The Ebolaworld Happy Fun Blog Comment Post Page
Well, we all know that Pat Robertson is a jerk.
He is sick. He said the reason why the Israel Prime Minister had the stroke was because "God was punishing him". He is a stupid ass jerk.
Oh. lol. I just read the article. Sorry that was in there. I heard that he said that on ABC.
Pat, My god. 
Robertson has friends?
So... he didn't have a heart attack. God came in and meddled with the natural world and made it APPEAR that he had a heart attack.
By that same reasoning, medicine does not work - it only works if God wants it to.
Why are people so stupid?
i was the idiot who put that on teh mario thang
i want the forums back.
lol pat robertson ran for presedent, scary huh,
bush ran for presedent and won thats even scarier
No, if Pat won I would scream and go cry to mommy saying the world is going to end.....haha.
John, the forums'll be ready as soon as the fansite is. Hopefully, early February.
*Cough cough* the forum… yeah…
You know, this reminds me of a cartoon that aired on "Saturday Night Live" where Jesus Chist was exploring the planet for the first time in years, and one of the gags was him running across Pat Robinson, on 700 Club (the audio is real, with a new animation). Christ, frustrated with Robinson's comment, turns him into a rat.
I think this was a "TV Funhouse" cartoon.
Lol a thought just accrued to me, Pat Robertson Appointing Justices to the Supreme Court
What I find funny is Pat Robertson ran for President because he said God told him to and that he would win (Seriously). After he failed big time, I wonder if he thought God was just fucking around with him. How does he explain that? And I don’t want to hear none of that "God works in mysterious ways" business. That’s just a cop out.
Pat Robertson knows all the stuff he says is a lode of crap; he just says it because he gets money from stupid hillbillies.
Old Uncle Pat believes his own "stuff", I think, becuase, to put it bluntly, half crazy.
i seriously think the man is slightly retarded.
that was from me.
half crazy he is.
Slightly? please. he's outta control retarted. his mother must have bin givin him shots of whiskey and cigars. Or his father droped him on his head and then he craped his brain out so now he is retarted. One of those. 
I don't even know why people listen to him at all.
Noboy does. It shall forever be one of the biggest misteries of the world! lol
Mystery solved - by looking like a nutjob, he makes other outlandish, far-right goals seem reasonable, such as ending affirmative action or invading Iraq despite U2 overflights.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/200.../
scheer20030304
Recently saw a nice article on how influential Pat still is: CBN got $132.1 mil in donations in 2004, and got a senator to build some highway by his HQ.
http://www.mediatransparency.org....php?
storyID=87
CB - I freakin' love TV Funhouse. 
What I find funny is Pat Robertson ran for President because he said God told him to and that he would win (Seriously). After he failed big time, I wonder if he thought God was just fucking around with him. How does he explain that? And I don’t want to hear none of that "God works in mysterious ways" business. That’s just a cop out.
Sam T | 01.08.06 - 3:02 pm | #
He probably thinks that only the people who think the right way voted for him.
Meaning that people who have the same ideas will vote for him, therefore he thinks the world is just a small place with only a few citizens.
So when god told him he would win, he thought that all the people(people=humans that think the same) would vote for him.
So in his little world he won and together with all the other voices he hears in his head he rules the country.
So just don't pay attention to him, his isn't talking to you...
The only reason that guy even has a Bible is so he can raise it up at the begginning and the end. I seriously doubt he even knows what it means to be a Christian (other than a front to get lots and lots of money).
Here's what I don't understand:
The Christian god was so angry with us that he slaughtered everything on the planet, minus one human family and two (or seven) of every other species, with a flood.
Then it turns out that that just wasn't enough, so he sends his own son (or himself, depending on how you look at it) to die, instead.
Well, the first question is how the latter comes anywhere close to the same level of sacrifice as the former, but bear with me.
This is the guy that will destroy entire towns because its occupants were having too much fun (whether it was homosexuality, specifically, is debatable). This is the guy that wants us to stone our kids to death if they ever misbehave. So, you know, he has a huge boner for blood.
My question is this: No matter how bad it may have been, doesn't Katrina seem to be kind of a sissy way for such a blood-thirsty asshole to smite the evildoers? Hurricanes are slow, they're more predictable than any force of nature that I can think of, and, because of that, they give those in the way lots of time to escape.
Besides, as we all know, hurricanes can only really do damage to coastal regions, because they start to lose power once they get on land; the people that live there aren't the only ones in the nation that have abortions.
The same goes for AIDS. If it's some diety's retribution for homosexuality, then why, if I had a boyfriend, would I be able to protect both him (and myself) from it with a little piece of latex?
As for Ariel Sharon.. no. As Jon Stewart said, I think it's far more likely that the causes of his stroke were fat, old, and stress.
Aren't it only the religious zealots claiming that Katrina was a punishment from God?
Allen,
Your interpretation of Genesis is questionable (at best). You must ask yourself, "Can a person become so wicked that there is no turning back and it would be better for the populace as a whole if they would die ... and not be allowed to teach their wickedness to the next generation?" God gave humans the ability to choose horrible paths. If salt loses its saltiness, what is it good for? Read this to find a more theologically correct perspective on the story of Sodom: http://kenschenck.com/homosexuality.html
Now, for your next point - Consider: If God is a greater being than us - far greater than we are to - say - chickens. Well, which is a greater sacrifice to save YOUR chickens? Sacrificing yourself, or sacrificing 100 chickens?
Also, your understanding of Old Testament Law and its symbolism is fairly weak. God gave such stringent laws to the children of Israel because He chose to dwell among them. The laws were a lesson in the meaning of Purity. Purity in humanity is an important aspect in God's ability to interact with us. Consider how difficult it is for a healthy person to hold a conversation with someone who is severely injured or diseased. They are "in two different worlds". Now, magnify that for God. You may begin to see the object lesson in the Law and the Prophets (ie God is perfect and we have chosen not to be.)
This gap between God's perfection and man's imperfection left only one possible recourse - an interpreter - a being that is fully man and full God - aka Jesus. This is why Jesus says, "Noone comes to the Father except through me."
If you haven't noticed, we are all mortal. We will all die anyway. Christians believe that death is a direct result of our inability to any longer be perfect. This stems from Adam and Eve's "original sin". Thus, yes, every death and disease can be seen as a result of man's faults. Or, as christians like to put it, "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life."
ps. Mind you, Mr. Robertson oversimplifies these ideas in many of his wild and off-base claims.
Larry, your wiki isn't working again. Are those Limmies screwing with the server again? (Please, if your offended by the term “Limey” do not complain to me about it and find something to call me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off...er_nationality)
Stupid Halso Scan thinks the ")" (above) at the end is part of the URL, sorry, fix it yourself.
What is there to understand, besides the fact that virtually every single line in the entire book either contradicts known history, contradicts science, contradicts something else in the book, or is, simply, bullshit that nobody can reasonably expect to apply to modern life?
If the Christian god is truly perfect, then how can he possibly create something that isn't? Why can't a perfect being communicate more clearly? Why, if such a being honestly cares about whether its creations follow and worship it, does it need to hide what it really means behind symbols and metaphors?
Then, of course, as you just said, humans are not perfect. What gives us the ability to accurately pick and choose what parts of the Bible are meant to be taken which way? And, of course, how can you possibly think that your interpretation is any more valid than mine?
I'm sorry, but I cannot believe in a god that would send me to be tortured, for all eternity, because I didn't understand a message he failed to make clear in the first place.
Allen,
You can read a mirror of my extended thoughts on the perfection of God and man's imperfection here:
http://danielml.com/cgi-bin/
Blah...eo,m=1133541658
Basically, you are confusing perfection with incorruptability.
God created us perfectly but gave us the ability to "ruin" ourselves. If we didn't have this ability, then we wouldn't have free will, now would we?
Genesis is God's explanation to a primitive man how creation began. Primitive man had very little concept of what we define as science. Tell me, how would you explain your scientific understanding of the creation of the universe to an aborigine?
The problem is not that a Perfect God is not communicating clearly. Consider my example of a healthy person talking to a severely diseased or severely injured person. The severely injured person may be in shock and may not be "all there". Indeed he might not believe the healthy person exists at all but is a figment of his own imagination. Let us say that the healthy person is trying to tell the injured person how to apply pressure to a bandage. No matter how clear the message might be put, the severely injured person "won't get it". God is clear. But, the messages God gives us can be read at multiple levels. You have to dig and work a little to gain a greater understanding of the text.
I believe my interpretation is more valid than yours because I've read extensively the experts in this field and I've worked hard to gain a broad and deep understanding of these texts. Have you?
The main (recent) critique of christians is that they won't allow the experts in the field of science to dictate what is taught in science class. (and I fully agree with this criticism). Ipso facto, if one wants to have an accurate interpretation of theology, one must look to the experts in the field of theology.
What part of the message, "Your soul will be saved by the grace of God if you choose to believe in and follow Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior," is hard to understand?
Corruptability is an imperfection, which is not something that a perfect being can create. Even if you throw that out, and say that the Christian god is perfect anyway, and say that the Bible is perfect and that all contradictions can be explained away by increasingly vague interpretations, then how can an imperfect creature--man--hope to even begin to comprehend it?
This is one of the reasons I don't generally like Christians, or, for that matter, anybody that is very religious. They simply cannot accept the fact that their faith is exactly that--a faith, no better or worse than any other. I'm willing to admit that my atheism is a faith (in fact, it really bothers me when my fellow atheists try to say that it isn't), and that my interpretation of the Bible's various musings is no more or less valid than anybody else's. What's your problem?
Also, one final question before I leave this debate alone: Would you worship if it weren't for the threat of Hell? If so, then why?
Actually, that's two questions, but you get the idea.
Thanks, by the way, for keeping calm about the whole thing.
no!!!! not more books!!!
That's why I'm ending my part in the debate.
That, and, well, it's kind of pointless with something as deeply-seated as faith. Nobody's going to change anybody's mind.
Allen,
Corruptibility is not an imperfection. Look up the word "perfect" in any dictionary. No definition includes "impervious to damage".
What contradictions are you talking about?
One comprehends things in the same way one creates. Through thought, meditation, reason, and inspiration.
Yes, I would follow Jesus without the "threat of Hell". To me Hell is not a threat. Indeed, many people are living in Hell on earth, anyway. Hell also has deeper levels of meaning. You could interpret it as "not being within God's perfect will for you" -- in other words, having fucked up your life in some way and lived to regret it.
I worship God because He has proven Himself faithful to me. My own mother's ear was miraculously healed through prayer. A part of her inner ear grew back after a major surgery. The doctors were baffled and amazed. I've seen many other small miracles in my own life. Odd coincidences that save me from harm or lead me to people that I can help.
To me, faith is not just a "choice to believe". Faith means also to TRUST or be trustworthy. As in, I have faith in my wife and am faithful to my wife.
Why wouldn't I be calm?
best wishes
ps. I find it vaguely amusing that I've taken the time to fully consider each of your points and answer each of your questions in turn and you haven't answered even one of mine ... and then I'm the one accused of being close minded.
sorry for the double post. c'est la vie, n'est pas?
Ones there was a guy who was sick of honouring all these different gods and there jewism was born.
Later another guy stood up, he was a jew that claimed to be the son of god, he had several gifts he was very good in convinsing people and manipulating them. But he used these gifts not for himslef but for humanity, in those days humans were either slaves or bloodthirsty tirans, he said woman were equal to man, that you should rest after work, that men shouldn't be a slave of him/herself or of any other human being but of god. In financiel way his ideas reached a lot of people.
But he was killed, the bloodthirsty tirans were afraid to loose their power.
But evensually he won, the bloodthirsty tirans became his followers. They manipulated his ideas for their own good. They made up stories about him and romantised his live.
Today it is to long ago to really find out what happened and the only way to just know a litlle bit more is safely locked away in a library owned by people who are afraid of losing their power.
This story doesn't tell anything about some "god".
This god was just an answer to questions who couldn't be answered at that time, or were ways to get more power.
the above message was written by me
me,
That's an interesting perspective. What are your sources? Where did you learn this alternate version of history? Many of the stories of Jesus are first generation eyewitness accounts (according to both secular and christian sources). I'd love to read the literature that brought you to these conclusions. Let me know if you have any actual sources.
SWEET!!! i didn't know i could post here from school!!!
There is no other source then me, i've read about religion in books offcourse but that where only stories about the history of religion, not why they where created.
There are persons, books and website that "helped" me to "creat" this "thought".
To me its just logic.
Is logic a true test of historical fact or are eyewitness accounts a better tool for historians?
Perhaps I'm missing something. Perhaps you are an expert in the field? If so, what are your credentials?
The fact that I have to discuss why a fairytale book called the bible is bullshit is silly. I can understand people blindly believing it in the dark ages when there were no answers, but not today. It’s also ridiculous for a thinking person to make a guess about the worlds creation based on nothing but an old book, and then work every scientific finding around it; ignoring or fighting against those that contradict your beliefs. (Example: The bible says the earth is the center of the universe, flat, and the sun revolves around it)
Also your idea that God creates us all perfectly is wrong, seeing how many babies are born with still born, deformed, with Down syndrome, or a life threatening disease such as AIDS (I could go on). Those babies born with their heads stuck together and one arm sure have a perfectly good start in life.
Allen, I disagree with you on the saying that atheism is a religion. See below:
re•li•gion
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
In other words, we may never know how the universe was created, but I’m not about to start making stuff up and worshiping it.
Sam T,
I respect your opinion but you are taking my words out of context.
Your examples are also wrong. The Bible does not say the earth is the center of the universe, nor does it claim it's flat, nor does it claim the sun revolves around it. That's 0 for 3.
I did not say that God creates us all perfectly. I said, God created humanity and the Earth perfectly; but that humanity chose to ruin this perfection. This took us from Paradise to Present Day. Is it not true that chaos propagates itself?
Also, Allen did not say that atheism was a religion. He said that atheism takes FAITH to believe in:
faith (from dictionary.com )
n.
1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3) Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4) often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5) The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6) A set of principles or beliefs.
I believe definitions 1, 2, 3 and 6 would accurately suit the context of his remarks.
How is the Bible a fairytale book?
fairy tale
n.
1) A fanciful tale of legendary deeds and creatures, usually intended for children.
2) A fictitious, highly fanciful story or explanation.
Most of the stuff in the Bible isn't really that suited for children (which rules out definition 1) - and much of it is mundane details about the history of the Kingdom of Israel (which rules out definition 2).
Please clarify. I would love to entertain any serious thought you have about this.
best wishes
ps. I can see how you might have misinterpreted. By my original "us", I meant Humanity as a whole throughout the entirety of history. Not you and me individually.
One reason you might want to give the Bible a little more thought would be because the Bible was written by approximately 40 authors with multiple professions (ranging from king to doctor to tax collector to fisherman) across at least three different languages and still has a consistent theme. That is why it is worth looking at and giving some thought at the very least.
Atheism involves a certain leap of faith.
The existance of a god, the existance of life on other planets, and the existance of such creatures as Nessie and Bigfoot are all "universal negatives". That means that they cannot be proven, 100%, either way. To believe one way or another, on any of them, requires faith.
The case against the gods offered by the major religions is always growing stronger. More geological, archaeological, biological, and other physical evidence is found, every day, that contradicts the teachings of those religions, while all the religions ever have to offer in return is, say, a Bible--documents that are extremely flawed even in relation to themselves.
Does denying the existance of a god take the same amount of faith as it does to accept it, as many a militant agnostic or Christian would have us believe? No, and it's extremely silly to think that it does.
But it does take some. While the evidence does strongly suggest that the gods offered by the major religions cannot possibly exist, it simply cannot discredit the existance of _a_ supreme being.
Daniel, this does not mean that I don't think you have the right to believe what you do. We are the only species on this planet--as far as we know--that has foreknowledge of our own demise. That is an extremely harsh reality to deal with, and if stories of an afterlife help you accept it, then you go right ahead.
As for myself, the only thing that I believe in, 100% free of proof, is the existance of life on other worlds. To me, the concept of us being all that there is is far more frightening than the foreknowledge of something I have no control over and won't be around to realize when it happens.
Sam, you have to realize that the Bible is not supposed to give a historically accurate depiction of events. Instead, it has an underlining message: "doing bad stuff is bad and doing good stuff is good." You also have to understand people like Pat Robertson who claim to be Christians miss this message and use the Bible as a base for their non-Christian ideology.
By the way, for the record, I don't believe that the popularity of an idea automatically gives it validity.
Nothing was taken out of context. See below:
God created us perfectly but gave us the ability to "ruin" ourselves. If we didn't have this ability, then we wouldn't have free will, now would we? – Daniel
You said “us” and were obviously speaking about the individual.
The bible does say the sun revolves around the earth:
“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)
“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”( Psalm 93:1)
“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...” (Psalm 96:10)
“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)
“...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...” Isaiah 45:18
"Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jashar? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hastened not to go down about a whole day." (Joshua, X 12-13).
"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth again." (Ecclesiastes I,5)
"Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down." (Isaiah XXXVIII 
.
The bible was written by people who believed this at the time. If God was real, don’t you think he would have explained how things really worked?
The bible also says that the earth is only 6000 years old. How do you explain the Dinosaurs, evolution of dinosaurs, the Grand Canyon?
“I worship God because He has proven Himself faithful to me. My own mother's ear was miraculously healed through prayer. A part of her inner ear grew back after a major surgery. The doctors were baffled and amazed. I've seen many other small miracles in my own life. Odd coincidences that save me from harm or lead me to people that I can help. To me, faith is not just a "choice to believe". Faith means also to TRUST or be trustworthy. As in, I have faith in my wife and am faithful to my wife.” - Daniel
I’m sure the healing of your mom’s ear could be explained with a little more investigation, instead of throwing your arms up and claiming it to be the work of God. By your own logic we should believe in ghosts since many people have had experiences with them; and should never examine it any further.
I’m curious, do you also believe in the rapture?
You nailed it...
The bible is "A fictitious, highly fanciful story or explanation"
Zntrip, I would imagine Pat Robertson knows a lot about the bible than most seeing how he made a career out of it. What he usually says is an accurate portrayal of what the bible teaches, and is why his statements are always shocking.
Also, do you really need a book to tell you what’s good and what’s bad? It's called common sense. Lying bad. Stealing bad. Killing bad. Duh.
The Great Flood is the most popular explanation for the Grand Canyon among Christians.
Of course, it completely disregards the fact that the Grand Canyon is only so big, while the flood supposedly destroyed the entire world, as well as the fact that, for the water to have reached the summit of Mt. Ararat in the time allotted, it would've had to rain on the order of, oh, 17' per hour.
Of course, that's not rain. It's hydraulic mining, and it would've stripped the entire planet down to the bedrock, and it would've made the planet completely uninhabitable for who knows how long.
Sam T,
This is interesting, you are telling the author of a piece of writing what he really meant by what he said. I've never seen this type of (presumptious?) argument before. Like I said, my intentions were for "us" and "we" to mean humanity as a whole.
*laughing a little*. Umm, you do know a large majority of the verses you quoted are poems, right? You do know that poetry should never (ever!) be taken entirely literally?
1 Chronicles 16:30 : A poem of David
All Psalms: Poems
Isaiah 45:18 : A more accurate translation is "he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited"
all of Joshua: stories from human perspectives (reporting on the history of the kingdom of Israel)
Ecclesiastes : Do we no longer refer to "sunrise" and "sunset"? This is also a poem.
Isaiah 38 : God explaining to a simple man a marvelous miracle in simple terms. Could have this man understood these words from a scientific perspective?
If God explained to primitive man how things really worked, do you think they would've believed him or even begun to understand? These people didn't even have a word for "gravity" or "fusion" or "evolution". Like I've asked before, how would you explain your scientific understanding of the creation of the world to aborigine's?
Why would it be important for God to explain every detail of the inner workings of His creation to human's? From ancient man's perspective would this sort of understanding changed their life? To a tribal farmer or herder, does it really matter whether the sun goes round or we go round it? All that he cares is that the rain comes in it's season and waters the crops and his animals grow and give birth each to their kind. Or am I missing something here?
Sure, I suppose the healing of my mom's ear, which baffled medical professionals, could be explained in some way that would deny the existence of God.
We should examine all things and test them to be true or not. You don't have to believe my anecdotal evidence -- I only gave it because I was asked "What makes you believe?" I CERTAINLY didn't mean it as a proof text for the existence of God.
Here are my thoughts on the age of the earth: http://danielml.com/cgi-bin/
Blah...eo,m=1113327211
Ah, the rapture. I believe too many people take the book of Revelations as a prophecy when it is a work of History written in code to people who would understand it. The christians at the time of its writing were highly persecuted and had to resort to a sort of "secret language" to protect their own safety and that of those they loved. Jury's out on the rapture, for me.
I respect your opinions. I don't agree with your assumption that anyone who is a christian is automatically an (idiot? numbskull? chickenshit? dickhead?). There were and are some pretty amazing, intelligent, caring and good people who are christians. People lik
--cut off my post--
People like Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Wesley, CS Lewis, TS Eliot, Martin Luther King, Rob Bell to name a few.
I also respect you as an animator and political thinker. I'm honored you would take the time to fashion a response to my ideology.
Thank you for some good thoughts and I look forward to seeing more! I understand more where you're coming from now.
best wishes
Here are some good thoughts about Pat Robertson from an (extremely) intelligent man who also has a doctorate in theology. http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/
2...n.html#comments
Sorry for the (triple?) post.
*where's the edit function when you need it?*
Err. here is the article:
http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2...-
robertson.html
*sorry again*
I am a very strong Christian, but I still think Pat is off his rocker. Dude, he misrepresents all of us Christians by saying crazy shit that nobody cares about. But then it makes it to the news, people make the connection by Pat is Christian, then that means all Christians are dumb asses. I dont think he should be speaking for anyone.
I'm certainly not defending Pat Robertson. The guy is a nutcase.
No hard feelings, I just don’t understand why anyone would want to take a leap of faith and believe something so flawed as the bible. I would be really interested in talking with you more about this subject. So far it seems you are the type that believes in God/Jesus, but always has an explanation for the ridiculous parts of the bible (which is all of it, if you ask me).
Wow!! You shouldn't have posted that pic. It's aweful! It went directly through my eyes. (X_X)
Fun with atheism! Does it need faith?
Faith (n)
1) Confident belief in the truth
Hell no. Atheist scientists are NEVER confident - all theories are vulnerable to new evidence. Science means "to know," so it is an active process.
http://dictionary.reference.com/...earch?
q=science
Science doesn't need confidence - it BUILDS it.
Extra bonus! The Black Sea Flood: the reality behind Noah?
http://www.religioustolerance.or...org/
ev_noah.htm
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/feat...atures/
noah.htm
My favorite comedian speaking about religion...
"When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!"
Read More: http://www.rense.com/general69/obj.htm
You guys scare me when you talk about atheism and religion (~_~)
Sam T,
I respect your opinion but you are taking my words out of context.
Your examples are also wrong. The Bible does not say the earth is the center of the universe, nor does it claim it's flat, nor does it claim the sun revolves around it. That's 0 for 3.
I did not say that God creates us all perfectly. I said, God created humanity and the Earth perfectly; but that humanity chose to ruin this perfection. This took us from Paradise to Present Day. Is it not true that chaos propagates itself?
Also, Allen did not say that atheism was a religion. He said that atheism takes FAITH to believe in:
faith (from dictionary.com )
n.
1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3) Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4) often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5) The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6) A set of principles or beliefs.
I believe definitions 1, 2, 3 and 6 would accurately suit the context of his remarks.
How is the Bible a fairytale book?
fairy tale
n.
1) A fanciful tale of legendary deeds and creatures, usually intended for children.
2) A fictitious, highly fanciful story or explanation.
Most of the stuff in the Bible isn't really that suited for children (which rules out definition 1) - and much of it is mundane details about the history of the Kingdom of Israel (which rules out definition 2).
Please clarify. I would love to entertain any serious thought you have about this.
best wishes
daniel | Homepage | 01.10.06 - 5:54 pm | #
Dear Daniel you are forgetting that the bible was translated from time to time and they took out parts of it which were proven rong.
And about atheïsts they believe that god doesn't exist
Agnosts question the existing of god, but do not say he doensn't exist.
How can someone who says god doesn't exist and someone who doesn't lives according to some "rules" be a religious person.
The only reason why people believed that there were god(s) is that they were living in a place were strang things happened unexpaineble to them.
Rain, fire, vulcanous and even live itself.
They were afraid, not knowing what happened to them, and do you know why?
Because we had brains, we could think, but we also still had an instinct(people are afraid in the dark because of that).
Then someone told them a story...he told them about the rain which was created by the rain god...he told them about the fire which was created by the god of fire and evil(fire destroyed everything so it had to be evil)...he told them about humans which were created by the gods...and when the people asked why he said because they balanced everything or that the gods needed an army or that they were slaves or that the ods needed humans to stay alive etc etc etc.
But why did people take this?
Because they didn't know a better answer, it answered there questions and so they weren't afraid anymore(at least not very much).
There were many versions of this al around the world, but thats because humans are humans(never satisfied animals who always want to know the answer)
And today we live in a world where answer are finally there(but not all)...but what to the religious people do...they say "can you answer why the world is here and how it is created and why there is live an this planet etc etc...and ever time if science solves the question they will find another one...and every time science makes a mistake they say that that proofs the existens of god...not realesing that religion is number one in making mistakes.
SO FUCK RELIGION AND ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TELL ANOTHER PERSON WHAT TO DO!!
atheïst forever
Sam T,
This is interesting, you are telling the author of a piece of writing what he really meant by what he said. I've never seen this type of (presumptious?) argument before. Like I said, my intentions were for "us" and "we" to mean humanity as a whole.
*laughing a little*. Umm, you do know a large majority of the verses you quoted are poems, right? You do know that poetry should never (ever!) be taken entirely literally?
Ofcourse you say that, if you take it literally you will find out that living like a true christians sucks(especcially in this time)
Sam T,
Thanks again for the response. I definitely wouldn't mind talking more about this. We can communicate in this public forum or if you'd like, you can email me at danielml@danielml.com .
best wishes
me,
You show a propensity for misunderstanding and making stuff up out of thin air.
I'm fairly tolerant of other people's views. What I'm not tolerant of is people who talk out of their ass and then try to pass it off as fact ... whether christian, athiest, pagan or otherwise (Pat Robertson comes to mind). Please do some more research and when you're ready to have a serious adult conversation (devoid of name-calling and puerile flaming), then we'll talk.
take care
Sorry my friends, that I can't put any useful comments about it.
Respect each other, respect each others believes and gods. Don't define a person by his religion- let him freely believe in what he want's to believe.
This is all very interesting.
Two possibly irrevelant comments.
Certain parts of the Bible were ommitted and changed during the reign of Consantine, before he decided to convert the Empire
Sam T, if you was a Sumerian that had just invented the wheel, and you really wanted to know why people got the plague, do you think you would understand God saying "Well, Nishca, what causes it is a floating sac of DNA/RNA surrounded by a protien coat, which a possible basic fiber extention that inserts its DNA/RNA into a cell of an organism such as a Protist or an Animal..."?
wow....just wow.....
my brain has exploded now.
Sam, even though you aren't a Christian if you think about it Christians lead a very good life. Ok say what we believe in is not true (not saying it is) atleast we all lived a good life while someone out there has nothing to believe in and just sits around and has no moral values at all. Then they live a very bad life surrounded by horrible choices. It all comes down to what you do in your life. But if you don't believe and it is true it pretty much sucks for you when whatever happens agnaist you happens.
Holy crap! First serious discusion around here! lol.
...*time delay*...BOOM!!!!!
Yeah that was really serious. Also for the fact that christians lead a good life, quite frankly, I think that there quite hypocritical. The reason this allows them to lead a good life becuase they can do no wrong. (Again I'm not so much anti-christian as anti hypocrites)
I'm not sure if this was posted yet, but here is an interesting and easy-to-read list of Biblical contradictions:
http://www.infidels.org/library/
...radictions.html
There are two ways to disprove something - 1) if you can find concrete evidence disproving it and 2) (most importantly) if there are inherent logical contradictions within the concept. The idea that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally (something that even the Catholic Church says you shouldn't do) can be disproven by the 2nd method.
The only God that I can believe in is Spinoza's God (look it up on Wiki) - anything else simply does not make sense to me.
What happened to the days when religious people thought that the best way to get closer to God is to study his creation (to become scientists)? Nowadays they (or at least the ones in the US) seem to want to ONLY study an imperfectly-translated book instead. They even ignore Biblical scholars who study different translations of the Bible (who tend to be a little more sane) and insist that the King James' Version is the only one that counts.
All that they are worshipping is ignorance.
You want a real religion?
http://www.venganza.org/
Larry, what happened to your wiki?
jeffy, if you're looking for serious discussion, then look no further than our beloved 900 thread!
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...86423479727835/
Evil Pie | 01.11.06 - 8:18 pm | #
You're my kid! That's the right way to promote our thread. 900?
Jeffery, Do you really believe this?
"...while someone out there has nothing to believe in and just sits around and has no moral values at all. Then they live a very bad life surrounded by horrible choices."
You don't have to be religious to have morals. I’m motivated to moral behavior just as anyone else mostly due to my upbringing, human concern for others, law, and common decency.
And for the guy that told me to read the bible…NO THANKS! I honestly don’t like reading works of fiction. Even if I did read the bible, it’s unlikely I would become a christian and believe in God, the same as I wouldn’t believe tornadoes can teleport me to the merry old Land of Oz if I were to read the Wizard of Oz book.
"You don't have to be religious to have morals. I’m motivated to moral behavior just as anyone else mostly due to my upbringing, human concern for others, law, and common decency."
This is true. It is a shame that so many religious folks don't seem to realize this.
You do not need to have a religion to have moral standards - all you need is a set of beliefs about what is right and wrong.
By the way, back onto the original topic:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...1980422,00.html
"Pat Robertson retracts his remarks about Sharon after Israelis withdraw support for his $50 million "Jesusland" theme park in Galilee."
ROFLMAO! :D Looks like he got his ass handed to him on a silver platter...
Thanks for the links, ESN and Sam T! Good and hilarious reading.
I wish the bible had a section that says, "If you find out new info, please edit!"
I think Christians get flak b/c of the many hypocrites (kudos to Future Pres). How can Christ. Repubs. support 30,000 murders?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Atheists get pissed at Christians b/c of the condescending attitude of "I know the truth, heathen scum!" Pushing people to convert is bound to draw backlash.
The best guide to the bible!
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
on moral law:
I don't think moral law is as obvious to society as we'd like to believe. It surprises me that the athiests here seem to be Kantians and not ethical relativists. You seem to be implying that "right and wrong are moral fundamentals in the universe -- and that all cultures will develop to agree with these standards". If you study history, it will be hard to find factual evidence for this belief. Throughout history, the people with power make their own morality. One could argue that from a societal standpoint, power IS morality. In many ways it is important for the leaders of a society (the people with power) to believe in someone or something above themselves in order to keep their power in check. Western society as a whole could not have gotten to the point it is if a large body of christians did not keep the kings of the ages under the thumb of their religion. Christianity teaches that all men are created equal (which includes men of power and economic force and the weak and dejected.) Therefore, a king is no better, in the eyes of God, then a peasant is and both should be subject to the rules of law and morality. Without these fundamental beliefs, The U.S. would not and could not have been founded.
For the moral athiests, I ask, could all people follow your standards without the reasons you have? You folks are intelligent; but, not all people are. Most people don't see how stealing a small item is a detriment to the progress of society (and this is why thievery is rampant in america). There is NO moral imperative for them and they've shut out their conscience under a veil of rationalism. What is the moral imperative for the athiest not to lie or murder? We've seen, from the media that there is none.
One of the fundamental complaints among you is the media's propensity for "spin" -- essentially unfounded lies. In a society that has little respect for moral law -- or God -- what gives you the right to complain about this? They're just using their power to make money. What makes you think certain things are "good" for society and certain things are "bad" for society. Was it just the teachings you were given by your parents (that you haven't questioned?) Why do you care more about the general populace than those in power? If you say you care about people, then you ought to care about the motivations of both.
If you only have so many cookies in the jar, there is bound to be the kid who takes 2 while another kid leaves empty handed.
My 3 yr. old shows no signs of an innate, instinctual, moral understanding. He only knows what is taught to him. Children are selfish and cruel unless taught otherwise. But for an athiest, what is the innate ethical motivation to do so?
I'm very interested in your answers as this is something that I don't understand at all. (Much the same way that the Bible is nonsensical to you.)
the dates aren't correct
sorry my mistake
me,
You show a propensity for misunderstanding and making stuff up out of thin air.
I'm fairly tolerant of other people's views. What I'm not tolerant of is people who talk out of their ass and then try to pass it off as fact ... whether christian, athiest, pagan or otherwise (Pat Robertson comes to mind). Please do some more research and when you're ready to have a serious adult conversation (devoid of name-calling and puerile flaming), then we'll talk.
take care
daniel | Homepage | 01.11.06 - 1:18 pm | #
Dear Daniel I am beginning to think you are an asshole, everytime I say something you say it isn't correct.
But what you don't say which part isn't correct.
The bible is formed 2 centures after jesus.
It is a fact that to context changed from time to time(the catholic version isn't the only one).
And what I find very stupid is that you think that people need god to know the deffirence between good and evil.
Even stupid people know that.
It is human to know that.
People who steal money from thier parents and do not think that it is rong mostly have a syndrom or something like that.
And for the rest there is no deiirence between believers and non-believers when it comes to crime(and don't forget that criminals are mostly formed by a bad youth are something like that)
Therefore, a king is no better, in the eyes of God, then a peasant is and both should be subject to the rules of law and morality. Without these fundamental beliefs, The U.S. would not and could not have been founded.
Than why did the church support the kings?
Do you think some popes life in hell?
You think people thought that they were equal to kinks?
NO
Do you know something about the Dutch revolution?
A revolution, not based on religion but purely on money(a revolution that created freedom of religion, freedom of speach).
Most people don't care to life in a dictatorship when they have everything.
me,
You're name-calling again. I thought I made it clear that your arguments were poor "in toto". Do some more research and you should be able to figure out why on your own. You ARE a smart kid, aren't you?
take care and happy hunting,
This is a fine example of why I don’t like religion and will continue my fight to expose the truth. Religion has convinced people that it has a lock on morals and anyone who doesn’t share these same beliefs is a terrible person lost in the world with no purpose.
By this logic, everyone who goes to church should be a wonderful. Bull shit. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve been cut off while driving by a vehicle with a fishy on its bumper. I can’t keep up with the number of people/politicians/evangelicals convicted of crimes who claim to be christian.
I’m not arguing that christianity won’t instill values into some people, but for many others it allows them to be bad as they think they can do what ever they want and be forgiven later; or they have fooled themselves into thinking they have some personal relationship with God in which they can break his golden rules. For example, I know a guy who claims to believe in God, and claims to be a good Christian (he even goes to church and has a bible handy), but at the same time, he lies, cheats, steals, and has sex with many women (some married) behind his girlfriends back all because he’s made it alright with God in his head. In other words, he doesn’t have to follow the Ten Commandments, but everyone else does.
I’m a good, caring person because I have grown up and observed the world and the people in it. As an adult, I have come to my own understanding that I should be civil to others and help out when I can. I didn’t need a book to tell me that. It is called common sense. Obviously, not everyone can come to this way of thinking on there own, because they have to be willing and mature enough. I’m happy that I don’t believe in the bible, as from what I’ve witnessed, it tends to put a mask on the real world and causes you to see things askew. (Example: You don’t understand how another human being who isn’t religious can be a person of morals)
I find it funny, you accused me of thinking all christians are idiots, but you are also guilty of thinking all atheists are without morals. I understand that there are some really good people out there who are also christian (I know several), but my main point is that they don’t need religion to be this way. You can’t tell me that you would be a horrible person if there was no such thing as the bible.
Daniel, I would like to talk with you further on this matter, if you are willing. Do you have MSN? My name is Ebolaworld@hotmail.com. Send me a message.
me,
I've thought about it and decided to throw you a bone. Here's a hint: If you say, "it is human to know good from evil" then you are saying, "If a man does not do what I consider good, he is not a human".
Also, "everybody knows that" is not an argument. As we've discussed, "everybody also knew" that the earth was flat and the sun went around it. "Everybody knew" that Caesar was a god. "Everybody knew" that Newtonian physics were a 100% accurate explanation for the universe.
Further, you yourself admitted to me that you were making up history in order to justify your claims. I'm sorry, but that is unacceptable in a debate.
Hope this helps.
Sam T,
Wow, you hit the nail on the head. I apologize for my assumptions. I generally figure people are more self-interested than socially responsible (in all walks of life). And I DEFinitely shouldn't assume that any group of people is more unscrupulous than any other group. I guess integrity doesn't require a "motivating factor". Thank you for helping me to re-realize this.
Ah man this weeks newsweek political cartoon (One of them) is all about pat robertson and his comments on Sharon. It is hillarious. You should read it, no, you kust read it.
"It surprises me that the athiests here seem to be Kantians and not ethical relativists. You seem to be implying that "right and wrong are moral fundamentals in the universe -- and that all cultures will develop to agree with these standards"."
I cannot speak for others, but I'll try to explain my thoughts on what you said, daniel. I AM an ethical relativist in a certain sense. I do not believe that there is such a thing as a universal "right" and "wrong"; I think that these two definitions vary largely on the person, and that there will also be big differences between different cultures (whether those cultures are separated by time or by distance). I do have my OWN opinions for what is "right" and "wrong" that determine how I act, the difference is that I see them as a personal thing. They were determined partly by my upbringing and partly by my genes.
The "upbringing" bit should be obvious - I was born into a certain culture, and the values of that culture obviously rubbed off on me as I was growing up. The "genes" bit is also quite simple once you understand it, but it takes a lot of words to explain it to someone unfamiliar with the whole concept. I'm not sure if you are, so I'll make an attempt:
The brain, which has been proven by many medical studies by now to be the seat of human emotion and intelligence, is created by your genes from birth (and later shaped by your experiences in life - it's a combination of the two). What this means is that just as two blond-haired parents are going to have a kid who also has blond hair, two parents who are really smart will also have a kid who's really smart. EVEN IF he's born and raised in a different place, he'll still have the tendency to be like his parents, because that's where the natural tendency for his brain to develop would be. You know all of those stories about separated-from-birth identical twins who have remarkably similar lives despite not even knowing about the other's existence? That's what I'm talking about.
What I'm getting at here is that the mental makeup of a person is just as much of a genetic trait as their physical appearance - a person can change their physical appearance in life by having chemicals injected into their skin, eating bad food, getting more or less sunlight, dying their hair, etc, but they nevertheless have a certain initial set of traits that they were born with.
And now the principles of evolution come into play - serial killers tend to not have a lot of kids. I'm not saying that morals are ingrained from birth, but certain personality traits are - compassion, sharing, selfishness, etc. Basically, people come with the mental disposition to more readily ACCEPT certain morals.
Certain mental dispositions are more likely to pass on their genes to future generations than others - for example, a really selfish bastard will be hated by almost everyone, but at the same time someone almost completely withou
Ugh, stupid blog cut my entry off mid-word. Anyway, continued from my last post (read my last post first):
at the same time someone almost completely without ambition probably won't get very far in life either.
So basically, most people in a particular culture will have relatively similar senses of right and wrong ("relatively" is a very imprecise word, though) both because they were taught that way from birth, AND because they have a genetic tendency to be that way. The genetic part of this will differ somewhat in a completely different part of the world, just as the culture will - it takes a lot more courage to be a hunter than to be a farmer, for example, so hunter-societies will likely have a greater percentage of courageous people than farmer-societies. In different environments, different moral standards than what many in our culture think are the "right ones" may pose a greater chance of survival. In cultures that are closely related the difference will be far smaller than in those that are separated, but even in the latter it probably won't be HUGE - just to an extent more noticeable. Depends on how you define "huge" of course.
So basically, I have my own set of beliefs about what is right and wrong, but because I know that they are my opinion I feel a little uncomfortable about preaching them to people from other cultures - even within my very own city there are groups whom I will never understand. I think that's why we have laws - they are a kind of compromise between all of those different moral standards that different people have. Of course not everybody will agree with them, but since Canada's a democratic society they do reflect the will of the population to a large extent. The other option (absense of law) would mean complete chaos - it would lead to a "might is right" philosophy, as it did in Russia in the 1990s when law & order collapsed and the government was too weak to enforce most court decisions. Some of the stories that I could tell you from that time (I've heard them from friends and relatives) would probably make your blood boil, and this is why I hate libertarians and anarchists and everything they stand for. Of course it will right itself out eventually - it always does, and it did in Russia as well - and a new society will be born, but anarchism, while it exists, is a blight to all honest, hardworking people. I'd rather be forced to compromise my beliefs about "right" and "wrong" a little bit (at least publicly) than live in an unstable lawless society.
So as I see it, the church is a stabilizing agent for society, just as a government is. It imposes values of "right" and "wrong" onto its adherents and gives them stability in exchange. This I can certainly agree with - what I DISAGREE with is that the church is typically not very open to change, which on the one hand is a good thing (stability), but on the other hand means that it can be a HORRIBLE barrier to scientific
Continued from last post again (read previous 2 posts):
but on the other hand means that it can be a HORRIBLE barrier to scientific progress and changing societal realities - it is not a democratic institution either, so its moral standards often don't reflect the will of society as well as a democratic country's laws will (although they seem to have discreetly dropped things like sanctioning slavery as it became unfashionable). It also comes with a whole bunch of myths, some of which may be true and usefull, but others of which are not very relevant today or have been proven wrong.
So basically, those are my views. I'm sorry that I probably I didn't explain them very well, but if you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.
Ok seriously, what's with this blog system? Did long posts get disabled at some point or something?
WTF PEOPLE!?!?!?! ok, for now on only baxshtor is allowed to write books.
If you don't like it, Evil Pie, don't read it.
All these letters and words make me dizzy.
I think Sam T and ESN have really gotten to the point:
Many atheists believe in law, morals, and order that are created and decided upon by HUMANS.
That's what I suggested the Bible should have an "edit if necessary!" clause like the US Constitution, to incorporate new info and respond to the populace at large.
Thus atheism can be a practical, flexible philosophy, which leaves out blind faith, feelings of guilt, and weird stories about God losing in hand-to-hand combat.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbibl.../gen/
32.html#24
me,
I've thought about it and decided to throw you a bone. Here's a hint: If you say, "it is human to know good from evil" then you are saying, "If a man does not do what I consider good, he is not a human".
Also, "everybody knows that" is not an argument. As we've discussed, "everybody also knew" that the earth was flat and the sun went around it. "Everybody knew" that Caesar was a god. "Everybody knew" that Newtonian physics were a 100% accurate explanation for the universe.
Further, you yourself admitted to me that you were making up history in order to justify your claims. I'm sorry, but that is unacceptable in a debate.
Hope this helps.
daniel | Homepage | 01.12.06 - 2:46 pm | #
Everything I said about god and his followers is based on my "life-experience", the books and things I read and so on.
I teacher told me ones "the mayority of the people is always wrong".
Its a strang thing but in a way he is right.
People don't want to think much about difficlut items, so they follow the person who they respect or look up to in an other way.
I completly agree with Esn about the right and wrong thema. I find it difficult to put my Dutch thoughts into English. I didn't grew up with it you know.
I find you slightly arogant, for example you didn't comment the lines I wrote about the Dutch-war.
In my point of view, the reason why people became jew, christian or muslim is because it was the best of all options, also outside pressur and the way they were raisen.
and Esn
if you want to make a story which isn't interrupted, just copy it and later at the piece which isn't posted.
ESN,
Thank you for the in-depth look at your ethical system! I really appreciate it. And, yes, I do understand genetics.
So essentially your ideology is that of an ethical relativist but you generally act as a utilitarian?
It's good to see someone here understands the varying ethical systems and the use for stabilizing forces in society.
best wishes,
me,
I'm sorry. I should've been more considerate to you - as english isn't your primary language.
I still don't think I need to tolerate being insulted just for having a differing view than you.
"SO FUCK RELIGION AND ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TELL ANOTHER PERSON WHAT TO DO!!"
"Dear Daniel I am beginning to think you are an asshole"
"I find you slightly arogant"
Like I said, once you're ready to drop this kind of talk, then I'll answer every one of your points. Until then, take what you can get. I certainly don't owe you a response.
best wishes,
Ok, it seems to me Sam T, that you compare yourself to everyone else. If you do that then yes you will always come on top in one way or another. However, you do make mistakes. In fact, everyone on this blog has made at least one error or two. The point of Christianity is God is perfect. Nowhere in the Bible does it say otherwise. It also emphasizes man's sin (open rebellion against God). You can take some of the greats of the Bible: Daniel, Solomon, Samson, Abramam, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, and the Apostles and you see mistakes and "sins" they committed. Christianity is not trying to get people to stop sinning or to stop sin (in fact that's completely impossible). Christianity is trying to lead people to God and to Christ in order that you may be forgiven (and you don't spend eternity separated from God in a lovely little place called hell.) So, if everbody has sinned and all sins are created equal then... we all are on the same page and God (who has never sinned) lightyears ahead. God is the antithesis of sin, therefore we as sinners cannot be with God. That's why Jesus did what he had to do.
As to Sam T's comments about people going to church are supposed to be perfect and all. No where in the Bible does it say that Christians are perfect people. No where in the Bible does it have any one man being perfect other than Jesus Christ. I'd also like to make the point that it's also very easy to misunderstand or misinterpret the Bible. For example, many Christians get the FALSE idea that once they are "saved" they can do whatever they want. The entire book of James says that if you love God you will obey his commands, meaning that Christians will follow God's laws not because it will save them (they should've been saved already) they'd do it because they want to obey their father (much in the way that I the son of my father would like to obey him). You also get people like Pat Roberts who take parts out of the Bible to make any kind of message they want, and who makes foolish statements as if he was speaking on behalf of God (which he doesn't). What I'm trying to say is, you can't just randomly pick a person who claims to be a Christian and then assume that the Bible agrees with him or that he is even a Christian in the first place.
In my experience I know a lot of people who have claimed to be God and they follow God's commands and live very "fruitful" lives.
As for the atheist ideas, you can go with those morals for a while, but eventually the question, "who says" comes into play and you can't really answer that with atheism.
As for the Bible being a book of fiction, ok why did and do people die to defend a book of fiction. Why did eleven people die because they would not back down from what they preached and wrote in the Bible. How did 40 different people of at least three different languages stretched across 4,000 years write a book of fiction that connects? You may be able to comprehend that but I can't.
Drew,
For the most part I agree with what you said. However, I don't think the threat of Hell is a valid reason to follow Christ.
I think some more valid reasons to follow Christ are things like, "come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest." or, "This is my commandment that you love one another that your JOY may be FULL." or, "the fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" or "the peace that passes all understanding."
By in large, in our post-modern world, a large percent of the members of society feel restless, empty, depressed, jaded and unloved. Many people search for fulfillment and happiness and only cause themselves more misery in the process. People are searching for that peace that passes all understanding. They are searching for love and joy. They are searching for TRUE rest. Not the un-easy relaxation of problem-avoidance afforded by the television set or mindless internet surfing.
God offers us peace, love and joy for a simple commitment. A commitment to bringing Heaven TO earth. Could you imagine an entire society that displayed these characteristics in their everyday dealings: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness and Self Control? It sounds like paradise to me.
best wishes,
Danny, I agree with what you say as well I'm sorry that I missed that point. Yeah, that would be pretty close to paradise.
i second zntrip.
@me: "SO FUCK RELIGION AND ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TELL ANOTHER PERSON WHAT TO DO!!"
back off asshole.
So, Drew, what you're saying is that if you're not Christian you're damned to hell?
Oh, and me. If there's no authority, how can we function?
"So, Drew, what you're saying is that if you're not Christian you're damned to hell?"
Yep. He's even said on the 800 thread that he thought Gandhi went to hell.
I just thought of something.
Does the Bible say, anywhere, that it is the word of the Christian god?
There's plenty of references to "...and God said..."; but otherwise, I've never seen some disclaimer stating that.
"just thought of something.
Does the Bible say, anywhere, that it is the word of the Christian god?"
Try Galatians and Phillippians, I think it says it there.
" So, Drew, what you're saying is that if you're not Christian you're damned to hell?"
"Oh, and me. If there's no authority, how can we function?"
Let me try to answer that, we can't. You can survive on pure morals for awhile until someone says why or why not, who says or something like that.
I'm not a huge fan of the word Christian, but in essence yes. What I believe allows you to not go to hell and to live with Christ forever is you have to believe that Jesus died on the cross for everybody's sin and that if you commit your life to Him you will be saved. I do not believe that someone like our old friend Pat who says publicly that he's a Christian and then turns around and says alot of untrue things is a true Christian.
Sorry I confused the copying and pasting so that looks really weird.
"As for the atheist ideas, you can go with those morals for a while, but eventually the question, "who says" comes into play and you can't really answer that with atheism."
Please read my 3 posts a little while back and try to understand them.
But in case you want the shortened version, here it is: "who says?" "Society says. I say. The two usually overlap, but when they do not I will relent - it is a trade-off. Unless it's something REALLY serious, in which case I would consider protesting or moving somewhere else."
By the way, I might as well say right now that the word "perfect" doesn't make much sense to me. What is a perfect film to one person can be complete rubbish to someone else. And often is.
Esn, I see a basic fundamental problem with the idea that society and I make the moral rules. There was a time when society didn't want on their televisions people in the same bed together, now Pierce Brosman and Halle Berry. Before crude comedy was looked down upon, now Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy.
Another problem is (in case you haven't noticed) the recorded history of man is a long list of wars mistakes and do-overs (which are followed by more mistakes). Let's look at Russia, first we had Czars. Well, everybody liked the Czars right? That's why they killed him...k. Then we had Communism everybody loved Stalin right? That's why when he had a stroke nobody wanted to touch him because they were afraid he'd wake up and kill them. So, we move on to what they are today, an unorganized stack of countries who are rebelling and trying to leave, the military is gone, oh and most of their once great influence gone. Now let's take Israel (they are the best example). Long time ago they were Egyptian slaves (even Egypt acknowledges that), then they became their own country, then they divided, then they were conquered, then they were sent back to their lands, then they were conquered again, and now they have a tiny little strip and are getting the crap bombed out of them by Palestinians. Mankind is not reliable.
In fact, people on this website have called George W. Bush a fool and an idiot. They have also called Republicans fools for following the Pres. The President of the United States IS the top rank of society. Yet you spend alot of time arguing every move he makes. So... how reliable is the status quo anyway?
The only other thing I have to say is a famous movie quote from the actor who played Obi-Wan Kenobi and Harrison Ford in Star Wars: A New Hope, "who is the greater fool, the fool, or the fool who follows him?"
"Does the Bible say, anywhere, that it is the word of the Christian god?"
Try this on for size, Acts 1:16
"Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.
That's just one there are others.
By the way Esn, I do not feel the need to move my argument forward by implying that you are incapable of understanding my points. Why do you feel the need?
"By the way, I might as well say right now that the word 'perfect' doesn't make much sense to me. What is a perfect film to one person can be complete rubbish to someone else. And often is."
I think the kind of perfect you are talking about is based on personal opinion. A 5 star rating if you will. The Bible takes that more seriously than a movie rating system would.
"By the way Esn, I do not feel the need to move my argument forward by implying that you are incapable of understanding my points. Why do you feel the need?"
It seemed to me like you didn't understand my views, because I had already explained my answer to your question "says who?" in that 3-part message.
I wasn't trying to insult you, I'm sorry if I did.
Notice that all of the societies that you mentioned were ones where the society did not have much say on its government and on the laws that it created. Neither czarist Russia, nor the USSR, nor (God forbid) the conquered Israelis had any say in the laws that they were subjected to.
But since I live in a democratic society, I do. Not perfect of course, but to some extent better. What this means is that if the government does something too outrageous, the populace can revolt and vote them out of power. This was not a possibility for all of the kings and emperors of yore, and it is why there were so many bloody rebellions - people had no other way to express their dissatisfaction.
As for wars, mistakes, and oppression, the Vatican has had plenty of those as well. They were the ones who told the peasants in the middle ages not to rebel against their kings because they were chosen by God.
"an unorganized stack of countries who are rebelling and trying to leave, the military is gone, oh and most of their once great influence gone."
*sigh*
Is military, influence and size the most important thing that a country can have? I just do not understand you. Would you prefer Russia to be where it was 20 years ago, with all of its military, size and influence intact, but not accountable to its populace in any way?
Your arguments to me seem directionless - please tell me what point you are trying to make. 
The thing about the current situation of the USA is that in order for a democracy to function as it is intended, you need a fair voting process and excellent enforcement of freedom of information laws (so that the public doesn't get lied to).
Unfortunately, neither of these is currently in very good shape in America. The US voting process, even if we forget about those suspicious electronic Diebold voting machines, is designed to enforce the status quo by discouraging people from voting for smaller parties. Other countries like Australia and Ireland have a form of proportional representation that gives smaller parties more of a chance - even Canada gives $1.75 per vote in funding to any party the manages to win over 2% of the popular vote, even if they do not win any seats.
As for freedom of information, it is a disaster - Americans are being lied to left and right and therefore cannot make an informed decision on voting day. This is also why there is so much corruption currently being uncovered in government. Government is not always corrupt - government is corrupt is you LET it be corrupt.
Basically, democracy in the US isn't working
as it was intended. Yet even with these flaws, it is STILL better for its people than a country like Saudi Arabia.
Now I have a question for you: Do you believe that a democracy represents the needs of society better than a dictatorship? To be honest, I really do not understand what point you were trying to make...
"I think the kind of perfect you are talking about is based on personal opinion. A 5 star rating if you will. The Bible takes that more seriously than a movie rating system would."
So what is the Bible's definition of "perfect"?
And NO, not everyone liked the Czar and not everyone liked Stalin.
They didn't like the Czar because many didn't agree with his policies and had no way of voting him out. That's why he got killed.
They DID like Stalin, but largely because many of the atrocities were hidden from the population. That whole "freedom of information" thing again.
"Esn, I see a basic fundamental problem with the idea that society and I make the moral rules. There was a time when society didn't want on their televisions people in the same bed together, now Pierce Brosman and Halle Berry. Before crude comedy was looked down upon, now Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy."
And your point is?
@me: "SO FUCK RELIGION AND ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TELL ANOTHER PERSON WHAT TO DO!!"
back off asshole.
Evil Pie | 01.13.06 - 8:24 pm | #
mmmh...no
and Daniel sorry for insulting you
Oh, and me. If there's no authority, how can we function?
Larry Schober | Homepage | 01.13.06 - 8:26 pm | #
Goverments are good(if there democratic)
This remebers me of a teacher who said.
You don't get freedom by democracy.
Democracy meanes that you can do what other people allow you to.
Democracy is the best option for the biggest group.
Or else you will live in a dictatorship, where the minorty can do everything they wish
and the mayority lifes like a slave.
In a way this is the story of the USA.
The political top is to powerful.
The media works together with them.
Haha, yesterday there was a program cald "de leugen regeert" which is Dutch for "the lie rules".
They showed how much the people in there nations trusted their media.
The USA and the UK were about 20%
The average Europian nation 40%
And the Netherlands 80%
The highest score in our country was 95%.(NOS journaal)
Peopple have ust been posting too much. Now I will post my two cents.
Alan and Daniel,
Have either of you seen the matrix? It deals with the theoretical question (Free will and God's part in it) you have been blathering on about. if you haven't I suggest yo do. It providesan interesting take on life.
Does the Bible say it is the word of God?
The scriptures are generally held to be inspired by God. The Bible often self-references "The Law and The Prophets". The Law was said to be given to Moses by God and the Prophets were said to be God's voice on earth. The Histories of Israel - that is: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles (and the Macabees for Catholics) are just that: written History. Sometimes History is mixed with the Prophets (as in the case of the book of Daniel). The poetic books (like psalms, proverbs, ecclesiastes, and song of songs) are worship poetry. Again, sometimes poems are interspersed into the Histories, much the way a famous speech would be placed in our history books.
That takes us to the New Testament. The Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) are stories of Jesus. Acts is the history of the early church. The rest are letters from church leaders to individual churches around the region. Christians generally treat the apostles with the same respect as the prophets; but, like in the case of Paul, will make exceptions for what is known about the time period and his personal views. Anything Jesus said is considered to be "The Word of God."
It's a mixed answer. "Yes and No" is your best bet.
On perfection:
Perhaps "perfect" isn't the best word. Perhaps we should try "immaculate" or
"blameless"?
I can't speak for Drew, but I think what he's trying to get at is that we all have
harmed our fellow humans in some way (either emotionally, physically, or mentally).
We all have also harmed the earth in some way. And further, and in some ways most
importantly, we all have harmed OURSELVES in some way.
Can anyone say they are TRULY blameless?
Now before we get into, "But God KILLS people every day." Let's just accept that
we're all going to die and that death is not a harm to us nor is it a harm to the
earth nor is it a harm to society in general. Life is a gift far better than the
oblivion of non-existence and death is its natural ending. In a lot of ways, God has
done us a favor by limiting our time on earth.
Now let's get back to each of us individually. Do you act with love to complete
strangers even if they annoy you? Do you FEEL loved even when you're not in a
relationship or do you feel alone and empty? Do you wake up in the morning Joyful
for a new day -- or do you dread another day? In the midst of stress and problems,
are you truly at Peace? Are you always in a hurry, or are you patient with your
fellowman? Are you faithful to your friends, your lovers, or your spouse? Are you
good, kind and have self control? Do you limit your drinking, smoking, drug-use,
eating in a confident and wholesom way?
The Bible says the fruits of the spirit - in other words, the result of comitting
to follow Jesus are these: Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Goodness, Kindness,
Faithfulness and Self-Control. This is Holiness.
The Bible also says that we have no hope of being these things Immaculately. We
will all fail. We will all end up cursing at that other driver on the road, or
yelling at our children, or drinking too much, or sending a hate-filled flame on the
internet ONCE IN AWHILE. We are not blameless. But, the Bible says that if we
commit to God, God will also commit to help us be better. It's not a one-way street.
God will transform us from being helpless to being Holy - if we just TRUST Him.
Correct me if I'm wrong; but that sounds like a win-win situation to me. God has
held up His end of the bargain for me. I've found that in the midst of turmoil, I'm
at peace. Although alone, I don't feel empty. I look forward to each day and I
value the people around me even if they are complete strangers. I'm not blameless
either. I've made mistakes and I have regrets. I get pissed off at people on
occassion - however; I know through God's working in my inner-life I am being renewed
and transformed on a daily basis. I can't prove that to you scientifically - all I
can tell you is that since I've decided to follow Christ, I have felt a positive
change in myself and
and the people around me have seen it too.
(sorry about the weird spacing, I copy-pasted from a text file and it went all wonky)
take care,
One more thing,
Let's make this clear: No person is a judge of another person's soul. Okay? Noone has a right to say who is going to hell and who is not.
I would say if you are living a life devoid of Love, Joy and Peace that you already ARE in hell. You're in a living hell filled with mental and physical anguish. You are empty and alone. You are restless and depressed. I've been through this Hell. I know how it feels. I'm not saying the only way to find meaning in your life is through Jesus - I AM saying that if you can't find meaning in your life, if you've searched and can't find True Peace or True Joy, Jesus is a good place to start.
some people believe in god other don't
why all know that
and if god does excist we will only find that out after death
if he/she doesn't excist we will never find that out(because will are death)
I believe/know he does not excist
and if he/she would come to earth tommorow I wouldn't like him/her
I will no longer be part of this god discussion
some people believe in god others don't
we all know that
and if god does excist we will only find that out after death
if he/she doesn't excist we will never find that out(because we are death)
I believe/know he does not excist
and if he/she would come to earth tommorow I wouldn't like him/her
I will no longer be part of this god discussion
And i know my english is bad
Jammer dat jullie geen Nederlands spreken, het is een mooie taal weet je.
@me:
Haha, yesterday there was a program cald "de leugen regeert" which is Dutch for "the lie rules".
They showed how much the people in there nations trusted their media.
The USA and the UK were about 20%
The average Europian nation 40%
And the Netherlands 80%
The highest score in our country was 95%.(NOS journaal)
me | 01.14.06 - 7:05 am | #
so, me... are you suggesting that your media/news organizations are more truthful and better than ours, or that the dutch are stupider than us and believe the lies of the media?
You can find an easier to read, revised and expanded version of my last three posts here:
http://danielml.com/cgi-bin/
Blah...eo,m=1137260009
if anybody's interested....
"Does the Bible say it is the word of God?"
Even if its the word of God, apparently the word of God has been edited by a Roman emporer (don't tell me this is bullshit, look up "Constantine" and "changing the bible" and you'll find 1,000,000 hits).
http://www.hist.edu/325nice.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fir...uncil_of_Nicaea
http://www.newmanreader.org/work...chapter3-
1.html
he's going to say that the middleschooler that got shot by a SWAT guy was "A gay satinist who wanted to eat christian babies, amen."
Colin,
You may want to read the wikipedia article more carefully.
"The Council of Nicaea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom."
During that time period there were many people who had varied and bizarre ideas about the nature of Christianity and of God. Christians still hold the Nicene Creed in high regard.
It wasn't about "editing the Bible" it was more about "making sure everyone's on the same page."
In general, we have first generation and very early copies of all the books of the Bible. There are a large body of highly trained scholars who have given us excellent translations of these original and/or early copies.
For the old Testament, we have copies from groups that were so dedicated to copying the scripture exactly that they would ritually bathe themselves after copying each letter - and if they made a mistake, they would burn the entire copy.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say about the Council of Nicaea. Could you please clarify?
ps. I don't think your factoid about searching "constantine" and "changing the bible" is very relevant either. Google gave me 483 hits (when I put them in quotes so as to avoid articles about the movie Constantine) and the top ten had very little to do with Constantine changing the Bible. If you search "Constantine changing the Bible" you get 14 hits (also in quotes). The only web articles I can find to support your claims ... dun dun duuuun ... don't list any sources. :P
For fun I put "Sam T is God" in Google (without the quotes) and I got 20,000,000 hits.
Sam, is there something you're not telling us? Do you not believe in yourself anymore? 
then I put "Sam T" and "God" (with quotes) and got 11,800 hits.
So by this logic, it is 24 times more likely that "Sam T" is "God" than that "Constantine" was in the busines of "changing the Bible".
My apologies for the multi-posts.
"For the old Testament, we have copies from groups that were so dedicated to copying the scripture exactly that they would ritually bathe themselves after copying each letter - and if they made a mistake, they would burn the entire copy."
So your telling me that they're are no copies of a premature bible decaying in the midle of nowhere as we speak? Please clarify.
"So by this logic, it is 24 times more likely that "Sam T" is "God" than that "Constantine" was in the busines of "changing the Bible"."
Alright, go and ask a historian. Go ask a college proffesor if he can tell you more about an animator who makes cartoons about a talking taco than an even that changed the course of history. Go on, try it. Lets see what shit you can pull.
But seriously, do you think that the bible we have hasn't been through so many changes? That its the same thing written over and over again throughout history? Go ahead, screw around with google. Ask a historian. Surly they're were some parts that had to be edited when introduced to new cultures, in case of something being to negative in that specific culture.
Your move.
"Google gave me 483 hits (when I put them in quotes so as to avoid articles about the movie Constantine) and the top ten had very little to do with Constantine changing the Bible. If you search "Constantine changing the Bible" you get 14 hits (also in quotes). The only web articles I can find to support your claims ... dun dun duuuun ... don't list any sources. :P"
Well, certainly you have done your reasearch. You didn't even search along those lines, just the exact thing I said. Wow, you sure do know how to get your stuff.
"me,
That's an interesting perspective. What are your sources? Where did you learn this alternate version of history? Many of the stories of Jesus are first generation eyewitness accounts (according to both secular and christian sources). I'd love to read the literature that brought you to these conclusions. Let me know if you have any actual sources"
I bet he gets his stuff from a black book written thousands of years ago, that has been reprinted time and time again, and that is so unreliable that it even contradicts itself. What a dumbass.
Once again, your move.
"'constantine" and "changing the bible'"
Wow, you actually used the quotes? That's what you do when you say what you typed for a certain search.
@me:
Haha, yesterday there was a program cald "de leugen regeert" which is Dutch for "the lie rules".
They showed how much the people in there nations trusted their media.
The USA and the UK were about 20%
The average Europian nation 40%
And the Netherlands 80%
The highest score in our country was 95%.(NOS journaal)
me | 01.14.06 - 7:05 am | #
so, me... are you suggesting that your media/news organizations are more truthful and better than ours, or that the dutch are stupider than us and believe the lies of the media?
Evil Pie | 01.14.06 - 12:18 pm | #
Well, the most interresting thing that came out of this thing was that the people can see the difference between lies an the truth more than most people think.
"SBS nieuws" was seen as a kin of sensation news which couldn't be trusted al lot.
I am saying that our media not lying much, doesn't care much about sensation, is either objective or left and is not at all ifluenced by politics.
I am not saying that the Dutch are more stupid than any people.
I think in many ways the Netherlands is an example for the rest of the world.
In religion, drugs, marriage, education and tolerance in general.
I no nationalist, just a realist :p.
Colin,
I'll be quoting in large portions from the 9th edition of a book titled "Medieval Europe: a short history" by the late C. Warren Hollister (U of C, Santa Barbara) and Judith M. Bennett (U of NC, Chapel Hill). This was my wife's Medieval History textbook last semester.
Quote 1 (from pg 22):"In 313, the Emperor Constantine undertook a momentous reversal of imperial religious policy when he granted Christians official toleration and protection. Constantine's new approach was partly encouraged by his CHRISTIAN MOTHER, St. Helena, and partly, it is said, by an extraordinary experience. Before a battle in 312, Constantine dreamt of a cross inscribed with the advice 'In this sign, you will conquer.' The next day, his soldiers fought under the sign of the cross and won the field." (emphasis added)
-- my point: I don't think HIS MOTHER would've allowed him to mess up the Bible.
Quote 2 (from pg 26):"Jerome's supreme achievement lay in his study and translation of the Christian scriptures. He produced the definitive Latin translation of the Bible and its original Hebrew and Greek. The result of Jerome's efforts was the Latin Vulgate Bible, which Catholic Christians used throughout the Middle Ages and beyond, and which has served as the basis of innumerable translations into modern languages. Jerome's translation was an achievement of incalculable significance to Western civilization."
my point: This is the same Jerome whose "monks devoted themselves to the copying of Latin manuscripts, a task that was to be taken up by countless monastics in later centuries and which, in the long run, resulted in the preservation of important works of Greco-Roman antiquity--by Aristotle, Cicero, Ovid, and others--that would otherwise have perished." Are you going to tell me now that NONE of the Greco-Roman texts can be trusted because THEY were edited by Constantine as well?
My final question: Which college professors did YOU ask? What texts are YOU using? Did you ask a professor of HISTORY?
take care,
Okay, daniel, I don't want to spend the time tearing apart your argument while exposing mine, becuase that silly type debate can go on and on and on.
I will concede to the fact that nothing was changed significantly by Constantine I, but I will say this: All religones change to fit a culture they're introduced to, and all reliegons adapt over time. I will confidently say that Christianity is not immune to these changes, and its central book has been edited many times. Therefore, it isn't the direct word of God, just the direct word of God as presented by his Children.
Clarify things?
Drew, just because a bunch of people believe in the bible, doesn’t make it’s true. I don’t fear going to hell, because there is no proof of its existence and is merely mythology.
Also, just because a bunch of people die for their beliefs doesn't make them right. Remember those hale-bop comet people and David Koresh’s gang?
Lastly, I never said that everyone that goes to church should be good people, I was making a (sarcastic) statement based on what Daniel said about all people that don’t believe in God are evil.
I don’t understand why people want to believe so much in something they can’t prove. Why not just let what happens happen. I find it better to not make up answers to things I don’t understand, but wait for science to figure it out. Who knows, maybe one day science will prove there is a God/Creator. Then I’ll believe it too, but not until that day.
Then again, they may never figure out where we came from (and I will be okay with that too).
Colin,
If you would have actually READ my previous post about "Is the Bible God's word?" you would have noticed that I say the answer is "Yes and No".
I'm curious as to whom you think made these "edits", what their intentions were, when they did it, and what your sources of information are. That shouldn't "expose" your argument -- it should give your argument VALIDITY.
I'm not debating this to "prove you wrong", I'm debating this so that I can learn more about this subject. If you have any actual verifiable sources of information, I would be thrilled if you let me in on the secret.
take care,
"If you would have actually READ my previous post about "Is the Bible God's word?" you would have noticed that I say the answer is "Yes and No"."
I have read your previous posts. You should read mine. If you would, you would figure out that I wasn't debating you with my statement, rather, just stating something using a quote of yours. You, on the otherhand, jumped right into a debate.
"I'm not debating this to "prove you wrong", I'm debating this so that I can learn more about this subject."
News to me.
"If you have any actual verifiable sources of information, I would be thrilled if you let me in on the secret."
I don't actually have the names of any sources. d In my head is a vast resevoir of random facts that I have read in books and been taught by teachers. If you must, I think I learned about that in a book called The Story of Mankind, either that or what random teachers of whom you have never heard about have taught me over the years.
And Muhammed came down from Mount Hira and said "Allah told me on that Mountain that People of Mecca, must stop your gambling and idoltry, and be accepted by Him". And the people of Mecca looked astounded, until one of them asked "Well, did you check you check your sources?" And so, Muhammed was exiled from Medina and the People of Mecca continued to gamble and fight and practice idoltry.
I'm sorry, Muhammed was exiled from Mecca and moved to Medina
Colin,
Are you talking about this children's book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product...=283155&
s=books
by this guy:
http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/
art...lemvanloon.html
?
Colin,
That's cute ... but your analogy is poor.
We were discussing HISTORY not DIVINE INSPIRATION.
best wishes,
"A more serious charge against van Loon was the sloppiness of his scholarship. He manufactured details to aid his narrative, perpetrated anachronisms, and committed other mistakes. Insisting that his own belief in his text was sufficient, he regarded editors and proofreaders as interfering nuisances. His partisans argued that, as he made history come to life, his factual errors were inconsequential."
"Because of his racial and social bias and his disdain for historical precision, his books can no longer be used as classroom or reference texts."
-from http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/
art...lemvanloon.html
Nice source, Colin.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
15367a.htm
Fine, daniel, fine. You want to tell me on this god damn thread that you can not only debunk my claim that reliegous texts are changed significantly to fit the culture of the reigon and time perod they're introduced to with sources as well as proving to me with secular sources that the bible is the direct word of God, than I'll be willing to end this fucking "debate". But I really can't see the point in all of this, considering we are basically arguing the same side.
"Colin,
That's cute ... but your analogy is poor.
We were discussing HISTORY not DIVINE INSPIRATION."
Funny, I was talking about ideas and philosophys interpreting history being answered with the simple remard "well... did you list your sources?". That must be why Socrates was executed, not because his philosophes and interpretations were false, but becuase he didn't list he god damn sources. Got it.
But then again, how would I know? I haven't even listed my sources
Colin,
Chill out, man. Be a man and take some criticism. No need to resort to profanity. Relax, have a cold one or something.
re: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/ 15367a.htm
Of COURSE there's different translations. The Bible was written in a few different languages and not everyone can read all of them.
"Pope Damasus therefore requested St. Jerome to undertake its revision. Guided by old Greek manuscripts, he corrected its mistakes and emended such translations as affected the true sense of the Gospels, and probably followed the same method in revising all the books of the New Testament, which he put forth at Rome about 383."
These "revisions" are about revising the TRANSLATION to more accurately represent the original text. Thanks for finding me another source to prove my point.
Chill out and take care,
it's all good
Thank you for contradicting yourself.
Remeber to reread your own posts. I admit I often forget, too.
"It's a mixed answer. "Yes and No" is your best bet"
What are we debating again?
If this turns into another 800 thread I swear to God I will come to your houses and smash your keyboards apart :D
OK Colin,
If you're going to refuse to make any sense, I might as well stop trying to communicate with you.
You seem to imply that I'm contradicting myself. How do you figure? What statements have I made that are contradictory? Tell you the truth, I'm at a loss to figure out WHAT you're trying to say. I'm guessing you're a very young kid. Do a little more research and talk to me when you're ready to handle things like an adult.
with best wishes,
Sorry, Larry 
I'll try to limit my responses only to people with reasonable arguments
"These "revisions" are about revising the TRANSLATION to more accurately represent the original text. Thanks for finding me another source to prove my point."
Maybe I'm not actually seeing your point. You said that "yes and no" was the answer to if the bible is the direct word of God. I'm saying about the same thing. Why are we "debating"? Am I missing something?
"me,
You're name-calling again."
"I'm guessing you're a very young kid."
"I'll try to limit my responses only to people with reasonable arguments"
Hipocisy: 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2.An act or instance of such falseness
"with best wishes,
daniel"
Really?
How old are you, Colin?
I'm 27. Are you younger than that?
+ I didn't call YOU unreasonable, I called YOUR ARGUMENT unreasonable.
:P
I don't see how that's name-calling on par with "me"'s "asshole", "fuck off" and "arrogant" I believe YOU also called me a "dumbass". Hmmmmmm.
What I said:
"I bet he gets his stuff from a black book written thousands of years ago, that has been reprinted time and time again, and that is so unreliable that it even contradicts itself. What a dumbass."
By that I wasn't implying you were one. And even so, I didn't complain about anyone using those words in they're arguments.
But fine. You know what, your right. Never has the bible been altered significantly, and never will be, as neither will any other religous text. Your argument completely correct.
Glad to end this monster.
And just so you know, I was refering to the debate, not you.
lol. No, daniel, I was joking. Everybody's free to post whatever they want seeing that I have no power on the blog :p
Pats a fucking asshole
man, if i hear 1 more colin or daniel post i'm gonna say some bad words and pray that you'll be forgiven
Larry,
I know. I was playin' along, yo.
Jim,
you can "hear" my posts. Phenomenal!
cheers,
I just want to say that daniel comes off looking a lot better here than most of the people who're arguing against him.
If you make a statement, you should provide a source and not throw a hissy fit when your source is proven wrong.
I'd still say that the number one proof that the Bible is not "the untarnished word of God" is not that it has been rewritten many times, but that there are contradictions and inaccuracies within it.
Here's an excellent website that illustrates this point:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbibl...ience/
long.html
Even though it has a smug tone about many of the things it finds, there is much in there which poses genuine questions even for believers in the Young Earth. I won't mention any specific cases here because I don't want those few that I mention to be focused on as if there were not a thousand other cases to be explained - instead, I reccommend that anybody who's at all interested go to the above website and see for themselves (not to mention that other website that I linked to previously - just Google "biblical contradictions" and you should find it at the top).
Sam T,
Would you please put in another topic
This one is becoming boring.
When does the hiatus end? I have never been more grateful for constant forum updates,
Hey the post is backwards, new posts go at the top now. (I haven't been checking ebolaworld much since there are just too many posts).
ESN,
An excellent point. The biggest one I have found was the fact that kidnapping is punishable by death in the torah, yet, there no mention about any penalty for having slaves. Also another big thing is the hypocricy of anti-gay marriage. The reason people think that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry is becuase gays aren't in the torah/bible. Well selling your kids into slavery is in the bible but there is no way the anti-gay marriage people would do that. Ugh, I hate hypocricy.
ESN,
That's a good point. If the Bible was being altered to suit us culturally, there would be far less "alleged discrepancies" between it and modern science, wouldn't there?
I come from a Wesleyan Arminian background (not fundamentalist christian). John Wesley stressed four ways of interpreting the Bible. They are:
Contextual - (How it fits in its surroundings and in the general scheme of the Bible)
Traditional/Historical - (What those texts meant to the original audience and how two millennia of Church Doctrine has interpreted them)
Reason - rational thinking
Experience - Personal Experience (in Faith or otherwise)
--As you can see, if you look at the Bible through these four "goggles", practically all of your contradictions/alleged discrepancies dissappear. The Bible was never intended to be taken 100% literally with bits of it taken completely out of literary and historical context. It's an impossibility of language. John Wesley stressed Reason as a litmus test of our understanding and faith.
You can read more about John Wesley here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley
Here's a colorful way to put what I believe (written by a Ph.D. in Theology):
http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/
2...philosophy.html
Thanks for the compliment
take care,
If your construction of reality requires great feats of irrationality, it's probably wrong. It's at least not as good as someone else's.
Well, that's the problem right there, isn't it? Theists assume that to deny God is a great feat of irrationality, while atheists assume exactly the opposite.
It's kind of funny how studying the Bible a lot seems to bring someone to the same conclusions about social development as I posted earlier. So the key to understanding the Bible now becomes "what would it have meant for people back then?"
For example, the Bible saying that insects have four legs would have meant that people back then weren't very observant.
P.S. If someone wants to start a new topic, maybe it should be about this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/01...01s03-
sten.html
Apparently some guy at the MIT has found a way to use algae to reduce factory emissions by 40% (more than required by Kyoto) and then harvest the algae and use it for biodiesel, thus creating a profit for the factory owners.
I wonder if this'll catch on...
Esn,
Exactly. Often, I think (especially young) athiests tend to choose atheism as a knee-jerk reaction to fundamentalist christian's X-TREME irrationality. I could be wrong. However, there is irrationality on all sides and I wouldn't call one group "smarter" than another group.
On the insects "walking on all fours" - I believe the odd phrasing lends itself to it being an explanation more of their method of movement than of how many legs they have. You have to look at the surrounding verses (context) to conclude this. Obviously, we know that insects have six legs. They do, however, MOVE like other animals who only have four.
In english we use the word "crawl" for this type of movement. Not all languages have a special word for this. (Although I'm not sure whether the ancient Hebrews did or not.)
next subject:
I sincerely hope we devise ways of limiting our emissions and cutting back our hazardous effects on this, the only planet in our system that sustains life.
As a christian, I believe it is our duty to be stuards of our resources, both personally and environmentally. I have a 3 year old son and I don't want him to live in a world where he is poisoned daily by the mistakes of my generation and the generations that have proceeded me.
take care,
RINN IS COMING!!!!!!! RUN AWAY!!!!
"I sincerely hope we devise ways of limiting our emissions and cutting back our hazardous effects on this, the only planet in our system that sustains life.
As a christian, I believe it is our duty to be stuards of our resources, both personally and environmentally. I have a 3 year old son and I don't want him to live in a world where he is poisoned daily by the mistakes of my generation and the generations that have proceeded me."
I applaud you, and yet I think that it may be more appropriate if you said "as a human being" instead of "as a Christian" - a lot of Christians seem to think that because God granted them dominion over all the beasts and birds, that they should do just as they see fit and destroy anything that's not to the advantage of humans.
Basically, there's just as much disagreement among this issue among Christians as among non-Christians, so I'm not sure what relevance religion has over here - I think that your opinion on this is more likely to be determined by other factors...
...and now, we move over to the new thread SamT has created. Ya-a-ay!
yeah, me and my crazy ideas ... thinking that God holds us accountable for our actions on Earth....
Come on, you know what I mean.
If the majority of Christians felt the way you do about the environment, then you'd be able to say that. Since it seems like they don't, though, it must follow that many of them do not think that this is something which God will hold against them, which means that by saying "as a Christian" you're making it seem like most Christians feel the same way as you, which they don't.
Commenting by HaloScan
