-
Website
http://exchristian.net/ -
Original page
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/08/dear-believer.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- Mary did you know...- ExChristian.Net - Articles
- False Humility- ExChristian.Net - Articles
- Dear Christians: This is revolting -- utterly revolting- ExChristian.Net - Articles
- It Felt So Good To Be Right- Testimonies of Ex-Christians
- Mythology is Mythology. Pass the Eggnog.- ExChristian.Net - Articles
What, besides working in the medical field, looking after My elderly parents and aunt, adopting cats off the street, feeding the local birds and squirrels, keeping an eye on My neighbours' places when they're out of town, contributing to medical, food bank, disaster relief and animal charities, throwing the best Jól party in Winnipeg, and just trying to be a decent all-round goddess?
Nah, I've got nothing. :-D
"I bet you all are on a list of anti-depressants, and drink alcohol until you vomit, right?"
Not at all. You've lost that bet... Horribly.
*sigh* I can't even bring Myself to use the Clue-by-Four™ on this one...
Since you seem to think that we should follow your shining example of christian bahaviour, that means that you are an example of how your god wants people to act.
Therefore:
Since Satan is the OPPOSITE of your god,...and of YOU for that matter, then Satan is generous, competent, rational, kind, understanding, fair, humble, loving and appreciates Reason and Intelligence. He has good spelling and grammatical skills, is possessed of foresight and good planning skills, does not scream and throw temper tantrums when things don't go his way and he doesn't engage in ad hominem attacks should he ever run out of rational arguments. Which he won't since he is the opposite of your god.
Between the two mythological beings, Satan looks a lot better than the spiteful, irrational git you worship.
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
'Witch'? 'Slimiest'? Ah, now we have the Primordial Ooze Big Bang Sorceress Theory. But I digress...
"How do you find the concepts of original sin wrong?"
'Original Sin', the concept that we are born evil because we inherited someone else's bad behaviour, is fetid camel cr@p. It is immoral to blame someone for something they did not do.
"If I was wrong (which I am not)..."
I am 99.999...% certain that you are wrong. I think that the Bible is a book of plagiarized mythology. The flood story is from Mesopotamia (from the Enuma Elish, specifically). The good god/bad god concept is from Zoroastrianism. There is no archeological evidence that the Israelites were ever enslaved in Egypt, but they were close enough to be trading partners and appear to have borrowed a lot of Egyptian mythological ideas for the Jesus story.
And stories of people dying and coming back to life exist in dozens of cultures. Doesn't make any of them true, though.
"All I am doing by being a Christian is making the world one person better. So no harm no foul."
If this is so, you are a good person despite your beliefs. Perhaps someday you will gain the maturity to realize that invisible friends don't necessarily make you a better person.
By the way... Please consider that the name of this site is Ex-Christian dot net, and that we're not interested in going back to Christianity.
Finally, as the Goddess of Punctuation, I am issuing a formal warning for your poorly spelled and punctuated Wall of Text. Paragraph breaks are your friend, as is the wily spell-checker.
Stay "Cool"
They didn't like my rules; they don't agree with me; they made me cry.
(sob)
Mama, I've brought my ball home.
(sob, sob)
I'll pretend to have gone home (sob) with my head held high (sob) and my delusions intact.
I'l register (sob) with a new name (sob) in a day or two.
THEN I'LL SHOW THEM!
The type of Christianity we've just witnessed makes me physically sick: Proud, loud, and obnoxious.
Alright all you self professed, gramatically correct spawns of evil...it's been fun but the good people of the world have real lives which consist of service to the comunity and not the devil, so I'll let you all continue to wallow...
Good -- don't let the proverbial door smack you in the back of that fat arrogant delusional head of yours on the way out -- asshole.
Off to your bunker of bibles and rose colored christian glasses where you can bask in morbid ignorance and wallow in deluded superstitious explanations of the reality around you, so as to protect your feeble beliefs and your warped world-view.
--S.
What's wrong with the Devil?
I think you xtians give that horned angel too little credit.
He was smart enough to know he should rebel against that sadistic god of yours, so one has to admire someone who is a self-starter for a good cause.
If you'd like, I'll try and find a xtian who has met this Devil and have him/her introduce you to him, okay?
ATF
I'm an out of the closet xtian. I knew exactly what this site was upon entering. The xtians that come here should know what this site is as well. Coming here and preaching is like going to AA and and offering brandy for the coffee. Getting up the courage to admit to yourself and others, that you don't buy into the xtian bill of goods is hard to do when family relationships are destroyed by religion. Not that I'm tempted to backslide into any goofy belief, I'm just sick of hearing it.
I cannot begin to describe the peace of mind and better sleep when I admitted to myself that xtianity is a crock of shit.
Thanks for the site
You're right. The purpose of this website is easy to understand -- for those who are willing. Thanks for joining us.
Getting up the courage to admit to yourself and others, that you don't buy into the xtian bill of goods is hard to do when family relationships are destroyed by religion.
Exactly! For many of us, this website is our only sanctuary in a world of fundymadness.
Welcome to sanity.
BP
My goal is not to convince anyone that God is real. I am just a man and my words cannot reach into your soul. I applaude the webdesigner for giving people a place to share their views. I believe that these conversations on religion exist and will never go away because people have restless souls and are empty inside. To anyone who is honestly looking for a peace that passes all understanding, don't look for perfection from Christians, who by definition are admitted sinners, look at Jesus Christ, who lived a perfect life and offered himself for us that we may have life.
God Bless You
Thank Nature...
anonymous: "I am just a man and my words cannot reach into your soul."
Soul? What that?
anonymous: "I applaude the webdesigner for giving people a place to share their views."
Perhaps, more attuned to providing a place to present reality...
anonymous: "I believe that these conversations on religion exist and will never go away because people have restless souls and are empty inside."
I have an empty Soul? and it causes me to be restless? How so? If one can not define the Soul, how does it become empty and restless...
anonymous: "To anyone who is honestly looking for a peace that passes all understanding, don't look for perfection from Christians, who by definition are admitted sinners, look at Jesus Christ, who lived a perfect life and offered himself for us that we may have life."
i.e., don't look at this physical reality, to solve lonliness, and need, look to an historical icon labelled Jesus, who may or may not have existed, who knowingly Martyred himself (Death Cult), so that Others may receive a Benefit or Reward, i.e., everlasting life, etc... Oh, and "sin", what's that...
What are you so angry about? What is your answer for a world filled with hopelesness? If you don't think people have a soul then you have to reduce every emotion, thought, personality, and most importantly love, to just the result of neurons and electrical impulses randomly firing that have no meaning whatsoever. I like to think life is a little more meaningful than that. I like to think there is a reason to exist. I believe in the hope of eternal life. But lets just say I'm wrong and in the end there is nothing, the worst I've done is live every day with meaning, purpose and hope. What do you live for? Can you admit that not believing in God means that life is meaningless. To go through each day knowing it doesn't matter what you do, good or bad because in the end there is nothing anyway. I am glad I don't live like that anymore.
You are exactly right about not looking at this physical reality to solve our spiritual problems. If we could we wouldn't need God, and it doesn't take Einstein to see that we as humans have done a pretty good job at screwing things up. We have made industrial progress but people are still spiritually bankrupt and there is no human wisdom that can solve it.
As for sin, if you don't think there is such a thing as sin' try not to sin and you will see just how real it is
Thank you for your time,
By the way my name is Kevin. The title says anonymous because I am new to blogging and haven't figured it out yet.
Kevin: "By reading some of these comments I see that many of you have little Biblical understanding or knowledge of Christ and what it truly means to be a Christian."
Kevin, if you believe that the comments, of which I am part of the "many" as you explain, that you have viewed on this site, appear to portray me as an abecedarian on the subject of the Christian religion, I challenge you to provide information that seems to have been missed during my university studies, and thousand plus hours of personal research... I suppose, I am more aggravated than angry, that people can make presumptions so easily, but then, typically from what I have experienced, the same people are also typically the ones to accept presuppositions blindly...
Kevin: "What is your answer for a world filled with hopelesness?"
Okay, now I'm angry... Who gave you the authority to anthropomorphically wrap my life, with your depraved world views... I understand you are programmed to believe we all live a hopeless life, but... personally, I have a qualitative life, and don't need the co-dependence of someone or some religion, to tell me if I am, or am not, living according to "their" standards for a "meaningful" life... A person who requires someone to tell them whether they have a meaningful life, is indeed hopeless, as they have no autonomous Individuality... that's beyond hopeless, that just sad...
Kevin: "If you don't think people have a soul then you have to reduce every emotion, thought, personality, and most importantly love, to just the result of neurons and electrical impulses randomly firing that have no meaning whatsoever."
Meaning in my life, is decided upon the decisions, I make in this life as an Individual, and the impact of those decisions on the homeostatic balance it provides me, and the whole of humanity of which I am a part...
Kevin: "I like to think life is a little more meaningful than that."
Truly, and... what per se, gives you meaning in life... is it the goal that you reach for, that has been handed to you by someone you trusted as a child, or as an adult in search for a solution for an unmet need... If it is, You as an Individual don't have a meaning... you are defined by someone elses' "meaning", and you chose to allow this, and willingly "measure" your progress toward their standard... Your lack of autonomy and ability to reach intellectually beyond the need for "other" people to "guide" you, removes you as an "authority" for judging "meaning" for those, who are capable of defining their personal "meaning" autonomously...
Kevin: "I like to think there is a reason to exist."
Please rephrase... you appear to allude that if one doesn't hold a religious view... then there obviously is no "meaningful" existence to be obtained... Kind of shallow, or do I read this wrong...
Kevin: "I believe in the hope of eternal life."
Nothing wrong with "hoping" and "wishing", if its a personal truth in ones' life... Personally, I want to retire, and travel, but... that's coming from someone who is obviously leading a Meaningless life...
Kevin: "But lets just say I'm wrong and in the end there is nothing, the worst I've done is live every day with meaning, purpose and hope."
Again, your "meaning, purpose, and hope", was "given" to you by another person, via some medium, either verbal or written... You have chosen to have "faith" in that "medium", and not in the "self" first... You have lived a life, for someone else, not your Self, and... that's your choice, however, I see trying to persuade Others to live their lives by evading total mental and intellectual "autonomy" as a gross disservice to the quality of life for that Individual, as they can not become as Maslow put it... "all they can be", they are stuck living a "limited" life, based on the beliefs of "another" person...
Kevin: "What do you live for?"
I live for happiness, care, and joy... peace, and harmony is how I reach these physical states of being... I do this by Self introspection, of "Personal" Values, and the affects they have on my life... and not by mandated "Values", given by a "second" party...
Kevin: "Can you admit that not believing in God means that life is meaningless."
You must be a pretty sad person, to not be able to live an Individual life... you are so co-dependent on God, that you can't phathom the idea that life can hold meaning without a supernatural god... So, no, I don't admit that "my" life is limited by your view of a metaphysical/supernatural god, that would be tragic for me personally to lower my self esteem to the point, that I have to be defined by some extrinsic factor...
Kevin: "To go through each day knowing it doesn't matter what you do, good or bad because in the end there is nothing anyway."
Hey Kevin, those who live for "today", and Value this "Life" know they will be immediately judged in the here and now accordingly... However, the religious view, is to do good and bad, and attempt to escape from social justice because they feel they will pay the price in the afterlife...
Obviously, you haven't read the bible in depth... if you do eventually take the time, look at the ten commandments per Exodus, and see if there are times in the bible where the commandments are broken, by your own god... Oh, and let me get you started... Thou shalt not murder/kill... Your god is the master of death and murder... Jesus murdered himself... If you aren't intelligent enough to read the bible, and need me to break out the ten commandments and how they obviously don't provide some "Absolute" moral guide, then I "may" take the time... However, it would obviously show your lack of will to know your own religious foundations...
Kevin: "I am glad I don't live like that anymore."
Well, if you needed structure in your life, because you weren't capable on innately knowing right from wrong, one could assert you need mental therapy, becuase, naturally, people know right from wrong... You moved your justification for doing bad things, to justification of a belief system with no evidence... If you consider lying to be a bad thing... then, what do you call it when someone poses a supernatural god as a "fact"... I call it "lying"... If lying were part of your previous lifestyle, that you considered bad, it doesn't appear you have moved too far, you have just shifted the object of your lies to supporting your belief... and... lets be honest... your belief garners you social benefits... therefore, you are lying for tangibles... If you hold these beliefs personally, and don't attempt to "persuade" others with lies, then no harm, no foul... however, the minute you attempt to "persuade" Others to believe your god is a "fact", is a "lie"...
Kevin: "You are exactly right about not looking at this physical reality to solve our spiritual problems."
Uh, I don't believe the metaphysical/supernatural realm exists, as by definition the Meta(beyond)physical can not be measured either quantitatively or qualitatively while existing in this natural reality... Therefore, if onw asserts they actually "exist" in this "natural" reality... they disavow the existence of the supernatural or metaphysical... Now, one can "hope", and have "faith" that the "rules" of logic and reason we have as humans are "flawed" in order for there to "exist" a dual reality (duality)... but that's banking that we as humans are "defective"... However, logic rears its head again, and says, if we are Naturally defective, then how does anyone know "anything"... to include a supernatural god... at this point... we'ed all have to claim agnosticism if truly honest... However, we both know, religions say everyone is "defective" but... religious leaders are "more" than mortal, because they "Know" the "Truth" and are able to lead the "defective" others...
If you didn't get it, I am a methodological naturalist, I don't make claims whether a supernatural god or gods exist or don't exist... However, I live my life as if they didn't, until someone pulls one of those out of their hats... and I run the data through my "sound" and magnificent brain, that "I" own...
Kevin: "If we could we wouldn't need God, and it doesn't take Einstein to see that we as humans have done a pretty good job at screwing things up."
Religion has had the biggest negative impact on humanity, than "any" other organization I know of... Christianity, leading the way... And, yes, its amazing what people will do when they have no autonomy and are so easily and blindly led to accomplish the deeds of the few religious leaders, i.e., the pope, etc... and don't say you're not Catholic, your religion was rooted in Roman Catholicism, and someone, one "defective" person, passed on their wisdom to another "defective" person to create the religion you are a part of today...
Kevin: "We have made industrial progress but people are still spiritually bankrupt and there is no human wisdom that can solve it."
But here you are, as a human, trying to solve it... Do you find that odd? Do you find it odd, that there are others who also believe there are areas for improvement for humanity, but are more willing to live in the here and now, instead of "promising" people some "reward" after "death", if they adhere to a set standard, proclaimed by a few elitist religionists...
Kevin: "As for sin, if you don't think there is such a thing as sin' try not to sin and you will see just how real it is."
That made no sense... Define sin... Lying... is that sinful? If so, religion has made an "art" out of lying over the past few thousand years... as they tout their claims as Universal Absolute Truths...
Kevin: "Thank you for your time,"
Thank you for your time, and for the time of those who have had to endure this post...
Kevin: "By the way my name is Kevin. The title says anonymous because I am new to blogging and haven't figured it out yet."
There are definitely new changes on this site, and I am also getting used to the new "feel"... take it easy...
Abecedarian! Great word and great post!
"Oh, and let me get you started... Thou shalt not murder/kill... Your God is the master of death and murder... Jesus murdered himself..."
First time I have seen that observation. Jesus, being God was a murderer when he had himself killed to atone for sin.
Also the part about the bible being full of lies because it is trying to make people believe a bunch of stuff that was invented by men and has no substantiation or proof.
The more I read about the bible the more I realize that I am a better person than God!
Dano, I agree, the mixed nuts may indeed be preparing for a seige on this most revered virtual cloister... ;-) Oh, not only did God commit murder, but, it was pre-meditated murder :-) Jesus refused to keep the sabbath day holy, but we have plenty of nuts running around telling us, we need religion and to be in church... And God... is a self proclaimed omnipotent liar...
2 Thessalonians 2:11 - And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
What I really think, when I am told continuously that I must be out of my mind for not believing in the god of the bible...
"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones that need help?"--Mark Twain
Take care...
I quote your quote by Mark Twain.
"What I really think, when I am told continuously that I must be out of my mind for not believing in the god of the bible..."
"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones that need help?"--Mark Twain
Take care...
I am always amazed at how these "giants" of literature and science like mark Twain, Galaleo, Ingersoll, Voltaire, Payne, Franklin, and many others are able to see things so clearly in one sentence or one paragraph, that others can't figure out in a lifetime of profundity in writing.
I would like to thank you for pretty much validating my assertations. Although you may have studied the Bible and/or religion it seems to me there are some areas which I think you may be misunderstood. For someone who seems to be very intelligent I think you could have done better than the 6th commandment. It is easy to see all of the killing that plakes in the Bible and say that it contradicts "Thou shalt not kill," but you have to look a little bit deeper. Throughout the Bible God authorizes killing in certain situations whether it be an animal for sacrifice or a person who took someone elses life, in either case these death's are to provide ATONEMENT, which is what JESUS' death provided on the cross. The commandment refers to murder, which is unjustified killing. Now I will in no way try claim to be a Bible scholar. I have only been studying for about 3 years, and I will be the first to admit that I have much to learn. For example, before Joshua leads the Israelites into Canaan he is instructed by God to kill everyone. I have some thoughts on why, but by reading the rest of the Bible I rest in the faith that God's judgements are always righteous.
Now you claim that I am codependant and cannot rely on myself. To that I say Amen, you are exactly right. I depend totally on the Lord to guide me each day.
When I was talking about life being meaningless and hopeless I was referring to the overall existence rather than day to day living. Sure you can find hope and meaning in your family your day to day activities, your friends, I take joy in those things as well. I also do not want give the false impression that as a Christian, life is grand and all the stop lights are green. I go through the same struggles as everybody else and since giving my life to Christ I probably have more questions now than ever before. However I no longer have to wonder about the eternal.
The hopelesness I was referring to is that if you don't believe in after life than by definition you have no hope for something greater after you die. Can you agree with that?
You also quote Mark Twain. I am going to speculate so please forgive if I'm wrong, but I assume that you believe in evolution(if not I would like to know your opinion on origin). That takes way more faith than believing in a creator. To think that an explosion occured and then wow, here is this system of planets rotating around a heat source(lucky for us we are at the perfect distance to sustain life). Then after millions of years an Amoeba crawled out of the ocean,(lucky for us it could breathe water and air)and then a couple of cycles later here we are. The problem is DNA, since DNA is a form of information you would have to assert that at some point information randomly occured from matter(which has never been shown to be able to happen). Once again,I will not claim to be a scientist, I'll just stick with believing there is a creator.
Once again I could not agree with you more that religion has a scarred history and the church has things to be ashamed of. If you look at what Jesus had to say to the Pharisees you will see that he condemns religous leaders for being corrupt and misleading others. You are also wrong to say that Christianity is rooted in Catholicism. It wasn't until the 4th century that Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of Rome. The Bible was complete most scholars say by 90 A.D.(when I say complete I mean all the books were written they were yet to be compiled). That means that the gospel was being spread for about 400 years before the Catholic religion started to form. I cannot disregard the major impact Catholicism has had on Christianity I just want to show that it is another example of what can happen if you take the the focus off of Christ(whom is the one we are to follow, not the church). Regardless of all of that, no matter what people in the church have done to give Christ a bad name, that doesn't change who Christ is or the fact that we will stand individually before God and not be judged according to what others have done.
Lastly, as a naturalist do you believe in moral relativity? If so, than who gets to decide what is right and wrong, each person? That would actually void right and wrong because each person could justify his own behavior by saying, "It's right for me."
If you don't believe in moral relativity than that would presuppose a standard of morals. From whom I ask would these morals come from?
Once again I thank you for your time. I enjoy these discussions
Kevin
First off, please click on the little radio button that says "OTHER." Then you can type in a name, any name, like even Kevin, then you wouldn't keep coming up as anonymous. Isn't that neat?
Now as to your comment: "each person could justify his own behavior by saying, "'It's right for me,'" I've got news for you anony, um, er, Kev - that's exactly what everyone has always done, regardless of any religious affiliations. We all do what WE THINK is right. Some of us justify it by saying "GOD COMMANDS IT." Others justify it other ways.
It doesn't matter if you never masturbate and I wack off 7 times a day. It just doesn't matter - until either you or I start hurting other people with our opinions on masturbation. If I start teaching the neighborhood children how to do it, then I think most of the parents would try to see me locked away. It has nothing to do with any mystical "RIGHT AND WRONG," it has to do with parents protecting their children. If I kill someone in self-defense, then I'm not found guilty of any crime or of any wrong doing. However, if I kill someone out of anger, or jealousy, or just plain meanness, then guess what? I get the chair - or a real long vacation in prison.
Right is not harming another - wrong is harming another.
Who says? The OTHER!
I would say that if I try to harm you, you'll have a strong feeling that it's just not right. Likewise if you try to harm me, I betcha, I not going to think it's a good idea.
Absolutism made slavery legal, burned witches, tortured Jews and Muslims and anyone that didn't have the exact right CHRISTIAN doctrine, kept medicines from advancing, and tried to stifle science for over 1000 years.
Absolutism is wrong - it's wrong because it harmed millions of people for hundreds of years.
Again now, remember to check out that little radio button that says "other."
I know you directed your comments toward the webmaster, but I'd like to answer them too, if you don't mind. I'm going to restrict my comments to the "scientific" statements you made, although I think most of what you said can be debunked rather easily.
Kevin: "...I assume that you believe in evolution...."
That's a very bizarre question! I can't imagine one scientist asking another "do you believe in evolution", as if were a deity of some sort. My answer: I believe that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the available evidence, so I *believe* that it is the most likely explanation for a great many observations. That is a dramatically different statement than professing "belief in" evolution, which generally connotes a level of confidence that exceeds the evidence, or exists independent of evidence (i.e. irrational).
Kevin: "That takes way more faith than believing in a creator."
That's about the millionth time I've heard that, and it's just as wrong now as it was the first 999,999 times. First, please explain to me what could POSSIBLY be more fantastic than an *infinitely* powerful transcendent invisible being. Even if the theory of evolution posited the spontaneous assemblage of countless atoms (which it categorically does not), how could that even be in the same league as *god*? And how would you go about objectively comparing the two scenarios in any case?
By the way, your question, and your use of the word "faith" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the status of scientific ideas. Theories require and deserve NO faith whatsoever. The moment they fail to accord with observed facts, they become questionable (at best), and are eventually relegated to the scrap heap. Is that the way you feel about your god? Are you willing to throw him out as soon as you encounter difficulties with the concept?
Kevin: "To think that an explosion occured and then wow, here is this system of planets rotating around a heat source(lucky for us we are at the perfect distance to sustain life)."
I take it you have never had the privilege of seeing computer simulations of galaxy formation. The marvelous thing about science is that seemingly complex phenomena can often be beautifully explained by relatively simple underlying laws. The inverse square law (of gravitation) coupled with theories of stellar evolution nicely explain the large-scale structures we see in the universe. Of course, there remain many open questions, but to think that it somehow requires "faith" to believe that planetary systems can arise from natural processes in absurd. What it requires is *hard work* to discover the underlying principles.
As for being "lucky", that's a fallacy. It's akin to saying "It sure is lucky that that big bolder over there has a mountain under it, otherwise it would come crashing down." You confuse *highly correlated* events with random events; the same fallacy is beneath most creationist claptrap.
Kevin: "Then after millions of years an Amoeba crawled out of the ocean,(lucky for us it could breathe water and air)and then a couple of cycles later here we are."
I'm sorry, but that's so puerile it's not worthy of a response.
Kevin: "The problem is DNA, since DNA is a form of information you would have to assert that at some point information randomly occured from matter(which has never been shown to be able to happen)."
Define "information". If you can do that, you'll need to publish it in a prestigious scientific journal, because it's been a vexing problem for centuries. But, putting that aside, you claim that it has "never been shown... to happen". Where did you get that idea? Under any intuitive definition of information that I am aware of, it can and *has* been shown to occur. In fact, it's almost trivial to show that "information" can be discovered by random chance, both in biological organisms and via computer simulations (e.g. artificial evolution, genetic algorithms, Monte Carlo algorithms, etc.).
Kevin: "Once again,I will not claim to be a scientist, I'll just stick with believing there is a creator."
No, you clearly have very little scientific interest at all. If you had, you would have examined your statements critically and discovered that they are merely a bunch of unfounded assertions and ill-defined concepts. There's nothing wrong with believing in a creator; that's your right. But if you think this somehow enables you to leap to profound scientific conclusions using nothing but gut-feel and naive intuition, then you are sorely mistaken.
Like I said before, I am not a scientist, but tell me where I go wrong here. Science is available to everybody and the laws and physical properties of our universe apply whether or not the person analyzing the data is a Christian or not. What I'm saying is that the scientist who is an Evolutionist or the one who is a Creationist are both looking at the same data, just from different points of view. So an evolutionist would look at the universe and marvel, and try to figure out how it came to be, and a Creationist would look at the same universe and marvel at the awesome glory of God. Same universe, different points of view.
My question is this: Can something come from nothing? However a galaxy forms, what does it form from? Then what does that form from? I am not attempting to be sarcastic, it just seems to me that as you continue to go backwards there must be a starting point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the law of Entropy?, that we are continually heading toward randomness. Again, please correct me if I am misunderstood.
I have no problem with what you just said. Yes, of course people can reach different conclusions, even if the same data is available to them. But that's NOT what you said before. You said "That takes way more faith than believing in a creator", which implies that there is LESS evidence in support of evolution than creation. I think the latter assertion is absurd.
Kevin: "My question is this: Can something come from nothing?"
Yes, millions of times per second, in every square inch of space. Look up vacuum fluctuations, or "virtual particles". The effect is well-known, has a solid theoretical foundation, and can be observed in the laboratory. Many physically observed phenomena conflict with naive intuition, which is precisely why armchair speculation about cosmology and biology are of little to no value.
Kevin: "However a galaxy forms, what does it form from? Then what does that form from?"
I'm not sure your question is even meaningful, as it implies that matter DID "form" from something else, and it also implies a temporal ordering (i.e. there was a "time" before matter existed). Those assumptions are deeply rooted in our innate macroscopic views of the world, and they break down (if modern theories are correct) under extreme conditions, just like practically every other "intuitive" concept.
But, to keep this discussion simple, I'll just answer the question as if it were well-posed. Here is my answer: "I don't know". Now, please tell me what you can conclude from the fact that I do not know. Does that mean "god exists"?
Kevin: "...as you continue to go backwards there must be a starting point."
As you sit there, simulating the entire universe in your brain, according to the intuition you (and your ancestors) have built up by interacting with teacups, tennis rackets, and the family dog, you fancy that you can somehow arrive at a profound cosmological insight. Is that right? Are you also able to see the implications of time dilation, or general relativity, or quantum tunneling? I suspect not, for the simple reason that these things violate our naive intuition.
Kevin: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the law of Entropy?, that we are continually heading toward randomness."
You mean the second law of thermodynamics (SLT)? That is a *descriptive* law that, as yet, has never been observed to be broken (so it's "robust" in that sense). However, to put it simply, nobody has a clue whether it applies to the entire universe, nor whether a singularity (such as the Big Bang) can violate it. For all we know, it's a "law" that arose from some kind of symmetry breaking as the universe cooled (and other symmetries were broken, such as those uniting the fundamental forces).
Bottom line: You simply *cannot* expect to reach profound cosmological conclusions by consulting your intuition, nor by trotting out some elementary principle or law. It's nowhere near that simple, as 20'th century physics has demonstrated time and again.
First off, the "sun" is a god damned STAR---there's bazillions of them, so shut-the-f%ck up about "odds". Secondly, I live in Florida, and on any given day I can see some elderly person walking around with half a nose or only one flippin' ear because "the earth is the perfect distance from the sun." Lastly, if you live up north, I would ask you to please conserve energy during the winter and STOP using your heaters!!!!Why?..because "the earth is the perfect distance from the sun", of course....::eye roll::...
Perhaps, the only insight I can provide will come in the form of philosophy... What we are describing in epistemological foundations for "knowledge"... In short, what is knoweldge... and can someone have a belief without knowledge... Further, is it irrational to have a belief, without knowledge...
"Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori). Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
If we were to take this definition literally, and you accepted the terms... It means, that one need "experience", or "learn", a posteriori (after events take place), or "introspectively", a priori (before events take place)... We use a posteriori and apriori processes to formulate what are facts and truths...
There are two types of truths... personal, and Universal...
Personal truths, are garnered based on a persons' mental disposition, which rests on physiological and psychological foundations which are influenced by social environment...
Universal truths, are different, they require validation from more than one person, and in consistent terms - usually quantifiable terms... When a Universal Absolute Truth is asserted, it means, that the truth, has no exceptions to the rule, from past, to present, or to the future... For instance, thou shalt not murder/kill, is obviously not a Universal Absolute Truth, as murder/killing has occurred numerous times throughout the bible... Therefore, the bible does not hold an Absolute moral law... The way you explained Murdering/Killing in the bible places it in the realm of subjective morality... subjective, because one can choose to murder someone else, based on how they interpret the context of the bible... Now, of course "you" may not take the bible as the Universal Absolute Truth, literally... however, there are many who do... pointing out the absurdity of an absolute moral code in the bible, was the point I was making earlier... Does that remove "laws" in general from society? No...
However, do you ever wonder why there are judges... I would surmize a guess, that they are there because of the grayness of laws, and becuase they along with the entire judicial branch of the government know, that there are very few dichotomous cases, i.e., cut and dry, either right or wrong, and no mitigating circumstances... Probably has to do with determinism I would suspect... a child is abused (cause), they get in fights at school (effect), and they end up in the principles office being judged on a minor scale, no pun, and a fair judge would take into acccount the past of the child, in order to render a just verdict, whether it be rehab, etc...
Do I as a Methodological Naturalist have moral degeneration because of my views, based on relativism? Fair question... I don't believe in Absolutes, there is only one I "know" of based on a postpriori experience, and that's "Change" (and its not 100% fact, there is the remote possibility that a reductionist will one day break down matter to particles that are in a static state)... Aside from that, I have "Values", which found my personal truth... In chronological order, the Value of "Life" is at the top of the list... The U.S. judicial system is based on those few inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... If a person affects another persons' rights, laws are created and people charged with crime... The U.S. legal system has gone through some serious changes over the past few hundred years to include civil rights, etc., to ensure the inalienables were being supported, as previously, slavery, etc., was surely not in accord with those inalienables...
So, how do I perceive morality... easy, don't tread on Other peoples' inalienable rights, the right to "Life" being at the top of the list... I suppose my values seem to initially line up with the U.S. legal system, fascinating...
Now, do I consider it amoral for someone to commit suicide, or overdose on drugs and die, etc... I would be infringing on another persons' right to liberty, if I were to impose my beliefs on them, in my humble opinion... In India not so long ago, some religions partook of a ritual where deceased people were burned... not so bad, I mean we have cremation also... However, if a male was married, and they outlived their wife, their "wife" got thrown on the fire while alive also... Do I think that amoral? Or, is it the right of the invididual to make choices in life, which ultimately "only" affect themselves... I don't want to speculate on this topic too long, this is just a matter of personal truths, and I know mine, and the Values they reside on... I don't necessarily align my Values with those of religion however, and is a point of contention... Murdering for Murder sake, violates my Value of "Life"...
You're religious obviously, therefore, you believe we all have "ghosts" inside us... Per the bible, God allowed Eve to Murder all of our souls... He sat back, watched Eve get tempted, and allowed all of humanity to be damned for eternity... Now, this poses a twist...
Scenario; A woman who has a baby or is within seconds/minutes of conceiving a baby wants to commit suicide, or kill her baby before commiting the act... do I think that is moral... No... She is removing another beings "Life", by imposing her power over that helpless being...
Now, your God, "according to religion" on the other hand, had no problem allowing Eve to spiritually murder billions upon billions of people, until the entire human race disappears... Your God, whatever his reasoning/justification is in direct opposition of my primary Value, "Life"...
Your God murdered his own son, or himself, in theory for a greater cause... Because he is speculated to be all powerful, he "chose" to allow murder to occur... as he could have prevented the act, if indeed he were all powerful... your God, as an all powerful being, "Intentionally" murdered his own son... If you are going to postulate that your God is not all powerful, I will chalk up a different argument, but until then... The God of the OT, as opposed to the God of the NT, Murdered his own son, for Greater Glory...
Personal morality is based on the truths we hold, through a priori reasoning, and a postpriori knowledge... Your beliefs, and even your "religion", is based on "a priori" knowledge, you "hope" for the future to provide you something that you have not yet "experienced"... I on the other hand, base my Values and "knowledge" on a postpriori experiences...
What you "believe" a fact, using a priori introspection, I call, hypotheticals, and stating you have a well founded "Knowledge" of anything using "a priori" processing is suspect, until the concept is pulled into this natural world, and others can view the "knowledge" universally... Until you do, you have a personal truth... and pardon, but... in my humble opinion, I don't call a priori cognitive processing "knowledge"... In short, "Knowledge" wants to be put into "action", and "tied" to observable attributes in our Natural environment... I can think of Santa Clause all day long, but until St. Nick shows up and becomes "anchored" somehow to this natural environment, I can't truly "know" of him, I can however, "Guess" what he "May" be like... I mean, using my natural environment, to create the image of Santa Clause, how I am to "Really" 'Know" Santa... as, I haven't Experienced him...
For me, I base "Knowledge" predominately on "a postpriori" experiences, and reserve my "imagination" to postulate ways to manage matter, processes, etc., that all are connected and anchored in this natural universe, in short, I cognitively model the natural universe in my mind, using diagraming models, mathematics, patterns, etc...
The only exception to using my "imagination" where there is no "total" grounding is when I read fantasy books, or watch sci-fi movies for entertainment... but of course, I apply what I read, or view to this natural universe... I don't accept that Harry Potter is real, because the events that are portrayed in the movie, are not something I have "a postpriori" knowledge of... I am an empiricist, I need experience, its how I am cognitively mapped...
If someone says they have "Knowledge" of a metaphysical object, because they have persuaded themselves to "believe" in the object... I don't consider their belief to have any universal meaning... in short, its all in that persons' head, and their head alone... The second one can pull that thought out into this natural environment, it then becomes "experience" to more than one person, and experienced through more than just a cognitive premonition...
Religion, rests its head on Absolutes... and is therefore, absurd... it then moves toward using Natural experience to persuade others that there is more to their experiences in this natural life, than their natural senses tell them... again, no evidence, purely persuasion without evidence... You stated earlier that the same Natural evidence can be viewed in two different ways by two different people... Sure, but... one is making more out of the evidence, than the evidence supports... and that is dishonest... Using "knowns", to create or establish "Unknowns" as facts, as religion does, is not honest...
Why are the tetonic plates still moving on earth and volcanos spewing lava?
All of these should not be happening if god created things as they are in 6 days. What is the pupose of change?
The Bible has answered the question. It has shown that Hades, Sheol or hell is the common grave of mankind. At the resurrection hell gives up its dead. God destroys hell, for it is cast into the “lake of fire.” Gehenna represents the state of destruction that lasts forever and ever. There is no hope of a resurrection for those in Gehenna. So the fiery hells are only pagan hells. The Bible hell (Sheol-Hades) is not hot, but is the dark, silent grave.
If you have any question on the Bible, please send it to me at my email address.
Hey, berk, most Jews believe that "NO ONE" stays in Gehenna for more than 12 months, which accounts for their period of mourning... If someone sends you an e-mail, I hope they aren't looking for unbiased information...
You said, "if God indeed created everything perfect there would be no need for change. I am very dissapointed, you said you have thousands of hours of personal research and university studies. Yet you seem to have missed one of the utmost Biblical foundations.
God absolutely created everything perfect(Gen 1:31). However after man sinned the fall occured in 4 ways. Man was separated from God when he hid himself(Gen 3:8), man was separated from each other(Gen 3:12,13), man was separated from the Earth which is now cursed(Gen 3:17,18), and man was separated from himself(this info is paraphrased from Josh McDowell's "Answers to tough questions skeptics ask about the Christian faith"). The Bible clearly shows that the world is damaged because of sin and the only way to repair it is through Christ. And if there is any doubt as to whether or not God believes in change I'll let the Lord speak for himself when he says in John 3:3, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Not only does God believe in change he requires it.
I am sure you have plenty of knowledge about the history of religion, and as I said before I am in agreement with you that many horrible things have been done in the name of religion. However, Christianity does not stand because of religious concepts. It stands solely on the credentials of Jesus Christ. If Jesus is not who he says he is, then as Paul said in I Cor 15:19, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable." But if Jesus is who he says he is "the way, the truth, and the life"(John 14:6) shouldn't we trust in him?
"The Bible clearly shows that the world is damaged because of sin and the only way to repair it is through Christ. And if there is any doubt as to whether or not God believes in change I'll let the Lord speak for himself when he says in John 3:3, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Not only does God believe in change he requires it."
Could you provide examples of were god requires change in the universe for "man's sins".
According to the bible, he may ask that a person be re-born, but what has that have to do with super novas, black holes, etc? Why is the universe not static? but under constant change?
"The Bible clearly shows that the world is damaged because of sin..."
Please elaborate!
The Bible says in Gen 1:31 that everything God made was good. After sin, the Earth was cursed(Gen 3:17) and began to change. Everything we know about our world is from a post-curse perspective, we don't know what the celestial conditions were before the fall, so I do't know why there are still super-nova's.
As far as I know God does not require the universe to change, it changes because of sin. for example, there wasn't even rain on the Earth until the time of Noah(Gen 2:5), that means that something like rain which is a neccessity for us is actually the result of man's sin. However,
Rev 22:2,3 says that when Jesus return's, the leaves from the tree of life will be for the healing of the nations and there will be no more curse. So, the Earth was perfect, then cursed, then it will be redeemed.
I am completely in awe at how unlimited our minds are. I don't think we will ever stop searching for answers to things we don't understand. Sometimes though, I believe it can be to our detriment if we let the unknowable burden us too heavily. Romans 11:33 says, "O'h the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgement's and His ways past finding out!"
So, whenever I get perplexed or overwhelmed at trying to understand why some things in this world are so unexplainable I take comfort at what Jesus says in Matt 11:28, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
I thank God for that rest!
Kevin
"I am completely in awe at how unlimited our minds are."
I am completely in awe also at how unlimited our (human) minds are, given the text of the bible. Some imagination I'll say!
"So, whenever I get perplexed or overwhelmed at trying to understand why some things in this world are so unexplainable"
Thats right, hide under a rock and not use logic, reason and intelligence to learn! If the medical community had your philosophy, we would still be living just like your imaginary friend jesus. Just think no medicine for bacterial infections. No hospitals and the average age of humans would return to ~35 to 40 years old.
Also, no electricity, etc. Oh why not go live with the Amish, they have been overwhelmed with modern times that they reject all that they do not understand. I praise Ben Franklin for not completely understanding lightning and having the balls to experiment and discover electricity. Otherwise people like you would swear that the bolts were from an angry god, like Zeus! At least Zeus gave a fuck about humans and took pity upon them unlike his cousin Jehova, Elohim, Yahway or Allah (take your pick).
The problem is, it is all make believe. Again, I'll refer to what you said; "I am completely in awe at how unlimited our minds are."
Here is what you consider to be the first drops of rain on earth. Please read (you do know how to read, right?) all 11 pages.
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab1.htm
And those "credentials" are established by what/whom? The Bible, right?
Kevin: "If Jesus is not who he says he is,..."
You mean if Jesus is not who the anonymous gospel writers claim he is. There is no way of telling for sure how much, if any, of the gospel saying were ever uttered by Jesus, nor whether there even was such a man. (You realize that Paul never quoted Jesus, nor seemed to know much of anything about him as a human being, right?)
Kevin: "...then as Paul said in I Cor 15:19, 'If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.'"
I think it's "most pitiable" for people to structure their lives around religious myths. Paul was a religious zealot, just like the founders of countless other religions. Why not listen to Muhammad and worship the "one true god" of Allah? Why did you choose to believe what Paul had to say?
Kevin: "...But if Jesus is who he says he is 'the way, the truth, and the life' (John 14:6) shouldn't we trust in him?"
Yep. If he was actually god in the flesh, you bet; we should bow to him and follow his every command. But, now let's ask another hypothetical: If Krishna is the one true god, should we not worship him? The answer would have to be "yes", wouldn't it? Now, the ten-ton elephant in the room is this question: WHICH, IF ANY OF THEM, IS A *REAL* DEITY?
Later Kevin said "...whenever I get perplexed or overwhelmed at trying to understand why some things in this world are so unexplainable I take comfort at what Jesus says in Matt 11:28, 'Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.'"
What's wrong with saying "I don't know"? Those have got to be the three most underutilized words in the world, especially among religionists.
But if one admits the Nazis did wrong, that person admits that there is a higher law that transcends the provincial and the transient. My question, what is that higher law?
Values are developmentally understood, babies don't have knowledge, but they innately try to survive at the earliest stages of fetal development...
anonymous 12/11/2005 10:52 PM: "Value is nothing more than what one likes or dislikes, one's approvals or disapprovals."
A child lives according to natural instinct, until they reach a point between birth and 6/7 years old, where their values are learned from their caregivers/environment, and based on cause-effect to their state of being... at this point, a "child" doesn't have "autonomous" values, they are living according to their programming...
anonymous 12/11/2005 10:52 PM: "Are the horrors of the Nazis during WWII nothing more than one's individual approval or disapproval?"
It depends on "who" you ask...
anonymous 12/11/2005 10:52 PM: "Is it purely subjective?"
Theoretically, there is "no" purely objective response, when describing matters of humanity and behavior... there are "correlations"... between the individual, and the "mean" belief of a society... because there are no purely Objective laws, we have "judges" who preside over courts to make decisions based on scenarios, that are "never" the exact same...
anonymous 12/11/2005 10:52 PM: "Or in their atrocities were the Nazis guilty of real (objective) moral wrong? If yes, what law did they violate? Law of U.S.A.? Law of England? Or some other law? If the Nazis are guilty of real, objective moral wrong, that entails an objective standard. If there is no higher law, a law which rises above what is involved in a certain locality during a certain period of time, by which the conduct of individuals or societies may be correctly judged as either morally right or morally wrong, then it's false and wrong to say the Nazis actually did real wrong with their concentration camps and the murder of six million human beings.
But if one admits the Nazis did wrong, that person admits that there is a higher law that transcends the provincial and the transient. My question, what is that higher law?"
The forefathers of the U.S. didn't pick out a Higher Law according to some "SuperNatural" power, as if... They went back to the "Basic" instinctual nature we act upon, which is survival... Therefore, they determined there to be "certain" inalienable rights upon birth, survival being at the top of the list... therefore, they concluded "life", the "liberty" to be free from physical oppression, and the freedom from intellectual persuction which leads to "happiness" to be the basic rights of citizens...
The U.S. Constitution is the Higher Law in the U.S., and is based on inalienable "rights"... Other nations may have their own foundations, and the right to lead separate and sovereignly, until they allow their citizens or national influence to attack another nation based on its own understanding of higher law...
Therefore, the higher law, if one wanted to argue for arguments' sake, would be "Nature" and the instinctive and innately act of survival... I'm almost positive that the religious attribute this higher law to some "spiritual law", with "zero" foundation...
Perhaps, that is why there is "natural" law practiced in the U.S., along with "common" law, which is based on custom, religious custom/culture to be precise...
When the religiously uneducated, attempt to take their "beliefs" based on custom, and there are thousands of different "views" based on religious custom, and attempt to make some binding law, it gets to be a little ridiculous... Whereas a religious moron would suggest "life" is valuable because a book says so, there are others who believe that "life" is Naturally understood and "valuable", and there isn't a need for a battle of the bibles, to figure it out...
Speaking of common law, if the U.S. justice system were totally based on comon law, we would be able to cite the bible and commit murder based on "exceptions" to the rule, one being, blasphemy of god per the bible... I mean, if one wanted to really look at the bible, Jesus allowed Judas to facilitate his death... a precedent for "euthanasia"... I wonder why Dr. Kavorkian finally got slapped in prison for following the same principle... probably had something to do with Natural Law...
I have a question. Of the following statements, which one(s) is (are)true:
1) A woman was on earth before any human baby.
2) A human baby was on earth before any woman.
Or are or both statements or one of the statements false?
I'll give a one-word answer, then elaborate: "Phylogeny", or the historical development of an organism. One often hears the false dichotomy of "absolute moral law" vs. "personal whim" being bandied about by religionists, but this deftly ignores any innate sense of right and wrong that is built up in the same way that wasps have learned to build elaborate nests, and ants have learned to enslave lesser creatures; i.e. through the development of successful survival strategies over millions of generations.
Do I disdain rape and murder because "god made it so", or because it's a personal whim? No, neither. I disdain those things for the very same reason that you do, and most human being on this Earth do; they are reprehensible to me because that is the way I am "wired" as a typical, highly social, human being, AND because this innate disdain has been reinforced through my upbringing and exposure to countless intellectual arguments in favor of peaceful coexistence.
Adding to the confusion that many religionists exhibit over this point is a common misunderstanding of Darwinism; they conflate "survival of the fittest" with promoting evil totalitarian regimes (with the Nazis being most commonly cited). This is extremely naive at many levels. First, "survival" can be, and often is, most successfully attained through *cooperation*, not domination. In fact, such totalitarian regimes are routinely toppled by the much more stable alliances based on cooperation, which are de facto more "fit". Second, the principle is in no way normative; one cannot deduce what "ought" to be true from it. Third, the principle only applies to characteristics that affect the gene pool over vast stretches of time.
Moreover, simply stating one's strong preference for an "absolute" system of morals in no way makes the latter more likely. Even if we all agreed that it would be far better to have an absolute and unambiguous system of justice, that is completely irrelevant when it comes to the questions of what we actually HAVE. Nature, so far as I can tell, is under no obligation to deliver what we prefer to have.
Lastly, I see absolutely no evidence for there being moral "absolutes" that exist outside of the human mind. Moral ambiguities abound, and they will keep courts of international law busy in perpetuity. While there is strong sociological evidence for some basic innate principles that are common to all humanity, even a casual observer can see that these simple "heuristics" quickly lead to conundrums that have no clear answer, and over which people are sharply divided.
In summary: 1) What you offer is a false dichotomy, as you ignore innate tendencies, which appear to be the *real* bedrock of morality, and are explainable in natural terms, 2) Regardless of what we deem preferable, we must look at the *evidence* in order to ascertain what *is* the case, and 3) nobody has been able to articulate a universal moral code that consistently and unambiguously allows us to resolve our differences, for even within a given religious sect there is sharply divided opinion.
For all of these reasons, I believe there is no such thing as an "absolute" moral law; i.e. one that exists outside of the human mind.
You could say a sub human female primate gave birth to the first human.
In order to know which birth that was, you would have to have an exact definition a human. Since this is impossible, you would never get any two people to agree on which sub human female primate, gave birth to the first "Human Mutant."
That's a ridiculous question, couched in the same ridiculous *absolute* language that most religious claptrap indulges. (It also makes the unwarranted assumption that the god of the Bible is the same as the god revealed through nature, if indeed both actually exist, but I'll leave that aside for now.) Let me re-phrase the question so that it can be answered simply and directly:
Question: Who will explain why you do not believe in the god that is proclaimed in the Bible?
See the difference? Your statement hinges on (presumably absolute/infinite) *knowledge*, whereas mine is a request for one's *reasons* for not accepting a fantastic claim. Phrased in the more reasonable way, the query has a very succinct answer:
Answer: There is no credible evidence to support that claim.
Elaborating on that some....
1) The Bible itself has no inherent authority as it fails to exhibit any credible evidence of having divine origin. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that it is the product of the human imagination, weaving together many existing mythical motifs from much more ancient religions, just like every other existing religious text. The so-called "fulfilled prophecies" all crumble when examined closely, as they rely on imaginative interpretations of older text, invented fulfillments, etc.
2) Christian dogma is replete with nonsensical and contradictory claims, such as the notion of atonement, the notion of the trinity, and original sin. Throw in the countless acts of wanton cruelty (rape, slavery, genocide, infanticide, deception, etc.) perpetrated and condoned by this supposedly infinitely merciful being, and stories of talking animals, a tower that reaches into heaven, Noah's ark, etc., and you have a belief system with all the credibility of a Brothers Grim fairy tale.
3) People the world over, in all cultures, since recorded history, have invented similar stories and believe them just as fervently as do those alive today who proclaim that THEIR god exists, and that THEIR holy book is the inspired work of god. As these stories are wildly different, they cannot all be true. This clearly shows man's capacity to deceive himself when it comes to invisible sentient beings, for which there is not a shred of credible evidence.
4) Every argument I have ever heard for the existence of god, or for the divine nature of a given holy text, has disintegrated on critical examination. Each one has been based on distortion of fact or fallacious reasoning.
Is that sufficient, or shall I go on?
yeh so knowledge we can presume is an integral part of ones interpretation of values. So to properly understand this he has used the example of a child. Knowledge is an ongoing build up of information. A child takes in this information from its surrounding, i.e parents, people. Therefore we presume that as the child is taking in knowledge in this way he is also absorbing the values that it is taught. (maturity) So what im saying is if your mother tells you off for taking something that is not yours then you take in the knowledge that it is no appropriate and then that knowledge becomes our values. In contrast primitive cultures have different values because they take in different information. So you can also say the age old debate that genitics AND ENVIRONMENT (environment means knowledge, which means values) both determaine the type of person with such values you will become. A test of two identical twins was taken, where both were seperated and risen differently by a french man. Different values were present like how people are unique and different because of their upbringing. I would also like to add that religion has a big part of escpecially western values. I like to think of it as a inheritance. Pre-Christian world (watch the movie alexander), was very different. Then christianity was introduced. When it was intoduced it was fed in to peoples homes, governments and ultimatelty their lives. Therefore is was passed down in time (those values) from generation to generation. I mean look at most western governments the laws reflect those values. Do you the ancient world had values for the education of every child in their empire? Im no expert by any means. I just have a theory, like many i am jst fuullll of question. P.S some ppl really like to diss my writing but hmm..kinda in a hurry to check spelling and everything. Peace.
Greetings, Mr. Anonymous. One's personal opinion is absolute to the person wielding the belief, if they have shut off all doors to reason and ability to adapt and learn..., a person then becomes absolutely brain dead, but hey, they're absolute in their ways...
And, No, there is no Universal Absolute Truth, besides Change known at this time... Hence, why its unnatural and uneducated for a person to say, that their "personal" truth is Universally True... Because of trial and error over the past few thousand years, democracy has shown to be the most adaptible framework for a changing society...
In some countries, its okay for a woman to marry multiple men, and in others for men to marry multiple women... its the inability of religion to adapt to changing values that makes it ridiculous... :-) take care...
Perhaps, it depends on the craftsmanship I suppose...
Anonymous: "Would you know that his natural hand was designed by an intelligent being? If not, why not?
Well, if a child was born with a deformed hand... I wouldn't call the creator intelligent, would you? Unless, the creator is deformed also... and then it would make perfect sense... cheers...
I saw Jesus on the side of a milk carton the other day, I wonder if they finally found him, the milk's over 2,000 years old.
Yes of course a prosthesis is designed by an intelligent being - or at least by a human being. Prosthetics don't naturally occur in nature - they are made in factories by people. We can observe this. We can go into a prosthetic factory and watch the process from start to finish.
If your ultimate point is to compare naturally occurring events and living things with man-made objects, then you are trying to compare proverbial apples to oranges. A better analogy might be that you are comparing automobiles with trees. We simply do not know exactly how a tree has developed into the form of life that it is. We cannot watch the process of how the tree developed - we may have reasonably reliable scientific theories or strong religious beliefs on how it happened, but we can't absolutely say how or even why a trees developed into their present form as opposed to any other optional plant form.
Human arms and prosthetic arms have nothing in common. A natural arm exists because it developed over eons of evolution. Most mammals don't have arms, so they are not an absolute necessity for being alive - they are quite useful though. A prosthetic arm exists because a person finds their arms useful and if an arm is lost for any reason, the person may want to try to replace it.
However, if any person has an appendectomy, we don't try to replace our appendixes because they are no longer useful.
Or if your supposition is that because a prosthetic has a purpose that proves it has a design and a natural arm has a purpose so that proves it has a design. Well, hurricane Katrina certainly must also have been designed because it certainly had a purpose right? That purpose undoubtedly was to kill, destroy property and afflict the wicked sons of men! Using your logic, Katrina raised hell with thousands of people, so that was its intended purpose. Praise be!
My point? Having the appearance of design in nature is a far cry from actually being designed by a thinking intelligent being, AKA God - who would also have to be an extremely complex entity with a purpose but who completely contradicts the whole "things that look designed need a designer" mentality because this god doesn't require a designer.
Why can't "ex-Christians and the like ever say something original instead of just quoting Depeche Mode and eachother. From Dave's description of Jesus it is apparent that you read the Bible not with the intention of discovery, learning, or exploration of any kind but simply to further your own argument. He tries to sound so smart as he blogs with his dictionary and thesaurus readily at hand, but the big words don't magically make sense of the way off base ramblings. The truth is there is truth and some people will simply miss it. But thankfully some of you "ex-Christians" will humble yourselves, abandon the flesh, and return to your God.
I'll let you know, when my skin falls off, and I have truly "abandoned"... is that like saying, "I was scared out of my skin?"... and return to my god, we were never introduced, so, there obviously will be no "reunion" anytime soon... perhaps, you can introduce your god that is unknowable to "me" for the first time... oh, and if your god has a jealous personality, let me know, I don't want to be eternally tortured based on his lack of security... thanks...
You quoted me:
"......oh, and before some evangelical nut reads this and says I'm gonna go to hell, let me add that I think that if God follows this site and reads everything we post, he must spend a lot of the time rolling on the floor, laughing his ass off!"
Anonymous said:
"Why can't 'ex-Christians and the like ever say something original instead of just quoting Depeche Mode and each other"
The quote in your post above WAS original, (mine), whereas your blog name (Anonymous) in your post wasn't.
What the fuck does, abandon the flesh, mean? Sounds like something from the Bible! What does, return to your God mean? Sounds like one of those meaningless Christian clichés. You, nor anyone else knows what God is!
Your: "The truth is, there is truth and some people will simply miss it," describes yourself to a tee.
There are people on this site who say ORIGINAL, logical, intelligent things, worth quoting, but so far you are not one of them!
Dano
P. S. You used the name of a "Rock Band," incorrectly, to describe a manner of quoting. (original, but stupid)
It's really painfully simple... You don't need to invoke any nonsense about being "self-caused". As always, I shall speak for myself, but I'm sure most will agree. Here it is:
I do not believe in your god for the simple reason that I've seen NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE FOR HIS EXISTENCE.
It's never ceases to amaze me how difficult that concept seems to be for religionists. It's just the same (I presume) for you and Zeus. You probably don't believe in Zeus because you've NO REASON to; there is no evidence or reasoning that has ever compelled you to believe in him, hence you do not. No metaphysical nonsense was necessary for you to reach that position, and clearly no *proof* of *non-existence* was needed either.
Does that make sense to you?
To quote an atheist: "If everything must have a cause, then God must have had a cause. If God had a cause, then He was not the first (or uncaused) cause. If God did not have a cause, then not everything must have a cause. If not everything needs a cause, then perhaps the universe is one of those things which also does not need a cause."
Again, I don't believe that God is self-caused. That's absurd. I believe He's uncaused. Also, I don't believe that everything must have a cause, but only that every effect must have a cause. An atheist might say, "everything has a cause." I say, "everything that begins has a cause." I believe that God is an uncreated (uncaused) Creator (cause).
If it's irrational to believe that God, who has no beginning, needs no cause, then atheism is also irrational. You see, many atheists believe that the universe
needs no cause, because it had no beginning. Unless an atheist calls the "big bang" the beginning.
The real question becomes, "what is eternal. God, or the universe?" If is is rational to believe that the universe could be eternal without a cause, then there can be no real argument against theists who insist that God is an eternal Being without cause. If it is irrational to accept this about God, then its is also irrational to accept the same idea about the universe. In other words, the objection cuts both ways.
Take care, and have a nice day.
The whole thing is making me abdomamous!
Merry synonymous to all and to all of the Anonymous's keep up the good fight!
You too, Dave, and Dave, and Carol, and Jim, and Jim, and John and freeman, and South, and Kevin Forever and ever, and Mutt Mutt, and all of us who are not able to hang on to that great security blanket in the sky any more, and just have to wing it with rational thought.
Oh! and I certainly didn't mean to exclude, Jezebel_in_a_Red_Teddy!
Me old china plate.
Thats Austra alien for M8.
Fairdink'm cobber.Check ya in the forums.
I'm of to fill me tucker bag with another jumbuck.
Struth the christian sheep are hard to tame.
Yet they will come a waltzing matilda with me.
I must admit, your "faith" is much greater than mine.
Take care.
Peer reviewed scientific evidence is what I look for. Almost no reputable scientist believes as you do. From what you say, you are still hiding every time it thunders because god is angry.
Nice. This sounds like a chant for a cult. Say something over and over till your own brain begins to fuzz and it all makes sense to you.
Now I'll be the first to admit that I don't know if there is a god or creator or not. But I know for a fact that there is no christian god, muslam god, or any other sort of god as described by man made books. Open your eyes and you will see this for yourself.
Anyway, other than that, you've got an okay site. I guess if someone was looking for this kind of information, this would be the place.
Gerald, I'd be fine and dandy with anyone who had a belief in something that I differed in or didn't believe in at all. The problem here is that these people are taking something that they believe and are trying to make the rest of us live by their beliefs.
Do not kid yourself, it is exactly what is happening. All thru history you find examples where religion has been used as a method to control, take from, and command anyone around them. Their methods appear docile and moral on the outside, but when left unchecked it often leads to violence and bloodshed. There is no place, no nation, and no race that does not have a history of violence involving religion.
People of religion would have you beleive that they are doing nothing to anyone, simply trying to spread the word. No harm no foul. But this is simply not true. From government to education to our daily lives, religious dogma and influence effect our world. It is something that has been saturated into our society so far that people really do not want to even contemplate giving it up.
Religion is a tool to control. People are inundated with the dogma for so long they simply cannot see that. People need a comfort zone, and for many it is the belief in something after life. I only wish these people would really look at what they THINK they are supporting. If they would only dig deeper and ask questions. I wager none of them take a bank loan or morgage without digging for all the answers first. Why is it they accept something as obviously false as religion? Because they want to and turn a blind eye.
But I digress. Fundies do not go follow the ideal of "live and let live". If this were true then why do they wage ware against homosexuals, athiests, science, other religions, and people who differ from them? They try and seed themselves into every aspect of life then cry foul when people try and stand against them.
It would be great if they went about their lives and didnt worry themselves over mine. But it doesnt work that way.
Honestly, take a look at this site. No one can refute the information here :
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
At best all they can do is stick their fingers in their ears and say "la la la la la".
Do you think that if I entered a church I would hear preaching?
You entered this website, and if you're reading some things you consider preachy, well - duh.
It's not "extreme lengths." It's just a website - a website aimed at those leaving Christianity.
Unfortunately, fundies can't resist dropping by and being offended. Personally, being told I am a vile sinner offends me, but that doesn't stop Christians from saying it over and over. If the site offends you, click off.
First of all: Thank you for this website. I used to believe in god but now i don't anymore, because there is no logical reason for me to do so. On the
other hand I can understand people who really think they got the truth. If I thought I did I would also want people to know it. Well, anyhow. My comment on Science vs. Creator is that Science can't be perfect yet, because it was opressed by christians for such a long time. christians had over 5000 years to find arguments for their believings. Science has been liberal for much less time. It cannot prove that there is no god, so far. But it can already proof,that the stuff written in the bible cannot be (literally) true and that god ( if there is one) is not the one described in the bible. Just give science a bit of time please, christians.
Oh, by the way: Values come from experience. Almost every kid touched a hot oven or sth else hot just to know how it is. Afterwards they didn't do it again, unless they were mentally ill. They had concluded: it hurts don't do it again. Thats called experience. Also people experienced that it hurts to lose someone you lose especially if someone else has killed the person. so they concluded: don't kill, it will only cause trouble. You can use this position of looking at it for many things in the bible. The first commandment by the way is only a smart way to make EVERYBODY do the other nine laws. Noone would react to laws made by a mortal person, but if you threat with some unprovable place called "scheol" you will make people do what you think is good. All I am saying: The bible has very good aspects, but it's a law book written by smart people and not by people inspired by god. And also today we can totally tell, that those people didn't know so mcuh about science as we do today.
Anyways, have a nice one!
Take it easy, Felden
95% of the worlds population believes in a god of some sort, while 5% believe we are suffering from some sort of mass hallucination(Matt M. Contact)
Here's an interesting question for all you evolutionists out there...
A key ingredient to the theory of evolution is the survival of the fittest, no?
If I choose to murder my neighbor, would this in fact not be murder, but me excersing my ability to survive better than him?
Morality and the moral code should have no place in the theory of evolution, if our chief goal in life is strictly survival.
While you folks would like me to justify my choice to believe in God and his son, I challenge you to give me a coherent explanation as to how your beliefs make this life easier and more fulfilling.
The fool has said in his heart there is no God...(Psalm 14:1)
Dear DavPar1 aka "Target Boy",
A few points to consider:
In the Dark Ages perhaps "95%", if not ALL, of the world's population believed that the earth was shaped like a frickin' pancake. So as we see, "Truth" isn't deduced from popular vote, is it?
Evolution: Evolution is both theory AND fact. Creationism is NEITHER. Your 'murder the neighbor' analogy is quite possibly the most assinine "argument" for creationism/divine morals I've ever read. 1) Modern man has evolved over time to become civilized, thus, most of us have become "intelligent". Please don't compare modern man to a bacteria. Thanks. 2) If you're trying to tell us that there's an objective set of divine morals, you might want to research all of the Christians denominations to date, and when you do, you'll see that NONE of them fully agree on what's "right" and what's "wrong"....they disagree on everything from abortion, to birth control, to the death penalty.
Meaning of life: The meaning of life is up to the individual. Furthermore, the fact that it ends GIVES it more meaning, not less. Your dog isn't going to live forever, does it's life have no meaning?.....maybe you should just kill it, huh?.
Additionally, existing in the clouds for eternity would serve zero purpose, and would eventually become torture...i.e..."Hell"....::wink:: Also, if you're telling us that the reason you believe in the Christian God and his son is because it makes your life "easier", you're not telling us anything we didn't already know.
Your argument regarding civility is interesting because it brings to mind many questions, not the least of which is what is civililization? Will this generation be deemed uncivilized by the generations to come? "Every age is modern to those who are living in it." Justice Benjamin Cardoza While we may consider ourselves to be the most enlightened of our predecessors, we are child like in our true understanding of our world if you compare us to the generations to come.
You talk about facts as if somehow you have all of the answers. Let me propose to you this: Lets assume for the sake of this discussion you know 50% of all the knowledge there is in the world. Further to that, lets also assume that between now and the day you lie on your death bed you learn a further 25% of all knowledge available to man. Is it not possible that in the 25% you did not learn, that God could exsist?
It is important to note that my belief system is my Choice. I personally believe in Jesus Christ and an almighty God for one reason alone, I have personally witnessed and experienced in a very real way their exsistance.
You may choose to disbelieve if you like, but you will never convince me my experiences were not real.
Remember you have more to lose than I do. If I'm wrong and your right, I've only lost my time here on this earth in an errant belief. If your wrong and I'm right, youve lost your choice to eternal life.
I'd have to agree with that. Around here, that attitude is exhibited almost daily by the Christian visitors who come to proselytize, not to discuss.
davpar1: "Evolution on the surface seems to be a reasonable explanation for our exsistance on this planet."
I find that the more one learns about it, the more solid it becomes. For example, the evidence at the level of molecular biology is quite astonishing.
davpar1:"However, contrary to your opinion, evolution is still a 'theory' and is not “fact”."
Be careful with those words "theory" and "fact". Contrary to popular opinion, "theory" does not connote tentativeness; at least no more so than anything else in science, where everything is technically provisional. Also, the word "fact" in the context of evolution (as in the phrase "the fact of evolution") does not connote absolute certainty. Rather, "fact" refers to observable evidence (direct or indirect) and/or the conclusions that follow directly from those observations. (Again, everything is provisional.) Hence, the "fact of evolution" refers to the observation that evolution has occurred (as supported by the geological column, among other things), sans any explanation as to how it occurred. The "theory" part supplements the "fact" by supplying a testable idea about the "how".
davpar1:"...Will this generation be deemed uncivilized by the generations to come?..."
I think there is little doubt; not in an absolute sense, but relative the future notions of civility, we will surely be thought to be somewhat "primitive". Here is one example. I am virtually certain that 100 years from now people will look back on this period and shake their heads over the blatant bigotry that society shows toward homosexuals. I am also relatively certain that our penchant for warfare will be seen as barbaric, and our casual acceptance of casualties among soldiers will be seen as strangely myopic. I'm sure you could think of some norms that are likely to change as well. What do you conclude from that?
davpar1:"...Is it not possible that in the 25% you did not learn, that God could exsist?"
Of course. What was the point of all the percentages? You don't need any of that to see that NO empirical statement can be known with absolute certainty; particularly negative ones (e.g. no pink unicorns exist anywhere in the universe), and especially those that involve metaphysical entities (e.g. Zeus does/does not exist). What seems to be at issue is whether there are GOOD REASONS to believe a given proposition; focusing on the lack of a definitive disproof is a red herring.
davpar1: "It is important to note that my belief system is my Choice."
Yes, of course it is. As are ours.
davpar1: "I personally believe in Jesus Christ and an almighty God for one reason alone, I have personally witnessed and experienced in a very real way their exsistance."
Well, I'm sure you know that that kind of statement will not sway anybody here. A good many of the regulars here have "experienced" god/Jesus too, only to realize later that they were deceiving themselves, as hundreds of millions of people do daily with respect to various deities. I've heard countless stories of how god supposedly revealed himself in the affairs of people, but in every case there seems to be nothing more than wishful thinking and truly awful statistical reasoning behind them. Thus, I take them with a small grain of salt.
davpar1: "Remember you have more to lose than I do. If I'm wrong and your right, I've only lost my time here on this earth in an errant belief."
That is simply a variant of Pascal's wager, and it is a fallacy. You neglect to take account of all the possibilities. More on that below.
davpar1:"If your wrong and I'm right, youve lost your choice to eternal life."
Similarly, if you are wrong about the one true god taking human form, and you've blasphemed Allah, you will spend eternity in the Islamic Hell. Then again, maybe the one true god will only save those who had the wisdom to discard any belief system that condones the type of ghastly violence found in the Old Testament. Or, maybe only those whose underwear is festooned with astrological signs will be saved. The point is, one could invent any number of such scenarios; however, without some credible backing, there is no reason to believe a single one of them. Simply hedging you bet by believing the one with the most sever punishment for heresy is specious.
I don't, in fact, claim to know all the answers to life's greatest questions. So lose the strawman. In regards to God---whether it be the Abrahamic, Egyptian, Islamic, Martian, etc, etc---I merely hold a positon of neutrality....meaning, when He/She/It/ make their presence known to me through the physical senses---the same senses I use to deduce that anything ELSE exists--- THEN I will have the undeniable and necessary evidence to have a belief in such a being. However, until that time, I won't suspend logic and reason in lieu of blind faith.....or, a "feeling".
If you say you've "witnessed their existance"?...then peachy, but your personal experience isn't, and will never be, OBJECTIVE evidence for all of mankind. Accordingly, whether you believe your personal experiences with God, Santa, or whoever, are real or not, is immaterial to me. What does puzzle me is how people can use logic and common sense to discount the existance 500 "other gods", but when it comes to their own irrational beliefs, that same "sense" is out the window.
I'm sorry, but ALL religious belief is subjective. And what you have is a conviction---and convictions are the end of knowledge. So, evolution is "not fact", eh?...okay, so talking reptiles, donkeys, and vegetation is what?... a theory?....a fact?....a side show at the carnival, maybe?
And please, Pascal's Wager?..."what if I'm right and you're wrong"?...the oldest Christian sound bite on the internet. All it does is on your part is point out the fact that you do not have the evidence to support your claim. You need some new material.
davpar1 said "...A key ingredient to the theory of evolution is the survival of the fittest, no?
If I choose to murder my neighbor, would this in fact not be murder, but me excersing my ability to survive better than him?"
What *you* as an individual choose to do has little or no bearing on the allele frequencies of the population (i.e. the genetic makeup of the population). Survival strategies that are linked to specific alleles cause a drift in those alleles; that is what evolution is. Moreover, it's absurd to use this principle as a justification for some action as the principle is descriptive, not normative (i.e. it speaks to what *is*, not to what *ought* to be). Here's a loose analogy: Newton's universal law of gravity nicely describes what happens when I drop an object from a high building. It's a descriptive law. Does it then imply that I have an obligation to toss people from tall buildings? That would be absurd, right? Right.
davpar1 also said "Morality and the moral code should have no place in the theory of evolution, if our chief goal in life is strictly survival."
Moral codes are normative; the theory of evolution is descriptive. So, right, the theory does not speak (directly) to what we establish as our codes of conduct. However, there *is* an important connection in that social norms have a biological basis. That is, our laws do not arise from nothing; there is usually a deep resonance with fundamental behaviors that have been shaped by evolution. For example, all societies discourage, murder, mayhem, theft, incest, etc. (while granting various exceptions, of course). We could get into the biological basis of these things, but that is a fairly long discussion.
davpar1 concluded with this challenge: "While you folks would like me to justify my choice to believe in God and his son, I challenge you to give me a coherent explanation as to how your beliefs make this life easier and more fulfilling."
First, you seem to have your priorities a bit confused. The issue here is what is TRUE, not what is easiest or what makes us feel the best. Maybe it makes life easy and fulfilling for me to believe that Krishna is the one true god. I think we can all agree that that's generally not the best reason to adopt a belief.
Next, it has been my observation that the more completely and objectively we understand ourselves and the physical world around us, the better off we are in terms of creating a just and sustainable society. Great advances come from understanding the true nature of biological organisms (e.g. via medicine, psychology, and ultimately jurisprudence), while only superficial and transient "feel-good" kinds of benefits come from religious mythology. Proclaiming that "god did it", then inventing, embellishing, and reaffirming tall stories about this being can serve some immediate societal needs, but it cannot compare to the benefits of actual understanding.
God created the world perfect but then Adam and Eve sinned this brought sin and imperfection into the world "the fall of man" after that the world changed this isnt the same world God created it has always been changeing He didnt just make it and say this is how it is and this is how it always will be the world is and always will be changing
what is the purpose of change to make us grow to make us become stronger
and i know someone will reply to this telling me im stupid and dont know what im talking about but it makes me sad to think that u feel so obligated to tell the world that all christians are stupid for believing the bible and in God it sounds like u met every type of christian there is and know everything there is to know oops know everything u want to know about christianity i hope u realize that not every one who says their a christian is a christian and not everything that was done in the name of christianity was true christianity so dont try to group all christians into one category and say they all believe the same thing there are a lot of people out there who say their christians but dont follow the bible but then again u guys dont believe in the bible so u know what just ignore what i said as some close minded person who doesnt know anything
Tell the world? Do you see us going from door to door or building mega churches to preach or handing out tracks on the street corners or breathing down strangers’ backs telling them about gawd? NO!
“it sounds like u met every type of christian there is and know everything there is to know oops know everything u want to know about Christianity i hope u realize that not every one who says their a christian is a christian and not everything that was done in the name of christianity was true christianity so dont try to group all christians into one category and say ......yada yada yada
Then you must me – the True Christian ™. Hey guys, we found what we’ve been looking for.
“...but then again u guys dont believe in the bible so u know what just ignore what i said as some close minded person who doesnt know anything”
Let us see if you know “anything”:
What should a woman’s punishment be if she is raped and didn’t scream loud enough?
Which is the 10th commandment?
What did Moses do with the virgins?
If one desires to be the disciple of Jesus, what should he/she do?
Why would a loving Jesus declare that he would kill innocent children?
Why would an all loving God discriminate against the handicapped?
Answer YES or NO
Would God kill or order the killing of innocent children?
Would God order people to dash infants against rocks and floors?
Would God make parents eat the flesh of their children?
Would God order pregnant women to be ripped open?
Would God kill 70,000 people to punish one man?
Would God order his followers to kill each other?
Would God approve of a vow to kill one’s own daughter?
Would God make people eat feces?!
Would God order the mass execution of unarmed captives?
Uh... NO! You bible states that god had a plan that he made from the foundations of the world. If Adam and Eve would not have "transgressed" then they would have thwarted his will. So therefore they were impelled to transgress. Where was freewill in that? They did exactly what HIS plan expected of them. No downfall of man, No need to send his son.
So this alleged fall of mankind was planned and preordained, How could Adam and Eve had done any different? What choice did they have other than to act out that way as a pawn in a game that the alleged creator of all, including both good and evil, was playing? Adam and Even obviously were never really in control to begin with. So in effect it was god who brought sin into the world by setting up a proverbial stumbling block for Adam and Eve. He set up the fall, they fell. Let's at least get the logic behind the absurdity of this story straight.
anonymous said: "i know someone will reply to this telling me im stupid and dont know what im talking about."
Your own words do a good job of that, you really don't need our help there.
anonymous said: "it makes me sad to think that u feel so obligated to tell the world that all christians are stupid for believing the bible and in God"
It makes us feel mad to think you feel oblgated to tell the world that we are closed minded people who don't know anything.
It is you who group us all together, and you really have no idea what any of us believe, do you?
You feel that we are miserable lost souls who know nothing of your religion, when in fact there are people hear from practically every denomination and brand of xianity there is. I've been to many different churches of many different denominations. That's not the problem. The problem is the buy bull you believe in is chocked full of discrepancies, no matter how you slice it. If it gives two different accounts of the same event, then by default at least one version must be wrong. If one bit of it is wrong then what can we say for the whole buy bull?
We used to believe just like you until we woke up and realized it is all just one big lie. While we are no longer caught up in that lie, you are here trying to feed us that lie again, and we're so not buying into to it. So please go shed your crocodile tears for someone else.
Unless you can produce the nazz himself, and he makes a personal appearance, you've got a better chance of being struck by lightning than you do of saving any of us. After all aniny, you can't even save yourself, can you?
Cheers
Well, I guess Somday we will all know the Truth as to the meaning of life, or lack there of. so if You people are so determined to believe in nothing, then nothing I say will change that. *sigh*
and south2003 as for your "Yes/no." question, my answer for all of those is no. no not my God, maybe somone elses, but not mine.
some of you may think it folish of my to be a christian and since that definiton has become very vague i will define it as somone who believes in jesus. that believes he is the son of God and he did do all he said. I do not however Believe this just on faith, or from what other people tell me, altho that is a big part of it. but i aslo believe it because of the miricles I've seen, that science can not explain. I've seen people that i know lay there hands on others and they are healed, and not just under the surface healing but identable visible healing. Ex. somone with legs diferent lengths suddenly have one grow longer to match the other. I've seen people deliverd from demons in front of my eyes, (and it's nothing like the movies)
I can tell you that these people were not "acting" or faking, as i knew some of them personally. however, those are my stories, not yours, so for all you know im just making them up. altho I swear that im not. so I chalange you, see if there is any truth to my words. if not, you lost nothing, if there is, you could lose everything.
now as i have not perposly attacked anyone, only told how i feel. I ask that you will be kinda enough to do the same.
thank you and God Bless
what is the purpose of change to make us grow to make us become stronger..."
Uh, hate to ask the question, but what are we supposed to be growing into, and what makes us weak. If you suggest sin makes us weak, then you have to define sin, but then, sin changes also, depending on who you ask, and what religion. To become more than what someone says they are; suggests there is some 'greater' paradigm of what we should be. So, are you going to tell us what humanity is supposed to be striving to become and how that striving makes one stronger.
To simplify, I don't think we need an example of a monkey doing push-ups. Start with how someone grows stronger 'spiritually', by defining what a spirit is, and how one knows a weak spirit from a nice strong spirit. Oh, and don't use physical terms to describe spirit, as those would be physical attributes, not spiritual.
Isaiah Ch. 45 VS 21 "I am the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and Savior; there is none beside me.
22. "Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God and none else."
This is the reason that the Jews do not believe in Jesus, God's chosen people, but you insist in believing in Jesus.
The story of Jesus is a fabrication embellished and faked by Paul to impress his Jewish friends.
The story of Jesus has taken the focus away from the OT God, sending millions of Jesus believers into hell, along with the muslims.
Anita you're worshipping a False Idol called, Jesus, and you're destined straight into hell, renounce Jesus now before it's too late.
I pray that it's not too late, at least I tried, my hands are washed clean if you do not reject Jesus, the false God soul snatcher.
That's funny, we disagree with you, and by that we proved your point? Your statements are so completely asinine, that you've proven the exact opposite. Thank YOU!!
anita_kat said: "Well, I guess Somday we will all know the Truth as to the meaning of life."
Yes, and won't you be utterly disappointed.
The answer to the meaning of life is.... are you ready for this?
Okay here it is... the answer to the meaning of life is 42. Now you have to figure out just what the question is.
anita_kat said: "and south2003 as for your "Yes/no." question, my answer for all of those is no. no not my God, maybe somone elses, but not mine."
Anita, your answer begs two questions...
1. Do you believe that the bible is god's word?
2. If so, have you ever bothered to pick it up and actually read it?
South2k3 has mentioned several well known biblical events. If you are a xian, you should know that according to your bible, these are things your xian god did do. If you are not aware of these things I would advise you to go back and read your bible thoroughly.
Imagine that, an ex-xian telling a xian to read your bible.
You know, after you've done that, come back and we'll compare notes once again. Then we'll ask you those same questions, and perhaps you'll come back with a far different answer. Perhaps you might even understand why we are ex-xian.
anita_kat: "i aslo believe it because of the miricles I've seen, that science can not explain. I've seen people that i know lay there hands on others and they are healed, and not just under the surface healing but identable visible healing. Ex. somone with legs diferent lengths suddenly have one grow longer to match the other. I've seen people deliverd from demons in front of my eyes, (and it's nothing like the movies)"
Anita, the human brain and body is a very complex thing. It is very capable of healing itself. For an example, say you get a cut on your finger. After while it closes up and goes away, viola, you are healed.
The human body has that capability built into it other wise if we get cut we'd just bleed to death.
I really understand how much you want to believe in your god, and "divine healing." I used to be pentecostal so I really do know and understand exactly where you are coming from.
The mind is an interpretive machine. That is why no two people witnessing the same events will have the same accounts of it.
The thing with the two legs, one shorter that the other is nothing more than common parlor trickery. I've seen it done numerous times.
And the casting out off demons, seen that too, if fact, I've done it. It is all psychological. It's been proven scientifically to be a farce, and I'll be the first to admit, at one time I too was taken in by it.
This is still no basis to believe in something you've never even bothered to read for yourself.
anita_kat: "I can tell you that these people were not "acting" or faking, as i knew some of them personally. however, those are my stories, not yours."
We only hear about prayers that were allegedly answered. If what you are saying is absolutely true, then I must ask you, do you know any physically handicapped people?
If so do they attend your church?
And again if so, why are they still handicapped?
With all these supposed healings going on, we'd never need doctors or hospitals, would we? By now the church would have put them completely out of business, wouldn't they? Since that is obviously not the case, that definitely calls these healings into question.
Does god pick and choose who will get healed and who doesn't? What about amputees? How many amputees have you yourself seen grow a new arm or leg? Why that's not impossible for god is it?
anita_kat said: "so I chalange you, see if there is any truth to my words. if not, you lost nothing, if there is, you could lose everything."
Anita that is called Pascal's wager. Since you are not even partially aware of what your bible says, I must call your challenge exactly this... You are mimicking words that you have heard over and over again. You only know what you've heard from your preacher, and he only knows what he has heard and so on and so forth. So that which you call truth has only been acquired second hand and is nothing more than heresay.
So now it's my turn, Anita I challenge you to write down all the things south2k3 mentioned, and look them up in your bible. I assure you, you will find them there. And when you return to this site, please explain to us just exactly what god WAS doing. And then tell us, No, not your god!!
I'll even make it easy for you, here is a link to an online bible that spells out many of these things south2k3 spoke of. If you have problems with it, you can cross reference the scriptures with your own kjv or whatever version you have in your bookshelf gathering dust.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
I hope I wasn't too mean, and I don't recall any personal attacks directed toward you in my post.
Cheers
Wow, how amazingly typical of you Anita kat to use one of THE most worn out christian accusations we commonly hear! They are always based on christian condemnation and rash judgment!
Of course, what else should we expect. Way to be another example of how the christian faith leads people to be haters and bigots.
You know nothing about the people here and you will never know just how great the people in here really are, simply because we do not conform to your beliefs.
THEN...
Anita Kat said:"now as i have not perposly attacked anyone, only told how i feel. I ask that you will be kinda enough to do the same."
KIND ENOUGH... to do the same?
Coming from the same person that also just said this;
Anita Kat said:""wow, amazing how bitter some of you people are. really, i kinda feel sorry for
you."
Do not feel sorry for us, Mrs.Condescending Christian Snob.
Check your self righteous attitude at the door next time and deposit your bad comments in the suggestion box.
Won't you be kind enough to refrain from using the same old tired christian reproach.
God-less everyone!
You really should open a school dedicated to saving "air head girls," from what they learned from their Moms.
You could start a whole new movement of women who are not afraid to be thinking, rational, un- superstitious, and real.
Dan
How funny. I do this kind of thing with kids all the time (usually with my arms). It goes over especially well with kids five and under--but even the five-year-olds generally catch on immediately. In fact, I get a kick out of seeing kids that young exhibit skepticism, and insist on checking it out multiple times for themselves and performing little "experiments". I see it as the seeds of genuine critical thinking. Unfortunately, there are always a few who simply accept things at face value, never questioning. Need I say more?
Anita also played the "bitter" card. Is anybody keeping track of how often Christian visitors use this gambit? Anita went on to say that she was attacking nobody (yet she pities us, apparently for being so "bitter").
Okay, I have a deal for you, Anita. If you actually return, and you manage to reply without sneaking in any crass assertions (e.g. remarks about us being angry or bitter), then I'll be happy to do the same. In fact, I'm sure I will not be the only one. How about it?
The school could be called Nature of Change Academy (or something like that, but words of Dave8 came to mind first) and the myths of the world’s religions would be examined as naive superstition, while at the same time we would provide an alternative source for core motivation by volunteering one day a week to hands on learning assignments that ultimately help improve humanity and/or nature.
Could we use the original Pledge of Allegiance, without the “in gawd” part?
Is there a law that states all schools must use the current “dogmafied” version?
My husband is a teacher and there most certainly is a need for a "reality" based school every where in America, but especially here in the Cincinnati area where Catholic schools rein supreme and Christian academies are for the most part, exclusively attended by the children of the privileged and wealthy.
Oh well, it was a nice thought while it lasted Dano.
Thanks for the lovely compliments.
G’ Day mate!
I have a simple answer for you. We're not selling god. So the burden of proof is upon you to prove that she exists.
We're not making outlandish claims that god or santa or the easter bunny or the tooth fairy exists.
We're not selling talking snakes, or resurrected zombies, or anything outside of reality.
How about arranging a personal appearance with Jeezus? I'd like to meet him face to face. If you could do that then you've proven your point if not, please peddle it elsewhere...
Cheers
I stumbled upon this site and found it to be interesting. I noticed one thing, in all the conversations I've read, it's always been the Christian defending their beliefs. So I have one simple question for you: You say there is no God, prove it.
posted: 2/02/2006 12:40 AM EST
You have all of the same things in common with every other Christian who has stumbled upon this site.
#1. You didn't read or understand the name of the site.
#2. You didn't read much, and what you did read, you blocked out of your brainwashed mind.
#3. You don't understand that if you don't believe something exists, you don't have to prove it.
Go back to the Christian sites and quit stumbling!
Dan
You said:
"and there most certainly is a need for a "reality" based school every where in America, but especially here in the Cincinnati area where Catholic schools rein supreme and Christian academies are for the most part, exclusively attended by the children of the privileged and wealthy."
You're lucky Melissa! Down here in "Baptist land," NC, if you tell people that you aren't a Christian, it is like telling them that you have AIDS, leprosy, and are possessed by demons.
Dan
You are either ignorant or insincere by that comment. Christians show up to 'prove their point', whatever that point is, and in 'response' people state why they have a different perspective. So, there are multiple views on any one topic, however, it appears you are too lazy to read arguments against god, and you are attempting to play stump the chump so that you somehow feel better about your belief in a transcendent god.
Anonymous: "So I have one simple question for you: You say there is no God, prove it."
Okay, simpleton, I have a simple answer.
If god exists per christianity in a transcendent reality, then god can not be experienced in this physical reality, especially for those who don't believe 'god' is of this sinful world.
If god can't be experienced in this physical world with clarity, then god can't be 'recognized' in this world.
If god can't be recognized in this world by a person, and they pass away, then they have no standard baseline to recognize a god in a transcendent reality once they die.
Therefore, 'any' god said to exist in a transcendent reality, i.e., mainstream christianity, etc., doesn't 'exist' as they have no recognizable "understanding" of the god concept being discussed.
Now, is there something beyond your simpleton mind that may exist? Maybe. However, you can't say god exists, and I can say for a fact, that any transcendent god you say exists, in fact, doesn't. If you say that you could "guess" and possibly be correct, then your god was based on 'physical' knowledge you obtained while on this earth, and therefore, your "guessed" god is much less the deity, than the one most christianity seems to want to believe.
If you don't want to listen to logic and reason, you can just leave your opinions to yourself, no need embarassing yourself by responding, but, have a great delusional life, and please, by all means, don't open your ignorant pie hole in public when trying to sound intelligent, it really doesn't become you.
" Define what a spirit is: without using physical terms "
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to use the Bible to answer this question, please be open minded, since I know you don't believe in the Bible.
1 Thes. 5:23 Humans have 3 parts: 1) physical body 2) soul 3) spirit
1 Cor 15:14
- there is a difference between your natural and spirit body
Our spirits have a form and correspond to our physical body ( other people believe this too, not just christians, ask someone who was involved in astral travel )
Rev 4:1-2
- shows an experience that shows a difference between ones physical and spiritual form
Heb 4:12
- there is a division between soul and spirit
- it is through our spirit we commune with God John 4:23-24
3 Area's of the spirit are:
- conscience
- intuition
- ability to communicate with God (ie/worship)
To grow spiritually simply means to grow in Christ, understanding, knowledge, and faith.
I'm not sure if that's what you meant by your question of "define spirit".
Anonymous: "1 Thes. 5:23 Humans have 3 parts: 1) physical body 2) soul 3) spirit"
I asked you to define 'spirit', you in-turn provided the name "spirit" as its own proof. That's kind of like using the bible to prove itself. If I said pink elephants were flying around mars, and you asked for evidence, and I wrote my comment on a piece of paper, and gave it to you, would that be 'more' evidence, or would that just be more information coming from 'one' source - me, and expecting you to blindly accept my words as truth.
1 Cor 15:14
- there is a difference between your natural and spirit body
Our spirits have a form and correspond to our physical body ( other people believe this too, not just christians, ask someone who was involved in astral travel )
Now, you attempt to describe 'spirit' but do so, by saying it has a "form", that is, a "natural" form that we use to "picture" in our mind what a "spirit" may look like. However, I nor you, have ever seen a 'spirit', but you are describing it as if you are able to see it.
Regarding astral projection, are you suggesting there is a splitting of the "spirit" from the body and it goes whizzing around the planet as if it were someones' experience of flying in first person. Does that make sense, even christians don't believe for the most part, that a spirit can just up and leave the body, or the body would surely die. Well, unless people are going to believe that some people don't have 'spirits' and are able to live anyway.
I can see how some religiouns have taken the view that some people don't have 'spirits', like witches, etc., and thus, were to be murdered. Even though, no one can really 'see' a spirit, or prove a spirit does or doesn't exist. Murder, based on pure hypothetical reasoning.
Perhaps, astral projection as experienced by the individual is solely contained within the thought processes of ones' mind, with external environmental influences. Hence, nothing leaving the body, or nothing bouncing around the universe, just possibly, a deeper connection with ones' own conscious awareness, when attachment is discarded and one is subconsciously free to engage in mental construction.
Anonymous: "Rev 4:1-2
- shows an experience that shows a difference between ones physical and spiritual form"
Somehow, I think you failed to provide what the 'difference' was between ones' physical thoughts and a 'spirit'.
Anonymous: "Heb 4:12
- there is a division between soul and spirit
- it is through our spirit we commune with God John 4:23-24"
Okay, still a division, and no description, but even though you haven't been able to describe the essence of a soul/spirit you say that we use it to communicate with a god. Again, if one doesn't have a mind, do they have a spirit. If not, the worshipping god, is nothing short of worshipping ones' own personal cognitive voice.
Anonymous: "3 Area's of the spirit are:
- conscience
- intuition
- ability to communicate with God (ie/worship)"
So, you have not provided evidence for a 'spirit', only speculation. However, it hasn't stopped you from further claiming that the minds' conscience, our ability to intuitively think, and our internal cognitive voice are three separate entities. Again, take a persons' mind away, and there no longer exists conscience, there no longer exists intuition, and there no longer is the capability to communicate with anyone, to include a god(s). So, its apparent the 'mind' is the 'spirit', unless you can show evidence that the mind/thought is somehow separate from the "spirit". If not, then the spirit is subordinate/subject to the 'mind'.
If you respond that people don't have to be mentally alive to have a spirit, then, of course, I'd have to ask, why rocks don't have spirits, termites, ants, bacteria, etc. All organic non-thinking life, and inorganic 'complex' structures would then seem to have some 'spirit' association.
By the way, if you don't know how to definitively explain what a 'spirit' is, and how its different than this natural realm, then why would one go through all of the rituals of religion to 'save' it. Why do people worry about something they can't even define, describe or explain?
I don't think you want to engage in an in-depth conversation on economics, but, I'll throw out that 'fear' is a manipulation tool used early in a persons' life, but eventually, those who continue to attach themselves to this false economy of spiritual salvation, are doing so out of 'greed'. A greedy person is not going to let go of something they believe is 'due them' or 'owed' to them, and thus, they will continue to keep believing they will receive some reward for their effort.
Greed has been suggested to be part of our prime nature, however, some people finally see the destructive nature of greed, as typically, unnecessary attachment. I wonder what Tolkien's message was in the Lord of the Rings, when Smeagol continued to worship the ring of power. Some worship rings, some worship 'spirits', in either case, its greed based benefit.
"I'm not sure if that's what you meant by your question of 'define spirit' ".
By the looks of things, I'd say no. But okay, since you, nor no other fundy can "define" spirit, maybe you tell the class in which part of the physical body the "spirit" resides. Oui? If you say the "brain" or "mind", please tell us in which part of the brain...because the brain is divided into several sections, or "lobes".
John 4:10: Jesus answered her, ‘You do not know the gift of God. You do not know who asks you for water. If you did, you could ask me. I would give you living water’.
And if God was a warrior god, Why then did he not allow abraham to kill his son after he proved his faith?
God saves...I hope you all find faith in him
"Are you tottaly oblivious? I doubt you understand the bible let alone read it."
Again, no one is saying that all Christians are stupid.... yet, by the looks of things, it appears that most ignorant people are religious.
Like, God is tottaly awesome, dude! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!
Here are some of my choices (I want to stay in Washington state but if the Truth can’t be found here I will travel)
1. The Bible Church in Burien has this cool deal called Spiritual Dancing. You start the dance without a partner. The object is to dance until you have a "spiritual connection" with a person of the opposite sex. Then you enter into a spiritual communion with that person. It’s great! It doesn’t matter if the person (woman in my case, I’m a man) is married to someone else. The Spiritual Connection trumps the marital one. If I join this one I definitely want to work my way to the top. God has given several of the finest ladies to the pastor to be part of his private flock. Many of the elders have received Gods favor as well. It’s made a few of the husbands mad but it plainly states in THE HOLY BIBLE that this is an eternal principal that must be followed. I believe this one might be THE ONE because these folks know the book inside and out. Almost everything they say is followed by the book, chapter and verse it comes from.
2. Then there’s this other one that says it doesn’t matter what kind of life I live after I’ve been saved, I can’t loose my salvation. Nothing can separate me from god. I know for sure that I’ve been saved because I spoke in tongues at the very first meeting I attended. This is cool because I can’t seem to keep a job and I don’t have much money. I can find some convenience store owner who believes in a “false god” I can rob him and even take his young daughters if I want.
3. I was about to join other this one in Redmond because the pastor preaches through the bible every year. He’s a fire and brimstone preacher. I’m glad I’m not gay though because he says hell has a special place for unrepentant gays. Unfortunately, he got busted in Florida for soliciting sex in a men’s room. It was later revealed that he’s been “blessing” (the courts call it child abuse) young boys in the church for years. Even so, his soul is “white as snow” because it’s been washed in the blood of Christ. Halleluiah and Amen.
4. There’s another one that says that the fact that I’m white means I’m of a superior race, favored by god. I didn’t think that skin color made much difference since we all descended from Adam but they showed me the truth in black and white and red. I hear they have special meetings where they dress up like ghosts. That might be cool. The bible says they should kill darkies because of what their ancestors did.
There are a few others but maybe you can help me choose the right one from these four.
I’ve been asking god to tell me which one to join but I haven’t got a clear answer. I don’t want to get it wrong because “there is a way that seems right to man, but in the end leads to death.”
Thanks in advance, Confused But Saved
Why don't you admit that you're just as bigoted against Jews as you are against Christians? I know, I know, this web site is called "Ex-Christian.net," but if Christianity is disproven by simply reading the Bible, isn't Judaism as well?
All biblical texts and all religions, all of Christianity, Muslims, Jews, Jehovah Witness, Mormans, etc. beliefs in ghosts, spirits, angels, virgin births, miracles, visions, dreams, prophets, Saints, Popes, Preachers, blessings, grace, faith, prayer, oracles, Gods, Lords, Jesus, Satan, Allah, Mohammad, Heaven, Hell, Saved, Baptism, are all complete garbage, anmd a total fraud and a total hoax and scam.
Did I cover everything?
Bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
[French, from Old French.]
Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”
Okay, so calling unbelievers bigots is ignorant. I could care less what other people believe, but I'm convinced that Christianity, and all religion in general, is bunk. However, I can speak authoritatively to Christianity, as I was a Christian for three decades. I was not a Muslim, or Jew, or part of any of the other several thousand available religions. This site is tolerant of all viewpoints. Not everyone on this site is an atheist, and not all agree on everything.
One thing we do agree on, however, is that Christianity is bunk. This is a website devoted to discussing this fact. We don't have swords, shields, or greaves.
I suggest you learn what words mean -- crusade, bigot -- before using them. Trying to incite someone with the wrong insult looses the effect that I imagine you were hoping to produce.
After reading all the resposes to this "Dear Believer" thread over a peroid of a couple of days, the non-believers blew the Christians out of the water. The Christians have a lot of guts to even think about challenging these guys. People like Webmaster, Dave8, Dano, and Jim are so instrumental in making their points. I have seen pure poetic genius here. I wish everyone in the world were forced to read this entire thread. It conviced me beyond a reasonable doubt of the absurdity of religion and the Bible.
I must say I was laughing my ass off when I read the post about the miricle of the preacher legnthening the shorter leg. Before cable TV when I was a kid I had three channels to choose, and on Sundays I was often forced to watch churh services(because that was all that was on)and I would often watch the Earnest Ainsly hour. He was a big time faith healer in the early 70's. He did the leg trick all the fucking time. When you are seven years old you buy into that faith healing shit, but how could an adult of normal intelligence?
http://www.ernestangley.org/
One easy way to do it is to compose in your "Write Mail," then use that spell check, and then copy and paste.
Dan (Homo sapiens, Rationalist)
We don't know, nobody knows, thats it! I think one reason people claim to be an Atheist is, we don't know. Atheist's think, rather than go out on a limb and look under every rock hoping to find faith in something that is invisible and worship imaginary concepts, in hopes that the performed ritual will some day be recognized as a benefit to this imaginary god.
As an Atheist myself, I love god whatever god is, if there is a god and it's shows itself to me some day, I will show love for it, if I know how.
I guess we should all claim to love god, whatever god is, that way Christians cannot say that we are against god. I do not love the god of the Bible, because I do not believe the god of the Bible is real.
Do you "know" most Atheists? I suspect, you know, very few Atheists, and even less know their opinions in regards to pro-life concerns... And, its much different having a logical "self" evaluated belief, as an Atheist, and having a "god" order the destruction of babies, in the most horrific manner. I am going to assume you don't worship any one Atheist, but you in fact, worship a "god", who you "know" per the bible, directs the murder of innocent babies, children, animals, etc., etc.
Regarding, your belief in Zeus, christianity is predominately "all", if not "all", theistic... are you suggesting that you are polytheistic, and claiming christian belief? If you do, I'd like to hear your most eruditious explanation. Albeit, most "all" christians believe in the "devil" or "boogyman" also, who happens to equal the power of god at times in the bible, and so, perhaps, christianity should be redefined as a polytheistic religion, based on the many different gods christians believe in.
Can you define god? No. But, you believe in multiple versions of something you can't define. That's like admission of being polytheistically ignorant... hope to hear from you.
But if someone says 144,000 people will be in Mount Zion and thousands more in other stages of paradise glorifying the Lord sitted at the right hand of God while billions of souls are being tormented every micro second in hell fire , I would prefer to go to hell rather than accepting this unspeakable rational.
This Alpha and Omega God, must have known if you and I will end up in Hell or Heaven .Remember: he is GOD , the knower or past , present and future, any notion given that he has given us a free will to choose and DOES NOT KNOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO CHOOSE , will not qualify him as GOD !!
If he knows the end result, why create us in the first place ?
If you wish to answer this, don't complicate the subject, say it as if you are explaining to a 6 year old kid.
I was raised Christian (liberal Christian, it's not just the fundamentalists that deconvert). For most of my teenage years I avoided any discussion about religion, I think I somehow knew I couldn't win. I avoided thinking too deeply about my beliefs, trying to quell the questions that were never far from the surface.
Your post outlines and sets out logically everything I now recognise as true, along with some handy citations that I'll be sure to use myself.
Again, thankyou so much.
I guess I’m offended by the thought of a LOVING god Okaying the bashing of babies against rocks because it goes against one of his bloody commandments. You know, those pesky little rules that your god has that are really big no-nos. A god who permits killing who has a rule against killing – what the f**k, over?
Pro-choice is not the celebration of abortions and it does not make someone a bloody thirsty lunatic, either. There are somewhere around a million abortions performed in the U.S. each year. I don’t think being pro-choice is about those numbers going up.
“Is your pregnancy an inconvenience to your hedonistic lifestyle? Come in for a scrape and suck and we’ll have you back flat on your back in no time at all!” Please.
Well i'm done here if you have something to reply to me dont even bother bacause i'm never comming to this website ever again....and YES I AM A JESUS FREAK!! AND THERE'S NOTHING BETTER OUT THERE THATS WHY I CHOSE TO STAY BEING A "FANATIC" as you may say God loves you all.
God Bless You all.
Mandy
One question. Which of the thousands of gods loves us and will bless us?
Please Mandy, put down your story books and start reading something with substance.
As for you Shay706, rumor has it that America is a christian nation or was founded up on christian principles, morals and values. If so, it seems (compare to the the %s of non-believers, I believe 3-6% per capita), they, the god believers, must be the ones having the abortions. Correct?
Then it's fare to say you could be one of them "people" not living the life and telling the truth or are you going to say "I'm not perfect?" If the majority of the not so wholesome “Christians gals” are having abortions, then what’s the beef with us heathens?
Your Christianity should first take out the MOTE from its own eye before it tries to remove the BEAM from humanity's.
Quote "to be given a second chance to go back to God "
Prakash: You didn't get my earlier point , He knows whether I will be accepting this 'chance' or most probable rejecting it within my lifetime. Then why create my soul in the first place if he knows the end result?
Mandy : "you are doing is causing the greatest sin known to mankind and that isnt something to be proud of"
Prakash : Our comments aren't the greatest sin. History proves Slavery, Holocaust , fanatical pressure , narrow mindedness, Chatolics- Protestant war and oppresion, brain washing activities by fanatical Christians avengalist in poor countries is the greastest sin to human kind and your "Word Of God' is responsible for this.
What you might see as a sin (because a book tells you it is) I don’t. I don’t see sex, human, reproduction and what a woman choose to do with her body a “crime.” So what is your beef with us heathens, unbelievers and atheists or a woman that chooses to have an abortion? How is that bodily harming you? Is it affecting your day to day life? Why is the church so pre-occupied with babies when their holy book promotes harming them?
This design that you are fed with is that in order for a person to do “good” (whatever “good” is), they have to have a god, your god belief. It is sad that you and others like you only do “good” because of this threat or you are told to do “good” and not because you want to do “good.”
Until you have evidence that your “good” is superior (because you have belief in a non-evident god) than our “good,” then your so-call “good” is not more legitimate than ours.
Sha: “I am not saying that I have a beef with you people.I just truly believe with all my heart,that you are being misled.Something may have happened in your life that has turned you against God.Maybe not,but I believe that you have to be bitter about something I know that your life cannot suck any more than mine.With all the tragic incident's I have had to encounter,I should be bedridden with depression.I have children to raise and have to keep it together.This latest issue,(cause of divorce),sometimes seems like too much to bare,but I do not turn against God,but try to rely on him to help me through another nightmare.We all deal with life in our own way,but I at least have heaven to look foward to,and athiest only have to look foward to jumping from the frying pan into the fryer.I have to get ready for work now,so I will check your response tommorow.Until Then,shay706”
I thought we were discussing abortions…humm. Now that I have come to the end of your speech, I can now see why you are so occupied with what others are doing concerning their lives and their bodies. Screaming loud enough indicates to me that you are either culpable or repressed about it.
Anyhow, Sha, you sound as if you are robbed and your life is cheapened. It’s a handful being a young person with children and going through a divorce and depression. This is why it is easy for you to buy “a better place call heaven.” Being gullible is the perfect breeding ground for religious cons to sell you anything. There is no god (s) to help you. If there was such a deity, it would have helped. Tell me, if you have so much to look forward to after death, then why you are so concern about sticking around. If you were 100% sure that when you die, there would be such a place, then you would have ended it. The emotional preaching is comical though. Snap out of it and start reading!
There is no god to be angry with and if you are going to be angry you might as well be angry at them all - including the 8,000+ other gods - and no, I’m not bitter at your god my dear. It is called “the lack of evidence for one including your heaven and the fryer.” Not bitterness. There is not proof, so this required ‘belief” fear and bitterness is not necessary and is just a waste of my time
Until you do, you're just another ranting fanatic. You sound no different than any religious Islamic. I challenge you to prove the existence of your god.
Now you sound like a ranting fanatic.You'll get your proof soon enough when you meet your maker face to face and you have to give him an account for your life.Then you'll say,I am so sorry Mr.God.Do you have anything that I can do for extra credit or is there any chores I can do for you? I didn't mean to be so arrogant.Please give me one more chance and I will make you proud.Praises to you BIG GUY!GOD ROCKS!!!!But he may say,It's too late now my little webmaster.I let you hear my word and you turned up your nose and denied me before men.Go burn in your eternal fire with the other unbelievers.
Proove to me that we were formed from "particles" without help,into every creature on earth,into every unique race of man,with our own "one of a kind" DNA.Take the same challenge that you have such delight in giving.shay706
So, I take it from your insightful post that you can't offer one shred of evidence?
Hmmm.
Oh, BTW, I never made a single claim about particles, or anything else. I'm willing to admit ignorance when it comes to some aspects of science. I admit I don't know the answers to a lot of questions. However, you claim to have the answers, and those answers are...god.
Since you are the one making fantastic claims, I challenge you to reveal solid evidence for this god of yours. From your posts, I could just as easily say Thor did it, as to say your flying un-dead man-god on a stick did it. There is equal evidence of Thor's existence to that of your god — none.
I'll give a full report on the eclipse.
First of all,the terrorist attacks in New York City didn't cause ME any bodily harm either,but it still saddened me.As for sex,sometimes IT IS a crime.Watch the news once and a while and you'll see how big a crime that sex is becoming.Homosexual sex and abortion have not even been legal for a long time.The first state that allowed abortion was California in 1969.A few other states started to permit abortion in the early 70's.In the 60's,when morals began to decline at an alarming rate,is when abortion became legal.Statistic show that 80% of women that get abortions are single.If they would have kept sex for "marriage" like God intended for us to do,They would have more than likely been happier with their pregnancy.They decided to have intimate relations without the intimate feelings and without a commited relationship,and when pregnancy was the result of their irresponsible behavior,the girl knows that the sperm donor will not be around for this blessed event,and feels that she can't manage the hardship alone,and decides to do away with this little inconvenience.If a woman feels good about herself,and has a tiny speck of self respect,she would cherish her body and her and find her own sexuality to special to give to any old stranger just because she may find them to be attractive.I see so much wrong with our immoral view of sex these days.All the pornography,casual sex,extra marital affairs,threesomes,foursomes,and fivesomes,online sex with complete strangers and their cameras,etc.I think that all this trash is ruining the minds of people.Children are exposed to sex now WAY before they are ready to be.Some people get so obsessed with this filth,that they commit sexual crimes against children,male and female teachers are having adult relationships with very young students, Men are raping the old lady that lives down their street,and whatever other outragious scenario you can think of.Our generation is having an overdose of sexual exposure!!
Next topic: I think that you should read my "HOLY BOOK" before you try to quote it.My God DOES NOT promote harming babies.I have read all throughout the bible where "MY" God is angry at the heathen people for sacrificing their own children to pagan gods.He called the murder of these children an ABOMINATION!I will make it a mission tonight to find as many verses as I can to prove how he felt about the murder of children.Some of you really like repeating this LIE,when I am sure that you really don't even have a small clue about what the bible says about this issue.The bible says that lying is a sin,OOOPS!I forgot,you do not believe that sin exists,so I will assume that you are a liar.I have NEVER said that the only reason that I do "good"is because of a (threat?),I just happen to be a person of ethical behavior and strong morals.I don't roam around like an animal,sharing myself with men that could care less about me,and I believe a woman that does has severe mental issues.I do not make up lies.I do not steal from other people.I do not go stomping around,complaining about something at all times,feeling "picked on" by every body,playing the victim for attention and whining.Most women have made these annoying traits their pesonality.When I show up at work,and I am not scheduled,but coming in extra to help,Everyone acts so happy to see me and want's to know which rooms I have,so they can work with me.They ask charge nurses if I can have rooms on their side and actually argue about it with others that want me on their side I get along with everyone I work with,because we have these angry,grouchy people,and I can pick on them in joking way about their attitudes,and get them laughing.I help them out with what they feel are heavy assighnments,so they can get caught up and not feel overwhelmed.Joking around and making work fun,and helping others with their workload,has won me a few little awards at my job.I have to be with these people for 12 hours at a time,and if you have one peacemaker,it makes such a difference.I get along with all the athiest people that I work with too. We,in good nature can dicuss these things without the ugliness that I see on this website.They love me too,and want me on their side like everyone else does.I don't waller around in self pity or mope around in a depression.I have had horrible things happen in my life and I have seen people that brake with a fraction of the problems that i have had.I may have times,when I am alone,and think about things and get sad,but I do not get stuck in that mode.Normal human beings are SUPPOSE to get sad over sad things.I make the choice,not to take a handful of pills to take away normal reactions to the trials of life.I understand that it takes TIME to recover fully from emotional wounds.That we are not normal if we are not affected by hardtimes.America pops a bill for a natural response to bad happenings.I said that enough has happened to me,where I SHOULD be bedridden with depression.Not that I am.I have children that love me,a family that loves me and will give me anything if I needed it.I have my GOD that DOES help me get through all my trials.I don't run shaking to the doctor for a pill to take away my sadness;HOW ABOUT YOU?I do not think that you would tell the truth if you were.I DO 100% believe in heaven,and only an IDIOT would say that if I believed in such a place,that I would end it all!WHATEVER!!!Because I have had some bad times like alot of others in the world,I should end it all.Maybe you should NOT have children if that is the kind of thoughts and values that are in your head!When times get hard,if you believe in heaven,just get on out of here.You should think about a career in counseling!I would never do that to my family,NO MATTER HOW BAD THINGS WERE!Only a self centered lunatic would cause this kind of pain to others.I owe my children the best that i can give them as a MOTHER.We have alot of fun and I am happy MOST of the time because I have a God that helps me.I do get sad,but it is very short lived.So for someone with your SCREWED UP IDEAS to try to paint me as a pathetic,weak person,That is what is COMICAL.I could just tell from your comments that you had some serious issues,and made an attempt to show you that others had hard times and struggles,because we all do,but deny that you have bitterness;You are unreasonably hostile.If you want to live your life in misery and have an arterlife of misery,Go Ahead.And it is SO STRANGE for you do say that I am preoccupied with other peoples life because I post comments with my opinions,When YOU are ready to post back you opinion in record time I think you watch you computer,waiting for something for your chance to spit out some anger.And WHY to you people feel entitled to demand EVIDENCE of your creator?Your EVIDENCE the bible and that you have life.This is not anything new!The belief in GOD has been around as long,well,longer then man.
BC=BEFORE CHRIST
AND
AD=AFTER DEATH
I did not make this up.And the prophecy that God gives us in the bible,about the ways of mankind in the last days,being without natural affection,being mean and spiteful and sexually immoral,and boastful and having feelings of intelligence that sees all,and has no respect for the GOD that made them because of "PRIDE"? Write whatever you care to write back to me,but I will not respond to your comments anymore.I'll pray for your ignorance,and for your ability to seek help.shay706
I just happen to be a person of ethical behavior and strong morals.I don't roam around like an animal,sharing myself with men that could care less about me,and I believe a woman that does has severe mental issues.I do not make up lies.I do not steal from other people.I do not go stomping around,complaining about something at all times,feeling "picked on" by every body,playing the victim for attention and whining.
Neither do I, and I am an Atheist, and I would also be willing to bet 100% of Atheist here, are just like me, so does that mean that we are Christians? Apparently!
Webmaster how much money do I need to send in, to get this Shay asshole booted or scubbed?....lol
I wish we had a delete button for ignorant fundies. Thanks, Ben
How can you say that I am making a fantastic claim?I did not come up with this idea.It's been around for oh,so long.I just happen to believe that God is real and that the bible is real.Thor.Yes,I think that a little research on THOR is in order now.I do not have any snapshots around here to show you.I just without a doubt,know that I am right.My beliefs are neverending searches and dicoveries.Me and my cool friends have hours and hours of fun searching for new and exiting clues and answers for all the hidden mysteries of the world.The "propaganda" out their is very interesting.Davinci Code,Gospel of Judas,New world order,conspiracies,Masons,United Nations,Trilateral Commision,The list goes on and on.Maybe if you guys read into this a little bit,you would see the strange things that are going on behind the scenes,and realise that these things are going on for a reason,because its some crazy stuff.You would see that their is a big game going on against God and Against Jesus.The end is near my dear lost friend.I will try to round up some old family pictures that God Took with us a couple of years ago.If I run across them,I will let you know. Just count on the eclipse for now.shay706
There are some good people on this site. Keep your eyes open for them. Everyone tends to get defensive and emotional when defending ones beliefes (or non-beliefs). Our faith in God is just as obsurd to them as their lack of faith is to us.
Dave Poole
Sorry Maam, the bible isn't "evidence" for jack shit. ' Ya know why you and "others" LIKE you believe, Maam?...because you can't fathom your own non-existance, that's why. Look, it's simple--- you're going to die Maam. Yup, one day your heart muscle will stop pumping blood to your brain and the rest of your body; gases and fluids will pool in your lungs and other vital organs, and you will lose consciousness, Maam---PERMANTLY. Nothing t'fear, though, Maam.... you won't feel a thing.
Nope, maybe critical thinking won't cure your ignorant religious belief, but death sure 'nough will...::wink::
R.I.P. Maam.
"Our faith in God is just as obsurd to them as their lack of faith is to us."
Tell me, why is a "lack of faith" absurd? I don't have faith in bigfoot, neither do you, yet, there's "documented" sightings written down in many books on the subject. The same goes for UFOs; the same goes for the Lochness Monster; the same goes for the abominabal snowman.
So, is YOUR lack of "faith" in these things "absurd"? The difference(like it really needs to be pointed out), is none of the above mentioned myths promise David Poole that he can "live forever". You have zero vested interest in believing in them on "faith". If I'm wrong, I'm sure you have the evidence, right? lol
R.I.P. Dave
You see, you're looking for someone to kiss your ass and support your beliefs, but you will not find it here, except the same people that want their ass kissed too, like David Pool and mq49.
No need to get defensive, your lack of erudition is not my doing.
Shay706: "I work in a very busy burn center.We have a large number of employees with a variety of jobs.Their are doctors,pa's,nurses,burn techs,physical therapists,physical therapy assistants,operating room staff,whirpool staff,secretaries,respiratory therapists,pharmacy techs,and phychologists.I think that covers everybody.I work 12 hour shifts on weekend nights with these people,and while we are in patients rooms for hours and hours,we have alot of talking time."
Lets, see, you have time to talk to patients, that's nice. I've done my share of clinical hours, so, lets see how well your discourse holds out. Now, its obvious that you didn't mention what "you" do for a living, in the midst of all of those occupations, would it be rude for me to hope you are not employed as an anesthetist, a few mispelled prescriptions could lead to some dire results.
Shay706: "We discuss politics and religion all the time and have debates about different topics.We have several athiest working on our unit,and also a few wiccans.All the athiests that I talk to at work say that the pregnant woman should be able to decide what she want's to do with her own body,except one of the doctors.He doesn't believe that you should get an abortion for any reason.I'm not totally against abortion in cases such as rape,incest,very young girl,or health problems with the pregnant woman.I think that if it must be done,it should be done as early as possible.I don't think that their is ever a reason for partial birth abortions."
It appears you don't get out much. The topic is morality and ethic based, and typically there are laws that cover such interests. I would ask you if you have a law degree, or some knoweldge of jurisprudence, but it appears, that would require more big words, so, I'll have to presume you are not running for supreme court justice anytime soon. That aside, morality, ethics, and law are debated from different platforms, one form of law is "spiritual law", another is "natural law". The U.S. has states that push common law, or laws common to the people, and typically at the earliest setting of this nation, those "common" laws were based on religious belief, and nothing short of "spiritual law", at the state level.
The religious typically place their moral beliefs in spiritual law, predominately, and those who don't see the need for religious support, lean towards natural law. Now, that is the far left and far right of a spectrum, and in between those two outer limits is the blending of the two in varying degrees.
Now, I really don't care what your opinion, is, as much as I care to hear your logical argument for your opinion. Further, do you believe a person needs to have a logical foundation for their beliefs, when "life and death" decisions are to be made from such logic?
I'll give you my short answer... spiritual law, is based on hypotheticals that can't be falsified, or proven wrong or right, in short, spiritual laws rely on nothing but pure imagination, and the hope that when decisions are made today, that in the future some good will come of those decisions. Personally, basing life and death decisions, on pure speculation/unprovable hypotheticals is insane, if one "values" life. Hence, in my opinion, when discussing abortion, etc., it seems the only logical and verifiable way to produce predictable actions, is to invest ones' time searching natural law, and deriving opinion. That doesn't mean, that all religious people hold to spiritual foundations for their beliefs, but... many do, and many die from their beliefs.
For instance, Jehova's Witnesses, don't accept blood transfusions, as it taints their bodily temple, and thus, many die at car crash sites. A religious mother, who believes a ghost enters an embryo, call it the "holy ghost" if you will, and believes, aborting that "godly" being, is akin to murder, and thus, that mother may die in order to keep to her "spiritual law". Oh, I don't agree with basing any decisions on "spiritual law", period, not one molecular bit, its all natural law for me. Its apparent, that if your debate with all those people at work, didn't lead you to find this pattern, that you obviously aren't dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Shay706: "That is just sick.As far as babies being dashed to pieces on rocks,I found where this is written and to me it sounded like a prophesy of things that would take place in Babylon during a war.I didn't read that this was commanded by God,but that it was a warning about what was going to happen in the future. Where is this verse?Maybe I was reading about something else."
**********************************************************************
Isaiah 13:15-16 - "Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished"
These verses foretold the deaths of the people of Babylon. Fortunately not everyone in Babylon (now modern Iraq) fell by the sword or had their children dashed to pieces or their wives raped (just another instance of errors in the Bible). How some people who believe in an infallible Bible can accept these verses as God inspired, or morally uplifting can only give evidence to the blinding nature of unprovable hypothetical belief.
**********************************************************************
Hosea 13:16 - "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces,
and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Throughout the Bible, God smites those who do not believe in him or those who do not follow his commands. Here we have the grotesque description of infants
dashed to pieces and pregnant women ripped up. Whatever rebellious nature an infant's father or mother may have had, it bears no justice to an innocent
child or to an unborn fetus who could not possibly have rebelled against God, much less understood him. Anyone who claims to love such a God, must accept infanticide as one of God's ugly revenges.
**********************************************************************
Psalm 137:9 - "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
Uh, happiness to your god, is killing little babies, Shay.
**********************************************************************
Luke 14:26 - "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
In order for you to be a disciple of christ, you must "hate" children, and... yourself. Shay, why don't you ask the psychologist at work, what they think about Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and how this verse impairs the self-esteem needs in a persons' life, and in the lives of children.
**********************************************************************
Exodus 21:15 - "And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death."
Uh, that means, unruly children who hit mom or pop, need to be executed.
**********************************************************************
Exodus 21:17 - "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
Uh, execute the children, even if they utter a swear word towards their parents.
**********************************************************************
Leviticus 20:9 - "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."
Again, cursing parents, is capital punishment, death.
**********************************************************************
Matthew 15:4 - "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
This is getting boring, however, once again, slay the child for cursing a parent. And, lest we not forget, "Jesus", said in not so many words "father, why hast thou forsaken me?", I'm not thinking that this was a statement to "honor" his father, as a matter of fact, he is calling into question his fathers' motive for allowing himself to be crucified, hence... not "honoring" big daddy, but, perhaps, Jesus didn't have to obey his "fathers'" commandments, or biblical teachings. He didn't obey the sabbath, why bother with the other commandments...
**********************************************************************
Exodus 21:7-8 - "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath
betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her."
When the children get a little older, parents can spiritually whore their children off for profit... if the children do not obey, i.e., honor their parents' wishes, well, then their new owners can resell them to others for pleasure... Shay, have you actually read your "holy" bible.
**********************************************************************
Judges 11:29-39, states, that When "the spirit of the Lord" comes upon Jephthah, he makes a deal with God: If God will help him kill the Ammonites, then he (Jephthah) will offer to God as a burnt offering whatever comes out of his house to greet him. God keeps his end of the deal by providing Jephthah with "a very great slaughter." But when Jephthah returns, his nameless daughter comes out to greet him (who'd he expect, his wife?). Well, a deal's a deal, so he delivers her to God as a burnt offering -- after letting her spend a couple of months going up and down on the mountains bewailing her virginity. Nothing like putting the kids on fire, huh, Shay.
**********************************************************************
Shay, if you want more, I have read the bible, I can get you plenty, the question is, if you are the one who is religious, and believe the bible to be the word of god, then, why don't "you' know these passages by heart, specially, if you are using "spiritual law" to base life and death decisions on, in your life.
Shay706: "As for my believing in Zeus and other gods of the ancient people,God talks about the people worshipping other gods all through the bible.In the book of Genesis,chapter 6:4 it says,There were giants in the earth in those days;and also after that,when the sons of God came into the daughters of men,and they bare children to them,the same became mighty men which were of old,men of renown.Giants and mighty men also mentioned in Deuteronomy 1:28,2:10-11,2:20-21,3:13,17:2-3,2 Peter2:4,Jude 1:6-7.These verses are about giants,worshipping other gods,and angels that sinned and are in chains until the judgement.I believe that they did come to earth and mated with women.The only other place that I have seen the "Sons of God" is in Job where it says that the Sons of God went to talk with God and the devil came along with them.Regular man is called the son of man everywhere else,so since the devil was hanging out with the Sons of God,and they all felt like having a chat with God."
Okay, first of all, the war in the heavens, is not chronicled in the bible, in detail. The whole thing about giant people, being born from angelic conception, etc., is totally insane. Do you not realize, that the bible, states, that "ALL" was created in six days, uh, Shay, that means "HELL" was created before mankind, uh, and pardon to sarcasm, but that means the little dude with the red pitchfork was already hanging out with big sky daddy, much sooner than the "sons of man", hence, why the opening scene in the bible, one of the "two" genesis creation stories, already has a slippery snake in the "Perfect" garden of paradise, waiting to "tempt" gods' "Perfect" creation, Adam and Eve, or... not so perfect, as they were temptable.
Genesis 1:26 - "And God said, let us make man in our image."
Shay, what does "OUR" mean to you?
Genesis 3:22 - "And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil."
Genesis 11:7 - "Let us go down, and there confound their language."
Exodus 12:12 - "And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment."
That would be "ALL" gods, Shay, of Egypt, how many gods of Egypt where there Shay? If you need help, I'll provide the ball park figure, I have research documentation with the names, you may want to go pick up some of that reading material yourself, it does wonders for "ignorance".
Exodus 15:11 - "Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?"
Exodus 18:11 - "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods."
Exodus 20:3 - "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Exodus 22:20 - "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."
Exodus 22:28 - "Thou shalt not revile the gods."
Exodus 23:13 - "Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth."
Exodus 23:24 - "Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images."
Exodus 23:32 - "Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods."
Exodus 34:14 - "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."
Deuteronomy 6:14-15 - "Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you)"
Numbers 33:4 - "Upon their gods also theLORD executed judgments."
Okay, its obvious, in order for you "god" to execute judgement on "other" gods, they must first "exist", thus, the bible, being of a gods' words, makes claims that other gods, are real, and exist, period.
Judges 11:24 - "Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess?'
1 Samuel 6:5 - "Ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods."
1 Samuel 28:13 - "And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth."
Psalm 82:1 - "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods."
Psalm 82:6 - "I have said, Ye are gods."
Uh, Shay, we are gods, per your bible.
Psalm 86:8 - "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord."
Psalm 96:4 - "For the Lord ... is to be feared above all gods."
Psalm 97:7 - "Worship him, all ye gods."
Psalm 136:2 - "O give thanks unto the God of gods."
Jeremiah 1:16 - "I will utter my judgments against them ... who have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods."
Jeremiah 10:11 - "The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."
Zephaniah 2:11 - "The Lord will be terrible to them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth."
John 10:33-34 - "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"
1 John 5:7 - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Shay, its obvious you haven't read your bible in depth. And, the giant humans coming from angelic conception, yeah, I was told that too, as a bible study story growing up, but then... I grew up, and asked where that story resided in the bible, and guess what... I found these verses, of multiple gods everywhere. Not, angels, not imps, not devils... GODS! EGYPTIAN GODS, etc., etc.
Shay706: "I think that they were something above regular men.I believe that they had supernatural powers,and were living on earth and producing these giant,evil chidren with women,and God said that their violent ways was the cause of the flood.Achilles,Alexander the Great, Helen of Troy,and others were said to have been offsping of Zeus.All of these mythology gods were very immoral beings.I believing that they existed does not mean that I consider them God.I believe that my God is the creator of all things and that he is the one that WE WILL face on judgement day."
Again, show me about giants being born of angels in the bible, Shay. Your bible states there are multiple "gods" roaming the heavens, how do you know Zeus isn't one of them? Let me guess, you choose to ignore the part of your bible, that contradicts what you "want" to believe.
Shay706: "I believe that Jesus is the son of God and was sent here to die for our sins.I believe that these other beings were evil."
Show me in the bible, where these other "gods" are evil. Its plain to see that your god, is "jealous" of those other gods, but where does it say, all of those other "gods" are "evil"? It doesn't, you are totally making this up as you go.
Exodus 34:14 - "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:"
Uh, your gods' name... Shay... is "Jealous", why would a supreme god be jealous Shay.
1 John 5:7 - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Something to think about, Shay, is that Jesus' name, was not mentioned in the Old Testament/Covenant, "once", "EVER". And even in the New Testament, per John, above, there is the "father", and "WORD", and the "holy ghost", uh, someone seems left out of the statement, perhaps, "JESUS" was left out.
Shay706: "I believe that satan is real and that these fallen angels are like him in their mission to destoy mankind."
When is the last time, you talked with Satan, or... perhaps your own god? NEVER, but you really seem to have a solid "opinion" on the matter, so, how did you come to this knowledge.
Shay706: "The ancient people probably witnessed their powers and abilities and considered them to be gods,and decided to please the gods and worship them.Different civilizations had different names for these monsters,but they have basically the same story.Ancient Egypt,Babylon,Macedonia,Greece,Rome and other civilizations,probably plenty that we will never even know,were very,very immoral and cruel people.They were sexually immoral in every way.Bisexual,had groups of servant children that's only purpose was to have sex with the adult men,They would have temple prostitutes for their temple orgies to worship their gods.They would have people murdered and have people ripped apart by animals,and considered it Fun Family Entertainment.They would kill members of their own family if they thought them to be a threat to their power.Mothers,Fathers,siblings,didn't matter.I believe that alot of these fallen angels are in chains until the judgement,that alot of them were destroyed in the flood,and alot of them are demonic forces on earth,working with their sidekick satan,decieving and tempting the whole world.Maybe my beliefs differ from the "mainstream" christian beliefs,but I do not take anyone else's word for the meaning of anything.I read the bible for myself and interpret what I read to the best of my own understanding."
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha, you actually believe anyone thinks you "read" the bible, and came up with that conclusion. Which bible are you reading. Your own bible, states that there were "Many" GODS in heaven, before we even got to earth, it doesn't give names, other than there are Egyptian gods obviously in heaven, and it surely doesn't give their purpose or intents. So, how do "you" come up with calling all of these other "gods" in heaven, before Adam and Eve were created, evil. You have got to be kidding. You are using your imagination to make sense of the bible, because, a) You haven't read your bible, b) You are not capable of reading your bible properly, c) You ahve read your bible, and like filling in the gaps with your own religious beliefs, again, going back to spiritual law, and abortion, "You" are not the person I would want making decisions on life and death, especially, if you pick up a book, and "interpret" it the way you want, and not based on what it says. Suppose, there is a d) That you have read your bible, you realize the evil your god displays, and yet, are here attempting to deceive others, on the "words" in the bible, by claiming, you "interpret" the words differently...
Isaiah 45:7 - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Shay706: "James1:13 says,Let no man say when he is tempted,I am tempted of God:for God cannot be tempted with evil,neither tempteth he any man."
First of all, it appears your "god" is "temptable", you need to read your bible... again.
Deuteronomy 6:16 - "Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God."
Matthew 4:7 & Luke 4:12 - "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
Acts 15:10 - "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
Secondly, you believe "god" tempts no man?
Genesis 22:1 - "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am."
**Some claim that your god was tempted by Satan, to test the faithfulness of Abraham, and its clearly spelled out in the dead sea scrolls as such.
2 Samuel 24:1 - "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go number Israel and Judah."
Matthew 6:13 - "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
Job 42:11 - "Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with
him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him:"
Shay706: "2 Timothy4:5 says,But watch thou in all things,endure afflictions,do the work of an evangelist,make full proof of thy ministry."
2 Timothy 4:14 - "Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:"
God will "reward" Alexander for the "blasphemy" of disagreeing with Paul. (See 1 Tim.1:20 and 2 Tim.2:16-18)
And, by the way, your bible says that not everyone should be evangelized to...
Matthew 10:5-6 - "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Matthew 15:24 - "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Acts 16:6 - "Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia."
Okay, so lost Jewish people were the target audience, therefore, leave out everyone else, including the Asian folks, got it. Obviously, Shay, you need to find out how many people on this site, are "lost" Jews, and ensure, no one is of Asian ancestry.
Shay706: "2 Corinthians 11:13-15 says,For such are false apostles,decietful workers,transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.And no marvel;for atan himself is transformed into an angel of light.Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed into the ministers of righteousness;whose end shall be according to their works.DO NOT TRUST THE PREACHER!!!!"
2 Corinthians 11:8 - "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service."
Shay, Paul set an example for televangelists by robbing some churches. You pulled a passage from 2 Corinthians, where Paul robbed churches, and set the example for his followers, as the first "True Christian", and follower of a Jesus. Perhaps, you should have cited another book.
Shay706: "Ephesians6:11-12 says,Put on the whole armour of God,that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.For we wrestle not against flesh and blood,but against principalities,against powers,against the rulers of the darkness of this world,against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Ephesians 6:5 - "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto hrist;"
Slaves must obey their masters "as unto Christ." Well, Shay, I suppose slavery is okay as well with your god, yes, yes, slavery went on in those days, but... we are talking about your "gods" holy bible and doctrine, one would think a good "god", not an "evil" god, would renounce such activities. But, it appears your god, does condone slavery throughout the bible...
Shay706: "2 Timothy3:1-17.too much to write,but if you ever get curious,take note on verses,2,4,5,7,8,12,13,15,and 16.It talks about the attitudes of
people in the last days."
2 Timothy 3:16 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:"
Okay, so... "ALL" scripture is given by inspiration of "God"?
1 Corinthians 7:12 - "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."
1 Corinthians 7:25 - "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment..."
Well, it appears that there are some "opinions" that are "NOT" inspired by god, in the bible, and what else do we know about scripture, being changed in the bible, for reproof, correction, or for "ANY" purpose?
Revelation 22:19 - "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Shay, a cliche comes to mind... Uh, damned if you do mess with the word, and damned if you don't... nice religion you have there.
Shay706: "I truly believe all this that I have written about.Modern man/woman are believing that they have too much knoledge to believe this silly stuff,but I believe that you are being decieved.I'm not trying to offend anyone,Honestly,but I do not see you as being that smart if you do not believe in God."
Again, you "believe" everyone is deceived, except you, and that means they aren't smart. Uh, the patented "BIGOTRY" statement comes out, thanks Shay, for showing your most obtuse insights on this site, you are a proverbial "True Christian", if there ever was one, why don't you and Paul, go rob a few churches, and continue to shine the example for the masses - dolt.
Shay706: "Think about the universe,galaxies,planets,stars,moon,sun,so many forms of life,the systems of human beings and the way that they all work,all of our organs and the specific jobs that they do,eyes that see,being able to concieve and give birth to children,and so many other things that I can not begin to understand how anyone can believe that it all just happened this way."
I know, you are obviously being stretched neurologically to your limits, with all of these big words, but... if you want to delve into some physics, math, logic, philosophy, biology, etc., just let me know. The bottom line however, is... that the universe is at it is, because it has evolved into what it has
become, not because it is sitting in a perfect state... Do you have another existence, to present so that we can make comparison... No? Well, then, I suppose we could be living in a pretty dismal Universe without knowing anything "Different"...
Shay706: "And for all the people on this site that claims that they would rather be in hell then with that mean god;All that I can say about that is that it is easy for some people to say things like that now,because you are alive and and because we cannot imagine anything else but what we know,which is our life here on earth."
So, Shay, are you "dead" and speaking from another existence? Or... are you just like everyone else, talking about things you can't possibly know, as you "imagine" that a "hell" exists... Why not "imagine" that a "hell" doesn't exist... in either, case... its all magic, and imaginary, unless you have proof, and... you don't, unless you are going to suggest, that me having to respond to your most uneducated post, is a form of hell, and then... I could see your point.
Shay706: "We can all talk big and bad about the unknown because we as humans cannot concieve the idea of anything bad happening to us until it has happened.We do not feel like we'll die anytime soon and really don't worry about it much.But,if I am right and you are wrong,and you find yourself in hell one day,and realize that God is real,and see that you are going to be in that torture forever,I don't think you will be quite as cocky."
Again, you seem to be wanting to say something as if "you" are somehow "different" than everyone else, as if... you have some objective truth tucked away, hate to break it to you - you don't. You want to use your imagination, and conjur up hell, well, if you're wrong, then you will be burning in Muslim Hell, and its much worse than your piddly hell by far, as a matter of fact, hell per the Old Testament, wasn't the Hell of the New Testament, but... I am sure you know the difference, I mean, you are going to make decisions in your life, based on spiritual laws, so it only makes sense, that you have done your historical research, to make sure you are not being a fool... should I have faith, that you have in fact, done your research, or should I accept your post here, as evidence of your research so far.
Shay706: "I don't think you'll be saying well, I would rather be here burning forever then with that mean god.Then it will be too late.Just because you say that you don't believe in God and Jesus does not mean that you are 100%sure that you are right."
When you finally get to college, and I hope, you are not already in college, as that would mean, you are actually representing the quality of college students now entering educational stitutions... you need to take a few classes in philosophy. Not getting into Platonic dialogue, in depth, but... can you name "one" thing in this Universe, that you, and everyone else in this Universe can experience "equally", without any "deviation"? Why do I ask?
Well, obviously, you can't define "god", and you have never known or experienced "Jesus", so you have no way to even begin to pass that knowledge over to another person. However, lets say... you met god, and Jesus, and they ate breakfast with you... You still would not be able to pass your "experience" over to someone else "equally" and "perfectly" in an objective manner, you would be using language, which is a sad representation of neurological states that are experienced, and each "word" on a language "draws" a different response from people, as people reflect on the "word" and how it has applied in their life, and what neurological states were experienced before with the use of the word. So, in short, Shay... I am 100% sure, that whatever "god" or "Jesus" you "think" you know exists, will "NEVER" be the "god" or "Jesus", that I may think or don't think exists, PERIOD. You build your god, in your own imagination, and that imagination is yours alone, so, attempting to proselytize others using your imagination, is abecedarian, if you are attempting to "pass" on universal "objective truth". Now, obviously, since we all know you can't possibly pass on objective truth, because you live like everyone else with subjective perception, you are appealing to "influence", and asking people to have "faith" in your words, because that's all you have - words.
Personally, I don't buy spiritual law because it has been promoted by people who make claims that their words are objectively true, and thus, they are either ignorant, liars, or deceivers, not the people I would be seeking advice from.
Shay706: "My ethics teacher told us a story about some company in Texas that was making people applying for a job with them,take a polygraph test before they were hired.One of the questions was,Do you believe in God?The people that answered no to the question,the test showed that they were lying.Even though they said no,something in them could not deny that God did exist.Isn't that a nice little story."
Yes, its a nice little "Story". As, its against constitutional law to polygraph anyone on the grounds of religion, if they are applying for any type of gov't job, that means any state or federal job. If a person, attempts to get a job, not based on the gov't, and they are being polygraphed, then its obvious that something isn't right. What, a grocery store owner wants to ensure the bag boy/girl doesn't have a relative living overseas, that could be a threat to the pickle market? Uh, Shay, why don't you tell us what company polygraphs, I am sure, you have that information at your fingertips, or... you don't, and your little story, is a fabrication to scare people into placing their "faith" in you and your "words", without any evidence - seems a pattern is forming.
Shay706: "If you do not want to believe in God,suit yourself,you can get forgiveness for this if you have a change of heart down the road,but you need to be careful about the blaspemy that some of you say on this site,and the pictures,Crrrrinnnge!The devils laughing and saying,"DANCE PUPPETS DANCE"Your choice to not believe in God should not mean that you should hate everything about God and Jesus!You are going to get a wippin for some of this stuff!GO ahead and insult me,call me names,throw pies in my face,I don't mind.I'm just trying to help my fellowman to find his/her way because I AM RIGHT!!!!!!!!Love to you all,shay706"
Well, Shay, if you ever have kids, and you ask them to not drink your favorite soda, and they share one when you are out working... are you going to demand that your grandchildren repent for your children's mistakes, and if they don't, you'll torture them brutally until they die? Well, your god does make those demands, and the torture doesn't stop at death, oh, no, its torture for all eternity, for "ONE" sin, that wasn't even theirs to own. Shay, keep your fear, enjoy living in perpetual anxiety, as for me, I will live a natural life, without trying to imagine how "terrible" hell can be, I'll use my imagination, to imagine, how nice not having a "hell" is.
UFO's are visiting Earth. The Lochness Monster is real. Great is Allah. Zeus lives on Mt. Olympus. Ra is the master of the world. Sasquatch is roaming the Rockies.
You cannot say these are fantastic claims because I didn't think of them.
Christianity is emotional -- there is apparently very little, if any, logic going on when it comes to believing in talking snakes, flying chariots of fire, flying un-dead man-gods, pigs with demons, or people that take three day weekends in the belly of a fish.
It's sad...really, really sad.
Angels get erections? I didn't know they had penises. Do some angels have vaginas, or are they all men? Do these horny angels have hairy testicles too? Is their DNA like ours, or would it be like a men raping chimps to generate a race of King Kongs?
Your posts inspire so many interesting questions.
Ps 137:9 — Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Isaiah 13:16 — Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
Hosea 13:16 — ...they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Remember, HE is the same yesterday, today and forever. HE is not a man that HE should repent, or change HIS mind.
I'm not being defensive by calling you Mr."BIG WORD USER",I was playing around.You see,I have a personality.I like to joke around and have fun.I was picking at myself when I called you that,because I don't have a problem admitting that you used some words that I have never heard of.Like I said earlier,Things are getting twisted into meanings that I did not imply.Now that ib being defensive.Oh,I didn't give you my job descpiption? Well,I am a nurse.You misunderstood my comment about having hours of talking time in patient's rooms.I didn't mean with the patients,I meant with other coworkers in the room with me,as the burn patient has many needs during their treatment,which requires several people.The patients really don't since thay are in comas.They choose to just listen quietly most of the time.No,I do not write prescriptions,but plaese pardon me for pointing out that your "supreme wisdom" just dropped a few points as I have noticed a couple of paragraphs down ,an error with the spelling of the word KNOWLEDGE.You spelled the word that you have ownership of KNOWELDGE.Oh,forgive me while I relish this moment.MMMMMM
OK,I'm back.Well,Well,dave,I just read the rest of your letter,and i'm so happy to see that you do indeed have a personality."nothing like putting the kids on fire,huh,shay.Now that is funny.Telling me to rob churches with Paul,was worthy of a chuckle as well.I have read the bible and still do read,and i do not choose to ignore any of it.Other gods,Egyptian gods.this is all topics of great interest to me.Me and my friends are always on the search for answers and mysteries of the unknown.I wish that I didn't have to go to work tonight,and could spend a while longer on this,but I have to go and get ready. I will respond to this tommorow evening when I am not rushed.Any literature from ancient times,is What I yearn for. Until later,shay706
Noticed a couple more spelling errors,but I'll let it go this time.
I will respond to all you others tommorow night too.Out of time.shay706
Also, I typically draft a post in an electronically separate location and transfer the data content in a more secure mode to this blog - hence the typos. That being said, it appears you had a compulsive need to target typos, instead of the content, albeit you discuss you have other obligations near term.
Now, when someone focuses and targets another persons' post based on typos, it would seem only an idiot would return reply in a short post, with substantial typos themselves.
Shay706's 4/22/2006 5:25 PM post:
Spacing errors between the following words:
-Mr."BIG
-around.You
-see,I
-personality.I
-that,because
-of.Like
-earlier,Things
-imply.Now
-defensive.Oh,I
-Well,I
-nurse.You
-rooms.I
-patients,I
-me,as
-treatment,which
-people.The
-comas.They
-time.No,I
-prescriptions,but
-KNOWLEDGE.You
-KNOWELDGE.Oh,forgive
-moment.MMMMMM
-OK,I'm
-back.Well,Well,dave,I
-letter,and
-personality."nothing
-fire,huh,shay.Now
-funny.Telling
-Paul,was
-well.I
-read,and
-it.Other
-gods,Egyptian
-gods.this
-me.Me
-unknown.I
-tonight,and
-this,but
-rushed.Any
-times,is
-later,shay706
-errors,but
-too.Out
-time.shay706
Misspelled Words:
-ib
-descpiption
-thay
-plaese
-tommorow
-tommorow
Capitalization errors
-dave
-i'm
-nothing
-i
-this
Punctuation errors:
-shay. - missing quotation mark
-times, - unnecessary use of comma
-shay706 - no period
Improper use of pronoun:
-Me and my... - should be "I" and my...
**I disregarded fragmented sentences.
Shay's grammatical performance:
Words associated with typos: 111
Total words on post: 392
Error Percentage: 28%
Shay706: "No,I do not write prescriptions,but plaese pardon me for pointing out that your "supreme wisdom" just dropped a few points as I have noticed a couple of paragraphs down ,an error with the spelling of the word KNOWLEDGE."
Wisdom - "The quality of being prudent and sensible."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Someone who is being prudent and sensible, most likely regards content as much more important, than typos in informal discussion. However, it appears you have found typos fascinating, imagine that.
Shay706: "OK,I'm back.Well,Well,dave,I just read the rest of your letter,and i'm so happy to see that you do indeed have a personality."
Personality: "The complex of all the attributes--behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental--that characterize a unique individual;"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
It appears, that one who is involved in the medical profession, would inherently understand that "all" people have personalities.
Shay706: "I have read the bible and still do read,and i do not choose to ignore any of it."
Do you read using eisegesis or exegesis?
Eisegesis: "Personal interpretation of a text (especially of the Bible) using your own ideas."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Exegesis: "An explanation or critical interpretation (especially of the Bible)."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Scholars, spend a lot of time, drawing direct meaning from the words of the bible, using historical references and research methods. They are supposed to refrain from painting the words of the bible with their subjective beliefs. In order to filter out as much "subjectivity" as possible, the scholar allows other professionals in their field to "peer review" their material, and search out inconsistencies.
The basic layman or religious leader is not held to the restrictions of exegesis. Such is the reason there are umpteen thousands of different christian sects in the world today, all claiming they have the "objective truth".
You, may suggest you "read" the bible, however, its more interesting to understand "how" you read the bible. If you are using eisegesis as you read your bible, then you are not searching out "truth" in the words, you are searching yourself for personal meaning, by applying yourself to the words and seeing if it makes sense or feels right. Logically, its a game of trial and error.
Those who use eisegesis, and refuse to learn and become more educated are stuck in a perpetual life of subjective truth, as their subjective views change very litte over time. Education and application of exegetical concepts brings one closer to objectivity with the writings of the bible. Albeit, the authors of the bible themselves held subjective views and true objectivity can never be gained.
Those who use eisegesis, and continue to study and become educated, never find objective truth. As their knowledge increases, the words in their bible take on different hues over time. Therefore, using eisegesis allows the layman and religious leaders the opportunity to keep the biblical words relevant, by allowing their followers to interpret the bible as they need. Still, one is choosing to read into the words of a book, what one wants to see, instead of searching for more objective truth.
Those who employ exegesis, and draw out the meaning of the words using critical scholarship, typically are educated enough to know, that the bible was not written by a "god", or divinely inspired by "one" specific "god". However, that doesn't mean one who uses exegesis isn't religious, it just means they are fully aware of the limitations of the bible in the search for god and meaning in life.
As much as I enjoy watching people search for wisdom, I find many follow the path of least resistance, and use eisegesis. I could take quote after quote you reference in the bible, and interpret alternate meanings, using my own eisegesis. What would that gain you or me? Me, nothing (notwithstanding, the amusement of mentally toying with someone who may appear obnoxious, bigoted, and immature), you, perhaps the understanding that your bible is an interpretive piece of literature, and not the perfectly adorned "objective truth" one would expect from a perfect deity.
If you respond to my post, do us both a favor and attempt to refrain from posting apologetic comments or creative interpretations of the bible. If you appear to want to engage in something more intellectually profitable, then I will reply, if not, I may not. Until then.
You are the one that was poking fun at my errors,which I announced in my very first post,that I wasn't a great writer.I guess my pointing out your flaws hurt your pride.I think that you must be a little on the INSANE side to make this list of my mistakes.If you have a wife,I pity her to have to live with a "man" with such competitive issues.I hope that everyone sees your share of spelling errors,so they can see that you are not as brilliant as you like to believe.I,unlike you stated my inperfections,and just felt that you needed to see yours too.I have been to college,and graduated with an associates degree,and now I am working on my Masters degree.I have decided to retake a few of the original core classes,just because I wanted to brush up on my englishand my spanish.I will check these bible quotes out,because I am so sure that you have added to and took out the whole story.Maybe you smacked your parents around when you were a kid,but that is a horrible thing.I do not ignore any of the bible and DO realize the existence of other gods,which I am pretty sure I mentioned in earlier comments.I will not be checking with you people for your hateful comments anymore,so don't bother with a reply.You think your smart,but I think that denying THE ALMIGHTY GOD that you will face one day,makes you "where the banner and crown"of stupidity.MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL! For someone to read the bible as you claim you have,and still deny GOD,shows something very strange about you.Could you be a Kennite?By the way, I didn't catch your job title either,Hopefully with your self righteous attitude,you don't have to deal with the public.You can't help people with yous views.Remember,EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW,EVERY TOUNGUE SHALL CONFESS,THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD.
I think it's time to start compiling a "fundy to English" dictionary, so that we can quickly and effortlessly decode comments such as shay's. I'll start out...
"you people are hateful" --> "I cannot provide any substantive arguments, so I will resort to attacking you personally."
"don't bother replying to me" --> "I've taken a thrashing here, so I'm going to escape with what little pride I have left."
Let me add to the list I began above:
"You people..." --> "I'm a bigot!"
Yes,I know that I will die and so will you.I don't think that people would be scared,if everything just shut off and you were forever unknowing of anything,just completely gone.Why would that be scary like you are trying to say.No,what is scary,is that this is not the truth,and unbelievers will go to hell.I can't make you see this,but you will see one day.GOOD LUCK WITH LIFE AND AFTERLIFE!shay706
What's real,real,sad,is that your going to hell if you don't change your life.Seek for your proof.God is sad by your rejection,and so am I.I can't get passed the walls that you guys have put up,but I gave it a try.Good luck and goodbye.
BTW, what's a "lake of fire"?...?...? that's "L-A-K-E"....and what else?...."F-I-R-E" ? Um, did you fail science class, Shay? lol..... I mean, I'm just trying to figure out if I need to take my scuba gear...?...? or my fire extinguisher...?...? so which is it? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
Shay, you have bludgeoned us long enough with your stupidity. Unless you can provide the class with *objective evidence of your biblegod; unless you can make illogically stupid concepts like "
hell" and "souls" make logical sense?..... I suggest you "click OFF", 'k, babe?
* When we speak of "objective" evidence, we DO NOT mean "it's true because Shay believes it's true"....::wink::
That's such a puerile remark I'm quite happy to let that stand in all its glory.
Shay: "You seem like a real nice guy NOT! But maybe you can get it straitened out some day."
You know nothing about me other than what I've posted here. When people state their points of view here civilly, I reply in kind. When they are dishonest, hostile, or abusive, however, I show them somewhat less civility. In extreme cases (of which I consider you an example), I tell them bluntly that their presence is not welcome, and try to alert them to how offensive they are. Consider yourself alerted.
Shay: "You are the ones that are biggots because you have such a dislike for the people on this site,FOR THEIR BELIEF IN GOD,that you try to say hurtful things,for that reason alone."
That is patently false. I, and others here, consistently assert that your beliefs are your business. I hold nothing at all against people for their beliefs. What I take offense at is bigotry (casting ugly aspersions at an entire group), arrogance (thinking you are the exclusive holder of truth), condescension (thinking you are a conduit of great insights), and irresponsible credulity (not making any effort to critically examine your own claims).
Shay: "We are only trying to help you,but you have this mean spirit about you,which shows that the devil is at work in your lives."
I do not think your explanation is at all credible. First, if your intention was to "help", you would be concerned first and foremost with communicating clearly, which starts with listening. I see no evidence that you have tried to understand a single point that has been made to you. You seem to be only interested in repeating your dogma. In my opinion, that's usually a sign that you are looking for personal vindication, not the betterment of others. Also, your quip about the devil is an ad hominem attack that carries no weight whatsoever. It's a very poor substitute for rational argument. It's essentially and admission that you are out of ammunition.
Shay: "My hope is that maybe someone on this site will have a change of heart from some of the christians that post on this site."
The vast majority of the Christians who post here make our point far more vividly than we could ever hope to, and you are chief among them. You have consistently displayed narrow thinking and a fetid hostility that, frankly, gives me the creeps (to be perfectly blunt). If there was ever a shadow of a doubt that we have chosen a path of greater integrity than you, you've dispelled it. So, to say that you shot yourself in the foot would be a rather dramatic understatement.
Shay: Good Luck and goodbye.
Bye bye.
My name is Kaleigh Antoinette Lambrich. I'm a christian. I like your site.
Have a nice day.
Many people on this site studied your god until their brains were fried and prayed to your god until their knees were raw and begged your god until their hearts were broken. They did everything that they could to get closer to your god. They did it for years or even decades. Until finally the weight of being a sinner and the ever-present unattainable, just-out-of-your-reach, ultimate worthiness got to be so heavy and exhausting that the thought of going to hell seemed like a reprieve.
Doubt is not a luxury afforded to Christians. Doubt belongs to the skeptic. And the first step towards freedom from religion is allowing the initial negligible bits of doubt in. The floodgates will open and you can say: ‘I don’t like that answer. It’s not only not good enough; it’s just plain wrong.’
I was only vaguely tortured with Sunday school for about year when I was six. As a youngster, I had a set of World Book Encyclopedia and I was left alone to get my own answers. So, by the time someone showed up with a bible, it fell short for giving any answers for anything.
The best thing I got; though, was not having Fear of Hell scare into me. Why doesn’t heaven stand alone? Why does your god have to use hell as a threat? How weak is that?
And heaven seems like a cruise ship vacation that would never end. Sure, the first two weeks or even couple of months would be cool but eventually the thrill would wear thin as the forever and eternity part kicked in.
Definitely, after you run into your ex-husband and the bitch he left you for. You see, they were believers. They worked out their sin with god and got a seat. It doesn’t matter that he was a deadbeat dad and that you had to work two, sometimes three, jobs to support your family.
And then you remember the nights that you rocked you son to sleep because, once again, his father forgot his birthday. Then you realize your son is not there. He’s not there because he was unbeliever regardless to the fact that he was a decent person and a great humanitarian. He was a doctor-not a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon, either. He had volunteered for years with Doctors without Borders. In his everyday practice, he ensured that those who need doctoring got doctoring and worried about getting paid later. To his patients, he was a paragon, an angel. Yet he was not perfect; he had issues in his private life but in due course he settled down with a partner for twenty years.
Then you meet your son murderer; he sits at the same dinner table as you do. Your son was murdered during a random car-jacking. The guy was high on methamphetamine. He got caught and was prosecuted. During his life-sentence, he sobers up and accepts Jesus in his heart and all his sins were forgiven.
The concept of heaven and hell is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I have met more than my share of Christians who are completely removed from this world. They are waiting with bated breath for the day that god lights this place on fire like it’s a pile of useless kindling. I seen too many people who view this world like it’s god’s giant paint-by-numbers canvas. They never look for details. They just stand back far enough until it all blends together in to a picture with Christians on top.
A god is a place marker for the unexplained. He/she/it doesn’t answer anything. To contemplate god is to contemplate the next life and not this one. We do not need to hash out god. We need to hash out what value we can place on this life so we can stop killing each other over the next.
First of all, can someone "own" pride? Is it possible for you to "hurt" something I own, pride? Perhaps, you are trying to communicate that you believe you have somehow attacked something I associate with my self-esteem and therefore, have rendered a negative effect on my emotional/neural/homeostatic state.
I know this may be hard for you to hear, but your opinion of my grammar has no impact on my self-esteem. In order for that to happen, I would have to regard your opinion as having a higher level of value. I value logic, and thus your opinion has very little value accordingly as you have shown very little capability to form a logical stance for your beliefs.
Projection - "(psychiatry) a defense mechanism by which your own traits and emotions are attributed to someone else."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Why don't you take a psychologically positive approach and attempt to overcome what you obviously feel is a shortcoming, instead of taking the negative approach of projection. Is it not obvious, that I posted your typos and then additional logical discourse as well? And, the only content you have focused on in that post is related to your penmanship.
Shay706: "I think that you must be a little on the INSANE side to make this list of my mistakes."
Actually, I responded to your projection, sarcastically, thinking that you as a health care professional would make the connection and self-correct. However, it appears that my non-subtle point wasn't understood, such comes from someone who isn't capable of critical introspection. Sane people, appear insane to those who find themselves behaviorally defined in the DSM-IV.
Shay706: "If you have a wife,I pity her to have to live with a "man" with such competitive issues."
And, I pity you, if you have a husband that allows you to mindlessly go through life with your eyes wide shut. And, not that I want to go further into psychological discourse, but, are you experiencing another episode of projection. Have you spent an inordinate amount of time reflecting on the traits of a husband that you would feel more comfortable with? One who isn't capable of reconciling deeply laden subconscious conflicts is easily prone to finding an enabler to support their behavior(s). Again, not a psychologically healthy position, even for those who have to be exposed to such behaviors in society - or at work.
Shay706: "I hope that everyone sees your share of spelling errors,so they can see that you are not as brilliant as you like to believe."
Kind of sad in a way, do you even realize the immaturity expressed here, and the obvious projection. Need I suggest that you seek counseling from friends, family, professionals who can be frank and more objective with your behavior so that you may attempt to take corrective action? I know, you don't need corrective action, you are perfectly fine the way you are, everyone else seems to have the problem - right?
Shay706: "I,unlike you stated my inperfections,and just felt that you needed to see yours too."
Dave8 Post @ 4/22/2006 4:42 AM: "Now, obviously, since we all know you can't possibly pass on objective truth, because you live like everyone else with subjective perception, you are appealing to "influence", and asking people to have "faith" in your words, because that's all you have - words."
“...because you live like everyone else with subjective perception.” Subjectivity, by definition, means without total objectivity, without total objectivity, perception and experience changes and "perfection" isn't possible. Hence, none of us are perfect, and I included myself in that group, as one of the "all". However, in a society, in order to exist in some semblance of harmony, we agree to support certain values. Values, I might suggest, are not biblically derivative in many cases.
Shay706: "I have been to college,and graduated with an associates degree,and now I am working on my Masters degree.I have decided to retake a few of the original core classes,just because I wanted to brush up on my englishand my spanish."
Good luck. I do find it interesting that you are jumping from an associates degree to a masters degree without completing a baccalaureate degree on the way or perhaps you are in a program that continues through to a masters level certification. I would have suspected a BSN would have been more in order for one progressing through the ranks as a nurse seeking a master’s degree. The bilingual education will provide you more versatility in the field of nursing, but it will not guarantee you higher salary, just a tidbit of advice. You may want to seek out who your future employer will be, and see if your aspiration to have a bilingual skill is more important than completing the basic level of education to get you into the job market where you can continue education at your own pace.
Shay706: "I will check these bible quotes out,because I am so sure that you have added to and took out the whole story."
How can you be so sure, I have taken away or added to a story in the bible? I read them exegetically, according to the literal text, not according to what I may "want" the words to reflect. Associate the words in the bible according to the contextual era, in which they were written, compare the words from one book to another and see how the words are used differently. What this means Shay, is that the bible was written over thousands of years, not overnight or within a year by a perfect god.
If a god wanted to get their point across, one would assert that an omnipotent god could have produced the book without mankind and their obvious subjectivity challenges, and overnight so there isn't a few thousand years lost in the bible creation process. Again, mankind wrote the bible, not a perfect god, and if mankind wrote the bible, then its subjectively weighted and of little use, if one is attempting to find "objective" truth.
Shay706: "Maybe you smacked your parents around when you were a kid,but that is a horrible thing."
It appears that you allude the biblical passages that are posted above that call for immediate execution of any child how hits their parent - warranted. Can you think of any case, in which a parent abuses a child, and a child rebels by fighting off their parent? If so, should that child be murdered or put to death? The bible doesn't make such distinctions if reading the bible literally.
Shay706: "I do not ignore any of the bible and DO realize the existence of other gods,which I am pretty sure I mentioned in earlier comments."
You did mention that you believed in other gods, however, you failed to mention how you can tell them apart when you pray. How do you know you are not praying to Satan when you pray, or when you get a feeling to move you to make a decision, that its not Satan leading your to temptation? You can't possibly know, because you can't define god(s), nor identify them amongst themselves, except by you creating personalities for them and trying to imagine what kind of god they would be. That doesn't reflect what is, it reflects what you imaginatively "think" they are.
Shay706: "I will not be checking with you people for your hateful comments anymore,so don't bother with a reply."
At first, I was going to let your post pass, but, then of course I didn't want to leave you bitter, it appears you need all the help you can get. By the way, some of the regulars have pointed out, that making broad sweeping generalizations is being bigoted, and I agree. I don't "absolutely" associate you with "all" Christians, you have earned the respect due you, based on your posts alone.
Shay706: "You think your smart,but I think that denying THE ALMIGHTY GOD that you will face one day,makes you "where the banner and crown"of stupidity."
Illogical, you state you believe in many god(s), but can't define any of them. Then, you assert your "god" is the Supreme god of them all, and will be taking vengeance out on all of humanity that doesn't agree with your subjective belief.
Shay706: "MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL!"
Are you giving your god a direct order? Or, is that something you "hope" for, since you have no way of knowing whether your god is real or not.
Shay706: "For someone to read the bible as you claim you have,and still deny GOD,shows something very strange about you."
Actually, anyone who reads the bible looking for "objective" truth will be disappointed. However, even though the bible was written subjectively by mankind, there are still Christians who claim the bible to be the "exact" and "perfect" word(s) or a perfectly objective "god".
Shay706: "Could you be a Kennite?"
Am I a descendent of Cain? It has been asserted by modern scholars that Jethro, a Kenite, was the 'father-in-law' of Moses. Do you suggest that I am a long lost relative of the man, who assisted in the creation of the Ten Commandments?
Historically, this clan split between the southern and northern tribe of Judah. So, if you want to assert my relationship to the Kenites, please assign a time-frame, as it appears you are woefully trying to make your point, with insufficient information. I could be an El supporter or YHWH supporter, or just one of the descendents, of those who assisted in the creation of Israelite Jurisprudence. Perhaps, you assert that I am a descendent of Cain, who slew Able and was noticed by Balaam in Judges 1:16 and Numbers 24:21-22.
The jurisprudence in the bible, was derived from the Laws of Hammurabi written by King Hammurabi ~1792 Before the Common Era. Moses distilled those laws of Hammurabi, and produced ten commandments from them, so that a primitive minded tribal society could begin their long slow ascent to a more stable and productive society. It appears that that region has never "truly" been stable, even to this day. Thus, many could speculate on the "value" of the Ten Commandments in the evolution of societal social structures over history, as the most instable regions of the world, seems to still reside in the regional area where these laws were enacted. I suppose, moving away from the region allowed a lot of the associated hostility to be removed to the point that society could come to some semblance of tolerance of others. Well, minus those who feel the need to impose their absolutist beliefs on others, and portray their beliefs as "objective" truth, that would be intolerant and bigoted.
Shay706: "By the way, I didn't catch your job title either,Hopefully with your self righteous attitude,you don't have to deal with the public."
Well, coming from someone who has the bedside manner, commensurate with interacting with comatose patients, I am overwhelmed by your insights. Perhaps, saying little is more effective than saying anything for some people. My job title is irrelevant, however, my occupational growth has allowed me to progress as a social scientist, communications engineer, and to a variety of other fields, to include medical. I consider myself "versatile", as I have the ability to span across many career areas under federal employment as needs arise, because I have the ability to make accurate observations and react appropriately.
Regarding my ability to engage people in society. Well, I like many, respect those who are educated enough to be tolerant of others. You know - the golden rule, thing.
Shay706: "You can't help people with yous views."
I can't help people, when I suggest that everyone has value, and the right to live their life freely, with enough liberty to find happiness, as long as they curtail hurting others? Some quietly ask others to be tolerant, and then there are those who are a little more vocal, and "demand" tolerance. I am more of the demanding type, if you treat others like dirt, then, remember the golden rule.
Shay706: "Remember,EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW,EVERY TOUNGUE SHALL CONFESS,THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD."
According to the Jews, Jesus, was never Lord; are you tolerant enough to allow Jews their belief? Peddling fear isn’t a positive approach to gaining trust from others, it may garner short term gains for a religion, but long term, that approach will create mistrust and hatred toward those institutions and the people who promote such activity. Parents, who rear their children through fear, will also reap the backlash eventually - hence, the rule in the bible. I and many others don’t accept your biblical views, because “fear” is a tool for controlling and manipulating others – it’s a self-serving approach, not something many here are inclined to accept and fertilize. There are enough weeds in the garden of life, and it doesn’t take a genius to know the difference between the seed of a weed, and the seed of a colorful and pleasant flower. The key to a pleasant and productive garden is the removal of the weed population, so that real beauty can flourish. Shay, you get to choose how you live your life and how many weeds you grow and how many flowers; don’t blame others for the seeds you sow.
Since you have such closeness with your imaginary God, why not just pray for your patients, since all you need is a little Faith. Then you can just send your patients home and say, God Healed them!
There's really no use for hospitals, when all anyone needs is a little Faith and a prayer,
Jesus will make everything alright!!! He always does...lol
Is that really for sure, Anonymous? How very odd that is, for I'd say that the *negation* of your statement is far more of a sure thing! I say that because there isn't one iota of credible evidence that one can believe ANYTHING at all once one's brain ceases to function, and that is an inevitable consequence of death, is it not?
If you've got something that supports your assertion come on back and share it. Be well.
Somehow I just noticed your post way up there. You're definitely okay. Hope you stick around. (I also encourage you to pick a name for yourself other than "Anonymous"--it's helps to create cohesive discussions.)
Where do you get your beleifs from?...Did you not say you took University and did research?...Is that not forming your own beleif by what other people beleive?
Where do you get your beleifs from?...Did you not say you took University and did research?...Is that not forming your own beleif by what other people beleive?"
Latent response, pardon. Well, yes, as a matter of fact, I do have to learn from my environment, I take my life experiences and apply it to the knowledge I am given, sometimes, the information provided me doesn't match up to my experiential knowledge.
The point being made, is, there is some information that we are provided that can not, be tested, by its own definition. For instance, someone says, they believe in a transcendent god. How does one "transcend" themselves to verify such information, they can't, by its very definition, to say one can, is illogical.
If I can't test, or compare information to things I have experienced to make educated guesses, and then test for validity, then, I hold that information in abeyance, until further information is forthcoming. Holding information, doesn't mean, I accept the information as legitimately true, it means, I have food for thought, until or if ever, I can connect it with something that I know based on verifiable experience.
If someone says that they have had an experience that makes then sense "god", then of course, one has to ask, how their Natural experience, was able to be touched by a "transcendent" deity, in "any" form. Some people claim they are "born" with knowledge, I disagree with that statement. Thanks for asking, have a great one.
Where's the freedom of speech in a church?
So after 4000 years, they decided to offer God the ultimate offering, a human being, since this had never been done before, and Mary slipped by being stoned to death by having a baby out of wedlock, they put their insights into Mary's baby, to be the ultimate sacrifice.
They told Mary that her baby was sent from god and it was blessed, and then they told her baby named Jesus that he was blessed and he had no choice but to believe it himself.
So now since the ultimate human sacrifice was offered to god, we no longer have to send burnt offering daily to god to atone for our sins.
Thanks to Jebus!
Fear, mortals! Upon thee I shall call the grim and frostbitten kingdoms!
Hey, let me ask you, a fundy crusader,: what is salvation?
It's all bunk, if Christ was real, then why does anyone need faith?
We need faith from what someone wrote 2000 years ago, that Jesus performed miracles?
Why do we need faith? Jesus supposedly said, if one had as much faith as a mustard seed you could say mountain fall into the sea, but yet he never performed that feat, to prove it to be true, yet we are to have faith it is true, so if you believe what Jesus said to be true, then cast a mountain into the sea, I'd be willing to accept an ant hill, apparently what Jesus supposedly said was not in any way true, and neither do you have as much faith as a mustard seed.
Then 2000 years ago, any woman with child out of wedlock got stoned to death immediately, unless of course there happened to be a virgin birth, as invented by her rapist, her priest, it was all a hoax invented by her rapist priest, and people sre still stupid enough to believe such nonsense.
You must remember although I know you do not want to admit it, but people 2000 years ago, did not think like we do today...duh
They thought diseases were caused by demons!
They thought that the heart was the center of all thought and emotions, surely God would have known it is the brain that is the center of all thought and emotions, this statement alone proves that the Bible was not written nor inspired by a creator God.
They also thought, like you, that the heart had strings. per. God tugging on your heart strings, how freaking ridiculous.
They also stayed drunken on wine and drugs, of course it's not mentioned in the bible, do you think they were that stupid to mention their vises?
Also Jesus was without sin because he was not born by Joseph, yet he was born of a woman, a evil, wicked, nasty, filthy, woman, less than man, according to your stupid idiot bible.
A woman was considered unclean with her ministration cycle, she was to be put in a holding cell for 7 days, and not looked upon by a man, if a man looked upon her then she shall be unclean for 14 days!
People say that a woman has more ribs than a man, that's simply not true they have the same amount of ribs, look it up yourself, I know you do not want to.
Then Jesus never sinned, but on the cross he supposedly said Olias, Olias, why have thou forsaken me, if he was god incognito, why did he loose his faith in his own god the father of himself? Fraud!!!!
Then Jesus never wrote any part of the bible, yet we are to have faith that the things written about him by other wino's accounts are true, it takes more than faith, it takes a huge wanton belief, more than any faith can provide.
Why don't you try to think what it was like 2000 years ago, there was no phones, no conveniences, no reliable form of communication, only heresay and rumor, and superstition, science was considered to be evil and of the devil.
You're trying to believe a myth that is impossible to prove, much less try to believe.
If there really was a god, that could create the whole universe in 6 days, yet he cannot create a book that can be proved with 100% certainty, without confusion and doubt and an overwhelming abundance of faith which according to Jesus, cannot be achieved, otherwise he would have demonstrated it for those idiots.
And then, if there was a God, why did he leave it up to man to explain his plan of salvation?
And how come it took this God 4000 years to come up with the Jesus salvation plan?
A god nor Jesus never wrote any part of the bible, yet we are to believe what those 2000 year ago imbeciles, wino's wrote without question.
If you really wanted to think about the whole thing you would soon realize it's all a bunch of bunk.
But you are a scared person, you are afraid of death, you are afraid of a hell being true, you're so afraid that if you see how ignorant the bible really is that you will go to hell.
I can tell you right now there is no hell, this is man's invention to keep you weaklings scared.
There's nowhere in the bible that says that a god created a hell, it's not writrten by a god nor jesus.
I put all my faith in what god and Jesus wrote in the bible only, which they never wrote any part of the bible, so I have no faith in a god or jesus.
You can believe all that nonsense all you want to, that is your right, but you cannot make any of it true, nor can you or anyone else prove one word of be bible to be true.
It never has been proven to be true and never will be proven to be true, you cannot prove a lie or myth, to be true, it has never been done, and you haven't proven one damned thing, except that you long for, you hope for, you wish for, you desire for, a myth and a man's fantastic lie, to become true.
You're not living in todays reality, you might as well start believing in and worshipping Harry Potter, because both are fiction of human's.
Sorry.
Atheist logic-
I mock God'
Therefore God doesn't exist.
Hey, you can't argue with logic like that.
God is Omnipotent.
God is Jealous.
God is easy to Anger.
I mock God.
God doesn't respond.
Therefore God doesn't exist.
Hey, you can't argue with logic like that, well, unless your god is a pussy - I'll buy that. My God beats your gods' ass on the cosmological playground, and my dad is better than your dad, and...
God, of most holy gods, or any other god for that matter, fuck off... I'll wait for a response...
-Wes(at)vip(dot)net ; because I have more balls than you so I will post my name and e-mail address...
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
Think about that. Think about what that implies.
Truth and knowledge can only be called such if it is testable. The existance of God cannot, as of yet, be tested and therefore it cannot be said that anyone knows God is real. They are free to believe it.
Judaism and Christianity are testable. We simply look at our natural history and can see that the stories of creation and creation of man do not line up. They are wrong. Or... Untrue.
The scriptures themselves are riddled with problems. I challenge anyone to research the origins of the scriptures. You will find that we do not have ANY original documents. You will also find that the documents that we have vary greatly from each other. There are additions and plain old typos riddled through the whole of the New Testament. You will also learn that the New Testament was compiled by one sect of early christians -- the sect that one the majority of followers.
Likewise, the Jewish scriptures are also full of typos and additions/ommissions. Genesis, for example, was not written for hundreds of years after Moses. Think of it as a living document. It was put together at the same time as other documents to support each other.
Now think about this.
If it is not true it is not God's Truth.
The Bible tells us that the scriptures are 'God Breathed' and are useful for correction and instruction. (paraphrased). They are not. They were written by flawed men. mistakes are there and also personal motives.
If it is not true it is not God's Truth.
Since this is a comment, I apologize for the brevity,
"Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
2 Corinthians
3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
I would have to object; do not forget the millions slain in the 20th century in the names of Darwinism, Nazism, and Marxism.
Please cite examples of cases in which Darwinism was/is the motivation for murder and/or genocide.
Nazism was begun by a man who considered himself a Christian (read Mein Kampf), and motivated a mostly Protestant Christian populace (German) to attempt the extermination of an entire race, because they were considered the enemies of God and the Aryan race.
I don't know enough about Marxism to speak intelligently about it.
However, the statement "More people have been killed in the name of a god than for any other reason" is accurate. This includes Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and many others who have believed their god(s) commanded them to exterminate or enslave those not of their particular faith.
I have found the entire Bible harmonous, even though it was written by many different writers over a period of 1,500 years.
That alone tells me the Bible had to be inspired.
I have heard many, many people say that the Bible has errors and that it contradicts itself. I have asked them to give me an example. They never can. They admit that is was something that they had always heard. So, here goes:
If you think the Bible is in error on any subject, or that it contradicts itself, PLEASE let me know. I guarantee I will give you a correct understanding.
iam_sweet
Then take a few minutes with everything in this nice handy pamphlet: http://exchristian.net/pics/wallet_bible1.htm and here: http://exchristian.net/pics/wallet_bible2.htm
Please don't skip anything.
Then, for kicks, go to this page:click here.
Based on the above statement, you reveal yourself to have already concluded that there are no problems. Therefore, of course no one will give you a problem that you are not able to weasel out of somehow. From theological gerrymandering to special pleading, you'll commit every logical fallacy in the book to prove that whatever is given to you is not a problem.
That said, just to add a couple to what the WM gave you, riddle me this:
According to 1 John 4:8, God is love.
We are told in 1 Cor. 13:4-8 that love does not seek glory, seeks not its own, endures all things, keeps no record of wrongs, etc..
Yet, in Isaiah 48:11, Rev. 4:11 (and others), we are taught that love does indeed revel in its own glory.
Also, love does keep record of wrongs. In Rev. 20:12 we learn that all this time, love has been keeping a record of all things good and bad, by which to judge the dead.
Let's take Noah's Ark. I wonder, did Noah have Polar bears or penguins on board? Perhaps he didn't need to, since perhaps enough survived on floating pieces of ice, right? Well, how about the wallaby, or koala, or the kangaroo? How about any other species not found in/around the Middle East?
How did all these animals get on Noah's Ark? If they didn't, where did they come from? Inevitably, and no matter which route you take, you will ultimately have to resort to special pleading - God did it because God could.
Jehoiachin's Age at Royal Ascension
II Kings tells us that Jehoiachin became king when he was eighteen while II Chronicles alleged that he became King at age eight:
II Kings 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became King and he reigned three months in Jerusalem
II Chronicles 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem.
===========================
ANSWER:
The "Codex Alexandrinus", Greek, dated in the 5th century, C.E. now located in the British Museum, shows that Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN years old.
The "Septugint", also written in Greek, a copy now locted in Gottingen, Germany, also shows Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN.
The "Syriac Peshitta", dated from the 5th Century, C.E., also shows Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN.
2 Kings 24:8 also shows Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN years old when he began to reign.
=========
All of the early copies of the Bible were copied by HAND. (There were no printing presses prior to 1450) It was easy for one error to be multiplied for each copy of the erroneous manuscript.
=========
Conclusion: The original Bible writings are not in error. This is what is called a "copy error".
=======
Suggestion: I would like to answer all that you have listed. This will take a lot of my time. Please select one for me to answer that you feel is the strongest one that contradticts the Bible.
==============
To Jeff:
I will answer your 'Contradiction" next. Please give me a little time.
===========
iam_sweet
Okay, carry on Soldier for Christ! lol
I looked at the scriptures you indicated on the subject of "love".
You imply that there is some contradiction between them. Could you please me more direct in pointing out the contradictions, this is so that I can be more direct.
Below are some facts on Noah's ark:
Design and Size. The ark was a rectangular chestlike vessel presumably having square corners and a flat bottom. It needed no rounded bottom or sharp bow to cut rapidly through the water; it required no steering; its only functions were to be watertight and to stay afloat. A vessel so shaped is very stable, cannot be easily capsized, and contains about one third more storage space than ships of conventional design. There was a door provided in the side of the ark for loading and unloading the cargo.
In size the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Conservatively calculating the cubit as 44.5 cm (17.5 in.) (some think the ancient cubit was nearer 56 or 61 cm), the ark measured 133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m (437 ft 6 in. × 72 ft 11 in. × 43 ft 9 in.), less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2. This proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects. This gave the ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume. It is estimated that such a vessel would have a displacement nearly equal to that of the mighty 269-m (883 ft) Titanic of this 20th century. No cargo vessel of ancient times even slightly resembled the ark in its colossal size. Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks thus provided gave a total of about 8,900 sq m (96,000 sq ft) of space.
Ample Carrying Capacity. The passenger list of the ark was quite impressive. Besides Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives, living creatures “of every sort of flesh, two of each,” were to be taken aboard. “Male and female they will be. Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive.” Of the clean beasts and fowls, seven of each kind were to be taken. A great quantity and variety of food for all these creatures, to last for more than a year, also had to be stowed away.
The “kinds” of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding “according to their kinds.” It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds”—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to “kind” established by God were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 “kinds” of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds” were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds” following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin—all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.
These estimates may seem too restrictive to some, especially since such sources as The Encyclopedia Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals. (1977, Vol. 1, pp. 859-873) However, over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats. (The Deluge Story in Stone, by B. C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A. M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69) So, even if estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.
So, the water outside the ark was habitable? It wasn’t brackish and muddy with loosened topsoil and full of uprooted plants and trees and the bloated, slimy bodies of all the dead unsaved animals and sinful people? 'Cause floods seem messy...even little ones like New Orleans.
Go away RETARD!!! you lose!!!!
This exercise, IAS, is for you. Don't be a typically mentally lazy Christian -- learn something.
Naah. Answer them all, please. Or wait.....or are you saying that your "time" isn't worth reconverting a whole website full of backsliden heathens in the name of Christ your Lord? God would be displeased if you attempt the easy way out. It'd be great if you could address these:
Please explain how snakes, smouldering shrubberies, and a donkey, spoke the human language.
Waiting.
This is one of the many reasons why those who insist on maintaining a literal inerrantist view of scripture are wrong. Insistence that an imperfect process produced a perfect product is completely ridiculous.
"Could you please me more direct in pointing out the contradictions, this is so that I can be more direct."
Sure. 1 Jn 4:8 asserts that God is love. In other words, just as someone might say iam_sweet is human, God is love.
You do understand the difference between 'being' and 'having,' right? The passage does not say that God has love, or that God is loving, or that one of God's aspects is that of love. It says He is love.
Initially, I pointed out that according to Paul's description in 1 Cor 13:4-8, love 'vaunted not itself, is not puffed up' (does not seek glory, and is not proud), seeks not its own, and thinks no evil (keeps no record of wrongs). It bears, believes, endures all things.
With me so far?
Ok. Now, the next couple verses illustrate that God seeks His own glory. This is a theme that runs throughout the OT, and is expounded upon in the NT through the words of its authors ascribing glory to God. In Is. 48:11, God explicitly states He's shown the people of Israel (and by extension, Christians today) the various things described in the previous verses for His own sake, and His own glory. In other words, everything He did was done to glorify Himself.
In Rev 4:11, the author gives glory to God because God created everything for His own pleasure (to glorify Himself).
Still with me?
Ok. The final verse I quoted shows that God keeps a record of wrongs. However, I think a more complete context might help. Rev 20:12-15 describes the dead being judged by their works out of the books (records) kept by God. Those who don't measure up (committed wrongs) are cast into Hell.
Now, either 1 Jn 4:8 or 1 Cor 13:4-8 is false. They cannot both be true without nullifying the other verses. See below:
1. If God is love, and love does not glory in itself, then Is. 48:11 and Rev 4:11 cannot be true.
2. If God is love, and love keeps no record of wrongs, then Rev 20:12-15 is false.
Is that complete enough? There are a large number of verses and problems to choose from, but to keep things manageable I've chosen just these two problems and these few verses.
Now, on to the Ark. Oy! Where to begin?
Your description of the Ark's construction is entirely irrelevant to the question. The Ark could've been the size of Saudi Arabia and the question still stands. However, it appears the relevant portion of your post is as follows:
"With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 “kinds” of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds” were all that were required."
First off, which 'investigators' are making these assertions? Second, you seem to be both affirming and denying evolution in the same breath. Third, you're dismissing scientific evidence for the ancestral decent of marsupials. Marsupials already existed prior to Noah's flood, but none of them existed in the Middle East. The nearest common ancestor for placentals (horses, humans, etc.) and marsupials (those I already mentioned and more) existed roughly 100 million years ago, and shared a parallel evolution from then on. You're saying there is a common ancestor that existed within the last 4000 years. Accordingly, unless you ignore the evidence (or create your own) there had to be marsupials such as those I mentioned on the Ark.
I came across this article that illustrates this problem nicely. The website is creationist, and makes for hilarious reading, but it demonstrates the kind of scientific hurdles creationists have to jump (and how they do) in order to account for this disparity.
In the short time I had, I found no creationist website that had an answer for how kangaroos got to the Ark, though they all had answers relating to how they got to their respective habitats after the fact. From citing migratory habits to outrageously claiming there was an ice age less than 4000 years ago (the last one was roughly 10000 years ago, and didn't cover the ocean leading to Australia), they'll use anything - no matter how ridiculous - to explain how their Bible is not wrong.
To your request, "Please explain how snakes, smouldering shrubberies, and a donkey, spoke the human language."
Did you ever hear of Edgar Bergin and Charlie MaCarthy. Charlie was a 'dummy', but Edgar Bergin was so clever with speaking with out moving his lips that it sure looked like Charlie, the 'dummy' was speaking.
The Bible tells us of many Spirit Creatures (angels and demons) all of them invisible, the chief demon being Satan, the Devil.
Being invisible, it would be very, very simple for Satan to move the snake's mouth and make it appear that the snake was talking.
Wow! Special pleading with extra cheese on top. No wonder you've never faced a biblical problem you couldn't solve.
Thanks for the chuckle, though.
Therefore G-O-D is all things, past future and present.
A god can be made to be present for all things that has ever happened and will happen whether for good or bad.
To the believer, god is all things and god is envolved everywhere, to a believer a god cannot be disproved.
To a believer, their imaginary god will always provide the necessary answer that they seek and want for their own convience, so as not to disrupt their imaginary belief in their imaginary god friend.
If you were walking in the deep forest and came upon a large beautiful home that was nicely taken care of; would you believe that it just came about by accident?
The Apostle Paul reasoned similarly when he stated: "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God." Hebrews 3:4
Do you agree with his logic? Mankind has experienced some 2000 years of scientific advancdment since that verse was penned. Does anyone still think that the design evident in nature requires belief in a Designer, a Creator--God?
Even in industrialized countries many people would say yes. In the United States, for example, a survey conducted by Newsweek magazine in 2005 found that 80 percent of people "believe that God created the universe." Is this belief due to a lack of education? Well, do any scientists believe in God? The science journal "Nature" reported in 1997 that almost 40 percent of biologists, physicists, and mathematicians surveyed believe in a God who not only exists but also listens to and answers prayers.
Non-sequitur and argumentum ad populum ad absurdum. Public opinion does not determine the scientific validity of a proposition. If the public was comprised of scientists with the requisite expertise perhaps, but that's not the case.
"The science journal "Nature" reported in 1997 that almost 40 percent of biologists, physicists, and mathematicians surveyed believe in a God who not only exists but also listens to and answers prayers."
Misleading. While 40% of the scientists surveyed may believe in a personal deity, it does not follow that they are creationists/ID proponents. In the survey cited below (follow the link), 95% of scientists surveyed subscribed to either theistic or naturalistic evolution, with only 5% lending credence to the creationist view. (NOTE: I couldn't find my original reference due to a network error so this article will have to suffice.
So much for the validity of majority beliefs.
2000 years ago, the majority believed the earth was "flat", but the Bible said that it was "round" (like a sphere). The majority also believed the earth was held up by a Large Turtle, but the Bible clearly stated that the "earth hangs upon nothing".
As to Demon Voices:
A book, "Evidence of Satan in the Modern World", tells of many factual accounts, not only of demon assaults, but also of angry conversations between attempting exorcists and the wicked spirits.
In many cases the demons harass people by talking to them; such persons report hearing “voices.” This is called “clairaudience” in spiritistic circles, and spiritists have written a number of books at the dictation of demon voices. But these voices harass many persons, inducing them to violence, murder and suicide. A Singapore man heard a spirit voice for four days telling him to commit suicide. He did. His wife said that her husband had told her of the spirit’s commands, but she treated it as a huge joke.
The Chicago News made an investigation of spirit phenomena and reached the following conclusions: ‘As to the voices that so many are bending ear to catch, I have learned that they are more likely to suggest evil than good. . . . Once a communication is established it takes a positive thought to fight off these “voices” or forces of evil. . . . It is never safe to yield your will, your soul or individuality, into the keeping of these unearthly powers. . . . I found one woman who was led by the “voices” to kill her little girl by drowning her in a bath tub. . . . I found a man who said the voices told him to strike a young man that he met coming out of a restaurant. He did so. . . . There are hundreds of similar instances.’”
Verse please...please provide the exact verse referencing those exact words. Here's what I found with minimal investigating:
Isaiah 11:12
" And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH." (KJV)
Job 38:13
"That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?" (KJV)
"He set the earth on its foundations; it can NEVER BE MOVED." (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)
"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its PILLARS TREMBLE." (From the NIV Bible, Job 9:6)
"He sits enthroned above the *circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)
(*not "sphere"; not "round"..."circle")
iam_sweet: "As to Demon Voices:
A book, 'Evidence of Satan in the Modern World', tells of many factual accounts, not only of demon assaults, but also of angry conversations between attempting exorcists and the wicked spirits."
Yes, there's gaggles of factual accounts of schizephrenia. And yes, the people are convinced of their experiences, but there's effective drugs for that.
iam_sweet: "I found one woman who was led by the “voices” to kill her little girl by drowning her in a bath tub."
In South Carolina, Susan Smith drowned her two boys by buckling their seatbelts and pushing the car into a lake. Ironically, she did it because she heard "God's voice" tell her to do it. Do you condone this?...since it's supposedly "saving" them from "the demons"? ' Didn't think so. Some people are just mentally ill, it's got NOTHING to do with "spirits". You can let go of your blankie.
See here, here, and here. The last is a discussion of the Flat Earth Theory throughout history.
"A book, "Evidence of Satan in the Modern World", tells of many factual accounts..."
By a Catholic priest in 1959, who presupposed the existence of demons and evil spirits. Don't think he might've had just a smidgeon of bias, do you?
Hearing voices, alleged spirit possessions, and so on are all part and parcel of the Christian tradition. Oddly, they're also part and parcel of the DSM-IV.
If I were to apply Occam's Razor, I wonder which would be more likely; that the individuals in question were suffering from mental illness, or that actual demon possession was occurring?
How's it coming with those biblical contradictions, sweet?
The circle you're speaking of is still a flat earth. It was thought the earth was shaped like a coin, with oceans surrounding the land, and anyone who who dared sail to the end of the earth would fall off into an abyss or into the mouth of some monster.
God supposedly sat enthroned above the the circle of the earth, above an imaginary "firmament" which supposedly held back the waters above the firmament — hence the blue color of the sky.
Modern Bible versions have decided to go with sphere in their translations because we all now realize that the earth is a ball floating in space.
The webmaster stated:
Modern Bible versions have decided to go with sphere in their translations because we all now realize that the earth is a ball floating in space."
Notice what was posted:
"The Hebrew word chugh, here translated “circle,” may also be rendered “sphere.” Other Bible translations read, “the globe of the earth” (Douay Version)"
The book of Isaiah was first written in Hebrew. That particular word in Hebrew "chugh" could have been translated into the English language by the word "globe", as was done by the Douay Version of the Bible, which was translated around the year 1610.
The conclusion is that the original Hebrew text by Isaiah is as correct today as it was when he first wrote it.
One writer, commenting on the Dead Sea Scrool's of Isaiah had this to say, "This scroll and an additional copy of parts of Isaiah found near the Dead Sea “proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of the text. The 5% of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.”
Therefore, when reading the Hebrew Scriptures today, you can be confident that your Bible is based upon a Hebrew text that accurately conveys the thoughts of God’s inspired penmen. Thousands of years of painstaking professional copying has assured what God long ago foretold: “The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite.”—Isa. 40:8.
It is not my desire to quibble over words. If you have, what appears to be a contradiction, I will respond.
Yack, yack, yack...who the f%ck said it's "rendered sphere" ????? WHO, iam????? WHO, WHO, WHO, WHO WHO???? Provide the reference, please. Provide the lexicon, please.
iam_sweet, you have thoroughly bludgeoned us with your "interpretation" weasle-wording. Your f%cking "God" is "perfect", right? Yes? Well, a "perfect" being would know the difference between a f%cking "sphere" and "circle"...do you under-f%cking-stand? Your "omniscient" biblegod is presumably leaving a legacy, right?---GOD'S "word"; GOD'S wishes; GOD'S desires for ALL of humanity..... for-f%cking-EVER!!!! It seems a "perfect" being wouldn't envision "His" creation---THOUSANDS of years later---bickering over such trival crap. A perfect "God" would not leave such ambiguity in his "WORD". So stop your bullshit weasle-wording. You are blantantly carving the corners off the square to make it fit in the round hole. You are NOT convincing ANYONE but yourself. You are wasting your time here. Your argument, like David Poole's, like Jaybird's, like CC's, like all of the other "defenders of the Christian Faith" amounts to "I believe". That's it!!!! Great...very lovely...now go "believe" somehwere else. Take your apologetic ass OUT OF HERE!!!!!
"Oooo...Atheists are angry!"
Shove yourself up your ass, 'k?.
This response is so absurd and ludicrous it makes you wonder about the state of iam_sweet's mind. Seriously folks, how do you argue with somebody as brainwashed and delusional as this person? In this day and age, there are adults who believe the characters in fables and mythology are true. This person is clearly not playing with a full deck. I can only hope iam_sweet breaks away from the mind virus (meme) called Chrisitianity---he/she is clearly in denial.
Cheers
Iam, do you know what year Copernicus presented his theories on how the solor system worked?
Regardless, please look at that link. And then expain how someone sits "ABOVE" the earth. Which direction would that be, exactly. Since there is no up or down in space, I'd just like to know where the hell above might be.
Now we're going to find out that "above" could be translated "around."
Still haven't answered the problem between the passages concerning God, love, glory and judgment. Still haven't answered the problem concerning animals on the Ark that weren't indigenous to the Middle East. Still haven't addressed any more of the contradictions WM pointed you to, yet you continue to post and bring up new issues.
Sweet is looking more like a troll every minute.
The regular extians do make an extraordinary effort to provide information to those who can't seem to see another valid point of view - and in a most eloquent way.
I am proud to be part of such a crew of open minded thinkers and professionals. Thanks for the kindness, Cheers.
OK, we might define god as that which is uncreated, that without beginning and that without end. My general chemistry text states the 1st law of thermodynamics as "energy is neither created nor destroyed, only interconverted." So, then we can define god as the infinite (perhaps) sea of energy; god is all. All is god. This definition of god obviously is not what christians have in mind. And before you say, "Oh, you have faith in the 1st Law!" Well, no, if it were shown somehow that energy could be extracted from nothing, I would reconsider the validity of the 1st law. It seems reasonable, though. Something can't come from nothing. Yes, I'll agree. Something (energy/matter) cannot come from from nothing (nonenergy/nonmatter).
As far as the universe being intelligent, I'll agree. Permeated with intelligence. It's just that we need to define intelligence. It's not such a simple word. Its definition requires expansion. A broad definition of intelligence might be "the ability to sense/perceive and respond to something; awareness" Would we agree? Consider two electrically charged particles, a postively and negatively charge particle. Somehow, through space, the positive particle "senses" the negative particle is nearby, and vice versa. They are attracted; and like charges repel. This is a kind of intelligence in the broadest sense of the word. Scientists--before you simply say, "it's just the electrostatic force," know that nobody knows what a force is...that is, nobody knows how or what it is that imparts that force...or said differently, nobody knows what it is that communicates thru space to the let the proton know that the electron is nearby. Forces are constructs that explain an observable effect. So, the concept of forces is not incongruent with the definition of intelligence that I have used. It can be said that there is nothing but intelligence or consciousness. That's basically true, I think, but it has nothing to do with any personal "god." It's just that if there is no underlying foundation of intelligence of which we are one with we could not be "the universe become aware of itself." That is, if we are indeed intelligent, our intelligence is based upon, enmeshed in, and one with a fundamental "intelligence" in the broadest sense of the word.
Cheerz,
Gooneybird
*Onara*
I would be willing to bet that you've heard the expression "God Loves You" a thousand times more than from your biological father directly from him?
Ever noticed most all churches have on their marquee "God Loves You!"? But they never have "Your Biological Father Loves You!"?
The imaginary God will always love you, the god envisioned by so many people whom are missing real genuine love from their own biological fathers.
It doesnt matter who you are, there have been more human deaths on this planet caused by both religion and tobacco than of ALL other causes combined, mostly from ignorance of reality. Yet, the majority of humans still follow the same crooked path. I do not see any intelligence displayed there!
I discovered this site just tonight, after coming home from work. I wasted my entire Friday night. The whole town went its merry way, drinking and the like, right outside my window, as I simply read and read until I finally reached the bottom.
Gentlemen, and Ladies, and...everyone...
I am honestly stunned and moved.
I so so respectfully take my hat off to the eloquence and quite obvious respect for reason which is here displayed like jeweled scepters by the likes of (but by no means exclusive to) dave8, webmaster, jim arvo, boomslang (though fiery at times), dano, cdmon, and Melissa!!!
Please, I implore each and every one of you to feel good tonight! Your techniques, your patience, your data, vocabularies, wisdom, humor, all of it… I am truly and utterly inspired. I, like some here, am an eX-Christian, and I can hardly stomach now the awful attempts at some of the Christians who post here. How can the honest attempts of Jim Arvo to floor a meaningful, non-visceral debate go un-lauded by every single human being who visits this site?
I am speechless. Is there not one well-informed, open-minded Christian who will go idea for idea here without getting irrational, insulting, dogmatic, desperate, or just plain weird? I can’t believe it. I can’t believe that absolutely every one of them eventually takes some “unforeseeable” argumentative exit ramp… It is truly disheartening.
And it’s awful how so many of the Xtians think atheists are out to destroy God. That we hate God. That we are only disobedient children who simply would do anything to not have to obey God’s commands and the like… when that could not be further from the truth. I suspect that, like me, many of you wish dearly that God, or something like God, were real. Time and time again, the Christians don’t seem to understand or want to understand that it is not our desire for God not to exist that fuels our atheist convictions, it simply is that we have not encountered evidence which speaks for God’s existence. Nothing more, nothing less. And they seem to miss this time and time again, and instead hammer on some notion that we are willingly rejecting God out of spite. Ridiculous, my friends. Ridiculous. But then, so much of this ”debate” with Christians is.
I would like to encourage everyone, if you haven’t already, to watch the Atheist Tapes by Jonathan Miller featured on Google Video, as well as his three part series, Atheism: A rough history of disbelief from which the Atheism tapes stem. My personal fav is the one with Nobel-winning physicist Steven Weinberg.
Besides that, I would like to post below something I simply thought up this evening and felt I had to write in a sort of brain-storming, shoot-from-the-hip style. It may all be elementary or simply not relevant to you, but I thought I’d toss it in. Not scientific, but:
It would seem that the very vulnerable position of man in his original/natural surroundings is the very thing which precipitates his need for God. Therefore, if a man is removed from those surroundings and placed instead in a less-threatening and, as it were, more comforting environment, his need of the God figure is diminished. This inverse relationship goes a long way in explaining the adage: there are no atheists in fox holes. If belief in God is rooted in man’s transient, variable, and malleable degree of security and comfort, what can we expect in the future should man finally be able to alleviate himself and all his brothers from all major worldly suffering? In short, the notion of God itself is quite equal to human suffering. It is in fact self-perpetuating. Ultimately, spiritual leaders must be very careful not to undermine their followers’ feelings of helplessness. This is why, of course, Christians must be taught that all humanity has been broken since the time of Eve and that there is absolutely nothing they can ever do to repair that brokenness. Their wounds must be pointed out to them – rarely is a person actually born feeling this deficiency, it is something which must be taught and which spreads virus-like from the infected, for you cannot have a need for God unless a person first believes in his own emptiness and transgressions for which, although he did not commit, he is responsible – so that even if they wind up living lives of untethered excess in first world nations, they will not catch sight of the fact that their carnal requirements are very much met and thus realize they are no longer in need of an unquantifiable, invisible top-down supplier. God is necessary for the development of man throughout history, but wanes very seriously the moment man gains a serious foothold over his surroundings, after which, like the child who must eventually come to understand that his biological parents are not the all-powerful, infallible beings he once mistook them for, man must also shoulder the tough-as-nails responsibility that the shearing off of God exposes: that man’s wellbeing and survival are guaranteed by nothing (as they actually never were), and are of absolutely no concern to nature or the universe or indeed anything beyond the six billion other tragically-destined beings who are caught in the same inescapable predicament.
A God that's ready and willing to save us, whenever we put ourselves into a position that we should have never been in, in the first place.
God, man's invention to save him from himself, yet he's willing to kill all of humanity to prove that his imaginary God really exists.
Man is the eccentual fool on this planet! Great observation, BTW!
First, I thank you for the kind words. I actually think a few of my responses above were more pointed than they needed to be, but I sincerely appreciate your comments nonetheless.
I too feel that there is definitely some truth to your observation about fear precipitating a belief in invisible protectors, but I also strongly suspect that it goes much deeper than that. I say that because the notion of invisible deities all over the world, and throughout recorded history, have some common attributes. This suggests that the very idea of a deity draws upon some of the mental machinery that we all share as humans--that is, the idea does not come out of the blue, just to make us feel safer, but rather from common patterns of thinking and interacting that are common to virtually all humans. For example, nearly every deity invented by the human mind is intimately concerned with human affairs, and is privy to all sorts of sensitive information about us. They also share human foibles and emotions, and can be "bribed" by certain behaviors such as offerings or displays of homage and loyalty. They are all capable of intervening in human affairs, but by oddly unspecified means. The list is actually quite lengthy. These attributes seem to be reflections of our "social" selves; that is, they are rooted in the same mental machinery that make us highly social animals who are intrinsically concerned with the behaviors and intentions of others. Couple this with our lengthy childhood and total dependence upon parental figures for protection, and it's much easier to see where the notion of a fatherly (or motherly) figure who knows all might have come from.
But then, those are only the seeds. Once the idea gets started, countless believers embellish the picture of their invisible protector, invent a history for him/her, declare certain doctrines to be set down by this deity, and often show great hostility toward those who do not hold the same beliefs. These embellishments do indeed spread like a virus; of course, some are more effective at spreading than others. The Christian virus is quite well adapted and is likely to survive into the foreseeable future to some degree, in my opinion. It has built-in defense mechanisms (e.g. maintaining a somewhat closed community that does not welcome dissenting views), as well as explicit mechanisms for spreading (e.g. proselytizing, "witnessing", indoctrinating young children, and in some cases having many children).
Anyway, I think the more we learn about how the mind works, and how it came to be this way, the more light it sheds on one of the most widespread and puzzling behaviors of man: religion. I think the veil is finally starting to be lifted, and it's possible that this will be instrumental in relegating all religions to the status of quaint superstition, but I don't expect to see this happen in my lifetime. I like to think that I'm doing my small part to push in the right direction, however.
http://www.control-z.com/pgs/pers_state1.html. The article is lengthy but well worth the time it takes to read it. As I have been reading many of the xian postings above, they use the word “sin” over and over again. I have to wonder: Whose idea was sin? What did WE do that is considered a sin against some omnipotent being (God)? Is it our mere existence? If the xian bible is any guide, since Adam made God angry, then everyone is guilty from that point forward and that guilt is punishable by death, no exceptions. Adam supposedly ate fruit Eve gave him from a garden God put in their midst and then pointedly told them not to eat from it, thereby advertising there was something there that they could not be a part of, with no good reason for avoiding it. (Why put it there then? How hard would it have been to locate it somewhere where Adam and Eve couldn’t even find it? God didn’t realize they would stumble across it?) And then a serpent, you know, one of those creatures God created (Again, He didn’t see this coming? Who is superior, God or Satan?), talks…TALKS…(a serpent is given the ability to converse!!!)... Eve into taking fruit from that tree. It seems stupid to me that an omnipotent, omnipresent God would create the whole Genesis scenario and then not know what was going to happen. And when it did, every future generation was condemned for it and God finds this “good”. Later on he comes in human form (Jesus, but it is still God), and allows himself to be killed in order to change a rule that he created because someone didn’t mind him about 4 thousand years previously and he didn’t know it was going to happen. Now, if we just believe in him for dying and coming back from the dead we can sin all we want (but we’ll supposedly not want to sin much anymore) and when we die, we’ll spiritually go to heaven and be with him forever. And the ONLY thing that makes this information available is the Bible, which was supposedly inspirationally written by that very same God! How convenient! If, as some biblical apologists insist, the story of Adam and Eve is a parable, then is the original sin just a parable? We aren’t actually guilty of anything? The whole sin concept is based on this story. If it isn’t true, then humankind being guilty of sin by proxy isn’t true either.
How can bible apologist read the bible from cover to cover, or just the first few pages of Genesis, and still believe it is inerrant? Not blind faith…blind gullibility!
Disheartening is, however, that we see so many reject scientific results and suggestions – even the data itself – simply because it does not jive with their beliefs. There might someday very well be some form of a “war on science”. Hopefully the fact that people are living lives steeped in technology which was built upon the science they are fighting will go at least some way to keeping things in check.
Lastly, could anyone recommend other pages on this site where a good discussion or debate is taking place? Or in fact, on other sites? I much prefer things as calm and rational and helpful as possible, not word trickery, ad hominem attacks, or personal thrashings, so I’m looking for a place where that is as close to what’s happening as possible.
I wish everyone who appreciates the same the absolute best of luck!!!
fjell
You might try joining the open forums. Click here. You must first register (it's free), then you can post there.
I would guess that Shay706 simply found some excuse to justify the failure: lack of faith, inapproriate request to deity, not God's will, etc.
Religious fervor is silly at best and dangerous at worst.
If God was around before you where born, how come you never talked to a God until after you were born?
Do you think your father or mother had Jesus and your eternal salvation on their minds at the exact moment of insemination (your fathers orgasm) into your mother?
The only place a God or Jesus exists is in your mind, you're just repeating things you've heard other monkeys repeat.
Now, I can prove to you that God and Jesus only exists in the conscious living brain, this also includes all man made envisioned entities.
1. God and Jesus disappear when you are asleep. (Where do they go?)
2. God and Jesus disappear when you are unconscious or in a coma. (Where do they go?)
3. Thoughts of God and Jesus disappear when you're under anesthesia, during surgery. (Where do they go?)
4. All Gods and saviors disappear when the mind is unconscious.
5. Therefore, all Gods and saviors and man's inspired entities disappear, when the mind is dead.
6. All the things that you've been told to believe, will quickly disappear the exact moment of death.
You might as well learn it now, so get over with talking to yourself, and calling it from a God, its just your mind repeating just what you like for yourself to hear.
However, if people were to have invented the God of Christianity, it is unlikely that it would be the demanding God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is described as holy1 - without sin and without the ability to commit sin.2 The holiness of God is described as being above anything that humans can attain, such that no human can stand before Him as holy.3 Behaving more morally upright than most other people is not sufficient to escape the punishment of the God of the Bible.4
In nearly all religions, salvation is attained through human effort. Only in Christianity does salvation come solely as a gift from God5 - it cannot be earned through human effort.6 Clearly, in doctrines such as the nature of God and the way of salvation, there is very little common ground between Christianity and the religions of the world.
The God of Christianity also differs from the gods of the world's religions in terms of His nature and existence. Most of the religions of the world describe their god as existing within the universe. In many cases, these gods even have parents. Both of these attributes are logically inconsistent with the reality of our universe. Only a God who is transcendent to both space and time, like the God of the Bible, is logically possible.
Please take your idiotic straw-man arguments somewhere else. Your cut-and-past drivel is a litany of fallacies, unsupported assertions, and pedantic nonsense. You ramble on about how nothing in science is certain, apparently unaware of how painfully obvious that is. OF COURSE everything in science is provisional, because it's perpetually SELF-CORRECTING. If new data comes along that contradicts or casts doubt on previous conclusions, then guess what; those conclusions are tossed out or modified. Similarly, all of your assertions about what "atheists" believe are classic fundy claptrap. You are the one building straw men, then attempting to knock them down. If you want to address the REAL issue, then produce some concrete EVIDENCE (not "proof") for the existence of your invisible deity. To make it simple, pick ONE attribute that you claim is possessed by ONE supernatural entity, and produce some concrete evidence for it. Once you do that, we can discuss it if you wish. But please, spare us the cut-and-paste nonsense.
Well, in that case, there is nothing I need to worry about! If "salvation" is solely a gift, then there is nothing I can do to obtain it. It is either given or not. I either have it or I don't.
When I was born, I didn't have to accept the free gift of life. I hit the cold air after growing in my mother's womb and sucked in a lungful of air. I was given the gift of life and I did nothing to obtain it.
If that's how it is with being born "again," then that is a gift indeed! However, if there is some requirement, like accepting the gift or repenting or believing or changing personal habits or attending church or anything else, then I am earning my salvation. No matter how small of a requirement there is on my receiving this so-called gift -- even the tiniest rule or regulation on obtaining it -- my efforts give me a hand in earning it.
And if I have to do something, anything at all, to earn this "salvation," then Christianity is no different than all the other religions.
Okay, cut-n-paste Fundonymous said:
"Only a God who is transcendent to both space and time, like the God of the Bible, is logically possible."
On the contrary---a "being" that is both omniscient and omnipotent is "logically" IMpossible. If your "God" has a "plan" for mankind and knows the future(omniscience), then said god cannot change the sequence of events leading to the future, or else it was never a "plan" in the first place. If said God is powerless to change what was "planned", then said God is NOT omnipotent. If said God changes it's mind, then it never knew the future. Also, if biblegod was "omnibenevolent" and "all loving", then there wouldn't be a need for a "hell". If receiving God's love has "strings attached", then God isn't "omnibenevolent". If God punishes infinitely for finite/temporal "crimes" such as being skeptical---mind you, the SAME skepicism that ALL Christians use to deduce every OTHER god is non-existant---then God is not "just".
As we see, contradictions abound, so no, the existance of the God of the Holy Bible is is NOT "logically possible".
Fundonymous: "Most of the religions of the world describe their god as existing within the universe."
Jesus: "I and my Father are one".
I just went over this recently. If Jesus and God are "one", and Jesus existed in this natural universe, then God is/was OF the universe. Simple math.
The deity of the Christian Bible is non-existant. It's man-made mythology, like every other deity from ancient history.
Good day.
What purpose could there possibly be? To please god? Is that a purpose? If that's what you call a purpose, then what a silly little universe we live in! PLEASE ME, FOR I REQUIRE PLEASING!
Seriously, in your dualistic thinking, you are separating yourself from the universe, as if you weren't totally enmeshed in and one with it. We are the universe become aware of itself, pure and simple. This is an absolute truth.^0^ The universe is only interested in if there is life in it to the extent that we (and all beings) are interested in this.
Anon: "Logically, we should not be here."
How is that logical? We are here. That is all. Accept it and move on.
Anon: "In fact, modification of laws of physics almost always results in universes that don't even contain matter!"
Well, perhaps the laws of physics are as they should be and don't require "modification." Is it just possible that the equations describing phenonemon are the way they are precisely because they accurately reflect the reality they attempt to describe? What are you talking about with this "modification" nonsense?
Anon: "Our presence in the universe suggests that we are not here by accident."
It's no accident. Ooops! Again, we're here. That is all. Move on.
Anon: "In fact, the atheist must address the question of *why there is anything at all*. Why should there be a universe instead of nothing?"
No. You are VERY confused. The atheist doesn't have to answer this question any more than the christian person has to answer "why should god exist at all?" You'll say god is uncreated and eternal. I'll say energy is uncreated and eternal. 1st law of thermodynamics: energy is neither created or destroyed, only interconverted...implies energy is uncreated and eternal. If you wanna call the infinite sea of uncreated energy god, then I'm with ya. If you wanna talk about god something apart from energy/matter/everything, I'll ask you what that thing is. Does it look like the smell of one hand clapping? Or does it resemble the sound of your eyes before you were born?
Threats of hell and damnation.
You're god really can't take disbelief, can he. Really pisses him off.
What a loser god.
"He sent his son to die on the cross for our sins and this is how you repay him."
HE sent HIS SON?
"I and my Father are one."
Explain to me how something that is unified is two. Your word "sent" indicates that there are two. Of course, we all know there are three, but really just one. Pretty confusing.
"Your comments will be replaying in your mind for eternity while your soul finds no rest."
Will you finally feel some satisfaction then?
Not persuaded? Then one question-- if you really "have better things to do with your life," why aren't you doing them instead of Bible-bashing? Or is it that you somehow recognize deep down that Christianity is the most important thing, even to attack? (There must be some reason you're not attacking the abuses in Islam, Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism, for instance.)
Your shrillness gives you away, you see. Here's one to ponder: Could a non-existent God really get so many people mad at Him?
Yes there is, and thanks for asking. I see the occasional hijab-wearing Muslima in the mall, but the extent of our conversation is a smile or a polite nod. I sometimes buy spices at an Indian market, and enjoy looking at the brightly painted statues of Hanuman and Shiva and Krishna and Saraswati. And the only follower of Ahura Mazda that I've ever knowingly been in the same room with was Freddy Mercury of Queen (January 1977, Montreal Forum).
How...ever...
I have had evangelical Christians come onto my property, ring my doorbell, and insist that they know some magical secret truth about Life, the Universe and Everything. And they generally try a Pascal's Wager-type parting shot when I tell them that I'm not interested.
A neighbour's son has been harassed and ostracized at his junior high school because he doesn't belong to the prayer club.
My own daughter has been called a "demon child" by Christian classmates.
And evangelicals are constantly trying to force their version of morality upon the rest of society.
I'm indifferent as to what you believe in private. I care passionately about what you and other believers do to me and my neighbours. If you want respect, start practicing it.
Here's my response: CLICK HERE
Yep, check in to all of the over 10,000 christian denominations, and over 3,492 gods that have been identified throughout recorded history. Let us know what you find, after you "look" into the matter.
EMP: "Nobody has ever spent this much time and energy attacking something that was an obvious and transparent lie."
Its unfortunate that society (at least the more intelligent side), has to defend themselves from the onslaught of lies, pushed by insecure individuals who need to find some comfort in their miserable lives. Personally, I defend myself from any lie, so... don't consider your lie to be somehow more worthy of inspection... As well, the more people that defend themselves from a "lie", doesn't make your "lie" somehow more valuable.
If "any" reaction, to your lie, supports your belief, then... the lie isn't as important to you, than the "reaction"... thus, you are just craving attention. Do you get attention by stepping into someone elses' virtual domain, and lying... sure, but most people realize that you are just an insecure liar looking for attention.
Your life is defined by a lie you were told by someone else, and you measure your lie, by how many other people say its a lie... basically, your entire life, and belief system, is based on what other people have told you. Here's a novel idea, grow up, and become more intellectually independent.
EMP: "You all are willing to spend an incredible amount of time harping on this Jesus thing, so there must be something to it."
If you kept your lie to yourself, then I personally wouldn't care what you thought. Unfortunately, your lie, seems to be used by clergy to make money, lie peddling, and in order to perpetuate the lie campaign, those who profit from lying, attempt to make laws that will keep them employed. Using, such excuses like... hey, without this "religion" lie, the country would go morally bankrupt... which is a lie, used to support another lie.
EMP: "Not persuaded? Then one question-- if you really "have better things to do with your life," why aren't you doing them instead of Bible-bashing?"
Because in less than five minutes, I can call you a liar, and publish it to the world online.
EMP: "Or is it that you somehow recognize deep down that Christianity is the most important thing, even to attack?"
There we go with the ego, and wanting to be considered the most valuable "lie".
Yeah, throw a chunk of coal in a lake, and admire the ripples. The greater the wake/ripples produced the more likely your coal is to be a diamond, right.
EMP: "(There must be some reason you're not attacking the abuses in Islam, Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism, for instance.)
Actually, if you weren't so illiterate, or myopic, you'd read a few articles and see a pattern form. You know, that when anyone presents an invisible solution to a physical problem they are challenged to produce evidence.
EMP: "Your shrillness gives you away, you see. Here's one to ponder: Could a non-existent God really get so many people mad at Him?"
No, but a mortal whiner, proposing lies will. Nice to meet you.
Wow!...it's always amusing to see a skeptic calling others "skeptics". Emp--you are a skeptic too! Yes, YOU are skeptical of Osiris, Toth, Buddha, Allah, and literally, THOUSANDS more "Gods". 'Silly skeptic, you!
EMP Nobody has ever spent this much time and energy attacking something that was an obvious and transparent lie.
Better yet, it begs the question of why would anyone CARE how much time the non-believer "wastes" doubting the existance of something, if the existance of said "thing" is so obviously "real"? Seriously, if someone started a website doubting the existance of "trees", honestly, who would waste time hanging out on that website defending the existance of trees? So really, I think just the fact that YOU are here, shows that there is doubt in your Jesus belief. Tisk tisk!
EMP Not persuaded? Then one question-- if you really "have better things to do with your life," why aren't you doing them instead of Bible-bashing?
Who said we have, or should have, "better things" to do with our lives? Who?...you? Hell, abolishing legendary thinking from the face of the earth is one of the most important things any of us will ever do in our lives. Furthermore, speaking of "bashing"--- the "God" in your holy hand-book does more "bashing", "dashing", and "smashing" than anyone I've ever heard of. His nickname should be "Bam Bam". Why don't you actually try reading you Holey Babble with an objective mind for a change, instead of "buffet" style.
EMP Your shrillness gives you away, you see. Here's one to ponder: Could a non-existent God really get so many people mad at Him?
Take 9/11 for second---are you "mad" at Allah? Seriously--are you "mad at Him"?...OR.... are you concerned that people living in the 21st century are killing people who disagree with their beliefs? Exactly, that's what I thought.
So, if I read you correctly underneath all the argumentum ad hominem, (though there is almost nothing left of your "responses" once you take that out) your objection is that the message of Christianity is foolishness to you.
I agree. Did you know that the Bible says exactly the same thing about itself?
1 Corinthians 1:18 gives the conditions in which this is true; look it up if you're interested.
Just passing through. (Sorry to disappoint boomslang, but I found you by searching for something completely unrelated on Google, which I found elsewhere, so I doubt I'll be back. As to who said you have better things to do, your own original post did. I too have better things to do, and unlike some, shall now go do them. Peace.)
Did you ever stop to consider why Paul wrote that only those with darkened minds reject his gospel? Do you think it might have been because so many were rejecting his message?
All cult leaders say similar things. That's nothing new. Paul was an apologetic preacher, intent on making and keeping converts.
Anyway, the whole concept doesn't even make sense. If everyone is spiritually blind before coming to Christ, then how does anyone ever come to Christ? Weren't you blind before coming to Christ? How did you get your sight? Or are you still spiritually blind, but just believe anyway? Can a blind person choose to see? Does it work that way? You point your virtual finger at us, saying we are spiritually blind as if we could just somehow choose to believe. Can a person just insincerely choose to believe something nonsensical? Or is it more likely that a person is deceived into believing things that are nonsensical?
Anyway, since we are so sensitive, you are leaving in a huff, so I guess it's au revoir. Have a wonderful eternal life in a city paved with streets of gold while the bulk of your fellow humans shriek, scream and cry out in horrific torment, forever, in the eternal torture chamber of your loving heavenly father.
Sadistic punishment for lacking belief in a god is not enlightened justice.
You complain about ad hominem attacks, yet your very first post reeked of sarcasm and condescension toward people you know little to nothing about. What did you expect with that kind of entrance?
You are not the first - nor very likely the last - Christian who will open up their dialogue with us by launching a broadsided attack against the character of the people here. As for touching a nerve, yes it does. It should. It was very poor manners. I suspect you wouldn't exactly extend a warm welcome either, had someone posted a similarly sarcastic and condescending comment on your own blog.
You didn't strike a chord....you struck out, period. Yes, you, like most of the fundamentalists who stumble in here, have an argument that amounts to "I believe"...oh, and of course, toppped off with a few of the more common apologetic soundbites...i.e..you're mad at God..blah, blah, blah. Nothing new.
So, if I read you correctly underneath all the argumentum ad hominem, (though there is almost nothing left of your "responses" once you take that out)
You called us "skeptics"--I simply pointed out that you are a skeptic too. That's "ad hominem"?
your objection is that the message of Christianity is foolishness to you. Did you know that the Bible says exactly the same thing about itself?
1 Corinthians 1:18 gives the conditions in which this is true; look it up if you're interested.
WHAT "message"? Love Jesus.... or BURN? Uh, been there. BTW, did you know that referencing bilical scripture to us is as useless as a Muslim referencing the Holy Q'ran to you? News flash: It is.
As to who said you have better things to do, your own original post did.
That's funny, I looked for where I specifically said I have better things to do, and I don't see that post...?...? If I did say that, I stand corrected, as I'm not one to defend my oversights in perpetuity = )
Buh-bye, now.
Wow--that is it exactly! I wouldn't have posted again but I'm impressed that you've gone directly to the heart of the matter with these questions. It is not a reductio ad absurdum as you seem to think, but a line of thought that can be made logically consistent by only one thing. When you know what that thing is, you'll know the answer.
(Hint: John 9.)
--Your friendly neighborhood skeptic: Just trying to get you to question your faith! ;-)
Consider some people sensitive to lies, and many of us can look past you being a self-indulged liar, as long as you keep it to yourself.
EMP(ty): "Too bad you folks can be so sensitive;"
Lying isn't a trait I find appealing. Perhaps, you would get a better reception from little children whom don't have enough knowledge to know you are a liar. Oh, that's right, the strategy has been employed by religions for a few thousand years.
EMP(ty): "...we could have a lot of fun if you could take it as well as you can dish it out."
Sorry, most of us are not up to exchanging lies for entertainment. I enjoy exposing liars though, so, if you want to present something you call a universal "truth", then throw it out there.
If you want to compare and contrast lies with other lies, because you find that entertaining and it makes your life more valuable, may I suggest you find your way to a religious web site.
While there, you can witness the hypocrisy of liars calling other people liars.
EMP(ty): "But if I tried your kind of lines on you, you'd doubtless call me intolerant, small-minded and arrogant. Oh well."
If you tried the lines on many here, they would challenge you to support your comment(s). If you could not support your comment(s), you'd be called a liar in the most universal of senses.
Many here were forced as young children/adults to live a life of contradiction - living a lie/life of hypocrisy. It set the stage for many, to seek "truth", in order to rid themselves of contradiction and disharmony.
If you don't have a universal truth, then, don't attempt to propose a "universal" belief system - that's arrogant to say the least.
Completely missing Webmaster's point, EMP is back, and STILL quoting scripture.
EMP, okay, you read somewhere that your Jesus smeared mud in a blind man's eyes, and THEN HE COULD SEE! Okay, fair enough--when your Jesus shows up and smears mud in my eyes, and then I can actually "see" him, then I'll reconvert. I swear on the bible! But until then, you may as well be smearing chicken shit on all of our door handles---in other words, quoting scripture on this EX-christian website is USLESS, and will continute to be uselss, until you, or Jesus himself, provides objective evidence for his supernatural existance.
Your friendly neighborhood skeptic: Just trying to get you to question your faith!
'Finally got the skeptic part right. However, it requires about as much "Faith" to not believe in your Jesus, as it does for you to not believe in Allah. In other words--NONE.
I no longer believe in the myth of Christianity. During the last five years of my Christian delusion I took to voraciously studying history and theology. Instead of just believing because I believed, I decided to do exactly what Jim Arvo suggests on this site: study everything -- find out all sides of the argument.
You are preaching and preaching and preaching, to the choir. Nearly everyone on this site has been a Christian and left the cult. You are railing on us to come to your Jesus, but your Bible clearly says that unless Jesus does the calling, ain't no one coming. He also said no one can take those who are his from his hand. Get it? You're wasting your time. If we were real Christians, then we couldn't leave. If we were never real Christians, then we can't just arbitrarily choose to become real Christians. Jesus does the calling. Jesus does the keeping. That's the gospel of grace. You seem to have a lesser gospel of works. You think people have to do something to receive their salvation. You think your salvation depended on some act on your part.
Now, don't get me wrong. For me, this entire subject is complete nonsense. I am conversant in it, but I disbelieve it. Oh, I'm also somewhat familiar with Greek mythology. I disbelieve that too.
Now, I agree with many of the sentiments of your post. People often talk past each other for the simple reason that they immediately descend into attacks and visceral arguments. Rarely do people with diametrically opposed views on religion offer one another the respect they deserve, at least on discussion boards. As Plato observed, once you leave the realm of respect and reason, and are driven instead by anger, the ensuing dialog is of little value. So, I think we can agree that without civility, we get nowhere. (However, I still maintain that allowing exchristians a forum in which they can vent their frustration serves a legitimate role as well; but that's another issue.)
I disagree quite strongly with some of your other remarks, however, and feel that they ought not go unchallenged. For example, you said "The obvious lack of self-control in these matters would only lead an objective observer to conclude that the anti-Christians here need desperately to adhere to 'Christian' principles in their dealings with others,..."
First, you speak for a hypothetical "objective" observer. Is that a position you can legitimately claim for yourself? Are you not in fact offering an opinion, along with the rest of us? Second, your remark is aimed quite forcefully at a group you refer to as "anti-Christians", which is a label that seems rather unnecessary given that "ex-Christian" would be clearly understood and accepted by all. Moreover, it seems quite arbitrary to me that such a rebuke would be aimed at the exchristians and not the Christian visitors to this site. The Christian visitors here are quite often ill-mannered if not outright belligerent. But an even more disturbing and pervasive tendency is their lack of preparation (and, presumably, their lack of desire) for any kind of meaningful dialog. Let me be specific. The vast majority of Christian visitors here have virtually no idea what positions we hold, why we hold them, or what the purpose of this site is. Very few exhibit any interest at all in learning about our views, and sadly, are not even equipped with the most basic tools of critical thinking. I can provide dozens of examples, but I trust you can observe this for yourself. As one example, I go out of my way to provide direct and honest answers to all questions that are put to me (and often others as well), yet my questions are very frequently ignored (not always, but frequently).
I ask you this: Are you willing to state that it is incumbent upon ALL participants (who wish to enter into a meaningful dialog) to 1) attempt to grasp and fairly characterize the position of the other side, 2) answer questions that are put to them, and 3) refrain from leveling disparaging remarks simply because an opponent holds a different view?
If you can agree to this with no qualifiers, and no suggestion that one set of values or another is the exclusive domain of Christians, then we've taken a step in a positive direction. What say you?
One more remark I must take issue with. You said "Those so hasty to discard the entire Bible (what other conclusion can be drawn?) should first consider that truth can be shown to abound therein,..." This is an excellent example of where fairly characterizing an opposing view would be an enormous step toward having a meaningful dialog. As it stands, your question contains within it the assertion that some of us (who exactly?) are hastily "discarding" the Bible without even considering that it may contain "truth". Do you think that is a fair characterization? Have you not laid the first stone on the path to verbal warfare with that remark? Let me offer this rephrasing for your consideration: "In my opinion, the Bible contains some verifiable truths that ought not be overlooked, such as.... I claim these are verifiable because..." I, for one, would have no quarrel at all with such a statement, as it is offered as an opinion (not absolute truth), it offers something concrete to discuss, and it provides some rationale. In fact, I'd be eager to provide some examples of my own if presented with such an argument.
Just some food for thought. The ball is now in your court.
Objectivity is a difficult position to prove, let alone the concept of “complete objectivity,” (not that you had asserted anyone to be claiming such, but it follows by natural implication) although some significant signs of non-objectivity can more easily be identified. These would include the oversimplification or complete ignorance of the best points present within the opposition’s argument, evasive maneuvering of speech, including indirect or incomplete answering of the questions of the other, strawmen, etc. However, the most telling signs of non-objectivity, or bias, are found in emotionally charged responses to a direct challenge. It shows a deep attachment and self-identification present to the subject matter itself, and thus to disagree with the truthfulness and/ or accuracy of particular points is, to that one who holds them, a direct attack upon the actual inherent worth of that individual. Now, it is evident that no one can escape completely from this connection, especially when dealing with controversial issues, but the more objective observer is able to detach his ego, to large extent, from the concepts that he/ she finds to be most probable. Therefore, based on this criteria, I do consider myself an objective observer regarding this particular issue. I do not, however, based on this criteria, consider almost any of the individuals who have posted comments which I have read here to be objective observers. I have randomly read perhaps thirty or more of these, and certainly enough to provoke my action to reply to what I have observed.
The concept of opinion is still more vague, and in fact, nothing “known” is not an opinion only. True fact is almost certainly incomplete truth at best. For example, it can be argued that there is no such thing as “one.” Such a simple and widely held idea is only an approximate, however close to actuality, and is still not completely accurate. Therefore, maintaining a disposition of humility, especially when engaging another in controversial issues, is most wise. Hence, although there is strong reason to believe that the theology of Christianity is errant, it would be immature and arrogant to take such an absolutist and condescending approach when refuting its concepts. My statement, which you disagreed strongly with, was as follows:
"The obvious lack of self-control in these matters would only lead an objective observer to conclude that the anti-Christians here need desperately to adhere to 'Christian' principles in their dealings with others,..."
After reconsidering my words, and what I have observed here, I still must maintain the conclusion that this is sound advise, and a solid admonition. The label, “ex-Christian,” although much more sensitive to the feelings of those who fall under it, I find to be an inaccurate depiction of the character, at least, of those who have commented here. “Anti-Christian” appears more accurate to me, as the stance taken by these is mostly offensive, antagonistic, that is, and as it is quite active, whereas “ex” is quite passive, I view it to be the more accurate of the two. However, to avoid unnecessary offense, unless it is essential for a particular point to be made to label these as such, I will refrain henceforth from using it, and instead, and at your indirect request, use “ex-Christian.”
Now, I have no objection to believing it is truthful to claim, as you did, that:
“The Christian visitors here are quite often ill-mannered if not outright belligerent. But an even more disturbing and pervasive tendency is their lack of preparation (and, presumably, their lack of desire) for any kind of meaningful dialog.”
However, this does not, as I see it, make my previous comments unjust or inaccurate, simply because I had directed them mostly towards the ex-Christians, although you are right to assert they were arbitrary, that is, within the boundaries of my own judgment I had decided to direct them thus. The reasons for this are several, and were stated in part already in my previous post. Firstly, those who hold to the Christian perspective are on the defensive altogether, and that of the ex-Christian’s, offensive, therefore the greater responsibility lies with the latter to take care as to the psychological implications their words will have upon the former, especially when considering the fact that all of these came from the same background of sorts, and so these ought the more to show the utmost empathy for their opponent’s current state-of-mind. Unfortunately, I have not found such maturity in their words, such maturity which the Bible often advocates, for example, “The servant of our Lord must not quarrel, but be gentle, apt at teaching, patient; with humility correcting those in opposition.” Oh, what inroads would be made into the minds of those who adhere to this faith, and what avoidance of so common a defense mechanism, which naturally springs forth when one’s core beliefs are attacked with proud condescension, if only those who hold a closer semblance to the truth were also wise enough to attain to Socratic humility…
“I ask you this: Are you willing to state that it is incumbent upon ALL participants (who wish to enter into a meaningful dialog) to 1) attempt to grasp and fairly characterize the position of the other side, 2) answer questions that are put to them, and 3) refrain from leveling disparaging remarks simply because an opponent holds a different view? If you can agree to this with no qualifiers, and no suggestion that one set of values or another is the exclusive domain of Christians, then we've taken a step in a positive direction. What say you?”
Instead of going into detail of the arguments which complicate each of these prerequisites, I will only state that, yes, I believe it is incumbent upon all participants, although I would ask, are you implying that these are held more often by the ex-Christians than by the Christians? Let us assume it is true, although I am sure I could argue that it is not, however, even if it is, it is still the responsibility of the teacher to abstain from any form of derision or condescension or harsh, undiplomatic rebuttal of any kind. The Bible admonishes, as well as any authoritative document on argumentation, to seek to bring the other with you towards the truth, to present your ideas and contradictions of the other’s beliefs with temerity and care, and to speak with empathy and compassion, or else give way to one who can. The onus lies altogether with the ex-Christians in this regard.
“One more remark I must take issue with. You said, "Those so hasty to discard the entire Bible (what other conclusion can be drawn?) should first consider that truth can be shown to abound therein,..."…As it stands, your question contains within it the assertion that some of us (who exactly?) are hastily "discarding" the Bible without even considering that it may contain "truth". Do you think that is a fair characterization? Have you not laid the first stone on the path to verbal warfare with that remark?”
I thoroughly understand your position on my statement, although, as asked parenthetically before, what other conclusion can be drawn? I have not seen one position advocated on this site which holds that the Bible does contain some very excellent wisdom, especially regarding human interaction and “balance” in life. If I had, even one, I would not have asserted such. I am left by default to assume that the antagonists here, those who have provoked the entire discussion initially, do not view this book but full of fables and cruelty and contradictions and unethical treatments advocated by God. Truly, cases could and have been made for each of these and more, however, the exclusive treatment of the Bible in this way only reveals an ignorant disposition. Calling this verbal warfare, however, in my opinion is perhaps an exaggeration.
Thank you again for your care, attention, and thorough handling of this discussion! I look forward to reading your reply.
Kind Regards,
Steven
Per the Bible---some Christians think that being anti-gay is "excellent wisdom". Some think that a "flat earth" is "excellent wisdom". Some think that the oppression of women is "excellent wisdom". Some Christians think that telling non-christians that they're going to "burn in hell" is "excellent wisdom".
Case and point---Christians use the Holy Bible to justify their OWN bias/prejudice. They "cherry-pick" the verses that they like, and dismiss or "reconstruct" the verses they don't. As far as "morals", there is no such objective/universal truth in the Holy Bible, or any other religious document, for that matter. The "Golden rule" is common sense; common curtiosy....along with cultural relativity playing a large role. Personally, I don't need to read from a book to know that murder is "wrong", or that treating my neighbor as I wish to be treated is "right". I don't need the bible for "balance" in my life.
Moreover, while most, if not all of us are ex-christian---or if it lets one feel better---"formerly" christian, not all are Atheists. Speaking only for myself, I am Atheist; anti-theist; non-theist...so yeah, that technically makes me "anti-christianity"...not necessarily anti-person who is Christian.
I have no qualms about my non-belief. A Christian is person who has a belief. I may disagree with that belief, but I support their right to believe it. I don't get the same feeling from the other side, though. The president's father says he doesn't know if I should even be considered a citizen of the United States--- more "wisdom"? Well, I find it disturbing. Also, I don't appreciate the implication that because I don't "see" the "good" that another subjectively chooses to see in the bible, that I'm "ignorant".
Thanks.
“Per the Bible---some Christians think that being anti-gay is "excellent wisdom". Some think that a "flat earth" is "excellent wisdom". Some think that the oppression of women is "excellent wisdom". Some Christians think that telling non-christians that they're going to "burn in hell" is "excellent wisdom".”
It seems that by implication, you are attempting to refute the idea (correct me if I am wrong) that the Bible contains excellent wisdom, based upon the biases held by the majority (perhaps arguable) of those who label themselves as “Christian.” It is illogical to do so, and is a common faulty device used in argumentation which ignores the points of another, and instead builds a “strawman” to attack. These statements do nothing to prove my statements about the Bible false and so I must ask you to please try a more direct approach if you desire to do so.
You then stated:
“As far as "morals", there is no such objective/universal truth in the Holy Bible, or any other religious document, for that matter. The "Golden rule" is common sense; common curtiosy....along with cultural relativity playing a large role. Personally, I don't need to read from a book to know that murder is "wrong", or that treating my neighbor as I wish to be treated is "right". I don't need the bible for "balance" in my life.”
Firstly, are you saying by such reasoning that “common sense” and “common courtesy” are not “objective/ universal truth?” It seems an obvious contradiction, and so I must ask you to please clarify your position. Further, my statement that the handling of so delicate a subject matter, and its subject’s mind-set, is often done so here with arrogance and immaturity is not refutable; I could easily cite many instances, as I am sure you realize, and so, the logical conclusion could be drawn that the “golden rule,” which you say is such common sense, and which you also have proven time and again to ignore, is not being applied, and therefore, those who are not applying it are either ignorant of its value, or by choice have decided to discard it as not useful, thus moving backwards from maturity to immaturity, in regard to dealing with the particulars of the discussion of controversial ideas/ beliefs. The concept of balance is another issue, and as I cannot know the details of your life and relationships with others, your personal ambitions, etc., I cannot know whether your statement about not needing the Bible’s wise sayings about such things is accurate or not, and have never stated that I knew. I merely stated that it contained such excellent wisdom, and I am yet to be refuted on it.
“Moreover, while most, if not all of us are ex-christian---or if it lets one feel better---"formerly" christian, not all are Atheists. Speaking only for myself, I am Atheist; anti-theist; non-theist...so yeah, that technically makes me "anti-christianity"...not necessarily anti-person who is Christian.”
Atheism is an altogether different issue, which I am happy to discuss, however I had not inferred anything about it one way or the other. To say that being "anti-Christianity" does not make you "anti-person-who-is-Christian," necessarily, is of course incontestable, however, the choice of speech directed at these Christians says much to the contrary.
“I have no qualms about my non-belief. A Christian is person who has a belief. I may disagree with that belief, but I support their right to believe it. I don't get the same feeling from the other side, though. The president's father says he doesn't know if I should even be considered a citizen of the United States--- more "wisdom"? Well, I find it disturbing. Also, I don't appreciate the implication that because I don't "see" the "good" that another subjectively chooses to see in the bible, that I'm "ignorant".”
I am sure you do not have any qualms about your non-belief, and neither do I, concerning yours, that is. If you supported their right to believe it, and were in actuality as diplomatic as you seem to infer here, then you would not direct such slanderous speech towards them, but instead would show kindness, humility, and empathy in your wording. Concerning the president’s father’s words, which I have not heard myself, but even if assuming he had said them, still does not justify your consistently crude handling of the subject matter, and obvious ill-regard for the psychological state of any religion’s adherents. This, of course, is only a defensive response to your feeling that your position is being attacked by me, and I can appreciate that, as it is in fact, as you have shown yourself to be without care for aiding others into a closer semblance of the truth, but instead only railing them for their biased views, and therefore do more to harm the cause of truth and constructive dialogue, than you do to support it, and further, aid in closing the channels of oconversation which may be beginning within the minds of fundamentalist religious adherents. Lastly, your decision to ignore any wisdom which the Bible may contain, but choose not to ignore the faults therein, and instead to actively seek them out, does in fact make you yourself “ignorant.” Whether you appreciate this or not is of little concern to me, especially when considering your rude treatment of others.
What you are calling for in your own verbose way is a civil discussion, and I don't think anyone can argue against that. I haven't read through this entire thread but typically talk about religion causes emotional reactions, and one should be careful not to stereotype any group based on selected individual behavior. We are free to ignore the emotional responses and concentrate on the debate over ideas.
You are correct that the Bible contains truth and wisdom, but because it contains some truth, it does not necessarily follow that it is all truth. We have no scientific evidence to corroborate a Biblical worldview (personal psychological events are not adequate evidence,) and dismissing science altogether is convenient but not very convincing. Its difficult to have a rational discussion with a religious person about their beliefs because those beliefs are inherently irrational, and it is natural to become defensive when one's core beliefs are challenged. To make matters worse Christianity is not about live and let live, it requires its followers to "spread the good news," and those that don't heed the message are going to hell, end of story. Also Christians often claim that they have "knowledge" about their religion that somehow transcends mere reason, which is another good way to end a debate. A great deal of time and energy has been expended to apply a veneer of rationality to religious belief, but we will always come back to the problem of lack of credible evidence and the need to believe in the veracity of a 2000 year-old text.
Moving on---we're discussing whether there is objective truth in the "bible"--- NOT whether you "think" boomslang follows it, or not....so, it seems that in that regard, you attack a "strawman". BTW, is there no "truth" in what I say, simply because you personally don't like my demeanor and/or debate ethic? I hope not, because you just accused me of doing the same regarding the "wisdom" in the bible. The difference is---is there are no "conditions" attached to my Atheism and/or debate ethic; you won't "burn in hellfire" for not adopting Atheism. Furthermore, as one poster said--you can skip over whatever you so choose.
Back to the subject--- because Steven finds verses in the bible that he thinks are "wise", it doesn't mean that everyone finds them equally wise, and even IF we did all agree, it doesn't negate the stuff that is not-so-wise...stuff like killing all non-believers, hating your parents, dashing little kids against rocks, and that vegetation speaks the human language.
So, my point was, again, that the bible--and all other religious documentation--is purely subjective. Face it, we have opposing worldviews, so let's try and stick to the facts.
Thanks.
“You are correct that the Bible contains truth and wisdom, but because it contains some truth, it does not necessarily follow that it is all truth. We have no scientific evidence to corroborate a Biblical worldview (personal psychological events are not adequate evidence,) and dismissing science altogether is convenient but not very convincing.”
I am happy to see that you agree with my assertion that the Bible contains truth and wisdom, simply because it is easy to construct evidence for this assertion, and this tells me that you are not, at least in this regard, a biased individual. However, it appears you are suggesting that because I view it to contain such, like you, then I therefore am extending perfection to it. Reading through the entirety of my posts above would correct this error of presumption all on its own, and I encourage you to please do so, especially before casting such a judgment, however indirectly you did it. Now, I agree that there are portions of the Bible that are scientifically inaccurate and should be discarded, however, when you suggest there is no scientific evidence to corroborate a “Biblical worldview,” you are mistaken. A “worldview” is simply a way in which you view the world to be, and to have come about the conclusion that design is inherent in DNA and the laws of nature, based upon perception and the concept of there existing a Creator, is fully in line with scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence to support the rejection of this idea, so why should the Christian not hold to it? Especially when considering that there is less “evidence” to support the idea of atheism. I had in no way advocated, or even implied, the dismissal of science in any way. Of course it is then not “convenient” for me to have done what I never did. On what, then, do you base your assertion?
Concerning the rest of what you wrote, I agree, however, I do not see how it applies to this discussion on the manner and stance that one should take when contending with a religious adherent. Are you suggesting that because of the difficulty, which lies in their irrationality, then it is therefore acceptable to attack them through condescending discourse? I hope not.
Boomslang, thank you for replying. Yes, I am that same person, and no, I am not a Christian, and am quite surprised by your insistence that I might be, based on the false assumption that I am defending the faith of Christianity, especially when considering the statements I have already made on the injustice and scientific error found in certain of the Bible’s passages. It seems to me that your bias against this faith is affecting how you view anyone who finds truth in much of its foundational writings. As I have stated before in the post you are referring to, my beliefs, as I have tested and weighed the various philosophical arguments and scientific evidence regarding this topic, fall most closely in line with deism. In fact, I do not know of one instant wherein I defended the religion known as Christianity. Perhaps you could show me when I did this?
“Moving on---we're discussing whether there is objective truth in the "bible"--- NOT whether you "think" boomslang follows it, or not....so, it seems that in that regard, you attack a "strawman".”
Your insistence on diversion is striking. Firstly, we were discussing the presence of a “reverse-bias” of sorts found in the writings of most ex-Christians here, which I believe to be highly counter-productive. Secondly, I had made a clear statement which was not building a “strawman” at all, which was:
“Thank you, Boomslang, for taking some time to reply. You stated:
“Per the Bible---some Christians think that being anti-gay is "excellent wisdom". Some think that a "flat earth" is "excellent wisdom". Some think that the oppression of women is "excellent wisdom". Some Christians think that telling non-christians that they're going to "burn in hell" is "excellent wisdom".”
It seems that by implication, you are attempting to refute the idea (correct me if I am wrong) that the Bible contains excellent wisdom, based upon the biases held by the majority (perhaps arguable) of those who label themselves as “Christian.” It is illogical to do so, and is a common faulty device used in argumentation which ignores the points of another, and instead builds a “strawman” to attack. These statements do nothing to prove my statements about the Bible false and so I must ask you to please try a more direct approach if you desire to do so.”
To this, I am still awaiting a direct reply.
“BTW, is there no "truth" in what I say, simply because you personally don't like my demeanor and/or debate ethic? I hope not, because you just accused me of doing the same regarding the "wisdom" in the bible. The difference is---is there are no "conditions" attached to my Atheism and/or debate ethic; you won't "burn in hellfire" for not adopting Atheism. Furthermore, as one poster said--you can skip over whatever you so choose.”
Of course, I had never suggested there is no truth in what you or others here have said, and in fact, and a point to which you seemingly have given no attention, I have concurred with the points made by ex-Christian here repeated times. Concerning whether or not I accused you of rejecting there being wisdom in the Bible, I will simply quote your words: “there is no such objective/universal truth in the Holy Bible, or any other religious document, for that matter.
“Back to the subject--- because Steven finds verses in the bible that he thinks are "wise", it doesn't mean that everyone finds them equally wise, and even IF we did all agree, it doesn't negate the stuff that is not-so-wise...stuff like killing all non-believers, hating your parents, dashing little kids against rocks, and that vegetation speaks the human language.”
Of course, once again, I had never suggested anything of the sort, and I am truly in wonder as to how you concluded that this was what I had asserted. It seems to me that the one who is dodging the points and creating diversion is only you. Furthermore, you grossly misrepresented what the Bible condones in such a statement. Where does it advocate killing all non-believers? Or where can you prove Jesus was saying to “hate your parents,” and instead, and according to another excerpt from that passage in a different gospel, he was not using a common euphemism, and so never condoned hatred of any kind? When did Christian theology ever condone dashing children against rocks? And that vegetation speaks human language? These are taken from passages which clearly express an altogether different connotation when read in context, and so you are quite wrong, and in addition to not being factual, you only prove further my statement that you and others here are acting out of anger and a reverse-bias, instead of clear logic and reason, combined with empathy. The latter would serve much better for all.
“So, my point was, again, that the bible--and all other religious documentation--is purely subjective. Face it, we have opposing worldviews, so let's try and stick to the facts.”
Such a sweeping generalization can only be described as ignorance. The “facts” are the only things I am eager to adhere to, for sure, and by saying what you have above, you are clearly asserting that I continually, and apparently, quite exhaustingly and irritatingly to your own temperament, drift out of fact and into fiction. Now, I must ask you, please state clearly where and how I have done so. Furthermore, I take contention with the idea that all religious documentation is purely subjective, as it very often describes the best pathway to peace and understanding in interpersonal relationships. How is this subjective? I am looking forward to your reply.
Steven
Steven,
"Insistence" that "I might be"??? Isn't that a contradiction?.... "Insistance"/"might be"? Nonetheless, I am not "insisting" that you are Christian--please don't put words in my mouth from now on, okay? Thanks. I said that you sure are "defending" the Holy Bible, which is the doctrine, of Christianity, in which case, it seems odd, for someone who is "not Christian". Am I way off in left field because I do so? I don't think so. Nonetheless, if you are "not a Christian", then why do you even care if there is "wisdom" in the bible? Steven....WHAT is your underlying point? THAT is a "direct" question. Shit, we can arbitrarily find "wisdom" in the Holy "Q'ran too, if we look hard enough---so why aren't you defending the passages in that Holy book, too? Also, please refrain from saying "correct me if I'm wrong"..it's annoying....and actually, YOU are annoying, but this has nothing to do with my worldview = )
Steven, in your argument, you are no different than any fundamentalist who strolls in here. Actually, if your argument is any different from any Christian argument----what IS the difference, other than your insistance that you are in fact NOT Christian?
Steven said: "There is wisdom in the Bible". So?...is that it? I'm sorry, but I'm sticking to the facts, which you seem to not want to do. So AGAIN...my point is that the Holy Bible, whether it contains "bits" of wisdom, or not, is purely subjective.
It seems to me that the one who is dodging the points and creating diversion is only you. Furthermore, you grossly misrepresented what the Bible condones in such a statement. Where does it advocate killing all non-believers?
"Gross misrepresentation": And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn [you] away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
Deu 13:6 ¶ If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Deu 13:7 [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;
Deu 13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
Deu 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
Deu 13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
Steven, there it is, in plain language.....all that "wisdom". Oh, let me guess...I'm taking it "out of context", right? Yeah, sure...we know the song and dance.
But you're not a Christian anyway, so what does it matter, right?
Or where can you prove Jesus was saying to “hate your parents,”
Um, I'm using the same exact reference to "prove" Jesus said what he said, as YOU use to "prove" he said he said. The "Holy Bible". All that "wisdom"?...remember?
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26
How will you spin it, Steven? Waiting.
Furthermore, I take contention with the idea that all religious documentation is purely subjective, as it very often describes the best pathway to peace and understanding in interpersonal relationships.
Then why is that no two "religions" see eye-to-eye on "peace and understanding"? Are people killing each other as we f%cking speak, because there is "peace and understanding" between them? Get real Steven. Religious belief IS subjective...get over yourself.
Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Steves spin, I said the Christian religion, not the Jewish religion, OT!
“I am not "insisting" that you are Christian--please don't put words in my mouth from now on, okay? Thanks. I said that you sure are "defending" the Holy Bible, which is the doctrine, of Christianity, in which case, it seems odd, for someone who is "not Christian". Am I way off in left field because I do so? I don't think so. Nonetheless, if you are "not a Christian", then why do you even care if there is "wisdom" in the bible? Steven....WHAT is your underlying point? THAT is a "direct" question.”
I must mention something here, and that something may offend you. I am sure you are surprised. But, by your choices of wording I can tell two things. At least, they are almost certain to me. One, you are a woman, and two, you have a strong bend towards feminism. Am I accurate? Now, does this mean that I, being a man, am somehow superior to you? No. But does it mean perhaps that you, being a woman, and able to reach a deeper level of compassion than most men, should be superior to me in extending that compassion towards those Christians with whom you are disputing? I would think, definitely. Now, you may be calling me some very negative names right now, and I suppose our culture even requires you to do so, but is it rational and within the bounds of reason, or have you not trumped good reason with emotion? I must conclude that this happens frequently in your posts, at least the ones I have read. Your use of italics, all caps, quotes when uncalled for, and bold print appear nearly hysterical, and I fear for you, whether or not I am giving you a migraine. But to answer your above questions directly (something you have done almost not at all), I “care” to assert that there is wisdom in the Bible in response to the obvious perception that this book is very much hated by most ex-Christians here. As I have said before, no one here is bothering to show the positive aspects of Christianity, nor the very many passages in the Bible that exude excellent wisdom, but instead are painted it black entirely. If someone is to contend with a particular point of view, they ought to do so objectively, and be willing and able to accept that the point of view they disagree with will almost certainly have good points and logical conclusions found within it, otherwise it would have no or very few adherents. I have yet to see this done here, and can therefore claim accurately that willing ignorance and an emotional furor occupy those person’s motivations, instead of a drive to bring the ill-informed, the deceived, closer to the truth. The idea to consistently attack is foolish and counter-productive. That is why, because it is obviously completely overlooked by those anti-Christians here.
“Shit, we can arbitrarily find "wisdom" in the Holy "Q'ran too, if we look hard enough---so why aren't you defending the passages in that Holy book, too?”
Actually, I would be if this were an “ex-Moslem” site, and there was the same overarching negative sentiment and absolutist mentality regarding the Qur’an like that which I have found to be in abundance here concerning the Bible.
“Also, please refrain from saying "correct me if I'm wrong"..it's annoying...”
As you request. Of course, annoying you is only a very minor part of my motivation in responding to your writes.
“Steven, in your argument, you are no different than any fundamentalist who strolls in here. Actually, if your argument is any different from any Christian argument----what IS the difference, other than your insistance that you are in fact NOT Christian?”
I believe this is quite unfair and oversimplifying both who I am and what I consider “truth.” Especially in contradiction to your opinion are the statements I have already made which show that I agree to the various flaws present in the Bible. I do not believe it is inerrant, nor do I believe that any part of it which can be shown to be false or unjust is inspired by God. However, I do believe truth is in unity with God’s design, and therefore to find truth is to find an aspect of God. Hence, because I find many parts of the Bible to be in accordance with principles of truth, I also view these portions to be in line with how God has brought to us the conceptualization of a functional system. This means not that God Himself had inspired the writers of the Bible, but that they discovered portions of truth, and large portions at that, which convey high ideas and wise paths, intended by God to be realized and applied by man through the natural process of societal evolution. Lastly, if you state that I am no different than any other fundamentalist who “strolls in here,” which of course is simply an erroneous, emotionally changed sentiment, then you should be happy to present me with the verification of such a claim. Please show me how I am “no different,” as I have all along shown many ways in which I am different.
“Steven said: "There is wisdom in the Bible". So?...is that it? I'm sorry, but I'm sticking to the facts, which you seem to not want to do. So AGAIN...my point is that the Holy Bible, whether it contains "bits" of wisdom, or not, is purely subjective.”
Perhaps my confusion is coming from my concept of what is meant by “subjective.” For one, this term to me means, “not objective.” Now, before you stated that what wisdom the Bible does have is mere “common sense,” and so, do you see common sense as not being objective? I think your point is that you hate the Bible, and wish you could burn every one and erase its trace from any mind that may hold its semblance. If you do not, then why? It can only be because you agree with me, that it has, with its errors (similar to that found in The Iliad), a wealth of wisdom profitable for humanity.
Regarding your quotations, the first group found in Deut. 13 say nothing of “killing all unbelievers,” which is exactly what you asserted the Bible purported. It does not, and neither do these verses.
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
See now this same quotation stated differently in another gospel:
“He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matt. 10:37)
The idea that any Christian will say is being presented here is not hatred (which, as I said before, was a common idiom), but rather having a greater love for anything or anyone than Christ. Every other teaching in the Bible eschews the idea of hating your family, and so to assume that this is anything other than an idiomatic expression is groundless.
“…why is that no two "religions" see eye-to-eye on "peace and understanding"? Are people killing each other as we f%cking speak, because there is "peace and understanding" between them? Get real Steven. Religious belief IS subjective...get over yourself.”
How, may I ask, should I proceed with “getting over myself?” It is an interesting idea. However, your other comments are unfortunately another diversion. I am not so sure it would be of benefit to show you, again, how you are doing this and why it is counter-productive, misses the mark, and only displays ignorance… The idea that all religion is purely subjective because a vast—a very vast minority are engaging in warfare or actual fighting of some kind over it, is a grossly illogical conclusion. As far as seeing eye to eye on “peace and understanding,” particularly regarding interpersonal relationships, and the wisdom of balance, they usually flow quite harmoniously. The various teachings on respecting the elder, loving the stranger, helping the less fortunate, eschewing vain ambitions, seeking the benefit of the whole, loving your family, showing the utmost faithfulness and respect for the covenants and promises you make, are found in every major faith, and are the most consistent teachings directed towards its adherents.
To Bentley, I am aware of this quotation, however it does not in any way advocate such behavior, but states that those who do this which has already been done to the Hebrews by the Babylonians will be blessed, happy, in that they will have wrought justice. It does not advocate randomly committing such acts, not even against her enemies. Do I agree with such sentiments? Certainly not, however, this does not paint the whole book black for me. And by the way, I said the Christian religion, not the Jewish religion.
In some instances that is clearly so, but an emotional response does not necessarily imply a lack of reasoning or objectivity. It is sometimes a sign of pure irritation at having been asked the same question so many times, or having been asked a "complex question" that contains one or more unfounded assertions, or a question whose very phrasing exhibits deep hostility. In fact, there are many reasons that one may react emotionally to a question, only one of which is that one feels threatened, so I think it's misleading to say that it is the "most telling" sign.
Steven: "...based on this criteria, I do consider myself an objective observer regarding this particular issue."
I think that is very far from being the case, for reasons I cite below.
Steven: "...I do not, however, based on this criteria, consider almost any of the individuals who have posted comments which I have read here to be objective observers. I have randomly read perhaps thirty or more of these,..."
That's a very small sample. This thread alone has hundreds of posts, and there are hundreds of threads. Furthermore, I really don't think you're in a position to judge the level of objectivity in anybody's post.
Steven: "The concept of opinion is still more vague,..."
I don't think it's vague at all. On opinion is a belief with support that is tenuous, or not well formulated, or not easy to articulate. If the belief is backed by sound evidence and/or rigorous reasoning, it may then be referred to as "knowledge".
Steven: "...although there is strong reason to believe that the theology of Christianity is errant, it would be immature and arrogant to take such an absolutist and condescending approach when refuting its concepts."
There's a lot of emotionally charged language in that sentence, and I simply cannot agree with it as stated. If there is "strong reason to believe" something errant, then stating those reasons and taking a position is warranted. I'm not sure where the "absolutism" or "condescension" comes into this; it seems you are asserting something else in addition to providing evidence and taking a position. (But I do not follow you.)
Let's be concrete. I assert that the Bible is filled with mythical motifs, some very likely adapted from more ancient religions (e.g. slaughter of the innocents, turning water into wine, human-divine unions). It also contains copyist errors, copyist redactions, midrash, forgeries, and interpolations. Each of these I can support with rational argument. I think they are sufficiently established that it is rational to use them as premises in a larger argument, such as asserting that the Bible is not the inerrant word of anyone, let alone an omnipotent being. Is that being absolutist or condescending?
I have said numerous times, in many threads here, that the Bible also contains some superlative poetry, and some outstanding wisdom; one of my personal favorites is Matthew 7:5: "...First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye." I truly wish that more people would heed that advice. However, the passages I find to be of value are of no use to me when I wish to explain why I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, or the inspired "word of god," which is a common topic around here. In fact, I'd wager that that is the number one reason that the valuable grains of wisdom in the Bible are not discussed much here; they simply serve no purpose in most discussions. As Thomas Paine said, those passages are as pearls in dung. If the point one is trying to make is that the Bible exudes an unpleasant odor (metaphorically), then one points to the dung, not the pearls.
Steven: "After reconsidering my words, and what I have observed here, I still must maintain the conclusion that this is sound advise, and a solid admonition."
But you completely evaded my criticism, which was that your remark was inexplicably one-sided, and therefore misleading. In addition to that, you've chosen very inflammatory language to raise your objection, as you have done on a number of occasions. There is no need to label it as a "lack of self-control" (which is merely a conjecture on your part anyway), you needn't have used the prefix "anti-", and there is little justification to label the principles as "Christian," as the golden rule, for example, long predates Christianity and is not its sole property. These are all unnecessary and inflammatory barbs that add nothing to your argument. Despite all your overt calls for decorum, it seems you too are given to hurling unwarranted accusations and thinly veiled insults.
Steven: "“Anti-Christian” appears more accurate to me,...."
That speaks to a mental state that you are not privy to, and it conflates opposing a philosophical position (Christianity) with opposing its adherents (Christians).
Steven: "...as the stance taken by these is mostly offensive, antagonistic, that is, and as it is quite active, whereas “ex” is quite passive,..."
The point that you seem to continually miss is that the Christians who draw fire here are the ones who COME TO THIS SITE, which has the name "ExChristian", and feel it's appropriate to proselytize, often without any attempt to understand the positions taken here or the purpose of the site. (As I've stated before.) I see that as being rude, as do many of the regulars here. Yes, there is quite a bit of antagonism exhibited when such a person posts here. I have tried many different srtategies in dealing with such posters and, frankly, nothing seems to get through to them. I support the right of people to adhere to whatever religion they wish; but I also exert my right to voice my disagreement, especially at a site like this, which is expressly set up for like-minded folks who have deliberately left Christianity. More on this point below.
Steven: "...those who hold to the Christian perspective are on the defensive altogether, and that of the ex-Christian’s, offensive,..."
If by "defensive" you mean that they have the burden of proof, then to a first approximation you are correct.The Christians assert the truth of their doctrine; being a positive claim, they bear the initial burden of proof. But you go on to say that "the greater responsibility lies with the latter [non-Christians] to take care as to the psychological implications their words will have upon the former [Christians],..." which is clearly asserting something well beyond the burden of proof. Here I partly agree with your conclusion, but strongly disagree with your reasoning. I do not think I bear any responsibility for someone's mental state simply because they hold a belief about which I an skeptical, which they find disturbing.
If someone claims that we will be invaded by aliens at 8:00 AM tomorrow morning, am I obliged to treat their claim gingerly so as not to upset them? (Indeed I might, but that's another issue.) If they further assert that we must immediately summon the police and the national guard, am I not acting responsibly to place the needs of the community above any psychological inconvenience caused to the person? This is all the more so if the claim is not backed by credible evidence, or has been asserted time and again by the same individual, or the person has been shown ad nauseum why their claim is specious, etc.
So, it seems to me, your statement above is granting some special status to Christians; and to some extent, I will even agree with that for the following reason: Christianity is generally not a self-contained belief, but an all-consuming one. That is, it tends to influence a wide spectrum of thinking, dictates the company one keeps, and is well-known to be a deeply emotional state of mind. Attacking one's religious convictions is therefore likely to be far more upsetting than, say, attacking one's political opinions or taste in art.
For this reason, when a Christian posts here in a manner that is reasonably polite, and they show the slightest interest in actually discussing rather than proselytizing, I go out of my way to be polite in return. To me, that is an opportunity to glimpse another world view, and possibly to learn something. It's also a way to lessen the divide that separates the religious and the non-religious. However, my patience has often been worn thin, and the limits of my tolerance tested by people who simply cannot grant that decent people might disagree with them on matters of theology. In those cases, I feel no compunction in being less polite.
Steven: "Instead of going into detail [about my list of three principles to adhere to] of the arguments which complicate each of these prerequisites, I will only state that, yes, I believe it is incumbent upon all participants, although I would ask, are you implying that these are held more often by the ex-Christians than by the Christians?"
I chose the three least controversial guidelines I could imagine, thinking that you would be quite willing to affirm them. So I'm rather surprised that you think there are any "complicating" factors. Are there cases in which one need not attempt to understand what the other side is saying, or need not fairly characterize it? Please enlighten me. As for whether these principles are adhered to more by non-Christians than Christians, I did not imply one way or the other. As for the general question, I prefer not to extrapolate so extravagantly from my own limited experience. When it comes to visitors to this site, however, then I would say absolutely, the regulars here are far more apt to follow the at least the first two principles I listed (i.e. understanding the opponent's position, and answering questions). I will not hazard a guess as to who is more likely to first level insults, because there is a lot of that going in both directions.
Steven: "I thoroughly understand your position on my statement, although, as asked parenthetically before, what other conclusion can be drawn?"
I can't help but ask "Is that a trick question?" Put plainly, your sweeping conclusion about people here being hasty in dismissing everything in the Bible is unwarranted, so you needn't draw it at all. If you were really interested in whether that was true (rather than casting aspersions), you could have tried posing the question "Do you believe everything in the Bible is wrong?" I, for one, would have quickly answered "No." Even if you did not wish to pose that question, for some reason, I don't see how you can make the inference that you did based on what people have written here. First, the "hasty" part of your assertion is absurd on the face of it. Do you realize how many years people here have invested in earnestly studying and believing in the Bible? Many decades in some cases. Secondly, no matter how many errors people point out, it does not imply that they think everything is an error. That generalization is blatantly fallacious.
Steven: "I have not seen one position advocated on this site which holds that the Bible does contain some very excellent wisdom..."
Then you've not looked very hard. And even if it were true that no such statements are posted here, it still does not follow that we have dismissed everything, hastily or otherwise.
Steven to BoomSLANG: "...you have shown yourself to be without care for aiding others into a closer semblance of the truth, but instead only railing them for their biased views, and therefore do more to harm the cause of truth and constructive dialogue..."
That's extremely presumptuous of you, and even rude. How can you possibly claim that BoomSLANG does not care about helping others to gain a better understanding? Please explain your reasoning. Is it based on one or two posts? If so, that alone is grounds for dismissing your comment as nothing but an unwarranted ad hominem attack. Such a hasty and inflammatory assertion is not a sign of "objectivity", by the way.
Steven to BoomSLANG: "...your decision to ignore any wisdom which the Bible may contain,..."
That again is fallacious, not only because you have NO IDEA what decisions BoomSLANG has or has not made regarding this, but because, once again, focusing on the errors does not imply that everything is an error. Finally, your quip about BoomSLANG being "ignorant" is more inflammatory rhetoric based on absolutely nothing.
In summary, there is very little we agree upon, even (apparently) some very basic guidelines for how to conduct a civil and meaningful discussion. Frankly, I'm extremely put off by your thinly-veiled attacks; I see them as being no more honorable than blatant name-calling. In fact, in some ways I find it more loathsome, as it purports to be something it is not; i.e. civil. Finally, I see no reason to think you are any more objective than anybody else here; your assertion that you are seems to be contradicted at every turn.
(My apologies to all for the length of this post, despite leaving out many quotes that would have made it more self-contained. I've attempted to be less longwinded than others here, but unsuccessfully.)
Therefore in your mind, you're satisfied that you have a declaration of superior knowledge that only you can decipher and justify as being your wisdom.
Much as you try to appear superiorly intelligent, above a Christian, you come off as a Hell scared little Christian Choir Boy, this makes all Christians predictable to their premeditated apololgetic answers.
And thanks for unknowingly proving my point!
My only comment or question to Steven would be, "What's the point?"
What message are you trying to get across, Steven? Succinct transparency generally expedites discussion, whatever the topic.
Yeah, I readily admit I need some work in the patience dept. Hmmm......maybe I'll submit my anti-testimony?....yeah, yeah... so that way I can just refer Christians...or wait, so that way I can refer *pro-Christian-doctrine people who are non-Christian to my anti-testimony whenever they come in here and try to lovingly win me back to the Holy Bible.
Gosh, I'm feeling a bit timid right now---but if I might be so bold as to ask---wouldn't it be erroneous to think of an alleged universal/objective Truth™ as only partially true?(this is a question to anybody, BTW) Nonetheless, even considering my "ignorance" and whatever "bias" I may have---I think it would be erroneous to think that way. I mean, we're talking about a document "inspired" by an "all-knowing", "omnipresent", and "just" being. And just to be crystal clear---I certainly hope no one gets this confused with me saying that because not all of said Holy document is "truth", that people can't subjectively find things that are good and apply it to humanity. I'm saying that not even Christians can agree on what verses are "wisdom", and which are not, so why should we even begin to think of said document as a universal Truth™? In conjunction with that---I'm also saying that whatever "wisdom" can be found and agreed upon, is very basic and is no astonishing disclosure to humanity. Thanks for listening.
*whoops!...I didn't ask for permission to use "bold", I hope I haven't upset the gods. lol
You don't bring anything new to the table, except perhaps your distinctive writing style. Intelligent design is not a viable scientific theory. The supporting evidence is not credible, there are only a small number of papers on the subject and they have not led to any serious research, one of the founders of the ID movement, Phillip Johnson, has admitted that ID is not about science, and since ID is going nowhere in the scientific community advocates have to claim that they are being persecuted by "Darwinists" in order to maintain their following.
There is a world of evidence to support atheism, for example the billions of prayers uttered daily that go unanswered. Scientific studies such as the Harvard study show that prayer has no effect, and there are no documented cases of the laws of physics being altered due to divine intervention. If you can devise a legitimate scientific experiment that proves the existence of God the world will beat a path to your door.
There is some truth in the Bible, namely the parts that call on man to behave fairly and ethically. The parts that describe a God-driven created universe with its heaven and hell cannot be verified, make little sense, and are often contradictory. You can argue that life was created but the creator has since moved on and does not interact with our world, but without any evidence its just a nice idea that doesn't get you anywhere.
Thank you again, Jim, for your careful and complete reply. For the purpose of saving time and space (of course, perhaps this is scientifically impossible), I would like to summarize each point you had made as point 1, 2, etc. instead of pasting its entirety.
Point 1: I agree with your assertions, however where bias is perceived in any response, there is always found with it, an emotionally charged sentiment. These are not found to ever be inseparable when examining the arguments of those who hold to one biased view or another, and especially those who hold to a religious system, as you assert. Therefore, when confronted with this, it is logical to conclude some form of bias, even if only in that moment of impatience. And yes, I still assert this to be a “most telling sign.”
Point 2: An objective observer could also be one who neither holds to one or the other views of two conflicting parties, and therefore can assess the facts more easily than one who does. As I do not have any negative sentiments towards those who uphold or repudiate Christianity, nor regarding the tenants found within the system itself (however illogical many of them are), and because I neither can label myself among the “ex-Christians,” nor among the “Christians,” I have decided myself most likely to be the more objective in my stance concerning these issues. I suppose you may regard this as impropriety, to which I can only offer the sentiment that I sincerely hope not. Although, it is true that at one point in my life I had viewed the Christian religion to offer the most logical worldview, it did not last so very long, and I harbor no feelings of resentment at all for it.
Point 3: Concerning whether or not I had grounds for basing my conclusion on some 30 replies made by various ex-Christians here, instead of on, I assume you would think, hundreds, is neither here nor there. The point is that those so accused should have provided ample proof to the contrary, but instead attacked me for what they thought I was promulgating, namely Christian theology. Furthermore, now that I have had the time to read many more posts, I still find my initial perception to be accurate, and so must repeat:
“It is my opinion that whoever is commenting against another's religious perspective should do so with the utmost respect and even with a sense of temerity, not so much for the subject matter, proofs, etc. of the proponent of such a system, but for the psychological state of that individual. The recklessness I have observed through reading these posts is excessive. Arrogance, slander, absolute incredulity, and an overall presence of biased determination to "shoot full of holes" another's perspective, is hardly the presence of maturity required for such a discussion. The obvious lack of self-control in these matters would only lead an objective observer to conclude that the anti-Christians here need desperately to adhere to "Christian" principles in their dealings with others, and especially those of another "faith." The Bible states that, "Wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy." Good diplomacy, such as that stated above, yields the most gain in any discussion.”
Perhaps one of the more recent articles entitled, “Jesus… F*** you!” proves my point more directly.
Point 4: Truly, the concept of opinion is quite vague, and in reality, there is no such thing as “absolute fact,” as there are so many variables which go into a proof, as to at some point render it imperfect and incomplete, although certainly not unreliable. The common opinion that one and one is two, can be argued to be only a theoretical approximate, and that nothing in nature has such a semblance; the opinion that ice is frozen water is an oversimplification, and at the atomic level, we are still uncertain as to what exactly is happening. Is this absurdly skeptical reasoning? Yes! If I were to hold to the disparity to such an extent as to contend with anyone who uses the terms “one” and “ice.” However I use this to illustrate the point that when arriving at any conclusion, we ought to still maintain some sense of incredulity, and not use our most probable conclusions to belittle the conclusions of others, but rather, that we should with empathy, sound reason, and even indefatigable patience (especially when you are given any space of time to consider a written reply), contend for the truth. Is this not the point I have been making from the outset? How then has this subject gotten so convoluted, but by those unwilling to accept this as a sound admonition?
Point 5: I believe you assertion that this statement is “emotionally charged,” lies in the use of several terms. These include, “immature,” “arrogant,” “absolutist,” and “condescending.” Now, by implication, are you then saying that by my use of these four, I was being “emotional,” and so biased? I must disagree, as I have a very logical basis for drawing these conclusions. There was no more, “emotion,” attached to these terms than any other that I believed to accurately depict someone’s stance when arguing a point. These terms best describe those who habitually use sarcasm and insults, as well as those who ignore anything good that the opposing side has to offer.
“Let's be concrete. I assert that the Bible is filled with mythical motifs, some very likely adapted from more ancient religions (e.g. slaughter of the innocents, turning water into wine, human-divine unions). It also contains copyist errors, copyist redactions, midrash, forgeries, and interpolations. Each of these I can support with rational argument. I think they are sufficiently established that it is rational to use them as premises in a larger argument, such as asserting that the Bible is not the inerrant word of anyone, let alone an omnipotent being. Is that being absolutist or condescending?”
I agree with your conclusion and your criteria for arriving there, but yes, it is being absolutist and condescending to present this idea to religious adherents in such a way as to insult their intelligence, often sarcastically, and further not advocating the positive aspects of the Bible’s teachings. However, one area of error on my part was in casting a generalization on all of those posting messages as not advocating any of the sound wisdom which the Bible provides. Thank you for this correction, and I admit that a more accurate statement would be to say “most all.” But tell me something, would you be willing to post an article here which expounds the great wisdom found in the Bible, and advocates adhering to it, as to any wisdom? Or is, “Jesus, F*** you!” the only type of ridiculous article you would want to allow?
Points 6 and 8: Even Boomslang appears to agree that her particular disposition is more closely in line with the term “anti-Christian,” and I am still waiting to hear why you believe most of those here do not fall more accurately under such a label. “Ex” is passive, and “anti,” is active, which is precisely what all of the rhetoric here contains, and active stance and attack on the principles of Christianity. Furthermore, I certainly did respond to your direct criticism, as follows:
“However, this does not, as I see it, make my previous comments unjust or inaccurate, simply because I had directed them mostly towards the ex-Christians, although you are right to assert they were arbitrary, that is, within the boundaries of my own judgment I had decided to direct them thus. The reasons for this are several, and were stated in part already in my previous post. Firstly, those who hold to the Christian perspective are on the defensive altogether, and that of the ex-Christian’s, offensive, therefore the greater responsibility lies with the latter to take care as to the psychological implications their words will have upon the former, especially when considering the fact that all of these came from the same background of sorts, and so these ought the more to show the utmost empathy for their opponent’s current state-of-mind. Unfortunately, I have not found such maturity in their words, such maturity which the Bible often advocates, for example, “The servant of our Lord must not quarrel, but be gentle, apt at teaching, patient; with humility correcting those in opposition.” Oh, what inroads would be made into the minds of those who adhere to this faith, and what avoidance of so common a defense mechanism, which naturally springs forth when one’s core beliefs are attacked with proud condescension, if only those who hold a closer semblance to the truth were also wise enough to attain to Socratic humility…”
You initiated the conflict by setting up a site which attempts to refute the religious system of Christianity, and at that, with the use of words and images that you knew would incite them. Saying then that because they came to your site and began defending their views and proselytizing makes them the aggressors here is to me an erroneous conclusion. Such bias is inherent in this perspective.
Whether or not I am “hurling unwarranted accusations and thinly veiled insults,” is your welcomed opinion, although I believe false.
Point 7: Steven: "“Anti-Christian” appears more accurate to me,...."
That speaks to a mental state that you are not privy to, and it conflates opposing a philosophical position (Christianity) with opposing its adherents (Christians).
Actually, such mental state becomes evident through discourse, as the webmaster has so eloquently noted above, “Succinct transparency generally expedites discussion, whatever the topic.”
Point 9: I find that we agree here, except in regards to this statement: “I do not think I bear any responsibility for someone's mental state simply because they hold a belief about which I an skeptical, which they find disturbing.”
This would be true, except for the active stance which the “ex-Christians” take in actively attacking the views of the above. Here, where active rebuttal is submitted to another’s religious adherence, it must be done so with utmost care, not only for the sake of the one (who was like yourselves), but also for the sake of the argument, that it not be brought down to the level of base name calling and sarcasm.
I am confused, however, as to how your parable of the aliens refutes my above assertion. Perhaps you could clarify this for me.
“For this reason, when a Christian posts here in a manner that is reasonably polite, and they show the slightest interest in actually discussing rather than proselytizing, I go out of my way to be polite in return. To me, that is an opportunity to glimpse another world view, and possibly to learn something. It's also a way to lessen the divide that separates the religious and the non-religious.”
Excellent. I hope this becomes the norm here.
“However, my patience has often been worn thin, and the limits of my tolerance tested by people who simply cannot grant that decent people might disagree with them on matters of theology. In those cases, I feel no compunction in being less polite.”
What a shame! Then you will only continue to receive the same in return.
Point 10: I still do not believe it would be good to entertain all of the tangents we might take regarding your three assertions. I have agreed with them, and do not wish to overcomplicate an already complicated discussion. If you still insist, ask me please once more and I will. Also, I accept your decline to answer my question, and understand your reasoning for such.
Point 11: Steven: “I thoroughly understand your position on my statement, although, as asked parenthetically before, what other conclusion can be drawn?"
I can't help but ask "Is that a trick question?" Put plainly, your sweeping conclusion about people here being hasty in dismissing everything in the Bible is unwarranted, so you needn't draw it at all. If you were really interested in whether that was true (rather than casting aspersions), you could have tried posing the question "Do you believe everything in the Bible is wrong?" I, for one, would have quickly answered "No."
I must say that my position is not altogether unwarranted, in that I have encountered perhaps some of the most hostile persons I have ever met regarding their contention with Christianity, which of course, only clouds the issues. Although, I agree that your suggestion of a better question is correct, and that would have been a wiser path to take.
Point 12: Steven: "I have not seen one position advocated on this site which holds that the Bible does contain some very excellent wisdom..."
”Then you've not looked very hard. And even if it were true that no such statements are posted here, it still does not follow that we have dismissed everything, hastily or otherwise.”
Whether or not you believe I have “looked very hard,” is irrelevant to what I consistently found, and continue to find, concerning scores of posts, all of which are impugnable in nature, and which ignore any idea of the Bible containing excellent wisdom (except, by your admission some of yours, which I have yet to read. The ones by you that I have read, have only followed the same train of argumentation and slander as others, though I admit to a lesser degree).
Point 13: I have read perhaps a dozen or more of Boomslang’s posts, and although I appreciate your defense of her, I can, at your request (although I would also require her’s), provide numerous examples which validate my claims.
Point 14: Again, I have never read anything by Boomslang that would lead me to think otherwise, nor did she ever affirm to have done so, thus correcting me, in her direct dialogue with me above. Although I do admit she has brought some excellent points to the table.
“In summary, there is very little we agree upon, even (apparently) some very basic guidelines for how to conduct a civil and meaningful discussion. Frankly, I'm extremely put off by your thinly-veiled attacks; I see them as being no more honorable than blatant name-calling. In fact, in some ways I find it more loathsome, as it purports to be something it is not; i.e. civil. Finally, I see no reason to think you are any more objective than anybody else here; your assertion that you are seems to be contradicted at every turn.”
I am indeed sorry that you have so soon arrived at such a conclusion; however, I respect your opinion thus. Your repugnance of my statements and me has all along been evident, and I certainly will not hold it against you if you choose to cease any direct dialogue. You are welcome, and shall receive no resistance on my part, to classify me as an “uncivil” critic.
Not that it's relevant, Steve..... but keeping in line with the wisdom in the bible, I'm the same gender as that disembodied self-existant spirit known as the "the first cause". And just so we're on the same page---Jesus' dad does have "male" anatomy, right? I mean, if we look to the Holy Bible for answers, "G_D" is continually refered to as a "He", so I'm sure you're prepared to give me "kudos" for doing what you required of me---that is, finding wisdom in the Bible.(Your welcome, in advance)
BTW, I thought I conceded to being anti-Christianity, not "anti-Christian", no? Nonetheless, I don't think they are always mutually inclusive, are they?...I mean, certainly you wouldn't generalize by asserting that all ex-wives are anti-male, right? 'Hope not = )
I fear I don't have time to give this a full treatment just now, but for starters...
To come straight to the point, I understand your complaint. However, I can't help but think you've misunderstood the purpose of this site. Furthermore, peaceful discourse is a fine ideal but when people are discussing matters of faith it is nearly inevitable that emotions will come into play. Deeply held beliefs often run straight to the core of our self-perception, and cannot be entirely divorced from subjectivity.
For the past several posts your main contention is that we ex-Christians should adopt a less confrontational mode of discussion with our Christian visitors. That is, we should treat our Christian visitors with "kid gloves." I disagree for several reasons, though I'll explain only a couple.
First, the Site Purpose and Disclaimer quite clearly states that the site "exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave religion behind. It is not an open challenge to Christians to avenge what they perceive as an offense against their invisible friend." In a very real sense this is like a support group for those who have left the Christian faith. Thus, visitors are naturally exposed to materials that treat that religion with hostility.
Imagine if a company exec for Phillip Morris were to visit a Smoker's Anonymous meeting touting the benefits of smoking, or an Anheuser-Busch representative chose to market his product to recovering alcoholics. As one might imagine, the meeting attendees would very likely be hostile to these inconsiderate interlopers, and they should be. Put in that perspective, would you still insist that those who visit our site with the express purpose to proselytize should expect a warm welcome?
Second, this site was not set up as a forum for intellectual or formal debate. The rules of decorum that regularly govern that type of debate do not apply here. There is a forum site (see ex-christian.net) in which interested parties can do just that. Yes, it does sometimes happen here as well, and sometimes the participants are able to keep their emotions in check so the discussion might be fruitful. Jim Arvo is particularly good at it (and his eloquence here is unmatched), but many of us do try to be polite. As Jim mentioned, however, our patience is often strained to the breaking point. That there is a breaking point might be a matter for lament, but we are only human. In any case, the vast majority of our Christian visitors do not visit us for the purpose of exchanging ideas. They come to evangelize, and fail to recognize that for many of us such an approach is patently offensive, regardless of whatever good intentions they may have.
Moving on...
"I have decided myself most likely to be the more objective in my stance concerning these issues. I suppose you may regard this as impropriety, to which I can only offer the sentiment that I sincerely hope not."
This is an extremely arrogant presumption on your part, and thick with condescension. You may not agree with the format or even the positions held by many of our regulars, yet you are willing to set yourself up as the arbiter of objectivity. Being human, you are full of biases and misperceptions yourself. Though you may not have a theological axe to grind when it comes to Christianity or ex-Christianity, that does not mean you are objective.
"But tell me something, would you be willing to post an article here which expounds the great wisdom found in the Bible, and advocates adhering to it, as to any wisdom? Or is, “Jesus, F*** you!” the only type of ridiculous article you would want to allow?"
Given the context of the website you're not likely to read an article that advocates the Bible as a positive piece of literature. People here are trying to escape from Christianity, not learn a new way to accept its teachings. At this point I have to ask, have you read any of the testimonies? Also, as Jim pointed out the pearls of wisdom that can be extracted from the Bible are not exclusive to its pages.
More to say about this but I'm rapidly running out of time.
"You initiated the conflict by setting up a site which attempts to refute the religious system of Christianity, and at that, with the use of words and images that you knew would incite them. Saying then that because they came to your site and began defending their views and proselytizing makes them the aggressors here is to me an erroneous conclusion. Such bias is inherent in this perspective."
Is setting up a website "initiating conflict?" If so, perhaps you should post a similar opinion on any of the millions of Christian websites. This one tiny little corner of the web, and we're the one's initiating conflict? They come to our site, assert the reality of their God and the authority of the Bible, often casting aspersions on the character of some of our posters without knowing anything about them and they are on the defensive? Surely you can see how ridiculous that sounds.
As for the site's purpose, follow the link I provided in the first few paragraphs.
There is more I'd like to address but now I'm out of time.
I just thought I'd complement you on your consistent even-handedness. It's something I strive for, but often do not achieve (contrary to your kind remarks above). Yet, you seem to hit the mark each time.
This reminds me of a comparison I can't help but make, almost daily, between apologetics and "rationalism", for want of a better term. I read a lot of Christian apologetics (for reasons I won't try to articulate here), which is frequently a taxing mental exercise as it requires a bit of "gymnastics" to temporarily overlook the unsupported assertions and the circular reasoning. When I then switch to reading something without the all dogmatic baggage, it's like plopping into an easy chair. When you don't fight logic, but use it as a guide, everything flows nicely and seems to fall into place with comparatively little effort; you needn't be constantly looking over your shoulder or patching up embarrassing bits with ever-widening apologetics. Anyway, that's all by way of saying that your posts have an "naturalness" that comes from respecting reason while disregarding, or at least downplaying, all the inflammatory stuff. Well done.
Thanks for the compliment! However, it was your example that I've sought to emulate ever since I began frequenting this site a couple years ago. No, I'm not kidding, or trying to stroke your ego.
It's been hard for me to learn to give any ground in my own head to those who hold to untenable positions. It was your writing that helped me realize that one can agree with and/or concede some points without giving in, and to ruthlessly edit my own posts so as to be as succinct as possible (I can be extremely long-winded).
I think we agree that, as difficult as it is sometimes, it's sometimes more effective to keep one's cool. Having said that, I have to admit that I also like boomSLANG's style. :) I'm just not good at that approach.
Ok, I'm done with the off-topic 'love-in.' Hope everyone is having a great week!
I am learning life, whether anybody would like to prove to me with their extreme intelligence that their point is right then by all means rip me to shreds.
It seems like more a question of what is the most amazing way to live life. It experience and enjoy it.
What?
Asking questions is a very good thing and I will never stop in my questions.
And I think this Jesus fellow has something quite interesting to say.
So test it, test what He says, look at the original translation of what He actually said and the possibilites of what He says are very different than how they are usually interpreted.
I am still searching, I DON"T KNOW everything about life, but I'm gonna find out.
Maybe if we stopped spending our lives in argument about who has the right way to live and instead live and invite people to live that way by their own desire, than I will.
Go ahead, please.
Let me know how I am wrong.
But I would rather live to enjoy life and let others experience the same than live in a retreat of a wall of beliefs I'm defending.
I am human, which means I want to be right.
But because I am human also means I am usually wrong.
And so I will learn.
And if I decide to not take what I have learned and apply it to my life, than I could be restricting myself to more pain.
If I look outside of myself, than I have done more than what many have not.
Enjoy life.
lets use common sense...The stories of the Bible evolved slowly over centuries before the existence of orthodox religions. Many belief cults spread stories and myths handed down by oral tradition from generation to generation before people wrote them down.Many of the stories originally came from Egyptian and Sumerian cults. All of these early religions practiced polytheism, including the early Hebrews. Some of the oldest records of the stories that later entered the Old Testament came from thousands of small cylinder seals depicting creation stories, excavated from the Mesopotamia period. These early artifacts and artworks (dated as early as 2500 B.C.E.) established the basis for the Garden of Eden stories a least a thousand years before it impacted Hebrew mythology.
Virtually every human civilization in the Middle East, before and through Biblical times, practiced some form of female goddess worship. Archeologists have confirmed that the earliest law, government, medicine, agriculture, architecture, metallurgy, wheeled vehicles, ceramics, textiles and written language had initially developed in societies that worshiped the Goddess. Later the goddesses became more war-like with the influence of the northern invaders who slowly replaced the goddesses with their mountain male war gods.
So why doesn't the Bible mention anything about the Goddess? In fact it does, but in disguise from converting the name of the goddesses to masculine terms. Many times "Gods" in the Bible refers to goddesses. Ashtoreth, or Asherah, named of masculine gender, for example, actually refers to Astarte- the Great Goddess. The Old Testament doesn't even have a word for Goddess. The goddesses, sometimes, refers to the Hebrew word "Elohim" (masculine plural form) which later religionists mistranslated into the singular "God."
The Bible authors converted the ancient goddess symbols into icons of evil. As such, the snake, serpents, tree of knowledge, horns (of the bull), became associated with Satan. The end result gave women the status of inferiority, a result which we still see to this day.
The Old Testament consists of a body of literature spread over a period from approximately 1450 B.C.E. to 200 B.C.E. There exists NO ORIGINAL writings of the Old Testament.ONLY COPIES OF COPIES.
The New Testament has even fewer surviving texts. Scholars think that not until years after Jesus' alleged death that its authors wrote the Gospels. There exists no evidence that the New Testament came from the purported original apostles or anyone else that had seen the alleged Jesus. Although the oldest surviving Christian texts came from Paul(SAUL), he had never seen the earthly Jesus.
Many other Christians also wrote mystical stories and by the second century there existed more than a dozen Gospels, along with a whole library of other texts. These include letters of Jesus to foreign kings, letters of Paul to Aristotle, and histories of the disciples. In one of these secret Gospels, it describes Jesus taking naked young men off to secret initiation rites in the Garden of Gethsemene.
There lived Christian Gnostics (knowers) who believed that the church itself derived from the Devil to keep man from God and from realizing his true nature. In those first centuries of Christianity orthodoxy did not exist and when an organized orthodox church finally came, it got defined, almost inadvertently, in argument against many of the Gnostic sects.
So the idea of the Bible as a single, sacred unalterable corpus of texts began in heresy and later extended and used by churchmen in their efforts to define orthodoxy. One of the Bible's most influential editors, Irenaeus of Lyon, decided that there should only exist four Gospels like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures - the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, and the eagle of John. In a single stroke, Irenaeus had delineated the sacred book of the Christian church and left out the other Gospels. Irenaeus also wrote what Christianity did not include, and in this way Christianity became an orthodox faith. A work of Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, became the starting point for later inquisitions.
The salvation doctrines of Christianity survived and flourished because they afforded the priesthood considerable power. The priests alone held the keys to salvation and could threaten the unbelievers with eternal punishment. Hence, in the evolution of Christianity in the last two thousand years with priests preying on human fears, the religion has demonstrated extraordinary powers of survival. Even without the priests, the various versions of the Bible have had more influence on the history of the world, in the minds of men than any other literature.
Unfortunately, the beliefs in Scripture produced the most violent actions against man in the history of humanity up to that time. The burning of competing Christian cults (called heretics) by early Christian churches acted as the seeds of violent atrocities against man. There later followed the destruction of Rome by the Christian Goths, and the secret pagan sacrifices consented by the Pope, the Vandals that had the Bible with them as they destroyed imperial North Africa, the crusades in the eleventh century fighting in the lands around the eastern Mediterranean, Palestine and Syria, capturing Jerusalem and setting kingdoms from Anatolia to the Egyptian border. In 1204 the Fourth Crusade plundered Constantinople the most holy city at that time, with Christians fighting Christians. And the slaughters continued (and continues to this day). According to Romer, More heretics and scholars were burned in the Middle Ages(((BY THE CHURCH))) than were ever killed in Carolingian times. For at this time the Inquisition came into its own, and torture, largely unused as an instrument of government since Roman days, was reintroduced.
We have little reason to think that violence inspired by Bibles and other religious texts will ever cease. One only has to look at the religious wars around the world to see belief's everlasting destructive potential. One only has to look at the Protestant-Catholic uprising in Ireland, the conflicts in the middle east with Jews fighting Moslems & Christians, the Gulf war, Sudan's civil war between Christians and Islamics, the Bosnia conflicts, and the war in Iraq. The desperate acts of fanatical individuals who have killed for their beliefs of Jesus, Mohammed, God or Satan would create a death list unmatched by any other method in history. The "Holy" Bible supports the notion of war and destruction, not only as a prophesy but as a moral necessity. If we wish to become a peaceful species, it may well serve us to understand the forces of belief that keep us in continual conflict and why the Bible has such a stronghold on the minds of people around the world.
THE CREATOR IS REAL,BUT YOUR INTERPRETATION IS FALSE...
I am a Christian. But before you go, I have one question to answer ALL of your questions. How can you believe that all the material in the universe was compacted into a dot smaller than one on this blog?or, how come Venus is spinning backwards in our solar system. Either would be great to have an answer to.
I am a Christian. But before you go, I have one question to answer ALL of your questions. How can you believe that all the material in the universe was compacted into a dot smaller than one on this blog?or, how come Venus is spinning backwards in our solar system. Either would be great to have an answer to.
To Anonymous: I am a not a Christian. But before you go, I have one question to answer ALL of your questions. How can you believe that all the material in the universe was compacted into a dot smaller than one on this blog... so small, that it actually disappeared into the supernatural/immaterial realm of non-existence? or, how come the Earth is spinning backwards in our solar system. Either would be great to have an answer to.
I'm sure you realize that Dan Barker is not frequenting this thread, so I'd like to step in and answer your questions.
1) You asked "How can you believe that all the material in the universe was compacted into a dot..."
The short answer is that it's predicted by a mathematical model that accords with myriad observations. Colliders have been used to simulate extraordinarily high energies (think of it as high temperature & pressure), and it appears that the fundamental forces unify at sufficiently high energies, and matter assumes a very different state, which is even more compressed than that of a neutron star or a black hole. Let me put it another way: It's a reasonable theory based on solid evidence. If it happens to conflict with your intuition about how matter behaves, then I suggest you first make some observations of matter at a few billion electron volts. Things are a little different that what you're accustomed to.
2) You also asked "...how come Venus is spinning backwards in our solar system."
This is a very common creationist "puzzle." It is sometimes claimed that this state of affairs contradicts conservation of angular momentum, and therefore indicates a supernatural force. But that's rather like claiming that finding an extra dollar bill in your wallet is evidence of a supreme being; that is, it posits a fantastic explanation for something that is completely mundane. In fact, retrograde rotations and "tilted" planes of rotation are quite trivial to explain. Different planetary systems spin in different planes and rotate in different directions, as one would expect by conservation of angular momentum. When a star explodes, or otherwise loses a planet by some other means, that planet can be caught by the gravitational pull of another star. It would be quite remarkable if the orbit of the newly-captured planet always matched those of the existing planets. Hence, "anomalies" such as Venus are to be expected.
I hope that helps.
1-How can you believe that all the material in the universe was compacted into a dot smaller than one on this blog?
The same way I can believe the question you ask unveils your most tyros understanding of physics. The invariant mass of a photon is "zero", and doesn't exist as matter. Does that mean it doesn't exist? No, it does exist; else you wouldn't be able to observe this comment.
2-Why does Venus rotate in reverse?
Orbital mechanics:
--Venus originally rotated in an anticlockwise direction like most other planets in this solar system, less Uranus.
--Venus' rotation speed was decreased over a billion years, as it sledged through its dense atmospheric viscosity.
--Venus lost rotational speed, as it lost rotational speed the core magnetosphere weakened.
--Venus was then hit with a major impact event.
--Venus, in its slowed rotational state and weakened magnetosphere, was hit at an angle that altered its rotational spin.
--Venus to this day, has the slowest rotational rate per any major planet.
Anony, you pose the questions, to attempt to make a point - that all unanswerable questions are equal. Your facile point ignores the difference between an answerable question, and an unanswerable question.
Religions create questions that can't be answered, and if they were ever answered, there would be less the need for religion.
Therefore, you worship and relish in your ignorance, and the plethora of unanswerable questions.
Science, attempts to provide answers, to answerable questions. Its not a matter of rhetoric, its a matter of intent. The "intent" of religion is to remove the ability of a person to find answers; the "intent" of science is to equip a person with the tools to find answers.
We model reality, there anony, we create the outline of a jigsaw puzzle, and then we watch to see if the pieces that come by, fit, if pieces start to fall into place, and we start to see a picture form, we can call that design a useful tool that can be used in this material existence.
Religion doesn’t create such a tool, it creates a pattern, where nothing in this universe can fit, the picture can never be started, all you have is a "shell", without any color or starting point.
Here is a test for you, close your eyes and forget about your religion, what do you have left - nothing, right - you are religion. However, there are those who believe they are "more" that just a religious pawn/minion, and thus life becomes more.
Really? Please quote the Bible verse that says Christianity is not a religion, but is a relationship with Jesus.
I'll wager you can't find anything in the Bible that says that.
Hey, Webmaster! Have you ever really been a christian?
Christianity isn´s and can be an answer for any life. Christ IS the answer. Man, you have a lot of free time to waste.
I want something more for my life, namely reason and sanity.
As for your comment "Webmaster, were you ever really, really, reeeeally a Christian?" all I have to say is "How fucking dare you." If you had read WM's ex-timonies you would already know that he spent an enormous chunk of his life (30 years, IIRC) as a believer.
May you follow the same path as us, and come to realize that your religion is both harmful and a complete waste of precious living time.
kls
Here's where I stand on the whole matter.
I know that I exist, inasomuch as one is capable of "knowing" anything.
However, I have never experienced anything that pointed uniquely to this "Jesus" that you speak of.
I think that gods are possible. Heck, over the past twenty years or so, at least half a dozen people have called *Me* one. And it accords with my ancestors' beliefs that we are the descendants of the gods (and therefore gods Ourselves).
However, even if it were proven to exist, I doubt that I could bring myself to worship the god of the bible. The Bible portrays this being as a jealous, egotistical, bloodthirsty maniac who likes to kill, kill, kill.
I also know that many of the stories in the Bible are reworkings of older stories from Eastern Mesopotamia. The Flood story is an older story with "Atrahasis" scratched out and "Noah" written in in crayon. And somehow the god El (a rather decent chap, IMO) got squished together with his not-so-nice son Yahweh to create a thoroughly unpalatable entity with a severe split personality.
Enjoy your belief in Jesus, whoever or whatever that is to you. But be aware that it is indeed a religion and not a "relationship". And for many people, including most of the regulars at this site, we have found Christianity to be harmful in our lives. Your results may vary, but I hope it isn't because you're wilfully deluding yourself.
1 John 1:3b "..our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ."
fellowship = companionship = relationship
In ephesians it says, "for it is by grace you have been saved through faith...not by works."
God shows us grace and love by saving us - he wants to be in fellowship with us. we are not saved by anything else, apart from our faith:
"That if you confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord" and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9
so, God shows he wants a relationship with us by saving us, and if we accept this then we enter into a relationship with God/Jesus. The Ephesians verse shows us that Christianity (simply believing in Jesus and thus being saved, seen in the Romans verse) is not defined by rituals, rules and "works" (which is basically what "religion" means). All it is is being in loving fellowship with God.
I see that everyone on this website is intelligent. Too intelligent. I would like you give me a prove Jesus is not God. Jesus is not the one he claims to be. And well, forgive my English, it´s not my mother´s tongue.
Can´t remember the bloodthirsty, "egotistical" (see you aren´t perfect too :)Jesus killed anyone.
I´m waiting for meaningful prove Jesus is not the one he claims to be. And please do NOT tell me you haven´t seen him therefore he doesn´t exist or you don´t believe the Bible therefore the Bible doesn´t convey the truth.
Unless I'm mistaken, it seems you advocate belief in everything that cannot be disproved. If so, I wish you luck worshiping Allah, Zeus, Mithra, Attis, Adonis, Isis, Osiris, Krishna, Ganesh, etc. etc. That's quite a pantheon you've got there. As for me, I'll stick to those things with credible supporting evidence; it results in a much more manageable pantheon (at present, it has zero members), which leaves more time to do productive things.
Take care.
Later the writer of 1 John says: 2:4 "The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did."
Further, the writer of the book of James, purportedly Jesus' physical brother, says: " 1:26 If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
So, without works, faith is dead. And really, faith is a work. If I don't drum up some faith, whatever that is, then I'll be horrifically tortured for all eternity. I have to present a gift of faith in exchange for your god's love. I have to take action. I have to do something. I have to perform. If I don't present this little package of faith, I won't earn salvation.
Besides that, do you have any verifiable evidence that such a being as your god even exists? And, keep in mind that the people who wrote your sacred tome were already believers when they wrote. The entire collection of writings is nothing but a religious apologetic anthology. Why should I invest my "faith" in this religious apologetic anthology over any other religion's apologetic anthology? Why should I accept their propaganda over the propaganda of any other religion?
Back to the point. Christianity is most assuredly a religion. What I took issue with was the poster who claimed that it is NOT a religion, but a relationship. It is most assuredly a religion. And the relational verse you quoted, you quoted out of context. The writer of 1 John is admonishing his readers to have fellowship with him, not Jesus.
"We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us." He then adds that his fellowship is with HIM and the readers are supposed to get in fellowship with the writer and other leaders. The writer of 1 John appears to me to be setting himself and other leaders up as priests.
okay, so, i think that good works are an important part of the christian life because they should be our response to God saving us. works will not save you, the ephesians vs i quoted makes that clear. Hebrews 12:28 says, "therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken (ie eternal life in heaven), let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverance and awe" and i think part of this worship includes good works, to show how thankful we are that God has saved us.
The person who says that they are a christian but does not let this fact show in their day-to-day lives i dont think has truly understood God's grace. To truly understand his grace and his mercy and how much he sacrificed so that we could have hope, this would show in how a person responds to the gospel. a christian should be doing works (although these are not ESSENTIAL for salvation). s/he should want to being doing works.
that issue is a bit tricky though, i remember talking to a guy about a year ago who said he was a christian - he said he believed in God and trusted in him and believed that Jesus died for his sins, etc. but i never would have guessed that from the way he lived. so he is saved? i guess he is.....i dont know everything about God. sometimes i get stumped on an issue and dont really know what to think about it. i'm sorry if i havent asnwered your question!
and about the 1 john verse, you are right, i took it out of context, sorry!! hmmm, it was quite late when i was posting that comment...
and about what you said, christianity being a religious apologetic anthology, i had to look that up. and i'm still a little unsure.....would you be able to explain what you mean by that??
and about the religion vs relationship thing, and also the other faith stuff, i will try to get back to you on that soon. i will have to think some more about what to write!
I see that everyone on this website is intelligent. Too intelligent.
Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as "too" intelligent.
Can´t remember the bloodthirsty, "egotistical" (see you aren´t perfect too :) Jesus killed anyone.
Well, for the sake of simplicity we won't count the fig tree as a "kill". However, if Jesus and the Biblical god are the same being, then Jesus would be responsible for such atrocities as the Noachide flood and the murder of Amakelite infants.
I´m waiting for meaningful prove Jesus is not the one he claims to be. And please do NOT tell me you haven´t seen him therefore he doesn´t exist or you don´t believe the Bible therefore the Bible doesn´t convey the truth.
kls, I don't know if such proof is available. Proving the nonexistence of something is not as neat and tidy as proving that something does exist. If a unicorn walks into the room and starts talking to you, you would probably believe that unicorns exist. However, if you've never seen one, and nobody you know has ever seen one, it's not unreasonable to withhold belief in unicorns till one shows up and says "Hi".
This is the critical difference between "unproven" (no proof yet, but some might show up later) and "disproven" (something has been shown to be false).
For the great majority of people, unicorns are unproven.
For me, the god of the Bible is also unproven. It might actually be out there, but I have no personal experience or objective evidence to push me in the direction of belief.
Not that it matters... I rather don't like the Bible's description of what a god is like, and feel no urge to worship such a being.
There are many collections of religious writings. Check out the Nag Hammadi library sometime. After you've read from those early Christian writings, explain to me why you believe the works collected in 325 and bound together in the Bible are God's word, but the writings rejected by the Council of Nicaea are not God's word?
I hope you realize that the only reason you think the collected works in the New Testament are divinely inspirited is because a bunch of priests and bishops, at the order of the Emperor of Rome, held a big meeting and voted on what version of Christianity would become the "TRUE" version of Christianity. They voted on what books to include in the New Testament and issued edicts to wipe out and destroy every other competing version of Christianity. And, by the way, there were many other versions, versions which had completely different ideas about who Jesus was and what his role was in Christianity.
Seriously, if you want to keep your faith, avoid studying Christian history or theology. Just stick to the 3rd-grade felt-board version of Christianity, and you'll do just fine. Should you ever deign to educate yourself, you'll find yourself with some hard questions to answer.
Here is the classic “bait and switch” of Christianity. This is where the whole “it is a ‘free gift’” crap falls apart. Ultimately, a person who has this supposed “relationship” with Jesus is given something that is quite conditional – and in return they are asked to basically give away every part of who they are.
And the Bible is caught in its most vile lie.
Let me give you a couple of scenarios, Kez, and you tell me what you think:
1. Let’s pretend that I have never been a Christian – or that I am one who has “back-slidden” and is now wanting to get that gift again. It is a “free gift” right? So – while it may be nice of me to do certain things – I am certainly not required to. So, I choose not to. I am not going to do anything. I am going to simply say, “cool! It is a ‘free gift’ so I will take this offer of salvation.”
Easy enough, right? After all, didn’t Jesus pay it all?
So I get to continue to live my life exactly as I am currently. How is that you ask? My wife and I are non-monogamous (swingers, to the layman), I enjoy beer for the very reason that it makes me drunk now and then, I cuss when I am angry, watch whatever I want on TV, listen to whatever I want on the radio and every now and then I look at unseemly things on the internet.
I am not going to read the Bible because I simply don’t want to. I prefer Stephen King. I am not going to go to church because Sunday morning just doesn’t work for me – and those contemporary churches, with convenient Saturday night services… Well – those don’t really work either since Saturday night is usually the reason why I am sleeping in on Sunday.
I am not going to fellowship with Christians because I think most of them are stiff and boring. I am not going to listen to Christian music because most of it is pathetic – and the stuff that isn’t is extremely repetitive. I am simply not going to change my life. Not one bit.
And when I am lying in bed with three women (happens from time to time) with a good buzz going and Nine Inch Nails playing the perfect song for the occasion – guess what… I am going to reject all forms of “conviction” because, frankly, this stuff is fun.
Let me ask you – how free is that gift?
2. Of course, I was a Christian once – and by that I mean I was part of a great mass of people looking for something that wasn’t there; hoping beyond all hope that there really was a God who cared about us. But you know what I found out? He doesn’t care at all.
I’ll admit – I am the stereotypical “bitter” exChristian. Mostly because my “deconversion” is fairly new. I had no idea that this was an option! But I am thankful to whatever force there is to be thankful for that I discovered the option to walk away. How amazingly liberating to realize that my life is my own – that I can truly enjoy and explore the person I am – whether created or not – without shame or fear or second thoughts!
I am not really an atheist, per se, but I am certainly of the mind that God is simply an apathetic force – a mostly positive force that we are all a part of – but not really “on my side”. And he/she/it really doesn’t give whit about what I think or believe. In fact, what I think or believe is not something this God force is cognizant of at all. In fact, I doubt that this “God” is sentient beyond individual.
But here is the riddle: Am I someone who was once, but is not now? If so – what did I do to lose this “free gift” you speak of?
Or am I someone who once was, doesn’t think he is now, but since it IS a “free gift” still am whether I want it or not? And if so, why the worry? If I die without thinking I am a Christian, that shouldn’t matter at all.
Or am I someone who thinks he was, but never was? Now, be careful, because I am willing to bet that my “Christian” path was very similar to most that you have seen. I was saved at 19, entered Bible college and upon graduation spent twelve years in full time ministry. I sought God with everything I am – my heart, soul, mind and strength. I saw incredible things – just like I have seen incredible things since walking away. In the end, it wasn’t me who wasn’t reaching out, it was God. He simply wasn’t there. Ever. And that is just as much “proof” as anyone can present for the existence of the Christian God, right? Experience?
And, if I “never was” then what exactly did I do wrong in reaching out for that “free gift”?
If God is real, he is a selfish, childish, needy, ego-centric creature who is no more worthy of worship than Alec Baldwin… And at least Mr. Baldwin calls his kids now and then…
Free gift?
A lie. Not even Paul believed it.
A relationship?
Completely conditional to one also accepting a religion. Even Jesus taught that.
I want to take a second to say that after reading every word of this discussion… WOW! What an interesting thread! There is a part of me – that part still tied to my “cult” that feels sorry for the showing that Christians have made here. Uninformed, unprepared, unable to carry on a decent discussion with some folks who seemed more than willing to civilly discuss their beliefs. Dave8, Jim Arvo, and a number more (I forgot more than I remembered – LOL!)
I will be joining the forums to work out some questions I have of my own. I am eager to get the opinions and insights of some of you. I have learned a ton just reading through – and I am already a fairly bright guy! This is a great site and a wonderful resource for those of us who are still smouldering wicks…
Spoomonkey
your thread, it made me cry. i'm serious. when you said, "There is a part of me – that part still tied to my “cult” that feels sorry for the showing that Christians have made here. Uninformed, unprepared, unable to carry on a decent discussion with some folks who seemed more than willing to civilly discuss their beliefs."
this made me realise that the person you're talking about is me. i am the unprepared christian. i thought i could come here and use my words to reconvert people...but that was so arrogant of me and i feel truly humbled. there is nothing really that i can say to convert people. i know only god can do that. i have read so many questions in these forums about proof for god's existence, difficult questions about the validity of the bible, etc. and i feel so pathetic because i know i can't answer all of them. maybe its because im 19. maybe its because im a crappy christian. i dont know. i just want to apoligise to you spoomonkey, because i cant answer your questions. i can try, but i know my answers will be shut down by something else tricky that someone will say, and i will be stumped again. and because this website is making me confused and lost and a little overwhelmed by being completely shut down all the time with sarcasm, i think im gonna stop coming here.
this site has shown me that being a christian is not just about putting on a show of knowing all the answers and thwarting people with difficult arguments and acting more holy than anyone else. in fact, its really about none of those things. its about being humbled when you screw up, or you can't explain something about the bible or about god to someone. its about praying to Him every day, telling him everything you've done, every worry you have, every question you have, and knowing that he will look after you no matter how difficult things are. its about being forgiven when you doubt. all the questions that i've read here, especially on this thread, i've asked myself at some point or another in my life. i think probably every christian has. but these doubts have made me hold onto God even more. and really, when it comes down to it, all that matters to me is my raw, no frills relationship with god. i might from time to time wonder, how can god send people to hell? or why is god letting wars happen?. in the end, im just gonna cling to the fact that i will cling to for the rest of my life - that God loves me and wants to know me.
feel free to shoot this down. im not gonna be here to read it. if anything this site has made me a stonger christian. i dont want to preach in this comment. i just wanted to say how i felt. and that was it.
"...spoomonkey, ... i cant answer your questions. i can try, but i know my answers will be shut down by something else tricky that someone will say, and i will be stumped again..."
keziah, don't go away mad. In fact, don't go away at all.
This is not a community of hotshot lawyers who will just as happily argue the pro or the con position in the interest of whichever side happened to walk into the office waving a cheque. You say they will come up with "something else tricky" that will leave your message in tatters as if that's their goal in life.
They weren't looking for exit loopholes in the bible when they deconverted from the cult. Many of them made a last-ditch careful reading of the bible in a desperate effort to _remain_ Christians[!] and finally had to face the fact that they'd been clinging to an untenable position out of loyalty or fear or some other psychological reality.
It's not that they're trying to reduce your belief system (Christianity) to tatters as some sort of sadistic intellectual game; it's that they think your belief system (which was once their own closely held and precious to them belief system) is _already_ in tatters, all on its own, with no help from anyone. They don't have to look long and hard to find "technicalities" to discredit Christianity; no, there are great gaping holes in the core concepts of Christianity that they don't even _have to_ seek out. It would be harder to ignore them than to discover them.
And I might lastly point out that not everyone here disbelieves in a god; it's just Christianity that they concluded didn't hold water.
Isn't it possible that you're seeing and feeling what you've decided you're going to see and feel, both in your religion and at this site?
"As far as I know God does not require the universe to change, it changes because of sin. for example, there wasn't even rain on the Earth until the time of Noah(Gen 2:5), that means that something like rain which is a neccessity for us is actually the result of man's sin."
I realize that Kevin's post is a couple of years old, but I still wanted to reply to it.
First of all it was "The Earth" that was supposedly subjected to a curse because of man's sin. Not the universe.
Christianity is dying, and their god isn't doing a damn thing to stop it. These poor christians are fighting the good fight, and their god refuses to even help them. Yet they continue to fight the so called good fight. How pitiful.
I would say by the end of the century that christianity will be almost obsolete. It will by known as a religion of the past, and Jesus will be catogorized with Zeus and Apollo as a "Mythical God".
Their precious Jesus has not returned, and they are getting scared. Their precious faith and security is dying, and it scares the hell out of them.
Christians are weak minded fools who cannot handle or deal with reality. They are scared of reality, and they need a crutch named Jesus in order to deal with reality.
I'm sure that sooner or later, some idiot christian will come on here and try to debate me, and they will say that Jesus is coming soon, and that I am going to be sorry and that I am going to burn in hell.....blah blah blah.
I would be willing to bet that an asteroid or a comet hitting the earth will happen before their precious saviour ever returns. I also guarantee that God won't do a damn thing to save these poor fools either.
Before any christian asks "Why are you so mad Poltergoost"?
I'm mad as hell because of the lies and deciet that christians use to enslave and oppress others, and I'm mad as hell that I was stupid enough at one time to listen to these "Cult Members". I wasted years serving god and going to church.
The thing that really makes me mad is that there are still people who are buying into the all these lies and the biblical propoganda that preachers and other ignorant christians spread.
I will continue to fight against this oppression.
"The reason why christians get so mad over "Anti-Christian Statements", or why they choose to post on this website in order to try to defend what they believe is because they know that deep down inside they are losing the battle."
Well, dang, I'm glad you know the big 'why' answer. I've never actually met anyone before who could accurately discern another's motives. They'd try, and then get mad because of the 'why' they ascribed to someone else; humorous if pointless. Most conflicts of intellect are easily pursued profitably as long as the parties don't presume to know things they don't.
Putting Christians in a box and calling them 'they' presumes they think alike, believe the same things, act alike, all somewhere down at the lowest repulsive standard. Christians aren't all fools, afraid of science or of social and cultural change. Perhaps it's just the fanatics on both sides that confuse the discussion. Emotional diatribe vs. reasonable exchange.
Meanwhile, since this is the 'last century of Christianity' again; again; again; what are we to do? Oh my, will my hope disappear under the fury of the 20-somethings? Or might there be profit in my years of careful objectivity pursuing God?
I'm not overly fond of the spooky-pooky wierdos in the church, nor am I impressed with the narrow-minded fundamentalists, but I've met God's friends on four continents; they aren't anything like you describe. You'd like them, and what's more revealing, they'd like you even with your beliefs.
Best of luck, pal.
So what was your motive in posting that little rant? Was it to edify? Were your motives driven out of pure heart? Did you hope to extend "True Christian™" love?
I don't know how old Polter is, but I'm 48. And I was a full-blown, evangelical, missionary-zeal Christian for 30 years. Funny how assumptions go both ways, huh?
You said rebukingly, "Putting Christians in a box and calling them 'they'..."
Then you said, "I've met God's friends on four continents; they aren't anything like you describe. You'd like them, and what's more revealing, they'd like you even with your beliefs."
Hmm. So it's okay for you to put Christians in a box, but Polter shouldn't EVER do anything so silly. I guess as long as the box is pretty, then a box is okay, right?
Have a nice day, BUDDY.
What was my motive? Thanks for asking. Just thought I'd point out that having met one objectionable person who claimed to be a representative Christian doesn't support a categorization of all Christians as being like the one. Or having met one group claiming..., and so on. I've met all kinds over the years. Christians old and young, idealistic and realistic, silly and wise. With the small percentage of chaotic thinkers and compulsive haranguers removed from the mix of those I've known, the remaining (and quite diverse) adherents are neither fearful of the changes in culture around them nor concerned over the fact that science causes regular upheaval in traditional interpretations of historical understanding. My observation, my analysis.
I personally enjoy the play of history against a backdrop of faith in God. As often as one discovery or theory threatens to undermine the faith of many, another discovery or theory reverses the process. I think there is genuine nobility and benefit in the pursuit of objective truth by scientists and philosophers; it causes me no particular distress, nor does it cause more than a ripple in the world of Christian belief. The exceptions are minor. Evolution, for example, is a wonderful subject for discussion, but poses no particular threat to the church in spite of all the publicity and knee-jerk confrontation. A non-emotional, multi-lateral inquiry is useful; a confrontational debate obscures the issue and is perceived as threatening by both sides. A generally useless activity.
No great rebuke intended in my comments beyond perhaps pointing out the fundamental attribution error* in the referenced post. It was intended to provoke thought rather than recrimination. The logical follow-on to my comments might be, "What if there is more to know than I know? What if my understanding of the 'church' is biased? What if my experience with Christians is off-center? What if my opinions, so strongly embedded in my mind, aren't as soundly formed as I think? What if I'm one of those emphatic but unwise younger minds who haven't quite seen the larger picture? What if the 'body of believers' isn't anything like I've thought?" Those sorts of things.
I'm aware that my experience isn't precisely the same as anyone else's. I'm aware that a bad experience in a given context can predispose a person's mind for decades. Sometimes it's helpful to point out that our contextual presuppositions should be challenged from time to time. Someone said to our benefit, "The unobserved life isn't worth living." Or something along that line.
For a more personal example, what if your 30 years in the church weren't very much like what God intended for you or for those with whom you fellowshipped? What if those years were well-intended human attempts to do what they thought they found in scripture?
So there you have my motive, at least as clearly as I'm aware of it. Thanks again for asking, pal.
Buddy
P.S. It's Sunday, and I'm off to be with some fine folks at church. Some are searching, most are strong-minded believers, every profession from test pilot to school-kid, all imperfect. You should visit someday. You'd be welcome.
* "In attribution theory, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or overattribution effect) is the tendency for an observer to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations."
Buddy
I agree with you, if what your verbose post is intended to convey is that stereotyping any group is a mistake. In other words, if you are saying Christians are no different than anyone else on the planet, then I completely agree. If, however, you are trying to say that Christians are somehow superior to other people, or smarter, or of more value, or bound for everlasting bliss while everyone else is bound for horrific doom, then I disagree with your stereotype.
Now, as to this: "What if there is more to know than I know? What if my understanding of the 'church' is biased? What if my experience with Christians is off-center? What if my opinions, so strongly embedded in my mind, aren't as soundly formed as I think? What if I'm one of those emphatic but unwise younger minds who haven't quite seen the larger picture? What if the 'body of believers' isn't anything like I've thought?"
To a large extent, that is the purpose of this site. The stereotypical presenting face of Christianity is that Christians are "new creatures," "Christ lives in me," "transformed by the renewing...," but the reality is that Christians are absolutely indistinguishable from the general population. No magic there at all.
You continued, "Sometimes it's helpful to point out that our contextual presuppositions should be challenged from time to time."
Yes, that's exactly what I finally did in middle age. It didn't lead where I expected, but thanks for confirming that it was the best course of action. Reality is so much more fulfilling than is delusional mythology.
And more from you: "If your 30 years in the church weren't very much like what God intended for you or for those with whom you fellowshipped? What if those years were well-intended human attempts to do what they thought they found in scripture?"
Huh? I guess you missed the point. My years in "the church" had nothing to do with my de-conversion ; honest intellectual inquiry was the culprit. Any and all experiences I may have had only came under scrutiny in retrospect of my realization that Christianity is nothing more than a complex mythology.
Socrates also said (or rather asked) this: "Is the pious (good, moral, right action, etc.) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (Euthyphro 10 a) In other words, if right actions are pious only because the gods love or command those actions, then moral rightness is entirely arbitrary, depending only on the whims or commands of the gods. If, on the other hand, the gods love right actions because they are already right, then there must be some non-divine source of values, which we might come to know independently of the gods, and I would add, to which the gods must answer.
That's a bit off topic, I suppose. The point is, if you are going to quote Socrates as an authority, I'm all for it.
As often as one discovery or theory threatens to undermine the faith of many, another discovery or theory reverses the process.
That's an interesting statement, leaving theory aside for the moment, can you provide some examples of recent discoveries that support Christianity? There are a few positive studies of intercessory prayer, but the majority of the research in that area shows no significant effect.
My apologies for verbosity. You dodged my question, though, so perhaps I didn't state it well. I hoped to broaden the frame of reference to include the possibility of being heard objectively. Perhaps we might approach the matter again on another occasion. Meanwhile, no offense intended or taken here.
Your testimony is quite well formed, by the way. There is much that provokes thought. I can relate to some of your history, having been through similar times with similarly flawed people.
For AdamH,
On examples of scientific theory that both threaten and support the Christian faith:
One that comes to mind is the coalescence of scientific opinion regarding the Big Bang and the origins of everything. The journals read like a modern paraphrase of the creation story. The difficulty a Christian might have is that it doesn't sound like scripture; it requires him to study a little and see this incredible universe traced back to the moment of beginning; an infinitely small, near infinitely dense point, preceded by... nothing, if the science is correct. Then, BANG! Light and darkness, matter and emptiness, stars and planets, water and land, plants and animals, and us. The earlier theories regarding the origin of the cosmos were much more inimical to a Christian's belief structure; now, Hawking-Turok could qualify for Papal approval.
Thanks for the inquiry, guys.
Buddy
Thanks.
"The earlier theories regarding the origin of the cosmos were much more inimical to a Christian's belief structure; now, Hawking-Turok could qualify for Papal approval."
Ah huh. Right.
How so? Statements like sound pedantic, yet actually convey nothing. Please qualify and quantify your point with documented and referenced explanation.
Again, thank.
Hypothesize with me. What if you're mostly right? Suppose your analysis of your 30 years revealed wishful myth, hypocrisy, and flawed thinking. You'd be consistent with the objective critics of the 'church' throughout history, but not original. Might there be more than you know?
I don't deny you the right to have firmly held opinions, nor do I suggest you're unjustified in lamenting the years spent in off-truth. Have you left room for a larger perspective?
In my earlier years, I knew enough to lecture my father about things he obviously didn't understand. He endured it graciously. We laughed together years later. My subject matter was similar to yours, positions developed by rational, objective analysis of available evidence. Accurate but incomplete.
I can't help but commend you for your aggressive pursuit of reasonable answers in the mountain of literature available in the field. I've done similarly, if not so extensively, and like you, I've seen much to dissatisfy and disappoint me there.
I've been pleased, in spite of the above, to discover a larger view than the either/or you describe. I was curious if you'd left room for being only mostly right.
Buddy
That's not what you are asking me. You are asking me if I have left room to return to Christianity. That is NOT a larger perspective. That is a return to mystical, magical, mental masturbation. Calling that a "larger perspective" is ridiculous. It certainly is a different perspective; a perspective that says donkeys sometimes talk, chariots of fire rocket into space, undead zombies stroll about on occasion, a person can take a weekend break in the belly of a fish without difficulty, invisible creatures of all description inhabit the "firmament," whatever that is...
You get the point. It's clearly mythology. Only brainwashing could possibly convince a person otherwise.
Again, if your "larger view" includes adopting the position that magical power is available to those who believe this or that, well... I think I'll just stick with reality. When I want fantasy, I'll read a novel or watch a movie.
"My subject matter was similar to yours, positions developed by rational, objective analysis of available evidence. Accurate but incomplete."
Since your subject matter, positions, or analysis was incomplete (hard to say from the sentence construction to which thing you are referring), perhaps you should spend a bit more time in the pursuit of reason.
But you weren't talking about yourself, were you? You were attempting to point a gnarled, wizened finger at me, right? If you really expect to convince me of anything, you'll have to provide a bit more of an argument than "I'm older and wiser than you." Age is evidence of only one thing: age.
The journals read like a modern paraphrase of the creation story.
Well that's a little bit of a stretch, to put it mildly. The concept of a deity is absent (and not required) in physics and cosmology, although there are gaps, and god usually gets inserted into those gaps. You also have a Bible that needs to be interpreted in order to bring it into line with current knowledge, which raises a number of problems. After rewriting Genesis, it might end up sounding like this:
"In the beginning God created three dimensions of space and one of time as a four dimensional pseudo-riemannian manifold with signature. And the manifold had a scalar curvature approaching infinity asymptotically as time approaches the beginning. The mass-energy it contained was without form, and the inflaton moved upon the face of the spacetime. And God began to divide the fundamental forces. First He separated that which controls the geometry of spacetime and named it gravity. Next He separated the strong force from the rest, which He named the electroweak force. Then God saw that the quantum vacuum of the inflaton was false, so lo he smote it with a second order phase transition, and that did drive cosmic inflation of spacetime from the negative energy density of the quantum field. And the universe became vast. And He said, "Let there be quarks in the midst of the quark-gluon plasma," and he divided the quarks from the antiquarks. And He saw that matter was good, so He caused then CP violation to make more matter than antimatter, so that all might not be annihilated. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light, for quark-antiquark annihilation created photons. And so ended the grand unification epoch."
Nope. No finger pointing intended although I might gently point out that presuming to know my motive and taking offense because of it is the subject of earlier correspondence.
Greater intellects than mine (and perhaps your as well) have debated the existence of God and the validity of the Christian faith over the centuries, and they've come to a variety of conclusions.
Some of them agree with you; for example, the 'higher criticism' era is probably familiar to you; a period when the underpinnings of faith (of some) were challenged by historical analysis.
Another viewer might suggest that the period was helpful, and undermined only the less useful dogmas over which various groups had fought without adequate reason.
My inquiry wasn't toward the question of whether or not you might return to Christianity; it was more toward your willingness to consider the possibility of being less than absolutely correct in each particular.
Yep, I was talking about myself. I'm old, experienced, and perhaps wise in some things. Maybe just a few.
For AlanH,
Not bad. Bump it up to the 9 (or 11) dimensions required, and you're on a roll.
My point was simpler, though; current scholarship on cosmology causes me no distress. It doesn't shatter my religious beliefs; it doesn't cause me to struggle with the Bible.
Current scholarship would, however, drive the classic church theologian of decades past absolutely bonkers. Seems it's always been that way. Fundamental change in understanding is hard to grasp and adapt to our perceived world and concepts.
Buddy
I was an absolutely convinced Christian for three decades. I've admitted numerous times on this site that I was considerably less than absolutely correct in each particular while in the cult.
Now, if you have evidence in support that reality includes something I'm missing, then please present that evidence.
To restate: I would say that my abandonment of Christianity after so long a time of devoted committment clearly demonstrates my ability to admit error.
Thanks for the clear answer, and I'll concede your point for the moment. Before the detail of evidence, though, could we generalize a couple of things? For instance, to what do you attribute the persistence through the centuries of great minds who hold to their faith?
I'm aware as are you that some of the great intellects of history were Christians. From your point of view, each of them was in error in both detail and in total. How might the many great minds be so agreeably in error, in general?
Note that here we're not quibbling over the number of years since creation or the proper form of baptism; just the surprising persistence of great minds that hold the same central beliefs.
Buddy
Here's an entertaining side-note: The Catholic Church has been on board with the Big Bang since 1951. Continuing refinement by researchers since then hasn't raised a ripple of concern.
Hawking-Turok* follows in the same vein.
Buddy
*... So in essence, Hawking and Turok proposed that the universe began from virtually nothing. The two physicists believe that the instanton does not exist "inside" of anything, nor was there anything existing "before" the instanton. The instanton was a combination of gravity, space, time, and matter packed into a rounded miniscule object. They believe the existence and subsequent actions of this object produced the big bang, and subsequently, the universe we live in today.
I thought you were opposed to lumping together groups of people under "they" or the equivalent. I sincerely doubt there is one concise answer that would apply equally to each of those who might be so labeled by you as "great minds" and who hold (or held) to "their faith." A better way to get a proper answer might be to directly ask each of those individuals of whom you are thinking. Barring the ability to do so, because the person has passed on or is unavailable, then reading what they've written on the matter might be helpful. If that too impossible, then all that is left is personal conjecture, which is probably worthless. In other words, your question, the way you've asked it, leaves me with no reasonable way to specifically answer.
Instead of asking about "great minds," which you haven't defined, by the way, a better question might be "Why do human beings seem to have the compulsion to create gods and religions. Since there are thousands of gods and thousands of religions, and all have a vast variety of adherents of all stripes, from all walks of life, an inclination toward religion appears endemic to our species. From my vantage point the question seems to be "Why do human beings have an inclination toward creating gods and religions?"
This, in fact, is a topic that greatly interests me, of which I am exploring as best I'm able by reading the works of scientific men and women who are studying this phenomenon. I think you will agree that people (all kinds of people) believe and have believed all sorts of strange things. Though I do posses a good dose of curiosity on this subject, I must admit a great deal of personal ignorance on the topic. Of course other mysteries abound such as, why we as a species feel compelled to create music, art, books, movies, hair and clothes styles, myriads of machines, and on and on and on. So, my most honest answer to your question is this: Our minds are complexly evolved and the full understanding of what makes us all tick has not yet been fully ferreted out.
"Great minds that hold the same central beliefs."
Again, great minds still needs defining, as does "same central beliefs." I'm not sure what beliefs you consider "central," and would like to have a list of these "great minds" who held or do hold to these "beliefs" and how you know they would all feel comfortable under the same umbrella.
Now, if you are trying to imply that various forms of Christianity were accepted as true by some intelligent people in history, then I will concede that point. That they would have been able to get along as friends, however, has not been shown, as Christianity has been fractured into an ungodly number of splinter groups since its appearance in history, most of which view competing groups as heretical or at least in error. Regardless, those intelligent people who built the pyramids thought RA and others were gods. The development of what became modern mathematics is frequently attributed to the Arabic Islamic nations. The pagan religions were also followed by numerous intelligent people. Socrates, for instance, whom you thought worthy of quoting, was a pagan, right?
Now, about that evidence you are prepared to present...
Though I did quote him, it was purely inadvertent. He wrote nothing, he espoused little, and he is best remembered for dictating both sides of a discussion, putting things in his opponent's mouth that no sensible person would propose. While I personally find the tenuous records we have of his life barely readable, he remains one of the most influential contributors to Western philosophy.
Given a choice of abandoning his philosophical inquiry or facing death, Plato's Socrates embraced death with impressive nobility. Perhaps few of us are presented with the same stark choice between philosophy and death, but all of us are daily faced with opportunities to decide between convenient conventionality and our devotion to truth and reason. How we choose determines whether we, like Socrates, deserve to call our truthful.
Your pursuit of the truth has led you across difficult and painful terrain, yet you persist. For that, you are to be commended. I certainly don't fault you in it.
I am genuinely curious, though, as to how you've managed to discount the surprising body of literature you cite. Reasonable men, most of them, who wrote with clarity and sound reason where needed.
I know you have specific disagreements with their interpretation of this or that, but I know you must have some thoughts on why so many reasonable men walked that path.
You raise the question of why it might be that we humans are wont to create our gods. I suppose we might suggest that it is logically an extension of our general creativity. You might with equal logic inquire what it might be that evokes the god-hunger in most generations and most civilizations. An answer to either question is suspect unless it answers both. Inside one? Inside all? Outside?
Later,
Buddy
"He is best remembered for dictating both sides of a discussion, putting things in his opponent's mouth that no sensible person would propose."
I'd be genuinely interested in the titles to the books that you've read that brought you to your listed conclusions, and at least one example of the information Socrates presented that "no sensible person would propose."
"I am genuinely curious, though, as to how you've managed to discount the surprising body of literature you cite. Reasonable men, most of them, who wrote with clarity and sound reason where needed.
I know you have specific disagreements with their interpretation of this or that, but I know you must have some thoughts on why so many reasonable men walked that path."
Here we go again with them and their. Why not add, "those guys?" Sweeping generalizations are unproductive -- isn't that what you've been saying? You really need to be pointedly specific if you expect a succinct conversation. You could, for instance, drag out a quote from one of these "thems" and explain why you agree with it and ask me if my thoughts reflect something different. Lumping together nameless individuals who said "lots of stuff" that I supposedly have discounted...
Well, hopefully you get the point.
"An answer to either question is suspect unless it answers both."
And that dogmatic statement is true because... why? All you are doing is presenting a supposition with the childish implication that if an full and complete answer is not readily available, then GODDIDIT! But, you're jumping ahead of yourself. You haven't established that there even is a god. Then, you haven't established that this god is your god, the one who inseminated a human virgin so He could have a son who was really Him and who will one day horrifically torture for all eternity every human being who fails to discover, submit, and faithfully adhere for life to the correct version of the right religion. (Take breath.) Then, having established this god, we would have to discuss the processes this god used to implant various characteristics into her pet humans. Perhaps she simply used evolution! Or maybe, it was a magic frog!
Now, setting aside all this empty banter which leads nowhere, I would now appreciate being provided with the evidence you implied possessing. Unless, that is, you were just bluffing.
I should have said, if we get bogged down with non-belief in Christ. Because surely there's nothing to get bogged down about concerning non-belief in those "other gods", right?
The Catholic Church has been on board with the Big Bang since 1951.
Buddy, the irony here is the big bang theory has nothing to do with any god or gods; any deity has to be fit into the ever-diminishing gaps. Current scholarship would probably drive a classic church theologian crazy, but why should we assume contemporary theologians are any more grounded in reality than their predecessors? The Catholic church wants to appear friendly to science, but at the same time they claim the "ultimate" truth for themselves. After 2,000 years we still have no evidence to support their beliefs. Science keeps moving forward while theologians keep adjusting their "ultimate" truths in an effort to keep up.
I'm not saying always go with the majority, but alot of you ex-christians seem like typical, westerners. I don't care if you have visited other countries, you obviously don't understand. Even in a Hindu country, I feel the relation and truth that there is a spiritual realm, like a mental realm, that is entwined with the physical.
Do you believe in Quetzalcoatl? No? Boy, that's SO typical of non-westerners.
And I'm glad you're not saying to go with the majority, because at one time, the "majority" of the world's population believed the sun revolved around the earth. They believed that a "firmament" held up the sky(which they thought was "water" because it was blue).
So, yes, "popular vote" is a horrible reason to believe something.
Emma 4 jc: Even in a Hindu country, I feel the relation and truth that there is a spiritual realm, like a mental realm, that is entwined with the physical.
So, since being in a country where Hindū Dharma is practiced makes you "feel" that there exists a transcendent reality, maybe reincarnation is "Truth", and Christianity's "Heaven and Hell" is a lie, huh? Naah.
I willingly agree with you as you wrote, "Buddy, the irony here is the big bang theory has nothing to do with any god...".
Absolutely true, although the irony isn't as poignant as it might be. What might a theoretical physicist do with an non-quantifiable event? Seriously.
Imagine for a moment that 'God is'; how might our theory authors discover this? According to their 'proofs', the instant before the bang just doesn't exist; there was no gravity, matter, space, or time. Literally nothing existed before the bang as far as they know.
Won't it be intriguing when their theory is replaced by another, as has every such 'theory of everything' so far.
My favorite pratfall was Darwin's postulation that women as a species were inferior to men.
Buddy
P.S. Was it you commending Voltaire to me in earlier correspondence? Voltaire, atheist, French author, humanist, rationalist (1694 - 1778), held up a copy of the Bible in the air and smugly proclaimed, "In 100 years this book will be forgotten and eliminated...". Shortly after his dead, Voltaire’s private residence became the headquarters of the Geneva Bible Society and became a major distribution hub for the very Bible he assigned to extinction.
I know you'd like to move from the 'sweeping generalizations' to specifics, but can't we avoid the simpler dichotomies and pursue some subject about which you might entertain a point-counterpoint?
Or we can just throw mutually-exclusive statements at each other to no particular end.
I'm persuaded God is; you're persuaded God isn't. There, that's settled. I'm persuaded that Christianity's true believers are enlightened; you're persuaded they're deceived. OK, that's settled too. You're a rationalist; I'm one too, though I doubt you'd agree. Enough?
Any open subjects that don't close with the first rebuttal?
How about the soul? Thoughts?
Buddy
P.S. Don't presume my motives are evangelical. I'm actually interested in your reasoning.
Presenting your evidence for an invisible, immaterial, super-being with whom you commune would be a tremendous place to start.
Thanks.
Ok, last comment for the night.
You asked for a citation showing Socrates being unreasonable (my word); see Laches by Plato for the dialog on courage. It proceeds something like this:
1. Socrates' opponent, Laches, begins the game with his thesis, 'Courage is endurance of the soul'. Socrates takes the polar opposite position and refutes the premise.
2. Socrates (as Plato writes, of course) engages his opponent and extracts agreement to some simple things such as, 'Courage is a fine thing' and 'Ignorant endurance is not a fine thing'.
3. Socrates then pounces upon these peripheral elements and insists that they obviate the original. It follows then, according to Socrates, that 'courage is not endurance of the soul'.
4. Here Plato's account has Laches say wonderful things about Socrates' cleverness.
5. Socrates claims that his opponent's premise has been proven false and that he has proven its' converse to be true. Applause by all.
Perhaps, I think to myself, except that 'A+B=C' disproven cannot be support for 'A==C'. A high school debate class knows better, yet Plato's account treats the logical fallacy (the undistributed middle) as though it were reasonable.
Many, if not most, of his dialogs follow a similar form.
That said, his impact on Western philosophy and our subsequent rationalist societies gives Socrates a well deserved place in our history. I intend no disrespect, I only find it tedious to read the historical works.
Buddy
At the Gutenberg project, you can see the text of Plato's Laches for this particular dialog. His more frequently cited works, The Republic and Apology are structured similarly.
Courage IS endurance of the soul.
My only real point with pursuing the Socrates "stuff" was because of the apparent duplicitous way you quoted him on the one hand and disparaged him on the other. In reality, however, it is Plato we are both talking about. We can't even be absolutely sure that Socrates ever said anything ascribed to him, or for that matter, whether Socrates was ever more than a literary vehicle.
But all this is irrelevant and off topic.
Now, once again: your evidence! Are you prepared to throw it on the table to be examined? If not, then further discussion on non-essential rabbit trails would appear counterproductive.
I'm taking it that the "that's settled" part was facetious?... nonetheless, let's examine a variation of the above statement:
Christian Theists are persuaded Christ "is"; Muslims Theists are persuaded Christ "isn't".
There, that's settled, too. Right?
No. Unfortunately, it's not quite as simple as "I believe in leprechauns; you don't....big deal."
As long as there are people turning each other into red confetti over whether their particular deity "is", or "isn't", the issue is certainly NOT settled. As long as Theists go door-to-door soliciting their particular brand of "God", the issue is NOT settled. As long as Theists fly jet liners into buildings, it's NOT settled.
So, no, Mr. Ferris....if you want to "settle" it?... present your objective evidence that your personal creator deity, "Christ", exists, and all other known creator deities are false. You are making a fantastic claim---prove it. To the non-believer, "god" is a generic term; to the Christian, it's an exclusive term. Prove that Jesus Christ "is", exclusively.
B. Ferris: I'm persuaded that Christianity's true believers are enlightened; you're persuaded they're deceived. OK, that's settled too.
What on earth is a "true believer"? Is that opposed to false-believer? Are you suggesting that some Christians are actually deceived in what they believe?? Hmm....hopefully you see the problem with that, if true.
B. Ferris: You're a rationalist; I'm one too, though I doubt you'd agree. Enough?
You have belief. You either, A) "know" that your belief is universally true and have the evidence to support it; or B) have "faith" that your belief is universally true, and thus, reasonable evidence doesn't matter, because "faith" is to believe without reasonable evidence.
If "A", like the Webmaster said, let's have a look at your objective evidence. If "B", then you're right, I disagree that you are a "rationalist", because believing without reasonable evidence is not rational.
Courage IS accepting reality...the good, the bad, the ugly.
Webmaster, I answered your request for a citation because you asked. Nothing more.
On the 'that's settled' comments, I was describing the field as it has unfolded in our conversations. You hold one position, I hold another; they are mutually exclusive, separate paradigms (yuck) without identifiable middle ground. Fine. Leave those battlefields for the moment and consider other venues of discourse. Are there relevant subjects that don't raise the rancor associated with 'Christian' topics? Or are we doomed to sneer at one another without actually having discoursed?
For instance, Emma4 raised an interesting line of inquiry with her comment regarding the common opinion on the existence of the soul. Without implying anything too spiritual for the moment, a discourse on the soul might inquire as to its' definition...
mind, will, emotions? Life force?
...its' supporting evidence...
near-death narratives, psychic phenomena?
...its' location...
tied to the body? vice versa? not?
...its' activity...
thought, expression, communication?
... and its' substance...
material/elemental/ethereal?
In such a dialog, we needn't be opponents.
I realize that this forum attracts some who want naively to change your mind and feel obliged to do so by tender words or by picking a fight; your harsh response to them is understandable.
I don't pick fights; at least not intentionally. I do appreciate sound thinking. You've been clear about what you don't believe, and about what you're opposed to, and about how you feel on those issues. What I haven't heard is about what you do believe. I thought it might be interesting to discuss a middle-ground, non-theological issue like the existence of a soul, or why some superstitions persist in the face of science and literacy. Must I be your adversary to do so?
Buddy
Lest we over-use the 'objective evidence' argument, let me pose for us a similar request.
Last Sunday afternoon, where were you and with whom? Provide as many details as you like. Corandum rules of evidence apply.
Buddy
The thing is, it's a false analogy. There is NO equal standing between those kinds of statements. You say "There is a GOD!" I say, "Show me!"
You say, "There is a UFO!" I say, "Show me!"
You say, "I have regular communion with a magical man in the sky!" I say, "Show me the door!"
All your questions about various mental states and subjective so-called ethereal experiences have no concrete answers. We simply do not know enough about the human brain. Studies into all those topics are underway, but the conclusions thus far are in the infancy stage.
So, I'll just say to all that stuff, I don't know. My opinion is that they are all natural processes of our minds in a natural world. I doubt there is something magical going on. I could be wrong though. Do you have any EVIDENCE that your magic is real?
Inferring stuff from a base of ignorance is not intelligent -- it is presuppositional. You presume your god and your religion are the correct ones and then you go out searching for unanswerable, or interesting, or leading questions to which you assign YOUR answer: GODIDIT!
To say, GODIDIT may be a reasonable answer, once we establish that such a creature exists. But is it the most likely answer? So many parts of nature have been directly credited to one god or another in our species' history, only to have later discoveries de-mystify and assign the credit to natural forces. God keeps retreating, and is now the God of the Gaps in evolution.
That trend tells me that it is quite likely that all the issues you mentioned will eventually be discovered to be natural processes that only exist in our brains.
Again, I could be wrong in my assumption, but until I get evidence to the contrary, I feel no compulsion to retreat into mythology.
I hope you see the point?
If you cannot present any evidence for your god beyond "But what about BLANK that hasn't been answered yet," I don't think you are any different from all the rest of the religiously inflamed minds out there.
If you want to assert that a deity created the big bang, that's fine. That's a gap that may always be with us, just bear in mind Allah, Yahweh and Vahiguru can comfortably fit in that gap as well. On the other hand if you assert that there is a deity that is involved in mankind's affairs, as Christians often do (even to the point of claiming daily interaction with this entity,) then some evidence would be helpful. The typical claims made by believers are perfectly suitable for scientific study, however when believers start saying their claims are somehow exempt from examination that raises an enormous red flag. We can detect the presence of a planet by examining the orbit and light of a star, we may not find out much about the planet, but at least we know its there. Similarly we can look for the presence of a deity by examining its effects on people and things. That's why I mentioned studies of intercessory prayer, if prayer actually worked the data would support that claim.
Lest we over-use the 'objective evidence' argument, let me pose for us a similar request.
Last Sunday afternoon, where were you and with whom? Provide as many details as you like. Corandum rules of evidence apply.
Buddy"
Dear "Buddy",
Heavens-to-betsy!... didn't we beat this horse to a bloody pulp in that "other thread"?? Why in Hades are you asking such a question? If I tell you what I did, that I spear-headed a sit-down dinner for 200 people at a fine arts museum, I'm NOT telling you CONDITIONALLY. Repeat--I'm NOT telling you with conditions attached. You are FREE to reject whatever "evidence" I put forth, whether it be eyewitness testimony, video footage, receipts(all of which I can produce)....OR some drunk fisherman in the middle East who had a vision that I did it.
Furthermore, I don't claim to have done anything out of the ordinary, Bud'. I don't claim to have worked any "magic", or anything else that defies physics. For instance, I didn't run out of the client's wine, and then turn the Voss sparkling water into merlot. Nor did I "zAp" the cow into existance from which I prepared the chateau. Are you with me so far?
Additionally, Bud', if you don't believe me?...you can go on your merry way, unharmed. I will not track you down and set you on fire if you should be skeptical of my claims. Do you see the difference(s) yet? Gosh, I hope so.
PS: BTW, I'd like to thank all Christians for not pelting me with rocks for the divine transgression of earning a living on the Sabbath. Again, thanks guys.
Good thinking. Okay, if this hypothetical "thing" known as a "soul" is not a spiritual "thing", then is this an admission that it is at least partially a physical "thing"? Yes?..or no?
On the other hand, it seems that "God" can have a "mind" without a body, yes?...yes, of course, so it seems to me that this is one of the first issues that needs to be addressed. The "soul": material/tangible?..or immaterial/intangible?
Meanwhile, in an attempt to define the "soul", B. Ferris, offered:
mind, will, emotions? Life force?
...its' supporting evidence...
You say "soul"....I say brain. I posit that one cannot have a "mind", "will", or "emotions" without a healthy functioning brain. I argue that there is more credible evidence that a "mind" is dependent on a brain, than there is that a "mind" can exist independent of a "brain".
Additionally, if, as some theists/dualists claim, a "soul" can exist independently of a "brain", then by that definition, a paper weight can have a "soul", and for all we know, perhaps paper weights can be banished to paper weight purgatory for not being heavy enough? But seriously, all facetiousness aside--it raises a good and valid point, IMO. If a "soul" can exist independently of a brain, then why can't inanimate objects have "souls"? If one arues that only living organisms can have a "soul", then does an opossum, which is quite possibly one of the world's dumbest animals, have a "soul"???? If so, does it spend eternity as "stupid" roadkill?
About "life force"---while I agree that the human body is resilient, it is due, again, to specific parts of the brain. For instance, a stroke victim might have complete loss of identity; be blind; be deaf; be unable to eat and/or swallow on their own, but "seemingly" have a "will" to live. I would argue that it is in fact the brain stem keeping the person alive....not some unseen intangible "life force".
B. Ferris: near-death narratives, psychic phenomena?
...its' location...
Ah, yes, "near-death" experiences. Okay, what about people who come close to death but "experience" nothing? Would you accept that as evidence for the non-existance of the "soul"? Or is it that those people don't have souls?
What about about people on the other side of the planet who have NDEs and claim to see "Muhammad"? Would you then accept that as evidence that "Allah" is the "Lord of Lords...King of Kings"??? Somehow, I don't think so.
Regarding the location of the "soul". Good, 'glad you raised this issue. So?....WHERE is it? In what part of the human body does it reside? Surely, not the "heart", because people get transplanted donor hearts and they don't become someone else. This one always leaves me curious. Listening.
"Psychic phenomena"? Where?
B. Ferris: tied to the body? vice versa? not?
...its' activity...
The "soul" and it's activity. Okay, is the "soul" active during sleep? Does it, too, need rest? If so, how will it "rest" in an atemporal existance? OR..it doesn't need rest, and one will remain self-aware in a perpetual state of consciousness? Again, seems like a living "hell"(pun intended)
B. Ferris: You've been clear about what you don't believe, and about what you're opposed to, and about how you feel on those issues.
And unless I've missed something, you ignore these issues. For example, how about this:
B. Ferris stated: "I'm persuaded that Christianity's true believers are enlightened; you're persuaded they're deceived. OK, that's settled too."
I responded: What on earth is a "true believer"? Is that opposed to false-believer? Are you suggesting that some Christians are actually deceived in what they believe??
I'd like an answer, please. Can Christian believers be deceived into thinking they're "True believers", when if fact, they are really in error?
And BTW, then there's the umpteen times you've been ask to put forth evidence to support your claim. 'Got any? And for the time being, we won't haggle over the word "objective", how's that?
B. Ferris: What I haven't heard is about what you do believe. I thought it might be interesting to discuss a middle-ground, non-theological issue like the existence of a soul, or why some superstitions persist in the face of science and literacy. Must I be your adversary to do so?
Is this an admission that Christianity is a "superstition"? Or are you implying that all Theists other than Christians are superstitious? Which?
I say that some superstitions persist in the face of science and literacy because it's not only the ignorant who want to live forever.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. On the issue of gaps left for God as science advances, well, that's a defensible view. I'm inclined to give God credit for orchestrating the whole thing right down to the sub-atomic particle level. It looks to me like the pea-sized object from which everything was born in the bang was created on the spot from nothing. The physical laws with which we are familiar that support all our theories didn't apply at the beginning of that instant. Then bang, everything begins to follow the rules right down to the scientist who examines the evidence. Now I realize that you probably see the event differently. You may, of course.
While we might speculate on what preceded Hawking's instanton, you're correct in that it is just speculation by any of us from a scientific point of reference.
You raise valid questions regarding evidence, and the 'studies on prayer being inconclusive' is a useful data point.
Nothing is exempt from examination (at least that's my opinion); but not everything is by nature easily examined.
I've examined prayer with mixed results. When I was 5, I prayed for a Boy Scout knife; no knife. When I prayed with a dying old man and gently agreed with him that it was time to go, others and I lovingly released him to God; he recovered anyway. Go figure.
Some difficulty arises in the matter of what evidence is available and what evidence we're willing to accept. For instance, if one fellow claims to have seen a UFO, no one pays much attention. If dozens see the same UFO at the same time, it's news. If the FAA and Air Force track the thing, it's approaching real if still unidentified.
If I'm told by a fellow I know that he prayed and a young girl (who had been dead some number of days and had begun to decay and smell) was brought back to life, hmm. But if it was done in front of a crowd of thousands with a couple dozen family members there to affirm the tale to the doctor, well, you file that one away under 'I don't know what to do with it.'
If you see such things personally, you make up your own mind as to the veracity of the attributed cause. You may assume it's all just a fraud perpetrated by charlatans. Unless you know the folks personally and you're around when it happens with some regularity.
So, what evidence might we both accept? Tough one.
That was actually the point of my 'Last Sunday, where were you...' illustration to our Webmaster. What evidence is acceptable?
Repeatability is another tough hurdle. Science works every time or it isn't science, it's busted theory. Troublingly, prayer isn't supposed to work like magic. A failed repeatability test is a flawed approach from the premise.
What if it works, but not often in the manner we expect, and then only sometimes do we 'see' any answer? Does that mean anything at all?
Buddy
Thanks for the 'I don't know' explanation. You're correct in avoiding supposition from a position of ignorance as well. There certainly is a mythology associated with Christianity, or at least a long list of misinterpretations of scripture. My pet peeve is the Western insistence that the purpose of the "Church" has anything to do with Sunday morning.
If you don't mind, take a run through my response to AlanH above; that will avoid repetition. Then help me out with some rules of evidence we can work with. If we lay a little ground work, we can avoid the bi-directional misunderstanding that is so common.
Thanks,
Buddy
After all, Socrates suggests by his example that we move on to less volitile issues, there to build the surprisingly crushing counterpoint.
Courage IS accepting reality...the good, the bad, the ugly. At least boomslang thinks so.
To which I responded: What on earth is a "true believer"? Is that opposed to false-believer? Are you suggesting that some Christians are actually deceived in what they believe??
I further stated in a later post: I'd like an answer, please. Can Christian believers be deceived into thinking they're "True believers", when if fact, they are really in error?
Waiting.
Buddy Ferris(most recently): "Nothing is exempt from examination (at least that's my opinion); but not everything is by nature easily examined."
No, Bud ', nothing is exempt from examination......well, of course, except for whatever evidence you have that supports your belief that a self-existing disembodied supernatural man-god is responsible for the Universe and all in it; and the belief that this "being" is still hangin' around "somewhere", answering earthling's prayers(when he/she/it feels like it)
Which leads us to....
Buddy Ferris: Troublingly, prayer isn't supposed to work like magic. A failed repeatability test is a flawed approach from the premise.
Oh looky!...how convenient! You cannot test prayer, because it works when works, and it doesn't work, when it doesn't work.
You'll note that I don't answer each of your questions, and that I may not rise to the bait you dangle. Do I therefor not exist? Must I say yes to each thing you ask in order to prove my existence? Please
Surely your specious argument is offered more as an offensive gambit than a serious rebuttal.
Buddy
Dear Buddy,
Yeah, I noticed, nonetheless, my questions are not "bait"; it's merely honest inquirey based on statements that YOU have made in this thread. If you don't have answers, and/or, if you feel "trapped" in having to answer such questions, then maybe you should re-examine certain aspects of your beliefs, no? The "True believer" part comes immediately to mind. If you made a faux pas and want to retract that term?... then just say so.
Additionally, it was YOUR idea to bring "souls" into the discussion. Again, my questions and statements concerning the "soul" are honest questions that arise when I try to reconcile such an "idea". And frankly, I think it's a bit one-sided if it's going to be solely up to Buddy Ferris to determine if the participants of this discussion are giving "serious rebuttals", or not. In fact, let's throw "mutually-exclusive statemements" at each other:
You say my argument isn't a serious rebuttal; I say my argument is a serious rebuttal. There, that's settled.
Will that work?
Remember, I'm just an heathen who's here by "chance", biding my time before the "abyss". In the mean time, I get meaning out of trying to understand Theists, in part, because I used to be a Theist. The difference is, like the average Theist, I never actually thought about my believe; I just believed it because I was taught to believe it----of course, not discounting the "fear" struck into me should I NOT believe it.
On the other hand, Buddy, you surely seem like a person who has thought about your belief, and from what I can tell, it's causing some cognitive dissonance, no? If I'm wrong, then I apologize in advance, yet, I don't quite know what else I'm to think about this, since you address so little of what's asked of you, and/or conclude that it's all "specious".
Peace.
You asked what a true believer might be. In the context of my comment, here are some points.
The difference between 'hope' and 'faith', and perhaps the reason the two concepts are offered separately, might be likened somewhat to the difference between 'wish' and 'know'.
Those who profess to be Christians might therefore be divided (for this discussion only, please) into those who hope they are on the right track and those who know so with a reasonable and adequate measure of certainty.
My point in using the term 'true believer' was to differentiate those who know (and behave accordingly) from those who only hope so(and are easily provoked to fear by secular inquiry).
You went on to ask if a Christian could be deceived into thinking themselves 'true believer'. Of course; no serious Christian would continue if they thought they were otherwise.
It might be helpful to differentiate between those deceived and those encumbered. The former implies something done to them deliberately; the latter suggests baggage associated with non-central issues.
Leaving the issue of deliberate deception aside, Western Christianity has baggage that wasn't picked up from either Judaism or the early church. Much of the pain evidenced on this site originates in the artificial trappings (baggage) of church, ministry, dogmatic teachings, and so on.
The context of my comment regarding the 'true believer' was intended to make those distinctions only.
Granted, I wasn't particularly gracious regarding your commentary on how conveniently I excluded prayer from the issues of test by repeatability. Let me state it politely. Prayer is conversation by definition, conversation is bi-directional and therefore dependent on both parties. A test of results based on one party's activity with repeatability being the criteria suggests a misunderstanding of the subject being tested.
In life, of course, it isn't convenient at all. Many would prefer magic; push the button, get the stuff. It's easier than conversation; it's also a bit childish.
Buddy
If it is dependant on both parties then It's not really prayer(conversation) if one party is fictional, imaginary, or non-responsive. Even if one gets an "answer" it could still be an imagined response.
Usually a person can logically determine if they are having an actual conversation.
"Hey bill. How are you"
response:"Just fine stronger now. How are you?"
Lets try that with god shall we?
Stronger now: "Hey god can you help me with a problem that I know you can help me with? I know you can because I've read the bible and truly believe it to be your word. Your word says You can heal my heart and give me peace. Could you do that for me please?"
god:
Stronger now: "God, can you help me I'm still not feeling your love and I'm starting to go crazy so could you please help me keep my sanity?"
god:
Stronger now: "God I need you. could you give me a sign that you are helping me?"
god:
Stronger now: "God I'm really going nuts here and my wife is thinking about putting me away for a while and I'm starting to think that might be o.k. but I just need some strenght from you, some sign, some peace, anything. I love you, please please help me."
god:
Stronger now: "God I am truly sorry for anything I said or did to make you angry and I submit to your will cause mine is stupid and dangerous and wrong and I'm so sorry. Please help me."
god:
Stronger now: "God it's been a long time now and I'm not getting any better here so could you please help me now cause I don't think I can hold on any longer?"
god:
Stronger now: "O.k. I think I'm starting to understand. If you're there god please give me a sign or help me or something anything cause I've had enough now and really can't take any of this any more.So any little thing will do. so would you please help me?"
god:
Stronger now: "O.k.last chance to keep me near you cause it's been too long now for me and I have stepped to the edge of mental stability and can't do this any longer so now after all this time it would be nice to hear from you before I go and do things MY way and I know you don't want me to do that. So last chance big daddy!"
god:
Stronger now: "Well that answers that! I guess I was stupid for thinking god was real and wanted me to turn to him for guidence and peace and help and hope and stuff. I think I'll just say FUCK IT! and do this my own self! At least Soemething will get done even if it's the wrong thing."
god:
---------------------------------
Do you see my point? There never was an answer. It's not a conversation.
I appreciate your description of your experience; it's not an uncommon one, but it's by no means universal. You'll forgive me for not being overwhelmed by your rebuttal, I hope.
Not knowing your story, I wouldn't presume to offer any answer. I would encourage you in this one thing, though; don't allow your experience so far to persuade you that all of creation must be like you. Surely some is; certainly much is not.
Buddy
Dear Buddy,
Okay, if I understand correctly--those believers who have "hope", only wish that a god exists, and that they have chosen to worship the right "God". Compared to---those believers who have "faith", and thus, know that a god exists, as well as know that they have chosen the right "God".
'Good so far? Actually, I don't see how this could be inaccurate considering the terms that you just put forth.
Okay, fairly assuming that you are of the latter group---and to eliminate the chance of equivocation on the word "know" by all parties involved---let's look at this:
Know: vb
1) To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
2) To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
3) To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
4) To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
To have experience of: "a black stubble that had known no razor" (William Faulkner).
6) a) To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
b) To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
7) To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
Ref: (American Heritage)[bold added]
B. Ferris: Those who profess to be Christians might therefore be divided (for this discussion only, please) into those who hope they are on the right track and those who know so with a reasonable and adequate measure of certainty.
There's a problem, Buddy. Those who "profess to be Christian"? Is there any other way to "be" a "Christian"?... or Muslim; or Buddhist; or Red Sox fan; or pizza lover? No, there isn't. Once again, there is no quiz; you don't win a certificate at a bingo match. It's entirely up to the individual if they "profess" to be a proponent and/or believer in "something", in this case, "Christianity".
Let's examine this:
Buddy Ferris "professes" to be a True believer; Shirley Phelps "professes" to be a "True believer".
Are you telling me that the Phelps' clan only "hope" that they are right? Please.
I hope that you see that this renders your "hope it's true"/"know it's true" hypothesis moot. The only way it's not moot, is if some "believers" believe erroneously. And I'm sure you see the dilemma with that, right? Let's see:
Shirely Phelps is not persuaded that Buddy Ferris is enlightened; Buddy Ferris is not persuaded that Shirely Phelps is enlightened.
It's not settled, is it?
Back to the words "know" and "faith". If you, Buddy, the "True believer", e.g. the "True" Christian, "know" that a god exists, and that this god is "Christ", then why do you need "faith"? If "faith" is to believe without empirical evidence(as it is implied throughtout the bible), then it seems to me that to be cock-sure that Christianity is a Universal Truth, and all other religions and their respective personal creator-gods false, would render "faith" obsolete. If not, tell me where your "faith" applies, and kindly define it for me.
Even, if for a moment, we were to veer off the more common meaning of "faith", and use the pop-Theist definition, which is, to "trust" this, or that.... isn't that a totally redundant aspect if we(you) claim to "know" something? I think so, Buddy.
B. Buddy: My point in using the term 'true believer' was to differentiate those who know (and behave accordingly) from those who only hope so(and are easily provoked to fear by secular inquiry).
Speaking of "fear", you speak of fear allegedly caused be secularists, but for some reason leave out the fear that's instilled into the believer should they NOT "hope" that Christianity is true.
Seriously now, is to be "scared" into believing something a good reason to believe it, in your opinion? Is this "freewill" that we keep hearing about really "free" if there's threats for not making the right choice? If "God" is "love", where does "fear" fit in??? Why does a presumabley "ALL-loving" creator need to strike fear into it's creation? Can you explain that for me, please?
B. Ferris: You went on to ask if a Christian could be deceived into thinking themselves 'true believer'. Of course; no serious Christian would continue if they thought they were otherwise.[bold added]
Yikes! This, again, creates a big problem for me, because if they are "deceived", then OF COURSE, they wouldn't know that what they think they know is not consistent with being "serious", thus, they wouldn't know to NOT "continue". Actually, I'm surprised a man of your intelligence doesn't see the problem with that.
On another point, so those who only "hope" Christianity is true, aren't "serious" Christians??? So those who only "hope" that Christianity is true are no better off than those who deny it? Woah, that's harsh.
So, let me make sure I have a clear understanding of what you've put forth so far.
- One has to "KNOW" that Christ exists, in order to be a serious and True Christian.
- The myriads of self-professed Christians who stroll through here telling us "to just have Faith" and "don't give up hope" are deceived.
- Any Christian, 'serious' or not/'True' or not, can be deceived into thinking that what they "know" is true, and thus, this is why they erroneously continue in their belief, because they are deceived.
B. Ferris: It might be helpful to differentiate between those deceived and those encumbered. The former implies something done to them deliberately; the latter suggests baggage associated with non-central issues.
Of course, from my perspective, the religion itself "deliberately" deceives--similar to how you probably think Islam "deliberately" deceives. Nonetheless, one can be both deceived AND encumbered, I suppose.
B. Ferris: Prayer is conversation by definition, conversation is bi-directional and therefore dependent on both parties. A test of results based on one party's activity with repeatability being the criteria suggests a misunderstanding of the subject being tested.
Buddy, would you agree that the results of "prayer" are limited to one of following:
1) "Yes"
2) "No"
3 ) "Be patient"
If so, I might point out that you could get the same results from "praying" to a cookie jar. Nonetheless, you seem to be saying that you cannot "test" this aspect of a "God" that you "know" exists. True? Okay, then how CAN one test it? In other words, it seems that out of all these Theists who "know" their god exists, that one would be able to put forth an applicable 'test', yet, from what I see, "God" is always "affirmed" by what can't happen, or what "God" can't, or "won't" do. This is a red flag, I'm sorry.
Buddy Ferris, last try---can you change the trend? Can you back your "knowledge" that a god exists? Can you substantiate your claims that there is a "God", and that this "God" is "Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost"? Can you produce evidence that your belief is a Universal Truth, and that all other religious belief is categorically false? Can you prove that you are not one of the deceived believers that you claim do exist, they just don't know it?
BTW, Can you PLEASE not turn the subject into whether "boomslang" exists; or what he did last Sunday; or what Socrates said, or some other irrelevant tangent? I sure hope so. If not---if you cannot/will not simply back your belief with evidence--then you leave me, and I'm sure many others here, no choice but to believe that your are deceived.
Peace.
I appreciate your description of your experience; it's not an uncommon one, but it's by no means universal. You'll forgive me for not being overwhelmed by your rebuttal, I hope.
Not knowing your story, I wouldn't presume to offer any answer. I would encourage you in this one thing, though; don't allow your experience so far to persuade you that all of creation must be like you. Surely some is; certainly much is not.
I'm curious about something; is the above suggesting/implying that this alleged "creator" shows favoritism towards some of it's creation? It allegedly "created" all humankind in it's image, yet, only chooses to engage "conversation"("answer prayer") at it's descretion with "some" of it's alleged "creation".
And furthermore, I see the word "encourage". Are the above comments to Stonger Now supposed to be "encourgement"?...that not all creation is "like you"? That seems like a really cruel thing to say, unless I've "misunderstood".... and I probably have.
Why can't I rely on my own experience? How am I supposed to know that some of "creation" is not like me? What do you mean by "like me" anyway? Do you mean logical like me? Or perhaps, undesirable to god like me? Mabey, crazy like me? Demon posessed like me? All of the above? Oh right, you don't know.
I mentioned earlier that deliberate deception wasn't included in my comments. We might pick up the issue, if you like.
Just a minor continuance on the true believer topic; you're correct, of course. Frightened people do things in hope of avoiding pain or loss. A minister, politician or parent using that fear as a prod is unwise, and perhaps immoral. Children raised in an atmosphere of fear find most of adult life a difficult adaptation.
Your proferred answers to prayer (yes, no, be patient) are taught in some venues, I guess, but they're inadequate, don't you think?
If I limited my conversation with my precious daughter (whom I love more than life itself) to those one-word responses, I'd have no relationship at all.
The list suggests that prayer is viewed as an acquisition process; we pray when we want/need something. More a vending machine relationship than one involving love and respect.
You ask if the creator might show favoritism. What should we call it when we give our high school graduate a car and our first grade graduate a bicycle? Surely, responding in relationship according to need, ability, and maturity has some justification. An observer might say it is just favoritism, particularly if they didn't even get a bicycle.
On your question of cruelty, I intend no harm or distress. My encouragement to the poster was in hope that they might view their experience as a subset of what is rather than the totality. I recall seasons of tremendous difficulty and discouragement in my life; times of anger, bitterness, even rage. Those who were cooler, clearer, wiser than I encouraged me along. Those days are past, probably more will come. Seasons.
Buddy
I intended no offense with the comment. The balance between what I know and have experienced against that which I don't know and have yet to experience is quite one sided. My tendency, naturally, is to view what I don't know and haven't experienced with expectation that nothing will me much different. It will. Much. Or at least, that seems to be the trend so far. Perhaps for you as well; I hope so.
Buddy
Am I missing something? We were/are discussing whether or not there is a possibilty that "True believers"(your term) can be "deceived" in their belief(s). Obviously, one will not "deliberately" deceive themselves. Whether someone else, or some "thing" else, is "deliberately" deceiving them is irrelevant, as the point is, they believe erroneously.
You, yourself, have now opened the door to the possibility that even "True believers" can be "deceived". When asked if this was a possibility, I believe your answer was, "of course". Thank you for that honesty, BTW.
B. Ferris: Frightened people do things in hope of avoiding pain or loss.
Obviously. And anyway, this is consistant with how I inquired about it; many people "believe", because they are SCARED not to believe. I asked you if that's a good reason to believe something.
B. Ferris: A minister, politician or parent using that fear as a prod is unwise, and perhaps immoral. Children raised in an atmosphere of fear find most of adult life a difficult adaptation.
Yes, "unwise". So if you would--- what makes threats of being tortured in eternal damnation "Wise"????
B. Ferris: Your proferred answers to prayer (yes, no, be patient) are taught in some venues, I guess, but they're inadequate, don't you think?
I think they're consistant with a "god" who's not there.
B. Ferris: If I limited my conversation with my precious daughter (whom I love more than life itself) to those one-word responses, I'd have no relationship at all.
True. So then I bet that since you love her so much, that when you are communicating with her, you are sure to do it in such way as to be fully understood. In other words, even if your answer is "no", and she asked, "but why?"....you wouldn't leave vague "traces" of an explanation lying around the house, and have it be incumbent upon her to deceifer the "hints", would you?
Furthermore, if you had four daughters, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you wouldn't show favoritism by concisely communicating with one, two, or three..and not the other(s) true? 'Thought so. I don't mean to offend, but I think your analogy fails.
B. Ferris: The list suggests that prayer is viewed as an acquisition process; we pray when we want/need something. More a vending machine relationship than one involving love and respect.
If you'd like, I can provide the bible verses that delineate concisely how prayer "works". Nonetheless, I agree that "prayer" boils down to "divine begging". Although, whether a child is either asking, or "begging, that his or her sibling be cured of leukemia, I can see how they wouldn't quite understand a "no" answer, especially coming from the only "Doctor" who is "omnipotent".
B. Ferris: You ask if the creator might show favoritism. What should we call it when we give our high school graduate a car and our first grade graduate a bicycle?
Smart? I mean, at least concerning a first grader behind the wheel of a 5.0 Mustang.
B. Ferris: Surely, responding in relationship according to need, ability, and maturity has some justification. An observer might say it is just favoritism, particularly if they didn't even get a bicycle.
Then again, there is "want"..and then there is "need". Children "NEED" their parents....so I can't see there being "justification" in a "NO" answer if a child prays for an ill parent. Can you? Can you tell me how that is a good "plan"?
B. Ferris: On your question of cruelty, I intend no harm or distress. My encouragement to the poster was in hope that they might view their experience as a subset of what is rather than the totality.
Obviously, there's a great deal of disageement on "what is". You claim a specific supernatural god "is". But again, until you can substantiate(if you even care to) such a god and/or such a realm exists, then I say "nature" is "what is", and the poster's experiences with prayer reflect that. Coincidence?
Peace.
I wish I had easy answers for questions like your last. I don't know why some are healed in response to prayer and some are not. I spent time sitting with a 10-year old in the hospital with leukemia, giving his mom and dad a break after weeks of chemo, bone marrow transplant, and the long decline after it failed. Sweat kid; he treated me like his granddad. We prayed together in the time before he died. He told me he was OK with dying; his faith was quite clear in his heart and mind. He knew.
My own experience with talking to God over the years has been a checkered one, perhaps rising and falling due to my own willingness or lack thereof. It's been rich lately.
Buddy
You've written a couple of times about 'professing' to be a Christian as the means to becoming one, and about 'believing' because one might be afraid not to do so. A fellowship I attended as a teen leaned that way, if I remember correctly. Was that your experience?
Personally, I don't think anyone actually believes out of fear. Perhaps they may say they do and put on the appearance they think is expected, but do they believe? Or do they just hope they're getting it right, acting the right way?
Similarly with profession, if someone professes (affirms) they're a Christian, does that make them one truly? If I profess to be a Hegelian, does that make me one? Or does it mean something more to actually believe and know.
Complaints regarding faith requirements in the Bible miss the fact that more is said about knowing. 'You can know' is the summary premise of many portions of the new testament.
Buddy
Oh, but there IS an easy answer, Buddy. The easiest and most likely of answers. Albeit, the least comforting. Nonetheless, it's a terrible injustice, isn't it?....that a child is robbed of life so young? It would be hard to be a parent in that position and not believe that justice is done in a "next life". Of course, that justice is only extended to one group of people, sadly. Right?
If you answer only one thing---to what do you attribute the "hits"(answered prayers) in a Muslim children's hospital? "Luck"? Or is it really Jesus somehow "pinch-hitting" for Muhammad? It's a legit' question that deserves a reasonable answer( if you're up for it)
B. Ferris: I spent time sitting with a 10-year old in the hospital with leukemia, giving his mom and dad a break after weeks of chemo, bone marrow transplant, and the long decline after it failed. Sweat kid; he treated me like his granddad. We prayed together in the time before he died. He told me he was OK with dying;
It's commendable that you offer compassion in that regard. 'Seems like the humane thing to do. But I must ask, what if he wasn't "OK with dying"? Surely, if you gave any terminally ill child a "choice", they'd choose to live, over die, don't you think? In other words, there's a difference between accepting the inevitable, and being "OK" with it.
...his faith was quite clear in his heart and mind. He knew.
Yes, the same way the passed-down family-faith of a Muslim or Buddhist child is "clear" in their "heart and mind". Nonetheless, the children are at peace....every one of them.
Peace.
You answer mine, I'll answer yours.
Good question: Haven't any idea. Let's speculate anyway; I presume Muslims pray to Allah regarding their children just like we do. Perhaps God is, as the scripture says, no respecter of persons. He makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust, even Arabs. C.S. Lewis was not averse to an Arab pursuing Allah and finding God. I wont be offended if God listens to every voice on earth and answers as He chooses.
Buddy
Buddy,
Are you now saying that there's a difference in general, and/or, in consequences, between a Christian who "gets it right" genuinely(because it feels "right"), and one who is only, as you put it, "acting the right way"? I assume you would tell me that the word of God/Son/Ghost is intrinsically "right", correct?....that regardless of what we believe is "right" and "wrong", God's word trumps it, correct?...we couldn't possibly know "right" from "wrong" without "God"?
Again, so what difference does it make if a "Christian" is only "acting right"..i.e.. the way they're allegedly told to act? We've(you've) already established that "hope" is NOT enough to be considered a "serious" Christian. Nonetheless, the whole point of having "laws" bequeathed to us is because we allegedly don't "know" any better on our own---so it seems to me that if you label a Christian "not serious" because they are merely "acting" the part, that that defeats the premise for having and adhering to the alleged "Divine guidance" in the first place. That's like getting mad at a two yr-old for only "acting" in accordance with what you say, and not KNOWING that what you say is "right", before the fact.
B. Ferris: Similarly with profession, if someone professes (affirms) they're a Christian, does that make them one truly? If I profess to be a Hegelian, does that make me one? Or does it mean something more to actually believe and know.
I want to truly move past this issue.
If you are fully prepared to tell someone else that they are NOT a "True", or "real", or "serious" Christian--whether they think it's true, or not--then likewise, be prepared to have them tell YOU the same. See? It doesn't make a bit of flippin' difference to you, does it? No..because you, and ONLY you, determine if you hold to belief, or philosophy--it's not for someone else to decide.
Notwithstanding, Buddy, even though you've tried your heart out to make a distinction between "believers", and "True believers", it appears that either can be deceived. Anf it's not that you took my "bait", it's that the philosophy behind it is flawed.
__________________________________
Mr Ferris, this exchange, too, is becoming quite lengthy--could you specify which question you'd like addressed? Thanks.
You asked what difference does it make if a "Christian" is only "acting right"?
Doing right things is commendable of course, and we shouldn't disparage the effort anyone expends to do right, particularly when it suggests the higher motivations of concern for others, a commitment to justice, and so on.
Doing right things out of fear of penalty is understandable. Not speeding to avoid a ticket, not stealing to avoid arrest, both are lesser motivations but certainly acceptable to us.
Becoming a Christian has behavior implications, of course, but they aren't primary. Christianity isn't something you join by qualifying according to a performance standard.
The first to be called Christians were so identified because they believed in Jesus. It was and remains a question of belief.
Many here have had to come to grips with the fact that they honestly do not believe. Some are angry, a few are bitter after discovering that years were lost because of it.
So to answer your question directly, it makes all the difference in the world. If you believe, all the next things are relatively easy to discover. If you don't believe, 'acting like' you do will only sustain you a little ways.
Is that an adequate answer?
Buddy
Of course I was offended. For a while I felt god cared about some and not others, and I was one of the others. Then I came to my senses.
I am done with you sir, and you preconceptions.
My loss.
Your feelings are valid, by the way, and probably not uncommon.
SN: For a while I felt god cared about some and not others, and I was one of the others.
Bailing out is a reasonable response and undeserving of criticism. I offer none. Perhaps we'll cross paths again.
Buddy
Buddy,
I'd like to point out a previous distinction that you made concerning mere "belief" and being a "True believer". But first, obviously, one can still "believe" something to be true and not "know" it to be true, right? Right. And in my experience, this is the application of "belief" that most Christians adhere to....i.e..Member(s) of the Christian Faith.
On the other hand, you've basically gone on record to say that this "hope" type of "faith" does not a "serious Christian" make. The 'True Believer' "knows" Christanity to be FACT, thus, why they "believe" it.
That said, when you speak of the people here who've been hurt and who have bitterness, etc., bare in mind that these are people who simply surrendered to the fact that they could no longer pretend to "know" what they didn't "know". It is an honest stance, and you, yourself, went on further to even say that to "act" like you "know"..i.e.."hope" it's true, doesn't elevate one to any better of a position than one who never invesitgates it, and/or flat-out denies it.
Now, you can stop me here if I'm off mark, but I don't think you can, because I've been paying careful attention to the terms/explanations you've set forth.
On another note, you've also told one former believer, quote: "don't allow your experience[non-experience] so far to persuade you that all of creation must be like you. Surely some is; certainly much is not."
So, apparently, if what you've said thus far is true and correct, then it would seem that some people "like" him or her[or me], simply CANNOT "know". To review, you said, "If you believe, all the next things are relatively easy to discover." This is moot, because we've already established that merely to "believe" falls short. One MUST KNOW, then belief follows.
So firstly, can you explain why these people who cannot "know" would hypothetically be culpable on an alleged "judgement day"?
Secondly, and probably more importantly, if the "knowledge" you've aquired that Christianity is a Universal 'Truth'---one that Buddy Ferris claims is NOT of a "faith" in the "hope" sense of the word, but FACT---then these "facts" could theoretically be taught and/or demonstrated. Unless I've misunderstood, we are not talking about some "unseen" hypothetical.
Now, I know you probably tire of people asking how you "KNOW" that Christianity is not "hope", but "fact". But I don't tire of wondering how you, and other Theists know this, especially if it's something that can be taught to others; especially if there's threats of eternal torment for my lack of "knowlwedge".
If it's not something that can be taught; if "some" people "like" us simply cannot know what Buddy Ferris knows, then again, how are we culpable????????
i.e.....anxiously awaiting your evidence.
Peace.
Things pointed out as obviously this or that usually aren't; such is the case you describe. Our modern use of 'believe' is a weak version of 'know'. It's grammatically equivalent to 'I think so'; not a statement that will hold up in court or on which anyone will base significant action.
The biblical use is emphatic and implies acceptance, trust, irrevocable reliance upon the truth of that which is believed. The two uses are dissimilar.*
You persist in asking how one might know; what evidence is available. I've suggested to others here that we describe rules of evidence we're willing to accept. Here are some suggestions:
1. Personal experience counts, but should be objectively evaluated
2. Eyewitness testimony counts, but should be objectively evaluated
3. Historical records count, context is relevant for evaluation
4. Scientific description counts; speculation on what the description means is OK if identified as such
5.
Is that a reasonable starting place? Feel free to add or remove.
Buddy
*The development of belief is quite visible in teens. At some point, they are no longer able to accept their parents affirmations about God or truth or life but must have reasons of their own to believe (trust, act on). They pull back, regroup on their own terms, then move forward.
Most of us remember going through the process. My father's God is now my God. Or not.
If I said or implied something as "obvious" and a specific "idea" wasn't obvious, then I stand corrected. Okay, I'll try to refrain from that.
Nothwithstanding, I generally, when engaging Theists, use the more common definitions of "faith", "believe", "know", etc. You seem to be re-defining certain terms, and subsequently, I'm of the understanding that we are/were using YOUR definitions. Which, this is fine, because it leaves little room for equivocation. Nonetheless, there's apparently still some room for completely disregarding what I've pointed out.
Buddy Ferris: "The biblical use is emphatic and implies acceptance, trust, irrevocable reliance upon the truth of that which is believed."
Buddy?...I don't give a rat's hind-quarters what the bible's definition is at this point, okay? Again, I tried incorporating the more traditional biblical terms and definitions in this discussion early on, but those didn't seem to work for you, and/or, you ended up changing them. Let's review:
Buddy Ferris: "The difference between 'hope' and 'faith', and perhaps the reason the two concepts are offered separately, might be likened somewhat to the difference between 'wish' and 'know'.
Those who profess to be Christians might therefore be divided (for this discussion only, please) into those who hope they are on the right track and those who know so with a reasonable and adequate measure of certainty.
My point in using the term 'true believer' was to differentiate those who know (and behave accordingly) from those who only hope so(and are easily provoked to fear by secular inquiry)."
Those Christians who "KNOW" it's true; compared to those Christians who merely "hope" it's true. Repeat, you said, uneqivocally, that the "faith" of a "serious Chrisitian" means to "KNOW".
Then you said: You[boomSLANG] persist in asking how one might know; what evidence is available.
No, I'm not interested in how "one might know"; I'm interested in how YOU know...and you, likewise, "persist" in circumventing the request.
In any event, I think I'm done doing the goose chase, Buddy. It's fun and interesting, but only up to a point. And I think we're at that point--the point where you unceasingly refuse to demonstrate how you "KNOW" what you keep emphatically stating that you "KNOW", and we get nowhere.
If you want to keep playing, then here, I'll make it easy for you. Here is what I WILL NOT accept for one's evidence that Christianity is a Universal Truth, and ALL other religiously revealed Truths are false:
1) The Holy Bible(because you won't accept the Book of Mormon, or the Holy Qu'ran)
2) Personal experience(because you won't accept the personal experiences of a Mormon, or Muslim)
And also baring in mind, of course, that even "True Believers" can be "deceived"...i.e.."of course"(they can)
Best regards in the future.
I apologize for the biblical reference; it wasn't helpful. I hadn't intended to use the bible as an authority. Thanks for enduring my presence.
I've been looking for a way to avoid being your enemy.
I've not been specific about evidence yet as this site is understandably hostile to most offerings, regardless of merit. The hostility mixed with anger is sometimes transferred from issue to author. Being here is much like being in a minefield; I try not to offend or step on anything painful.
I suggested rules of evidence a few times; exchanges here seem quite cavalier on that point.
My thought in precisely defining 'belief' is the point you raise; some believe, others can't.
Might I suggest that we do include personal experience, objectively evaluated. I had more expected it to be limited to yours and mine in the course of conversation. You may include Mormons and Muslims if you like, under the same objective evaluation requirement.
What's next?
Buddy
The problem is that, like good chess players, we can reasonably predict the other's next move....
If you feel like this "evidence" issue puts you in a perpetual state of "checkmate", then maybe there's a reason for it. Maybe examine that reason before continuing on this particular website....... 'only a suggestion.
Nonetheless, before we delve too deeply into the qualifications of "evidence", I think it would be wise to FIRST agree on if there's more than one way for some-"thing" to "exist". Agreed? Nonetheless...your move, either way.
No problem at all. Feel free to elaborate on your 'exist' stipulation so we're both clear. Meanwhile...
Allow me to introduce myself. I'm almost 60, I've been a believer most of my life.
The normal events of life and death gave me opportunity to question my conclusions, much like some here have described. We lost our second child to miscarriage; we wept, it seems, for days. The trappings of religion fell away; I remember being reduced by it to just a few things I knew for certain. 'God is' headed the short list. I was sure of that much; perhaps I'll be able to describe why.
Some of the folks on this site have suffered loss and concluded there was therefore no God. A dying child, a parent lost way too early, abuse and suffering, unanswered prayer, all too much to bear for anyone. Some emerge believing with greater clarity, others disbelieving emphatically.
If any one event might yield two conclusions, I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed.
Buddy
60ish? You look much younger.
B. Ferris: Some of the folks on this site have suffered loss and concluded there was therefore no God. A dying child, a parent lost way too early, abuse and suffering, unanswered prayer, all too much to bear for anyone. Some emerge believing with greater clarity, others disbelieving emphatically.
True, "some" of the people on this site have suffered loss--i.e...loss of loved ones due to death. But untrue that this is why the bulk of them/us no longer believe. Sure, it may show clarity/reason to the non-believer in hindsight, but this after the fact. This is AFTER months, or even years, of careful deliberation; this is after careful examination of the nagging cognitive dissonance that "comes with the turf" of religious belief. So I'm pretty sure it's a rare case that a Christian would deconvert the day after a loved one passes.
Once more, Buddy, as commonly defined, we cannot "examine" a "god" with empirical/measurable means. Agreed?(I'm assuming "yes", 'else we'd have gotten something to examine by now, from you, or some other Theist)
That said, at some point we must rely, unfortunately, on the subjective attributes put forth by those who INSIST that a god exists; that this "God" is the "One True God", and that all other gods are figments of people's imaginations....i.e.."deceived" Fair so far?
Buddy, I've done my damndest to try to come to agreement with
you(for sake of discussion) as to these attributes, as well as, the other commonly used theological terms such as "faith", "true", "believer", "True Believer", and so on, and so on.
Thus far, you've 'customized' some of the broader more commonly used definitions. You've made distinctions, that in my mind, have raised some serious problems, conceptually and/or philosophically.
For instance, you've made the distinction between two meanings of the word "faith". According to you, there's the type of "faith" that means to "wish", or "hope"---and then there's the type that means to "know". You put yourself in the latter group, unless I've grossly misunderstood.
You went on further to say that it is you, the "serious Christian", e.g. the 'True Believer', who "knows" that Christianity is a universal truth; that "Christ" does, in fact, "exist".
Again, if we qualify your term, 'True Believer', then the implication is that there are "un-true" believers, or "lesser" believers---in any case, "believers" who do NOT "know" that "God"(biblegod) exists , but have "faith" that "He" exists in the traditional sense of the word. But of course, this distinction is moot, because when asked if one could be deceived into thinking they are a 'True Believer', you said:
"Of course; no serious Christian would continue if they thought they were otherwise."
I repeat; the problem is blatant. If they are "deceived", then whether they 'think' they are "serious" has no baring on anything if they are "continuing" erroneously, due to deception.
All that aside, even if one wishes to "continue" to "believe", deceived, or not, I could not care less. Seriously. If Tom Cruise has a "belief" that lizards from Mars are currently shape-shifting into "humans" and wander among us?(he does)...FABULOUS! I do NOT care. I guess I'm an Alizardist, then?
The problem, Buddy, is the types of "beliefs" that demand/promote that the entire world's population "must" conform to said belief. The problem is when said beliefs cannot be demonstrated to be objectively/universally true. Furthermore, it's the implicit threats for non-conformity of said belief; it's the unceasing insistance that something "exists" that cannot be substantiated.
Okay, fine, if you want to use "revelation" and personal testimony to substantiate?....if you insist that that is "evidence"? Then we must accept "other" revealed truths, and the testimonies of people from "other" religions/geographical locations, as well. But of course, the Christian does not qualify those things as "evidence" coming from others.
All that said, here you are, Buddy....still trying to convince us/me that your so-far-unproven-subjective-belief is a universal reality.
Exist:
1) To have actual being; be real.
2) To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3) To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4) To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
Ref: American Heritage
I'm disheartened to hear your news about Tom. I had hoped, as I expect we all had hoped, that the lizard thing was finally behind him. Sad. It does point out, though, that there are useful areas of agreement we might discover. I apparently have been an unknowing alizardist for some time, and I owe you a debt of gratitude for bringing me to that awareness.
Back to earth.
I've offered some thoughts on faith and belief precisely to avoid the 'common use' to which you refer. Without intending criticism, I note that your use of the words and my use are different.
Early on, I thought both faith and belief to be imprecise and elusive. As 'commonly' presented, I felt I was mentally straining for something unreachable and undefined. The usage seemed to offer an approach to life that was about as useful as 'be cheerful, and it'll be fine!' I've paid my blood dues to arrive at what I consider to be a reasonable place among reasonable people.
To be fair on the question of personal experience, we should probably examine representative narratives from each milieu; what I envisioned, however, was more limited to my experience and yours, objectively evaluated to our mutual satisfaction.
Your definition of 'exist' works for me.
I suspect we think in similar fashion; your 'fair so far' milestones are not unreasonable, even though the exasperation shows a little.
Buddy
Is that an admission that "Scientology" is outlandish?..and/or, "out of this world"?
If so, that's remarkable, because since I'm no longer inside the "Christian bubble", I can see things about Christianity that are every bit as "outlandish" as the notion that shape-shifting reptilian beings live on a distant planet, and commute to earth as a conspiracy to overtake us, thus, being the downfall of humankind. Oh well.
Buddy: I've offered some thoughts on faith and belief precisely to avoid the 'common use' to which you refer. Without intending criticism, I note that your use of the words and my use are different.
Again, I'm happy to use YOUR definitions, which, in doing so, I've found some problems with those concepts...e.g.."True Believer", compared to "believer". Nonetheless, I'm apprehensive about covering those issues for a third, fourth, or fifth time, and would like to move on to the "meat 'n potatoes".
Correct me if I'm wrong: In order to be convinced that Tom's "Lizard-men" do in fact "exist", you'd need "evidence" that they "exist", correct?
Buddy: Your definition of 'exist' works for me.
Good. Progess. Okay, waiting.
boom'
Your summation is correct. In order to believe in alien lizards, I'd need good reason to do so. Should the two of us choose to discuss the alien lizards, we'd need some vocabulary and evidentiary standards.
Without straying too far from the heart of the matter, I offer that believing in God is a reasonable position. I'll grant you your rationalistic analysis of scientific evidence to the contrary without necessarily agreeing with your conclusions. What remains is the reasonableness of our positions. OK so far?
Need we include the positions others hold or the arguments others present? Or might the exchange be more honest if we limit it to those positions we hold personally.
I'd prefer to avoid the disconnected exchanges (kitchen sink arguments) where the participant's personal beliefs are mixed with content that they don't support personally. That which I hold as my own in good conscience should be able to stand on its' own.
I've acknowledged here the validity of a position held honestly. I've politely challenged the assumptions which to me appear to be held with more feeling than content. The emotionally charged issues of belief and faith lend themselves to honest consideration, but for many, it's a frightening place for honest inquiry; threatening to many who fear being wrong or right because of what is perhaps required of them thereafter.
That which we see and touch offers us an accumulation of information over a lifetime. We choose deliberately how we interpret the information. Thoughts on the choice?
Buddy
Buddy,
Yes, provided neither party puts forth terms that are open-ended, and/or, inconclusive. For example, if I'm "pro-Alien Lizard", and at the end of my list of terms I made a distinction between Lizardians, and True Lizardians, you might inquire as to who, and what, qualifies one, and disqualifies the other. Is that much reasonable?
Assuming so, say you asked me if even "True Lizardians" can be deceived, and I said something to the effect of, "of course; no serious Lizardian would continue if they thought they were otherwise."
Wouldn't that at least raise an eyebrow?
I just hope I've finally made my point of this. After all, I could rightfully disqualify the whole discussion on such a statement...i.e..if one is "deceived", by definition, obviously, they don't know it.(I hope it was appropriate to say "obviously" there)
Buddy Ferris: I offer that believing in God is a reasonable position. I'll grant you your rationalistic analysis of scientific evidence to the contrary without necessarily agreeing with your conclusions. What remains is the reasonableness of our positions. OK so far?
No, not OK---didn't you just basically define "faith"? In other words, if you have decided a priori, that you will continue to "believe" your position, even in light of the scientific evidence to the contrary, isn't that called "faith"?... in the traditional sense of the word?
I think so, Buddy..... so again, what's the point of all this, then? Couldn't I rightfully disqualify this debate on that ground, too? I think so. Yes, despite what I offer to support my case, scientific, or not, in the end Buddy Ferris says, "I believe anyway, because I know that what I believe is a Universal Truth"[hypothetically paraphrased to make the point]
Buddy: Need we include the positions others hold or the arguments others present? Or might the exchange be more honest if we limit it to those positions we hold personally.
Continuing from above---in the end, the "decision" cannot be based merely on the "reasonableness" of our(your and my) positions. Why?..because you are claiming your, thus far, subjective "truth" as a Universal "Truth". Don't you see the problem with this?
Buddy Ferris: I'd prefer to avoid the disconnected exchanges (kitchen sink arguments) where the participant's personal beliefs are mixed with content that they don't support personally. That which I hold as my own in good conscience should be able to stand on its' own.
Right, and forgive me if this sounds crass, but your position, thus far, doesn't stand on it's own. That's why I await credible evidence that your religious belief is a MORE than just a subjective belief; that's it a Universal Truth, as you claim, and all others are false(as you implicitly claim).
Buddy Ferris: I've acknowledged here the validity of a position held honestly. I've politely challenged the assumptions which to me appear to be held with more feeling than content. The emotionally charged issues of belief and faith lend themselves to honest consideration, but for many, it's a frightening place for honest inquiry; threatening to many who fear being wrong or right because of what is perhaps required of them thereafter.
Buddy?.... I'll READILY concede that my Atheist worldview is WRONG, once I detect, with my physical senses--the same senses that ANYONE uses to say they "KNOW" something---evidence for any god...and mind you, it doesn't have to be "Yahweh"; it's an equal opportunity for ALL known gods and their respective Theists, to SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.
How's that for exasperation? = O
If I understand your response, you're concerned that I would ignore or reject evidence you might present, without adequate reason for doing so. Shall we continue and see if you're correct?
You've laid out ground rules to which I have no particular objections.
You've somewhat clarified your position on belief and faith. We can avoid those terms if you like.
I've made no universal truth claim, nor have I written regarding other religions with scientology being the lone exception.
You've heroically offered to concede that your atheistic world view is wrong if presented with some feel-see-touch-sense encounter with God.
Well begun.
Dear Buddy,
Actually, after reading that?.... no, we shouldn't continue....that is, unless there can be a mutual understanding that it is impossible for me to "present" scientific evidence, or otherwise, that a "God" does not/cannot exist. Much in the same way I cannot put forth scientific evidence that invisible green imps don't live on a distant planet in another galaxy.
Buddy, we must agree that the onus of substantiating a "God" falls in the lap of the one making the claim that there IS such a "thing". What I am asking, is that "science" be qualified as criteria for any positive claims put forth. Why?... because it's the most reliable, least biased, method we have. If I'm wrong, tell me what method is better for determining if something "exists", or not, preferably with references, and we'll go from there.
Buddy Ferris: You've somewhat clarified your position on belief and faith. We can avoid those terms if you like.
Frankly, I don't see how we will avoid these terms, since, from where I sit, your argument doesn't excede a "belief" until you provide adaquate evidence that it does.
Buddy Ferris: I've made no universal truth claim
Oops!...then there's a misunderstanding somewhere along the course of communication.
I was of the understanding that we were debating the existance of the "Christian" deity, because.....well, because you are a "True Believer" in "Christ", and because you "know" that said deity "exists", and is "real", and that all other gods and their respective religions are "not real". I await your corrections, if any.
Buddy Ferris: You've heroically offered to concede that your atheistic world view is wrong if presented with some feel-see-touch-sense encounter with God.
Yes, yes...once I experience a "god", first hand, with the same physical senses that you presumably use to detect your Jesus, I will HAPPILY renounce my Atheist world-view. 100% correct.(baring in mind that I won't necessarily accept the provided "plan")
Disclaimer: If you "detect" your deity with some sort of "meta" sensory perception?... I'll consider a disqualification, unless you can demonstrate this "extra-sensory" perception, thus, showing that you are not merely deceived into thinking you have this "extra-sensory" perception.
Let me know.
No problem at all. I'll gladly concede to science the ability to observe and describe the physical realm. I'll reserve judgment on what the description means, of course. Drawing conclusions from a description enters the realm of philosophy.
For example, Darwin concluded by observation and analysis that women are by nature, physiology, and character inferior to men. His observation and description were scientific; his conclusion was not. It appears to have been based on presuppositional error, biased by cultural prejudice against women in general. The roots are identifiable and irrelevant, but the event illustrates how an objective observation may be subjectively biased.
On the other hand, we can observe the chemical processes occurring at the cellular level during plant growth and 'conclude' several things about the process. CO2 is taken in, O2 is released, plants and animals are ecosystem impact elements; that sort of thing.
My allusion to true believers, since you raise the issue again, was solely for the purpose of differentiating between those who adhere to a religion for reasons other than belief and those who actually buy in to the whole. As yet, I've made no claims beyond that. Perhaps 'Christians more in name than in belief' would have been a useful distinction.
Otherwise, we're good. You needn't assume any responsibility for proving the non-existence of anything.
I hope you're enjoying the 4th. I'm at work, obviously goofing off for the moment. I need a brain-break from time to time.
Buddy
.....observe, describe, and test the physical realm. Is your alleged deity testable/falsifiable? If not, I'm leaning towards a disqualification, unless, again, if you can demonstrably reproduce the "extra-sensory" means by which you detect this untestable "being".
Buddy Ferris: For example, Darwin concluded by observation and analysis that women are by nature, physiology, and character inferior to men. His observation and description were scientific; his conclusion was not
Define "inferior". And did he test his hypothesis, I wonder(?)
Feel free to get the ball rolling, provided the above passes inspection. For the time being, I'll tentatively ask: Is your deity physical/material/tangible, or non-physical/immaterial/intangible?
As for my 4th...I've out-grown watching the local red-necks blow stuff up, but thanks.
But hey, how 'bout blowin' this thread up with some "evidence"?...wha'da ya say?
Since you seemed curious on the subject of Darwin's science, you'll enjoy this. In Descent of man Darwin wrote: "The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands"(Chapter 19, 1871 edition).
An observation by Vogt bears on this subject: he says, "It is a remarkable circumstance, that the difference between the sexes, as regards the cranial cavity, increases with the development of the race, so that the male European excels much more the female, than the negro the negress. Welcker confirms this statement of Huschke from his measurements of negro and German skulls."
Of course, it was all quite scientific. Read the references for yourself for his definition of inferior, if you like.
Much of the western world tried to justify expanded discrimination against women. Even some clerics got on the bandwagon.
As I said, science can observe and describe (alright, and test), but 'conclude'? Perhaps, perhaps not.
Buddy
How then shall we proceed? Shall we rehash arguments we've both heard? If I were to offer a classical defense for you to attack, would that do more than define our position as adversaries?
Webmaster recounts for us his encounter with God at age eleven; a life changing, mind changing experience that is still vivid in his memory. The emotional cleansing and reality of that moment has never left me, and as I write about it now, it comes alive once again.
So here we have a professed atheist's account of a personal, tangible, thoroughly persuasive encounter, one which has been experienced by many, observed by more, described in literature, and rejected in this case after years of dissuasive experience.
Webmaster describes his unfortunate exposure to church foolishness. There was the pastor who removed our friend and his wife from ministry because they weren't thoroughly persuaded to the dogma he (the pastor) felt was essential. Then there was the incredible church that insisted our friend was 'living in sin' with his 2nd wife, not having been adequately divorced from his 1st; he was actually advised to separate from his wife and live celibate. Their next encounter was with a group who would have fit well in the early Crusades, and our friend eventually left it all behind, understandably.
Similar experiences are not uncommon. In some churches, divorce is the only unforgivable sin. They can find a place for a repentant adulterer or murderer, but not for a divorced, single mom and her kids. I've seen it; dealt with it more than once.
I've never been badly treated by the church. Untold thousands have been. It's incredible what folks will think or do under the name of church and Christianity.
These actions which we observe and abhor have little if any legitimate connection to God or Christianity. They may call themselves what they will, but I doubt God will claim them.
Some pray, "God, bless this work." Perhaps God answers, "I can't bless that. It's wicked, and it stinks." Then they complain because He didn't help them do their wickedness.
I presume you have your own narrative. Care to hit the high points here?
Buddy
"
Buddy. I did not leave Christianity because of my experiences with Christians. You missed the point entirely. What those experiences showed me is that there is nothing magical going on in Christianity. It is all self-delusion. The feelings, the mystical ecstasy, the supposed encounters with God -- it's all a tribute to human imagination and our capacity to visualize into existence (in our minds) things that don't exist. It's story. It's myth. It's the spirit of invention.
Buddy: on every one of these threads, you've purposely derailed the thread topic and attempted to, or succeeding, leading the discussion down irrelevant rabbit trails, completely off topic. Your tone of writing comes off as sincere, but your approach is that of a typical, self-appointed evangelist.
Bud, Brian, or whatever: Let's, for the sake of discussion, agree that science is totally inadequate for determining anything whatsoever.
Ok, you're in computers, right? And science is meaningless now. So, how are you going to fix the network now?
Oh, never mind, that's not the same thing. We aren't talking about ALL science, just the science that seems to contradict Christianity. Ok, fine. All science that contradicts Christianity will be assumed false.
Feel good? It's all nonsense, and wrong.
Better?
Now, that's decided, so we can dismiss that discussion.
Now, provide some evidence that your permanently scarred, un-dead, flying, god-man-on-a-stick, who has a flaming sword and fire shooting out his eyes, ready to rain wrath down upon those like me who think he's just a made up character in a story book, and promises and eternal home for me in the bowels of HIS sadistic torture chamber.
This is the heart of this discussion, Buddy.
That some magical religion is the explanation for unsatisfactorily questions is certainly one possibility, but is that explanation likely? Based on the historic propensity for human beings to assign divine attributes to the various parts of nature not clearly understood (ex: lightning, thunder, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, sunrise, shooting stars, eclipses, etc.), it seems much more likely that those processes of nature (abiogenesis, evolution, etc.) of which we are in the early stages of understanding, are all natural, too. Magic has nothing to do with reality, except when used in a poetic way as in "the magic of life."
So, from here on out Buddy, please keep on topic in whatever post you take up residence. Go back to Dan Barker's article above, and comment on that. Please refrain from purposely derailing the conversation with your amateurish Baptist apologetics.
Thanks.
Feel freely obligated to address me by the pseudo' I've chosen for myself. (Don't feel bad, it's not that your attempt at humor wasn't unfunny)
Buddy Ferris: How then shall we proceed?
I've told you, let's see...quite possibly a dozen times, how "we" procede; it would be virtually impossible for me to make it ANY %$#@ing clearer to you without coming across in a manner that wouldn't exactly lend itself to keeping this discussion going. No offense, but to be quite honest, I'm losing interest.....fairly quickly.(not that you care, or I'd expect you to care)
Buddy Ferris: Shall we rehash arguments we've both heard? If I were to offer a classical defense for you to attack, would that do more than define our position as adversaries?
More time-buying, goose-chase tactics.
You make a claim that you know something; I ask: how do you "know" it. The request, itself, is very elementary. I'm sorry if you feel "trapped", and/or, that my questions are "bait", but that's not my problem. And again, perhaps it's a good indicator that the "truth" of your belief is limited to your own mind. Which, BTW, I will readily concede to that much any time you'd like.
Buddy Ferris: Webmaster recounts for us his encounter with God at age eleven; a life changing, mind changing experience that is still vivid in his memory. The emotional cleansing and reality of that moment has never left me, and as I write about it now, it comes alive once again.
I hope you'll forgive me, but I fail to see the point. He further "recounts" how he now realizes that that was a clear case of self-deception; he "believed" he was a 'True Believer', and now realizes he was a deceived believer. After all, there is THAT potential, right? Let's(again) review your previous answer to that question:
Buddy Ferris: "Of course; no serious Christian would continue if they thought they were otherwise."
Moreover, any adult can likely "recount" their days when on the 25th of every December, they'd awaken to the smell of holly, presents under the tree, and stuffed stockings. Just because one can recall such events vividly in their mind, says not one thing about the reality of whether Santa Claus actually "exists"/"existed".
Buddy Ferris: So here we have a professed atheist's account of a personal, tangible, thoroughly persuasive encounter, one which has been experienced by many, observed by more, described in literature, and rejected in this case after years of dissuasive experience.
I'm not sure, do I even need to address this one?... considering my response to the previous paragraph? "Thoroughly persuasive encounter"...? Would it help if I put the word "thoroughly" before "deceived"?
Buddy Ferris: Webmaster describes his unfortunate exposure to church foolishness. There was the pastor who removed our friend and his wife from ministry because they weren't thoroughly persuaded to the dogma he (the pastor) felt was essential.
Ah, yes, the ol' foolishness of the church. Or, "man has failed you, not God". I/we hear both, all the time, Buddy.
Your premise, unless I've misunderstood, is that just because people cause disruption and/or don't "act the part" in Sunday school, doesn't mean that that's a good reason to dismiss why you're there in the first place. True. Like, just because there's some foolishness or a disruption in geometry class, doesn't mean "geometry" doesn't "exist". Okay, I'll concede your premise.
Buddy Ferris: These actions which we observe and abhor have little if any legitimate connection to God or Christianity. They may call themselves what they will, but I doubt God will claim them.
Right, right. And Shirley Phelps doubts that God will claim you and your church, and so does "Abdul Muslim", on the other side of the planet.
Buddy, we've been over it a gazillion times; "belief", especially, religious belief, is all very subjective. In fact, it's one gigantic subjective grab-bag. Is there objective truth in any of it? Well, aside from the "common sense" it touts as "Divinely Inspired", I say an emphatic no, but I'm open for you, or any other Theist, to show me otherwise.
Of course, this leads us back to if you can substantiate whether or not your "belief" is anything more than a subjective belief. Due to non-evidence; due to the time-buying tactics, I'm left with little choice but to remain skeptical..i.e.."no".
Buddy Ferris: I presume you have your own narrative.
Yes. For a quick review, re-read my last dozen or so posts in this thread.
Buddy Ferris: Care to hit the high points here?
Gosh Buddy, I don't think my narrative has any "high points". But really, why would my narrative have, or even need, a "highpoint"?
What's the "high point" of your defense against those who claim Quetzacoatl exists? That's a direct question. Here's another: What's the "high point" of your defense against those who claim that Muhammad exists? Wouldn't your "narrative" essentially be a default position of neutrality? Wouldn't you remain skeptical until EVIDENCE was put forth for one, or the other?
Buddy, once you understand why you dismiss those "Gods", you'll fully understand why I dismiss your "God", and that my narrative doesn't NEED any "high points".
Have a great one.
The other boy replied, "Well, you know how Santa Claus turned out. It's probably just your Dad."
Sometimes, reason overcomes the ridiculous.
My sincere apologies for derailing the threads; although you malign me by suggesting it was purposeful, I'll take the reproof. I'm new to the blog world, obviously, and haven't mastered the nuances thereof. If the blog regulars prefer to have only those with whom they agree participating here, I'm ok with that.
I'm not sure if I should respond to the amateur Baptist apologetics ascription. The offering of: Let's, for the sake of discussion, agree that science is totally inadequate for determining anything whatsoever is inconsistent with what I've stated. Throwing that to me like a bone to a worrisome dog implies perhaps that you think I might agree; I don't.
Thanks for your gracious concession and honest continuing skepticism. Should you desire to discontinue, let me know. I appreciate the time and conversation you've given.
The legends of Quetzalcoatl and other such recountings have a particular place in my understanding of history; we'll go that road sometime, perhaps. Muhammad did exist, I'm moderately sure.
At some point, you would like me to offer the evidence which has persuaded me to the existence of God. It's as though a lion waited impatiently for the youngster to stray out on to the savanna. Is there no middle ground where the two of us might reason? Or must I be adequately bloodied first?
Why do I believe? Here's a fun starting place; I've seen two angels. The first was wide awake, eyes open, in a crowd; the event stunned me, being a pragmatic, engineer type. Not human or near human. The event is burned as a series of detailed images in my memory. The second such event scared me so badly that I turned away in a blind panic. Two events, five years apart.
More such events, no two particularly alike, all clearly and calmly considered, many with a precise element of information communicated, many in public with witnesses.
You can imagine how I might interpret such things. I can imagine how you might interpret such things. Lay on, McDuff, and ... we'll skip the tail of that quote.
Buddy
Buddy,
My first question---how can you be certain that "Quetzalcoatl" didn't actually "exist"? What method of deduction did you/do you use to reach that conclusion?
Secondly, if "Muhammad" actually existed, what is it that makes you certain that he wasn't the 'Son of Allah', like Islam claims? What evidence might you include/exclude to deny such a claim? Again, not trick questions, but honest inquiry.
Buddy Ferris: At some point, you would like me to offer the evidence which has persuaded me to the existence of God.
Not just "God"--"Yahweh/Son/ghost".
Buddy Ferris: It's as though a lion waited impatiently for the youngster to stray out on to the savanna. Is there no middle ground where the two of us might reason? Or must I be adequately bloodied first?
Yes, Buddy....I've already somewhat implied that there's acceptable middle ground. I would readily accept that what you believe you are experiencing is a personal truth; that you are convinced that what you experienced was/is real.(notice, no quotes on truth or real)
Moreover, I already hold a position of neutrality. I think that's as "middle ground" as anything. But, if you have something else in mind, I'll take a listen.
Budy Ferris: Why do I believe? Here's a fun starting place; I've seen two angels. The first was wide awake, eyes open, in a crowd; the event stunned me, being a pragmatic, engineer type. Not human or near human.
To my understanding, I thought "angels" were invisible, non-physical, "beings"? If not, and you detected these "beings" with your physical senses(eyes), how can you be sure they were "angelic" in nature, and not something else?.... like Aliens? Like something Tom Cruise might relate to?
Buddy Ferris: The event is burned as a series of detailed images in my memory. The second such event scared me so badly that I turned away in a blind panic. Two events, five years apart.
I can imagine(no pun intended). Again, Buddy, alien abductees claim the same frightening types of encounters. Even under "hypnosis". What distinguishing features/factors lead you to believe that these "beings" were/are "Divine" in nature?...or, "super"-nature? Furthermore, how do you know they weren't "Muslim" angels? I'm sure you know that Muslims claim such sightings, too...or, I would hope so. If so, how do you explain away a Muslim's experience?
Buddy Ferris: More such events, no two particularly alike, all clearly and calmly considered, many with a precise element of information communicated, many in public with witnesses.
What kind of information? And how was this info communicated between parties? If you don't mind sharing, of course.
Buddy Ferris: You can imagine how I might interpret such things. I can imagine how you might interpret such things. Lay on, McDuff, and ... we'll skip the tail of that quote.
It's exciting, the least. Tell me, though, were you a "Christian" before?... or was it after these experiences that made you a believer?' Just curious.
Pardon the amount of questions. On the other hand, it's no "every-day" claim.
Short questions, long answers. The last first, then.
I've been a Christian for most of 50+ years. I spent a few of my younger years off on a siding; I claimed agnosticism for a couple of years; in retrospect, the claim was more an intellectual preference than something I actually held genuinely. I was a believer when the events I described happened. They're fairly recent.
The first was at a musical performance. An older fellow was playing guitar and singing reasonably well; not remarkable music, but it was genuinely personal, from his heart to God in worship. His wife danced behind him on the stage, rather oddly, I thought. Strange movements, not drawn from any dance style I'd known. I asked, possibly out loud, "What in the world is she doing?" After several songs and her accompanying dance, I became slowly aware that I could see a creature behind her on the stage, visibly as though separated from her by a gauzy curtain, dancing in the same manner, not particularly in unison with her. Huge, easily 3 times her height. The creature was better at the dance than she; they danced while I watched for some time, I don't know how long. No shadows, no trick lighting, no disappearing when I rubbed my eyes and looked again. It didn't occur to me, lacking any frame of reference, to deduce anything from what I saw. As the dance ended and as worship drew to a close for the 1200 or so folks there, the creature faded from sight, and I heard quite loudly the words, "She dances with angels" spoken as though to me. OK, I had asked, but it was just a rhetorical question.
I was over 50 at the time, a science and engineering professional, decades past romantic suggestibility, a boringly realistic guy according to my family and friends. No art, no music, no theater in my soul; just science and math, and I'm the one that sees this thing. My wife next to me didn't see or hear anything unusual. A friend who was there described for me later having seen the same creature.
That was one experience that I'm satisfied was genuine above the 'it's a miracle; my headache is better!' level. It is generally consistent with biblical accounts of such encounters; I'll do the references for you if you like.
Although the creature wasn't human or particularly humanoid, there weren't any lizardy features I could see, so Tom won't be beating down my door. Anecdotal narratives from the bible suggest that angels are not necessarily unseen. If Christian thinking regarding angels is to be believed, angels are not divine, meaning like God. Angels are created beings, not particularly like us, and not likely to be golden haired young guys in white dresses. I'm satisfied that the creature was angelic rather than alien or other due to the context in which it was observed. It was dancing with a human female while she danced for her God accompanying her husbands offering of his music. I didn't think to ask if it was a Muslim angel.
Enough for the moment?
Raises more questions than it answers, I know.
Buddy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5u3eZvcUw
Can you explain, why you believe this "oddly" dance of a "woman", and entity/image/apparition is a real event or not? If you had no other information about the gentleman's life, surrounding this musical production, would you be able to conclusively deny what you experienced? If not, you must be highly tempted to assert that this production replicates a concrete or physical event, but... does it?
How do you tell the truth, from fantasy Buddy, just curious. It really matters not to me about your mental abstractions of reality, they are real, it's what you can pull out in concrete terms that allows your experience to be understood by others...
Now, your inability to display your expereience, may well, be a common "experience" or "plight" that you share with others, and becomes a "social" glue for a culture, but at least properly accept the root cause for your social adhesion to others whom you would share a similar title with.
Any belief/non-belief statement that makes a positive claim towards the "existence" of another persons' mental abstraction, is absurd.
The "inspiration" to bring a mental abstraction to "form" (bible, etc.), does not constitute "proof", for/of the mental abstraction, it is only proof of itself, if the bible, it is proof of a book's existence in concrete terms, nothing more. The bible, doesn't prove a mental abstraction to be "True".
I restrain from making positive claims about your mental abstraction/experience, but, your attempt to take your mental abstraction, a mentally perceived "only" vision of an angel, and link it in "concrete" terms - fails.
My recounting the experience was not offered as proof. It was offered in answer to a question.
You do raise interesting questions regarding our powers of observation and the legitimacy of our conclusions. How do you distinguish between truth and fantasy?
My impression from those who post here is that some semblance of rational analysis is considered reasonable.
For that which I saw, the following applies:
Observed by an impartial party?
Yes. I had no expectations of the event. It was not a thesis I was interested in proving. It was not a structured event which I controlled for some desired outcome. I was without a frame of reference at the time of the event. I had neither current curiosity nor recent conversations to pre-load my observation of the event.
Predisposed by social adhesion to others having or claiming similar experience?
No. I was, at the time of the event, skeptical of such things by carefully considered choice.
Witnessed?
Yes. A person in a different location observed and later described the event in recognizable terms to me and others.
Repeatable on command?
No. I did not cause the event, nor have I attempted to duplicate it. The event did withstand attempts to shake it off and not see it.
Likely to have been deliberately staged for the performance?
No. Only two of hundreds saw it. Only one heard it.
Visual anomaly from physical circumstances?
No. The event was clearly visible, easily examined, persistent, consistent over time, in a clearly understood physical environment.
Credible observer(s)?
Make your own decision, pal.
What's the most likely source or cause; simplest, therefore most likely?
Here, your bias will lead you one way or another.
(1) it was a mental abstraction, as you've suggested. It didn't happen and the observers didn't see anything.
(2) it was a creature, participating quite directly in a finite context.
(3) other.
You are able to consider reasonably those things which your intellectual bias allows you to consider as reasonable. Truth is found; bias is chosen. It is difficult to see and remove your own bias from discussions such as these.
Buddy
You believe you witnessed a supernatural event.
Did you witness this supernatural event with natural eyes, or were you given supernatural eyes in order to view the supernatural event?
Let me be clear. If you "saw" something, then that something must have been in the natural "realm," at least for a short time, right?
I was in Charismatic churches for many years, and heard many stories such as yours. Sincere people claimed many such visions, visions shared by one or two or three. However, these visions never happened to people who were not already Christians and predisposed toward interpreting their visions through Christian lenses.
Regardless, the vision is real to you, so you accept it as real. The thing about personal experiences such as you describe, is that only you can benefit by them. You cannot share your personal experience with anyone else. You can tell them about it, but you cannot share the actual experience. That experience is for you alone. It is not truth. It is not proof. It is not evidence. It is merely a personal experience that confirms the religion you have spent your entire life involved with. It is, to everyone outside your brain or your immediate circle of religious people, completely meaningless.
For instance, you yourself said you were skeptical of such things until it happened to you. Why would you expect anyone else to be less skeptical?
I saw many things as a Christian, and had my own experiences which I interpreted as supernatural. I no longer see those experiences that way any more. Our brains do some inexplicable things at times, and the propensity for waking hallucinations, mass hallucinations, hallucination by suggestion, and old fashioned lying are all possibilities in regards to fantastic stories.
You didn't give many details on this dancing "angel." Did he/she have wings? Was it wearing a white robe or was it naked? Did it have long hair? Did it have two arms and two legs? Did it shine like the sun? Did it have ten fingers and ten toes? Was it wearing shoes? Was it thin or fat? Was it Caucasian?
Your questions confuse me a little. For instance, I'm not sure what supernatural eyes might be. Yes, of course it was real to me and of no particular interest to you.
You may freely assume what you will from my account. I didn't expect much in the way of acceptance offering such an account on this forum.
Let me invite you to note your casual dismissal of my account with offhand suggestions of mass hallucination, and hallucination by suggestion. The account doesn't fit your solution. I've been castigated for less on this site.
You may decide I'm a liar, of course.
You believe what you choose. You choose what you believe; none are as objective and fair minded as they hope.
Buddy
Dear Buddy,
As Dave(Webmaster) and Dave(8) already pointed out--your personal experiences are yours. No one is here to tell you that they were NOT "real"....to you(key point)
The problem(also, as previously pointed out), is that if whatever you witnessed was unique to 2 individuals out of 200, then it would stand to reason that 198 people didn't merely "over-look" it; they didn't just "happen" to miss the phenomenoa.... nor is it likely that they all made a run for some Juju bunnies at the same time. Please chime in if you think this is an unreasonable assessment, thus far. In other words, if you think that there's more of a chance of 198 people having a proclivity to error than "two" people...I'd like to have a listen at how you arrive at those odds.
For the moment, if we can agree that those other 198 people weren't "out to lunch" or asleep in their seats during said event, then we should be able to conclude two things: 1) whatever you saw was NOT "physical" in nature, and 2) that you and the other "witness" must have some "extra-sensory" perception with which to detect the "super-natural", or, meta-physical realm.
Again, continuing for the sake of argument, let's say that this is the case, and instead of "angels", you sighted transparent purple leprechauns, or invisible pink angora imps. Well, in such hypothetical case, it would be of zero consequence to others, and we could end the discussion right here, this very instant. Right? "Yay!..enjoy your imps!", etc. Right?
Do you see where I'm going with this? The problem is that you are claiming that whatever you saw validates a particular religious doctrine..e.g.."Christianity". For economy of space, I'll say that the bottom line of this doctrine is, "Believe...or burn". In other words, it is implicit that your personal "angelic encounter" DEMANDS that we ALL believe your personal "truth", as a Universal "Truth", lest our "souls" be eternally incinerated.
In case you haven't picked up on it---I have a real problem with this. Especially, if you and a "privileged few" have the special means with which to detect this "supernatural" realm, and the rest of us are left saying, "Whaaaa?..hUH?..wHeRe?..I don't 'see' anything...where the heck is it?..point to it...what's it doing now, where'd it gO???"..etc., etc., etc. 'Follow?
In other words, if your "God" is going to "make available" this obviously very necessary "sense" of perception to ONLY two out of every two HUNDRED people, and then wants to hold me responsible for being skeptical? F%CK HIM.
(sorry, bro'... I get enraged just thinking about the absurdity of it)
Furthermore, and on a lighter note, you apparently at least had the "notion" of what an "angel" was, due in part to your pre-conceived theistic/dualistic belief, no? Sure, you can sit there and say that you were skeptical, yada, yada... but you cannot deny the fact that you knew what an "angel" allegedly was, prior to the "sighting"; that you had a pre-disposition. Not to mention, if I understood correctly, it was a religious performance?
Notwithstanding, by your own admission, you said it didn't fit the 'traditional' look of an "angel"? Okay...so how do you know it was an "angel"? Listening.
Have fun on your trip.....bring back some objective evidence!(j/k)
I'm sorry to have confused you with my questions. I take the blame for not clearly stating things.
You claim to have seen (with your eyes) an entity that is not part of this natural world. If I understand you correctly, you "saw" this being with your natural eyes, but the thing you saw was not natural. In fact, only you and another religionist of your acquaintance saw this thing. Since 198 people also there saw nothing, then this is not a natural event.
If your eyes, which are natural, could see this shadow dancer, then I am curious as to how other natural eyes missed it. I am also curious to know whether you thought to take a photo on your cellphone so you could show others your heavenly vision.
Since you appear to think that personal experiences of this sort validate your beliefs, I'd like to share a brief story with you.
My father-in-law believes God speaks to him on occasion with an audible voice. He doesn't believe the voice is in his head, but in the air, vibrating his eardrums and the little bones of his inner ear.
One story I've heard dozens of times from him is of the time he was struggling to repair the plumbing under his sink. He was not progressing well, since he has no talent for plumbing. He cried out to God in frustration and heard "an audible voice" that said, "I am a plumber." He immediately recognized the voice (somehow) as that of God, and he redoubled his efforts with the stubbornly leaking sink. He eventually stopped the leak and credited it all to God's audible voice and assistance.
Something more about my father-in-law: He is/was physically and verbally abusive to his children (including my wife) for years. He is loud, pushy, obnoxious, preaches constantly, and is convinced that that the words from his mouth are the very words of God. He inappropriately touched his younger siblings while growing up and did the same to his children as they entered puberty. He has obvious mental (possibly chemical) issues that have never been diagnosed, because he has spent his life in missionary service. In his version of Christianity, mental illness doesn't exist -- only demonic influence exists. He's been exorcised, so he is cured, he thinks. Still, his actions speak volumes and his experiences are wacky.
Now, why would you expect me to believe that you had actually seen a ghost, er... I mean angel when some goof ball was ecstatically dancing an awkward jig?
I don't claim to be objective if objective means believing an anonymous poster who states fantastic sounding nonsense without so much as an ounce of communicable evidence beyond a no-detail story.
To backtrack a bit, my point in the science comment is to say that whatever science says or doesn't say is totally irrelevant to your claim of extra-dimensional encounters of the third kind. I don't care what science says about non-relevant topics. Science is dismissed, for the sake of this conversation.
Now, please present me evidence that your flying zombie dude, that is really god, but not the father, and not the ghost, lives in your physical body and sends magical creatures to dance for you.
My language is sarcastic, the question is sincere. It sounds ridiculously superstitious. It sounds like the way people talked as they set fire to witches. It is Harry Potter land.
I am sincerely interested in reading exactly what this "non-traditional angel" looked like to you. Please draw out it's description in words.
Watch out for those mosquitoes. They are real.
Your's could very well be something similar. Why should I think they are not? Have any evidence to the contrary? Although this experience of yours is real to you, it is insanity to think ANYONE outside your religious social group would view your story as anything but kooky. Do you tell this story at work? I'll wager that you don't.
It would be inappropriate for me to dismiss your father-in-law story with a suggestion that it was deliberate misinformation, or worse perhaps, just a flat out lie, concocted to support your preferred position for which you lacked adequate grounds. I seriously considered doing so, so that you might experience the surprise your treatment brought me.
Of course, I expect you are an honorable man. I have no reason to believe you would lie. I have no reason to think the facts as you recounted them are untrue or inaccurate. Your narrative is careful enough and specific enough to warrant a respectful reading and consideration. So was the narrative I offered.
Note the gut wrench you experienced while reading the first paragraph.
I'm not whining. I note the dual standard.
Thoughts?
Buddy
From your offered middle ground and professed neutrality, we've slipped quickly through several very specific assertions which I'm sure I didn't make, but you attribute to me.
No problem. I'm not offended by your anger at the things you describe. I would be equally infuriated by such unfairness.
Picking up your last question; since it didn't look like a blond-haired guy in a white dress, how did I know it was an angel? I didn't know what I was watching until the end; I had zero frame of reference for what I was watching; no explanation came to mind as I observed, noting the details like a good engineer. I was told at the end.
Thanks for the friendly words. What shall I bring you from my travels? I'm told the choices are fish, other fish, and other fish. Preference?
Buddy
No problem, I'm just interested in the logic behind all of this.
Buddy: "You do raise interesting questions regarding our powers of observation and the legitimacy of our conclusions. How do you distinguish between truth and fantasy?"
That's the question I asked you :-) However, a few statements to frame a response. We are borne from Existence, consider it Objective Reality, by which there was no pre-conceived personal bias that we were privvy to.
What is "Truth" then? Once we enter Existence, as a sub-set of Objective Reality, we become cognizant and capable of recognizing our environment. In order to move to a state by which we can make sense of our reality, we inherently begin to apply reason to our environment.
The "organized" hierarchical structure of knowledge, as created by reason, axioms, and evidence provide a means to consciously conceptualize products and propositions. When one of these products corresponds to reality, then it is said to be true.
For instance, your angel scenario. Typically, most people move from a known concept, to grammatically reflective sentences, to produce a direct link to reality. For instance, you suggest you saw a "form"... how do you move from concept, to grammatical structure, to conclusion, unless you have the "concept" initially, of an angel. If you use someone elses' terms, then it's "their" concept, and "your" words to reflect "their" concept.
Your statement, that you experienced an event that you are not able to place into proper context until later on, proofs your reliance of others to bias your reality. The truth, is in your experience of the moment, and according to "your" ability to frame it based on well-reasoned knowledge.
Now, if you would like to proffer how you come to well-reasoned knowledge, then, I'd like to hear. Remember, your reason, your axioms, and your evidence, allow "you" to draw a proper conclusion, based on your conceptualized and experiential knowledge.
Fantasy? Proferring another persons' concepts, words, and knowledge that do not correspond directly to your experience. In a more abstract sense, the suggestion of knowledge, devoid of any physical attachment or link. For instance; Peter Pan, and Never, Never, Land, etc. is fantastical, there is no place and time that never land can exist, and is devoid of concrete meaning, and ability to become another persons' "evidence", by which they can broaden their knowledge base.
Buddy: "My impression from those who post here is that some semblance of rational analysis is considered reasonable."
I am amenable to rational analysis; but if I start inspecting too closely, I start noticing mathematical, logic and pattern errors. For instance, you suggest there were two that saw your apparition, yet, suggest that the dancing lady was dancing oddly. Dancing oddly, because she was attempting to dance in line with a better lead than herself, that makes her a "third" party.
Notwithstanding, minor broken links in your story, there is the huge gap of the origin of your knowledge of "angel", and how you are capable of mooring an abstraction, detached from this "reality", on a physical stage. You either built the abstraction of "angel" from natural elements and patterns, or you received naturally provided knowledge via communication from another person; in no form, can your "angel" be communicated in some "other" form than "natural".
To suggest you experienced an angel not of this world, is like saying; I always lie. It's a contradictory statement.
Buddy: "Here, your bias will lead you one way or another.
(1) it was a mental abstraction, as you've suggested. It didn't happen and the observers didn't see anything."
I don't need bias, I would like a logical explanation or account for your knowledge. Again, if you have borrowed knowledge, that you haven't personally "reasoned" out, then you are not speaking your "truth", you are speaking someone elses'.
If you would like to get your other buddy on the line, I'd like to find out how "they" learned of an "angel"... want to wager, they picked it up from a natural source, not based on a phsyical identity in the concrete realm?
When you borrow knowledge, and don't "reason" its veracity, by assigning your personal axioms, evidence thresholds, etc., you borrow risk and utter uncertainty...
Buddy: "You are able to consider reasonably those things which your intellectual bias allows you to consider as reasonable"
Wrong, my bias doesn't "control" me, as if it is an animal uncaged. I get to "reason" out my thoughts, seek diverse perspectives, cross-check it with known "facts", and ensure what I suggest... does align between my concept and reality, without assigning personal meaning subjectively.
It is when I am asked for my opinion on reality that my bias comes into play.
I may have very limited knowledge of the Universe, but as long as the knowledge I hold, corresponds to my experiences via grammatical exchange, etc., I would be considered "truthful" in my statements - we can only honestly describe our reality, based on previous experience. Well, unless we meet an angel, I suppose, there is always a first event to establish the identity of a form/object.
So, do all follow up angels, have to be as tall, or able to dance, or shine, or... be naturally-unnatural... or... other abstract notion that conflicts with reality.
Dave8
Oops. My bad. I hope that doesn't mean I "forfeit" my position of neutrality. No? yes? Nonetheless, what about the "very specific assertions" I made that are accurate? Buddy, here's what I'm asserting(for easy reference):
That....
1) Your personal belief/religious experience has no referant in objective reality until you provide objective/universal evidence that it does.
2) You have not.
3) If, hypothetically, 200 people are focused intently on a specific point, and 1% of the people sensed some-"thing" that 99% did not, then either the 1% were doing good drugs, thus, causing the 1% to experience a tandum hallucination...OR, the 1% "saw"(sensed) something not of the physical universe.
4) If one sensed something not of this physical universe, i.e.. meta-physical, then one MUST have "extra-sensory" capabilities.
5) If one has "extra-sensory" capabilities, until these "extra-sensory" capabilities can be methodically tested and verified, using the scientific method, and/or, made available universally, then the one claiming these capabilities cannot make universal claims based on those capabilities.
6) Christianity makes the claim that it is universally "True".
Buddy, if "A" = non-verifiable personal belief. And "Z" = objective/universal truth...where are " BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY "...???
Bring me back a wHaLe...I'm having the inlaws for three days and three nights, and I need a guest room.
Allow me to apologize and retract my complaint on the dual standard. Having re-read in the morning what I wrote last night, I find it uncharitable at best. It's the sort of commentary during which I would appreciate my wife tapping me on the shoulder and sweetly saying, "You're being an ass, dear."
You're correct, I shouldn't take it personally. Again, I apologize.
Buddy
What enjoyable clarity. I find little cause to fault your reasoned considerations down to but perhaps not including the conclusory statements. At this point, we are faced with what we might do to further our understanding, if anything.
We have a reasonable person who has had an unreasonable experience to which he has ascribed an understanding consistent with his belief structure. OK so far, I hope.
Your listed concerns:
a) How might one or two see among the 1200 who, as far as we know, uniformly did not? I don’t know how it might be done, even with a special effects team; I haven’t a clue how it might be accomplished within the physical and physiological context we understand. And the overlooked point, how at the conclusion of the visible portion, might one hear a precise statement sitting next to someone who heard nothing of it? No idea.
b) Was the observed creature part of the physical realm? I don’t know that I understand where the boundary might be, from an observational point of view. It appeared to be physically located in time and space, connected to and participating in the physical context.
c) Does the observer (me) therefore have some extra-sensory perception in a fashion different from or denied to others. Dear God, I hope not. I have a hard enough time being an engineer in a family of artists and composers. I’ve been a skeptic for decades regarding most claimed supernatural events. From TV evangelists (whom I can’t bear to watch) to personal prophecy, I generally file that stuff away as too odd or too off-in-left-field for use.
d) D8, I stand corrected on the point of entry for bias in your conclusions. I’ll grant you the objectivity you describe so well and seem to enforce in your considerations.
e) Does this event qualify as a first event to establish the identity of a form/object? Must subsequent events conform? This was the first of two encounters; the two were dissimilar in most particulars. Does that add to or detract from the usefulness of the event’s description? I’m open on that question.
Enough for today. How DO you guys keep up with multiple threads? Makes my brain tired.
Buddy
I received no "gut wrench" at reading anything you've written. I've had these discussions hundreds of times over the last five years.
Guess what? It doesn't make any difference to me if you believe me or not. And, if you think I'm lying, no one is harmed, and no one is going to hell. However, whose story is the more likely to be true. The one that tells of a mentally ill person who hears voices, or the story of the man who sees supernatural -- apparently indescribable -- creatures from another dimension that only he and a friend sees.
Frankly, your story would make a better movie. Mine is realistically dull.
Buddy, if you're going to take it personally when people doubt unconfirmed, undocumented, un-detailed and unsubstantiated stories of magical events..., well, you are going to be frequently offended.
And you were a Christian while being skeptical of claimed supernatural events. Yet, you somehow expect admitted unbelievers and apostates to accept your story without any confirmation beyond your words? Isn't that a bit contradictory? Aren't you expecting more of us than you do of yourself? Isn't this inconsistent with the reasonable logic you portray as possessing?
Your experience, whatever it is, needs analysis, but that would be for you to seek out on your own. Your interpretation of your visions, mental aberrations, waking dreams, encounters with extra-terrestrials, religious hypnosis, or mystical ecstasy..., whatever you want to label it, is absolute confirmation of nothing, except your predisposition to frame everything withing the religious mindset and life-long beliefs into which you were born and have never strayed far.
Accepted.
Buddy,
"OK" to what end?
I think it's crucial to point out, that the 'reasonable person' sub-scribed to his 'belief structure', prior to his 'unreasonable experience', which, "incidentally" happens to be a 'belief structure' that posits that unreasonable things are possible in the first place; that "meta-physical" events are a reality in a physical universe, and that such events were commonplace occurances only a few thousand years ago.
Those legendary fantastic stories would dwarf what we "see" in 2007 "AD". Why is that? Yes, I ask why---especially considering the population comparison---are such fantastic stories practically unheard of today, and the ones you DO hear of, are in third-world less technologically advanced countries? Why hasn't anyone from from New York, Washington D.C., or California ever witnessed a decaying 4 day-old dead body come back to life? Is it because people who populate those areas have the means to document/verify those types of events on the spot, so "God" doesn't let it happen there? I think it's a reasonable question.
BTW, I would think one of 200 people got video footage of this religious show, if not the production company, itself. 'Dollars to doughnuts, if such footage exists, there's nothing "extra-ordinary" about the footage; no guest appearance of an angelic creature gettin' it's groove on.
Your move Buddy.
Okay, a whale won't fit on your carry-on......how about a Hebrew speaking Cobra?
Well, no one is perfect, but I do make the attempt, nonetheless.
Buddy: "e) Does this event qualify as a first event to establish the identity of a form/object? Must subsequent events conform? This was the first of two encounters; the two were dissimilar in most particulars."
Again, the formula isn't that outrageous. You must "define" your terms, in order to understand your position. I will not make a positive claim towards your mental abstraction that "you" hold, only you know what you experienced.
However, if you are trying to convey your experience; I mean, that would be the reason you are giving the account, right?, we need your definition of the term "angel" and the "particulars" that are associated.
For instance, here are a few axioms that I seem to like...
--Our understanding of our Universe, can only be as great as our "knowledge" of "It".
Buddy, how do "you" build knowledge... you are an engineer, how do you build a building? From some structured foundation? And, what would that be in terms of building knowledge? What is that "foundation"?
You are a natural being, and therefore, all information you absorb and process into knowledge must in fact be natural products/by-products.
It's contradictory to suggest you experienced a supernatural being, which is "beyond" natural experience, while living in your "natural" body. All experiences you have, are natural, because "you" are the natural "interface" for all experiences in this "natural" Universe.
Buddy, I think we are getting to a point that is providing diminishing returns. Your objective, if it were to present an experience to others, is not adequate since others can not experience your event as you did.
As well, in order to communicate most effectively in order to bring about a more "common" platform for understanding, you must create a share point of knowledge, based on the axioms you have set forth - which have not been proferred so far.
Again, your experience is yours alone, and obviously not the same experience that others had sitting next to you, it would appear much more difficult to present your experience to others who were not on location; in time and space of the event.
The most I can do, is point out the conflict in your story, that's all. I can as well, point out a disparity between the natural universe and known facts, based on repeatable research experiment, and the literary and artistic expression of a persons' abstract thinking.
Knowledge is bound to an origin, if you process natural elements, and synthesize it in your mind to create a form of knowledge, to represent your experience, it may be reasonable to "you".
For me, and likely others, abstract thought, is only as cogent as its efficacy in concrete terms. And, the effect of a concrete term, becomes its identity, or at least... I would be open to such a view.
So, in order for you to establish an identity for your form/object, which must be stated in natural terms, based on your natural experience, there must be the expected "effect" that this form is to provide you... And, Buddy, what is the effect you expected from such an experience...
There is the effect that manifested the form/object in your mind, but then... there is the effect upon you.
Since, it is apparent that you are not capable of assigning "how" the form "angel" was manifested, you have to be at a loss as to how to explain it to others, who live by causal relationships.
That aside, and how an "angel" came to be, in cause-effect terms, there is "you", and the effect it brought "you". The most real part of your experience, is the effect it has/had upon you, to include personality changes, manner of thinking, etc.
I doubt, you will ever be able to "proffer" the causal relationship that manifested the form you believe you saw, therefore, it is abstract, not concrete to me... there is no way to examine the natural laws, or principles that would have caused it into being, there is no reproducibility of the even, lacking concrete terms... but isn't that what makes up mystery, the lack of understanding on a particular topic.
So, in essence, the best I can do, based on your lack of natural support is to say, your experience appears to be a mystery. A mystery, that can not be proven, or even explained beyond abstraction.
Now, let me cover by six (buttocks), because there are fields of study that thrive in the abstract... It is "no mystery", on how disciplines find themselves involved in the art and science of abstraction, no mystery whatsoever, unless some like toying with the Platonic field of dreams.
As well, I mean "mystery", not in the mystical term, but in the more modern term... as something that exists beyond current understanding... Yes, Buddy, I believe and conclude that your experience is as much a mystery to you as anyone else.
The thing about mysteries Buddy, the best you can do, is grammatically/syntactically express it logically... but in the end, we sit in a more defined state of mystery.
The closest truth you have Buddy, is the "effect" that your experience has had upon you as a being, that's it. Beyond mystery, there is "you". You may well describe the effects that this experience has had upon you, and even conclusively show empirical evidence at how your pattern of behavior has changed... and that would be "something". But, it may be more about your change of attitude, than the experience of a visual sighting.
A visual sighting, has no meaning Buddy, its just an "image"... what "you" assign to that image, in theory makes it more than it "Is", because you personified it.
You gave your mystery guest meaning, beyond its form. It's really all about you Buddy, and "why" you gave it certain meaning, and not other meaning. This form could as well be the devil in disguise, depending on how one wants to assign "meaning" to a form. There is mystery of the "form", which may never be known, but there is as well, the "mystery" of how you came to "assign" meaning to this form.
Buddy, do you agree, that the "form" can take on no more "meaning" than you "knew" at the time of your experience? Can you also agree, that you had to accept "new" information, and attribute it to your "form", to suggest you "know" of the event?
Logic doesn't suggest meaning, actually, in the most abstract, its devoid of meaning assignment. It's a mental tool that allows us to filter, collected information from our environment, in order to establish or test relational coherence, and Identity.
I nor you, have established an "Identity" to your form, with any type of rigor... yet, you have meaning.
Your unidentified form (unidentified by the other party/ies as well), holds meaning for you, therefore, you are the source of its relational context, and meaning.
Again, your mental abstraction is yours, I can not make positive claims about the existence of your experience, but I can suggest that you are the source that has given meaning to your experience, while holding no means to identify the objects within your experience.
With no "identity" Buddy, you can't possibly pass me, nor anyone else, something in concrete terms to relate to. We not only do not have a source, we have nothing to localize towards in our natural environment to inspect.
So, enjoy your mental abstraction, it's part of you, and something you need to explore. However, realize that without a proper "Identity" for your form, you have no way to make positive claims about it to yourself, nor to others... the best that you can suggest, is that you had a mysterious experience for which you have no ability to provide clear explanation - that would be the honest approach.
As well, you can extend that thought, with... but "I" feel, based on my personal belief (which doesn't require logical foundation) that it was an extraordinary experience that changed my life.
I would accept that, because I tend to assign Identity to forms by their effect(s), and that includes you and me.
Here's a topic for further discussion, if people in general assigned meaning without structure and logic in some form, can you predict their behavior as a person, or a group? People must take action based on some form of influence, when the influence holds no logical structure or framework, would you accept that such a person or group can be easily manipulated?
I think so... and if they are so easily manipulated, would you agree, that they are in essence a directed "effect", and "extension" thereof, the "source" of manipulation... Implication being a transferrence of some of their Identity from themselves towards a key source/leader.
Would you not agree, that the foundation of sanity, rests on the ability to understand Reality, based on Identity of objects/forms/combinations of the two, etc., etc...
If that is the case, then, could it be construed as mental abuse to train a child to "not" seek structured understanding through proper training because it conflicts with a belief, based on lets say... a nonidentifiable object and personafied meaning assignment.
Which, by the way, is just another form of transferrence from one who poses a need/desire/belief to another person without any direct support, other than themselves.
Yes, yes, Buddy, you have all the right in the world to enjoy your mental experience, and even give it personafied meaning... "BUT", the manner in which you attempt to persuade others as to the veracity of your claim, and the support you give towards such a manner of understanding reality, is the effect you bring to my reality.
I don't particularly like the "way" you have presented your case, and the vast potential you have to skew the spectacles of others, by championing an alternative manner by which to understand reality (if even indirectly based on your literary actions)...
I would prefer honesty, but here are a few moral thoughts I am having at the moment, and feel free to expound upon them...
--What is honesty?
--Can in insane person be honest?
--Is honesty just an ideal or is it an achievable state of a persons' reality?
--What does the statement; "To thine 'own' self be true", really mean?
--Do some people need to deceive in order to survive? Implication; is deception part of our human mechanism for survival, that is the great balancer between the haves and have nots in society?
--Is honesty always the "best" policy?
Such, great topical statements, which can be as applicable to our organic cellular structure with hidden or deceptive viral attacks, to our organic government...
Your modus operandi up to this point, and you have truly been civil, is to re-direct my questions back to me... And, in the most respectful way I can put this... it portrays your lack of knowledge or sincerity, to reach a common understanding which requires Identity.
Your stance has continued to be, "it's true because I say it's true", and that's that... if that is that, then there need be no further discussion. I believe we have all accepted your experience as being yours and only yours, and as real as you believe it to be.
Dave8
Perhaps we are approaching a central truth regarding the validity and usefulness of personal experience. I appreciate your concession to the existence of that which remains mystery.
An encounter such as I've described cannot be a foundational component in any systematic philosophy. Nor can a second hand description of such an event be particularly useful as a first tier element. It's utility, if any, is as an illustration of known truth. In the development of a personal belief system, one would be wise to file such an unusual event away, awaiting reason to discard of retrieve the event.
You have to admit, it's an interesting event. The second was less appealing; not something I sought or would want to repeat.
I offered the first account for it's more stimulating and controversial content. If I'd told the story of my friend preaching to a prairie dog, I'd get a laugh, but not a lot of thoughtful response.
Meanwhile, fella, how the heck to you produce so much verbiage in one day. Give me a while to figure out what you said; it isn't like I don't have anything else to do. Jim Arvo has me doing research so I can appreciate his position. I'm going to have to take a week off just so I can keep up with you guys.
Buddy
Honestly, it never occurred to me to ask about a video. The experience wasn't something that suggested we all stop for pictures when it happened, of course. I asked a question, I got an answer. It didn't occur to me to tell the story until I posted it here.
Only cobra available is mono-syllabic and has a bad lisp.
Buddy
"Intense sensory stimulation, such as dancing or chanting, also arouse the limbic system and assist in heightening ‘religious experience’. The deactivation of certain neuronal activity from reaching other areas of the brain by the hippocampus and extensive limbic stimulation can produce hallucinations. Newberg et al (2001, p42) describe such occurrence as “Hyperarousal with Quiescent Breakthrough” . Intense active stimulation can induce an “ecstatic rush of orgasmic-like energy”, assisting in the tagging of special significance to such action.
The concept of perception must also be regarded. Neuronal activity cannot always discriminate between real events and those one perceives to be real. Newberg suggest that although spiritual experience can be traced though neuronal activity, it does not necessarily mean that these experiences are due to “neurological illusion” alone (Ford 2002). There is little difference between how the brain processes the experiential, either real or supposed. The difference lies within how the individual perceives experience. It could be said that the only distinction between experiencing God and seeing a tree is that a tree is a tangible physical object we can all agree exists.
Does God exist? Newberg et al (2001 p37) believe yes, but only as a concept or ‘reality’ in the mind of the believer. Persinger expressed similar view, a position generated by the results of extensive work. Todd (1999) states, “there is no God separate from the believer.“"
http://www.clinicallypsyched.com/neurotheologywithgodinmind.htm
Buddy, neuroscience is speeding forward, it can reproduce the effect of "God", thus, the "Identity" of God is localized to space-time and physical matter located in the brain. When specific areas of the brain are stimulated, they produce euphoria and god encounters. I am inclined to believe that we are not born with a god door-bell, situated conveniently in our brain structure that is "externally" pressed when gods/angels/devils, etc, need to get our attention.
The trigger can be externally stimulated, but is typically the result of internal neural effects, biochemical releases, etc.
I only bring this up, because you suggest you are going to file away your experience. Still, eventually, at some point, you will have to give your experienced moment or form/object an Identity.
You aren't able to do it in the present, and as well, if you experience something in the future, and are capable of making an Identity, even if by a series of continuous "Identity States", or snapshots encoded in your memory, you will "still" not be able to take a current Identity and assign it to your past... without "some" attribute or common trait they share.
If your attachment of future unidentifiable objects will be lumped in with the others unidentified objects, well... you have a group of unidentifiable objects as their Identity. That may be the manner in which you cluster them mentally, but, they still have no identity beyond mystery.
What is the practicality or pragmatic utility of holding mysteries, if they aren't ever identified in a manner fit for "use"? Well, other than to assign personified meaning that is to unknowns :-)
If that be the case Buddy, I have a lot of unknowns you can add to your list, if mystery gives you a sense of peace :-) And, take your time with a response, no hurries here. I see you have been dog-legging around this site fervently :-) Peace.
Dave8
Of course, it appears, that analysis can always be more rigorous... So, in that effort, let me offer what experimental psychologists are always in tune with, during their research...
--"their" personal influence on the outcome of a study.
Now, since I have pointed to information on the topic of neurobiology, in a sense... it would be remiss if I didn't suggest a follow up criteria to be examined...
--Prove with some level of "rigor" that you were not the "causal" factor of your experience... either consciously or subconsciously...
Now, ruling yourself out of the scene, allows you to begin to seek an "Identity" for the form you experienced, but... I am quite confident that you are not going to easily rule yourself out as a causal factor for your experience with certainty, if you are capable of doing this, it would require unbiased (in theory) technology like a video-recording, etc, as boomSLANG mentioned...
And, your other buddy that had a similar experience... well, he would have to rule himself out as well... together you may have mutually influenced or enhanced the experiences as well... self-induced or generated visions/experiences aren't controlled by a quota system :-)
Dave8
Should the several of us meet in Atlantic City for a round-table? or three? I'll buy lunch.
OK, again, science offers us a description of the physiological components involved. Physically, therefore, we are presumed to have a finite set of receptors and associated physiological responses; e.g. the hair on the back of your neck stands up during a scene from an awe-inspiring film. It does the same in the night when you hear something unidentifiable outside your window. It does the same in the perceived presence of a other-worldly creature.
What you describe is the mechanics of feeling, not the substance of cause. The fact that you can stimulate a portion of the brain and elicit a feeling of peace or joy doesn't negate the legitimacy of the source experience. It only connects the body's response to the legitimate external stimulus.
Brain poking with either electrical or chemical stimulus describes our response, and perhaps does so adequately. The fact that certain activity can generate those feelings is reasonable. Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that the reason you enjoy your grandchild is limited to the mechanical description of your pleasure. Some do espouse such a simplistic view; man and his thoughts are non-existent, what remains are bio-computers executing pre-programmed functions. Austere, even for science.
Buddy
Sure, I am always up for a natural lunch :-)
Buddy: "OK, again, science offers us a description of the physiological components involved."
Actually, it's a little more involved than that. The pieces are linked together, like logic threads (albeit with orphans and fuzziness at times), so, science is not only involved with using a process to define and categorize pieces parts, it's also involved in some interdisciplinary areas, as linking these pieces together in order to gain a broader perspective of the whole... implication; meaning is assigned to Identified parts of the whole, but lacks to breadth of meaning in a holistic sense... with linking the pieces together, meaning becomes more encompassing.
I tend to not like categorization drills, or the like, I am more fluent at piecing together the links, as it’s how I naturally process information. Inherently, however, we must understand taxonomy, form theory, etc., in order to make accurate links… nothing seems totally “separated” in life… or the Universe that I am “aware” of ;-)
Buddy: "Physically, therefore, we are presumed to have a finite set of receptors and associated physiological responses; e.g. the hair on the back of your neck stands up during a scene from an awe-inspiring film."
Pieces parts, defined and categorized... hair sticking up on back of neck, reflexive based on stimulus.
Buddy: "It does the same in the night when you hear something unidentifiable outside your window. It does the same in the perceived presence of a other-worldly creature."
Natural stimulus responses, some more autonomic than others.
Buddy: "What you describe is the mechanics of feeling, not the substance of cause."
Ah, here we go; I asked you to suggest a method to remove yourself as the "causal" factor in such sympathetic or parasympathetic responses to biological reflex.
In other words; how do you defend yourself against the proposition that you can induce biological states, from the coarsest functions, even down to the finest autonomic functions, given the proper methods of conditioning.
The short answer; is that you can't totally rule out your own biological influence or environmental influence to suggest that you were not the "sole" cause for such a vision, or response.
Buddy: "The fact that you can stimulate a portion of the brain and elicit a feeling of peace or joy doesn't negate the legitimacy of the source experience. It only connects the body's response to the legitimate external stimulus."
Buddy, it is precisely the "source" of this experience that you can not suggest you understand, and can not rule yourself out as a causal factor.
Sure, a link is made and traces of energy are mapped through the biological channels, but the causal factor(s)... you have to accept that you were part of the experience.
Buddy: "Brain poking with either electrical or chemical stimulus describes our response, and perhaps does so adequately. The fact that certain activity can generate those feelings is reasonable. Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that the reason you enjoy your grandchild is limited to the mechanical description of your pleasure."
Buddy, the "source" for pleasure assignment, is present inherently in the grandfather, who can as well choose to not have pleasure... they are both subject and object in the relationship of pleasure, your causal influence on your grandchild and how your grandchild responds to such influence will in-turn amplify or dampen your bond with them... but... you can not suggest you are not a "causal" factor that generates the emotion of pleasure, nor causes your relationship and environmental factors to morph around you.
You can elicit a demeanor that creates disharmony or harmony, giving you displeasure or pleasure... You can take the same action your grandchild invokes, and believe it to be a good memory or a bad memory, "you" causally assign meaning - "you" are in charge of meaning assignment. Further, the action a child takes may make you sad immediately following an event, but then... after time, and through experience you may come to accept the act as part of human nature, and appreciate them even more...
The central "source" for this entire discourse, is "you" Buddy. You can not remove yourself in the process of life, as being a "direct" causal factor to elicit changes... uh, that would be perception about how you dote on your grandchild, or about the perception of a peaceful moment while watching a religion band play.
Buddy: "Some do espouse such a simplistic view; man and his thoughts are non-existent, what remains are bio-computers executing pre-programmed functions. Austere, even for science."
I lean towards a complexity theory, that suggests humans are more than mere bio-computers, we have the ability to "self-program" because we have neural feedback loops, and the ability to introspectively assess ourselves, our Identity, and its relationship with our environment.
Computers are not complex enough to self-generate awareness at this time... per se. Computers are logically linked, and materially the sum of its parts, humans have growth potential; with a permutable base of knowledge and ability to create abstract bonds in terms of social, political, etc., schemas. In short, we have a shared Identity on some level that exceeds the bounds of mere material form.
However, we do grow from a base of sequenced logic transactions, DNA, RNA, etc., and in that respect we may have some kinship to all logic based "forms".
Oh, I'd like a ham on rye, hold the mayo.
Dave8
Pardon the intrusion...
Okay, I'm going to get "crazy" and suggest that a "grandparent" may derive "pleasure" from their "grandchild", for some of the same reason(s) that ANY human being might enjoy another. Further, I'm going to get even "crazier" and suggest that one may enjoy one human being over another, i.e..Grandparent to grandchild, as opposed to Grandparent to neighbor, because they are, uh, biased. Of course, that bias is rooted in evolution, as well as "emotion".(that's another discussion)
Back to the point, Human beings(Grandparents) are natural beings; they exist in a natural universe. The processes by which one natural being might derive "pleasure" from another natural being takes place by, again, natural processes, which take place in a natural brain.
If I'm understanding correctly, the implication of the grandparent/grandchild analogy seeks to suggest that because one natural human being(Grandparent) may not be able to articulate the why, how, or "mechanics" of the "pleasure" they derive from another human being(grandchild), then the conclusion is that there MUST be "supernatural" processes at work by which they relate to said individual; that the physical processes involved in "attachment love" are not limited to the natural brain; that these processes are meta-physical.
If this is the case, or somehwere thereabouts?.. I strongly disagree(imagine that). Allow me to explain by counter-analogy.
If the theist is claiming a duality---that there is a "physical self", and "non-physcial self"; that there is something "supernatural" about the way human beings relate to one another(grandparent to grandchild); that there is a part of the "self" that is NON-material/NON-physical.... then damn it, PHYSICAL defects in the PHYSCIAL brain, WOULD NOT hamper, affect, limit, influence the ability to derive "pleasure" from another human being.
Buddy?...'got any elderly folks with Alzheimers in your immediate family? Yes? No?
Either way, if your claim is that there is a non-physical/immaterial aspect to how a "grandparent" derives "pleasure" from a "grandchild", then you are essentially saying that the relationship between an elderly person who doesn't even know their own name; who can't remember when they were born; who can't remember their parents names; who can't remember how to take a poop, etc., etc--essentially, a person who has lost their "self"; their dignity, is NOT affected in the least bit when the grandchild shows up at his or her bedside. Yes, the patient with the defective brain derives ALL the same "pleasure" they did back when they had a healthy brain. Yeah, sure.
Buddy, I'd love your input on this. Can you put "dualism" into terms that make sense? Or wait, do I lack the special "understanding" tool to understand this?.. similar to how I "lack" the "extra-sensory" tool to detect angelic dancing-creatures? I bet I do lack it, don't I? Darn it.
Buh bye for now.
I'll grant you both for the moment that I am an integral part of my observations, conclusions, and recollections. I'll grant you that the structure of my system of thought imposes a polarization on that which I see and consider to the end that I am inclined toward conclusions consistent therewith.
I suspect you'll resist granting me the same regarding your own position.
Do you then claim impartiality, and freedom from presuppositional influence?
We began with a reasonable account of an unreasonable event. On the anecdotal evidence available, it's a bit of a mystery. Do you have reason to believe I was hallucinating or fantasizing? Does it seem I was incautious or inattentive enough to just be mistaken. Does our conversation so far suggest that I'm unreasonable or unstable?
We come near the heart of the matter. Reasonable people have walked these paths before; it's not new ground.
Buddy
Rye! How apropos!
P.S. Did I suggest a supernatural explanation or did you?
Many people are conditioned to actually believe they are "separate" and "dissociated" from "reality", where there is a physically cold Universe, and the... more compassionate separated thread(s) that run through it.
Why is it so difficult for some to accept that there can be love and pleasure, and even euphoric moments without the need to carve their selves out of the Natural Universe ;-)
Dave8
Is that a natural mystery, or...
Yes, rye and toasted :-)
Dave8
"Existence exists"
How pervasive is "Existence", and can we escape it? If not, then, is it homogenous?
Dave8
Pretty much, yeah. And I think this underlying premise is avoided by the Theist/Dualist, because the notion of such a dual reality, itself, requires a dualistic, or "flexible", definition to be applicable in this reality. In other words, this "thing" called the "soul" is described as "physical" when it needs to be, and "non-physical" when it needs to be. In other words--it's "both".....similar to square circle. You're familiar with those, right? = )
Peace.
Peace
... can you please explain to me why Aristotle was right or wrong with his axiom...
"Existence exists"
Nope. But thanks for asking.
Buddy
Just thought I'd attempt to see how aware you were of the very reality you live within, since it is that which houses all entites that you can become consciously aware of, including, and not limited to by any means - a mystery image.
We are at our core, sentient, if we can't come to grips with what that is, and what it entails, then everything in life becomes a vague collage of mystery elements.
Buddy, I will concede there is much mystery in life, even my own, but... I will never accept that I am totally detached from it, or that I don't have the ability to influence my environment. In each of these cases, it would do nothing, except remove my ability to discern "truth" and place me in a position of constant unknowing -
mental instability.
You can't deny that what you experienced "exists", because to deny it, suggests it exists in some form. So, it's a matter of understanding to what "extent" your experience existed.
It's interesting; if someone would have pulled a flashlight out a few thousand years ago, it would have been a mystery to the folks living at that time. However, today it is not a mystery. Mystery is a matter of knowledge and perspective. Buddy, you can gain knowledge from others and assign it properly to your reality, but... the perspective piece is all you.
Dave8
I appreciate your claim of sentience; to presume otherwise would indeed lead to unresolvable ambiguity and mental instability. You correctly conclude, at least from my point of view, that the large labor we face is discerning to what extent our experience exists within the impartial reality in which we live.
Mystery is a matter of knowledge and perspective, as you state so succinctly. We're left, then, with the very human circumstance of discerning how our experience and the experiences of others can be reconciled in a single reality.
Both you and I have relegated accounts of supposed supernatural experiences from literature and the media to one of several categories. There are those we discount as deliberate exaggerations, those we conclude are mental aberrations, those we write off to the power of suggestion or mass delusion, and so on. I share your skepticism regarding what appears to be no more than splashy showmanship or orchestrated display. From our conversation, it seems that you are satisfied that all such things are thereby explained and that the mysteries to which you refer are trivial enough to not require further inquiry. I on the other hand, am left with non-trivial events to which I can assign no no simple dismissal. Are we left without available grounds for discussion at that point?
I am somewhat uncomfortable with things that appear to occur from outside the realms of physical and mathematical description. Perhaps simple faith escapes me. Fortunately, science has provided descriptions of many processes formerly unknown. It eases my mind to see and to some degree understand how things work even down to the cellular or molecular level. My perception, as you will point out, is enlarged by knowledge and the mystery recedes. Yet still, there are mysteries whose simplest likely cause points to a design which cannot be achieved within this universe by random mutation and natural selection. Our sentience is on that list, from my point of view.
Buddy
As one who has a BS in Biology with emphasis in Molecular Biology and a minor in Chemistry, I fail to see your point! Nature is extremely lazy in its design and how it works. To form complex structures, nature evolved methods to ensure that the KISS (keep it simple stupid) principle remained the norm so that it could remain extremely lazy.
Would love to here your mysteries which points to a design!
Thunder and lightening used to be a "mystery" to primitive man. To them, the "likely cause" was an invisible man named "Thor". Of course, we now know they were deceived. Moreover, if these "mysteries" are "within this universe", then that rules out an explanation that is out of this universe.
continues: Our sentience is on that list, from my point of view.
From my natural point of view, the source from where "sentience" is generated is the human brain, which incidentally, is also "within this universe".
Additionally, I argue that a brain must be healthy and functioning properly in order to generate what's known as "sentience". If it is argued that said "sentience" can come from a disembodied mind; that it comes from some "mindful", yet, "brainless" super intelligence....then can any Theist---Christian, Muslim, or whatever---please explain to me why we, as sentient human beings, would need a "brain" in order to be "sentient" beings?(preferably, have it be consistantly logical)
boom'
The Superset Universe and all that remains within is conclusively Objective. To the extent, there exists; true & false, experience, and an impartial reality, is a challenge of expression.
Further, even though we sense this reality differently, in terms of physicality, it doesn't mean that dissimilar individuals can't come to understand a common meaning of a single individual's specific event. After all, even the individual is removed to some extent from physical sense to interpretive thought.
Knowledge gives context to meaning. Since, you apparently don't understand basic philosophy, it is quite obvious that we will not reach the consilience of a common meaning, even if only in terms of knowledge.
As well, denial of the self-efficacy variant is tart. We all have the ability to induce myriad effects within our reality.
Buddy: "Mystery is a matter of knowledge and perspective, as you state so succinctly."
There is no Mystery in an Objective Reality. Your perceived mystery, is the result of a self-discovery that has not been made manifest in terms of a common base of knowledge, or a knowledge that is consistent within your own frame of reference and prior experience(s).
Therefore, your "meaning" assignment, is still suspended within that physical moment in time. Until you are capable of deconflicting all internal inconsistency in your knowledge base, you haven't earned the right to project it on others.
Further, to suggest you had a supernatural experience, mocks your very natural life and experience, and insults my intelligence. You have effectively, removed my ability to assign any aspect of my natural life to your occassion; either by deliberate cunning or imaginative ignorance.
Without a common experience to draw from, and to "deny" me the opportunity to recall and synthesize myriad experiences I've had in my life, in order to find a "common" meaning, you have presented a case that could be construed by many as narcistic, leaning heavily towards solipsism.
Buddy: "We're left, then, with the very human circumstance of discerning how our experience and the experiences of others can be reconciled in a single reality."
Why the requisite to reconcile experiece? Why not knowledge?
Buddy: "Both you and I have relegated accounts of supposed supernatural experiences from literature and the media to one of several categories."
I don't recall that relegation, or taxonomical assignment... Can you explain what "media" or a "medium" is? Is it something that stores energy in a particular form? If that is the case, can you provide something that is not capable of storing energy, or not being a medium for information retrieval?
Buddy: "There are those we discount as deliberate exaggerations, those we conclude are mental aberrations, those we write off to the power of suggestion or mass delusion, and so on."
I don't discount the Objectivity of Existence. However, I can't "I"dentify when confronted with inconsistent information, I can only make an assessment on the individual's stability. Those I can't find to be stable, linguistically, intellectually, etc., I refrain from giving a high reliability rating.
A lack of reliability, should be interpreted here as; lack of trust. That is not to suggest that there wasn't an Objective state of the Universe, it's not to suggest that the individual is deliberately lying; it's to suggest that their lack of reliability in expression, prompts immediate distrust for me.
A lack of "trust" is "normal", psychiatrically speaking, when logically warranted. A parent doesn't rationally trust their children or things they hold valuable to someone who is unreliable; why should a rational person be expected to? Who/what is it that rates such a demanding position; as to be beyond inquiry or doubt?
Buddy: "I share your skepticism regarding what appears to be no more than splashy showmanship or orchestrated display. From our conversation, it seems that you are satisfied that all such things are thereby explained and that the mysteries to which you refer are trivial enough to not require further inquiry."
No Buddy, I find a lot of explanation, with such little internal consistency. Should I need to inquire? Why can't you just figure out how to be consistent in your expression, and "tell" me, obviously your experience was diachronic, from a point-to-point in time.
Do I write you off, without so much as a wonder? No, but we know what the good book says about those whom may give us a wonder or show us a sign, right.
Buddy: "I on the other hand, am left with non-trivial events to which I can assign no no simple dismissal. Are we left without available grounds for discussion at that point?"
Buddy, you have had an experience, it may have been a most beautiful of experiences to you. Only you, should vote on its dismissal. Do you not allow others the opportunity to not vote to accept your experience, until it is consistent with one's knowledge?
I am compassionate enough to allow you or anyone else, their time to heal or make sense out of their reality, especially if they are in trauma or bewilderment. However, I am not an advocate of mental euthanasia, nor one who glees at the reinforcement of expressionistic chaos.
Buddy: "I am somewhat uncomfortable with things that appear to occur from outside the realms of physical and mathematical description."
On physical description, how would one "ever" declare an experience beyond physicality, without having that non-physical standard to measure by. There is no such thing as non-physical experience, only physical phenomena that has yet to find a manner by which to be adequately expressed.
Regarding mathematics, there are others who are likely more capable of answering any questions you may have on the subject and how it relates to expressionism.
However, if you aren't willing to engage the mild topic of Aristotle and Existence, then I am not sure as to your prowess on the foundations of mathematical knowledge. Even the most abstract and theoretical mathematics hold internal rigor without conflict.
Here is a simple expression; A=A. Reality holds no conflict, period. Therefore, Buddy, if you perceive conflict, its not the conflict of the external reality coming to meet your senses, its your senses and how they perceive and assign meaning to the external reality.
Your experience obviously precedes your knowledge, and the lack of knowledge precedes your inability to express yourself without conflict. There is no need to find those "perfect" words, you have all the time in your current form, to find them.
Buddy: "Perhaps simple faith escapes me. Fortunately, science has provided descriptions of many processes formerly unknown. It eases my mind to see and to some degree understand how things work even down to the cellular or molecular level. My perception, as you will point out, is enlarged by knowledge and the mystery recedes. Yet still, there are mysteries whose simplest likely cause points to a design which cannot be achieved within this universe by random mutation and natural selection. Our sentience is on that list, from my point of view."
There is nothing "random" unless you have something to back that up. Regarding design; and how design is not a phenomenon capable of being found within "this" Universe... do you have another Universe you would like to present as an alternate example?
Again, you speak beyond your knowledge and experience. Why is it so difficult for you to accept Nature and natural laws as being the source of all that you can possibly "know"? Does all "meaning" need to be "external" to the Universe, or... the self?
What are you looking for out there Buddy, that you can't seem to find within yourself?
Perhaps you're correct; perhaps my participation in philosophical debate is limited by insight into the basics. The debate over the nature of existence is profitable for many but for me lacks utility beyond the foundational concerns. Does the chair on which I sit exist? Do I? Noting the lives of the great philosophers, we discover little profit in their pursuit. Beware those intellectuals whose words mask a purposeless life.
Nothing is random? Everything, therefore, is a process derivative? Are you sure, then that each physical manifestation follows a logical cause-effect sequence? It's an interesting but unsupportable premise.
My universe reference alluded to the emerging multi-universe discussions. It's been suggested there are either a finite number of universes or an infinite number, all beyond our own. The statistical possibilities which are limited within a single universe are therefore suggested to be available in the larger set of possible realms, each perhaps different in small or great detail from the one we know. The emerging theory fails the math test for the former and falls into a broken determinism for the latter.
Since it seems useful to you to disparage my abilities in math and philosophy, perhaps you'll be so kind as to tell me this; how many representatives of a single life-form through how many generations should it take, statistically speaking, to evolve a new biological machine such as, say for example, an ear?
Buddy
...how many representatives of a single life-form through how many generations should it take, statistically speaking, to evolve a new biological machine such as, say for example, an ear?
Buddy, your question is a bit simplistic, it took millions of generations across many species for the mammalian ear, there is an interesting article here by David Watson that has some good information. Some examples of bacterial evolution here, typically adaptation occurs in hundreds or thousands of generations.
Then ontology, one of the basic fields of philosophy, would strike you as paramount in a discussion on multiverse theory, right?
Buddy: "The debate over the nature of existence is profitable for many but for me lacks utility beyond the foundational concerns. Does the chair on which I sit exist? Do I?"
Do multiple Universes? Same question, different noun... or perhaps that seems a little too foundational.
Buddy: "Noting the lives of the great philosophers, we discover little profit in their pursuit."
Is there such little profit in having a "love of wisdom" a.k.a. philosophy?
Buddy: "Beware those intellectuals whose words mask a purposeless life."
What does value mean? If you don't know, you can't assign purpose to action and your statement is sterile and unreliable.
Buddy: "Nothing is random? Everything, therefore, is a process derivative?"
I asked you to provide an example of something "not" process derivative, and you failed.
Change has been a constant, recognized and applied as a Universal variable in philosophic and applied research.
Process drives "Change", and change is pervasive, therefore, all that changes, is derivative of process.
Now, Buddy, if you want to proffer something that seems to evade change, I'm waiting for the Pulitzer draft example. If you fail to provide such an example; as you did this time, then... no surprise, your statement about my unsupportable claim is puerile, and again untenable and thus - unreliable.
But you would have known that, if you were educated in philosophy, in the most basic of principles.
Buddy: "Are you sure, then that each physical manifestation follows a logical cause-effect sequence? It's an interesting but unsupportable premise."
I'm only "sure" about my experiences in life that suport the claim of "change" and all derivative secondary effects. I'm "sure", because I have not found anything contrary to the notion of change. Lets just say, I'm as sure to the notion of process derivatives as I am to my very existence.
Buddy: "My universe reference alluded to the emerging multi-universe discussions. It's been suggested there are either a finite number of universes or an infinite number, all beyond our own."
Oh, and what would you get, if you had an "infinity" variable, to the exponential power (infinity * infinity)"? As well, can God commit suicide if he's omnipotent? How far ya' want to go with this Buddy? What is the point? To suggest that there are unanswerable questions?
How about, there are "baseless" questions, and the one about multiple universes is on my list.
Define Universe Buddy.
Buddy: "The statistical possibilities which are limited within a single universe are therefore suggested to be available in the larger set of possible realms, each perhaps different in small or great detail from the one we know."
...you know more than you know, and you know that for a fact? The mathematical possibility of amplified ignorance, is found by taking the variable "x", representing "ignorance", and exponentially magnifying it by the number of Universes added to the theoretical abstract. Further, this assumes that "what is known" of "this Universe", is commutable and relevant in all other combinations of multiple Universes.
Care to assign a metric or function to your "ignorance" so that it can be applied in this theoretic? I suppose, if you knew what you were ignorant of, you wouldn't really be all that "ignorant" then, or... so it would seem.
Buddy: "The emerging theory fails the math test for the former and falls into a broken determinism for the latter."
Yeah, please do tell, where this theory is emerging to... I seem to be ignorant as to its veracity beyond rhetoric.
Buddy: "Since it seems useful to you to disparage my abilities in math and philosophy, perhaps you'll be so kind as to tell me this; how many representatives of a single life-form through how many generations should it take, statistically speaking, to evolve a new biological machine such as, say for example, an ear?"
Statistics, well.. I suppose that requires context. If a 2 cup glass, is filled with one cup of water, then, statistically speaking, is the cup 50% empy, or 50% full?
You see Buddy, statistics are limited to sample size, other variables, and typically states the error rate. Check out analysis of variant (ANOVA) testing if you are interested. As well, even if you could give the "exact" statistic with all variables taken into account, per my example; the description of the result, is obviously based on the perspective of the one making their argument.
If I said the glass were half-empty, you would say it was half-full, if you thought it would somehow support your argument; validating a deeply held need you hold.
Anyway, if you want to discuss semiotics and what can be construed as effable within the broad actions of communication, between organic life forms, then... at least we would be headed in a positive direction. Until then, it appears we are at an empasse... enjoy your life Buddy.
Both articles are appreciated; thanks. The ear article was one I hadn't seen.
Not addressed in either article is the interesting debate, and quite a heated one, which isn't along the lines of common descent, or speciation. The observed and examined evidence suggests that all life is related and probably derived from an unknown original source. Variation within species is generally understood and agreed upon. We force it routinely through selective breeding of livestock and domestic animals.
The weakest Darwinian argument suggests that random mutation and natural selection can account for significant changes in function. Cellular analysis reveals impressive machinery whose complexity is beginning to be understood in detail, including a map of the intervening steps between functional stages.
At the genetic level, random mutations occur frequently; most are inconsequential and are not natural selectable. Most consequential changes are destructive and are naturally de-selected. The remaining changes are available in the pool and may prove beneficial and subsequently selectable.
For the theory to be supported, it must not only be possible but reasonable. Our observation of genetic mutation leaves us with the statistical probability of one significant change to require on the order of 10^20 individual organism generations. Stepping through intermediate beneficial stages quickly raises the requirement to 10^40, or more individuals than there have been mammals (total, all) in the last 100 million years.
So, reasonably speaking, the randomness of change is suspect. If it cannot be shown that a change we observe might be expected in the sample set, or more to the point, that a long series of complex changes might be expected in the sample set, then we're stuck with non-random.
To indirectly answer my own question regarding how many generations a significant change might take, consider the single celled creature who becomes after mutation a multi-celled creature with different functionality in it's various parts. Number of generations required? One. Probability? Nearer zero than the likelihood of every person in New York hitting the powerball jackpot every year for 5 years. Then we have to deal with the likelihood of the multi-celled creature developing various organs through non-beneficial stages.
The fact that those changes occurred is generally accepted among the scientifically inclined. The reason for their occurrence is not, perhaps more for philosophical reasons than any other.
Buddy
Excellent observation, Freebird.
Yes, the premise is that only the Christian theist has an understanding of "God" and it's "supernatural" trimmings. So it goes---because we currently have gaps in our scientific understanding of the theory, and fact, of Evolution, the Christian creationist comes waltzing in and attempts to fill in every one of those gaps by claiming to have a gap-less understanding of an intangible supernatural creator-god, who resides over an intangible supernatural realm. They posit a "meta-physical" entity that is "self-existing"; "timeless"; "omnipotent"; "omniscient"; "all-loving" and "just", who, before time even existed, "decided" to "think" 125 billion gallaxies into existence, and then put two Caucasian humanoids, whom it made out of mud, at the center of it all.
Mind you, none of which is scientifically supported as fact, or theory, which leaves it merely a hypothesis---one that is based partially on personal "experience"; partially on "faith". Then to compound this arrogance many times over, the Christian theist is fully ready to dismiss any supernatural "experience", "claim", "hypothesis", or "holy text" that disagrees with their religious "faith". The Christian theist has monopoly on "Truth".
Gawd, I'm glad I'm not that "smart" anymore.
Although some of the biologists here would do a much better job, I'll try to respond. First of all, we're talking about the theory of evolution, "Darwinism" is a term used mainly by creationists to imply that the theory of evolution is an ideology or religion rather than a scientific theory. However Charles Darwin isn't worshiped and he didn't come down from a mountain with the Origin of Species inscribed on stone tablets. The theory of evolution does the best job of explaining the data, if it didn't it wouldn't have survived as long as it has.
Our observation of genetic mutation leaves us with the statistical probability of one significant change to require on the order of 10^20 individual organism generations.
I don't know where you got this, a cite would be helpful. You may be assuming that mutation happens consecutively, however multiple mutations can occur in parallel. Similarly, evolution does not occur in a straight line, but rather in a "tree" shape, with lineages diverging and starting new branches. We have seen bacteria mutate to consume nylon and naphthalene, which are pretty significant changes in function. We have also seen new species develop, for example the mosquito Culex molestus.
You also need to account for the fossil record, common structures across species, the presence of vestigial organs, "junk" DNA, various lab experiments that show evolution in action, and biogeography. One counterexample of unknown validity, especially something outside the field of biology, does not render the theory of evolution null and void. There is a massive body of literature that you will need to explain away. "God did it" could be a plausible hypothesis if there was some good evidence that this being actually exists. You might want to consider following the Catholic church's lead of grudgingly accepting the theory of evolution.
My son, who lives with his mother and evangelical family asked me what a Mormon was? I told him that they believe that jesus came to North America. He replied that they were stupid! My question to him then was, "Your god is all powerful, right?" He said, "Yes". I then asked, "With your god, all things are possible, right?" He said, "Yes". Then I asked, "Then it is completely within reason that your god visited North America, right?" He said nothing, but sat quietly! I then said, "maybe the Mormons are correct and you are wrong!"
Sooooo... Buddy, are you a Mormon?
You are correct. I'll say it again. Nature is extremely lazy and due to this fact, mistake are made quite often. To explain in detail is too much for the feeble minded. Unfortunately, christians are just as lazy as nature and it is so much easier to say "god did it". What is the point of learning for christians if they already have the answers? "GOD DID IT"!
I hate to use my son all the time, but he told me last year that he wanted to study astronomy. I asked why, because all those dots in the sky are holes in a black blanket with the light of heaven shinning through! Then I reminded him that the universe is only 6 thousand years old and therefore those "stars" are just an illusion!
In order, then; (1) you may assign beliefs to me if you like; you err in doing so. The point on the floor for discussion is the reasonableness of expecting randomness (the statistical model applies) to account for the changes we see. Feel free to contribute.
(2) No. (3) Your world may be a few thousand years old and covered with a blanket; mine isn't. The young earth theories are neither particularly widespread nor well received among the folks I've met, although the discussion between some fundamentalist groups and their local school boards makes the news from time to time.
You're the very first to suggest that I'm lazy. Congratulations.
Buddy
On the probability of significant change (affecting perhaps 2 or 3 genes), the following citation applies;
White, N. J., 2004. Antimalarial drug resistance. J. Clin. Invest. 113:1084-92
Extracted segment: “Chloroquine resistance in P. falciparum may be multigenic and is initially conferred by mutations in a gene encoding a transporter (PfCRT) (13). In the presence of PfCRT mutations, mutations in a second transporter (PfMDR1) modulate the level of resistance in vitro, but the role of PfMDR1 mutations in determining the therapeutic response following chloroquine treatment remains unclear (13). At least one other as-yet unidentified gene is thought to be involved. Resistance to chloroquine in P. falciparum has arisen spontaneously less than ten times in the past fifty years (14). This suggests that the per-parasite probability of developing resistance de novo is on the order of 1 in 10^20 parasite multiplications. “
2) Therefore, Jesus is REAL!
The fact is most christians have no idea what the bible really says, we have our pastors to tell us that.
Oh, they know verses and can quote them. But they are clueless really about what they are really saying in the greater context.
The biggest mistake is the hell mistake, the hell of the churches is not even in the bible. It is a doctrine glued together with spit and bubble gum, created from myths and misinterpretations of various greek words.
But churches do not teach about there translation problems in the bibles they preach from sunday after sunday.
What is the message?
You are a sinner, God will KILL YOU IN FIRE
Unless you join our church and pay us a part of your income.
That is what HELL is all about, scaring people into paying a tithe.
Remember that was my job, sad to say.
I still believe in God, but not the HELL God I was lied about. A loving God who will have us ALL with him in the after life, becuase he is bigger then our churches and our idiot pastors.
All tof religon was symbolism and myth based on the sky and astronomical objects. Some of the famous messiahs/buddhas etc, were myth some actually were people, but the bottom line is that religion came from people eating visionary plants and having visionary/psychedelic experiences, while practising a yogic concentration.
So although, on the surface, institutional religion bacame ridiculous in terms of how it portrays dogma-content, there really is a particular experience, that it is based on. This experience basically shows people what their ture identity is.....and then alas...they have to try to explain their experience to others and then the warpage begins.
Well, I do ... I know the bible very well and I was a christian, even a pastor for years. I know all the arguments made and made them myself.
What I would ask this Christian who says others dont know the bible, is how many times did God command the Isaeraltes to murder, plunder, rape and enslave other people?
And I would want an logical explaination as to how a God who so loved the world, is also the same one who killed at a whim.
Dear Unbeliever
Re:Mythmaking
Dr Vij Sodera wrote "Look at the particle of dust on the table in front of you. Is it possible for such a particle...after existing for a few billion years... to aquire consciousness-to ultimately peer down on another dust particle and to contemplate its origins?...Yet inherant....is the assumption that not only is it possible, but that it actually happened". One small Speck, Vija Sodera Productions, Bognor Regis UK 2003
Seem like Gospel pierce hole through head. Uu, Uu.
Borat says, Mr Jesus claims that HIS NAME IS THE NAME AND HIS AUTHORITY IS THE AUTHORITY.
--S.
I'd like to first say that in readin some of these things on here I have to say there seems to be a lack of "knowledge". You have to understand that the bible, when written is in a parabilic way (Parables, almost riddle like) to decipher the bible would mean to apply MORE than everyday knowledge, or just "commen sense"
When speaking of such things as "mauled children by bears" or "hating your parents"... these things are all written in a parable. the word na'ar (meaning child - anyone up to the age of 40) is a hebrew word and is poorly transulated for us, so one man of just commen knowledge would make the assumption that it should be taken for EXACTLY what it says. And the lord spoke of us to love him MORE than our parents, not to hate our parents... but it is written that way to show you on a scale, of the firstly love we should have for our lord. So on and so forth..... and I would challenge anyone who reads this to absolutly pick up a copy of "The Expositer's Study Bible" for it WILL explain EACH and EVERY one of those passages in the bible named in this letter... and you will truely understand what the bible is really saying. God bless you all.
Parables you say?
Could it possibly be then, that the whole jesus-son-of-god story was also nothing more than a mere parable to?
Yeah, I'm pretty darn SURE it was, or perhaps it was an intentional work (of fiction) by the authors to further control the population.
Try as you may, you can't make sense out of nonsense, my friend
ATF (Who never saw a 39 year old 'child' before)
Oh, John has it all figured out. You got the one and only, true, interpretation of scripture. That god of yours sure was clever, writing down his all-important, messages and commandments, in an ancient book, only to turn it into a puzzle, for people to decipher, causing christianity to splinter into 34,000 different sects and denominations, all with their idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture. What a brilliant undertaking, by the creator of the universe, delivering his all-important messages, in the form of vague texts, parables, poems, songs, dream imagery, switching from literal to non-literal, that could so easily be misinterpreted, perverted or interpreted, in so many different ways. You would think, the creator of the universe, could do a better job at getting his all-important, messages to everyone, unequivocally and universally, but seeing, that the other 70% of the world, is either another religion or the non-religious and they don't believe, in the bible, and the other 30% of christians have vast and differing interpretations of scripture -- I'd say god's doing a shitty job at conveying his all-important messages. I'll tell you what Johnny-Christian, when your god can deliver his all-important messages, to everyone, equally and unequivocally, you come on back and let us know -- I'll expect you in around -- NEVER.
--S.
Your use of na'ar is pretty selective, its literal meaning in Hebrew is that of child or young person. Na'ar may be used in reference to older person but usually in terms of behavior. It is used for Joseph and Joshua who are older but clear reference to the context is that they are behaving like children either in a negative way (immature) or positive way (obedient). It is also used to refer to servants and attendants but also this is revealed through context. It is the antonym of "ish" - which means man or maturity.
As usual - you have just chosen the most palatable interpretation for your own beliefs - you choose to ignore the literal translation which would fit perfectly in the context and choose an uneasy interpretation that fits with your own conscience. It does not change the fact that God sent bears to maul 42 young people (not stated they are 7 or 12 or 28) for teasing a guy for being bald. Unless you are saying the whole incident is a parable?
Jesus specifically says this in Matthew 10:35-36
35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household
Na'ar is not used at all - it sounds literal and specific enough.
Once again you are cherry picking for the sake of your own lack of courage in your convictions. You are also claiming that you have access to some special knowledge of the Bible. Paul says that even children can understand the Bible - unless you claim to have an exclusive interpretation, a special "knowledge" that you have gotten from merely reading a single book that merely papers over the glaring gaps.
The fact you cannot deny is that there are many interpretations of the Bible - either God is not omnipotent or omnipresent to keep his most important message straight (I am sure his divine will cannot be overturned by a couple of myopic scribes as is the common excuse), or that the collection of books was always only by human hands who did not proof read what the previous guy wrote very well. Your interpretation is just the latest attempt in thousands of years of church history to "fix" a human endeavor and present it as a divine one.
The bible is the inspired word of God breathed by the Holy Spirit, but you need a book written by humans (The Expositor's Study Bible) in order to "truely understand what the bible is really saying."
Does the Bible say anything against using spell check?
i completely agree with you
i have never read anything more inspiring
thank you for posting this
as i do not understand how christians can believe in this bullshit
as i was raised in a christain family and forced into all th christian non sense
it is a mere religion of controling people through fear
rules rules rules if you dont do this if you do this bah bah your going to hell
i believe christain has starided off into something false and fictional
as the bible is not true as we know it suppose to teach you lessons
john of arc never happened its geographicaly proven
moses never parted the sea of reds he walked through a the sea of reids on a windy day when the tide was low
however i do believe in a great power and that we do have souls
but im a stronge believeer of recranation
just know that god may exist however he is not so merciful and loving as you think
i have gone through the bible and dedated many topics with preists
god is just not a very nice person
and jesus well sorry to burst ur bubble he wasnt the only messiah walkin around his time
come on people open your eyes
you can believe in god and satan but dont follow the church or the bible
they are completely misleading
In reference to the topic at hand: I personally believe in a supreme being, or God as generally referenced. I have, at points in my history, declared myself to be "christian", "wiccan", and "christo-wiccan". I do consider myself to be a Christ-follwer today, not to be confused with modern christianity. I believe there to be far too many egotistical, self-serving individuals in the "ministry" today, and that scripture is being twisted to fit the needs of most biased individuals who claim "the faith". I can see where each of you are coming from, and I must stress that personal belief should not be confused with "religion". Religion is nothing more than a repetitious pattern of actions, pre-observed cause and effect, that keeps individuals in their comfort zones. Much akin to driving to work via the same route on a daily basis, religion leaves you at a point where you go through the motions on auto-pilot, blacking out half of the journey. I may share my views, when asked, but I understand that each is entitled to his or own views and opinions. Any "christian" who would oppose that premise apparently does not understand the teachings of Christ or the concept of free will. I caution each of you to think of others before acting on instinct or emotion. Middle ground can not be achieved unless both sides are willing to appreciate and value the other's opinions and views. I could go on, but in the interest of saving space I'll stop here. anyone interested in further discussion, email me or find me on myspace (myspace.com/tainted_angel24).
blessed be!
Russ,
If you're following this christ character, then you are a xtian, and if you're a xtian, you belong to the xtian religion, even if your sect consist of exactly one person in your congregation....YOU.
ATF (Who just loves when they make a personal exception for themselves to be outside of "religion" and hence, obviously more special to this personal god)
Notice how excited the non-christians are when someone says something that makes them feel better about not being a Christian. It's kinda sad. To think that all these years they've just been waiting for that one comment to make them feel better about turning their back on God and their parents. What the fuck is wrong with you faggots. If you don't want to believe it, then don't believe it and move on with you life and go play baseball and racketball and forget about it. Why are non-christians so concerned with why they don't believe what they used to. Be a man, believe what you want, and move the fuck on!!!!!
If Christianity is just a fallacy, why have you dedicated your life to convincing yourself and others that it is false? I fight for what I believe in, but what I don't do is dedicate my life to trying to prove to everyone that what they believe is wrong. You're all pretty much the most pathetic thing I've ever stumbled across. Just thought I'd drop in to make sure you know.
I happened upon you website accidentally, but just couldn't help myself. You obviously have SO MUCH to say, I thought I'd just give my two cents once, but you won't see me here again, EVER, so don't worry. In fact you have SOOOO much to say that I was very suprised to see that your name is Dan. I figured you'd be a WOMAN. BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH.
So, If Christianity is just that rediculous, then why not just let us retards believe what we want to? Are we hurting you. If we are then I guess you're just a very sensitive group of non-christians. And by sensitive I mean WEAK!!!
There are so many different religions and beliefs out there that I believe are false and have a negative effect on peoples lives and cause pain and suffering and death, and I wish they believed what I believe to be the truth. But I personally believe in religious freedom. It's actually not my belief, it's just a fact, and the fact of the matter is that noone can tell you what to believe. A person's individual beliefs are simply the only thing that exists. You are free to believe anything you want. It's your body, it's your brain, it's your thoughts, it's your religion, it's your belief, it's your God. Anyone (especially you), who tells you that what you believe is wrong, IS WRONG. They may TRY to convince you and in some regions TRY to MAKE you believe what they believe, but that's the beautiful thing about being an individual. It's your brain and noone else is allowed in. So I will ALWAYS be allowed to believe whatever the fuck I want to.
You're allowed to tell someone what you believe, you're allowed to tell them why you believe it, and you're allowed to tell them why you believe that what you believe is the truth. But what you SHOULD not do it tell them why they are so fucked up. That has never helped anyone, and one thing I can say for sure is that you are not even trying to help anyone and your reason for being here is not to help anyone. The reason you created this website and the reason you have put so much effort into this website, is because you DO believe in Christianity, you DO believe in God, but you HATE Christianity and you HATE God. I believe in alot of things that I hate. Yours just happens to be GOD. Don't worry, you're not alone. Your father Satan, believes in God and he hates God too. Like father like son. If you don't believe in him either, that's ok......he believes in you and he knows that you belong to him. I don't have to try to convince you that he's real. I know that would be pointless anyways. It's inevitable that you will find out for yourself. You'll ignore me for now and that's fine, but you'll remember me and what I've said, and what everyone else like me has told you, and all the things you were taught before you became and EX-CHRISTIAN. You'll have more time on your hands in hell than you do right now, which is hard to believe because you obviously don't have much of a life. But by then it will be too late and no one will have a chance to say I told you so. You'll just have accept the fact that you're FUCKED ..... FOREVER.
And by the way, since you think you're so smart, and since you USED to be a Christian... newsflash. If you were ever a Christian, you were a retarded one, because all Christians know that there's no such thing as an Ex-Christian. You were Satan's child from the very beginning, unfortunately for you, you were born into a Christian home and had to fight your way out. Sucks for you. That's ok though. Christians are born into Satanic families all the time and they have to break free too. Lucky for them. So.....have fun in hell.....and good luck with your website and good luck trying to take as many people with you as you can. Misery likes company and you are obviously a miserable, miserable, miserable pathetic little man. I almost feel sorry for you, but..................... no, guess I don't. Guess I'm not a very good Christian, am I?
For a second there I thought maybe Satan himself created this website, and then I realized it's just stupid little Dan Barker, the disgruntled ex-christian with a tiny little penis, that no-one loves. Kill yourself and save God the trouble.
Love Always,
Jimmy (the non-politically-correct-Christian) - oops! Did I say a cuss word earlier?
LOL!
Christian compassion has never looked so insipid.
i think jesus used profanities all the time, I guess istthe reason people were so entertained listening to him.
You've seen Dan Barker's penis? Man, I'm jealous.... Details please.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
edited to add the following P.S.
P.S. Another sign of a True Christian™ --
When a True Christian™ has nothing of value to add to a conversation, criticize another man's equipment.
Well jimmy boy, I'm not Dan Barker, but I don't mind saying a few words to your comment of his post, written over SIX years ago to this website.
(I guess some xtians can't understand dates, unless they have BC/AD in them?)
>If you don't want to believe it, then don't believe it and move on with you life and go play baseball and racketball and forget about it. Why are non-christians so concerned with why they don't believe what they used to. Be a man, believe what you want, and move the fuck on!!!!!
We could and would, if maggots like yourself would learn to live in reality and stop preaching about imaginary awful things to the rest of us.
Fair enough?
>If Christianity is just a fallacy, why have you dedicated your life to convincing yourself and others that it is false?
Trust me, I didn't have to convince myself there is no jesus. The overwhelming evidence did that just fine, FOR ME.
i.e. No faith was necessary, unlike one needs to believe in a sky daddy.
>I fight for what I believe in, but what I don't do is dedicate my life to trying to prove to everyone that what they believe is wrong. You're all pretty much the most pathetic thing I've ever stumbled across. Just thought I'd drop in to make sure you know.
Well, you know what they say. The source of an opinion has to be considered and I'm pretty sure what source these words are vomiting from.
>I happened upon you website accidentally, but just couldn't help myself.
Is that what you said to the last girl you got pregnant to?
Just curious is all.
> You obviously have SO MUCH to say, I thought I'd just give my two cents once, but you won't see me here again, EVER, so don't worry.
Hey, don't spend that two cents you're worth, all in one place, okay?
>So, If Christianity is just that rediculous, then why not just let us retards believe what we want to? Are we hurting you.
Actually, you fools are quite dangerous, as you've clearly shown us here.
> If we are then I guess you're just a very sensitive group of non-christians. And by sensitive I mean WEAK!!!
You're calling us 'weak' and yet you're the one who bows down and kisses a god's butt.
If you could only see yourself as we see you.
>There are so many different religions and beliefs out there that I believe are false and have a negative effect on peoples lives and cause pain and suffering and death, and I wish they believed what I believe to be the truth.
Oh yes, surely it's YOU who have it right, who know the big god secret, because god thinks YOU are that special.
What kind of polish do you use on that mirror of yours anyway?
> But I personally believe in religious freedom.
Lier !!
> It's actually not my belief, it's just a fact,
If it's a "fact", then surely you can PROVE your facts to us....RIGHT?
We'll be waiting.
> You are free to believe anything you want. It's your body, it's your brain, it's your thoughts, it's your religion, it's your belief, it's your God.
Gosh, and you were doing so well there, until you got up to "religion" and "god"
Better luck next time in getting things right.
>But what you SHOULD not do it tell them why they are so fucked up.
I didn't realize you xtians took away our right to do that.
Well, I'll take my chances anyway.....You are FUCKED UP and the reason why, is because you believe in fairy tales and are probably too old to be doing so.
(sure hope this comment makes it past the curse filter...haha)
>That has never helped anyone, and one thing I can say for sure is that you are not even trying to help anyone and your reason for being here is not to help anyone.
Actually, to free one's mind of the religious meme, is indeed helping someone.
You'll never realize this, but it's all so true anyway.
> The reason you created this website and the reason you have put so much effort into this website, is because you DO believe in Christianity, you DO believe in God, but you HATE Christianity and you HATE God.
Thanks for telling me what I believe.
May I suggest that you don't quit your day job, as your hobby psychic abilities really SUCK.
To be clear, I do not believe in ANY GODS, yours or otherwise, period.
I know this is a hard concept for a xtian to fathom, but try anyway, ok.
Pssssst....If by hating god, you mean the sadistic toddler of the OT, then yes I do hate what the fiction writers did with his persona.
> Your father Satan, believes in God and he hates God too.
So are you saying that Satan had sex with my Mother and Mom doesn't know about it?
Wait until I tell her this one !!
> I don't have to try to convince you that he's real.
Actually, you really do need to do this to have any credibility here.
>I know that would be pointless anyways.
Yes, and that would be because you have ZERO evidence for this god to show anyone.
It exists inside your deluded mind and no where else. Pity on you.
> It's inevitable that you will find out for yourself.
I just love when you talk dirty to me. Do it again, okay.
> You'll ignore me for now and that's fine,
I didn't ignore you, because you're too much fun to screw with.
> but you'll remember me and what I've said,
Yes, at least until I hit that POST button anyway.
After that, all bets are off.
>and what everyone else like me has told you, and all the things you were taught before you became and EX-CHRISTIAN.
What I was taught before I found reality, was as welcome in my life as having root-canal work done.
>You'll have more time on your hands in hell than you do right now,
Well I sure hope that YOU won't be there with us !!
> You'll just have accept the fact that you're FUCKED ..... FOREVER.
Oh cool, eternal fucking. Who knew.
>And by the way, since you think you're so smart
I'm not really "SO" smart, just much smarter than you is all.
> and since you USED to be a Christian... newsflash. If you were ever a Christian, you were a retarded one,
Actually, if you ask me, a "retarded" xtian is well, you know.
> because all Christians know that there's no such thing as an Ex-Christian.
They must live in broom closets then, yes?
> You were Satan's child from the very beginning,
Well that sure explains those horns on my head then....not to mention this darn "tail" that won't stay inside my pants.
> unfortunately for you, you were born into a Christian home and had to fight your way out.
Nah, I didn't fight at all, just got smart is all.
> Sucks for you.
First we have "fucking", and now "sucking".
You xtians really are hung up on this sexual stuff, aren't ya?
>That's ok though. Christians are born into Satanic families all the time and they have to break free too.
Could you introduce a few of these to me?
They sound like a fun crowd for sure.
> Misery likes company
Which is why xtians cling together, isn't it?
>For a second there I thought maybe Satan himself created this website, and then I realized it's just stupid little Dan Barker,
Well, mister smart ass xitan, that just shows how really DUMB you are then.
Between posting a comment to a 6 year old post and thinking that one post was the entire website and that Dan was the webmaster to, well, no wonder your brain can't find it's way out of the xtian paper bag.
ATF (Who just loves these angry dumb xtians who think they speak for some god)
supercilious. He has done nothing but write eight large paragraphs
of rambling and blathering nonsense based on his belief in a big
invisable sky-man, and his equally invisable offspring. Because a
simple and superstitious society believed something two-thousand
years ago, good ol' Jimmy knows it has to be true. He obviously doesn't
have the smarts to understand why people examine Christianity and
then leave it.
His letter is a good example of so many of the fundie posts here.
Yes, he's a Christian. Oh boy, is he a Christian!
If you had posted your comment TO ME, I might have found it sooner. Instead I only found it by chance.
>ATF: I love how you skipped over the majority of my comment and focused in on my choice to follow the teachings of Christ.
Thanks ;)
> If you had paid attention to ANY of what I said, youd have seen the clear separation of "religion" and "faith".
Actually, I would almost agree with this premise, if your faith was kept totally to yourself.
The fact that you felt the 'urge' to bring your jesus "faith" to OUR attention here, makes it a "religion" to me and I bet to most here as well.
>The modern worldview of christianity is that of a slovenly, self-absorbed people who attribute to their "sacred text" whatever is necessary to "prove" a point and/or defend their half-assed motives.
Oh good, so then you reject this ancient bible book the rest of them use as a 'weapon' against non-xtians and sometimes, against other xtians as well, yes?
>The TRUE base of Christ's teachings is that of a selfless, loving, non-judgemental heart and willingness to connect with and help others regardless of their beliefs, or their lack of belief.
Okay, would you mind explaining to us just how you learned of these christ attributes, if not via the normal faith in the bible being god's book?
Did jesus actually pay you a visit in your home, perhaps a sit-down lunch or something?
>Whatever theological stance you claim, that is your business
Let me say this one time, very SLOWLY for you.
I have NO theological stance, for theology would imply some form of god, which I see no evidence for.
In case you didn't guess, I'm an ATHEIST....meaning, I have no god beliefs, whatsoever, see?
>. I simply expressed my views and left it at that, as is ENCOURAGED by the webmaster of this site as far as I've read. I did not come here to instigate a war of words, my friend.
Yes, our very KIND Webmaster Dave (unlike on most xtian sites), allows those of differing opinions, to express them here......up to a point that is.
However, you may have noticed that this is an EX-xtian website and that means no one here believes in this jesus or his daddy, regardless of whether you call worshipping those gods a religion or "personal choice".
Therefore, while you may post your jesus opinions here, I doubt our webmaster feels any need to protect you from the wrath you'll get from those who were greatly burnt by having faith in your personal (but imaginary) god.
Now if you, the non-religious jesus believer, wish to present some evidence for your belief in this god jesus, I'm sure we'll be happy to hear you out....at least for a time.
ATF (Who wonders if non-religious Russ here would agree with all the rest of the True Xtians visitors, who also claim not to be part of any religion?)
I grew up in a Christian family, though my parents are relatively open-minded and progressive. I was raised a Christian, being baptised as a child before i even had any comprehension of what i was getting into or capacity to consent. I know my parents meant well, but sometimes i can't help but feel violated at being "forced" (however inadvertently) into one belief system.
I used to be quite fervent, accepting all i'd heard in sunday school as *the Truth*. I even questioned my teacher in class when she started teaching us about evolution. If i could go back now, i'd give my old self a right smack across the head.
Things changed as i looked deeper. Questions kept cropping up. I couldn't answer them, and those who tried couldn't give me a satsfactory answer. I felt guilty for judging God, and some christians i talked to just made it worse.
It came to a head when i started studying history, and later on law. I thought to myself, what kind of sadistic God puts us through such suffering? If he's so all-powerful, why couldn't he just have ended things with adam and eve and started over? Why does God allow children to be afflicted with rubella and be born nearly brain-dead- putting the mother through such agony deciding whether to take the horrific step of abortion.
As things went on, it all made less and less sense.
So now, i'm practically a closet atheist. I'm angry and disillusioned, and increasingly agitated by the delusion i see all around me.
Atheists have presuppositions. Everyone does. It's ridiculous to allow them to say that Christians are the only people with presuppositions. That one always gets to me. No one is presuppositionless and to suggest one can be presuppositionless or that one is so will obviously make self look better than and more reliable than opposition, however untrue that is.
The bottom line, however, is this. On judgment day, I am going to be a lot more concerned about God's getting all the glory (becuase He is my life, and nothing could please me more than this) than I am about whether Dave here goes to heaven or hell. Don't get me wrong - I care about Dave's soul. My bigger concern, however, my greatest concern in all the universe, is that God be seen for Who He Is. That's going to come out on Judgment Day. So, I'm not up to sitting here and battling all this out logically. I've done it many a time before and I'm sure I'll do it many a time again. The argument will be settled once and for all one day though. Christians, take heart. God is on our side. One day there will be no more atheists. Everybody is going to know that there is a God, because everyone will be in His potent presence, for good or ill.
If the Christian God matched up perfectly with all our standards of what our little brains are able to handle, if He were exactly what we'd naturally like Him to be or think He should be in every particular, how could He be the true God? A god like that would obviously be one dreamed up by man. Yahweh's thoughts are higher than ours. Of course He could not be dreamed up by us. His differentness from what we naturally think a deity ought to be shows that He is not dependent on us for existence. He is self-existent, real, true, the One and Only God. One day that will be clear to all.
To God be the Glory! Amen.
Allah is the one true God. You are going to be very sorry when you face His holy judgment.
Obviously you have been deceived by the evil one. Until your heart is repentant toward Allah, you are without hope in this world or the world to come.
Please repent and come to the true GOD.
Repent Abby, you are going to the Hell of Tabitas.
You have forsaken him and youhave fallen far from his glory.
In his infinite mercy he may save you - but he is GOD and will do as he please.
You ignore him at your own peril!!
You shall be cast into perdition with all the other sinners.
Your false God cannot save you now Abby!
Glory be the One True God.
(fundie logic 101 - just use scare tactics and emotional blackmail - not required that deity actually exists - one does not need logic when brainwashed)
Atheists have presuppositions.
...which are?
Bottom line your whole world-view is based on a presupposition -- that a deity -- the one and only true christian god -- exists. "our triune Christian God is the one and only true God and is the creator of the universe who, takes an interest in me, loves me, accepts me, will reward me with the blissful pleasures of heaven, after my death; all my beliefs, extracted from scripture, will always be the best statement of truth, forever and anyone who disagrees with me will be tortured in the flames of hell, for an eternity." This presupposition -- obtained from your imaginative interpretation of scripture and flights of fancy, pulled out of your ass -- is a level of delusional, arrogance and superiority that is astonishing.
I defy you to exhibit objective evidence for the existence of this god and his supposed attributes.
--S.
Yes! However, nonbelief in the existence of something - in this case, "gods" - does not "pre-suppose" their non-existence in an absolute sense. I don't "presuppose" that invisible, conscious beings do not exist, anymore than you "presuppose" that transparent pixies don't live my garden. In other words, we don't assume that something exists until/unless it is proven NOT to exist. ' Make sense?
going to be very sorry when you face his holy judgement, and he sends you
to Pasta Hell where you will be boiled for all eternity in steaming tomato
sauce. Until your meatballs are repentant toward Him, you are without hope
in the world to come. Repent, and and come to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
(And be sure to bring a fork).
Silly? No sillier than what Abbey just wrote.
Unfortunately, the website seems to be on life-support right now, so many of the links no longer work. Those that do, haven't been updated in years. The given explanation - "...we are currently working on fixing the damage the nonbelievers did to our Church, don't worry, the pews will be looking good soon..."
Never fear, most of the really important info can be found at margaritaville.com, including the lyrics to the
(in)famous, irreverent 1975 song My Head Hurts, My Feet Stink, and I Don't Love Jesus.
;-)
Abby, by your own words then, we don’t need to be concerned. You wrote “Until God changes a sinner's heart, the sinner is going to become only more and more hardened and convinced in his views against God.”
So it is not up to us…it’s up to this god thing you wrote about. Whew!
If it had been a “heart problem” as you called it, I would have scheduled bypass surgery. But since my heart can’t think, reason, believe or even hear anything, I’ll go with it being a problem of logic, because it is the mind that is the realm of this god you believe in. And it is in your mind, not ours. No one made you come here and spew out your christian threat, you made a conscious decision to do it, using your bible-poisoned logic, to win “brownie points” with your imaginary friend and maybe putting a little more down payment on that palace you believe you’ll inherit in heaven.
I don’t believe you are concerned about anyone’s soul any more than you are concerned about what kind of trees grow in New Guinea. It just makes you feel good to claim you do, while obliquely threatening us…with judgment day, christians take heart, god is on our side, and heaven and hell! Is your faith so weak that the only way you can only bring glory to god by threatening us?
Until [biblegod] changes a sinner's heart, the sinner is going to become only more and more hardened and convinced in his views against [biblegod].
By its own admission, it is clear that we have no "free will", and that it is clearly "God" who determines who "He" will "save", or not "save". Perfect. So, in that case, it is actually part of "God's Plan" that there exists sites like this, and people like us. After all, biblical "Prophecy" supports the existence of nonbelievers, as well. We couldn't have the predictions of "God" fail, could we? No, of course not, that would bring the Almighty's "omniscience" into question.
I love it when a "Plan" comes together. Voila`!!!
The matter of "Christian Ethics" is very important in the debate about the truth or validity of Christianity. Christians will often refer to the "high ethical standards" of Jesus in an effort to buttress their contention that they have the True Religion. Even nominal Christians and many non-Christians have considered Jesus to be one of history's great "moral teachers." But are such claims true, and do they stand up under scrutiny? I intend to explore that issue and hope to shed some light on a matter not often discussed.
1. What did Jesus Teach?
That isn't such an easy question to actually answer, believe it or not. It isn't entirely certain what exactly he taught. The earliest Christian writers, Paul included, have little or nothing to say about his ethical teachings, even when it would be to their obvious advantage to do so. The seeming ignorance on the part of the early writers raises the legitimate question of whether or not Jesus really did teach what the later writers say.
In later writings, there is real controversy as to what statements attributed to him might actually be original. The Jesus Seminar doesn't believe that very many can justifiably be called original to Jesus. An obvious explanation of this discrepancy would be that the alleged teachings are later additions, but since so many Christians either ignore this problem or do not accept this solution and follow what is laid down in the Gospels, that is what further critiques will have to deal with.
2. Is there an ethical system?
"Great ethical teachers" commonly develop full and coherent ethical systems which provide a comprehensive basis for teaching proper behavior and attitudes. Unfortunately, no such system is to be found. Instead we find a patchwork homilies and pronouncements, some of which are unclear and others of which are contradictory.
3. If he didn't have a system, what about his main principle?
Many Christians will quickly refer to what is considered his primary principle: "You shall love the Lord God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment." (Matthew 22:37-38). However, it must be remembered that the context of Jesus' ministry was harsh, otherworldly, and very urgent - thus casting a slightly different light on this "great commandment." According to Jesus, the Kingdom of God was very close at hand (Matthew 4:17) and would in fact come into being within the lifetime of some of those around him (Mark 9:1).
Because of this, he was not particularly concerned with typical worldly problems, saying that people should "sell all that they have" (Luke 18:22), neglecting his family despite their importance in Jewish culture (Matthew 12:46-50), and predicted that his teachings would lead to brother killing brother (Matthew 10:21) and followers hating members of their own family (Luke 14:26). Anyone who did not renounce all that they had could not become a disciple, and anyone who rejected his teaching would receive severe punishment. Does any of this logically follow from the principle of love? What kind of God requires a love which leads to neglect of family? killing family?
Unsurprisingly, little of this is actually followed by Christians today. How many Christians are genuinely unconcerned about their future? Indeed, any rational and moral person who considers a free and just society important would have to invest a great deal of concern in the future. Many of the most serious problems which face us today, especially environmental, are often the result of not planning enough or properly.
4. What about the "Golden Rule?"
The "Golden Rule" has been around in different forms and in different cultures for a long time before Jesus, but he has unfortunately come to be remembered as its originator. The two formulations: "So whatever you wish that people would do to you, do so to them" (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31), or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" are probably often thought of with Jesus. Jesus is also credited with having been the originator of "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27) even though this was, in fact, an Old Testament idea which he borrowed (Leviticus 19:18).
But despite all of this, Jesus himself often did not follow these rules. Although he taught that people should love their enemies, he accorded much less than that to people who simply disagreed with him. He displayed barely concealed contempt for his gentile neighbors, equating them with "dogs" (Mark 7:27), and once instructing his disciples to "Go nowhere among the gentiles" (Matthew 10:5). He even at refused to heal a gentile child until the child's mother came up with a clever saying (Matthew 15:21-28).
Jesus spoke out specifically against anger: "Anyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment" (Matthew 5:22); in fact, the context here actually equates anger with killing. So it would be reasonably to conclude that Jesus would not exhibit the anger to others which he would not want to receive. Can anyone imagine Jesus actually engaged in actions which are much like murder? It is surprising, therefore, to find that, on several occasions, Jesus displayed anger.
4. Shouldn't we have faith in Jesus?
His demand for followers to have absolute faith in him is perhaps his most novel, since his other commandments were already anticipated in earlier Jewish writings (for example, the command to love one's neighbor). Oddly enough, it is a commandment often copied by later cult leaders throughout the world. The Branch Davidians certainly put a lot of faith in David Koresh. But what is a person to have faith in, exactly? That Jesus is "the son of God?" "the son of Man?" Then why was Jesus normally so hesitant to clearly state that those phrases indeed described him? (Luke 22:70). How can someone reasonably follow the command to have faith when they aren't sure what the faith is supposed to be in or about?
And why did Jesus teach that people should attempt to control their thoughts, emotions, and desires (Matthew 5:21-28)? This point is rarely discussed among Christian ethicists - and for good reason. If we are not to contemplate any sort of evil, that would stifle art and literature tremendously. Could he really have believed that thoughts and emotions were bad in and of themselves, regardless of consequences? There is little reason to suppose that his view is true, and the view that they should be stringently controlled isn't very justified.
5. Wasn't Jesus' behavior exemplary?
Unfortunately, no. His actual behavior does not live up to the idealized image often made of him. For example, he explicitly taught that anyone who didn't fully embrace his teachings would be subject to the severest of punishments - hellfire. This is hardly the action of even a very nice person, much less an exemplary person. In addition, despite the fact that he regularly complained about the hypocrisy of others, he himself was guilty of hypocrisy on a number of occasions. Jesus often accused the Pharisees (and others who did not share his opinions) of being "vipers" or "hypocrites" ( Matthew 12:34, 15:7, 22:18, 23:27, 23:33). Amazingly he went on to call some of them "fools" after having specifically told others not to use this term, warning that to do so would make them liable to the "fire of hell!" (Matthew 5:22, 23:17).
Furthermore, he preached the principle of forgiveness of others who transgress, but he was adamant that anyone guilty of the simple act of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit could not possibly receive any sort of forgiveness - and odd stipulation for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. How can any act, especially the utterance of a few words, so harm an omnipotent and all-good god so as to prevent forgiveness?
At times he preached nonresistance to evil, something which has inspired many people to become absolute pacifists, never raising a hand to defend against aggression. However, Jesus did not always practice this, for example chasing moneylenders out of the temple and destroying property instead of attempting to win them over with love. Could generations of pacifists have made the wrong decision?
Perhaps worse, and one thing which prevents many humanists and rational ethicists from according Jesus the status of "Great Moral Teacher," is the fact that did not stand for any intellectual virtues - clearly not valuing reason or learning. He rarely offered listeners any sort of reason for his commands, and when he did it was of two kinds: either because the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, or because anyone who obeyed would receive a reward while those who didn't would be punished in Hell. What kind of teacher attempts to coerce followers with threats?
No rational justifications were ever given, and it is reasonable to presume that he did not consider critical thinking to be of any value whereas faith in the absence of or in opposition to evidence is proper. A rational person would have to reject any set of values which are based on blind obedience and which rejects the basic principles of reasoning.
6. Doesn't Jesus serve as an ethical model for good family values?
Jesus was fond of repeating the Old Testament commandment: "Honor your father and mother" (Exodus 20:12; Matthew 15:4, 19:19; Mark 7:10, 10:19;Luke 18:20). Unfortunately, Jesus did not always treat his own earthly father and mother with the respect warranted, and his odd behavior sometimes actually brought dishonor to them!
There are no biblical references at all indicating that Jesus ever spoke to his father, Joseph, and only a few instances given where Jesus spoke to his mother, Mary. In each of those cases, Jesus was curt, if not actually rude. He once scolded his mother for even seeking him at all (after he had, at the age of twelve, been missing for several days), "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I had to be in my Father's house?" was his retort. Twice addressed her only as "woman!" I don't know about anyone else, but my own mother wouldn't react too kindly to such treatment.
At the famous wedding in Cana, when his mother mentioned that the wine was running low, Jesus replied: "Woman, what have you to do with me?" (John 2:4). Few mothers would regard such a remark from even a grown child kindly. If there was ever an instance that Jesus spoke respectfully to his mother or father, we have not been told about it.
There are many biblical references to the contempt and ridicule which Jesus attracted from the populace and the religious leaders of his day. Even his own family tried to restrain him once when he appeared to be acting strangely (and as a consequence, had attracted quite a bit of attention): "And when his family heard about it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, 'He is beside himself [crazy]. He is possessed by Beelzebub'" (Mark 3:21). His disgraceful death on a Roman cross could only have brought dishonor to his mother and father "...for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree'" (Galatians 3:13).
6. Aren't Jesus' teachings what we need to help us cope with ethical problems today?
In short: no. Jesus addressed few if any of the complicated problems which face modern society: abortion, death penalty, euthanasia, cloning, war, racial, ethnic, & sexual discrimination, slavery, etc. No pronouncements were made regarding the moral questions regarding democracy, socialism, economic justice, etc (which will come as a surprise to many conservative Christians in America who seem to regard capitalism as the only system ordained by their god).
In fact, in some cases, his silence can be regarded as approval, especially with issues like slavery. The practice of slavery was widespread throughout the Roman Empire and Judea at the time, and if he had anything negative to say about it, we certainly should have heard. Instead, he seems to have considered it more important for a slave to stay with or return to his/her master rather than become free. It is notable that Paul commanded the early Christians to continue unabated with the practice. If this hadn't been the case, the United States might not have had to fight a Civil War over the issue, and millions of lives and untold death and suffering might have been avoided.
So, assuming that Jesus' original moral teachings are actually contained in the synoptic Gospels, it seems clear that they are in large part irrelevant, indefensible, or not original to him. The otherworldliness, harshness, and insistence on unthinking obedience, and mean-spirited vindictiveness are not only unacceptable, but quite a long ways from the claim of "moral perfection." What's more, his silent approval of things like slavery make him an unjustified model of morality.
1-The Old Testament and the new testament are one book in two parts. The first part speaks of prophecies and symbols about Jesus and the New Testament is Jesus, his life and his message to the world.
2-I will only respond to claims made using verses and will not respond to any general claim without proof..
PrinceM wote: 1. What did Jesus Teach?
That isn't such an easy question to actually answer, believe it or not. It isn't entirely certain what exactly he taught. The earliest Christian writers, Paul included, have little or nothing to say about his ethical teachings, even when it would be to their obvious advantage to do so. The seeming ignorance on the part of the early writers raises the legitimate question of whether or not Jesus really did teach what the later writers say. In later writings, there is real controversy as to what statements attributed to him might actually be original. The Jesus Seminar doesn't believe that very many can justifiably be called original to Jesus. An obvious explanation of this discrepancy would be that the alleged teachings are later additions, but since so many Christians either ignore this problem or do not accept this solution and follow what is laid down in the Gospels, that is what further critiques will have to deal with.
***Well, Jesus sealed the bible with his own signature, in the last chapter in the last book, in the last page he says..
16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.
18 For[a] I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add[b] to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away[c] his part from the Book[d] of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
So, let’s judge him, he says he is responsible for everything that comes in the book, and by his book we judge him….it is true that he did not personally write any of it but his Holy Sprit did.. and therefore, he takes responsibility for all of it..
PrinceM wrote: 2. Is there an ethical system?
"Great ethical teachers" commonly develop full and coherent ethical systems which provide a comprehensive basis for teaching proper behavior and attitudes. Unfortunately, no such system is to be found. Instead we find a patchwork homilies and pronouncements, some of which are unclear and others of which are contradictory.
***This is not specific … make a specific claim …
PrinceM wrote: 3. If he didn't have a system, what about his main principle?
Many Christians will quickly refer to what is considered his primary principle: "You shall love the Lord God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment." (Matthew 22:37-38). However, it must be remembered that the context of Jesus' ministry was harsh, otherworldly, and very urgent - thus casting a slightly different light on this "great commandment." According to Jesus, the Kingdom of God was very close at hand (Matthew 4:17) and would in fact come into being within the lifetime of some of those around him (Mark 9:1).
***Continue to read the rest of the chapter in Mark 9:1-7
1 And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”
2 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John, and led them up on a high mountain apart by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became shining, exceedingly white, like snow, such as no launderer on earth can whiten them. 4 And Elijah appeared to them with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. 5 Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; and let us make three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah”— 6 because he did not know what to say, for they were greatly afraid.
7 And a cloud came and overshadowed them; and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son”
So, Jesus said “till they see the kingdom of God present with power” and three witnesses (Peter, John and Jacob” saw the Kingdom of God Present with Power on the mountain a week latter .. in their life time. So he did not lie …
PrinceM wrote: Because of this, he was not particularly concerned with typical worldly problems, saying that people should "sell all that they have" (Luke 18:22), neglecting his family despite their importance in Jewish culture (Matthew 12:46-50),
***Jesus knew this man loved his money more than God, it was said also in the bible
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.( 1 Timothy 6:10)
And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-25
Jesus was trying to teach that man to love God more than money, in no way did he wanted him to leave his family in hunger because he knows that we need food and shelter and other worldly things but the point is to Love God more than things.. and to prove that he also said
6 “Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins?[a] And not one of them is forgotten before God. 7 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. Luke 12:6
30 Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
31 “Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Matthew 6:30-33
PrinceM wrote: and predicted that his teachings would lead to brother killing brother (Matthew 10:21) and followers hating members of their own family (Luke 14:26).
***it is sad but it is true, read this story http://www.mentalmayhem.net/newswire/honor_crimes/ the true story as reported by the victims husband (Sultan) was that his wife Rana’s family found out about her converting to Christianity and they killed her and took away his two young daughters http://islameyat.com/post_details.php?id=495&ca... and many stories like that , but one thing you will notice in such stories, the new Christians are always the victims ..and I wish you could see that episode in English, but her husband is actually doing what Jesus said,, he has forgiven his in laws whom by the way are his uncle and cousins and is praying for them.. so, yes, he said it and it is true…
PrinceM wrote: Anyone who did not renounce all that they had could not become a disciple, and anyone who rejected his teaching would receive severe punishment. Does any of this logically follow from the principle of love? What kind of God requires a love which leads to neglect of family? Killing family? Unsurprisingly, little of this is actually followed by Christians today. How many Christians are genuinely unconcerned about their future? Indeed, any rational and moral person who considers a free and just society important would have to invest a great deal of concern in the future. Many of the most serious problems which face us today, especially environmental, are often the result of not planning enough or properly.
***Hmmm, too general.. show some verses from the bible to support such claims…
PrinceM wrote: 4. What about the "Golden Rule?"
The "Golden Rule" has been around in different forms and in different cultures for a long time before Jesus, but he has unfortunately come to be remembered as its originator. The two formulations: "So whatever you wish that people would do to you, do so to them" (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31), or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" are probably often thought of with Jesus. Jesus is also credited with having been the originator of "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27) even though this was, in fact, an Old Testament idea which he borrowed (Leviticus 19:18).
****Ahh ..it is the same book, does he need a permission to refer to a prior chapter in his book?
Ahh.. the Gentiles …
Ok, before we talk about the claims we must understand when the circumcisions start, why and when it was removed…
It started with Ibrahim, God had made a covenant with him…
9 And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
Why?
Because it is permanent, and it shows obedience form the people to God, as if it is a sign of a group of people . a circumcised person is known to be a Jew forever… it is a symbol of cutting of the sinful life and leaving it behind.. and it was a way to tell the Jews apart form their pagan neighbors. So, in the Old Testament being Gentile, means you don’t belong to God’s people and it symbolizes sinful life.
When was it removed?
In the new testament, Jesus told them not to go to the Gentiles who are every one who is not Jew, because he wanted the Jews first, after all they are his people, then go to the gentiles, who are Romans, Greeks, Egyptians..etc. Read Below, After you read this, we can even take it a step further
Acts 15
Conflict over Circumcision
1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.
3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. 4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
The Jerusalem Council
6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ[a] we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.’[b]
18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works.[c] 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,[d]from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
But despite all of this, Jesus himself often did not follow these rules. Although he taught that people should love their enemies, he accorded much less than that to people who simply disagreed with him. He displayed barely concealed contempt for his gentile neighbors, equating them with "dogs" (Mark 7:27), and once instructing his disciples to "Go nowhere among the gentiles" (Matthew 10:5). He even at refused to heal a gentile child until the child's mother came up with a clever saying (Matthew 15:21-28).
***Both highlighted verses are of the same incident repeated in Mark and Matthew.
Mark 7:25-31
25 For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.”
28 And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.”
29 Then He said to her, “For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.”
30 And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed.
***I am copying what came in the explanation of the bible book…
“Dog” was the word used by the Jews to describe any one who is not a Jew because at this time, they did not think of pagans more than dogs. , and in no way was Jesus trying to insult that woman he was just trying to explain that Children (Jews) are to eat first then the rest, and she did not even object to it. And she used the same words that he used and she showed that she is willing to be considered as a dog to get the blessings so her daughter would be healed. And the funny thing is many Jews rejected Jesus while many gentiles accepted him whom the Jews always considered them to be dogs.
Now: As for Matthew 10:5 , it is the same thing, he came for the jews first then the rest of the world… including Egypt by the way…
PrinceM wote: Jesus spoke out specifically against anger: "Anyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment" (Matthew 5:22); in fact, the context here actually equates anger with killing. So it would be reasonably to conclude that Jesus would not exhibit the anger to others which he would not want to receive. Can anyone imagine Jesus actually engaged in actions which are much like murder? It is surprising, therefore, to find that, on several occasions, Jesus displayed anger.
****Bring up specific incidents and we can discuss them like we did above…
PrinceM wrrote: 4. Shouldn't we have faith in Jesus?
His demand for followers to have absolute faith in him is perhaps his most novel, since his other commandments were already anticipated in earlier Jewish writings (for example, the command to love one's neighbor). Oddly enough, it is a commandment often copied by later cult leaders throughout the world. The Branch Davidians certainly put a lot of faith in David Koresh. But what is a person to have faith in, exactly?
***No point to respond to here
PrinceM wrote: That Jesus is "the son of God?" "the son of Man?" Then why was Jesus normally so hesitant to clearly state that those phrases indeed described him? (Luke 22:70). How can someone reasonably follow the command to have faith when they aren't sure what the faith is supposed to be in or about?
***-IS JESUS GOD?
If an idea is born out of the mind, it does not mean that the mind had married another and had a baby idea, that is how is Jesus to God, sorta of … so, it has his thoughts, his adjectives and his substance. So Jesus is an expression of God.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:1
“60 And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” 61 But He kept silent and answered nothing.
Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”
62 Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Mark 14:60-62
16 For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him,[a] because He had done these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.”
18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. 19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel.21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. john 5:16-21
Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has bound the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is His Son’s name,
If you know? Proverbs 30:4
6 And He said to me, “It is done![a] I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things,[b] and I will be his God and he shall be My son. Revelation 21:6-7
10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn Zechariah 12:10
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?”
They said to Him, “ The Son of David.”
43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying:
44 ‘ The LORD said to my Lord,
“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”’?[a]
45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?” 46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.
And much much more …
PrinceM wrote: And why did Jesus teach that people should attempt to control their thoughts, emotions, and desires (Matthew 5:21-28)? This point is rarely discussed among Christian ethicists - and for good reason. If we are not to contemplate any sort of evil, that would stifle art and literature tremendously. Could he really have believed that thoughts and emotions were bad in and of themselves, regardless of consequences? There is little reason to suppose that his view is true, and the view that they should be stringently controlled isn't very justified.
***How could a human stand up for prayer to ask God’s mercy when his mind is full of evil thought, when his heart is unclean …sin is like a rabbit, it keeps on having babies, of more sinful ideas and what do they do, the heart slowly moves further and further form God the source of light, that is why King David says …
1 Have mercy upon me, O God,
According to Your loving-kindness;
According to the multitude of Your tender mercies,
Blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
And cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions,
And my sin is always before me.
4 Against You, You only, have I sinned,
And done this evil in Your sight—
That You may be found just when You speak,[a]
And blameless when You judge.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
6 Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts,
And in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8 Make me hear joy and gladness,
That the bones You have broken may rejoice.
9 Hide Your face from my sins,
And blot out all my iniquities.
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me away from Your presence,
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of Your salvation,
And uphold me by Your generous Spirit.
13 Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
And sinners shall be converted to You.
14 Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God,
The God of my salvation,
And my tongue shall sing aloud of Your righteousness.
15 O Lord, open my lips,
And my mouth shall show forth Your praise.
16 For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it;
You do not delight in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,
A broken and a contrite heart—
These, O God, You will not despise.
18 Do good in Your good pleasure to Zion;
Build the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness,
With burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
Then they shall offer bulls on Your altar.
PrinceM wrote: 5. Wasn't Jesus' behavior exemplary?
Unfortunately, no. His actual behavior does not live up to the idealized image often made of him. For example, he explicitly taught that anyone who didn't fully embrace his teachings would be subject to the severest of punishments - hellfire. This is hardly the action of even a very nice person, much less an exemplary person. In addition, despite the fact that he regularly complained about the hypocrisy of others, he himself was guilty of hypocrisy on a number of occasions. Jesus often accused the Pharisees (and others who did not share his opinions) of being "vipers" or "hypocrites" ( Matthew 12:34, 15:7, 22:18, 23:27, 23:33). Amazingly he went on to call some of them "fools" after having specifically told others not to use this term, warning that to do so would make them liable to the "fire of hell!" (Matthew 5:22, 23:17).
***I am going to list each and every verse mentioned above so we may discuss it …
33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit.34 Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Matthew 12:34
What does the viper do, pretend to be something that it is not…
Matthew 15:7, we will read it in context
1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’;[a] and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’[c] Thus you have made the commandment[d] of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
8 ‘ These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And[e]honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”[f]
10 When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand: +++++++++++what was wrong with that?
22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[a] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22 what is wrong with that?
16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.’ 17 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies[b] the gold? Matthew 23:16-17 you are upset because he called them fools? How would you describe some on who does not understand an obvious thing?
PrinceM wrote: Furthermore, he preached the principle of forgiveness of others who transgress, but he was adamant that anyone guilty of the simple act of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit could not possibly receive any sort of forgiveness
AHHHHHHH…that is a big big big deal…..
31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
To blaspheme the Holy Spirit means denying the holy sprit’s work in helping a human regret his sins, because unless a person regrets his sins he can’t be saved, and if a person refuses to repent and admit to his sins means he refuses God’s forgiveness. Jesus said it will not be forgiven not because of the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit but for not asking for God’s forgiveness. So, if you say, there is no such a thing as the Holy Spirit, and I do not need to repent anything or ask for forgiveness for anything then how could you be saved?
The Holy Spirit is the Key that allows God to work within a human being…
PrinceM wrote: - and odd stipulation for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. How can any act, especially the utterance of a few words, so harm an omnipotent and all-good god so as to prevent forgiveness?
***God does not force his forgiveness on people, unless you ask for it, you will not get it…
PrinceM wrote: At times he preached nonresistance to evil, something which has inspired many people to become absolute pacifists, never raising a hand to defend against aggression. However, Jesus did not always practice this, for example chasing moneylenders out of the temple and destroying property instead of attempting to win them over with love. Could generations of pacifists have made the wrong decision?
***Jesus expressed anger when he went to the temple and saw it became a market rather than a house for prayers
12 Then Jesus went into the temple of God[a] and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. 13 And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’[b] but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.” Matthew 12:12-13
The house of God is to be holy, and if you would not get angry if some one disrespects it, then what would one be angry about? Remember the Golden temple and the horses…
PrinceM wrote: Perhaps worse, and one thing which prevents many humanists and rational ethicists from according Jesus the status of "Great Moral Teacher," is the fact that did not stand for any intellectual virtues - clearly not valuing reason or learning. He rarely offered listeners any sort of reason for his commands, and when he did it was of two kinds: either because the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, or because anyone who obeyed would receive a reward while those who didn't would be punished in Hell. What kind of teacher attempts to coerce followers with threats? No rational justifications were ever given, and it is reasonable to presume that he did not consider critical thinking to be of any value whereas faith in the absence of or in opposition to evidence is proper. A rational person would have to reject any set of values which are based on blind obedience and which rejects the basic principles of reasoning.
***No, God does not threat humans, he is just and he respects the human choices, and as we are his creation we live by his law, his law says, follow me and you shall live, or do not and you shall die… it is either black or white, nothing gray about it…the choice is up to the person, he chooses his end..
PrinceM wrote: 6. Doesn't Jesus serve as an ethical model for good family values
Jesus was fond of repeating the Old Testament commandment: "Honor your father and mother" (Exodus 20:12; Matthew 15:4, 19:19; Mark 7:10, 10:19;Luke 18:20). Unfortunately, Jesus did not always treat his own earthly father and mother with the respect warranted, and his odd behavior sometimes actually brought dishonor to them! There are no biblical references at all indicating that Jesus ever spoke to his father, 1-Joseph, and only a few instances given where Jesus spoke to his mother, Mary. In each of those cases, Jesus was curt, if not actually rude. He once scolded his mother for even seeking him at all (after he had, at the age of twelve, been missing for several days), 2-"How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I had to be in my Father's house?" was his retort. Twice addressed her only as 3-"woman!" I don't know about anyone else, but my own mother wouldn't react too kindly to such treatment. At the famous wedding in Cana, when his mother mentioned that the wine was running low, Jesus replied: "Woman, what have you to do with me?" (John 2:4). Few mothers would regard such a remark from even a grown child kindly. If there was ever an instance that Jesus spoke respectfully to his mother or father, we have not been told about it.
**1-Joseph, he was not his father and he did not really have a vital role in the ministry of Jesus. Therefore he was not mentioned in the bible, just like it was not mentioned who of the neighbors kids did Jesus play with as a child… he was also assumed that he died sometime when Jesus was growing up.
2-2-"How is it that you sought me?
His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. 42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. 43 When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother[a] did not know it; 44 but supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances. 45 So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. 46 Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. 48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.”
49 And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” 50 But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them. 51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them, but His mother kept all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. Luke 2:41-52.
They knew he was the Son of God, but they did not exactly understand his work, never the less, he obeyed and went home with them…he did not yell at her…he was just trying to explain what he has to do….
3-"woman!" I did not find a particular explanation in my book, but I will ask about it..
PrinceM wrote: There are many biblical references to the contempt and ridicule which Jesus attracted from the populace and the religious leaders of his day. Even his own family tried to restrain him once when he appeared to be acting strangely (and as a consequence, had attracted quite a bit of attention):
"And when his family heard about it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, 'He is beside himself [crazy]. He is possessed by Beelzebub'"(Mark 3:21).
***20 Then the multitude came together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. 21 But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind.”
22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebub,” and, “By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.”
23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end. 27 No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house. Mark 3:20-23 read the whole thing in context knowing that Beelzebub'" is a Shitan boss!!
PrinceM wrote: His disgraceful death on a Roman cross could only have brought dishonor to his mother and father "...for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree'" (Galatians 3:13).
***Again, read the whole thing in Context
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”[a]), Galatians 3:13 that was the purpose of Jesus Christ … this alone can be a 2 hour discussion on how and why ……
Continue?
Where exactly Reny, did you BEGIN in this thread?
Reny: The Old Testament and the new testament are one book in two parts. The first part speaks of prophecies and symbols about Jesus
I think the Jews would like a word or two with you on this jesus assertion.
Reny: I will only respond to claims made using verses and will not respond to any general claim without proof..
Why does this not surprise me one bit.
Reny: Well, Jesus sealed the bible with his own signature, in the last chapter in the last book, in the last page he says..
Oh, so because someone wrote this down, that means jesus really did it, right?
If Harry Potter signed the last page of one of his novels in this fashion, would you believe Harry was real because you had a "signed copy" ?
Reny: IS JESUS GOD
The more burning question here is, does jesus or god even exists?
Reny: How could a human stand up for prayer to ask God’s mercy when his mind is full of evil thought, when his heart is unclean
So typical of the xtian god, to ignore anyone he deems evil hearted, who doesn't live up to his impossible standards.
BTW, what kind of soap does one use to clean their unclean heart pump?
Reny: To blaspheme the Holy Spirit means denying the holy sprit’s work in helping a human regret his sins...
Would that include insisting that before one can believe in this holy spirit, that god provides some credible proof of it's existence in MY reality?
Pssst, You don't by chance have any proof of this god or holy ghostie, do you?
Reny: The Holy Spirit is the Key that allows God to work within a human being
Yeah, I've seen the fruits of this holy spirit and how homogenous all you "true xtians" are because of it....NOT!
Reny: God does not force his forgiveness on people
Of course not, for he would have to actually exists before he could do that, right.
Reny: Jesus expressed anger when he went to the temple and saw it became a market rather than a house for prayers
Funny how both god and jesus have some very HUMAN emotions, isn't it?
Don't you find it a bit odd that a "god" would have such emotions and yet still call himself all-everything?
Reny: No, God does not threat humans
In a word, LIER!!
[Sheesh, what a false statement for one to make]
Okay, I'm stopping here, because my eyeballs are shedding blood now, from this very long irrelevant, diatribe, that greatly presumes Ex-Xtians really care about such fine details about a work of ancient fiction.
ATF (Who would be just as bored if someone was debating the fine art of casting evil spells upon one's enemies)
Here is the sad thing about apologetics from RenyK
Quoting verses from the Bible is akin to quoting HArry potter books for evidence that Harry Potter exists.
Its a desperate act by someone who really has no evidence that his version of the christian version of God is real.
Argument from nonsense
ATF (Who can't help but to wonder such things)
Keep up the good work, wish I could join you in a far more proactive capacity at the moment. But I am begining to have nightmares about recurring Excel sheets.
Obviously we have a case here of demonic possession by the "Overwork Demon", who goes by the earthly name of "MS. Excel".
What you need Monkeys, is a good old fashioned Ex-Xtian Exorcism.
Let me try this....
I command you "Excel Demon", to leave the body and mind of my friend Monkey's, in the name of Zeus, Thor, and Hercules, and if those aren't enough to scare you out, then I'm summoning Spiderman, Batman, and Superman to.
[ATF then tosses some magic gold teeth at the demon and watches it melt like the Wicked Witch of Oz]
There Monkey's, I think you should be free of all "work" demons now.
ATF (Who is still working on the spell to stop those nightmares to)
--S.
I sure hope that excorcism works!With the combined powers of Spiderman, Batman and Superman (the trinity) that demon has got no chance.
I myself whisper a prayer or two to the Incredible Hulk when I am really feeling down. LOL!
I will only respond to claims made using verses and will not respond to any general claim without proof...
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Where's your "proof" that the mile long list of verses you vomited up have any validity?
Clue you in -- they have zero validity and your bogus sense of authority is nothing but delusional bullshit.
--S.
Jesus never claims to be God. The verses, you undoubtedly, will quote, to rationalize your dogmatic position, are far and few in between and come mostly from the peculiar and distinctive John. These verses are almost always quoted out of context and layers of interpretation are piled upon them, without really examining the real, simplified explanation. When Jesus says, "I and the Father are one", contextually, he means that they are on the same page -- that they are of one mind, trying to accomplish the same goals, not in any metaphysical sense, where they are two beings, magically, bonded together. Likewise, when Jesus says, "If you have seen me you have seen my Father", the simple more accurate explanation is, he letting everyone know that his actions are in accord with God's will and is not declaring he, himself, was God.
Jesus even goes out of his way to say he isn't God.
Matthew 19:17 and Mark 10:18
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good ? No one is good except God alone."
John 14:28 "...I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."
Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour no one knows , not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."
John 20:17 ...I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.
Christianity contends Jesus is a full blown schizophrenic. When in reality, Jesus and god are imaginary and the NT was written and embellished by several different authors, who couldn't get their stories straight.
--S.
I say i find teachings of bible WRONG morally!! As a civilized person, i find it wrong to:
1. kill disbelievers - luke 19 27
2. kill those who work on sabbath - ex 35 2
3. kill children of the enemies - num 31 17, deut 23 13, psalm 137 9, lev 26 29
4. kill homosexuals - lev 2. 13
5. kill a woman who is not a virgin at the time of marriage - deut 22 13-21
6. hate women who wear pants - deut 22 5
7. hate a man with long hair (Jesus himself?) - 1cor 11 14
Now i iknow that you are no scientist, as you said yourself, but do you have any morals? I hope you do.....
Reny,
I do believe you meant to say the Red Sea, yes?
Not being an eyewitness to this grand event, leaves us to search for other secular historical evidence, that this biblical-parting-story of the Red Sea took place.
Have we found the remains of all those chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea?
Last I heard, they only found a couple chariot wheels, but no chariots, nor any large quantity of skeletal remains from men and/or horses that surely died in that Sea etc..
Shouldn't we see in Egyptian recorded history (as they kept meticulous records of such), the story of all the Jews fleeing Egypt and how a large part of their army were drowned when this Sea mysteriously just opened up for the Jews, but swallowed the evil Egyptian soldiers?
Why is history so quiet on such a memorable event?
Reny: ..and i may not be able to prove that God appeared in a burning bush even though it still exist till today and it is a big old tree that is still green,
How's that again.
You say they have pointed to some present-day old "TREE", and somehow they are sure this is "THE BUSH" that god had burning?
Please explain just how it is that they know this, other than hearsay and some wishful thinking?
Did Moses have a GPS with him at the time, to determine the exact location of this bush?
Reny: as i am not a scientist and i can't give you the Holy Spirit which we have that helps you understand such things
No, I'm quite sure you can't 'give' us this holy spirit, but not for the reasons you think.
Perhaps this holy spirit materializes itself for you believers?
In that case, maybe some True Xtian can summon this holy spirit, so I can witness it hovering in the room myself?
Reny: i know it is difficult to understand the nature of God because He is too holy for our week and limited minds ...
I'm reading your words here, but really, they aren't saying very much to me.
You say the holy spirit is "too holy".
Hey, I'll settle for you proving that this spirit is just plain old "holy", let alone TOO HOLY.
BTW, what exactly does it mean for a thing to be "HOLY"?
You then say we have "week and limited minds".
I do believe you meant to say WEAK, yes?
So our minds are limited, you say?
As compared to WHAT?
Best as I can determine, the human mind is the most advanced mind around these parts of the universe. Of course, you might be comparing our minds to your god's mind, but you have yet to prove such a god-brain actually exists, right?
Worse, if god's mind is so advanced to ours, then perhaps it is impossible for even a True Xtian to really understand what god is all about, and hence, maybe no xtian has it right and they are all wrong?
(Pssst, that would include you btw)
Reny: but one thing i will say though, i have so much faith in my heart from things that i have seen personally
Yes, we've heard this 'heart' evidence a million times already and it's worthless as evidence, for many non-xtian believers of some god, will cite the same exact heart evidence to us as you do Reny.
Maybe they have it right and you are worshipping the wrong god?
Ponder that idea for awhile, okay.
Reny: ... and the reason i believe in our orthodox church because St. Mary supports it, she appears constantly in Churches across Egypt and the world and is witnessed by millions of people not one or two..
So you're saying this St. Mary appears like all the time in Egypt?
Do you by chance of any quality pictures or movies of one of those many appearances?
You say "millions" of people have seen her, yet for some reason it hasn't made my nightly TV news show ...WHY?
Perhaps you can find something on the internet that will show us credible reports of her many appearances?
Oh, those witnesses aren't by chance, staring into the bright SUN, are they?
Reny: because no matter how hard we try, we will never understand God's mind or his way of thinking but we can ask for help to understand
Think about this Reny.....
If someone wanted to play a god-hoax on you, wouldn't it make sense for them to say you could never understand this god they want you to believe in?
Xtians have more excuses for their god's inactivity and his confusing mind/ways, then grains of sand on the beach.
If god is so confusing to the human mind, how can you be sure what you are worshipping, is worthy of your worship?
Reny: . i am in no way qualified to answer any of the accusations made on that site as it is not my place,
Okay, so maybe you could have a chat with your jesus and have him respond to our blog postings?
If humans can type, I'm sure god can to, yes?
Reny: and i pray that God will open your eyes so you may see him like the way do and some day enjoy his feast that we enjoy every day...
Well don't spend too much time praying for us, as you're clearly wasting time better spent helping those who could use you to feed them etc..
It's also clear to me Reny, that you are just another woo-woo person, who comes here with personal evidence of magical things in your existence, but not only can't show us this evidence, but has a hard time even getting your god buddy to assist you with basic English language skills.
ATF (Who also wonders how Reny will explain the Jews being lost for 40 years, in a SMALL desert)
i completely understand your points...
Bullshit; you don't understand shit. If you were able to understand then you would comprehend that it is impossible to reason with christians because if you could reason with christians there would be NO religion.
The rest of what you have to say is a personal testimony of a raving lunatic, that has zero credibility.
Just like a guy who babbles about being abducted by aliens and anally probed, telling us he is convinced, because aliens materialized, right in front of his eyes.
Or you are exactly like the muslim zealot, who tells us that Muhammad is working in their lives and they have been visited by the arch-angel Gabriel -- you see allah and anal probing aliens exists, also.
The only thing your personal testimony proves is you are suffering from a delusional psychosis.
And you chattering on about "never understanding God's mind or his way of thinking" and "knowing it is difficult to understand the nature of God because He is too holy for our week and limited minds ..." is an incredible admission that renders anything you say about god obsolete.
If you don't know god's mind or his way of thinking because you have a weak and limited mind, then how do you know he is capable of opening our eyes? How would you know anything about this god?
Bottom line is you are an ignorant tool, who rationalizes his silly superstition, then lays to waste, anything you claim to know about how god works, in our lives, by admitting, that you are a weak minded simpleton, who couldn't possibly know god's mind or his ways -- cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.
You've overstayed your welcome -- hit the bricks.
--S.
Marian apparitions are hoaxes. Our Lady only appears to you if you have been starving yourself for weeks, numbing your mind with rosaries and punishing your body with lack of sleep...Trust me, I was into mortification of the flesh and Marianology.
Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD,
You are our Father;
We are the clay, and You our potter;
And all we are the work of Your hand.
So, if Jesus just said, I am the son of God, then no problem, all the Jews call God their father as well, but they understood what he meant that is why they crucified him…. see below
Mark 14:60-80 (New King James Version)
60 And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, "Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?" 61 But He kept silent and answered nothing.
Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"
62 Jesus said, "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?"
And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.
65 Then some began to spit on Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him, and to say to Him, "Prophesy!" And the officers struck Him with the palms of their hands.[a]
I hate the Death -Eaters. All Praise Griifindor!!
I think Jesus and harry Potter would have alot in common if they could get together in our imagination to have a chat.
heh - btw I think Renyk doesnt get the point of the argument at all. funny.
How can I take anything seriously you can offer up as to how god goes about his day to day business when you admit your mind is too feeble and god's ways are beyond our comprehension?
suppose he said" I Jesus Christ am God' (which he did)...
No, he didn't. Jesus never claims to be god.
Show me -- where in the bible -- Jesus said those exact words, without layering mounds of interpretation onto the verse and rationalizing it's meaning.
"I Jesus Christ am God" Would you have belived him?
I -- sconnor, the blogger from exchristian -- am GOD! Do you believe me?
they crusified him because he said he is God, that was the only reason, otherwise, why did they crucify him......read the text carefully in his Judgement...
WRONG
The reason Jesus was crucified was because he claimed he was the messiah -- NOT god. Jesus NEVER CLAIMS TO BE GOD -- show me where he claims to be god; show me where he says, "I AM GOD."
Nowhere in Mark 14:60-80 does Jesus claim to be god.
Quite the opposite, really.
Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"
62 Jesus said, "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
Jesus admits to being the Christ (the anointed one, the messiah) That is why they crucified him. You remember they mocked him for being the king of the Jews? The one who would bring god's domain to earth.
Additionally, you must reconcile all these verses, what you chose to ignore, from my last post.
Matthew 19:17 and Mark 10:18
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good ? No one is good except God alone."
John 14:28 "...I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."
Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour no one knows , not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."
John 20:17 ...I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.
There's more, too.
While Jesus was being crucified, why does he ask god, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34
renyk -- you gotta whole lotta splanin' to do.
--S.
If I said I were the Son of God, the Christ and almighty himself, would you believe me? No?
What If others were to tell you about me and all the miracles I have done? Would you bow to me then? No?
What if I said that I loved loved loooved you? How about now? No?
What if I said I would torture you forever if you don't love me?
Bow and worship me or I shall smite thee with testicles on thy chin.
O.K. seariously now...your god is an ass and if this deity were real, it wouldn't be worthy of my respect or worship.
Take a hike.
Bzzt! The exact quotation is "I and my father are one."
And for all we know, those are merely the words of a fictional character. Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the quotation came from an actual person rather than from the imagination of a Gospel writer who never even met the person he's describing.
But even if you manage to demonstrate that Jesus actually existed, your work is just beginning. You will then have to substantiate the alleged miracles via non-Biblical sources, and prove that gods actually exist before you claim that Jesus was a god and not a sleight-of-hand master.
Just to add a little more information to your post -- not for your benefit but for renyk's.
These verses are almost always quoted out of context and layers of interpretation are piled upon them, without really examining the real, simplified explanation.
When Jesus says, "I and the Father are one", contextually, he means that they are on the same page -- that they are of one mind, trying to accomplish the same goals, not in any metaphysical sense, where they are two beings, magically, bonded together.
Likewise, when Jesus says, "If you have seen me you have seen my Father", the simple more accurate explanation is, he letting everyone know that his actions are in accord with god's will and is not declaring he, himself, was god. Jesus never claimed he was god.
--S.
I just happened upon this site through a link to a scripture you had, and it kind of caught my attention. Know that I'm not even going to come close to telling you what to believe, just making a few points. I am a Christian, have had many expieriences that have cemented my faith, both good and bad. However, Each is to believe what they will, and that is something i completely respect.
So, back to what I was saying, There's a HUGE link between the Bible and Science. Take Noah's Ark, which would seem understandable not to be able to believe that about 25,000 different species of animals would be able to live inside for a year.
What about the fact that we've found pieces of the ark?
What about the fact that almost EVERY culture or religion has a story of a flood?
What about the fact that science has proved that in relation to today, it was, in fact, possible to fit two of ALL the species of animal, insect, and bird inside the Ark? Bear in mind, not all species alive today were around back then. Cross-breeding, both natural and forced, has multiplied the amount of different animals and even plants that we have today.
What about the fact that on almost every mountain ever climbed, there is a waterline sitting at around 13-14k (For those that reach that high) proving that there was, in fact, a time when all the mountains were either A)Surrounded by water, or B) That the great flood DID in fact happen, and when the rains stopped, the only land still above water was that which was uninhabitable by man?
Just a few of the things that "Science" has proved about Noah's Ark. What about the tower of Babel, reported to have been the birthing place of the Languages of the world?
We've found it. Do some digging, and you'll find much much information about it. Along with the written proof that the world did, in fact, once speak one language.
Just a few things to debate about. Explore those ideas, and let me know what you think.
I think you have been misled by some liars. Or that you yourself are a lying troll, know there's no truth to any of the hogwash you claim "science has proved about Noah's Ark," and are just looking for a reaction.
For starters, no one has ever found pieces of the Ark because it never existed. If you have real, peer reviewed evidence to the contrary, please provide a citation.
I don't have time right now to comment on all the other lies you have posted, but I suspect some other ex-christians will be by to sort it out.
Good Day, Sir.
The fact that every primitive society had a flood legend is not remarkable when you consider that every society, until quite recently, lived near water, particularly rivers. Where else would they get fresh water which is essential to life? Eventually, all rivers will flood. Even with today's level of development, floods are catastrophic. Remember Katrina? To the ancients, floods must have seem like the raving of an angry god. We can forgive their ignorance, but not yours.
Geologists have completely dismissed any possibility of a global flood. A flood like that would have left deposits everywhere. Although strata from around the earth shows periods of high water, none of them coincide nearly close enough to suggest that the whole earth was covered at the same time. The info you cited is false! Furthermore, you imbecilic troll, Noah would have come to land on a desolate, inhabitable planet. No plants, therefore, nothing to feed the twenty billion animals on his little boat.
Tower of babel? Are you twelve? Again, this is another example of primitive, ancient people trying to make sense of the world around them. Gee, why do the brown people from India talk differently? Oh, because god cursed them!
Why don't you do some digging? Look in places not sanctioned by your church. Your suggestions are sophomoric and your conclusions are infantile.
I am a Christian, have had many expieriences that have cemented my faith, both good and bad. However, Each is to believe what they will, and that is something i completely respect.
Can't say the same for you. I can't respect the monumental ignorance that which you exude. In fact, you are only worthy of disrespect, you babbling loon.
What about the fact that we've.....blah, blah, gibberish, unsubstantiated claptrap, blah, blah, blah.......
You sick, sick, deluded, christian drone.
The only FACT is you are a gullible imbecile, who gorges on the bull$hit, shoveled by delusional christian apologists -- you lap up their vomit like the sickly baby bird who downs mamma's regurgitated pulp -- never questioning the absurd claims.
Not one of your supposed facts are corroborated by peer reviewed research or any legitimate and credible scientist.
I suggest you take some accredited college classes and educate yourself, before you open your mouth and spew asinine garbage, that only makes you look like a blathering a$$hole.
Take care to read the quote below and understand it.
In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. -- Mark Twain
Ba'bye, cuckoo.
--S.
Chalk-full of irony....."cemented faith", by "both good and bad" experiences.[bold added]
Firstly, when you say "cemented", does that mean what it implies? ....as in, there is nothing, whatsoever, that could falsify your belief? You, Patrick, will cling steadfast to your belief, even when/where there is overwhelming evidence that contradicts it?
In case you didn't know, the aformentioned is the definition of a religious conviction, and in no way will you ever convince the unconvinced that such a position is virtuous and/or beneficial. Such a position is only good for keeping those who are already convinced, convinced.
Secondly, you have "both good AND bad experiences", do you?[bold and upper-case letters added] Golly, is there some *other* kind of experience to be had that we don't know about? If not, then what do you have to compare those "two types" of experiences to? In other words, how would you ever know if your "faith" stopped working to your advantage?
I put it to you that the reason why all major religions have a flood myth is that the priests, shamans, charlatans and fraudsters either attended the same conferences and seminars at which they exchanged and compared notes OR they heard the tales from travellers and, being pragmatically fraudulent, stole, or adopted, anything they thought would cement their power over the gullible.
Peace,
David
The story of the tower of Babel says that man had wanted to see and interact with god. So man starting building a tower that would reach the heavens and man could see the face of god. But strangely enough, god didn't want man to see his face. God decided to curse them with different languages and no one could understand the other. Thus, the tower project was abandoned.
...Hmm, and the xtians still believe in this bull, eh?
Man wanted to see if god was there, but god wouldn't let man. Yet man still believed in god without seeing him. Makes you think, doesn't it?
posted by Shane only four and a half hours ago.
Great minds think alike?
How interesting.
Has anyone here ever been to Pikes Peak?
http://www.cograilway.com/aboutpikespeak.htm
I have, and I highly suggest to anyone visiting that Colorado area, to take the Cog Railway to the top of this beautiful mountain peek?
http://www.cograilway.com/
This mountain peak reaches over 14,000 feet, which according to Patrick here, should clearly show evidence of this bible global flood.
I now challenge Patrick here, to show me where I would find this "waterline" on Pikes Peak, that surely was kept a 'big secret' from me during my time there.
Well Patrick ?
Time to Pony-Up boy!!
ATF (Who quickly discovered how fast the summer temperature drops when ascending to such great heights)
"The Egyptian ark or ship of Nnu is the ark of heaven, or, conversely stated, the ark of heaven is the ship of Nnu; and the ark of heaven was the revolving sphere configurated as a sailing vessel with two masts as we have found it figured by the mystery-teachers in their uranographic imagery of the celestial deluge. The ark is portrayed in the act of sailing over a vast, unfathomable, hollow void of formless space; as it is said, “the place is empty.” Into this the helpless ones fall headlong unless they are saved on board the ark. In a vignette to the Papyrus of Anhai, it is Nnu that is seen uplifting the boat of the gods with seven persons on board, besides the beetle and the solar disk. The figure of Nnu in this drawing is both male and female, Nnu and Nut in one figure (Budge, Papyrus of Anhai, pl. 8)."
Question - Did creatures go into the Ark in pairs, in sevens or fourteen at a time?
There is no comparison between science and the Bible. The Bible is wrong, quite wrong, on the subject of a worldwide flood.
If you feel otherwise, and assert the infallibility of the Bible, kindly Fed-Ex a talking snake to Me at your earliest convenience.
Harry Potter can talk to snakes.
I think this time Astreja, you should be sent not just the usual "talking snake", but a spotted talking snake instead, one that was created using the biblical "spotted pole" method.
ATF (Who knows Astreja must surely be tired of plain ole' unspotted talking snakes by now)
(runs out and buys some paisley wallpaper, to create a psychedelic modern-day variant on the "genetic engineering" mentioned in Genesis 30:37-43)
I have papered the outside of my aquarium with sudoku puzzles - facing inwards - then when my Zebra fish breed I will no longer need to buy books of puzzles.
Is it possible that fundamentalist xian couples put pictures or icons of intellectually-challenged people (two generations of Republican Presidential cantidates?) on the wall over their beds, resulting in the sort of offspring we have visiting us here?
Peace,
David
Peace,
David
But how do you get the fish to line up in a 9x9 grid? :-D I thought herding cats was hard...
Herding cats is simple - you do it from in front, while making the sound of a tin-opener. ;o)))
I have cats. I know how to herd cats....If you want them in a box, go in the box yourself. The cats will watch. Then leave the box. The cats will watch. Go back into the box. The cats will watch.
Eventually, you fall asleep, exhausted, and the cats will go through your wallet and buy something expensive on E-bay.
Barbie replies: In your bathtub, maybe. In reality, not so much. There are two reasons why a writer would end a sentence with the word "stop" written entirely in capital letters STOP. The first is if the writer were writing a telegram STOP. In a telegram, the word "stop" in all capital letters is the code for the end of a sentence STOP. But there is another reason why a writer would end a sentence with "stop" written entirely in capital letters, and that is to warn readers that the Bible/MYTHOLOGY BOOK they are reading is so utterly wretched that if they have begun reading it , the best thing to do would be to stop STOP.
Research Project: Archetypes
Sources: Jung, Campbell, Frye.....
BB
XpastorDan (who thinks he saw this in a porno once, starring Barry 'the pole" Barber)
Used to be a christian - now i'm just making my life as it should be - free and beautifull with no one to strike me down if I choos a different path in life than the one imposed on me.
I jus came across this website. Thank you for your post Dan! I guess there is nothing more for me to add to it. You where short and to the point. well said.
Thank you all for your posts in the testimony section - it was good to see i'm not alone - that was the only section I looked at so far.
I wish you all a great day!
PS: I appologize if i made any spelling mistakes - i'm not a native english speaker
I'm from europe
Used to be a christian - now i'm just making my life as it should be - free and beautifull with no one to strike me down if I choos a different path in life than the one imposed on me.
You summed it up beautifully! And yes, it is good to see we're not alone.
Welcome
bp
I was force-fed my religion, but I somehow saved my smile.
Tapped into my instincts as I headed toward exile. ....Jimmy Buffett
Welcome
You may think religion is evil, but ironically I think you guys act like the Pharisees. I see some Christians (obviously not all) just try to get along with people. You may think Christianity has made me arrogant and crazy but it's given me peace of mind. I'll pray that you can have that one day too. God bless
And there you go again! Can you honestly not see how arrogant you are being by coming here — on an EX-christian site, expressly created for people who have been christians but are no longer — telling us that we lack your peace of mind? Peace you may have, but I doubt if you have the ability to read OUR minds.
I, like a lot of other ex-christians, feel much more peaceful and joyful after giving up the delusion of christianity. But, wouldn't you think I was arrogant if I came on some christian site declaring that atheism has given me peace of mind and that I hope you have that one day too?
Oh, silly me, if I even tried that, I'd probably be banned immediately.
Go away; all you can offer is silly superstitions and massive ignorance.
--S.
I'm not going to say a thing. I just wanted to quote and bold your words so no one would miss your "non-arrogant" comment.
..hmmm sounds more like christianity than atheism to me.
If you are one of the many human beings who evidentally need to be "commanded" to show "mercy" and "love" towards other human beings, then that really doesn't say much for you, does it?(rhetorically asked)
Continues.....Jesus was kind to women, he even stood up in front to them in Luke 13:16.
Yet, in other verses, "Jesus"...aka.."God", condones women being treated worse than farm animals. This illustrates the subjectiveness of scripture, and religious belief in general.
Continues.....You may think Christianity has made me arrogant and crazy but it's given me peace of mind. I'll pray that you can have that one day too. God bless
Well, you pretty much just confirmed the "arrogant" part by assuming that because we don't believe like you do, that we don't have "peace of mind". And if you "pray" to an invisible, upright-walking cadaver on our behalf, then you've definitely got the "crazy" part covered, too.
"constructive criticism" ? ? ?
Yes, and if you don't heed this "constructive criticism", you get to ponder about it for all eternity while being roasted like a peanut.
Good plan...NOT SO MUCH!
You may think religion is evil
No, it's a bit more than just "thinking" religion is evil. Meaning, it does far more harm than good in the world, which was always the case and always will be if your religion continues on.
ATF (Who finds you quite arrogant as well)
I don't mind "constructive criticism", but I won't take it from a mythical legend, a book about such a legend, nor the human worshippers of such a legend.
FYI: The Pharisees had religion, while I do not, so your comparison is bogus.
ATF (Who thinks any organization that promotes delusional thinking, is evil)
Just as you have vomited your two links all over our website, I too can post the same comment repeatedly.....I just wish I knew who to credit with this apropos quote:
Arguing with some theists is like trying to blow out an electric light bulb.
<banghead>
and just for you David (glebealyth): </banghead>
;-)
Mt. 5:16 hat these verses in my opinion say is that do good sincerely and honestly in love of other people so people can know that there is good in the world brought by god but not with hidden motives such as people who go to church and say load prayers in crowd and boast about what good they've dont just so poeple will think there great so they can stroke there ego if you do good do it in love if its seen then it cant be helped but dont do good just so it can be seen to gain prestige