It merely works for me, and makes a whole lot of sense.....given my life experiences, and my own intellectual, philosophical, and psychological study and research of questions like these.

You may be making the same mistake as many who assume, because of my politics....that I'm an Evangelical. I'm not. I can be more precise, if you want....but suffice it to say I'm a practicing Christian who is, on a personal level, more of a deist. Anyway, it's been a long road to get here.

I grew up in an agnostic and, religiously, complacent/apathetic environment. I chose to attend church services with a variety of congregations when I was 7-14 (on my own.) To make a long story short, in early adulthood....I went through the whole agnostic/atheist/secularist pondering. I didn't arrive at my current station of my spiritual life until I was about 23-24 or so I suppose. During college, there was a couple of years I was pretty staunch in my agnosticism/atheism. Without boring you with the details, suffice it to say.....life experience, personal reflection, fellowship with others who were similarly situated....I gradually came to believe, that life makes a whole lot more sense as a believer, than as an unbeliever. For me, things just don't make any sense whatsoever....from the perspective of a chaotic, unordered, and random universe.

Am I in anyway suggesting my own beliefs are "right?" Heck no. However, I don't have much patience for those who consider themselves somehow superior to me, because they have come to a different conclusion in their own assessment of life. As I said earlier, it works for me. Remember, I'm not the one....questioning/denigrating/ridiculing others for their beliefs. And I'm not the one seeking affirmation or validation of my own beliefs, by stirring the pot....ya know?

FTR, my characterization of secularists/agnostics/atheists as insecure/childish/juvenile.....is directed SPECIFICALLY at those who are engaged in denigration/ridicule of others. It is their behavior that I am taking issue with; not their beliefs. If I were to pejoratize them, on the basis of their beliefs....I would be engaged in the same sort of silliness as they are. That isn't the case, I assure you. Of course, you'll just have to trust me on that. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 08:48 AM
Is there any way to politely ask how believers reconcile the bible as the word of god when history shows that men have edited it?
You just did. :shrug:

The Bible, IMO....is a guide, it is not to be taken literally. It's also a matter of context and the message of the whole, rather than selective out-takes.

Men have edited it; it has been used by a variety of organized faiths....to manipulate the masses. However, that doesn't diminish its credibility or utility, IMO.

I, and most Christians I know....with which I've had serious and candid conversation with about the matter, do not reject reconciling religion with science. It's only staunch literalistic and fundamentalist types who really have difficulty there.

Most I've talked to though, simply say....I'll just believe/go along with whatever as the path of least resistance.....because reconciling the two, in any conclusive way, is simply not possible. So why bother? Many are simply not willing to delve into a serious "debate" or rationalization---because they consider it pointless. Faith is not science; science is not faith. They are two totally different animals, to many of us.

Direckshun
06-14-2007, 08:51 AM
Dave Lane,

Plagiarism is a crime. Delete your post or cite something.

ChiefsfaninPA
06-14-2007, 08:56 AM
I think we should rename this site Church Planet. Can I gets a mods blessing for this one?

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 08:58 AM
I think we should rename this site Church Planet. Can I gets a mods blessing for this one?

This is D.C. :shrug:

A little self control is all that is required for you to NOT "click." ;)

ChiefsfaninPA
06-14-2007, 09:15 AM
This is D.C. :shrug:

A little self control is all that is required for you to NOT "click." ;)

Your probably right. This is actually my first time posting anything in D.C. I believe. I am talking in general, even in the main forum there are a lot of religious themed threads. To me, it just seems to be a whole bunch of pointless debating. Sometimes the debated are fun to read or even participate in, but the debates that take place in these specific threads just aren't. Just my opinion though.

el borracho
06-14-2007, 09:23 AM
So you believe it is the word of god but it is not to be taken literally?

I'm not sure that answers my intended question; perhaps I did not word it well. What I meant to ask was "How can the bible be considered the word of god when we know that men have added to, omitted from, and rephrased it? Why is it not now considered the word of men?"

Ugly Duck
06-14-2007, 09:44 AM
Atheist and agnostic types also regurgitate rote memorization of their rational attempts to justify their own beliefs. It's so damned predictable, it's funny. I see no difference between the two.
Hey now... you guyz are the ones making the outrageous claims like talking snakes. The burden of proof is on the one insisting that snakes can talk, not on those left scratching their heads in bewilderment going, "Huh? Wha? Talking snakes?"

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 09:46 AM
So you believe it is the word of god but it is not to be taken literally?

I'm not sure that answers my intended question; perhaps I did not word it well. What I meant to ask was "How can the bible be considered the word of god when we know that men have added to, omitted from, and rephrased it? Why is it not now considered the word of men?"

Is it divinely inspired? Yeah. Is it perfect, and meant to be taken literally. No. Is the overall context and message true to the inspiration? Yeah, pretty much. Have men convuluted and perhaps confused issues within it....yeah, pretty much.


Hey now... you guyz are the ones making the outrageous claims like talking snakes. The burden of proof is on the one insisting that snakes can talk, not on those left scratching their heads in bewilderment going, "Huh? Wha? Talking snakes?"
I don't believe in talking snakes. Sorry. I consider it a literary device....a metaphor involving temptation and free will. :shrug:

irishjayhawk
06-14-2007, 10:39 AM
Kotter -

Can you please answer these:

Would you agree that the default position for things is a state of non-existence? (ie. A tree exists through the center of your house. It is assumed to not exist until proven otherwise, correct?)

If you agree with above question, then would the onus of proof to validate your claim and silence all "critics/debaters/insecure believers/questioners/skeptic/etc"?

If you agree with above question, then why would non-believers be insecure in the default position, as you are asserting a claim "God exists" for which you have no proof?

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 10:55 AM
Kotter -

Can you please answer these:

Would you agree that the default position for things is a state of non-existence? (ie. A tree exists through the center of your house. It is assumed to not exist until proven otherwise, correct?)

If you agree with above question, then would the onus of proof to validate your claim and silence all "critics/debaters/insecure believers/questioners/skeptic/etc"?

If you agree with above question, then why would non-believers be insecure in the default position, as you are asserting a claim "God exists" for which you have no proof?

I would agree with your "default" position, from a secular humanist perspective when one is evaluating natural or scientific phenomena. However, the existence of God is neither natural or scientific--it's based on faith.

You can no more judge the existence of God using principals of scientific or empirical evidence, than I can use religious theology.....to explain the theory of relativity or gravity. You are comparing apples and watermelons, IMO.

As for the insecurities of non-believers, I consider that to be rooted in a narcissistic and nihilistic view of human existence that rejects anything cannot be empirically demonstrated. It's not surprising. It is a completely understandable perspective. However, it leaves far too much to random events and chance.....to make any real sense of life, IMHO. If it works for you, fine; it just doesn't work for me. I don't need empirical proof to validate my faith. However, it does appear that many folks seem to demand that....which is why such folks can't seem to fathom the whole notion of "faith" in the first place.

irishjayhawk
06-14-2007, 11:14 AM
I would agree with your "default" position, from a secular humanist perspective when one is evaluating natural or scientific phenomena. However, the existence of God is neither natural or scientific--it's based on faith.

And I would disagree here because god either exists or he does not. Therefore, it's a scientific question.

You can no more judge the existence of God using principals of scientific or empirical evidence, than I can use religious theology.....to explain the theory of relativity or gravity. You are comparing apples and watermelons, IMO.

Then what, may I ask, are you founding your beliefs on? It isn't science nor theology. As someone else asked, what made you believe what you believe? Why did you settle on your current beliefs as being correct? (Why not Hindu, Islamic, etc )


As for the insecurities of non-believers, I consider that to be rooted in a narcissistic and nihilistic view of human existence that rejects anything cannot be empirically demonstrated. It's not surprising. It is a completely understandable perspective. However, it leaves far too much to random events and chance.....to make any real sense of life, IMHO. If it works for you, fine; it just doesn't work for me. I don't need empirical proof to validate my faith. However, it does appear that many folks seem to demand that....which is why such folks can't seem to fathom the whole notion of "faith" in the first place.

Here, I think you have shown a double standard, though probably inadvertently. Believers require proof in every aspect of their lives except religion/faith. If I was to say that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK, or that a pink unicorn was in your backyard, or that I was in possession of nuclear arms, you would want proof. You would not take ANY of those on faith. Thus, believers just compartmentalize.

I assume then, that "random events and chance" are directed towards evolution, correct? If so, that is a giant misconception. If not, disregard it, and we'll chalk it up as an agree to disagree problem.

Then in the last sentences, we come across the compartmentalization. You need evidence and proof for everything else except faith. Moreover, faith is not a good value, despite what society says. Look at faith itself. Look at Nazism, which exploited the faith of the German people. Both types of faith, religious and Nazistic faith (if there even is a distinction, which I don't think there is) are not good examples of good values.

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 11:38 AM
And I would disagree here because god either exists or he does not. Therefore, it's a scientific question.

Then what, may I ask, are you founding your beliefs on? It isn't science nor theology. As someone else asked, what made you believe what you believe? Why did you settle on your current beliefs as being correct? (Why not Hindu, Islamic, etc )

Here, I think you have shown a double standard, though probably inadvertently. Believers require proof in every aspect of their lives except religion/faith. If I was to say that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK, or that a pink unicorn was in your backyard, or that I was in possession of nuclear arms, you would want proof. You would not take ANY of those on faith. Thus, believers just compartmentalize.

I assume then, that "random events and chance" are directed towards evolution, correct? If so, that is a giant misconception. If not, disregard it, and we'll chalk it up as an agree to disagree problem.

Then in the last sentences, we come across the compartmentalization. You need evidence and proof for everything else except faith. Moreover, faith is not a good value, despite what society says. Look at faith itself. Look at Nazism, which exploited the faith of the German people. Both types of faith, religious and Nazistic faith (if there even is a distinction, which I don't think there is) are not good examples of good values.

IMO, you completely misunderstand faith. Faith is NOT about science; it IS about theology (I don't know why you'd say I have suggested otherwise---it IS about theology.) I've already explained to UP, "my beliefs"--perhaps you missed that.

As for the double-standard you are suggesting, of course there is a double standard; theology is NOT science. They are two completely different realms. For whatever reason, you can't seem to... accept what most people consider to be a reasonable distinction.

I have no problem reconciling faith and evolution, so you're barking up the wrong tree there. As for compartmentalization.....if that's how you wish to view it, fine. However, in my view you simply can't apply scientific principles to a theological discussion. Once again, you are talking about apples and oranges. I agree with your assessment of Nazism; however, exploitation of faith.....or of secular humanist values....isn't anything new. Religious persecution and oppression have led to at least as much mayhem as you could ever pin on religious zealotry, IMO. Selective outrage such as you seem to be engaged in, doesn't help your cause.

Pitt Gorilla
06-14-2007, 11:47 AM
Selective outrage such as you seem to be engaged in, doesn't help your cause.I think I missed his outrage; his post seemed well-reasoned.

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 11:51 AM
I think I missed his outrage; his post seemed well-reasoned.

.... faith is not a good value, despite what society says. Look at faith itself. Look at Nazism, which exploited the faith of the German people. Both types of faith, religious and Nazistic faith (if there even is a distinction, which I don't think there is) are not good examples of good values.

Blaming faith for Nazism, without regard to the multitude of other factors....while failing to mention exploitation and oppression of secular humanist regimes and the mayhem THEY have caused....passes for reasonable, in your book?

:spock:

Wow. :hmmm:

Ebolapox
06-14-2007, 11:53 AM
which secular humanist regimes do you speak of? because I know of almost none--wait, that IS none.

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 11:57 AM
which secular humanist regimes do you speak of? because I know of almost none--wait, that IS none.

Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and any of the multitude of other dictatorships/communist/totalitarian governments....which have banned religion, and persecuted religious people....in the name of promoting "social justice" and the mantra of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Ring a bell? :shrug:

oldandslow
06-14-2007, 11:58 AM
Rob...

I am leaving most of this thread alone...however your assertion that the majority of Christians do not believe the Bible is the literal word of God is mistaken. Period.

The Baptists, the Pentacosts, the Assembly of God, The Mennonites, many Lutherans (Missouri Synod, not ECLA) et al believe that very ideology.

If you ever attended a protestant church below the Mason-Dixon line you would know what I mean. I grew up there and attended a Southern Baptist Church.

But it is true even in SD.

Heck, we even elected a Senator who does not believe in Evolution...

From Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5457442/site/newsweek

"Thune, 43, 6 feet 4 and tan, with the good looks of a television anchor, doesn't drink, smoke or swear. An evangelical Christian, he does not believe in evolution."

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 12:22 PM
Rob...

I am leaving most of this thread alone...however your assertion that the majority of Christians do not believe the Bible is the literal word of God is mistaken. Period.

The Baptists, the Pentacosts, the Assembly of God, The Mennonites, many Lutherans (Missouri Synod, not ECLA) et al believe that very ideology.

If you ever attended a protestant church below the Mason-Dixon line you would know what I mean. I grew up there and attended a Southern Baptist Church.

But it is true even in SD.

Heck, we even elected a Senator who does not believe in Evolution...

From Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5457442/site/newsweek

"Thune, 43, 6 feet 4 and tan, with the good looks of a television anchor, doesn't drink, smoke or swear. An evangelical Christian, he does not believe in evolution."I think you assume that because someone sits in the pews of a church, that as individuals.....they all subscribe to the rigid doctrine and dogma that are part of that church's official "doctrine." I don't share that view. FTR, I spent 3-4 years in a Southern Baptist Church, and attended numerous congregations when I lived in the "South"....where the "official" doctrine is what you suggest. However, what's "official" and what is truly "believed" are not synonymous by any stretch of the imagination....IMHO. Think of "Cafeteria Catholics" who buck a church which is well-known to have some of the most devout and loyal adherents.

I'm only speaking for myself here, but individual beliefs are much more nuanced and often deviate from "official" doctrine....in my experiences. If you ask, individual members of congregations....and they are candid with you (not simply parroting a rehearsed response, to simply avoid discussion or conflict,) many will acknowledge that they don't subscribe to all the "teachings" of their church.

They will admit that.....to avoid "conflict," or out of convenience, fellowship, and simple conformity....they don't ANNOUNCE that to the world. Or even to pollsters. It's just better left alone....or left unsaid. Whenever I've pressed people on the issue, many more have conceded the point rather than rejected it. In other words, they are not nearly as rigid or dogmatic, as casual conversation or acquaintance might suggest. JMHO.

Ultra Peanut
06-14-2007, 12:52 PM
It must be nice to be able to read minds.

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 01:36 PM
It must be nice to be able to read minds.

It's not ESP. It's good old fashioned people skills, coupled with a solid education and a good measure of intuition. Curiosity, candor, and a willingness to broach topics with people that many are reluctant to engage in....is helpful too. You'd be surprised how people will open up to you, if you can make them comfortable. I coulda been a pretty good psychologist if I believed in that stuff, heh. Unfortunately, provocation, controversy, and stirring the pot....are more efficient "online" as you can't rely on interpersonal interactions and body language and such.

Being old also helps. As does being a student of life. I've been around the block a few times. Being an extrovert, in a people profession....helps too. I don't shy away from conflict or cognitive dissonance. Being a thinker...as someone who enjoys cerebral pursuits, I've had lots and lots of opportunities to ponder the meaning of life.

Besides, last night I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.....and rented the Python's "The Meaning of Life"....or was it Vivid's "The Meating of Life"? I can't remember....:hmmm:


:p

go bowe
06-14-2007, 02:36 PM
* * *
Being old also helps.
* * *
:pwhew, you had me worried until you said that...

irishjayhawk
06-14-2007, 04:38 PM
IMO, you completely misunderstand faith. Faith is NOT about science; it IS about theology (I don't know why you'd say I have suggested otherwise---it IS about theology.) I've already explained to UP, "my beliefs"--perhaps you missed that.

The confusion came from this:

You can no more judge the existence of God using principals of scientific or empirical evidence, than I can use religious theology.....to explain the theory of relativity or gravity.

Upon second reading, it appears the "...." threw me off and I took it as you can't use religious theology to prove the existence of god. And still, I think I am quite alright with assuming that. Theology neither proves or disproves anything. And so I go back to my original assertion:

You agreed with the "default state". And being a believer, you automatically are making the claim: "God exists."

Thus, what proof do you offer, since the onus is on you? Merely saying "it's out of this realm" or "it's not an scientific question" is not proof. Merely saying "it's faith" or "you cannot prove it, it requires faith" is not proof. I can say that I am Jesus, but you would need "proof".


As for the double-standard you are suggesting, of course there is a double standard; theology is NOT science. They are two completely different realms. For whatever reason, you can't seem to... accept what most people consider to be a reasonable distinction.

I think you misunderstand the double-standard. Or, perhaps, as could be the case, I didn't explain it clearly.

First, you equate the need for proof or empirical data with a "narcissistic and nihilistic view of human existence". This is very narrow minded and perhaps you didn't mean to equate the two like you did. In any case, you did, so I will address it here.

The need for proof drives every aspect of your life - of anyone's life. The only difference between you and me is you haven't compartmentalized, or whatever you would like to call it, your beliefs into an untouchable section. Proof isn't needed. Instead, one needs only faith.

This is where I call it "Blind Faith". It disregards all evidence and only acts to further it's own agenda. Nazism did the same thing. It exploited faith. Actually, it exploited the "blind" part of faith more than faith itself. Moreover, many would argue that the Christian oriented Hitler was merely going through with the Antisemitism that had reigned for centuries previous. It's like when someone says something they know everyone is thinking but won't say themselves.

Hell, Stalin - as you claim I didn't note - did the same. However, here, you make a common misconception. His atrocities were due to Communism - a poorly installed version. His atrocities were not due to the non-religious nature of the country nor to his alleged atheism. There has not - to this day - been an atheist leader who brought terror, harm etc to his/her country in the name of atheism or even secularism. It has always either been a political or religious ideology which has done so.

I have no problem reconciling faith and evolution, so you're barking up the wrong tree there.

And I would think you were stupid if not. However, my question was more geared towards your "random chance" thought. I don't see how we leave any more or less up to "random chance". I figured this was an attempt at explaining why you believe creation over evolution. Since it is not, can you please explain "random chance" in terms of secularists/atheists/nonbelievers?


As for compartmentalization.....if that's how you wish to view it, fine. However, in my view you simply can't apply scientific principles to a theological discussion. Once again, you are talking about apples and oranges. I agree with your assessment of Nazism; however, exploitation of faith.....or of secular humanist values....isn't anything new. Religious persecution and oppression have led to at least as much mayhem as you could ever pin on religious zealotry, IMO. Selective outrage such as you seem to be engaged in, doesn't help your cause.

Why, in your view, can you not apply scientific principles to a theological discussion?

I would also note that religious persecution is almost always one religious group against another.

irishjayhawk
06-14-2007, 04:40 PM
Oh, and FWIW, I was raised Catholic for 14 years. Some say that's what made me the way I am and some are surprised.

Dave Lane
06-14-2007, 06:05 PM
I am pretty sure these are the sources:

Sources:
J. Paterson Smyth, How We Got Our Bible (Sampson Low, Marston, 1930)
Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew (Harper Collins,1992)
Henry Hart Milman, The History of the Jews (Everyman, 1939)
Josephus, The Jewish War (Penguin, 1959)
Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism & Christianity (Routledge, 1988)
Karen Armstrong, A History of Jerusalem (Harper Collins, 1999)
Jonathan N. Tubb, Canaanites (British Museum Press, 1998)
Norman Cantor, The Sacred Chain - A History of the Jews (Harper Collins, 1994)

And I believe this is the website it came from

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/wordofgod.htm


And Jim gets a cookie!! :)

Dave

Dave Lane
06-14-2007, 06:09 PM
There is one idiot in our church that believes it word for word. In fact, he's taken it to the point that he doesn't believe the dinosaurs existed because they weren't documented in the Bible. However, most of the people I know see it as a guide instead of some infallible book.


Nice viewpoint and hard to argue with. As a matter of fact ,I believe in the sentiment of christianity and follow the letter of the teachings. I just don't buy the dogma that goes with it.

Dave

Dave Lane
06-14-2007, 06:10 PM
Those are Jesus Lizards, and the devil put them there to get you off the scent of our Lord and Savior.


I was actually told by a follower of Metro Vineyards here in KC that the dinosaur bones where put there to "test our faith"

Dave

Dave Lane
06-14-2007, 06:14 PM
You must be kidding. Debating faith can provide a lot of insight that one might otherwise not gain. I would guess that one would have to be pretty insecure in their faith to avoid opportunities to debate.


Sorry tried to rep you on this but I have to spread some around first.

Dave

Dave Lane
06-14-2007, 06:22 PM
I think you're losing it. UP never claimed that applied to all believers. I'm also pretty sure that not all "Atheist and agnostic types...regurgitate rote memorization...to justify their own beliefs" yet you seemingly implied that they do.

Its called Projection and it does apply here sadly.

Dave

Dave Lane
06-14-2007, 06:23 PM
According to Sigmund Freud, projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else.

To understand the process, consider a husband who has thoughts of infidelity. Instead of dealing with his undesirable thoughts consciously, he subconsciously projects these feelings onto his wife, and begins to think that she has thoughts of infidelity and may be having an affair. In this way one can see that projection is related to denial, the only defense mechanism, some argue, that is more primitive than projection. The husband has denied a part of himself that is desperate to come to the surface. He can't face his own feelings of infidelity, so instead he will project the feelings onto his wife and dwell on that.

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 07:29 PM
Its called Projection and it does apply here sadly.

DaveUnless you are a licensed psychologist/psychiatrist, and have personally inteviewed someone....making such an assessment is pure folly, and only displays your own arrogance and wishful thinking--perhaps as a defense mechanism, for yourself. FTR, much of Freud's work has been debunked and highly criticized in modern psychological circles. I suspect you know that though, and yet you still raised the ruse. How quaint.

Your memory must be short too; we've been down this road. Rote memorization....by a deist? You really should do your homework, better. ;)

Irish--I'll have to try to get to you later, when I get more time.

HolyHandgernade
06-14-2007, 07:36 PM
Unless you are a licensed psychologist/psychiatrist, and have personally inteviewed someone....making such an assessment is pure folly, and only displays your own arrogance and wishful thinking--perhaps as a defense mechanism, for yourself. FTR, much of Freud's work has been debunked and highly criticized in modern psychological circles. I suspect you know that though, and yet you still raised the ruse. How quaint.

Irish--I'll have to try to get to you later, when I get more time.

Actually, projection is a well established psychological phenomenon and goes well beyond Freud's initial proposal. Simply saying that much of Freud's stuff has been "debunked" is a bit dismissive, especially since the "debunked" portion has very little to do with projection.

What Freud did that was later "debunked" is that he attributed every rational and possibly transrational aspect of human consciousness to prerational associations. Jung went in the opposite direction and gave every prerational fixation a transrational explanation. But Freud was very accurate in describing prerational growth, his mistake was extending that insight into areas it didn't belong.

-HH

irishjayhawk
06-14-2007, 07:40 PM
Unless you are a licensed psychologist/psychiatrist, and have personally inteviewed someone....making such an assessment is pure folly, and only displays your own arrogance and wishful thinking--perhaps as a defense mechanism, for yourself. FTR, much of Freud's work has been debunked and highly criticized in modern psychological circles. I suspect you know that though, and yet you still raised the ruse. How quaint.

Your memory must be short too; we've been down this road. Rote memorization....by a deist? You really should do your homework, better. ;)

Irish--I'll have to try to get to you later, when I get more time.

Fair enough. :)

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 08:00 PM
Actually, projection is a well established psychological phenomenon and goes well beyond Freud's initial proposal. Simply saying that much of Freud's stuff has been "debunked" is a bit dismissive, especially since the "debunked" portion has very little to do with projection.

What Freud did that was later "debunked" is that he attributed every rational and possibly transrational aspect of human consciousness to prerational associations. Jung went in the opposite direction and gave every prerational fixation a transrational explanation. But Freud was very accurate in describing prerational growth, his mistake was extending that insight into areas it didn't belong.

-HH

Fair enough. My real point was DL was not in a position to make any attempt at such a "diagnosis"....the Freud comment was an more an aside that was a slap aimed at an easy target (at least regarding a significant portion of his theories.)

I over-reached. Shame on me. :p

ClevelandBronco
06-14-2007, 08:26 PM
Your probably right. This is actually my first time posting anything in D.C. I believe. I am talking in general, even in the main forum there are a lot of religious themed threads. To me, it just seems to be a whole bunch of pointless debating. Sometimes the debated are fun to read or even participate in, but the debates that take place in these specific threads just aren't. Just my opinion though.

The number of religious threads is a mystery to me, especially since they are rarely started by religious folks.

The ones that the faithful tend to start are simply prayer requests.

Logical
06-14-2007, 09:25 PM
You just did. :shrug:

The Bible, IMO....is a guide, it is not to be taken literally. It's also a matter of context and the message of the whole, rather than selective out-takes.

Men have edited it; it has been used by a variety of organized faiths....to manipulate the masses. However, that doesn't diminish its credibility or utility, IMO.

I, and most Christians I know....with which I've had serious and candid conversation with about the matter, do not reject reconciling religion with science. It's only staunch literalistic and fundamentalist types who really have difficulty there.

Most I've talked to though, simply say....I'll just believe/go along with whatever as the path of least resistance.....because reconciling the two, in any conclusive way, is simply not possible. So why bother? Many are simply not willing to delve into a serious "debate" or rationalization---because they consider it pointless. Faith is not science; science is not faith. They are two totally different animals, to many of us.


I am really glad you added the last part.

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 09:56 PM
You just did. :shrug:

The Bible, IMO....is a guide, it is not to be taken literally. It's also a matter of context and the message of the whole, rather than selective out-takes.

Men have edited it; it has been used by a variety of organized faiths....to manipulate the masses. However, that doesn't diminish its credibility or utility, IMO.

I, and most Christians I know....with which I've had serious and candid conversation with about the matter, do not reject reconciling religion with science. It's only staunch literalistic and fundamentalist types who really have difficulty there.

Most I've talked to though, simply say....I'll just believe/go along with whatever as the path of least resistance.....because reconciling the two, in any conclusive way, is simply not possible. So why bother? Many are simply not willing to delve into a serious "debate" or rationalization---because they consider it pointless. Faith is not science; science is not faith. They are two totally different animals, to many of us.

I am really glad you added the last part.

So, you are suggesting that faith and science are the roughly the same animals....in your mind? :spock:

Wow. I suspect you may be interested in my follow-up to Irish....which I'll do here a bit later--after the game. :hmmm:

el borracho
06-14-2007, 09:58 PM
So how much of the bible is to be read literally and how much is to be read figuratively/ phenomenologically and how would one distinguish between the two? From an outsiders point of view, it seems that the bible is considered by the faithful to be the literal holy word of god except for the parts which have been disproven and the rift is explained by the faithful as "oh that part of the literal holy word of god is not to be taken literally."

ClevelandBronco
06-14-2007, 10:02 PM
So how much of the bible is to be read literally and how much is to be read figuratively/ phenomenologically and how would one distinguish between the two? From an outsiders point of view, it seems that the bible is considered by the faithful to be the literal holy word of god except for the parts which have been disproven and the rift is explained by the faithful as "oh that part of the literal holy word of god is not to be taken literally."

You've asked that question in two threads tonight, but then you've answered it in both. You are talking to yourself in duplicate, borracho.

el borracho
06-14-2007, 10:34 PM
happy hour two-for-one

Logical
06-14-2007, 10:45 PM
So, you are suggesting that faith and science are the roughly the same animals....in your mind? :spock:

Wow. I suspect you may be interested in my follow-up to Irish....which I'll do here a bit later--after the game. :hmmm:

Absolutely, I believe that there is science and faith in the same things. I see the stars and I find faith in the concept of a creator and yet know that science explains so much and is far more fascinating that just accept the stars are that way because god made them that way.

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 10:57 PM
Absolutely, I believe that there is science and faith in the same things. I see the stars and I find faith in the concept of a creator and yet know that science explains so much and is far more fascinating that just accept the stars are that way because god made them that way.

Well, that is an interesting way of looking at it, I suppose. I can certainly appreciate that POV. BTW, I've never suggested that I do think scientific or empirical validation of God...would not be, like, WAAAAAYYYYY cool. However, it would also destroy the whole notion and mystery of faith, wouldn't it?

In my mind, it would. I honestly consider "free will" to be God's greatest gift to mankind. If God were to reveal himself to mankind in a definitive way, it would totally ruin the whole notion of free will....to me. To me, its God's way of giving mankind a glimpse of divinity. It empowers us.

If God were to show up, to each of us as George Burns....in some supermarket....well, what real meaning would life have? JMHO

Now...on to Irish....:hmmm:

ClevelandBronco
06-14-2007, 11:00 PM
Well, that is an interesting way of looking at it, I suppose. I can certainly appreciate that POV. BTW, I've never suggested that I do think scientific or empirical validation of God...would not be, like, WAAAAAYYYYY cool. However, it would also destroy the whole notion and mystery of faith, wouldn't it?

In my mind, it would. I honestly consider "free will" to be God's greatest gift to mankind. If God were to reveal himself to mankind in a definitive way, it would totally ruin the whole notion of free will....to me. To me, its God's way of giving mankind a glimpse of divinity. It empowers us.

If God were to show up, to each of us as George Burns....in some supermarket....well, what real meaning would life have? JMHO

Now...on to Irish....:hmmm:

I'm with you, Mr. Kotter.

Ugly Duck
06-14-2007, 11:09 PM
I don't believe in talking snakes. Sorry. I consider it a literary device....a metaphor involving temptation and free will. :shrug:

Get with it, dude! The Bible flat out sez they do, plain as day & straight-forward no question about it:

Genesis iii: 1-24.

1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

ClevelandBronco
06-14-2007, 11:22 PM
Get with it, dude! The Bible flat out sez they do, plain as day & straight-forward no question about it:

Genesis iii: 1-24.

1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Maybe it's just an accusation that we're silly, silly people, but is there a question in there somewhere?

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 11:30 PM
The confusion came from this:

Upon second reading, it appears the "...." threw me off and I took it as you can't use religious theology to prove the existence of god. And still, I think I am quite alright with assuming that. Theology neither proves or disproves anything. And so I go back to my original assertion:

You agreed with the "default state". And being a believer, you automatically are making the claim: "God exists."

Thus, what proof do you offer, since the onus is on you? Merely saying "it's out of this realm" or "it's not an scientific question" is not proof. Merely saying "it's faith" or "you cannot prove it, it requires faith" is not proof. I can say that I am Jesus, but you would need "proof".

I think you misunderstand the double-standard. Or, perhaps, as could be the case, I didn't explain it clearly.

First, you equate the need for proof or empirical data with a "narcissistic and nihilistic view of human existence". This is very narrow minded and perhaps you didn't mean to equate the two like you did. In any case, you did, so I will address it here.

The need for proof drives every aspect of your life - of anyone's life. The only difference between you and me is you haven't compartmentalized, or whatever you would like to call it, your beliefs into an untouchable section. Proof isn't needed. Instead, one needs only faith.

This is where I call it "Blind Faith". It disregards all evidence and only acts to further it's own agenda. Nazism did the same thing. It exploited faith. Actually, it exploited the "blind" part of faith more than faith itself. Moreover, many would argue that the Christian oriented Hitler was merely going through with the Antisemitism that had reigned for centuries previous. It's like when someone says something they know everyone is thinking but won't say themselves.

Hell, Stalin - as you claim I didn't note - did the same. However, here, you make a common misconception. His atrocities were due to Communism - a poorly installed version. His atrocities were not due to the non-religious nature of the country nor to his alleged atheism. There has not - to this day - been an atheist leader who brought terror, harm etc to his/her country in the name of atheism or even secularism. It has always either been a political or religious ideology which has done so.

And I would think you were stupid if not. However, my question was more geared towards your "random chance" thought. I don't see how we leave any more or less up to "random chance". I figured this was an attempt at explaining why you believe creation over evolution. Since it is not, can you please explain "random chance" in terms of secularists/atheists/nonbelievers?

Why, in your view, can you not apply scientific principles to a theological discussion?

I would also note that religious persecution is almost always one religious group against another.
Well, Irish....I can't help but see a lot of my younger self, in what you are saying. And I mean that as a compliment, even if you may not take it that way. In any event, I've arrived at my own beliefs as a result of my own personal life experiences and thoughtful consideration and pondering of questions such as those we've discussed here. In the end, regrettably, I suspect we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Specifically though, first....I do not expect theology to prove or disprove anything. I consider theology a tool to help one search for answers--but certainly not in a scientific or empirical way. I've said it a number of times now, and you seem unwilling/unable to grasp the concept....so here is my last try....faith, to me, does not require scientific or empirical evidence. I understand the idea that we WANT that; however, spiritually mature people (in my HUMBLE view) do not NEED that. Scientific phenomena are subject to laws of nature; and an ordered universe. By definition, God and religion are supernatural concepts which not only cannot, necessarily, be validated by science...but one shouldn't expect them to be, IMO. Thus I offer no proof, because I NEED no proof. It seems that you, and others.....ironically agnostics and nonbelievers that NEED proof. Believers simply don't.

Second, I will concede that human nature is inclined toward rational inquiry--we are curious by nature. What you are calling "blind faith"....I would simply characterize as spiritual maturity (and, honestly, no matter how you may take that---I do NOT intend it to be insulting.) At some point in my 20s, I gave up on the notion of proving God....because I no longer needed it. I questioned the crap out of "faith" for most of my life--into my 20s. Then it just dawned on me: if it's faith, why do I need proof? The answer was: I don't. From my perspective, as faith....I do not need "proof." If you consider that compartmentalizing, fine; that is a reasonable view. I would simply offer, that at least in my case, it is not accurate. I simply do not demand, or even expect...."proof" anymore. It's a mindset that I would never have imagined as a young man; but one I'm quite at peace with myself with, now. Why? I don't know. Family? Children? Life experiences? I'm sure they've all contributed; but I can't put my finger on it. But it is, what it is. I don't need proof, because I'm at peace believing what I believe. Does that make any sense?

I also understand your inclination to absolve secular humanistic regimes of responsibility for their atrocities. The cause and effect relationship between those atrocities, and the lack of a religious moral compass visa vi religion or institutionalized morality...is an incredibly controversial and complex debate. Suffice it to say, I suspect we'll never agree. I will say, though....if you can't concede the probability that despot's atheism and religious bigotry HAVE, at least in many instances, contributed to atrocities--I would suggest you broaden your reading list. There are plenty of examples of secular humanist persecution of religions. And I'll just leave it at that.

As for my reference to "chance" happenings in life....I'm just, personally, overwhelmed by the "design" and the "master plan" I see in the universe. As a painfully personal perspective, I really don't know how to explain that to you. Life, and existence, in my view....is simply NOT random. I do NOT believe in predestiny, or "fate" in it's strict sense....but I do believe stuff happens for a reason. Why? I don't know exactly; but I do. And I feel very strongly, and quite comfortable in that view. Once again, "it works for me"--and it works well.

Finally, to your question: "Why, in your view, can you not apply scientific principles to a theological discussion?" It's simply apples and oranges in my mind. It would be akin to predicting weather, using mathematical theory and probability (which can be useful, but can never be counted on to be accurate)....or assessing NFL running backs or quarterbacks of the 1930s, compared to players who play today. The rules and foundations are entirely different. You don't see this; yet it's clear as a blue sky on a sunny day to me. I don't think there is any reconciling our diametrically opposed views. At least, right now.

That's about all I got, I think. Honestly. I suspect we've reached the point of agreeing to disagree. I certainly can relate to, and respect your view. I just think you are dead wrong; and I'm sure you feel the same way about me. Viva la, difference...I say. Live long and prosper in your search for truth, my friend.

:thumb:

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2007, 11:32 PM
Get with it, dude! The Bible flat out sez they do, plain as day & straight-forward no question about it:

Genesis iii: 1-24.

1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

I am a diest, who finds Christianity a convenient cultural way of expressing my spirituality. Perhaps you missed that important point.... ;)

I am NOT a literalist of fundamentalist, and do NOT accept literal interpretation of scripture as a rule. Sorry. You can't put me in your box.

:p

Logical
06-15-2007, 12:53 AM
I am a diest, who finds Christianity a convenient cultural way of expressing my spirituality. Perhaps you missed that important point.... ;)

I am NOT a literalist of fundamentalist, and do NOT accept literal interpretation of scripture as a rule. Sorry. You can't put me in your box.

:pIf you are a Deist it might benefit the rest of us who are Deists if you would properly spell it.:p

Ugly Duck
06-15-2007, 01:00 AM
I am a diest, who finds Christianity a convenient cultural way of expressing my spirituality. Perhaps you missed that important point.... ;)

Oh...uh.... well, yeah - I did...

Ugly Duck
06-15-2007, 01:05 AM
Maybe it's just an accusation that we're silly, silly people, but is there a question in there somewhere?

Just pointing out that Bible-believing Christians think that snakes can talk. Snakes don't even have vocal chords. Or speech centers in their little pea-brains.

ClevelandBronco
06-15-2007, 01:26 AM
Just pointing out that Bible-believing Christians think that snakes can talk. Snakes don't even have vocal chords. Or speech centers in their little pea-brains.

Thanks, then. Lucky for everyone you're here to cut though the bullshit.

Hey guys: Call it off. Snakes can't talk.

We've been exposed.

irishjayhawk
06-15-2007, 10:59 AM
Well, Irish....I can't help but see a lot of my younger self, in what you are saying. And I mean that as a compliment, even if you may not take it that way. In any event, I've arrived at my own beliefs as a result of my own personal life experiences and thoughtful consideration and pondering of questions such as those we've discussed here. In the end, regrettably, I suspect we will simply have to agree to disagree.

In the end, I think you're right.


Specifically though, first....I do not expect theology to prove or disprove anything. I consider theology a tool to help one search for answers--but certainly not in a scientific or empirical way. I've said it a number of times now, and you seem unwilling/unable to grasp the concept....so here is my last try....faith, to me, does not require scientific or empirical evidence. I understand the idea that we WANT that; however, spiritually mature people (in my HUMBLE view) do not NEED that. Scientific phenomena are subject to laws of nature; and an ordered universe. By definition, God and religion are supernatural concepts which not only cannot, necessarily, be validated by science...but one shouldn't expect them to be, IMO. Thus I offer no proof, because I NEED no proof. It seems that you, and others.....ironically agnostics and nonbelievers that NEED proof. Believers simply don't.

Second, I will concede that human nature is inclined toward rational inquiry--we are curious by nature. What you are calling "blind faith"....I would simply characterize as spiritual maturity (and, honestly, no matter how you may take that---I do NOT intend it to be insulting.) At some point in my 20s, I gave up on the notion of proving God....because I no longer needed it. I questioned the crap out of "faith" for most of my life--into my 20s. Then it just dawned on me: if it's faith, why do I need proof? The answer was: I don't. From my perspective, as faith....I do not need "proof." If you consider that compartmentalizing, fine; that is a reasonable view. I would simply offer, that at least in my case, it is not accurate. I simply do not demand, or even expect...."proof" anymore. It's a mindset that I would never have imagined as a young man; but one I'm quite at peace with myself with, now. Why? I don't know. Family? Children? Life experiences? I'm sure they've all contributed; but I can't put my finger on it. But it is, what it is. I don't need proof, because I'm at peace believing what I believe. Does that make any sense?

I definitely see why you don't need faith but my real question - that I haven't been able to formulate clear enough - is this:

If Person A talks to God and can transcribe the talks, would you take that on faith?

If Person B talks to God and tells you about it, would you take it on faith?

If Person C talks to God and claims he's Jesus 2.0, would you take that on faith?

If Person D talks to leprechauns, would you take that on faith?

The point being: when do you draw the line between what comes as "faith" or "not needing proof" and science or "needing proof"?


I also understand your inclination to absolve secular humanistic regimes of responsibility for their atrocities. The cause and effect relationship between those atrocities, and the lack of a religious moral compass visa vi religion or institutionalized morality...is an incredibly controversial and complex debate. Suffice it to say, I suspect we'll never agree. I will say, though....if you can't concede the probability that despot's atheism and religious bigotry HAVE, at least in many instances, contributed to atrocities--I would suggest you broaden your reading list. There are plenty of examples of secular humanist persecution of religions. And I'll just leave it at that.

Can we agree that the religious oriented atrocities outnumber the secular atrocities? FWIW, many would argue that the secular atrocities may have been bigger but it would be due to the fact they had modern technology. Anyway, just a thought.

As for my reference to "chance" happenings in life....I'm just, personally, overwhelmed by the "design" and the "master plan" I see in the universe. As a painfully personal perspective, I really don't know how to explain that to you. Life, and existence, in my view....is simply NOT random. I do NOT believe in predestiny, or "fate" in it's strict sense....but I do believe stuff happens for a reason. Why? I don't know exactly; but I do. And I feel very strongly, and quite comfortable in that view. Once again, "it works for me"--and it works well.

And my father is the same way. However, can I simply ask why the universe, itself, couldn't fulfill these things? Why couldn't it be supernatural and just "exist"? Why couldn't it have a "design" or "master plan"? Why does it have to be a personified deity?

Finally, to your question: "Why, in your view, can you not apply scientific principles to a theological discussion?" It's simply apples and oranges in my mind. It would be akin to predicting weather, using mathematical theory and probability (which can be useful, but can never be counted on to be accurate)....or assessing NFL running backs or quarterbacks of the 1930s, compared to players who play today. The rules and foundations are entirely different. You don't see this; yet it's clear as a blue sky on a sunny day to me. I don't think there is any reconciling our diametrically opposed views. At least, right now.

I was getting at my question above, about Persons A-D. And I guess I'll ask just one more question: Why does there need to be a different realm? Why a separation between science and faith?


That's about all I got, I think. Honestly. I suspect we've reached the point of agreeing to disagree. I certainly can relate to, and respect your view. I just think you are dead wrong; and I'm sure you feel the same way about me. Viva la, difference...I say. Live long and prosper in your search for truth, my friend.

:thumb:

I think you are correct, but I await your reply to my questions above.

Dave Lane
06-15-2007, 12:03 PM
Unless you are a licensed psychologist/psychiatrist, and have personally inteviewed someone....making such an assessment is pure folly, and only displays your own arrogance and wishful thinking--perhaps as a defense mechanism, for yourself. FTR, much of Freud's work has been debunked and highly criticized in modern psychological circles. I suspect you know that though, and yet you still raised the ruse. How quaint.

Your memory must be short too; we've been down this road. Rote memorization....by a deist? You really should do your homework, better. ;)

Irish--I'll have to try to get to you later, when I get more time.

Rob,

I for one have not be attacking anyone so I do resent the implication. I believe I have limited my response to people I agree with or straight quoted facts. You and a couple of others see everyone as attacking you and or christianity whilst painting all atheists and liberals with the same broad brush you accuse them of painting you with hence - projection.

You can believe it or not but in my opinion it does apply here. I have to say actually you are far more rational in your approach to religion than most. It is again projection that makes you think most religious people agree with you. They do not. Most are in no way as liberal as you. Maybe your church, your community or those you speak to don't fully express themselves but there is a vast number of people that disagree with your point of view in the religious community.

Dave

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2007, 01:08 PM
Rob,

I for one have not be attacking anyone so I do resent the implication. I believe I have limited my response to people I agree with or straight quoted facts. You and a couple of others see everyone as attacking you and or Christianity whilst painting all atheists and liberals with the same broad brush you accuse them of painting you with hence - projection.

You can believe it or not but in my opinion it does apply here. I have to say actually you are far more rational in your approach to religion than most. It is again projection that makes you think most religious people agree with you. They do not. Most are in no way as liberal as you. Maybe your church, your community or those you speak to don't fully express themselves but there is a vast number of people that disagree with your point of view in the religious community.

DaveDave,

My major problem with your whole approach to "discussing" religion, is the loaded language and pejorative connotation that you choose to associate with believers--in this thread and other discussions you engage in. Yes, I do fire back with similar tactics--call it a weakness of mine, if you will. It's not projection--it's my fight or flight response, and my default mode is to fight fire with fire. Your simple posting of this thread, given the language used and the clear implications....are, by their nature, insulting to believers. Period. And, frankly, I think you understand that. Maybe I'm wrong. However, given my experience with those who seem to find glee in ridiculing Christianity (or any organized religion for that matter--people like you, Jim, Hamas, etc...) I tend to think it's intentional. If not, I apologize.

I think you are also overlooking something I've said about YOUR view of religious people that you ought to consider; most that I've had discussions with will admit, they simply don't "argue" about religion....because, as we are demonstrating, it's pointless. So while you may think you know what they "believe" about the bible and religion---I think many people just refuse to discuss their disagreements with their churches doctrine and teachings--especially with nonbelievers, to avoid the conflict. Why engage in conflict like that, when there really is no point--and no one's mind is going to be changed? It's a lot like politics in that way. Not too many folks invite critical discourse, like you and I do. We are weird, in that sense I think. Personally however, as a believer, I suspect I have a better grasp of what believers really think---than someone who is not a believer. You call it projection; I call it being in touch. You and I can claim to think we understand what it's like to be black; but as white folks, a black person would certainly have more credibility on the matter....in my view.

If by "vast number" you mean 20-30% of believers, I wouldn't disagree. However, I'm absolutely convinced, based on my experiences, well over half are much more tolerant, much less literalistic, and much more "liberal" (religiously speaking) than you give them credit for. However, it's obvious I guess that nothing I say can convince you of that....so, I guess we'll just have to leave it at that.

Rob

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2007, 01:46 PM
...
I definitely see why you don't need faith but my real question - that I haven't been able to formulate clear enough - is this:

If Person A talks to God and can transcribe the talks, would you take that on faith?

If Person B talks to God and tells you about it, would you take it on faith?

If Person C talks to God and claims he's Jesus 2.0, would you take that on faith?

If Person D talks to leprechauns, would you take that on faith?

The point being: when do you draw the line between what comes as "faith" or "not needing proof" and science or "needing proof"?I'd be very "skeptical" beginning with Person A. However, depending on the credibility of the source, whether or not what was said "makes sense," and the witness of others for verifying/substantiating the experience....I could have faith, yeah.

On the other hand, the likelihood for misunderstanding, manipulation, and mistakes....would certainly cause me to scrutinize Person B, very closely. However, once again, I could be swayed by the context and a rational analysis of Person B's credibility.

Finally, Persons C and D....would be given intense scrutiny. I'd likely conclude them to be nutjobs, unless I had some personal verification and absolute empirical proof of their claims.

For me, faith hinges not on evidence, but rather more on credibility. You obviously, have a "higher" standard--a standard, which in my opinion, is not realistic...given the nature of faith (as opposed to science.) Can we agree that the religious oriented atrocities outnumber the secular atrocities? FWIW, many would argue that the secular atrocities may have been bigger but it would be due to the fact they had modern technology. Anyway, just a thought..Instances of atrocities? Perhaps. Magnitude, and casualties associated with such atrocities? Absolutely not. Efficiency in killing may play a role, but it's irrelevant in my mind.And my father is the same way. However, can I simply ask why the universe, itself, couldn't fulfill these things? Why couldn't it be supernatural and just "exist"? Why couldn't it have a "design" or "master plan"? Why does it have to be a personified deity?Life and a universe without order, or an architect....for me....would be much more chaotic. Nature left to itself, tends to consume itself. While there is plenty of evidence for disorder, the overwhelming theme of life and the universe for me....is one of order, and of design. As a Deist, I don't subscribe to the notion of a personified deity--I think it's rather more like some indescribable life force, or supreme being which the human mind can't really grasp. I've simply chosen to call it God. I was getting at my question above, about Persons A-D. And I guess I'll ask just one more question: Why does there need to be a different realm? Why a separation between science and faith?

Science is governed by one set of rules and principles; faith on an entirely different set of rules and principles. Science is empirical, and data based. Faith is governed by human experience, emotion, and intuition.

In my view, you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Science deals with the physical world; religion deals with beliefs. Science deals with nature and the material world; relgion deals with the supernatural and spiritual world.

From Dictionary.com...

faith 1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2.belief that is not based on proof. 3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

sci·ence 1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.

Dave Lane
06-15-2007, 02:24 PM
Well Rob I guess my basic point on your religious views is this

What % of devout christians are really deists?

I think not nearly as many as you claim would take that position. Thats the point I was making. Not what % are nutjob literalists that believe every word in the bible is the voice of god.

Dave

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2007, 02:38 PM
Well Rob I guess my basic point on your religious views is this

What % of devout christians are really deists?

I think not nearly as many as you claim would take that position. Thats the point I was making. Not what % are nutjob literalists that believe every word in the bible is the voice of god.

Dave
Ah-ha....now it makes sense. That's a good sign. If THAT is your point I'd agree.

A lot of nonbelievers seem to believe that a high percentage of Christians are nutjob literalists. MY point is that....I would say it's more like 1 in 3 at most. I suspect it's really less then 1 in 4, if you were to press folks on the issue.

irishjayhawk
06-15-2007, 02:39 PM
Ah-ha....now it makes sense. That's a good sign. If THAT is your point I'd agree.

A lot of nonbelievers seem to believe that a high percentage of Christians are nutjob literalists. MY point is that....I would say it's more like 1 in 3 at most. I suspect it's really less then 1 in 4, if you were to press folks on the issue.

I would go with 1 in 2.5. Small difference numerically but makes a vast difference, practically.

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2007, 02:43 PM
I would go with 1 in 2.5. Small difference numerically but makes a vast difference, practically.
You must know a lot of people who take the attitude, of "Yeah, yeah. Whatever. I believe that. Sure."--just as a method of avoiding the cognitive dissonance that would ensue from a substantive conversation on the topic.

;)

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2007, 02:47 PM
..... Thats the point I was making. Not what % are nutjob literalists that believe every word in the bible is the voice of god.

Dave

Hey, Dave....why don't you start a poll over in the Lounge on that very question? :hmmm:


LMAO


Or, BETTER yet....we should get Jim/Logical to do it..... ROFLROFLROFL

BucEyedPea
06-15-2007, 04:27 PM
Hey guys,
I've got some lucious, juicy and perfectly red apples for y'all here. :)

Mr. Kotter
06-15-2007, 04:31 PM
Hey guys,
I've got some lucious, juicy and perfectly red apples for y'all here. :)

Show us your apples, you serpent wench. :p

BucEyedPea
06-15-2007, 04:43 PM
They're not that "fresh!"

Dave Lane
06-16-2007, 05:39 PM
Ah-ha....now it makes sense. That's a good sign. If THAT is your point I'd agree.

A lot of nonbelievers seem to believe that a high percentage of Christians are nutjob literalists. MY point is that....I would say it's more like 1 in 3 at most. I suspect it's really less then 1 in 4, if you were to press folks on the issue.


I think the 1 in 3 is fair if you are talking literalists. Its just I'm surrounded by them so it seems like they are 1 in 1 :)

Dave

Dave Lane
06-16-2007, 05:39 PM
Hey guys,
I've got some lucious, juicy and perfectly red apples for y'all here. :)

Aha a talking serpent praise the lord it's all true!! :)

Dave

Mr. Kotter
06-18-2007, 10:22 PM
Dave,

You noticed Jenson's thread kicked yo ass?

I'm just sayin'... :shrug:

:p

Dave Lane
06-18-2007, 11:19 PM
Rob

Yeah I noticed and be adding to the other thread pretty regularly. I do like that you actually research your posts and they are interesting even if your facts are like factiness.

Dabe

go bowe
06-21-2007, 05:48 PM
dabe?

is that some kind of neocon secret code?

Ultra Peanut
06-21-2007, 08:26 PM
You must know a lot of people who take the attitude, of "Yeah, yeah. Whatever. I believe that. Sure."--just as a method of avoiding the cognitive dissonance that would ensue from a substantive conversation on the topic.

;)Christ, that's funny.

Dave Lane
06-23-2007, 06:34 PM
dabe?

is that some kind of neocon secret code?


Shhh no one must know about operation Dabe.

Remember if anyone finds out I'll be forced to terminate everyone that has read this message :)

Dave

Sam Hall
06-23-2007, 06:45 PM
sorry but I had no choice

go bowe
06-23-2007, 11:52 PM
Hey, Dave....why don't you start a poll over in the Lounge on that very question? :hmmm:


LMAO


Or, BETTER yet....we should get Jim/Logical to do it..... ROFLROFLROFLhey, hold on there...

jim's my friend...

are you trying to get him killed or something? *grabs huge gorilla dung*

*gorilla throws gorrila dung in your direction* heh heh heh... :fire:

go bowe
06-24-2007, 11:42 AM
Shhh no one must know about operation Dabe.

Remember if anyone finds out I'll be forced to terminate everyone that has read this message :)

Daveoh noes...

i didn't read it, really i didn't...

i just held on to it on the way here...

but i didin't read it, couldn't have anyway, since i don't read or write very well...

pssst, i hope operation dabe is successful...

Dave Lane
06-24-2007, 12:01 PM
oh noes...

i didn't read it, really i didn't...

i just held on to it on the way here...

but i didin't read it, couldn't have anyway, since i don't read or write very well...

pssst, i hope operation dabe is successful...


Then consider yourself a lucky man!

Oh and to keep this thread on track and off operation dabe...



Jesus – The Imaginary Friend

Christianity was the ultimate product of religious syncretism in the ancient world. Its emergence owed nothing to a holy carpenter. There were many Jesuses but the fable was a cultural construct. Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs. Following a star would lead you in circles. The 12 disciples are as fictitious as their master, invented to legitimise the claims of the early churches. The original Mary was not a virgin. That idea was borrowed from pagan goddesses.

Scholars have known all this for more than 200 years but priestcraft is a highly profitable business and finances an industry of deceit to keep the show on the road. "Jesus better documented than any other ancient figure" ? Don't believe a word of it. Unlike the mythical Jesus, a real historical figure like Julius Caesar has a mass of mutually supporting evidence.

Still holding to the idea that some sort of holy man lies behind the legend? Better check out

Godman – Gestation of a Superhero

It is intuitively satisfying to think that someone was behind the towering legend. Yet like the worship of Horus or Mithras a human life was neither necessary nor helpful. Nothing in the 'Christian message' was original. Brotherly love and compassion had been taught by the Stoics for centuries. The Christian faith was a vulgarised paganism, set to the theme of the Jewish prophets and debased by religious intolerance. The early Christian sects attacked each other as energetically as they attacked pagans. 1st century Palestine had rabbis, radicals and rebels in abundance. But a 'life' conjured up from mystical fantasy, a mass of borrowed quotations, copied story elements and a corpus of self-serving speculation, does not constitute an historical reality. The final defeat of militant Jewish nationalism and the eradication of the Jewish kingdom gave the incipient Christian churches the final uplift they required.

A closer look at the glib assertion that the Jesus story "got off the ground quickly and spread rapidly."

What DID the Early Christians Believe?

There never was just one Christianity. Out of the milieu of religiosity that infected the Roman world, dozens of competing and conflicting Jesus/Sun-god/Mystery cults emerged. The first believers in Jesus maintained he was an ethereal spirit, much like other sky/sun-gods. Only later did he acquire a human death, a human life and finally a human birth. The composite 'Jesus Christ' character – god, man, king, carpenter, conqueror, peace-maker, dispenser of justice, advocate of love – was assembled to try and unify a fragmented and fractious messianic religious movement. In the mid-2nd century the Jewishness of the faith was purged but apologists had little to say about a human Jesus. They took comfort in noting similarities between their own ideas and pagan myths. The Christians remained a minority until well after one particular faction formed a political alliance with the Roman State. The orthodox creed remained unpopular for centuries and persecution was necessary to impose its will.

Many currents fed the Jesus myth, like streams and tributaries joining to form a major river.

Sourcing the legend – The Syncretic Heritage of Christianity

Through the centuries, the Christian godman has been made and remade. Egypt provided many of the themes and much of the detail. From the age of the Ptolemies, Alexandria was the ancient cooking pot of religious fusion. Here, Hellenised Judaism influenced the early Christians. From Egypt, Catholicism copied its rituals and ceremonies, including relics, demonology, and monasticism. The Patriarchs of Alexandria wrote much of Catholic theology and it was probably in Alexandria that a profound and detailed Buddhist influence impressed itself upon the faith. From Persia, too, came a Saviour God and notions of rebirth, a Mithraic dress rehearsal for Christianity, triumphant in Rome but fatally weakened by its exclusion of women. In Judaea itself, hatred for the Roman conquerors bred a genre of apocalyptic curses, anticipating an end of the world.

Much of the mythology of Christianity is a rehash of an older and even more transparent fabrication – Judaism.

Jew Story – The Way of the Rabbi

The Israelites did not come from Egypt – a palpable myth – but emerged from the local population. There was no ancient 'Jewish Empire': the Jewish priests drew their inspiration from the empire of the Assyrians and "Judaism" was a reaction to the loss of the northern kingdom and an instructive period spent in Babylon. Jerusalem in 10th century BC had been barely a village of huts and cave dwellings. Kings David and Solomon are purely mythical characters – warrior/priest heroes, invented in the 6th century BC. Herod the Great was a real king – but he did not massacre any babies. He was an astute and successful ruler. The Herodians and the Jewish elite became Romanised but religious fanatics led an armed resistance which ended in catastrophes under Titus, Trajan, and Hadrian. In the aftermath, a collaborationist revision of Judaism, later attributed to a 13th apostle "Paul", allegedly of impeccable Pharisaic credentials, competed fiercely with a reconstituted rabbinic Judaism which fused piety with mercantile success.

Eye Witness Reports?

Human ingenuity and cunning is matched by mankind's equally monumental credulity and wishful thinking.

Christianity's Fabrication Factory

There are actually some 200 gospels, epistles and other books concerning the life of Jesus Christ. Writing such material was a popular literary form, particularly in the 2nd century. The pious fantasies competed with Greek romantic fiction. Political considerations in the late 2nd century led to the selection of just four approved gospels and the rejection of others. After three centuries of wrangling 23 other books were accepted by the Church as divinely inspired. The rest were declared 'pious frauds'. In truth, the whole lot belongs to a genre of literary FICTION.

Would the Christians lie? They said it themselves – lying for God! And non-Christian testimony? – from the authentic pen of lying Christian scribes! Would the early believers have died for a lie? Consider the evidence for that supposed "persecution": Holy Mother Church invented heroic origins.

Laugh or cry? The pork salesman who became England's patron saint - the fabrication of "Saint George". Shrouded in deceit – Leonardo da Vinci's Last Laugh. How a sacrilegious 'sorcerer' outwitted the priests! Declared fake – Official! The "James Ossuary". How an Israeli entrepreneur outwitted the 'experts'. With multiple authors behind the original gospel story it is no surprise that the figure of "Jesus" is a mess of contradictions. Yet the story is so thinly drawn, that inventing alternative endings and conspiracy theories is a thriving industry

Church organisation, authority and membership preceded rather than followed the justifying doctrine. As the organisation and its needs changed so has the ‘Testament of God’ adapted accordingly.

Dogma – The Word in all its Savage Glory

A triumphant Christianity was the active agent in destroying knowledge and access to learning. An ignorant and impoverished population was more readily subjugated by Princes of the Church. The "Word of God", far from being inerrant, has ever been a work in progress. The Christian yarn began not with the testimony of a disciple but with the musings of someone who switched the Messiah from future hope to "historic past": "Mark": Bringing the Celestial Superjew Down to Earth. Vesta, Diana, Artemis, Isis – the pagan world knew all about virgins getting pregnant by randy gods: Copying the Competition – The Mythical "Virgin Mary". Ambitious bishops in Rome laid claim to a Palestinian fantasy: The Roman Church Asserts Authority – The Mythical "St Peter". Belt and braces. Adding a "royal genealogy" and "fulfillment of prophesy": "Matthew" – A Gospel for Messianic Jews. Playing to the gallery. Absolving Rome and embellishing the "birth" and "death" scenes: "Luke" – A Gospel for Credulous Pagans. Throwing some light on the supposed brother in the supposed ossuary: "Brother James" – Radical Jew Sanitized into Pious Christian Martyr. Mid-2nd century: the Catholic ecclesia write a rebuttal to the rival church of Valentinus: "John" – A Gospel to Silence the Gnostics

From religious policeman to grandee of the church, from beast fighter in Ephesus to beheading in Rome, Paul's story has more holes than a swiss cheese. A detailed study of the great missionary that some say "founded Christianity".

St Paul the Apostle – Dead in the water?

The trail-blazing Christian missionary and apostle, St Paul, appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age. Ironically, though supposedly in Jerusalem at the right time, he can give no witness to a historical Jesus. But was Paul himself a genuine historical figure? Viewed without the rose-tinted spectacles of Christian faith, the first voyage of Paul is as fanciful as the first voyage of Sinbad. The later Pauline journeys, including the supposed transportation of the apostle to Rome, are similarly bogus. Characterized by incongruities, contradiction, and the absurd, they are a concocted fantasy. The Pauline epistles, far from being genuine letters, originated in the acrimonious doctrinal battles of the 2nd century – a time when "pseudepigraphy" and forged apostolic writings were weapons in the war of "Christianities".

Orchestrated by ambitious Christian clerics, a cancer of superstition, fear and brutality was imposed across Europe.

Heart of Darkness – The Criminal History of the Christian Church

As it waited in the wings of pagan Rome, the Catholic Church was already marked by corruption, violence and sexual scandal. The fanatics of Christ proved useful to an ambitious prince who set his sights on absolute and undivided power. The Church expropriated the resources – both human and material – which might have defended Roman civilization. While an indolent army of clerics lived on the state, the impoverished legions degenerated into a peasant militia. Once a particular Christianity – hierarchical and authoritarian – became wedded to the Roman state, it became a force of brutal repression. Romano-Hellenic culture was transformed by the "Church Fathers" by bigotry, anti-Semitism, censorship and intolerance. This so-called 'orthodoxy' suppressed and persecuted its 'heretical' opposition. The barbarian tribes that overran the weakened Roman Empire were, for the most part, Christianised; the forces that opposed them, pagan.

The Christian Heaven may have been a vain folly but the Christian Hell has been real enough.

Hell on Earth – A Brutal Superstition Spreads Across the World

The priestly "protection racket" required the criminalizing of the whole of humanity through the doctrine of Sin. In a world run by clerical gangsters, the writ of Holy Mother Church was enforced by sadism and torture. For more than a thousand years, the henchmen of Christ inflicted a cruel barbarism on every community they encountered. Law was replaced by Divine Right, scientific method criminalized, ancient medical knowledge lost for a millennium. Women, fortunate to be domestic slaves, might find themselves in enforced celibacy, joyless marriage or burnt as a witch. Roasting heretics became popular entertainment and a religious duty.

Illuminating the terrifying history of a morbid cult that destroyed the ancient world

Raised to the status of State religion the Christian Church reigned over the destruction of civilization. As the centuries passed religious barbarism grew ever more vicious.

Winter of the World – The Terrible Cost of "Christendom"

In their struggle for power, Christians waged their own "civil war". A Catholic trinitarian nonsense triumphed over Arianism. The intellectual centres of the empire were ruined by murder and prohibition and Europe sank into ignorance and superstition. The civilization that had stretched from the deserts of Arabia to the highlands of Scotland reverted to a primitive village subsistence. By aggressive warfare, Christianisation of the heathen tribes followed. In Spain, the German lands, Britain, and Ireland, the despots of the Church imposed their tyranny.

With a Jewish father (stern patriarch) and a Christian mother (obsession with guilt and heaven) it is not surprising that Islam grew up a bit of a tartar.

Islam's Desert Storm – 'Christendom' Reaps a Whirlwind

Early civilizations arose in many parts of Arabia, long before Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Islam arose as an adaptation of old ideas, not something new. Yet initially, far from imposing a severe theocracy, the early caliphs were tolerant, even urbane. Despite the mutual hostility of kindred monotheisms, Islam endorsed a great deal of Judeo-Christian theology and adopted many of its practices. In its heyday, from the Atlantic to central Asia, Islam produced scholars and refinement. Europe's recovery owed a huge debt to Islamic civilization. Battered by both East and West the enlightenment failed and theology triumphed.

Is it any surprise that organised religion draws into itself the lonely hearts and the abandoned? Jesus is not merely an imaginary friend, he is also a fantasy lover.

Those SEXUALLY hung-up Christians – Loved-up for Jesus

With God's blessing, misogynistic Jewish scribes encoded a raft of sex crimes which sanctified racial ambition. The sacred mission was to populate and subdue the earth. Judaism bequeathed its unfortunate mix of ignorance and intolerance to a wayward faction of heretics known to the world as Christians. The enthusiasts of Christ elaborated on the notion that the body was a source of shame and that women were an inferior breed. Mortification of the flesh became the path of 'spiritual purity'.

But a triumphant Catholicism happily compromised the fierce strictures of the founders for worldly advantage. The 'Gospel of Sin' became a source of wealth and power for the pimping priests. Predators replaced the puritans. The consequence is that for two millennia Christianity's anti-sexual, puritanical doctrines have inflicted untold damage on the mental, emotional and physical lives of countless millions of people.

Heaven help us. The richest, most powerful nation in history has a psychotic infatuation with Jay-a-sus the Lawd!

The Christianising of the Americas

Christian knights brought savagery and racism to a whole new world. When gentle Jesus arrived in England's North American colonies, a motley crew of venture capitalists, criminals and self-righteous fanatics established a precarious existence. But a stolen land, worked by an enslaved labour force, cultivating drug crops, could not fail to enrich the colonial elite. Jesus was there when the American republic built the foundations of its economy on slavery and was re-packaged into a convenience Christianity suited to dreams of vast personal wealth. Today a bunch of crooks and hucksters, womanising egotists and dangerous megalomaniacs choreograph extravaganzas of Jesus frenzy. Alarmingly, they have serious political influence and an agenda for Armageddon.

CHIEF4EVER
06-24-2007, 12:29 PM
The number of religious threads is a mystery to me, especially since they are rarely started by religious folks.

The ones that the faithful tend to start are simply prayer requests.

Ah, you noticed that too. It was idiotic, bigoted and intolerant Christian bashing that forced me to put Dave Lane on permanent iggy with Goatcheese. I fail to see why people can't live and let live. Heck, I don't go around bashing atheists, calling them stupid or ignorant in a veiled manner (or not so veiled manner) or starting condescending hateful threads intended to get a rise out of them. Seems to me that people who do that are pretty insecure about their own belief system and have to bash Christians to make themselves feel better or achieve some twisted sort of gratification to validate their hate filled and bigoted existence. A shame really. :shake:

irishjayhawk
06-24-2007, 12:46 PM
Ah, you noticed that too. It was idiotic, bigoted and intolerant Christian bashing that forced me to put Dave Lane on permanent iggy with Goatcheese. I fail to see why people can't live and let live. Heck, I don't go around bashing atheists, calling them stupid or ignorant in a veiled manner (or not so veiled manner) or starting condescending hateful threads intended to get a rise out of them. Seems to me that people who do that are pretty insecure about their own belief system and have to bash Christians to make themselves feel better or achieve some twisted sort of gratification to validate their hate filled and bigoted existence. A shame really. :shake:

Aside from Logical's main forum threads (which seem to have ceased), I haven't found a thread that was started by a non-believer to get a rise out of them. In fact, this thread only came to be after the other one went many directions. So, I don't necessarily think that's true. And anyway, Logical is a deist, so his threads would count as a believer.

I would also contend, as I will with anyone who asserts this, that insecurity goes both ways. If you would like to argue that atheists or non-believers are insecure and that's why they "bash" Christianity, also know that it takes some sort of insecurity to get offended by a minority riling up a majority.

In fact, fwiw, many people have likened the recent "atheism" movement to Women's Rights movements of the early 20th century.

I am very interested if you'd read Post 27 (I think?) in the Stem Cell Yea or Nay thread. It has to do with the default position and such. I'm interested to see what your take on it is.

CHIEF4EVER
06-24-2007, 01:12 PM
I would also contend, as I will with anyone who asserts this, that insecurity goes both ways. If you would like to argue that atheists or non-believers are insecure and that's why they "bash" Christianity, also know that it takes some sort of insecurity to get offended by a minority riling up a majority.

I disagree. Anyone can get offended after being subjected to ridicule of something that is important to them. It has absolutely nothing to do with being insecure or being a minority/majority.

I am very interested if you'd read Post 27 (I think?) in the Stem Cell Yea or Nay thread. It has to do with the default position and such. I'm interested to see what your take on it is.


I have already discussed (in that thread) my view on people bashing others because of their belief system. I don't think there is a "default position" regarding religion or the lack thereof. Each person makes a choice that seems best to him/her and bases their morals on the premises of their selected religious system or lack thereof. Using a term such as "default position" is a poorly veiled attempt to both claim some sort of moral high ground and achieve some imagined basis to attack those who believe claiming intellectual superiority. JMO. I hope that answers your question.

irishjayhawk
06-24-2007, 01:20 PM
I disagree. Anyone can get offended after being subjected to ridicule of something that is important to them. It has absolutely nothing to do with being insecure or being a minority/majority.

That was my point. Insecurity goes both ways or none at all. It doesn't go one way, like you implied. (nonbelievers are insecure so they bash religion "x")



I have already discussed (in that thread) my view on people bashing others because of their belief system. I don't think there is a "default position" regarding religion or the lack thereof. Each person makes a choice that seems best to him/her and bases their morals on the premises of their selected religious system or lack thereof. Using a term such as "default position" is a poorly veiled attempt to both claim some sort of moral high ground and achieve some imagined basis to attack those who believe claiming intellectual superiority. JMO. I hope that answers your question.

I didn't ask your view about people bashing others belief systems. And there has to be a default position. There just is. In a court of law, it is "innocent until proven guilty". Innocent is the default position in criminal law.

Here, it changes. Existence's default position is that of non-existence. Thus, a claim that illuminates such existence is going against the default position of non-existence. This is all in that Post 27 (I think) of the other thread.

As to the "poorly veiled attempt to both claim some sort of moral high ground and achieve some imagined basis to attack those who believe claiming intellectual superiority." is flat out wrong. The default position, much like the innocent position in a court of law, is merely the base line. One must prove he is guilty. It is not the prosecutions job to disprove his guiltiness. Thus, your notion of claiming high ground is absurd, especially if you'd have read the post I highlighted. Moreover, defending the default position - just like in court - is never "an imagined basis to attack those who believe (in innocence, religion, etc)". So I don't quite grasp how you've formed that opinion.

CHIEF4EVER
06-24-2007, 01:40 PM
That was my point. Insecurity goes both ways or none at all. It doesn't go one way, like you implied. (nonbelievers are insecure so they bash religion "x")

That doesn't make any sense at all. I contended that people who bash Christians do so out of their own insecurity, otherwise they would not feel the need to do so. Being offended by their bashing is not indicative of any sort of insecurity. Heck it doesn't matter what you bash someone about be it religion, appearance, skin color, background or whatever; if they get offended by it it is because they are responding to an attack on one of the aforementioned things and this isn't borne of insecurity but merely a defensive reaction. So in light of this YES, in this case it only goes 1 way. If people bash someone else because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof then they are intolerant ignorant INSECURE pathetic losers.

I didn't ask your view about people bashing others belief systems. And there has to be a default position. There just is. In a court of law, it is "innocent until proven guilty". Innocent is the default position in criminal law.

Here, it changes. Existence's default position is that of non-existence. Thus, a claim that illuminates such existence is going against the default position of non-existence. This is all in that Post 27 (I think) of the other thread.

As to the "poorly veiled attempt to both claim some sort of moral high ground and achieve some imagined basis to attack those who believe claiming intellectual superiority." is flat out wrong. The default position, much like the innocent position in a court of law, is merely the base line. One must prove he is guilty. It is not the prosecutions job to disprove his guiltiness. Thus, your notion of claiming high ground is absurd, especially if you'd have read the post I highlighted. Moreover, defending the default position - just like in court - is never "an imagined basis to attack those who believe (in innocence, religion, etc)". So I don't quite grasp how you've formed that opinion.
If you really want to push a default position then the actual default position is UNDECIDED. You made a decision, so did I, and thus we no longer fall under the default category of undecided.

Mr. Kotter
06-24-2007, 03:36 PM
Oh, I finally get it....Dabe.

The reason you haven't provided links to these, "interesting," views on Christianity....is as your threadstarter suggests, it's a "work in progress."

So, are you hoping this will be a NY Times best-seller....or is this just a personal project suggested by your therapist? :hmmm:

;)

go bowe
06-24-2007, 03:37 PM
Ah, you noticed that too. It was idiotic, bigoted and intolerant Christian bashing that forced me to put Dave Lane on permanent iggy with Goatcheese. I fail to see why people can't live and let live. Heck, I don't go around bashing atheists, calling them stupid or ignorant in a veiled manner (or not so veiled manner) or starting condescending hateful threads intended to get a rise out of them. Seems to me that people who do that are pretty insecure about their own belief system and have to bash Christians to make themselves feel better or achieve some twisted sort of gratification to validate their hate filled and bigoted existence. A shame really. :shake:do you honestly believe that people who as you put it, bash religion all lead a hate filled and bigoted existence?

almost nobody needs to bash Christianity to make themselves feel better...

for example, a fatty makes me feel much better, everytime...

and i don't agree with you about dabe lane...

what i see is a lot of information, which looks authentic enough, from a variety of sources, all of which are interesting and intriguing...

if you don't want him, i'll take him and put him on the all-infidel list for the rest of the season...

i guess one man's, etc.

Dave Lane
06-24-2007, 06:02 PM
It was idiotic, bigoted and intolerant Christian bashing that forced me to put Dave Lane on permanent iggy with Goatcheese.

You make my day! In addition to being a soccer dolt you are right you never ever bash atheists!

Dave

Dave Lane
06-24-2007, 06:04 PM
do you honestly believe that people who as you put it, bash religion all lead a hate filled and bigoted existence?

almost nobody needs to bash Christianity to make themselves feel better...

for example, a fatty makes me feel much better, everytime...

and i don't agree with you about dabe lane...

what i see is a lot of information, which looks authentic enough, from a variety of sources, all of which are interesting and intriguing...

if you don't want him, i'll take him and put him on the all-infidel list for the rest of the season...

i guess one man's, etc.


I can do it gobo :) just give me the chance coach I can do it! I can be All Pro all-infidel!

Dave

go bowe
06-24-2007, 08:12 PM
Fair enough. My real point was DL was not in a position to make any attempt at such a "diagnosis"....the Freud comment was an more an aside that was a slap aimed at an easy target (at least regarding a significant portion of his theories.)

I over-reached. Shame on me. :pprojection seems to be a common thing asround here...

i mean some of you righties will harp on projection until the cows come home...

i'm sick of hearing it bandied around on this board...

btw, nobody who uses that term around here is a psychologist or psychiatrist...

including you...

and including dave lane...

go bowe
06-24-2007, 08:32 PM
I can do it gobo :) just give me the chance coach I can do it! I can be All Pro all-infidel!

Davethat's why you're on the team...

we all know that you can hit really hard...

as i understand it, after winning the national championship, the all-pro all-infidel team will advance to the olympic trials...

we're buildng a team that will kick the iranian team's ass in front of the whole world...

and our new offensive strategy is to run, run, run and then punt...

and nobody will be able to figure out what we're doing...

it's just so clever that we can expect a steady diet of 9 or even 10 men in the box most of the time, purely coincidental of course...

GO CHIEFS!!! (no, not the geek who writes for ***)

irishjayhawk
06-24-2007, 11:55 PM
That doesn't make any sense at all. I contended that people who bash Christians do so out of their own insecurity, otherwise they would not feel the need to do so. Being offended by their bashing is not indicative of any sort of insecurity. Heck it doesn't matter what you bash someone about be it religion, appearance, skin color, background or whatever; if they get offended by it it is because they are responding to an attack on one of the aforementioned things and this isn't borne of insecurity but merely a defensive reaction. So in light of this YES, in this case it only goes 1 way. If people bash someone else because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof then they are intolerant ignorant INSECURE pathetic losers.

I don't see how you get bashing to insecure in the first place. Flip your argument around just a bit. Couldn't atheist bashing on Christianity (and FTR, if I do it I do it uniformly for all religions it's just I'm familiar with Catholicism which is Christian) be a defense mechanism when guarding their default position. A person who bashes may be intolerant but they are not insecure.


If you really want to push a default position then the actual default position is UNDECIDED. You made a decision, so did I, and thus we no longer fall under the default category of undecided.

That doesn't make any sense. Undecided until proven guilty? Is that the way the law works? No, it sets the base line or default position as innocent.

Undecided is in no way even remotely close to the default position. It can't be. We can't be undecided on the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, lygers, FSM, Thor, Zeus, Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc etc. We instead say those don't exist, because there is no proof. It is self defeating to have the default position or baseline be undecided.

And what you have described is the difference between agnosticism and believers and atheists.

CHIEF4EVER
06-25-2007, 03:43 PM
That doesn't make any sense. Undecided until proven guilty? Is that the way the law works? No, it sets the base line or default position as innocent.

Undecided is in no way even remotely close to the default position. It can't be. We can't be undecided on the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, lygers, FSM, Thor, Zeus, Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc etc. We instead say those don't exist, because there is no proof. It is self defeating to have the default position or baseline be undecided.

We aren't talking about a court of law but about deciding on a religious belief or lack thereof. The "court of law" analogy is a poor one IMO. And undecided is the most accurate description of a default position regarding a belief system. Prior to that, no choice has been made either way and thusly the individual has NO belief system or lack thereof. It may be convenient to argue that atheism is the default position but it is inaccurate. Prior to CHOOSING to be an atheist, you were undecided as to what to believe. Therefore, logically, undecided is the base position or 'default position' as you like to put it. We can be undecided on the the existence of supernatural beings because you can't prove they DON'T exist either. That is why it is called FAITH and not PROOF. IN MY BELIEF, I see the proof of GODs existence every single day all around me but I have never seen HIM. I can't produce a picture of HIM. Or a video. Or even a DVD. But by the same token, you can't prove he DOESN'T exist. You don't have any credible empirical evidence that he doesn't exist. Just your own skepticism which you are entitled to. You see, the proof argument works 2 ways.

irishjayhawk
06-25-2007, 03:46 PM
We aren't talking about a court of law but about deciding on a religious belief or lack thereof. The "court of law" analogy is a poor one IMO. And undecided is the most accurate description of a default position regarding a belief system. Prior to that, no choice has been made either way and thusly the individual has NO belief system or lack thereof. It may be convenient to argue that atheism is the default position but it is inaccurate. Prior to CHOOSING to be an atheist, you were undecided as to what to believe. Therefore, logically, undecided is the base position or 'default position' as you like to put it. We can be undecided on the the existence of supernatural beings because you can't prove they DON'T exist either. That is why it is called FAITH and not PROOF. IN MY BELIEF, I see the proof of GODs existence every single day all around me but I have never seen HIM. I can't produce a picture of HIM. Or a video. Or even a DVD. But by the same token, you can't prove he DOESN'T exist. You don't have any credible empirical evidence that he doesn't exist. Just your own skepticism which you are entitled to. You see, the proof argument works 2 ways.

Again, you are ignoring my point. The point is, those disbelieving aren't supposed to offer "proof" to disprove him. It would be the same as disproving Santa, Thor, Zeus, FSM etc etc. You can't and thus it'd be a waste of time. But in this case, man has told itself that proof doesn't apply and that faith - man's biggest cop out - is what it should apply to the supernatural.

Furthermore, let's say that the default position is undecided. Then why do parents continually indoctrinate their children if one should make up their own mind - and sway the base state of undecided?

CHIEF4EVER
06-25-2007, 04:18 PM
Again, you are ignoring my point. The point is, those disbelieving aren't supposed to offer "proof" to disprove him. It would be the same as disproving Santa, Thor, Zeus, FSM etc etc. You can't and thus it'd be a waste of time. But in this case, man has told itself that proof doesn't apply and that faith - man's biggest cop out - is what it should apply to the supernatural.

Furthermore, let's say that the default position is undecided. Then why do parents continually indoctrinate their children if one should make up their own mind - and sway the base state of undecided?

IN YOUR OPINION, faith is a copout. Isn't it ironic that a form of faith is what fuels your skepticism? You can't prove GOD doesn't exist, you just choose to BELIEVE he don't. Faith in another form. So is your position a copout then using your own measuring stick?

Indoctrinate? ROFL

Sorry bro, I got a chuckle out of that. Parents teach their kids what they think is best for them but in the end the final decision is up to the individual. My son is a living case and point. He knew I am a Lutheran and most of the things I taught him were based in that faith as regards to morality etc. However, I never forced him to attend services with me. Until recently he didn't believe in GOD and told me so on several occasions. I never coerced him or in any way made him feel inferior or of lesser value as a human being. I simply loved him as he was. I got a call from him recently. He became a believer. Do you know what the ironic part is in all of this? His SCHOOL tried blatantly to indoctrinate him in their secular humanist and atheistic values to the point where I nearly sued the pants off of them. They had more time with him and more opportunity to influence his decision. He chose GOD for which I am grateful. In the end, each individual is going to choose their own belief system as it is a very deep and personal issue and can only be externally influenced to a degree.

tiptap
06-25-2007, 06:51 PM
It works both ways. I really was not comfortable going and taking my kids to Church for two years while they explored the process. (And I still sing hymns from time to time from my growing up in church and my kid have heard this all along>) I weathered the process and the Church got a few years of support. In the end my kids came to see the Christian thing as of human origin. So I would tend to see the parental process essential and influential if not practices coercively. I am sure Amish, Jews, Hindus, Moslems, Buddists and other parents provide the strongest influence or we would see people changing faiths a lot more and religions would not be so regional.

stevieray
06-25-2007, 07:13 PM
free will and faith are mans biggest cop out?

translation: I'm not responsible for my actions.

Jenson71
06-25-2007, 07:28 PM
The original Mary was not a virgin. That idea was borrowed from pagan goddesses.

So the belief of those who follow jesusneverexisted is that Jesus didn't exist but Mary did!?

Or she did exist, didn't have Jesus, but did have sex and had other children?

BucEyedPea
06-25-2007, 07:33 PM
So the belief of those who follow jesusneverexisted is that Jesus didn't exist but Mary did!?

Or she did exist, didn't have Jesus, but did have sex and had other children?
Good catch, kiddo!

Next, we'll here there could be no immaculate conception scientifically.
Eventhough it refers to her being born without original sin— not how she conceived in her own womb.

Jenson71
06-25-2007, 07:35 PM
"Joseph never had a dream where Gabriel talked to him. It was just a hallucination after an experiment with some rotten kosher mushrooms."

Ohhhhhhhh.

Adept Havelock
06-25-2007, 07:36 PM
FWIW, I have run across a few references that state that Mary in her youth may have been a Temple Virgin. Hardly uncommon in the Empire of ancient Rome. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
06-25-2007, 08:29 PM
It works both ways. I really was not comfortable going and taking my kids to Church for two years while they explored the process. (And I still sing hymns from time to time from my growing up in church and my kid have heard this all along>) I weathered the process and the Church got a few years of support. In the end my kids came to see the Christian thing as of human origin. So I would tend to see the parental process essential and influential if not practices coercively. I am sure Amish, Jews, Hindus, Moslems, Buddists and other parents provide the strongest influence or we would see people changing faiths a lot more and religions would not be so regional.


Yeah, I'm sure...despite your "exposing" them to religion, there was NO "coercion," right? :spock:

GMAFB... LMAO LMAO LMAO

Dave Lane
06-25-2007, 08:59 PM
So the belief of those who follow jesusneverexisted is that Jesus didn't exist but Mary did!?

Or she did exist, didn't have Jesus, but did have sex and had other children?


Ummm not to burst your bubble but where does it mention the christian Mary as existing?

Dave

Dave Lane
06-25-2007, 09:01 PM
This is the point of the original Mary :

Nothing in the 'Christian message' was original.

Dave

Dave Lane
06-25-2007, 09:06 PM
Mary Who?

Scripture may have very little to say about Jesus; it has even less to say about his supposed mother. For the earliest Christians ‘Mary Mother of Jesus’ almost did not exist: they were not interested in the nativity of their god-man – it was his re-birth after death that mattered. Paul does not mention Mary (or Joseph) at all, and in the gospels, the shadowy figure of Mary, destined to become the most pre-eminent of all the saints and Queen of Heaven, at best, is a two-dimensional nonentity.

In the gospel pageant, ‘Mary’ appears in several scenes. In all of them she is a passive character, habitually in the background and virtually without a voice (she speaks in total three times, twice in a single sentence). She is not described (but then, none of the gospel characters are!); nor do we know her age. She is a bit player, primarily with ‘witnessing’ parts. We learn nothing of her origins, save for the family connection to cousin Elizabeth and as betrothed of Joseph. She appears first in the so-called ‘Annunciation’ (at the well ..?) when an angel maps out her career. With little ado, she accepts the ‘blessed’ role revealed to her (Luke 1.38) and rushes off to spend three months in the mountains with the pregnant Lizzy (she who will mother John the Baptist). In this, her biggest scene, Mary delivers her only set-piece speech (such articulation at this gob-smacking moment!) – the so-called 'Magnificat':


My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden:
for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For he that is mighty hath done to me great things;
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
He hath shewed strength with his arm;
he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seats,
He hath filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich he hath sent empty away.
He hath helpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
(Luke 1.46,55)


God only knows who was also in the room (or was it a cave? ) to record all this! Perhaps she wrote her memoirs. (In truth, the piece is an obvious adaptation of the song of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2). But after this soliloquy Mary has not a word to say for herself. She witnesses visits of shepherds and wise men and ‘ponders’ (Luke 2.16); she is taken to Egypt (Matthew 2.13.18) and brought back to Galilee; she puzzles at her twelve-year old’s claim to messiahship (Luke 2.48,52); she witnesses the turning of water to wine (John 2.1,12); she is rejected by her super-star off-spring (Luke 8. 19,21); she witnesses his crucifixion (John 19.25,27); and she waits for the holy spirit (Acts 1.14). Her ultimate fate is not revealed and she is credited with no role at all in the creation of the Christian Church.

Jenson71
06-25-2007, 09:52 PM
This is the point of the original Mary :

Nothing in the 'Christian message' was original.

Dave

So the original Mary was not actually the person who "supposedly" had Jesus, but a pagan goddess? What does that have to do with the Mary who had Jesus? She didn't exist? Why state "she wasn't a virgin", when a simple "there was no Mary" would do? Was there a Joseph? If we can doubt Joseph's existence, what about the line of succession from David to Joseph? Have you ever had an idea on this topic that wasn't from a cheap website that's about half accurate?

Jenson71
06-25-2007, 09:55 PM
This is the point of the original Mary :

Nothing in the 'Christian message' was original.

Dave

Well, what about Jesus' (pretend for a second that he actually lived) message in regards to the Laws? Wouldn't that be considered original? Or is the 'Christian message' strictly about symbols, customs, and sayings in your view? I can tell you from experience and knowledge that's not how Catholics see it.

stevieray
06-25-2007, 10:23 PM
Ummm not to burst your bubble but where does it mention the christian Mary as existing?

Dave

Ironically, the guy in your sig claimed Mary to be the Mother of God.

Jenson71
06-25-2007, 10:39 PM
Ironically, the guy in your sig claimed Mary to be the Mother of God.

I don't think Dave Lane is a fan of St. Augustine. I think he wants to emphasize some of the church's apparent hypocrisies.

stevieray
06-25-2007, 10:44 PM
I don't think Dave Lane is a fan of St. Augustine. I think he wants to emphasize some of the church's apparent hypocrisies.

The Church is us.

Jenson71
06-25-2007, 10:46 PM
The Church is us.

Some of our apparent hypocrisies.

stevieray
06-25-2007, 10:52 PM
Some of our apparent hypocrisies.

and a neverending supply...makes bashing easy...and anything worthwhile is not easily obtained....we grow through adversity...all of these conversations boil down to one thing, all of us at one point or another put ourselves in the thone before God.

Jenson71
06-25-2007, 11:01 PM
and a neverending supply...makes bashing easy...and anything worthwhile is not easily obtained....we grow through adversity...all of these conversations boil down to one thing, all of us at one point or another put ourselves in the thone before God.

I have trouble understanding this post, to be honest. But I agreed with you when you said "The Church is us."

Logical
06-25-2007, 11:01 PM
and a neverending supply...makes bashing easy...and anything worthwhile is not easily obtained....we grow through adversity...all of these conversations boil down to one thing, all of us at one point or another put ourselves in the thone before God.

Or we die and turn to dirt. You just never know.

stevieray
06-25-2007, 11:03 PM
I have trouble understanding this post, to be honest. But I agreed with you when you said "The Church is us."

which part?

stevieray
06-25-2007, 11:03 PM
Or we die and turn to dirt. You just never know.

the body that your spirit lives in does, definitely.

Jenson71
06-25-2007, 11:05 PM
which part?

Was my post contributing to a neverending supply of hypocrisy? That's what it seemed you were saying.

stevieray
06-25-2007, 11:08 PM
Was my post contributing to a neverending supply of hypocrisy? That's what it seemed you were saying.
no..that as fallen men, we will eventually sin, therfore consistantly providing ammo for those who can hold it against "us".

and that's ok...

Jenson71
06-25-2007, 11:11 PM
no..that as fallen men, we will eventually sin, therfore consistnatly providing ammo for those who can hold it agianst us.

Ah, makes perfect sense, thanks.

Logical
06-25-2007, 11:13 PM
no..that as fallen men, we will eventually sin, therfore consistantly providing ammo for those who can hold it against "us".

and that's ok...

Not to mention all the hypocrisy in the Bible.:D

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 12:11 PM
IN YOUR OPINION, faith is a copout. Isn't it ironic that a form of faith is what fuels your skepticism? You can't prove GOD doesn't exist, you just choose to BELIEVE he don't. Faith in another form. So is your position a copout then using your own measuring stick?

Indoctrinate? ROFL

No, your refusal to admit that non-existence is the base line or default position is what's causing this difference. I don't believe there isn't one, I know you can't prove him and the onus is on you. So why the hell believe?

But isn't that the same as the FSM, and all those I mentioned? So, yes, in my opinion faith is a copout and you have yet to show otherwise.

Defending the default position takes no faith, requires no faith, nor has anything to do with faith despite the fact that you think everyone has faith because you do.


Sorry bro, I got a chuckle out of that. Parents teach their kids what they think is best for them but in the end the final decision is up to the individual. My son is a living case and point. He knew I am a Lutheran and most of the things I taught him were based in that faith as regards to morality etc. However, I never forced him to attend services with me. Until recently he didn't believe in GOD and told me so on several occasions. I never coerced him or in any way made him feel inferior or of lesser value as a human being. I simply loved him as he was. I got a call from him recently. He became a believer. Do you know what the ironic part is in all of this? His SCHOOL tried blatantly to indoctrinate him in their secular humanist and atheistic values to the point where I nearly sued the pants off of them. They had more time with him and more opportunity to influence his decision. He chose GOD for which I am grateful. In the end, each individual is going to choose their own belief system as it is a very deep and personal issue and can only be externally influenced to a degree.

Wait, so he came back to your side which was god-based, and this doesn't prove my point?
Maybe I'm misreading..

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 12:15 PM
I have trouble understanding this post, to be honest. But I agreed with you when you said "The Church is us."

He's saying:

It's true because we're talking about it.
Bashing against us (Christians) is easy.
Nothing that isn't worthwhile (Christianity) is obtained easily.
Therefore, since it isn't easy to obtain and we are constantly bashed, it must be true.


Or something similar to that.

SLAG
06-26-2007, 12:21 PM
I believe In God, Because I Know Him Personally.

It really dosent matter if you or anyone else says he does not exist.. I KNOW him so therefore he Does exist

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 12:26 PM
I believe In God, Because I Know Him Personally.

It really dosent matter if you or anyone else says he does not exist.. I KNOW him so therefore he Does exist

And you're talking about him. :)


By the way, why is God ALWAYS masculine? Why was Jesus not a woman?

Dave Lane
06-26-2007, 12:28 PM
The Church is us.

"You will be assimilated"

-Borg

:)

Dave

Dave Lane
06-26-2007, 12:42 PM
Or we die and turn to dirt. You just never know.


Jim

I've often wondered is it vanity, arrogance or pride or just the inability to accept that you will come to an end that forces all religions to explain that there is going to be some great hereafter and that we will never really end. Is it the comfort that you will "see" your loved ones again?

These are some pretty heavy motivated forces at work that almost force a person to believe. I think it takes great courage to stand up and say "This is it. There is no next life. We are not special, we are organisms swarming the surface of some obscure planet that means nothing" and not be effected by that knowledge.

That is my overwhelming thought about all this. WE ARE NOT SPECIAL. At least anymore than being a Chiefs fan or a USA fan makes us "special".

There is in my opinion that there is a great desire by many, and it seems the more downtrodden intellectually or financially poor they are, to need the sense of being special to make their lonely little lives seem meaningful.

Dave

Dave Lane
06-26-2007, 12:44 PM
I believe In God, Because I Know Him Personally.

It really dosent matter if you or anyone else says he does not exist.. I KNOW him so therefore he Does exist


Whats his email? Or at leas cell number? Cuz if you don't have that well then really you don't exist. :)

Dave

Mr. Kotter
06-26-2007, 12:51 PM
Jim

I've often wondered is it vanity, arrogance or pride or just the inability to accept that you will come to an end that forces all religions to explain that there is going to be some great hereafter and that we will never really end. Is it the comfort that you will "see" your loved ones again?

These are some pretty heavy motivated forces at work that almost force a person to believe. I think it takes great courage to stand up and say "This is it. There is no next life. We are not special, we are organisms swarming the surface of some obscure planet that means nothing" and not be effected by that knowledge.

That is my overwhelming thought about all this. WE ARE NOT SPECIAL. At least anymore than being a Chiefs fan or a USA fan makes us "special".

There is in my opinion that there is a great desire by many, and it seems the more downtrodden intellectually or financially poor they are, to need the sense of being special to make their lonely little lives seem meaningful.

Dave

Wow. You must be bored today.... :spock:

Nothing like trying to stir up something with that "imaginary" arrogance, condescension, and insulting characterizations of believers....that so many atheist/agnostic/humanist types claim you don't engage in, right?

LMAO LMAO LMAO


And then you have the audacity to dare wonder, why....why would they ever respond in kind? ROFL

BigCatDaddy
06-26-2007, 01:19 PM
Is There A God?
The question is not necessarily easy to answer because the question itself is wrongly framed. The moment a person asks this question about God they are on the wrong track. The problem is the word "there."

there: adverb in or at that place

The moment the question, "Is there a God?" is framed, a wrong assumption has been made -- the assumption that for God to be He must be an object to which the adverb there can apply. Is there a God? In one sense I should answer, No, "there" is no God. God simply is. But not "there."

I AM THAT I AM, spake the voice from the burning bush.

"There is" a cup of coffee sitting on the table next to me. "There is" a large sycamore tree in my back yard. "There is" a building called the Taj Mahal in Agra, India. "There is" a planet called Jupiter in our solar system. But in the sense of the cup of coffee, the tree, the Taj Mahal and Jupiter, "there" is no God. God is not an object to be found within the universe. You cannot find God as an astronomer finds a new galaxy in the heavens or as an entomologist finds a new insect in the Amazon. Quite simply, God is not an object that can be found in that manner. "There" is no God.

God is not an object in the universe. The universe is an object within God. Just as astrophysicists speak of the utter impossibility of knowing anything about other universes, so it is utterly impossible to know God from within the universe...unless He would will to reveal himself.

Revelation.

God reveals Himself to the heart. I don't mean this in any sentimental way, but in the sense that God is known only by revelation.

(By "know" I mean "to perceive directly" as opposed to "be evidenced by.")

"No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him." (Matthew 11:27)

"You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13)

"The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing." -Blaise Pascal

God is not an object, and thus not an object of knowledge. Instead, it is only because of God that anything can be known. God stands silently behind every question and behind every pursuit of knowledge. God is the only possible answer to the ultimate question: Why is there something instead of nothing?

I know this about the pursuit of God from my own experience: God never reveals Himself unto idle curiosity. God will not be an object in any man's curio shop. If you want to be objective with God, forget about it. Go collect butterflies or something. But if you will become subjective, part of the story, anxious in desperate inquiry, then you might get somewhere.

If you are anxious about there being a God, because of the truth that without a God existence is meaningless, then you are beginning to ask aright. But of course, in asking your question in this manner, you have already answered the question. If there is no Purpose (God), why (how!) would you (could you!) even have such a concern for purpose? Without God you could never raise a question about God. Without God there would be no concept of meaning and thus you could never become anxious about meaning.

(Were the Aztecs ever anxious about the price of gasoline?)

If there were no God, there would be no atheists.

(You can't have an atheo without a theo.)

You want God because your heart knows there is a God.
You don't want God because your heart knows there is a God.
Your heart knows.
Indeed, the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.

Some look at evil and think there is no God. But that you know good from evil shows that your heart already knows there is a God. Because your heart knows God is good, your heart protests the existence of evil.

To my atheist and agnostic friends I say this gently (I don't mean it as an insult, but as an analysis): Atheism is a kind of insanity. And a modern insanity at that. Though God is not an object in the universe, He is the most obvious reality of existence. It takes an intelligent man to think God out of existence. But intelligent men can go insane.

Perhaps you think this is true: God is dead.

But this is undeniable: Nietzsche is insane.

You say, the one has nothing to do with the other. Perhaps.

But a mind untethered from that which by definition is the only Ultimate Reality may indeed be prone to lose touch with even ordinary reality.

Is there a God? The question is mis-framed and perhaps even dishonest. Though God is not an object in the universe, He has not left Himself without a witness. A multitude of realities from creation to conscience point us to Him who transcends the universe.

The question is not, is there a God, but, who is God?

And that leads us in another direction.

God is not an object in the universe.

Unless...

He
chose
to
be.

Could the Incarnation be true?
Could it not be true?

Who is this Jesus of Nazareth?
You need to answer this question.
But only after some serious inquiry.

Recommended reading for the serious inquirer: The Gospel of John
Recommended reading for the non-serious inquirer: A Guide to Collecting Butterflies

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 01:27 PM
Is There A God?
The question is not necessarily easy to answer because the question itself is wrongly framed. The moment a person asks this question about God they are on the wrong track. The problem is the word "there."

there: adverb in or at that place

The moment the question, "Is there a God?" is framed, a wrong assumption has been made -- the assumption that for God to be He must be an object to which the adverb there can apply. Is there a God? In one sense I should answer, No, "there" is no God. God simply is. But not "there."

I AM THAT I AM, spake the voice from the burning bush.

"There is" a cup of coffee sitting on the table next to me. "There is" a large sycamore tree in my back yard. "There is" a building called the Taj Mahal in Agra, India. "There is" a planet called Jupiter in our solar system. But in the sense of the cup of coffee, the tree, the Taj Mahal and Jupiter, "there" is no God. God is not an object to be found within the universe. You cannot find God as an astronomer finds a new galaxy in the heavens or as an entomologist finds a new insect in the Amazon. Quite simply, God is not an object that can be found in that manner. "There" is no God.

God is not an object in the universe. The universe is an object within God. Just as astrophysicists speak of the utter impossibility of knowing anything about other universes, so it is utterly impossible to know God from within the universe...unless He would will to reveal himself.

Revelation.

God reveals Himself to the heart. I don't mean this in any sentimental way, but in the sense that God is known only by revelation.

(By "know" I mean "to perceive directly" as opposed to "be evidenced by.")

"No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him." (Matthew 11:27)

"You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13)

"The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing." -Blaise Pascal

God is not an object, and thus not an object of knowledge. Instead, it is only because of God that anything can be known. God stands silently behind every question and behind every pursuit of knowledge. God is the only possible answer to the ultimate question: Why is there something instead of nothing?

I know this about the pursuit of God from my own experience: God never reveals Himself unto idle curiosity. God will not be an object in any man's curio shop. If you want to be objective with God, forget about it. Go collect butterflies or something. But if you will become subjective, part of the story, anxious in desperate inquiry, then you might get somewhere.

If you are anxious about there being a God, because of the truth that without a God existence is meaningless, then you are beginning to ask aright. But of course, in asking your question in this manner, you have already answered the question. If there is no Purpose (God), why (how!) would you (could you!) even have such a concern for purpose? Without God you could never raise a question about God. Without God there would be no concept of meaning and thus you could never become anxious about meaning.

(Were the Aztecs ever anxious about the price of gasoline?)

If there were no God, there would be no atheists.

(You can't have an atheo without a theo.)

You want God because your heart knows there is a God.
You don't want God because your heart knows there is a God.
Your heart knows.
Indeed, the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.

Some look at evil and think there is no God. But that you know good from evil shows that your heart already knows there is a God. Because your heart knows God is good, your heart protests the existence of evil.

To my atheist and agnostic friends I say this gently (I don't mean it as an insult, but as an analysis): Atheism is a kind of insanity. And a modern insanity at that. Though God is not an object in the universe, He is the most obvious reality of existence. It takes an intelligent man to think God out of existence. But intelligent men can go insane.

Perhaps you think this is true: God is dead.

But this is undeniable: Nietzsche is insane.

You say, the one has nothing to do with the other. Perhaps.

But a mind untethered from that which by definition is the only Ultimate Reality may indeed be prone to lose touch with even ordinary reality.

Is there a God? The question is mis-framed and perhaps even dishonest. Though God is not an object in the universe, He has not left Himself without a witness. A multitude of realities from creation to conscience point us to Him who transcends the universe.

The question is not, is there a God, but, who is God?

And that leads us in another direction.

God is not an object in the universe.

Unless...

He
chose
to
be.

Could the Incarnation be true?
Could it not be true?

Who is this Jesus of Nazareth?
You need to answer this question.
But only after some serious inquiry.

Recommended reading for the serious inquirer: The Gospel of John
Recommended reading for the non-serious inquirer: A Guide to Collecting Butterflies

Yay, "faith". God cannot be revealed because we wouldn't have to have faith. God isn't an object that can be proved. We wouldn't have faith.

Who created God? God just exists.
Why can't the universe exist? No answer.

Dave Lane
06-26-2007, 01:29 PM
Wow. You must be bored today.... :spock:

Nothing like trying to stir up something with that "imaginary" arrogance, condescension, and insulting characterizations of believers....that so many atheist/agnostic/humanist types claim you don't engage in, right?

LMAO LMAO LMAO


And then you have the audacity to dare wonder, why....why would they ever respond in kind? ROFL


Actually Rob I never said anything about believers, I'm taking the human race in general. Where did I say this is only believers or christians? I have the same issues believe me. I'd like to think we are special and I'll get to see all my family and dogs and cats again and we'll all be happy having a drum circle singing Cumbaya. I'd like to live forever and see how "it all turns out" Well maybe not forever but a really long time...

Dave

Jenson71
06-26-2007, 02:00 PM
Actually Rob I never said anything about believers, I'm taking the human race in general. Where did I say this is only believers or christians? I have the same issues believe me. I'd like to think we are special and I'll get to see all my family and dogs and cats again and we'll all be happy having a drum circle singing Cumbaya. I'd like to live forever and see how "it all turns out" Well maybe not forever but a really long time...

Dave

Didn't Socrates at his trial argue that it was foolish for humans to ponder their existence after death because no one knew? Yet you have faith that after life, we are done, but is that faith not eqaul to a faith that says we are not done? Can an equation be brought into existence that proves either one? Can a man's testimony of his 15 minutes in heaven, or whatever that book is called, prove anything? It's quite a road of questions. Very interesting though, despite never having answers.

Jilly
06-26-2007, 02:54 PM
Jim

I've often wondered is it vanity, arrogance or pride or just the inability to accept that you will come to an end that forces all religions to explain that there is going to be some great hereafter and that we will never really end. Is it the comfort that you will "see" your loved ones again?

These are some pretty heavy motivated forces at work that almost force a person to believe. I think it takes great courage to stand up and say "This is it. There is no next life. We are not special, we are organisms swarming the surface of some obscure planet that means nothing" and not be effected by that knowledge.

That is my overwhelming thought about all this. WE ARE NOT SPECIAL. At least anymore than being a Chiefs fan or a USA fan makes us "special".

There is in my opinion that there is a great desire by many, and it seems the more downtrodden intellectually or financially poor they are, to need the sense of being special to make their lonely little lives seem meaningful.

Dave

Seems an easy answer, Dave. I mean....if one were to feel that way about this life then one would have no reason to make the world any better of a place, one would have no reason to be a better person, one would have no reason to do anything at all, right? Seems to me that a life like that could kill someone. Even animals have a purpose - a meaning.... to mate and to feed... When one takes a look at the world around us, does it seem to be "nothing"? It seems to me to be much greater than "nothing" - the balance, the harmony, the beauty. I would think it would take less courage to just exist, more courage to exist with purpose and without fear of what that purpose is.

Dave Lane
06-26-2007, 04:07 PM
Seems an easy answer, Dave. I mean....if one were to feel that way about this life then one would have no reason to make the world any better of a place, one would have no reason to be a better person, one would have no reason to do anything at all, right? Seems to me that a life like that could kill someone. Even animals have a purpose - a meaning.... to mate and to feed... When one takes a look at the world around us, does it seem to be "nothing"? It seems to me to be much greater than "nothing" - the balance, the harmony, the beauty. I would think it would take less courage to just exist, more courage to exist with purpose and without fear of what that purpose is.


So your answer is that it takes more courage to accept a warm fuzzy puppy than the knowledge that puppies don't exist. And why do you believe that we are somehow special and above "animals"? (other than the obvious higher IQ bit)

Dave

Dave Lane
06-26-2007, 04:10 PM
Even animals have a purpose - a meaning.... to mate and to feed...

Thats always been the driving force in humanity. To breed and feed. And raise offspring...

Dave

Jilly
06-26-2007, 04:19 PM
So your answer is that it takes more courage to accept a warm fuzzy puppy than the knowledge that puppies don't exist. And why do you believe that we are somehow special and above "animals"? (other than the obvious higher IQ bit)

Dave

It takes more courage to change the world and to realize you have a stake in it; than to sit around and think that you don't. It's less responsibility and less thought, imo

Did I say we were better than animals? Because I didn't mean that. I just meant that if you observe the world, you will find that all beings are more than just existing.

Dave Lane
06-26-2007, 05:47 PM
So there is a doggie heaven or? And why can't you change the world for the better if you don't believe in god? I don't get it. Why does disbelief in myths make you not care about the future of the world?

Dave

ClevelandBronco
06-26-2007, 06:34 PM
Is There A God?
The question is not necessarily easy to answer because the question itself is wrongly framed. The moment a person asks this question about God they are on the wrong track. The problem is the word "there."

there: adverb in or at that place

The moment the question, "Is there a God?" is framed, a wrong assumption has been made -- the assumption that for God to be He must be an object to which the adverb there can apply. Is there a God? In one sense I should answer, No, "there" is no God. God simply is. But not "there."

I AM THAT I AM, spake the voice from the burning bush.

"There is" a cup of coffee sitting on the table next to me. "There is" a large sycamore tree in my back yard. "There is" a building called the Taj Mahal in Agra, India. "There is" a planet called Jupiter in our solar system. But in the sense of the cup of coffee, the tree, the Taj Mahal and Jupiter, "there" is no God. God is not an object to be found within the universe. You cannot find God as an astronomer finds a new galaxy in the heavens or as an entomologist finds a new insect in the Amazon. Quite simply, God is not an object that can be found in that manner. "There" is no God.

God is not an object in the universe. The universe is an object within God. Just as astrophysicists speak of the utter impossibility of knowing anything about other universes, so it is utterly impossible to know God from within the universe...unless He would will to reveal himself.

Revelation.

God reveals Himself to the heart. I don't mean this in any sentimental way, but in the sense that God is known only by revelation.

(By "know" I mean "to perceive directly" as opposed to "be evidenced by.")

"No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him." (Matthew 11:27)

"You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13)

"The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing." -Blaise Pascal

God is not an object, and thus not an object of knowledge. Instead, it is only because of God that anything can be known. God stands silently behind every question and behind every pursuit of knowledge. God is the only possible answer to the ultimate question: Why is there something instead of nothing?

I know this about the pursuit of God from my own experience: God never reveals Himself unto idle curiosity. God will not be an object in any man's curio shop. If you want to be objective with God, forget about it. Go collect butterflies or something. But if you will become subjective, part of the story, anxious in desperate inquiry, then you might get somewhere.

If you are anxious about there being a God, because of the truth that without a God existence is meaningless, then you are beginning to ask aright. But of course, in asking your question in this manner, you have already answered the question. If there is no Purpose (God), why (how!) would you (could you!) even have such a concern for purpose? Without God you could never raise a question about God. Without God there would be no concept of meaning and thus you could never become anxious about meaning.

(Were the Aztecs ever anxious about the price of gasoline?)

If there were no God, there would be no atheists.

(You can't have an atheo without a theo.)

You want God because your heart knows there is a God.
You don't want God because your heart knows there is a God.
Your heart knows.
Indeed, the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.

Some look at evil and think there is no God. But that you know good from evil shows that your heart already knows there is a God. Because your heart knows God is good, your heart protests the existence of evil.

To my atheist and agnostic friends I say this gently (I don't mean it as an insult, but as an analysis): Atheism is a kind of insanity. And a modern insanity at that. Though God is not an object in the universe, He is the most obvious reality of existence. It takes an intelligent man to think God out of existence. But intelligent men can go insane.

Perhaps you think this is true: God is dead.

But this is undeniable: Nietzsche is insane.

You say, the one has nothing to do with the other. Perhaps.

But a mind untethered from that which by definition is the only Ultimate Reality may indeed be prone to lose touch with even ordinary reality.

Is there a God? The question is mis-framed and perhaps even dishonest. Though God is not an object in the universe, He has not left Himself without a witness. A multitude of realities from creation to conscience point us to Him who transcends the universe.

The question is not, is there a God, but, who is God?

And that leads us in another direction.

God is not an object in the universe.

Unless...

He
chose
to
be.

Could the Incarnation be true?
Could it not be true?

Who is this Jesus of Nazareth?
You need to answer this question.
But only after some serious inquiry.

Recommended reading for the serious inquirer: The Gospel of John
Recommended reading for the non-serious inquirer: A Guide to Collecting Butterflies

I don't know if they can really hear you, but that was beautiful stuff.

Taco John
06-26-2007, 08:11 PM
Who created God? God just exists.
Why can't the universe exist? No answer.


You appear to be having a hard time seeing the forest through the trees.

Logical
06-26-2007, 09:05 PM
Yay, "faith". God cannot be revealed because we wouldn't have to have faith. God isn't an object that can be proved. We wouldn't have faith.

Who created God? God just exists.
Why can't the universe exist? No answer.

Perhaps the Universe is God, I like to think it is possible, God is everything and nothing at the same time.

irishjayhawk
06-27-2007, 01:36 AM
You appear to be having a hard time seeing the forest through the trees.

I'm confused.

That's usually the answer "No answer" given by people when they are asked the follow up question of "Why can't the universe just exist" when people say "God just exists."

irishjayhawk
06-27-2007, 01:37 AM
Perhaps the Universe is God, I like to think it is possible, God is everything and nothing at the same time.

So you're like George Carlin who believes in the big electron that just is. :p

Logical
06-27-2007, 01:41 AM
So you're like George Carlin who believes in the big electron that just is. :p

Sort of funny but as an engineer with 87 hours towards a Chemistry major I do sort of look on the universe as a big nucleus with electrons

tiptap
06-27-2007, 07:05 AM
It is hard to keep balance in discussing god. On one hand we have historical precedent for characterizing god that for me is untenable. Yet for so many religious thought does provide solace and serenity that can give purpose to life that cannot be discounted. The characterization of existence starts with revelation, just not heavenly. Parents, family, friends and teachers jump start one's perception of one's existence. And many argue that this model is precisely the spiritual model a god offers humans in all of life. I remember these assertions in my religious upbringing and I do not discount they inform my present moral stance. They resonate with the comfort of loving familial interactions. It has never been my first thrust to wish to squelch such connection. But I don't see the universe as characterized or even suggestive that this is the dominant way it acts. We are gained in the universe by such interactions and faith but it is not the form of the universe we inhabit. Our success arises out of that connection but it is not shown to be the theme of the universe. As such when we characterize the universe we must do so with eye to see it on its terms as opposed to the strengths which have won us gain in that universe. And still allow for that personal need to remain the ember of what is good and decent in going forward.

Dave Lane
06-27-2007, 11:17 AM
Sort of funny but as an engineer with 87 hours towards a Chemistry major I do sort of look on the universe as a big nucleus with electrons

So then settle the big question... Are we Oxygen or Fluorine?

Dave

Adept Havelock
06-27-2007, 03:35 PM
So then settle the big question... Are we Oxygen or Fluorine?

Dave


Neither. We are Unobtainium.

Mr. Kotter
06-27-2007, 03:42 PM
Well, do you nonbelievers have a sense of humor? Heh.... ;)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wts-dntnyh4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wts-dntnyh4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Adept Havelock
06-27-2007, 05:40 PM
Well, do you nonbelievers have a sense of humor? Heh.... ;)


Of course we do.

I just think it's rather sad that Dane Cook doesn't. :D

In proving the "unbelievers" sense of humor, I offer Exhibit A:

Heh, indeed. ;)
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8uBAPbOWLxc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8uBAPbOWLxc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Mr. Kotter
06-27-2007, 10:15 PM
Of course we do.

I just think it's rather sad that Dane Cook doesn't. :D

In proving the "unbelievers" sense of humor, I offer Exhibit A:

Heh, indeed. ;)
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8uBAPbOWLxc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8uBAPbOWLxc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Heh. I love Carlin' too. :clap:'

Too bad he's gonna burn in hell. ;)


:p

Dave Lane
06-27-2007, 11:20 PM
Neither. We are Unobtainium.


Well with the dropping of Pluto I figured we are back to Oxygen now. If we get to include Pluto then its Fluorine for us.

Dave

CHIEF4EVER
06-28-2007, 04:28 AM
I have mentioned this before but it bears repeating. Matter is a fact. It is measurable and tangible. Where did it come from? It didn't always exist. Could'nt have. So WHO created it? I say GOD did.

Adept Havelock
06-28-2007, 10:57 AM
I have mentioned this before but it bears repeating. Matter is a fact. It is measurable and tangible. Where did it come from? It didn't always exist. Could'nt have. So WHO created it? I say GOD did.

I can certainly understand and respect that. Still, I think Carlin may be on to something. Are you SURE it wasn't Joe Pesci? After all, he looks like a guy who can get things done! :p

irishjayhawk
06-28-2007, 11:47 AM
I have mentioned this before but it bears repeating. Matter is a fact. It is measurable and tangible. Where did it come from? It didn't always exist. Could'nt have. So WHO created it? I say GOD did.

And then I ask, who created God?

BigCatDaddy
06-28-2007, 12:53 PM
And then I ask, who created God?

I think the problem is you are looking at things in the time and space concept in which we exist. God exist outside these boundaries and there for does not have to be created in it like stars, planets, physical matter are. That is the difference.

Taco John
06-28-2007, 01:34 PM
I'm confused.

That's usually the answer "No answer" given by people when they are asked the follow up question of "Why can't the universe just exist" when people say "God just exists."



Alright, I'll answer why: causality.

Something can't come from nothing.

Dave Lane
06-28-2007, 02:42 PM
Alright, I'll answer why: causality.

Something can't come from nothing.

Then what did god come from?

Dave

BigCatDaddy
06-28-2007, 03:05 PM
Then what did god come from?

Dave

He always was/is. At some point there is a creator of all. A makes B, B causes C, etc. Nothing creates "A", it starts it all off. Something pushes the first domino over to get the others rolling. I believe A is GOD, B is creation. I don't get the understanding the creation always existed without a creator. To me saying the Universe is "A" is like saying a building created it's own windows, I believe there is a designer for the building(creation) and every part within.

Taco John
06-28-2007, 03:30 PM
Then what did god come from?

Dave


Realization.

irishjayhawk
06-29-2007, 02:39 AM
BCD - You've proven my point. You want to say God simply exists. Or make up an elaborate rationalization about God simply existing and how this can be. Yet, the same thing - in both cases - can be applied to the Universe. Why couldn't the universe just exist? Why couldn't the universe exist outside space and time? You are conjuring God from nothing, exactly what you say can't happen with the universe.

And TJ, the same applies to you. However, I'm not following your rationale the same way (except the Something cannot come from nothing part, in which case see above). Explain the realization/causality line.

BigCatDaddy
06-29-2007, 10:20 AM
[QUOTE=irishjayhawk]BCD - You've proven my point. You want to say God simply exists. Or make up an elaborate rationalization about God simply existing and how this can be. Yet, the same thing - in both cases - can be applied to the Universe. Why couldn't the universe just exist? Why couldn't the universe exist outside space and time? You are conjuring God from nothing, exactly what you say can't happen with the universe.
QUOTE]

Okay, so basically what you are saying it either way is possible then right?

irishjayhawk
06-29-2007, 12:39 PM
[QUOTE=irishjayhawk]BCD - You've proven my point. You want to say God simply exists. Or make up an elaborate rationalization about God simply existing and how this can be. Yet, the same thing - in both cases - can be applied to the Universe. Why couldn't the universe just exist? Why couldn't the universe exist outside space and time? You are conjuring God from nothing, exactly what you say can't happen with the universe.
QUOTE]

Okay, so basically what you are saying it either way is possible then right?

No, what I'm saying is your rationalization/reasoning for the existence of "God" can be used for the existence of the "universe". Thus, it's a bad argument. I am not, however, saying nor implying that things exist beyond space and time nor "just existed". What I am saying is that your reasoning doesn't work.

I will also note one difference, but you didn't necessarily say this, is that most people personify God. With personification comes things humans actually do. One of the things humans do is create. Thus, it isn't out of the reach of things to conclude people only expect God to have created because humans have created. It's just a nice personification trick.

BigCatDaddy
06-29-2007, 01:44 PM
No, what I'm saying is your rationalization/reasoning for the existence of "God" can be used for the existence of the "universe". Thus, it's a bad argument. I am not, however, saying nor implying that things exist beyond space and time nor "just existed". What I am saying is that your reasoning doesn't work.

I will also note one difference, but you didn't necessarily say this, is that most people personify God. With personification comes things humans actually do. One of the things humans do is create. Thus, it isn't out of the reach of things to conclude people only expect God to have created because humans have created. It's just a nice personification trick.

But the universe is a creation. It can be measured and does exist within the frame work of time and space. By your logic A would have created A, or the building just always was, and was never created.

Adept Havelock
06-29-2007, 01:49 PM
By your logic A would have created A, or the building just always was, and was never created.

Just like your logic about the invisible man in the sky. See how that works?

KC-TBB
06-29-2007, 02:16 PM
That's it, STOP THE MADNESS!
God is, that is all that has to be said...it is a FAITH thing, not a show me proof thing...can't put it in a box or on a slide to look at under a microscope. Read some of the last thoughts of Einstien and you will here some pretty sound thinking about this matter...the rest is just FAITH, you either have it or you don't...but you can still get it, it is free!

irishjayhawk
06-30-2007, 02:53 AM
That's it, STOP THE MADNESS!
God is, that is all that has to be said...it is a FAITH thing, not a show me proof thing...can't put it in a box or on a slide to look at under a microscope. Read some of the last thoughts of Einstien and you will here some pretty sound thinking about this matter...the rest is just FAITH, you either have it or you don't...but you can still get it, it is free!

And it's a very dangerous philosophy to hold. Blind is a good adjective.

ClevelandBronco
06-30-2007, 03:34 AM
And it's a very dangerous philosophy to hold...

Dangerous to...?

Jilly
06-30-2007, 10:22 AM
I'm not sure why it hurts to have some sort of higher being... In most cases, the belief in Ultimate Reality only causes people to become better... Ultimate Truth holds together some of the most fragile principles of being human...and without it, I wonder what the world would be like. Sociologists of religion claim that without Ultimate Truth, many would fold under the chaos of the universe. And I wonder that to, it's fine to believe that the universe exists, however that existance is, but could humanity exist in that type of chaos?

CHIEF4EVER
06-30-2007, 10:43 AM
And it's a very dangerous philosophy to hold. Blind is a good adjective.

Atheism is a dangerous philosophy to hold. Blind is a good adjective. See how easy that was? And how equally irrelevant?

BucEyedPea
06-30-2007, 10:47 AM
Atheism is a dangerous philosophy to hold. Blind is a good adjective. See how easy that was? And how equally irrelevant?
:thumb:

Yet he claims to only address content.

irishjayhawk
06-30-2007, 12:22 PM
Atheism is a dangerous philosophy to hold. Blind is a good adjective. See how easy that was? And how equally irrelevant?

Yet it's not. It's simply the defending of the default position of non-existence, which I've covered before.

irishjayhawk
06-30-2007, 12:25 PM
Dangerous to...?

Depends where you want to go with it...

Dangerous that supreme being picked a people and gave them land which has led to continuous fighting in ME.
Dangerous that there are multiple sex scandals because a Church decides to repress sex.
Dangerous that Germany gave the same type of faith to Hitler; see where we got with that.

stevieray
06-30-2007, 12:34 PM
Yet it's not. It's simply the defending of the default position of non-existence, which I've covered before.


when you tell a story about something that happened to you in your past, can you prove it really happened? why do your friends believe you?

Phobia
06-30-2007, 12:53 PM
I don't know how to prove the bible's truth to any of you. I don't know how to prove Disneyland's existance either.

But I've enjoyed my experience at Disneyland and I recommend it.

I've enjoyed developing a relationship with God and I believe he's doing good things in my life. I'm not imagining these things.

Take it or leave it. My mandate is to share my testimony and the plan of salvation. The rest is between you and God.

irishjayhawk
06-30-2007, 12:54 PM
when you tell a story about something that happened to you in your past, can you prove it really happened? why do your friends believe you?

Because my track record is such. Moreover, what your getting at here is a different type of faith. Faith in the supernatural is different than having faith that you'll get to your job on time, love your kids, or believe people when they recall their past. In fact, it's even named different: trust.

stevieray
06-30-2007, 12:58 PM
Because my track record is such. Moreover, what your getting at here is a different type of faith. Faith in the supernatural is different than having faith that you'll get to your job on time, love your kids, or believe people when they recall their past. In fact, it's even named different: trust.

trust, faith and belief all represent confidence. it's not different at all.

can you see the air you breathe? can you show it to me?

BucEyedPea
06-30-2007, 12:58 PM
Depends where you want to go with it...

Dangerous that supreme being picked a people and gave them land which has led to continuous fighting in ME.
Dangerous that there are multiple sex scandals because a Church decides to repress sex.
Dangerous that Germany gave the same type of faith to Hitler; see where we got with that.
Hitler was a Christian in name only....but keep trying to pass on the lie that he was otherwise.

Multiple sex scandals? Name all of them.
Every major faith has had them. Please don't tell me how 2% of modern priests involved in a sex scandal indicts a whole church. Maybe they got infiltrated by gays because that's where more men were that could hide.

Now list the many more good deeds done by these churches.

irishjayhawk
06-30-2007, 01:07 PM
Hitler was a Christian in name only....but keep trying to pass on the lie that he was otherwise.

Multiple sex scandals? Name all of them.
Every major faith has had them. Please don't tell me how 2% of modern priests involved in a sex scandal indicts a whole church. Maybe they got infiltrated by gays because that's where more men were that could hide.

Now list the many more good deeds done by these churches.


Hitler being a Christian doesn't have anything to do with what I said. We are talking about faith - blind faith, in particular.

And thanks for proving my point about sex scandals. It doesn't matter that only 2% of the clergy took part, faith was the main thing behind it - faith and the dogma that follows it.

It take it the non objection to the fighting in the ME was an obvious concession.

irishjayhawk
06-30-2007, 01:09 PM
trust, faith and belief all represent confidence. it's not different at all.

can you see the air you breathe? can you show it to me?

I can see the air I breathe.

stevieray
06-30-2007, 01:11 PM
I can see the air I breathe.

really?

do tell, considering you've conceded on the first point.

CHIEF4EVER
06-30-2007, 01:11 PM
Yet it's not. It's simply the defending of the default position of non-existence, which I've covered before.

Except nonexistence isn't the default position sondern indecision. Which we have covered before.