MindRomp and Atheism page 1
Exi5tentialist
17th January 2012, 12:27 AM
I was musing earlier, it's a pity MundRomp isn't an explicitly atheist forum. But then again, maybe it's a pity that atheist forums call themselves atheist. For isn't the best kind of atheism the kind that doesn't describe itself as atheism?
After all, the one big gift of atheism to the world is the overthrow of all authority, because if we can get rid of God as an authority, despite being all-powerful and transcending all physical laws, then any lesser beings who care to claim authority over us (Dictators, Presidents, self-important moderators) can be discarded with even greater ease.
And without any authorities to answer to, we are all actually free, including free to create a God and start worshipping him and believing in him. But if atheists deny this freedom by asserting that believing in God lies outside "the definition" of atheism, and such people cannot therefore freely act as free equals within our community, then we deny the biggest insight into our condition that atheism gives us - freedom.
Richard Dawkins does this all the time - probably the reason he can with such ease to his conscience close down a forum of free individuals and re-start a new one in his own image and run by his own restrictive rules. For some time I've been feeling that atheism as expressed by New Atheists like him needs to be superseded by a more authentic kind of atheism that doesn't seek to deny the freedom of others.
Perhaps what I missed is that this superseding movement doesn't need to call itself atheism at all. Atheists will be far better off going out into the world and asserting people's complete and absolute freedom than they are forming themselves into a community around a label that denies it. In fact, going into the world asserting freedom without asserting an atheist label may be what atheists have been doing for centuries, for all I know, which is why we're not a rigid theocracy. Asserting this freedom against those who would suppress it, like RD, is as easy as squashing a pea lying in our path.
Therefore is MindRomp, with its freedom of expression ethic, the New New Atheism?
After all, the one big gift of atheism to the world is the overthrow of all authority, because if we can get rid of God as an authority, despite being all-powerful and transcending all physical laws, then any lesser beings who care to claim authority over us (Dictators, Presidents, self-important moderators) can be discarded with even greater ease.
And without any authorities to answer to, we are all actually free, including free to create a God and start worshipping him and believing in him. But if atheists deny this freedom by asserting that believing in God lies outside "the definition" of atheism, and such people cannot therefore freely act as free equals within our community, then we deny the biggest insight into our condition that atheism gives us - freedom.
Richard Dawkins does this all the time - probably the reason he can with such ease to his conscience close down a forum of free individuals and re-start a new one in his own image and run by his own restrictive rules. For some time I've been feeling that atheism as expressed by New Atheists like him needs to be superseded by a more authentic kind of atheism that doesn't seek to deny the freedom of others.
Perhaps what I missed is that this superseding movement doesn't need to call itself atheism at all. Atheists will be far better off going out into the world and asserting people's complete and absolute freedom than they are forming themselves into a community around a label that denies it. In fact, going into the world asserting freedom without asserting an atheist label may be what atheists have been doing for centuries, for all I know, which is why we're not a rigid theocracy. Asserting this freedom against those who would suppress it, like RD, is as easy as squashing a pea lying in our path.
Therefore is MindRomp, with its freedom of expression ethic, the New New Atheism?
Danny
17th January 2012, 12:34 AM
i read all those words
Fuzzy
17th January 2012, 12:48 AM
I'm an atheist, but I don't consider it to be at all important to my identity. To me, that God doesn't exist seems as basic as saying the sky is blue; it's not something that even crosses my mind most days.
eta: So I guess I'm also pretty glad Mindromp doesn't explicitly identify as atheist, because tbh I'm kind of bored of internet atheism.
eta: So I guess I'm also pretty glad Mindromp doesn't explicitly identify as atheist, because tbh I'm kind of bored of internet atheism.
Exi5tentialist
17th January 2012, 01:03 AM
i read all those words
Define 'read'
Define 'read'
Exi5tentialist
17th January 2012, 01:07 AM
tbh I'm kind of bored of internet atheism.
Yep that's it - that's what I was trying to say!!! I can see this forum is going to become my primary resource for reducing my word count by 95%!
Yep that's it - that's what I was trying to say!!! I can see this forum is going to become my primary resource for reducing my word count by 95%!
Danny
17th January 2012, 01:15 AM
Define 'read'
saw?
saw?
Hermit
17th January 2012, 03:15 AM
After all, the one big gift of atheism to the world is the overthrow of all authorityIt's not. Atheism is just a lack of belief in the existence of a god. That would exclude atheists advocating a theocracy, but nothing else follows.
oblivion
17th January 2012, 03:25 AM
I used to prefer the term "non-theist" to "atheist", because I didn't identify with New Atheism and on the internet most of the atheists I met were self-identified New Atheists, or were ideologically indistinguishable from them. These days, I answer to "post-atheist".
nostrum
17th January 2012, 05:07 AM
I'm an atheist, but I don't consider it to be at all important to my identity. To me, that God doesn't exist seems as basic as saying the sky is blue; it's not something that even crosses my mind most days.
eta: So I guess I'm also pretty glad Mindromp doesn't explicitly identify as atheist, because tbh I'm kind of bored of internet atheism.
:nada:
eta: So I guess I'm also pretty glad Mindromp doesn't explicitly identify as atheist, because tbh I'm kind of bored of internet atheism.
:nada:
nostrum
17th January 2012, 05:07 AM
I used to prefer the term "non-theist" to "atheist", because I didn't identify with New Atheism and on the internet most of the atheists I met were self-identified New Atheists, or were ideologically indistinguishable from them. These days, I answer to "post-atheist".
You're going to bring that meme over here, I can just tell :noo:
You're going to bring that meme over here, I can just tell :noo:
Exi5tentialist
17th January 2012, 07:14 AM
Atheism is just a lack of belief in the existence of a god
Objection!
Objection!
divagreen
17th January 2012, 07:27 AM
denied
Exi5tentialist
17th January 2012, 07:46 AM
denied
Who are you, your honor? God?
Who are you, your honor? God?
divagreen
17th January 2012, 07:52 AM
denied
Who are you, your honor? God?
Who are you but a peer?
Who are you, your honor? God?
Who are you but a peer?
Exi5tentialist
17th January 2012, 07:58 AM
In that case, atheism is a bread pudding.
Hermit
17th January 2012, 08:13 AM
Atheism is just a lack of belief in the existence of a god
Objection!
Go on. Let's hear it.
Objection!
Go on. Let's hear it.
Robert_S
17th January 2012, 10:02 AM
I was musing earlier, it's a pity MundRomp isn't an explicitly atheist forum. But then again, maybe it's a pity that atheist forums call themselves atheist. For isn't the best kind of atheism the kind that doesn't describe itself as atheism?
After all, the one big gift of atheism to the world is the overthrow of all authority, because if we can get rid of God as an authority, despite being all-powerful and transcending all physical laws, then any lesser beings who care to claim authority over us (Dictators, Presidents, self-important moderators) can be discarded with even greater ease.
And without any authorities to answer to, we are all actually free, including free to create a God and start worshipping him and believing in him. But if atheists deny this freedom by asserting that believing in God lies outside "the definition" of atheism, and such people cannot therefore freely act as free equals within our community, then we deny the biggest insight into our condition that atheism gives us - freedom.
Richard Dawkins does this all the time - probably the reason he can with such ease to his conscience close down a forum of free individuals and re-start a new one in his own image and run by his own restrictive rules. For some time I've been feeling that atheism as expressed by New Atheists like him needs to be superseded by a more authentic kind of atheism that doesn't seek to deny the freedom of others.
Perhaps what I missed is that this superseding movement doesn't need to call itself atheism at all. Atheists will be far better off going out into the world and asserting people's complete and absolute freedom than they are forming themselves into a community around a label that denies it. In fact, going into the world asserting freedom without asserting an atheist label may be what atheists have been doing for centuries, for all I know, which is why we're not a rigid theocracy. Asserting this freedom against those who would suppress it, like RD, is as easy as squashing a pea lying in our path.
Therefore is MindRomp, with its freedom of expression ethic, the New New Atheism?
What's the plan for overthrowing the tyranny of entropy? That stark fist of removal will come for everyone and everything sooner or later.
:noo:
After all, the one big gift of atheism to the world is the overthrow of all authority, because if we can get rid of God as an authority, despite being all-powerful and transcending all physical laws, then any lesser beings who care to claim authority over us (Dictators, Presidents, self-important moderators) can be discarded with even greater ease.
And without any authorities to answer to, we are all actually free, including free to create a God and start worshipping him and believing in him. But if atheists deny this freedom by asserting that believing in God lies outside "the definition" of atheism, and such people cannot therefore freely act as free equals within our community, then we deny the biggest insight into our condition that atheism gives us - freedom.
Richard Dawkins does this all the time - probably the reason he can with such ease to his conscience close down a forum of free individuals and re-start a new one in his own image and run by his own restrictive rules. For some time I've been feeling that atheism as expressed by New Atheists like him needs to be superseded by a more authentic kind of atheism that doesn't seek to deny the freedom of others.
Perhaps what I missed is that this superseding movement doesn't need to call itself atheism at all. Atheists will be far better off going out into the world and asserting people's complete and absolute freedom than they are forming themselves into a community around a label that denies it. In fact, going into the world asserting freedom without asserting an atheist label may be what atheists have been doing for centuries, for all I know, which is why we're not a rigid theocracy. Asserting this freedom against those who would suppress it, like RD, is as easy as squashing a pea lying in our path.
Therefore is MindRomp, with its freedom of expression ethic, the New New Atheism?
What's the plan for overthrowing the tyranny of entropy? That stark fist of removal will come for everyone and everything sooner or later.
:noo:
Exi5tentialist
17th January 2012, 11:29 PM
Atheism is just a lack of belief in the existence of a god
Objection!
Go on. Let's hear it.
Sorry for the delay.
You can rely on no authority to declare atheism to be just that (what you said), and even if you could, others would have the freedom to disagree anyway.
Objection!
Go on. Let's hear it.
Sorry for the delay.
You can rely on no authority to declare atheism to be just that (what you said), and even if you could, others would have the freedom to disagree anyway.
devogue
17th January 2012, 11:33 PM
I am an atheist because of the theistic animosity to large tits.
Exi5tentialist
17th January 2012, 11:37 PM
I am an atheist because of the theistic animosity to large tits.
Have you been drinking?
Have you been drinking?
Hermit
18th January 2012, 01:00 AM
Atheism is just a lack of belief in the existence of a god
Objection!
Go on. Let's hear it.
Sorry for the delay.
You can rely on no authority to declare atheism to be just that (what you said), and even if you could, others would have the freedom to disagree anyway.
Good one. On what authority do you declare that atheism inherently implies more than a lack of belief in the existence of a god? If it did, would that not mean that all atheists must therefore be either anarchists, or libertarians or nihilists or postmodernists or somesuch in order to be "True Scotsmen Atheists"?
Objection!
Go on. Let's hear it.
Sorry for the delay.
You can rely on no authority to declare atheism to be just that (what you said), and even if you could, others would have the freedom to disagree anyway.
Good one. On what authority do you declare that atheism inherently implies more than a lack of belief in the existence of a god? If it did, would that not mean that all atheists must therefore be either anarchists, or libertarians or nihilists or postmodernists or somesuch in order to be "True Scotsmen Atheists"?
Danny
18th January 2012, 01:08 AM
http://talkrational.org/mysmiliesvb/mysmilie_19.gif
Robert_S
18th January 2012, 01:22 AM
As long as there is a slot marked "authority figure goes here" there is a danger of an authority figure getting in it. However, if you fill that slot with a non-existent being, you can more easily keep humans out of it.
That we kill off the imaginary sky-daddy is all fine and good, but then what happens when the people demand a real sky-daddy, or maybe a big brother, to watch over us.
At least with the imaginary sky-daddy, most people tend to know somewhere deep down that it's a fairy tale. I don't know about the mythologies surrounding Stalin, Hitler, Kim Jong Il and the like. I suspect more people took those myths for reality than they do Jesus, Mohamed, and Krishna.
That we kill off the imaginary sky-daddy is all fine and good, but then what happens when the people demand a real sky-daddy, or maybe a big brother, to watch over us.
At least with the imaginary sky-daddy, most people tend to know somewhere deep down that it's a fairy tale. I don't know about the mythologies surrounding Stalin, Hitler, Kim Jong Il and the like. I suspect more people took those myths for reality than they do Jesus, Mohamed, and Krishna.
Danny
18th January 2012, 01:28 AM
can you tie your own shoelaces yet?
Cunt
18th January 2012, 02:02 AM
http://talkrational.org/mysmiliesvb/mysmilie_19.gif
This is nifty, but I don't know if it has anything to do with the original post. I didn't read any of this thread (including this sentence).
This is nifty, but I don't know if it has anything to do with the original post. I didn't read any of this thread (including this sentence).
Robert_S
18th January 2012, 03:12 AM
can you tie your own shoelaces yet?
Velcro, foo!
Velcro, foo!
charlou
18th January 2012, 11:22 AM
As long as there is a slot marked "authority figure goes here" there is a danger of an authority figure getting in it. However, if you fill that slot with a non-existent being, you can more easily keep humans out of it.
That we kill off the imaginary sky-daddy is all fine and good, but then what happens when the people demand a real sky-daddy, or maybe a big brother, to watch over us.
At least with the imaginary sky-daddy, most people tend to know somewhere deep down that it's a fairy tale. I don't know about the mythologies surrounding Stalin, Hitler, Kim Jong Il and the like. I suspect more people took those myths for reality than they do Jesus, Mohamed, and Krishna.
Interesting point.
Either way, patriarchal dictatorship.
That we kill off the imaginary sky-daddy is all fine and good, but then what happens when the people demand a real sky-daddy, or maybe a big brother, to watch over us.
At least with the imaginary sky-daddy, most people tend to know somewhere deep down that it's a fairy tale. I don't know about the mythologies surrounding Stalin, Hitler, Kim Jong Il and the like. I suspect more people took those myths for reality than they do Jesus, Mohamed, and Krishna.
Interesting point.
Either way, patriarchal dictatorship.
Grumps
18th January 2012, 12:05 PM
As far as I see it, religious belief is not a special system.
It's a fairly ordinary system.
I see the same cherry picking and self-delusion in the people who spoke about the 'Occupy' movements, who refused to watch videos of protestors attacking police lines, abusing physically people wearing suits, vandilising private property, and when they did accept it happened they kept justifying it.
In effect, no different to the oppression religious groups inflicted on those they saw 'unrighteous'.
It's a fairly ordinary system.
I see the same cherry picking and self-delusion in the people who spoke about the 'Occupy' movements, who refused to watch videos of protestors attacking police lines, abusing physically people wearing suits, vandilising private property, and when they did accept it happened they kept justifying it.
In effect, no different to the oppression religious groups inflicted on those they saw 'unrighteous'.
Zigmen
18th January 2012, 07:00 PM
I'm a Christian.
But I'm the kind of Christian that the Establishment Christians probably wish would go away.
I don't hate gays.
I think women can make medical decisions.
I don't see science as the tool of the devil.
I believe Heaven is open all faiths or lack thereof.
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure.
I worship God, not the bible.
I don't believe only Christians can be moral.
Of course, there are enough Christian supremacists with pulpits to make us all seem like the KKK . . .
But, here I am.
I find myself drawn the the Atheist community because they don't attach myths to their morality. They don't pretend that which is obvious is a lie. They don't have a God to blame for all their hatred; if they hate something, they can point to actual reasons why. Same for their reasons to love.
I do believe in God, and I think that if we were all eventually judged for our acts, that many Christians would be stunned to learn that a life of racism, supremacy, and bullying is not what the Lord wanted, despite what they think they read in the bible.
Nope, I'd expect Atheists to reign supreme in God's judgment, because they can be good for the sake of being good.
Yet I will not deny God to enter the fold of the Atheists as one of them. But, my reasoning is not important here.
But I'm the kind of Christian that the Establishment Christians probably wish would go away.
I don't hate gays.
I think women can make medical decisions.
I don't see science as the tool of the devil.
I believe Heaven is open all faiths or lack thereof.
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure.
I worship God, not the bible.
I don't believe only Christians can be moral.
Of course, there are enough Christian supremacists with pulpits to make us all seem like the KKK . . .
But, here I am.
I find myself drawn the the Atheist community because they don't attach myths to their morality. They don't pretend that which is obvious is a lie. They don't have a God to blame for all their hatred; if they hate something, they can point to actual reasons why. Same for their reasons to love.
I do believe in God, and I think that if we were all eventually judged for our acts, that many Christians would be stunned to learn that a life of racism, supremacy, and bullying is not what the Lord wanted, despite what they think they read in the bible.
Nope, I'd expect Atheists to reign supreme in God's judgment, because they can be good for the sake of being good.
Yet I will not deny God to enter the fold of the Atheists as one of them. But, my reasoning is not important here.
Cunt
18th January 2012, 07:10 PM
you make me want to welcome you - ludicrous immoral beliefs and al :)
Welcome!
Welcome!
Exi5tentialist
18th January 2012, 07:44 PM
You can rely on no authority to declare atheism to be just that (what you said), and even if you could, others would have the freedom to disagree anyway.
Good one. On what authority do you declare that atheism inherently implies more than a lack of belief in the existence of a god? If it did, would that not mean that all atheists must therefore be either anarchists, or libertarians or nihilists or postmodernists or somesuch in order to be "True Scotsmen Atheists"?
No authority. There aren't any.
Good one. On what authority do you declare that atheism inherently implies more than a lack of belief in the existence of a god? If it did, would that not mean that all atheists must therefore be either anarchists, or libertarians or nihilists or postmodernists or somesuch in order to be "True Scotsmen Atheists"?
No authority. There aren't any.
borealis
18th January 2012, 08:33 PM
I believe Heaven is open all faiths or lack thereof.
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure. - zigmen
I knew it! The afterlife is just another multicorp! :omgwtf:
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure. - zigmen
I knew it! The afterlife is just another multicorp! :omgwtf:
Supernaut
18th January 2012, 09:52 PM
I believe Heaven is open all faiths or lack thereof.
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure. - zigmen
I knew it! The afterlife is just another multicorp! :omgwtf:
:hair:
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure. - zigmen
I knew it! The afterlife is just another multicorp! :omgwtf:
:hair:
Robert_S
19th January 2012, 12:14 AM
You can rely on no authority to declare atheism to be just that (what you said), and even if you could, others would have the freedom to disagree anyway.
Good one. On what authority do you declare that atheism inherently implies more than a lack of belief in the existence of a god? If it did, would that not mean that all atheists must therefore be either anarchists, or libertarians or nihilists or postmodernists or somesuch in order to be "True Scotsmen Atheists"?
No authority. There aren't any.
Sez Who?
Good one. On what authority do you declare that atheism inherently implies more than a lack of belief in the existence of a god? If it did, would that not mean that all atheists must therefore be either anarchists, or libertarians or nihilists or postmodernists or somesuch in order to be "True Scotsmen Atheists"?
No authority. There aren't any.
Sez Who?
charlou
19th January 2012, 12:26 AM
I'm a Christian.
But I'm the kind of Christian that the Establishment Christians probably wish would go away.
I don't hate gays.
I think women can make medical decisions.
I don't see science as the tool of the devil.
I believe Heaven is open all faiths or lack thereof.
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure.
I worship God, not the bible.
I don't believe only Christians can be moral.
Of course, there are enough Christian supremacists with pulpits to make us all seem like the KKK . . .
But, here I am.
I find myself drawn the the Atheist community because they don't attach myths to their morality. They don't pretend that which is obvious is a lie. They don't have a God to blame for all their hatred; if they hate something, they can point to actual reasons why. Same for their reasons to love.
I do believe in God, and I think that if we were all eventually judged for our acts, that many Christians would be stunned to learn that a life of racism, supremacy, and bullying is not what the Lord wanted, despite what they think they read in the bible.
Nope, I'd expect Atheists to reign supreme in God's judgment, because they can be good for the sake of being good.
Yet I will not deny God to enter the fold of the Atheists as one of them. But, my reasoning is not important here.
Very nice to learn more about you, Zigmen. :]
I was a similar kind of believer until I realised I wasn't any more ... never a christian (though I was raised in christian household and churches), but a belief in a god ... with the humanist values you describe. I've dropped the belief and the values remain, developing further over time.
But I'm the kind of Christian that the Establishment Christians probably wish would go away.
I don't hate gays.
I think women can make medical decisions.
I don't see science as the tool of the devil.
I believe Heaven is open all faiths or lack thereof.
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure.
I worship God, not the bible.
I don't believe only Christians can be moral.
Of course, there are enough Christian supremacists with pulpits to make us all seem like the KKK . . .
But, here I am.
I find myself drawn the the Atheist community because they don't attach myths to their morality. They don't pretend that which is obvious is a lie. They don't have a God to blame for all their hatred; if they hate something, they can point to actual reasons why. Same for their reasons to love.
I do believe in God, and I think that if we were all eventually judged for our acts, that many Christians would be stunned to learn that a life of racism, supremacy, and bullying is not what the Lord wanted, despite what they think they read in the bible.
Nope, I'd expect Atheists to reign supreme in God's judgment, because they can be good for the sake of being good.
Yet I will not deny God to enter the fold of the Atheists as one of them. But, my reasoning is not important here.
Very nice to learn more about you, Zigmen. :]
I was a similar kind of believer until I realised I wasn't any more ... never a christian (though I was raised in christian household and churches), but a belief in a god ... with the humanist values you describe. I've dropped the belief and the values remain, developing further over time.
Exi5tentialist
19th January 2012, 12:35 AM
No authority. There aren't any.
Sez Who?
Who sez there are authorities?
Sez Who?
Who sez there are authorities?
Robert_S
19th January 2012, 12:44 AM
No authority. There aren't any.
Sez Who?
Who sez there are authorities?
The guys down at the bank have the authority to turn a silly piece of paper into other silly pieces of paper. With these other silly pieces of paper, I can get goods and services.
It's how I've been eating for some time now. :cheer:
Sez Who?
Who sez there are authorities?
The guys down at the bank have the authority to turn a silly piece of paper into other silly pieces of paper. With these other silly pieces of paper, I can get goods and services.
It's how I've been eating for some time now. :cheer:
Exi5tentialist
19th January 2012, 01:09 AM
The guys down at the bank have the authority to turn a silly piece of paper into other silly pieces of paper. With these other silly pieces of paper, I can get goods and services.
It's how I've been eating for some time now. :cheer:
They've also been selling more money than they can afford to buy and made our economic system go bust. A lot of people have been paying the price with their livelihoods for some time now. Hooray for authority. :sadcheer:
It's how I've been eating for some time now. :cheer:
They've also been selling more money than they can afford to buy and made our economic system go bust. A lot of people have been paying the price with their livelihoods for some time now. Hooray for authority. :sadcheer:
Robert_S
19th January 2012, 01:39 AM
The guys down at the bank have the authority to turn a silly piece of paper into other silly pieces of paper. With these other silly pieces of paper, I can get goods and services.
It's how I've been eating for some time now. :cheer:
They've also been selling more money than they can afford to buy and made our economic system go bust. A lot of people have been paying the price with their livelihoods for some time now. Hooray for authority. :sadcheer:
Hooray for deregulation. I'm sure the markets will sort it all out as long as the meddlesome nannying is kept to an absolute minimum!
It's how I've been eating for some time now. :cheer:
They've also been selling more money than they can afford to buy and made our economic system go bust. A lot of people have been paying the price with their livelihoods for some time now. Hooray for authority. :sadcheer:
Hooray for deregulation. I'm sure the markets will sort it all out as long as the meddlesome nannying is kept to an absolute minimum!
Exi5tentialist
19th January 2012, 01:52 AM
Hooray for deregulation. I'm sure the markets will sort it all out as long as the meddlesome nannying is kept to an absolute minimum!
Who says we have to listen to deregulated banks anyway? They hold no sway. Their authority is largely founded on the fear of recession. Get rid of them. Who sez we have to keep them?
Who says we have to listen to deregulated banks anyway? They hold no sway. Their authority is largely founded on the fear of recession. Get rid of them. Who sez we have to keep them?
Robert_S
19th January 2012, 03:25 AM
Hooray for deregulation. I'm sure the markets will sort it all out as long as the meddlesome nannying is kept to an absolute minimum!
Who says we have to listen to deregulated banks anyway? They hold no sway. Their authority is largely founded on the fear of recession. Get rid of them. Who sez we have to keep them?
There's the problem. Either do without banks, have regulated banks, or have unregulated banks. I suppose there is a sweet spot between no regulation and over-regulation. But either way, you're going to have authority.
Who says we have to listen to deregulated banks anyway? They hold no sway. Their authority is largely founded on the fear of recession. Get rid of them. Who sez we have to keep them?
There's the problem. Either do without banks, have regulated banks, or have unregulated banks. I suppose there is a sweet spot between no regulation and over-regulation. But either way, you're going to have authority.
nostrum
19th January 2012, 04:16 AM
I'm a Christian.
But I'm the kind of Christian that the Establishment Christians probably wish would go away.
I don't hate gays.
I think women can make medical decisions.
I don't see science as the tool of the devil.
I believe Heaven is open all faiths or lack thereof.
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure.
I worship God, not the bible.
I don't believe only Christians can be moral.
Of course, there are enough Christian supremacists with pulpits to make us all seem like the KKK . . .
But, here I am.
I find myself drawn the the Atheist community because they don't attach myths to their morality. They don't pretend that which is obvious is a lie. They don't have a God to blame for all their hatred; if they hate something, they can point to actual reasons why. Same for their reasons to love.
I do believe in God, and I think that if we were all eventually judged for our acts, that many Christians would be stunned to learn that a life of racism, supremacy, and bullying is not what the Lord wanted, despite what they think they read in the bible.
Nope, I'd expect Atheists to reign supreme in God's judgment, because they can be good for the sake of being good.
Yet I will not deny God to enter the fold of the Atheists as one of them. But, my reasoning is not important here.
:hug: you know I like you!
But I'm the kind of Christian that the Establishment Christians probably wish would go away.
I don't hate gays.
I think women can make medical decisions.
I don't see science as the tool of the devil.
I believe Heaven is open all faiths or lack thereof.
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure.
I worship God, not the bible.
I don't believe only Christians can be moral.
Of course, there are enough Christian supremacists with pulpits to make us all seem like the KKK . . .
But, here I am.
I find myself drawn the the Atheist community because they don't attach myths to their morality. They don't pretend that which is obvious is a lie. They don't have a God to blame for all their hatred; if they hate something, they can point to actual reasons why. Same for their reasons to love.
I do believe in God, and I think that if we were all eventually judged for our acts, that many Christians would be stunned to learn that a life of racism, supremacy, and bullying is not what the Lord wanted, despite what they think they read in the bible.
Nope, I'd expect Atheists to reign supreme in God's judgment, because they can be good for the sake of being good.
Yet I will not deny God to enter the fold of the Atheists as one of them. But, my reasoning is not important here.
:hug: you know I like you!
Exi5tentialist
19th January 2012, 09:14 AM
There's the problem. Either do without banks, have regulated banks, or have unregulated banks. I suppose there is a sweet spot between no regulation and over-regulation. But either way, you're going to have authority.
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/6896/picnorthernrockjpg.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/19/picnorthernrockjpg.jpg/)
...such authority!
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/6896/picnorthernrockjpg.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/19/picnorthernrockjpg.jpg/)
...such authority!
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Adenosine
19th January 2012, 09:53 AM
Nice to meet you Zigmen.
Izdaari
21st January 2012, 03:05 PM
I'm a Christian.
But I'm the kind of Christian that the Establishment Christians probably wish would go away.
I don't hate gays.
I think women can make medical decisions.
I don't see science as the tool of the devil.
I believe Heaven is open all faiths or lack thereof.
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure.
I worship God, not the bible.
I don't believe only Christians can be moral.
Of course, there are enough Christian supremacists with pulpits to make us all seem like the KKK . . .
But, here I am.
I find myself drawn the the Atheist community because they don't attach myths to their morality. They don't pretend that which is obvious is a lie. They don't have a God to blame for all their hatred; if they hate something, they can point to actual reasons why. Same for their reasons to love.
I do believe in God, and I think that if we were all eventually judged for our acts, that many Christians would be stunned to learn that a life of racism, supremacy, and bullying is not what the Lord wanted, despite what they think they read in the bible.
Nope, I'd expect Atheists to reign supreme in God's judgment, because they can be good for the sake of being good.
Yet I will not deny God to enter the fold of the Atheists as one of them. But, my reasoning is not important here.
Cool! So, there's at least two of us here! :cheer:
(Not agreed on all details, but on the general attitude, for sure!)
But I'm the kind of Christian that the Establishment Christians probably wish would go away.
I don't hate gays.
I think women can make medical decisions.
I don't see science as the tool of the devil.
I believe Heaven is open all faiths or lack thereof.
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure.
I worship God, not the bible.
I don't believe only Christians can be moral.
Of course, there are enough Christian supremacists with pulpits to make us all seem like the KKK . . .
But, here I am.
I find myself drawn the the Atheist community because they don't attach myths to their morality. They don't pretend that which is obvious is a lie. They don't have a God to blame for all their hatred; if they hate something, they can point to actual reasons why. Same for their reasons to love.
I do believe in God, and I think that if we were all eventually judged for our acts, that many Christians would be stunned to learn that a life of racism, supremacy, and bullying is not what the Lord wanted, despite what they think they read in the bible.
Nope, I'd expect Atheists to reign supreme in God's judgment, because they can be good for the sake of being good.
Yet I will not deny God to enter the fold of the Atheists as one of them. But, my reasoning is not important here.
Cool! So, there's at least two of us here! :cheer:
(Not agreed on all details, but on the general attitude, for sure!)
Cunt
21st January 2012, 05:10 PM
I'm a Christian.
But I'm the kind of Christian that the Establishment Christians probably wish would go away.
I don't hate gays.
I think women can make medical decisions.
I don't see science as the tool of the devil.
I believe Heaven is open all faiths or lack thereof.
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure.
I worship God, not the bible.
I don't believe only Christians can be moral.
Of course, there are enough Christian supremacists with pulpits to make us all seem like the KKK . . .
But, here I am.
I find myself drawn the the Atheist community because they don't attach myths to their morality. They don't pretend that which is obvious is a lie. They don't have a God to blame for all their hatred; if they hate something, they can point to actual reasons why. Same for their reasons to love.
I do believe in God, and I think that if we were all eventually judged for our acts, that many Christians would be stunned to learn that a life of racism, supremacy, and bullying is not what the Lord wanted, despite what they think they read in the bible.
Nope, I'd expect Atheists to reign supreme in God's judgment, because they can be good for the sake of being good.
Yet I will not deny God to enter the fold of the Atheists as one of them. But, my reasoning is not important here.
Cool! So, there's at least two of us here! :cheer:
(Not agreed on all details, but on the general attitude, for sure!)
Most of the Christians I know are not at all Christians, just good people who cherry-pick from the bible, ignoring some of the horror of the Jesus story. Since they identify with the nice elements of the Jesus story, and haven't dug into the horror, they label themselves Christian.
Tell me, do you accept the whole pill? Or do you ignore the ridiculous and just aim to be ethical as you see it?
But I'm the kind of Christian that the Establishment Christians probably wish would go away.
I don't hate gays.
I think women can make medical decisions.
I don't see science as the tool of the devil.
I believe Heaven is open all faiths or lack thereof.
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure.
I worship God, not the bible.
I don't believe only Christians can be moral.
Of course, there are enough Christian supremacists with pulpits to make us all seem like the KKK . . .
But, here I am.
I find myself drawn the the Atheist community because they don't attach myths to their morality. They don't pretend that which is obvious is a lie. They don't have a God to blame for all their hatred; if they hate something, they can point to actual reasons why. Same for their reasons to love.
I do believe in God, and I think that if we were all eventually judged for our acts, that many Christians would be stunned to learn that a life of racism, supremacy, and bullying is not what the Lord wanted, despite what they think they read in the bible.
Nope, I'd expect Atheists to reign supreme in God's judgment, because they can be good for the sake of being good.
Yet I will not deny God to enter the fold of the Atheists as one of them. But, my reasoning is not important here.
Cool! So, there's at least two of us here! :cheer:
(Not agreed on all details, but on the general attitude, for sure!)
Most of the Christians I know are not at all Christians, just good people who cherry-pick from the bible, ignoring some of the horror of the Jesus story. Since they identify with the nice elements of the Jesus story, and haven't dug into the horror, they label themselves Christian.
Tell me, do you accept the whole pill? Or do you ignore the ridiculous and just aim to be ethical as you see it?
Izdaari
21st January 2012, 09:06 PM
I'm a Christian.
But I'm the kind of Christian that the Establishment Christians probably wish would go away.
I don't hate gays.
I think women can make medical decisions.
I don't see science as the tool of the devil.
I believe Heaven is open all faiths or lack thereof.
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure.
I worship God, not the bible.
I don't believe only Christians can be moral.
Of course, there are enough Christian supremacists with pulpits to make us all seem like the KKK . . .
But, here I am.
I find myself drawn the the Atheist community because they don't attach myths to their morality. They don't pretend that which is obvious is a lie. They don't have a God to blame for all their hatred; if they hate something, they can point to actual reasons why. Same for their reasons to love.
I do believe in God, and I think that if we were all eventually judged for our acts, that many Christians would be stunned to learn that a life of racism, supremacy, and bullying is not what the Lord wanted, despite what they think they read in the bible.
Nope, I'd expect Atheists to reign supreme in God's judgment, because they can be good for the sake of being good.
Yet I will not deny God to enter the fold of the Atheists as one of them. But, my reasoning is not important here.
Cool! So, there's at least two of us here! :cheer:
(Not agreed on all details, but on the general attitude, for sure!)
Most of the Christians I know are not at all Christians, just good people who cherry-pick from the bible, ignoring some of the horror of the Jesus story. Since they identify with the nice elements of the Jesus story, and haven't dug into the horror, they label themselves Christian.
Tell me, do you accept the whole pill? Or do you ignore the ridiculous and just aim to be ethical as you see it?
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
But I'm the kind of Christian that the Establishment Christians probably wish would go away.
I don't hate gays.
I think women can make medical decisions.
I don't see science as the tool of the devil.
I believe Heaven is open all faiths or lack thereof.
I believe Hell is an afterlife outside of Heaven for those who do not want to get into Heaven.
I think the ultra-rich need to pay a fair share into the system to maintain the infrastructure.
I worship God, not the bible.
I don't believe only Christians can be moral.
Of course, there are enough Christian supremacists with pulpits to make us all seem like the KKK . . .
But, here I am.
I find myself drawn the the Atheist community because they don't attach myths to their morality. They don't pretend that which is obvious is a lie. They don't have a God to blame for all their hatred; if they hate something, they can point to actual reasons why. Same for their reasons to love.
I do believe in God, and I think that if we were all eventually judged for our acts, that many Christians would be stunned to learn that a life of racism, supremacy, and bullying is not what the Lord wanted, despite what they think they read in the bible.
Nope, I'd expect Atheists to reign supreme in God's judgment, because they can be good for the sake of being good.
Yet I will not deny God to enter the fold of the Atheists as one of them. But, my reasoning is not important here.
Cool! So, there's at least two of us here! :cheer:
(Not agreed on all details, but on the general attitude, for sure!)
Most of the Christians I know are not at all Christians, just good people who cherry-pick from the bible, ignoring some of the horror of the Jesus story. Since they identify with the nice elements of the Jesus story, and haven't dug into the horror, they label themselves Christian.
Tell me, do you accept the whole pill? Or do you ignore the ridiculous and just aim to be ethical as you see it?
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Cunt
21st January 2012, 09:25 PM
Tell me, do you accept the whole pill? Or do you ignore the ridiculous and just aim to be ethical as you see it?
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
BrettA
22nd January 2012, 01:59 AM
Tell me, do you accept the whole pill? Or do you ignore the ridiculous and just aim to be ethical as you see it?
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
Hey, as long as they're not Christians being sacrificed, does sacrifice really matter? And can any non-Christian really, truly be "innocent"? ;-) ... JK.
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
Hey, as long as they're not Christians being sacrificed, does sacrifice really matter? And can any non-Christian really, truly be "innocent"? ;-) ... JK.
Cunt
22nd January 2012, 02:18 AM
HEY! Our avatars match :)
sort of
sort of
BrettA
22nd January 2012, 02:39 AM
HEY! Our avatars match :)
sort of
LOL... Now shop that finger to the centre!
sort of
LOL... Now shop that finger to the centre!
Izdaari
22nd January 2012, 11:48 AM
Tell me, do you accept the whole pill? Or do you ignore the ridiculous and just aim to be ethical as you see it?
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
Hey, as long as they're not Christians being sacrificed, does sacrifice really matter? And can any non-Christian really, truly be "innocent"? ;-) ... JK.
Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew, and an itinerant rabbi, as were not uncommon at the time. But (according to orthodox Christian theology), in addition to being the Anointed One, the Messiah, the prophesied Son of David, He was also the second Person of the Trinity, incarnated as a human. He was therefore presumably in on the plan, not an unwilling victim. To be sure, actually going through with it was incredibly difficult for Him.
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
Hey, as long as they're not Christians being sacrificed, does sacrifice really matter? And can any non-Christian really, truly be "innocent"? ;-) ... JK.
Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew, and an itinerant rabbi, as were not uncommon at the time. But (according to orthodox Christian theology), in addition to being the Anointed One, the Messiah, the prophesied Son of David, He was also the second Person of the Trinity, incarnated as a human. He was therefore presumably in on the plan, not an unwilling victim. To be sure, actually going through with it was incredibly difficult for Him.
Izdaari
22nd January 2012, 11:59 AM
Tell me, do you accept the whole pill? Or do you ignore the ridiculous and just aim to be ethical as you see it?
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
Not anymore it isn't. For the OT Jews, blood sacrifice was the only way to atone for wrongdoings... for them the rule was "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin". But the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the reversal of what went wrong with the human race. It is done, there will never be a need for more blood sacrifices. They were made obsolete and abolished forever. Sounds pretty darn moral to me and amazing besides! So, yes, I think that large group of people has it right. :thumbsup:
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
Not anymore it isn't. For the OT Jews, blood sacrifice was the only way to atone for wrongdoings... for them the rule was "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin". But the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the reversal of what went wrong with the human race. It is done, there will never be a need for more blood sacrifices. They were made obsolete and abolished forever. Sounds pretty darn moral to me and amazing besides! So, yes, I think that large group of people has it right. :thumbsup:
charlou
22nd January 2012, 12:00 PM
Pinocchio wasn't a real boy, he was a wooden marionette. Geppetto was his father and Jiminy Cricket was his conscience. He ran with the wrong crowd and grew the tail and ears of an ass before submitting to his role and was thus magically transcended into real boyhood. Geppeto and he danced and Jiminy Cricket looked on with an I told you so mien.
.
.
borealis
22nd January 2012, 05:22 PM
Not anymore it isn't. For the OT Jews, blood sacrifice was the only way to atone for wrongdoings... for them the rule was "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin". But the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the reversal of what went wrong with the human race. It is done, there will never be a need for more blood sacrifices. They were made obsolete and abolished forever. Sounds pretty darn moral to me and amazing besides! So, yes, I think that large group of people has it right. :thumbsup:
No, it still sounds outrageously immoral that this powerful entity required any kind of blood sacrifice in the first place. And that it couldn't think of a less gruesome method of 'fixing' the seriously flawed relationship it is described as having with humans up to that point. Or that it initiated and continued such a bizarre relationship with a small representative sample of extant humanity to begin with.
If there is a supreme being, we can only hope it's a lot more sane than the god of the Jews, Muslims and Christians.
No, it still sounds outrageously immoral that this powerful entity required any kind of blood sacrifice in the first place. And that it couldn't think of a less gruesome method of 'fixing' the seriously flawed relationship it is described as having with humans up to that point. Or that it initiated and continued such a bizarre relationship with a small representative sample of extant humanity to begin with.
If there is a supreme being, we can only hope it's a lot more sane than the god of the Jews, Muslims and Christians.
Izdaari
22nd January 2012, 05:46 PM
Not anymore it isn't. For the OT Jews, blood sacrifice was the only way to atone for wrongdoings... for them the rule was "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin". But the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the reversal of what went wrong with the human race. It is done, there will never be a need for more blood sacrifices. They were made obsolete and abolished forever. Sounds pretty darn moral to me and amazing besides! So, yes, I think that large group of people has it right. :thumbsup:
No, it still sounds outrageously immoral that this powerful entity required any kind of blood sacrifice in the first place. And that it couldn't think of a less gruesome method of 'fixing' the seriously flawed relationship it is described as having with humans up to that point. Or that it initiated and continued such a bizarre relationship with a small representative sample of extant humanity to begin with.
If there is a supreme being, we can only hope it's a lot more sane than the god of the Jews, Muslims and Christians.
I certainly can't explain it. But I think there must be some cosmic reasons why it had to work that way, and that eventually (probably not until the next life) I'll understand why.
No, it still sounds outrageously immoral that this powerful entity required any kind of blood sacrifice in the first place. And that it couldn't think of a less gruesome method of 'fixing' the seriously flawed relationship it is described as having with humans up to that point. Or that it initiated and continued such a bizarre relationship with a small representative sample of extant humanity to begin with.
If there is a supreme being, we can only hope it's a lot more sane than the god of the Jews, Muslims and Christians.
I certainly can't explain it. But I think there must be some cosmic reasons why it had to work that way, and that eventually (probably not until the next life) I'll understand why.
Cunt
22nd January 2012, 06:54 PM
Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew, and an itinerant rabbi, as were not uncommon at the time. But (according to orthodox Christian theology), in addition to being the Anointed One, the Messiah, the prophesied Son of David, He was also the second Person of the Trinity, incarnated as a human. He was therefore presumably in on the plan, not an unwilling victim. To be sure, actually going through with it was incredibly difficult for Him.
Difficult, eh? I know a fellow who just paid off a long mortgage while living with a mental health problem. He found it 'difficult'.
Pretending to die while masochistically torturing yourself for a few days (purely for publicity) does not strike me as that much of a sacrifice in comparison.
Not anymore it isn't.
Oh, and the majority of Christ-followers will say that he died for their sins. Not to end blood sacrifice.
And didn't one of the books of the bible quote the dead-jew-on-a-stick as saying that he wasn't here to change any law of his father? Something about 'not one jot or tittle'?
So, I have to ask, do you follow the biblical dictates and stories? Or just the ones which appeal to your better moral sense?
Would you stone someone for working on the Sabbath? Should breaking the commandments come with the recommended punishment?
By the way, I expect I come off a bit harsh at times, so I want to add that I LIKE disagreeing. It is one of the ways we humans learn well...jam your opinion out there and LEAN THE FUCK INTO IT, then if someone yanks away your supporting evidence, you have a mouthful of dirt to spit out with your thanks.
Thank you for being willing to discuss this. Differences included I would gladly share a meal, a drink or a creation with you. I'm getting gladder and gladder that I met you!
Difficult, eh? I know a fellow who just paid off a long mortgage while living with a mental health problem. He found it 'difficult'.
Pretending to die while masochistically torturing yourself for a few days (purely for publicity) does not strike me as that much of a sacrifice in comparison.
Not anymore it isn't.
Oh, and the majority of Christ-followers will say that he died for their sins. Not to end blood sacrifice.
And didn't one of the books of the bible quote the dead-jew-on-a-stick as saying that he wasn't here to change any law of his father? Something about 'not one jot or tittle'?
So, I have to ask, do you follow the biblical dictates and stories? Or just the ones which appeal to your better moral sense?
Would you stone someone for working on the Sabbath? Should breaking the commandments come with the recommended punishment?
By the way, I expect I come off a bit harsh at times, so I want to add that I LIKE disagreeing. It is one of the ways we humans learn well...jam your opinion out there and LEAN THE FUCK INTO IT, then if someone yanks away your supporting evidence, you have a mouthful of dirt to spit out with your thanks.
Thank you for being willing to discuss this. Differences included I would gladly share a meal, a drink or a creation with you. I'm getting gladder and gladder that I met you!
Cunt
22nd January 2012, 06:57 PM
Izdaari, what if I invited you to kiss Hank's ass with me?
Kissing Hank's Ass - YouTube
Kissing Hank's Ass - YouTube
Izdaari
23rd January 2012, 01:35 AM
Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew, and an itinerant rabbi, as were not uncommon at the time. But (according to orthodox Christian theology), in addition to being the Anointed One, the Messiah, the prophesied Son of David, He was also the second Person of the Trinity, incarnated as a human. He was therefore presumably in on the plan, not an unwilling victim. To be sure, actually going through with it was incredibly difficult for Him.
Difficult, eh? I know a fellow who just paid off a long mortgage while living with a mental health problem. He found it 'difficult'.
Pretending to die while masochistically torturing yourself for a few days (purely for publicity) does not strike me as that much of a sacrifice in comparison.
I hear you. But the suffering was real and the death was real, and He triumphed over death, which was kinda the whole point. His resurrection is now available to us too, and the fallen nature of Man and of all Creation is beginning to be healed.
Not anymore it isn't.
Oh, and the majority of Christ-followers will say that he died for their sins. Not to end blood sacrifice.And correctly so. Ending blood sacrfice was good, but it was a side effect. It was a symptom of our flaws, our broken nature. I can't tell you exactly how the Atonement works. I don't think Penal Substitution (He bore our punishment so we don't have to) is the best theory, though it's the one fundagelicals like. I'm more of a Christus Victor (He triumphed over death, entropy and evilness) person, with a little bit of Ransom (He bought us back from the prince of this world, under whose dominion we had come) mixed in. Whatever the mechanics of it, the point was to fix the main problem, not just the symptoms.
And didn't one of the books of the bible quote the dead-jew-on-a-stick as saying that he wasn't here to change any law of his father? Something about 'not one jot or tittle'?Yes, that's right, He said not one jot or tittle (Hebrew accent or punctuation marks) would change until all was fulfilled. I believe all was fulfilled with His death on the cross and resurrection.
So, I have to ask, do you follow the biblical dictates and stories? Or just the ones which appeal to your better moral sense?
Would you stone someone for working on the Sabbath? Should breaking the commandments come with the recommended punishment?Not at all. The Law of Moses was given specifically to the Jews, and the Levitical portion of it was given specifically to the Tribe of Levi, the Jewish priestly caste. And Paul says the Law no longer applies to Christ followers at all (Galatians, the whole book, but it's very short, just a few pages).
I do think we can and should learn from all the stories, but not all of them are meant literally. Jesus said He did only what He saw the Father doing... and if Jesus is any example (and I think He is), the Father is very fond of teaching via parables as well.
By the way, I expect I come off a bit harsh at times, so I want to add that I LIKE disagreeing. It is one of the ways we humans learn well...jam your opinion out there and LEAN THE FUCK INTO IT, then if someone yanks away your supporting evidence, you have a mouthful of dirt to spit out with your thanks.
Thank you for being willing to discuss this. Differences included I would gladly share a meal, a drink or a creation with you. I'm getting gladder and gladder that I met you!Thank you. You have a bizarre sort of charm, and I'm likewise glad we met and am enjoying our conversation too. :hug:
Please forgive me for preaching. I certainly didn't come here to do that, but it's kind of unavoidable in the process of answering your questions. And I certainly understand if my answers don't resonate with you or make sense to you. They are my personal answers. I'm just sharing my understanding as best I can, not trying to proselytize or win an argument.
Difficult, eh? I know a fellow who just paid off a long mortgage while living with a mental health problem. He found it 'difficult'.
Pretending to die while masochistically torturing yourself for a few days (purely for publicity) does not strike me as that much of a sacrifice in comparison.
I hear you. But the suffering was real and the death was real, and He triumphed over death, which was kinda the whole point. His resurrection is now available to us too, and the fallen nature of Man and of all Creation is beginning to be healed.
Not anymore it isn't.
Oh, and the majority of Christ-followers will say that he died for their sins. Not to end blood sacrifice.And correctly so. Ending blood sacrfice was good, but it was a side effect. It was a symptom of our flaws, our broken nature. I can't tell you exactly how the Atonement works. I don't think Penal Substitution (He bore our punishment so we don't have to) is the best theory, though it's the one fundagelicals like. I'm more of a Christus Victor (He triumphed over death, entropy and evilness) person, with a little bit of Ransom (He bought us back from the prince of this world, under whose dominion we had come) mixed in. Whatever the mechanics of it, the point was to fix the main problem, not just the symptoms.
And didn't one of the books of the bible quote the dead-jew-on-a-stick as saying that he wasn't here to change any law of his father? Something about 'not one jot or tittle'?Yes, that's right, He said not one jot or tittle (Hebrew accent or punctuation marks) would change until all was fulfilled. I believe all was fulfilled with His death on the cross and resurrection.
So, I have to ask, do you follow the biblical dictates and stories? Or just the ones which appeal to your better moral sense?
Would you stone someone for working on the Sabbath? Should breaking the commandments come with the recommended punishment?Not at all. The Law of Moses was given specifically to the Jews, and the Levitical portion of it was given specifically to the Tribe of Levi, the Jewish priestly caste. And Paul says the Law no longer applies to Christ followers at all (Galatians, the whole book, but it's very short, just a few pages).
I do think we can and should learn from all the stories, but not all of them are meant literally. Jesus said He did only what He saw the Father doing... and if Jesus is any example (and I think He is), the Father is very fond of teaching via parables as well.
By the way, I expect I come off a bit harsh at times, so I want to add that I LIKE disagreeing. It is one of the ways we humans learn well...jam your opinion out there and LEAN THE FUCK INTO IT, then if someone yanks away your supporting evidence, you have a mouthful of dirt to spit out with your thanks.
Thank you for being willing to discuss this. Differences included I would gladly share a meal, a drink or a creation with you. I'm getting gladder and gladder that I met you!Thank you. You have a bizarre sort of charm, and I'm likewise glad we met and am enjoying our conversation too. :hug:
Please forgive me for preaching. I certainly didn't come here to do that, but it's kind of unavoidable in the process of answering your questions. And I certainly understand if my answers don't resonate with you or make sense to you. They are my personal answers. I'm just sharing my understanding as best I can, not trying to proselytize or win an argument.
Izdaari
23rd January 2012, 01:47 AM
Izdaari, what if I invited you to kiss Hank's ass with me?
Kissing Hank's Ass - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ):rofl:
That was good. But, no, I'm afraid Hank wouldn't let me kiss his ass... because I love to pile my hot dogs high with condiments (onions, relish, sauerkraut, mustard, etc... or maybe even chili and cheese if I'm in the mood), and Hank really hates that. :hehe:
Kissing Hank's Ass - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ):rofl:
That was good. But, no, I'm afraid Hank wouldn't let me kiss his ass... because I love to pile my hot dogs high with condiments (onions, relish, sauerkraut, mustard, etc... or maybe even chili and cheese if I'm in the mood), and Hank really hates that. :hehe:
Danny
23rd January 2012, 01:48 AM
But the suffering was real and the death was real
for a given value of real
for a given value of real
Izdaari
23rd January 2012, 01:55 AM
But the suffering was real and the death was real
for a given value of real
Yeah, ok. There is no spoon.
for a given value of real
Yeah, ok. There is no spoon.
Danny
23rd January 2012, 02:01 AM
correct!
Grumps
23rd January 2012, 03:31 AM
Tell me, do you accept the whole pill? Or do you ignore the ridiculous and just aim to be ethical as you see it?
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
Not anymore it isn't. For the OT Jews, blood sacrifice was the only way to atone for wrongdoings... for them the rule was "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin". But the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the reversal of what went wrong with the human race. It is done, there will never be a need for more blood sacrifices. They were made obsolete and abolished forever. Sounds pretty darn moral to me and amazing besides! So, yes, I think that large group of people has it right. :thumbsup:
The philosophical problem rests with an infinitely powerful and knowledgeable entity requiring a sacrifice at all. Being infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely powerful, surely he could have thought of a better way to go about it all than torture.
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
Not anymore it isn't. For the OT Jews, blood sacrifice was the only way to atone for wrongdoings... for them the rule was "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin". But the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the reversal of what went wrong with the human race. It is done, there will never be a need for more blood sacrifices. They were made obsolete and abolished forever. Sounds pretty darn moral to me and amazing besides! So, yes, I think that large group of people has it right. :thumbsup:
The philosophical problem rests with an infinitely powerful and knowledgeable entity requiring a sacrifice at all. Being infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely powerful, surely he could have thought of a better way to go about it all than torture.
Jerome
23rd January 2012, 03:52 AM
Atheism is for those that don't have the backbone to be human.
Fuzzy
23rd January 2012, 03:55 AM
Atheism is for those that don't have the backbone to be human.
:ohmy:
:ohmy:
Supernaut
23rd January 2012, 04:01 AM
Atheism is for those that don't have the backbone to be human.
What exactly do you mean by this Jerome?
What exactly do you mean by this Jerome?
Jerome
23rd January 2012, 04:02 AM
It is a toss your hands up fuck it excuse to not have to think about humanity, much less one's own humanity.
oblivion
23rd January 2012, 04:11 AM
are you a theist?
for me, taking theos out of the equation makes it a lot easier to focus on the humanity of myself and others.
for me, taking theos out of the equation makes it a lot easier to focus on the humanity of myself and others.
Supernaut
23rd January 2012, 04:17 AM
It is a toss your hands up fuck it excuse to not have to think about humanity, much less one's own humanity.
Speaking from personal experience, I have become a lot less judgemental and a whole lot more forgiving in my post theist state.
Granted I have tossed my hands up in the air when it comes to the existence of anything godlike....but the faith I had in my former theism is now placed in humanity.
Speaking from personal experience, I have become a lot less judgemental and a whole lot more forgiving in my post theist state.
Granted I have tossed my hands up in the air when it comes to the existence of anything godlike....but the faith I had in my former theism is now placed in humanity.
Cunt
23rd January 2012, 04:25 AM
Pretending to die while masochistically torturing yourself for a few days (purely for publicity) does not strike me as that much of a sacrifice in comparison.
I hear you. But the suffering was real and the death was real, and He triumphed over death, which was kinda the whole point.The story has him doing this to himself to repeal a law he himself made and to glorify himself in the eyes of his followers.
Um...where is the impressive part?
His resurrection is now available to us too, and the fallen nature of Man and of all Creation is beginning to be healed.This doesn't even mean anything, unless you believe in getting a million dollars when you leave town.
And correctly so. Ending blood sacrfice was good, but it was a side effect. It was a symptom of our flaws, 'Flaws' by whose measure? A god? Or a desert-dwelling primitive man, fearful of death and the unknown?
our broken nature.Your broken nature, maybe. I am fine (and don't fucking call me insulting names like 'broken' or 'sinner' either)
I can't tell you exactly how the Atonement works. I don't think Penal Substitution (He bore our punishment so we don't have to) is the best theory, though it's the one fundagelicals like. I'm more of a Christus Victor (He triumphed over death, entropy and evilness) person, with a little bit of Ransom (He bought us back from the prince of this world, under whose dominion we had come) mixed in. Whatever the mechanics of it, the point was to fix the main problem, not just the symptoms.So on a matter as potentially important as the afterlife, you choose to believe a vague group of books, and commit to whichever interpretations suit your preferences best? Is that about it?
Yes, that's right, He said not one jot or tittle (Hebrew accent or punctuation marks) would change until all was fulfilled. I believe all was fulfilled with His death on the cross and resurrection.Ya...those books can be interpreted any number of ways. Makes it convenient, doesn't it?
Not at all. The Law of Moses was given specifically to the Jews, and the Levitical portion of it was given specifically to the Tribe of Levi, the Jewish priestly caste. And Paul says the Law no longer applies to Christ followers at all (Galatians, the whole book, but it's very short, just a few pages).Again, depending on which book you believe, and your interpretation...
Sounds like a scam to me.
How do you feel about Reiki Healing?
I do think we can and should learn from all the stories, but not all of them are meant literally. Jesus said He did only what He saw the Father doing... and if Jesus is any example (and I think He is), the Father is very fond of teaching via parables as well. And genocide...don't forget the genocide.
Oh, and the whole story is unbelievable. Wherever miracles can be checked, they turn out to be misunderstandings at best, or outright frauds at worst.
The emptiness of the evidence bag is quite astounding, considering the importance of the question.
Isn't it so much more likely that the stories of gods were invented?
Please forgive me for preaching. I certainly didn't come here to do that, but it's kind of unavoidable in the process of answering your questions. And I certainly understand if my answers don't resonate with you or make sense to you. They are my personal answers. I'm just sharing my understanding as best I can, not trying to proselytize or win an argument.How much would a christian have to hate me to not prosyletize?
If you don't think it is important, I understand (since all the gods so far check out imaginary) but if you DO think it's important, wouldn't you have to hate someone to skip telling them the danger they were in?
This place was set up to allow people to say anything. That doesn't just count for dirty words.
----------o----------
The philosophical problem rests with an infinitely powerful and knowledgeable entity requiring a sacrifice at all. Being infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely powerful, surely he could have thought of a better way to go about it all than torture.
CERTAINLY if there is a god it likes suffering. I don't see a reason to worship that so far.(except maybe fear)
I hear you. But the suffering was real and the death was real, and He triumphed over death, which was kinda the whole point.The story has him doing this to himself to repeal a law he himself made and to glorify himself in the eyes of his followers.
Um...where is the impressive part?
His resurrection is now available to us too, and the fallen nature of Man and of all Creation is beginning to be healed.This doesn't even mean anything, unless you believe in getting a million dollars when you leave town.
And correctly so. Ending blood sacrfice was good, but it was a side effect. It was a symptom of our flaws, 'Flaws' by whose measure? A god? Or a desert-dwelling primitive man, fearful of death and the unknown?
our broken nature.Your broken nature, maybe. I am fine (and don't fucking call me insulting names like 'broken' or 'sinner' either)
I can't tell you exactly how the Atonement works. I don't think Penal Substitution (He bore our punishment so we don't have to) is the best theory, though it's the one fundagelicals like. I'm more of a Christus Victor (He triumphed over death, entropy and evilness) person, with a little bit of Ransom (He bought us back from the prince of this world, under whose dominion we had come) mixed in. Whatever the mechanics of it, the point was to fix the main problem, not just the symptoms.So on a matter as potentially important as the afterlife, you choose to believe a vague group of books, and commit to whichever interpretations suit your preferences best? Is that about it?
Yes, that's right, He said not one jot or tittle (Hebrew accent or punctuation marks) would change until all was fulfilled. I believe all was fulfilled with His death on the cross and resurrection.Ya...those books can be interpreted any number of ways. Makes it convenient, doesn't it?
Not at all. The Law of Moses was given specifically to the Jews, and the Levitical portion of it was given specifically to the Tribe of Levi, the Jewish priestly caste. And Paul says the Law no longer applies to Christ followers at all (Galatians, the whole book, but it's very short, just a few pages).Again, depending on which book you believe, and your interpretation...
Sounds like a scam to me.
How do you feel about Reiki Healing?
I do think we can and should learn from all the stories, but not all of them are meant literally. Jesus said He did only what He saw the Father doing... and if Jesus is any example (and I think He is), the Father is very fond of teaching via parables as well. And genocide...don't forget the genocide.
Oh, and the whole story is unbelievable. Wherever miracles can be checked, they turn out to be misunderstandings at best, or outright frauds at worst.
The emptiness of the evidence bag is quite astounding, considering the importance of the question.
Isn't it so much more likely that the stories of gods were invented?
Please forgive me for preaching. I certainly didn't come here to do that, but it's kind of unavoidable in the process of answering your questions. And I certainly understand if my answers don't resonate with you or make sense to you. They are my personal answers. I'm just sharing my understanding as best I can, not trying to proselytize or win an argument.How much would a christian have to hate me to not prosyletize?
If you don't think it is important, I understand (since all the gods so far check out imaginary) but if you DO think it's important, wouldn't you have to hate someone to skip telling them the danger they were in?
This place was set up to allow people to say anything. That doesn't just count for dirty words.
----------o----------
The philosophical problem rests with an infinitely powerful and knowledgeable entity requiring a sacrifice at all. Being infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely powerful, surely he could have thought of a better way to go about it all than torture.
CERTAINLY if there is a god it likes suffering. I don't see a reason to worship that so far.(except maybe fear)
Jerome
23rd January 2012, 04:27 AM
to each his own
the trouble is those that wear it as a badge so as to not have to think
the trouble is those that wear it as a badge so as to not have to think
Supernaut
23rd January 2012, 04:28 AM
to each his own
the trouble is those that wear it as a badge so as to not have to think
That is sometimes my view with some theists.:D You are correct though, to each their own.
the trouble is those that wear it as a badge so as to not have to think
That is sometimes my view with some theists.:D You are correct though, to each their own.
Jerome
23rd January 2012, 04:28 AM
are you a theist?
I don't know, I don't think we are here to serve something not here ..
I don't know, I don't think we are here to serve something not here ..
Jerome
23rd January 2012, 04:30 AM
the trouble is those that wear it as a badge so as to not have to think
That is sometimes my view with some theists.:D You are correct though, to each their own.
that would be a religonist, no?
That is sometimes my view with some theists.:D You are correct though, to each their own.
that would be a religonist, no?
oblivion
23rd January 2012, 04:36 AM
to each his own
the trouble is those that wear it as a badge so as to not have to think
that applies to any hobby horse, really.
the trouble is those that wear it as a badge so as to not have to think
that applies to any hobby horse, really.
Supernaut
23rd January 2012, 04:37 AM
the trouble is those that wear it as a badge so as to not have to think
That is sometimes my view with some theists.:D You are correct though, to each their own.
that would be a religonist, no?
I use theist loosely to describe those who traditionally hold religious beliefs/traditions.
That is sometimes my view with some theists.:D You are correct though, to each their own.
that would be a religonist, no?
I use theist loosely to describe those who traditionally hold religious beliefs/traditions.
Izdaari
23rd January 2012, 04:51 AM
Tell me, do you accept the whole pill? Or do you ignore the ridiculous and just aim to be ethical as you see it?
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
Not anymore it isn't. For the OT Jews, blood sacrifice was the only way to atone for wrongdoings... for them the rule was "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin". But the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the reversal of what went wrong with the human race. It is done, there will never be a need for more blood sacrifices. They were made obsolete and abolished forever. Sounds pretty darn moral to me and amazing besides! So, yes, I think that large group of people has it right. :thumbsup:
The philosophical problem rests with an infinitely powerful and knowledgeable entity requiring a sacrifice at all. Being infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely powerful, surely he could have thought of a better way to go about it all than torture.
Yes, I understand the concern. I don't have an answer for it. Why it had to be that way is something that's still a mystery to me.
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
Not anymore it isn't. For the OT Jews, blood sacrifice was the only way to atone for wrongdoings... for them the rule was "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin". But the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the reversal of what went wrong with the human race. It is done, there will never be a need for more blood sacrifices. They were made obsolete and abolished forever. Sounds pretty darn moral to me and amazing besides! So, yes, I think that large group of people has it right. :thumbsup:
The philosophical problem rests with an infinitely powerful and knowledgeable entity requiring a sacrifice at all. Being infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely powerful, surely he could have thought of a better way to go about it all than torture.
Yes, I understand the concern. I don't have an answer for it. Why it had to be that way is something that's still a mystery to me.
Grumps
23rd January 2012, 05:20 AM
Tell me, do you accept the whole pill? Or do you ignore the ridiculous and just aim to be ethical as you see it?
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
Not anymore it isn't. For the OT Jews, blood sacrifice was the only way to atone for wrongdoings... for them the rule was "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin". But the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the reversal of what went wrong with the human race. It is done, there will never be a need for more blood sacrifices. They were made obsolete and abolished forever. Sounds pretty darn moral to me and amazing besides! So, yes, I think that large group of people has it right. :thumbsup:
The philosophical problem rests with an infinitely powerful and knowledgeable entity requiring a sacrifice at all. Being infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely powerful, surely he could have thought of a better way to go about it all than torture.
Yes, I understand the concern. I don't have an answer for it. Why it had to be that way is something that's still a mystery to me.
There's the flood, the destruction of Sodom, the salting of Lot's wife, the bear who eats the children. So much unnecessary violence and bloodshed.
But it isn't until the New Testament that God really gets vindictive, when he introduces the idea of eternal damnation.
This supposedly beyond-genius god, intelligent, understanding and powerful beyond all human comprehension, offers only two choices - eternal torture or subservience. That sounds very human to me.
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
Not anymore it isn't. For the OT Jews, blood sacrifice was the only way to atone for wrongdoings... for them the rule was "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin". But the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the reversal of what went wrong with the human race. It is done, there will never be a need for more blood sacrifices. They were made obsolete and abolished forever. Sounds pretty darn moral to me and amazing besides! So, yes, I think that large group of people has it right. :thumbsup:
The philosophical problem rests with an infinitely powerful and knowledgeable entity requiring a sacrifice at all. Being infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely powerful, surely he could have thought of a better way to go about it all than torture.
Yes, I understand the concern. I don't have an answer for it. Why it had to be that way is something that's still a mystery to me.
There's the flood, the destruction of Sodom, the salting of Lot's wife, the bear who eats the children. So much unnecessary violence and bloodshed.
But it isn't until the New Testament that God really gets vindictive, when he introduces the idea of eternal damnation.
This supposedly beyond-genius god, intelligent, understanding and powerful beyond all human comprehension, offers only two choices - eternal torture or subservience. That sounds very human to me.
Cunt
23rd January 2012, 05:24 AM
What I would like to ask is this - what evidence could change your mind?
Izdaari
23rd January 2012, 05:44 AM
Pretending to die while masochistically torturing yourself for a few days (purely for publicity) does not strike me as that much of a sacrifice in comparison.
I hear you. But the suffering was real and the death was real, and He triumphed over death, which was kinda the whole point.The story has him doing this to himself to repeal a law he himself made and to glorify himself in the eyes of his followers.
Um...where is the impressive part?
We're talking subjective impressions here. We see it differently, but there's nothing I can say to change your mind, or vice versa.
His resurrection is now available to us too, and the fallen nature of Man and of all Creation is beginning to be healed.This doesn't even mean anything, unless you believe in getting a million dollars when you leave town.This is another one where we just see it differently, and would just be arguing about flavors of ice cream. Except: Hank was totally wrong about the best way to eat hot dogs. On a bun, plain with no condiments? Not good at all, except maybe very occasionally with an exceptionally good dog.
And correctly so. Ending blood sacrfice was good, but it was a side effect. It was a symptom of our flaws, 'Flaws' by whose measure? A god? Or a desert-dwelling primitive man, fearful of death and the unknown?
our broken nature.Your broken nature, maybe. I am fine (and don't fucking call me insulting names like 'broken' or 'sinner' either)All I'm saying is that human beings are inherently imperfect and to varying degrees dysfunctional, myself certainly included, and everyone else I've ever met. If you're a exception, you'd be the first I've run into.
So on a matter as potentially important as the afterlife, you choose to believe a vague group of books, and commit to whichever interpretations suit your preferences best? Is that about it?The quote function screwed up here and left out the context. I was talking about theories of how the Atonement works, which is actually something Scripture is mostly silent about. All three theories I mentioned are man-made theological theories. Is there an alternative to making up my own mind as to which (if any) of them to believe?
Yes, that's right, He said not one jot or tittle (Hebrew accent or punctuation marks) would change until all was fulfilled. I believe all was fulfilled with His death on the cross and resurrection.Ya...those books can be interpreted any number of ways. Makes it convenient, doesn't it?Regardless of consequences, it's the interpretation that best fits what I understand the Scriptures to be saying. :dunno:
Not at all. The Law of Moses was given specifically to the Jews, and the Levitical portion of it was given specifically to the Tribe of Levi, the Jewish priestly caste. And Paul says the Law no longer applies to Christ followers at all (Galatians, the whole book, but it's very short, just a few pages).Again, depending on which book you believe, and your interpretation...
Sounds like a scam to me.
How do you feel about Reiki Healing?Again, is there an alternative to making up my own mind on how to interpret Scripture? I'm not Catholic, so I can't just go with the Pope or the Magisterium of the Church... though that would be convenient.
I know little to nothing about Reiki Healing. However, within the Pentecostal tradition I come from, faith healings do happen, though not reliably and not on cue. (I'm an Assemblies of God member, who has become a little too liberal for comfort there, and am looking for a new church, probably Episcopal, UMC or ELCA.)
I do think we can and should learn from all the stories, but not all of them are meant literally. Jesus said He did only what He saw the Father doing... and if Jesus is any example (and I think He is), the Father is very fond of teaching via parables as well. And genocide...don't forget the genocide.
Oh, and the whole story is unbelievable. Wherever miracles can be checked, they turn out to be misunderstandings at best, or outright frauds at worst.
The emptiness of the evidence bag is quite astounding, considering the importance of the question.
Isn't it so much more likely that the stories of gods were invented?Yeah, I understand it's all not believable to you.
Here's a short video counterpoint on the credibility of the Resurrection:
Historical Resurrection of Christ? NT Wright responds (HD) - YouTube
Please forgive me for preaching. I certainly didn't come here to do that, but it's kind of unavoidable in the process of answering your questions. And I certainly understand if my answers don't resonate with you or make sense to you. They are my personal answers. I'm just sharing my understanding as best I can, not trying to proselytize or win an argument.How much would a christian have to hate me to not prosyletize?
If you don't think it is important, I understand (since all the gods so far check out imaginary) but if you DO think it's important, wouldn't you have to hate someone to skip telling them the danger they were in?
This place was set up to allow people to say anything. That doesn't just count for dirty words.I don't necessarily believe you're going to hell just for being an atheist or other kind of non-Christian. I think God wants to save everybody (He has said so), and that in the long run (and I'm talking eternal time scale here), He gets what he wants. Cf. The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis, and Love Wins by Rob Bell. I am, at least theoretically, a believer in Universal Reconciliation. I don't think he's going to send the cosmic bouncers and toss people into heaven against their will, but given an eternity to work on folks, I think He can be very persuasive and there'll be very few hold-outs. (This is maybe one of the ways in which I've become too liberal for AG.)
But all that aside, I've never known anyone to be won over to a completely different worldview by debate, in religion or in politics. I don't think anyone will really listen to the Gospel message with an open mind until they're ready for it, perhaps until God is actively calling them. And if I can contribute to that, I think just having a frank and open conversation is a better and more effective method than intentional preaching, debating or proselytizing.
I hear you. But the suffering was real and the death was real, and He triumphed over death, which was kinda the whole point.The story has him doing this to himself to repeal a law he himself made and to glorify himself in the eyes of his followers.
Um...where is the impressive part?
We're talking subjective impressions here. We see it differently, but there's nothing I can say to change your mind, or vice versa.
His resurrection is now available to us too, and the fallen nature of Man and of all Creation is beginning to be healed.This doesn't even mean anything, unless you believe in getting a million dollars when you leave town.This is another one where we just see it differently, and would just be arguing about flavors of ice cream. Except: Hank was totally wrong about the best way to eat hot dogs. On a bun, plain with no condiments? Not good at all, except maybe very occasionally with an exceptionally good dog.
And correctly so. Ending blood sacrfice was good, but it was a side effect. It was a symptom of our flaws, 'Flaws' by whose measure? A god? Or a desert-dwelling primitive man, fearful of death and the unknown?
our broken nature.Your broken nature, maybe. I am fine (and don't fucking call me insulting names like 'broken' or 'sinner' either)All I'm saying is that human beings are inherently imperfect and to varying degrees dysfunctional, myself certainly included, and everyone else I've ever met. If you're a exception, you'd be the first I've run into.
So on a matter as potentially important as the afterlife, you choose to believe a vague group of books, and commit to whichever interpretations suit your preferences best? Is that about it?The quote function screwed up here and left out the context. I was talking about theories of how the Atonement works, which is actually something Scripture is mostly silent about. All three theories I mentioned are man-made theological theories. Is there an alternative to making up my own mind as to which (if any) of them to believe?
Yes, that's right, He said not one jot or tittle (Hebrew accent or punctuation marks) would change until all was fulfilled. I believe all was fulfilled with His death on the cross and resurrection.Ya...those books can be interpreted any number of ways. Makes it convenient, doesn't it?Regardless of consequences, it's the interpretation that best fits what I understand the Scriptures to be saying. :dunno:
Not at all. The Law of Moses was given specifically to the Jews, and the Levitical portion of it was given specifically to the Tribe of Levi, the Jewish priestly caste. And Paul says the Law no longer applies to Christ followers at all (Galatians, the whole book, but it's very short, just a few pages).Again, depending on which book you believe, and your interpretation...
Sounds like a scam to me.
How do you feel about Reiki Healing?Again, is there an alternative to making up my own mind on how to interpret Scripture? I'm not Catholic, so I can't just go with the Pope or the Magisterium of the Church... though that would be convenient.
I know little to nothing about Reiki Healing. However, within the Pentecostal tradition I come from, faith healings do happen, though not reliably and not on cue. (I'm an Assemblies of God member, who has become a little too liberal for comfort there, and am looking for a new church, probably Episcopal, UMC or ELCA.)
I do think we can and should learn from all the stories, but not all of them are meant literally. Jesus said He did only what He saw the Father doing... and if Jesus is any example (and I think He is), the Father is very fond of teaching via parables as well. And genocide...don't forget the genocide.
Oh, and the whole story is unbelievable. Wherever miracles can be checked, they turn out to be misunderstandings at best, or outright frauds at worst.
The emptiness of the evidence bag is quite astounding, considering the importance of the question.
Isn't it so much more likely that the stories of gods were invented?Yeah, I understand it's all not believable to you.
Here's a short video counterpoint on the credibility of the Resurrection:
Historical Resurrection of Christ? NT Wright responds (HD) - YouTube
Please forgive me for preaching. I certainly didn't come here to do that, but it's kind of unavoidable in the process of answering your questions. And I certainly understand if my answers don't resonate with you or make sense to you. They are my personal answers. I'm just sharing my understanding as best I can, not trying to proselytize or win an argument.How much would a christian have to hate me to not prosyletize?
If you don't think it is important, I understand (since all the gods so far check out imaginary) but if you DO think it's important, wouldn't you have to hate someone to skip telling them the danger they were in?
This place was set up to allow people to say anything. That doesn't just count for dirty words.I don't necessarily believe you're going to hell just for being an atheist or other kind of non-Christian. I think God wants to save everybody (He has said so), and that in the long run (and I'm talking eternal time scale here), He gets what he wants. Cf. The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis, and Love Wins by Rob Bell. I am, at least theoretically, a believer in Universal Reconciliation. I don't think he's going to send the cosmic bouncers and toss people into heaven against their will, but given an eternity to work on folks, I think He can be very persuasive and there'll be very few hold-outs. (This is maybe one of the ways in which I've become too liberal for AG.)
But all that aside, I've never known anyone to be won over to a completely different worldview by debate, in religion or in politics. I don't think anyone will really listen to the Gospel message with an open mind until they're ready for it, perhaps until God is actively calling them. And if I can contribute to that, I think just having a frank and open conversation is a better and more effective method than intentional preaching, debating or proselytizing.
Izdaari
23rd January 2012, 05:46 AM
I am an actual orthodox if somewhat liberal Christian, 100% on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, who has a similar attitude to Zigmen's.
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
Not anymore it isn't. For the OT Jews, blood sacrifice was the only way to atone for wrongdoings... for them the rule was "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin". But the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the reversal of what went wrong with the human race. It is done, there will never be a need for more blood sacrifices. They were made obsolete and abolished forever. Sounds pretty darn moral to me and amazing besides! So, yes, I think that large group of people has it right. :thumbsup:
The philosophical problem rests with an infinitely powerful and knowledgeable entity requiring a sacrifice at all. Being infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely powerful, surely he could have thought of a better way to go about it all than torture.
Yes, I understand the concern. I don't have an answer for it. Why it had to be that way is something that's still a mystery to me.
There's the flood, the destruction of Sodom, the salting of Lot's wife, the bear who eats the children. So much unnecessary violence and bloodshed.
But it isn't until the New Testament that God really gets vindictive, when he introduces the idea of eternal damnation.
This supposedly beyond-genius god, intelligent, understanding and powerful beyond all human comprehension, offers only two choices - eternal torture or subservience. That sounds very human to me.
See the tail end of my reply to Cunt (post #81).
Do you think that sacrificing an innocent is a good way to atone for your wrongdoings?
What do you think of such a large group of people (Christians) treating a 'blood sacrifice of the innocent' story as a moral one?
Not anymore it isn't. For the OT Jews, blood sacrifice was the only way to atone for wrongdoings... for them the rule was "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin". But the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the reversal of what went wrong with the human race. It is done, there will never be a need for more blood sacrifices. They were made obsolete and abolished forever. Sounds pretty darn moral to me and amazing besides! So, yes, I think that large group of people has it right. :thumbsup:
The philosophical problem rests with an infinitely powerful and knowledgeable entity requiring a sacrifice at all. Being infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely powerful, surely he could have thought of a better way to go about it all than torture.
Yes, I understand the concern. I don't have an answer for it. Why it had to be that way is something that's still a mystery to me.
There's the flood, the destruction of Sodom, the salting of Lot's wife, the bear who eats the children. So much unnecessary violence and bloodshed.
But it isn't until the New Testament that God really gets vindictive, when he introduces the idea of eternal damnation.
This supposedly beyond-genius god, intelligent, understanding and powerful beyond all human comprehension, offers only two choices - eternal torture or subservience. That sounds very human to me.
See the tail end of my reply to Cunt (post #81).
Izdaari
23rd January 2012, 05:47 AM
What I would like to ask is this - what evidence could change your mind?
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
Grumps
23rd January 2012, 06:23 AM
*snip*
The reason I who I am is because I couldn't agree with the philosophical implications anymore. Christianity stopped being a belief system because I couldn't reconcile what was written with what was said.
Take a look at the idea of 'Universal Reconciliation', in the bible there is no redemption from Hell, not after the fact. It is not anywhere written or indicated. It took quite a theological re-imagining, a deviation from what was explicitly written in the source to come up with the idea.
But even ignoring that, even accepting UR is somehow true, it wouldn't apply to someone who cursed the Holy Spirit. You can molest children, massacre entire villages, exploit thousands of poverty-stricken workers, and be forgiven.
But curse the holy spirit? Hoo boy.
The reason I who I am is because I couldn't agree with the philosophical implications anymore. Christianity stopped being a belief system because I couldn't reconcile what was written with what was said.
Take a look at the idea of 'Universal Reconciliation', in the bible there is no redemption from Hell, not after the fact. It is not anywhere written or indicated. It took quite a theological re-imagining, a deviation from what was explicitly written in the source to come up with the idea.
But even ignoring that, even accepting UR is somehow true, it wouldn't apply to someone who cursed the Holy Spirit. You can molest children, massacre entire villages, exploit thousands of poverty-stricken workers, and be forgiven.
But curse the holy spirit? Hoo boy.
charlou
23rd January 2012, 07:38 AM
But all that aside, I've never known anyone to be won over to a completely different worldview by debate, in religion or in politics. I don't think anyone will really listen to the Gospel message with an open mind until they're ready for it, perhaps until God is actively calling them. And if I can contribute to that, I think just having a frank and open conversation is a better and more effective method than intentional preaching, debating or proselytizing.
Frankly? I think there's no difference, given the way you're conducting the conversation. You're talking at us. I have heard it all before and rejected it. It's unbelievable because you're offering nothing but faith-based (read baseless) assertion about useless nonsense, not tangible evidence for anything of import or value.
Frankly? I think there's no difference, given the way you're conducting the conversation. You're talking at us. I have heard it all before and rejected it. It's unbelievable because you're offering nothing but faith-based (read baseless) assertion about useless nonsense, not tangible evidence for anything of import or value.
charlou
23rd January 2012, 07:44 AM
to each his own
the trouble is those that wear it as a badge so as to not have to think
that applies to any hobby horse, really.
Having a pet topic isn't necessarily philosophical avoidance.
the trouble is those that wear it as a badge so as to not have to think
that applies to any hobby horse, really.
Having a pet topic isn't necessarily philosophical avoidance.
Izdaari
23rd January 2012, 09:15 AM
But all that aside, I've never known anyone to be won over to a completely different worldview by debate, in religion or in politics. I don't think anyone will really listen to the Gospel message with an open mind until they're ready for it, perhaps until God is actively calling them. And if I can contribute to that, I think just having a frank and open conversation is a better and more effective method than intentional preaching, debating or proselytizing.
Frankly? I think there's no difference, given the way you're conducting the conversation. You're talking at us. I have heard it all before and rejected it. It's unbelievable because you're offering nothing but faith-based (read baseless) assertion about useless nonsense, not tangible evidence for anything of import or value.
I'm just answering some questions as best I can. I'm sorry you don't like the answers. If what I write is of no interest or value to you, my best suggestion is don't read it.
Not that I think formal debates, and tight logic and fact-based arguments are a bad thing, not by any means, but I am not the one who is able to provide them. There are Christian apologists who specialize in them, and I admire their efforts, but it ain't me, babe. No, no, no, it ain't me, babe. It ain't me you're looking for, babe.
Joan Baez - It Ain't Me Babe - BBC "In Concert" Show (1965) - YouTube
Frankly? I think there's no difference, given the way you're conducting the conversation. You're talking at us. I have heard it all before and rejected it. It's unbelievable because you're offering nothing but faith-based (read baseless) assertion about useless nonsense, not tangible evidence for anything of import or value.
I'm just answering some questions as best I can. I'm sorry you don't like the answers. If what I write is of no interest or value to you, my best suggestion is don't read it.
Not that I think formal debates, and tight logic and fact-based arguments are a bad thing, not by any means, but I am not the one who is able to provide them. There are Christian apologists who specialize in them, and I admire their efforts, but it ain't me, babe. No, no, no, it ain't me, babe. It ain't me you're looking for, babe.
Joan Baez - It Ain't Me Babe - BBC "In Concert" Show (1965) - YouTube
Izdaari
23rd January 2012, 10:29 AM
*snip*
The reason I who I am is because I couldn't agree with the philosophical implications anymore. Christianity stopped being a belief system because I couldn't reconcile what was written with what was said.
Take a look at the idea of 'Universal Reconciliation', in the bible there is no redemption from Hell, not after the fact. It is not anywhere written or indicated. It took quite a theological re-imagining, a deviation from what was explicitly written in the source to come up with the idea.
There are more Scriptures that support UR than you may be aware of.
http://www.cogwriter.com/apocatastasis.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian_Universalism
The reason I who I am is because I couldn't agree with the philosophical implications anymore. Christianity stopped being a belief system because I couldn't reconcile what was written with what was said.
Take a look at the idea of 'Universal Reconciliation', in the bible there is no redemption from Hell, not after the fact. It is not anywhere written or indicated. It took quite a theological re-imagining, a deviation from what was explicitly written in the source to come up with the idea.
There are more Scriptures that support UR than you may be aware of.
http://www.cogwriter.com/apocatastasis.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian_Universalism
oblivion
23rd January 2012, 12:44 PM
to each his own
the trouble is those that wear it as a badge so as to not have to think
that applies to any hobby horse, really.
Having a pet topic isn't necessarily philosophical avoidance.
No it isn't. I think wearing a philosophical viewpoint like a badge goes beyond a pet topic, but it's probably mostly a semantic distinction.
the trouble is those that wear it as a badge so as to not have to think
that applies to any hobby horse, really.
Having a pet topic isn't necessarily philosophical avoidance.
No it isn't. I think wearing a philosophical viewpoint like a badge goes beyond a pet topic, but it's probably mostly a semantic distinction.
Brother Daniel
23rd January 2012, 02:10 PM
Here's a short video counterpoint on the credibility of the Resurrection:
With all due respect to Wright's detailed knowledge of the relevant historical data, I don't think he understands probability very well.
With all due respect to Wright's detailed knowledge of the relevant historical data, I don't think he understands probability very well.
charlou
23rd January 2012, 02:18 PM
to each his own
the trouble is those that wear it as a badge so as to not have to think
that applies to any hobby horse, really.
Having a pet topic isn't necessarily philosophical avoidance.
No it isn't. I think wearing a philosophical viewpoint like a badge goes beyond a pet topic, but it's probably mostly a semantic distinction.
I'm referring to the statement about wearing a badge so as to not have to think (ie, philosophical avoidance) ... I'm pointing out that it's not always the case. A lot of thought can go into any viewpoint, a hobbyhorse included. That it might be wrong thinking, for whatever reasons, is not the same as not thinking at all.
the trouble is those that wear it as a badge so as to not have to think
that applies to any hobby horse, really.
Having a pet topic isn't necessarily philosophical avoidance.
No it isn't. I think wearing a philosophical viewpoint like a badge goes beyond a pet topic, but it's probably mostly a semantic distinction.
I'm referring to the statement about wearing a badge so as to not have to think (ie, philosophical avoidance) ... I'm pointing out that it's not always the case. A lot of thought can go into any viewpoint, a hobbyhorse included. That it might be wrong thinking, for whatever reasons, is not the same as not thinking at all.
charlou
23rd January 2012, 02:27 PM
But all that aside, I've never known anyone to be won over to a completely different worldview by debate, in religion or in politics. I don't think anyone will really listen to the Gospel message with an open mind until they're ready for it, perhaps until God is actively calling them. And if I can contribute to that, I think just having a frank and open conversation is a better and more effective method than intentional preaching, debating or proselytizing.
Frankly? I think there's no difference, given the way you're conducting the conversation. You're talking at us. I have heard it all before and rejected it. It's unbelievable because you're offering nothing but faith-based (read baseless) assertion about useless nonsense, not tangible evidence for anything of import or value.
I'm just answering some questions as best I can. I'm sorry you don't like the answers. If what I write is of no interest or value to you, my best suggestion is don't read it.
You are including an element of proselytising - you want to contribute to bringing a gospel message to us - so let's call it what it is ... and that's okay. It's not about liking or disliking your views, I just reject them for the reason I gave.
Not that I think formal debates, and tight logic and fact-based arguments are a bad thing, not by any means, but I am not the one who is able to provide them. There are Christian apologists who specialize in them, and I admire their efforts, but it ain't me, babe. No, no, no, it ain't me, babe. It ain't me you're looking for, babe.
So how do you think you will be able to contribute to bringing anyone the gospel message?
Frankly? I think there's no difference, given the way you're conducting the conversation. You're talking at us. I have heard it all before and rejected it. It's unbelievable because you're offering nothing but faith-based (read baseless) assertion about useless nonsense, not tangible evidence for anything of import or value.
I'm just answering some questions as best I can. I'm sorry you don't like the answers. If what I write is of no interest or value to you, my best suggestion is don't read it.
You are including an element of proselytising - you want to contribute to bringing a gospel message to us - so let's call it what it is ... and that's okay. It's not about liking or disliking your views, I just reject them for the reason I gave.
Not that I think formal debates, and tight logic and fact-based arguments are a bad thing, not by any means, but I am not the one who is able to provide them. There are Christian apologists who specialize in them, and I admire their efforts, but it ain't me, babe. No, no, no, it ain't me, babe. It ain't me you're looking for, babe.
So how do you think you will be able to contribute to bringing anyone the gospel message?
Cunt
23rd January 2012, 02:34 PM
What I would like to ask is this - what evidence could change your mind?
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
This indicates whether it is a topic you are willing to discuss and learn about, or simply parrot and not listen.
Unfortunately, it seems nothing could sway you from your truth.
How could you ever discover the facts if you turn out to be wrong? No matter, you have already said that you can't be unconvinced. A lifetime of evidence would simply be dismissed as the work of the devil. Nice convenient cocoon, that.
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
Well, with regards to the biblically laughable god Yahweh/Jesus, it could start with putting up some evidence. F'rinstance, it says that any true believer can pray for anything and god will grant it.
So pray for the moon to be terraformed, with an elevator, by lunch time. This will start me on the road to believing. It wouldn't be enough on it's own, but it would certainly be a reasonable piece of evidence.
If you think this sets the bar too high, remember what is claimed for this god - omniscience, omnipotence, good hygiene and no external genetalia.
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
This indicates whether it is a topic you are willing to discuss and learn about, or simply parrot and not listen.
Unfortunately, it seems nothing could sway you from your truth.
How could you ever discover the facts if you turn out to be wrong? No matter, you have already said that you can't be unconvinced. A lifetime of evidence would simply be dismissed as the work of the devil. Nice convenient cocoon, that.
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
Well, with regards to the biblically laughable god Yahweh/Jesus, it could start with putting up some evidence. F'rinstance, it says that any true believer can pray for anything and god will grant it.
So pray for the moon to be terraformed, with an elevator, by lunch time. This will start me on the road to believing. It wouldn't be enough on it's own, but it would certainly be a reasonable piece of evidence.
If you think this sets the bar too high, remember what is claimed for this god - omniscience, omnipotence, good hygiene and no external genetalia.
Hermit
23rd January 2012, 03:05 PM
What I would like to ask is this - what evidence could change your mind?
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
Intelligent Design would do it for me. That would be a bit of an uphill battle to prove, though. If there is a creator, he is either a very stupid god or a plain fucking nasty and cruel one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x4_57Rd8Jw&feature=fvsr
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
Intelligent Design would do it for me. That would be a bit of an uphill battle to prove, though. If there is a creator, he is either a very stupid god or a plain fucking nasty and cruel one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x4_57Rd8Jw&feature=fvsr
Izdaari
23rd January 2012, 03:21 PM
But all that aside, I've never known anyone to be won over to a completely different worldview by debate, in religion or in politics. I don't think anyone will really listen to the Gospel message with an open mind until they're ready for it, perhaps until God is actively calling them. And if I can contribute to that, I think just having a frank and open conversation is a better and more effective method than intentional preaching, debating or proselytizing.
Frankly? I think there's no difference, given the way you're conducting the conversation. You're talking at us. I have heard it all before and rejected it. It's unbelievable because you're offering nothing but faith-based (read baseless) assertion about useless nonsense, not tangible evidence for anything of import or value.
I'm just answering some questions as best I can. I'm sorry you don't like the answers. If what I write is of no interest or value to you, my best suggestion is don't read it.
You are including an element of proselytising - you want to contribute to bringing a gospel message to us - so let's call it what it is ... and that's okay. It's not about liking or disliking your views, I just reject them for the reason I gave.
Ok, cool, no problem.
Not that I think formal debates, and tight logic and fact-based arguments are a bad thing, not by any means, but I am not the one who is able to provide them. There are Christian apologists who specialize in them, and I admire their efforts, but it ain't me, babe. No, no, no, it ain't me, babe. It ain't me you're looking for, babe.
So how do you think you will be able to contribute to bringing anyone the gospel message?I'm not saying I lack capability in those areas, far from it. But engaging in lengthy and time consuming formal debates on a forum where nearly everybody is firmly convinced of an opposite PoV is not something I am willing to engage in, because having already done it, I have learned that it is neither entertaining nor productive, and is an endless time sink. This applies to theology, politics and every other topic on which people have strong opinions. So, while there is no topic of conversation I won't engage in, I prefer to keep it light and casual with a minimal time commitment.
Frankly? I think there's no difference, given the way you're conducting the conversation. You're talking at us. I have heard it all before and rejected it. It's unbelievable because you're offering nothing but faith-based (read baseless) assertion about useless nonsense, not tangible evidence for anything of import or value.
I'm just answering some questions as best I can. I'm sorry you don't like the answers. If what I write is of no interest or value to you, my best suggestion is don't read it.
You are including an element of proselytising - you want to contribute to bringing a gospel message to us - so let's call it what it is ... and that's okay. It's not about liking or disliking your views, I just reject them for the reason I gave.
Ok, cool, no problem.
Not that I think formal debates, and tight logic and fact-based arguments are a bad thing, not by any means, but I am not the one who is able to provide them. There are Christian apologists who specialize in them, and I admire their efforts, but it ain't me, babe. No, no, no, it ain't me, babe. It ain't me you're looking for, babe.
So how do you think you will be able to contribute to bringing anyone the gospel message?I'm not saying I lack capability in those areas, far from it. But engaging in lengthy and time consuming formal debates on a forum where nearly everybody is firmly convinced of an opposite PoV is not something I am willing to engage in, because having already done it, I have learned that it is neither entertaining nor productive, and is an endless time sink. This applies to theology, politics and every other topic on which people have strong opinions. So, while there is no topic of conversation I won't engage in, I prefer to keep it light and casual with a minimal time commitment.
Izdaari
23rd January 2012, 03:30 PM
What I would like to ask is this - what evidence could change your mind?
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
This indicates whether it is a topic you are willing to discuss and learn about, or simply parrot and not listen.
Unfortunately, it seems nothing could sway you from your truth.
How could you ever discover the facts if you turn out to be wrong? No matter, you have already said that you can't be unconvinced. A lifetime of evidence would simply be dismissed as the work of the devil. Nice convenient cocoon, that.
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
Well, with regards to the biblically laughable god Yahweh/Jesus, it could start with putting up some evidence. F'rinstance, it says that any true believer can pray for anything and god will grant it.
So pray for the moon to be terraformed, with an elevator, by lunch time. This will start me on the road to believing. It wouldn't be enough on it's own, but it would certainly be a reasonable piece of evidence.
If you think this sets the bar too high, remember what is claimed for this god - omniscience, omnipotence, good hygiene and no external genetalia.
Well then, it seems we're both equally unlikely to be convinced by the other on this subject. But all the same, nice to meet you. :hug:
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
This indicates whether it is a topic you are willing to discuss and learn about, or simply parrot and not listen.
Unfortunately, it seems nothing could sway you from your truth.
How could you ever discover the facts if you turn out to be wrong? No matter, you have already said that you can't be unconvinced. A lifetime of evidence would simply be dismissed as the work of the devil. Nice convenient cocoon, that.
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
Well, with regards to the biblically laughable god Yahweh/Jesus, it could start with putting up some evidence. F'rinstance, it says that any true believer can pray for anything and god will grant it.
So pray for the moon to be terraformed, with an elevator, by lunch time. This will start me on the road to believing. It wouldn't be enough on it's own, but it would certainly be a reasonable piece of evidence.
If you think this sets the bar too high, remember what is claimed for this god - omniscience, omnipotence, good hygiene and no external genetalia.
Well then, it seems we're both equally unlikely to be convinced by the other on this subject. But all the same, nice to meet you. :hug:
Izdaari
23rd January 2012, 03:33 PM
What I would like to ask is this - what evidence could change your mind?
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
Intelligent Design would do it for me. That would be a bit of an uphill battle to prove, though. If there is a creator, he is either a very stupid god or a plain fucking nasty and cruel one.
Not going to try that one. I don't believe in ID as a scientific theory, but even if I did, my knowledge of science is insufficient, being limited to that of a liberal arts student and science-fiction fan.
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
Intelligent Design would do it for me. That would be a bit of an uphill battle to prove, though. If there is a creator, he is either a very stupid god or a plain fucking nasty and cruel one.
Not going to try that one. I don't believe in ID as a scientific theory, but even if I did, my knowledge of science is insufficient, being limited to that of a liberal arts student and science-fiction fan.
Izdaari
23rd January 2012, 03:41 PM
Here's a short video counterpoint on the credibility of the Resurrection:
With all due respect to Wright's detailed knowledge of the relevant historical data, I don't think he understands probability very well.
That could be. He is a historian and theologian, not a statistician.
With all due respect to Wright's detailed knowledge of the relevant historical data, I don't think he understands probability very well.
That could be. He is a historian and theologian, not a statistician.
Hermit
23rd January 2012, 03:49 PM
What I would like to ask is this - what evidence could change your mind?
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
Intelligent Design would do it for me. That would be a bit of an uphill battle to prove, though. If there is a creator, he is either a very stupid god or a plain fucking nasty and cruel one.
Not going to try that one. I don't believe in ID as a scientific theory, but even if I did, my knowledge of science is insufficient, being limited to that of a liberal arts student and science-fiction fan.
OK, so you pick and choose from the bible in regard to what you accept as The Truth and what you consider to be allegorical?
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
Intelligent Design would do it for me. That would be a bit of an uphill battle to prove, though. If there is a creator, he is either a very stupid god or a plain fucking nasty and cruel one.
Not going to try that one. I don't believe in ID as a scientific theory, but even if I did, my knowledge of science is insufficient, being limited to that of a liberal arts student and science-fiction fan.
OK, so you pick and choose from the bible in regard to what you accept as The Truth and what you consider to be allegorical?
Izdaari
23rd January 2012, 04:09 PM
What I would like to ask is this - what evidence could change your mind?
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
Intelligent Design would do it for me. That would be a bit of an uphill battle to prove, though. If there is a creator, he is either a very stupid god or a plain fucking nasty and cruel one.
Not going to try that one. I don't believe in ID as a scientific theory, but even if I did, my knowledge of science is insufficient, being limited to that of a liberal arts student and science-fiction fan.
OK, so you pick and choose from the bible in regard to what you accept as The Truth and what you consider to be allegorical?
I don't recall ID being mentioned in the bible. WRT creation, I am on the fence between OEC and theistic evolution. I am firmly convinced that neither YEC nor a-theistic evolution is true, so in that sense I believe in ID... but not as a scientific theory. I think proponents of it as that claim too much and prove too little, and I don't want to be mistaken for one of them.
I think all of the Bible is true in some sense, and all of it is stuff God wanted us to know and learn something from, but I don't think all of it is literally true though much of it is, and that there is no choice but to try to discern which bits are meant in which way.
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
Intelligent Design would do it for me. That would be a bit of an uphill battle to prove, though. If there is a creator, he is either a very stupid god or a plain fucking nasty and cruel one.
Not going to try that one. I don't believe in ID as a scientific theory, but even if I did, my knowledge of science is insufficient, being limited to that of a liberal arts student and science-fiction fan.
OK, so you pick and choose from the bible in regard to what you accept as The Truth and what you consider to be allegorical?
I don't recall ID being mentioned in the bible. WRT creation, I am on the fence between OEC and theistic evolution. I am firmly convinced that neither YEC nor a-theistic evolution is true, so in that sense I believe in ID... but not as a scientific theory. I think proponents of it as that claim too much and prove too little, and I don't want to be mistaken for one of them.
I think all of the Bible is true in some sense, and all of it is stuff God wanted us to know and learn something from, but I don't think all of it is literally true though much of it is, and that there is no choice but to try to discern which bits are meant in which way.
Cunt
24th January 2012, 01:33 AM
What I would like to ask is this - what evidence could change your mind?
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
This indicates whether it is a topic you are willing to discuss and learn about, or simply parrot and not listen.
Unfortunately, it seems nothing could sway you from your truth.
How could you ever discover the facts if you turn out to be wrong? No matter, you have already said that you can't be unconvinced. A lifetime of evidence would simply be dismissed as the work of the devil. Nice convenient cocoon, that.
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
Well, with regards to the biblically laughable god Yahweh/Jesus, it could start with putting up some evidence. F'rinstance, it says that any true believer can pray for anything and god will grant it.
So pray for the moon to be terraformed, with an elevator, by lunch time. This will start me on the road to believing. It wouldn't be enough on it's own, but it would certainly be a reasonable piece of evidence.
If you think this sets the bar too high, remember what is claimed for this god - omniscience, omnipotence, good hygiene and no external genetalia.
Well then, it seems we're both equally unlikely to be convinced by the other on this subject. But all the same, nice to meet you. :hug:
Not equally at all. I gave a reasonable benchmark for Yahweh and just ONE of his true believers to meet, and you act as if it is impossible.
Fair enough, it is (if you accept that the gods of the bible are fiction). If, however, you stick to this 'Christian' fallacy, you have to find reason for it. If the bible is full of shit (and it IS), then where do you come by your 'Christianity'?
We aren't equally unlikely to have our minds changed. Yours is firmly shut against any possible evidence contradicting your belief. Mine is quite open to evidence.
Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. Christianity is quite a HUGE claim, with almost no evidence.
May I ask why you chose that religion from among the thousands that exist? How did you choose?
I can't think of anything right at the moment, other than dying and not experiencing any kind of afterlife. Or experiencing the afterlife of a different religion, that'd certainly be a shocker. :doh:
This indicates whether it is a topic you are willing to discuss and learn about, or simply parrot and not listen.
Unfortunately, it seems nothing could sway you from your truth.
How could you ever discover the facts if you turn out to be wrong? No matter, you have already said that you can't be unconvinced. A lifetime of evidence would simply be dismissed as the work of the devil. Nice convenient cocoon, that.
Maybe a time travel trip to the Resurrection, and not seeing it happen as described?
What would change yours?
:hmmm:
Well, with regards to the biblically laughable god Yahweh/Jesus, it could start with putting up some evidence. F'rinstance, it says that any true believer can pray for anything and god will grant it.
So pray for the moon to be terraformed, with an elevator, by lunch time. This will start me on the road to believing. It wouldn't be enough on it's own, but it would certainly be a reasonable piece of evidence.
If you think this sets the bar too high, remember what is claimed for this god - omniscience, omnipotence, good hygiene and no external genetalia.
Well then, it seems we're both equally unlikely to be convinced by the other on this subject. But all the same, nice to meet you. :hug:
Not equally at all. I gave a reasonable benchmark for Yahweh and just ONE of his true believers to meet, and you act as if it is impossible.
Fair enough, it is (if you accept that the gods of the bible are fiction). If, however, you stick to this 'Christian' fallacy, you have to find reason for it. If the bible is full of shit (and it IS), then where do you come by your 'Christianity'?
We aren't equally unlikely to have our minds changed. Yours is firmly shut against any possible evidence contradicting your belief. Mine is quite open to evidence.
Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. Christianity is quite a HUGE claim, with almost no evidence.
May I ask why you chose that religion from among the thousands that exist? How did you choose?
charlou
24th January 2012, 02:16 AM
Izdaari, we seem to have similar values. I think they come from the same place - being an intelligent, aware and empathic species of mammal.
I'll see you in other topics. :)
I'll see you in other topics. :)
Hermit
24th January 2012, 03:27 AM
I don't recall ID being mentioned in the bible.
I refer you to Genesis 1:
11 And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. 24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind.
And so on.
Please explain the difference between that and 'Intelligent Design'. If there is one, it escaped my attempts to find it.
I don't think all of it is literally true though much of it is, and that there is no choice but to try to discern which bits are meant in which way.
So you do pick and choose from the bible in regard to what you accept as The Truth and what you consider to be allegorical. That's OK with me, but apparently not with "the word of god". In fact, the bible repeatedly forbids it.
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you [Deuteronomy 4:2]
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.[Deuteronomy 12:32]
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. [Proverbs 30:5-6]
...that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written... [1 Corinthians 4:6]
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. [Revelations 22:18-19]
I refer you to Genesis 1:
11 And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. 24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind.
And so on.
Please explain the difference between that and 'Intelligent Design'. If there is one, it escaped my attempts to find it.
I don't think all of it is literally true though much of it is, and that there is no choice but to try to discern which bits are meant in which way.
So you do pick and choose from the bible in regard to what you accept as The Truth and what you consider to be allegorical. That's OK with me, but apparently not with "the word of god". In fact, the bible repeatedly forbids it.
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you [Deuteronomy 4:2]
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.[Deuteronomy 12:32]
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. [Proverbs 30:5-6]
...that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written... [1 Corinthians 4:6]
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. [Revelations 22:18-19]
Grumps
24th January 2012, 03:50 AM
*snip*
The reason I who I am is because I couldn't agree with the philosophical implications anymore. Christianity stopped being a belief system because I couldn't reconcile what was written with what was said.
Take a look at the idea of 'Universal Reconciliation', in the bible there is no redemption from Hell, not after the fact. It is not anywhere written or indicated. It took quite a theological re-imagining, a deviation from what was explicitly written in the source to come up with the idea.
There are more Scriptures that support UR than you may be aware of.
http://www.cogwriter.com/apocatastasis.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian_Universalism
All those biblical references talk about the mercy of god, and the salvation of all those on Earth, but none say anything about salvation from Hell, while in hell.
The reason I who I am is because I couldn't agree with the philosophical implications anymore. Christianity stopped being a belief system because I couldn't reconcile what was written with what was said.
Take a look at the idea of 'Universal Reconciliation', in the bible there is no redemption from Hell, not after the fact. It is not anywhere written or indicated. It took quite a theological re-imagining, a deviation from what was explicitly written in the source to come up with the idea.
There are more Scriptures that support UR than you may be aware of.
http://www.cogwriter.com/apocatastasis.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian_Universalism
All those biblical references talk about the mercy of god, and the salvation of all those on Earth, but none say anything about salvation from Hell, while in hell.
Hermit
24th January 2012, 03:57 AM
*snip*
The reason I who I am is because I couldn't agree with the philosophical implications anymore. Christianity stopped being a belief system because I couldn't reconcile what was written with what was said.
Take a look at the idea of 'Universal Reconciliation', in the bible there is no redemption from Hell, not after the fact. It is not anywhere written or indicated. It took quite a theological re-imagining, a deviation from what was explicitly written in the source to come up with the idea.
There are more Scriptures that support UR than you may be aware of.
http://www.cogwriter.com/apocatastasis.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian_Universalism
All those biblical references talk about the mercy of god, and the salvation of all those on Earth, but none say anything about salvation from Hell, while in hell.
In fact, if you accept the authority of the bible on the matter, Jesus was reportedly quite explicitly uncompromising on the matter:
“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." [Matthew 11:31-32]
The reason I who I am is because I couldn't agree with the philosophical implications anymore. Christianity stopped being a belief system because I couldn't reconcile what was written with what was said.
Take a look at the idea of 'Universal Reconciliation', in the bible there is no redemption from Hell, not after the fact. It is not anywhere written or indicated. It took quite a theological re-imagining, a deviation from what was explicitly written in the source to come up with the idea.
There are more Scriptures that support UR than you may be aware of.
http://www.cogwriter.com/apocatastasis.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian_Universalism
All those biblical references talk about the mercy of god, and the salvation of all those on Earth, but none say anything about salvation from Hell, while in hell.
In fact, if you accept the authority of the bible on the matter, Jesus was reportedly quite explicitly uncompromising on the matter:
“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." [Matthew 11:31-32]
Izdaari
24th January 2012, 04:51 AM
I don't recall ID being mentioned in the bible.
I refer you to Genesis 1:
11 And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. 24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind.
And so on.
Please explain the difference between that and 'Intelligent Design'. If there is one, it escaped my attempts to find it.
I don't think all of it is literally true though much of it is, and that there is no choice but to try to discern which bits are meant in which way.
So you do pick and choose from the bible in regard to what you accept as The Truth and what you consider to be allegorical. That's OK with me, but apparently not with "the word of god". In fact, the bible repeatedly forbids it.
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you [Deuteronomy 4:2]
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.[Deuteronomy 12:32]
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. [Proverbs 30:5-6]
...that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written... [1 Corinthians 4:6]
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. [Revelations 22:18-19]
The difference between intelligent design, which God certainly did, and Intelligent Design, is that the capitalized version is an attempt to make science from theology. The likely result is neither good science nor good theology.
Those are good verses, but they're not so good taken out of context and applied differently than intended. So... I guess the only true method of biblical interpretation is the fundamentalist version of literalism? If that's true, then Independent Fundamental Baptists must be the only real Christians. That'd be good for atheists, because IFBs are pretty easy to argue against.
I refer you to Genesis 1:
11 And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. 24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind.
And so on.
Please explain the difference between that and 'Intelligent Design'. If there is one, it escaped my attempts to find it.
I don't think all of it is literally true though much of it is, and that there is no choice but to try to discern which bits are meant in which way.
So you do pick and choose from the bible in regard to what you accept as The Truth and what you consider to be allegorical. That's OK with me, but apparently not with "the word of god". In fact, the bible repeatedly forbids it.
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you [Deuteronomy 4:2]
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.[Deuteronomy 12:32]
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. [Proverbs 30:5-6]
...that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written... [1 Corinthians 4:6]
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. [Revelations 22:18-19]
The difference between intelligent design, which God certainly did, and Intelligent Design, is that the capitalized version is an attempt to make science from theology. The likely result is neither good science nor good theology.
Those are good verses, but they're not so good taken out of context and applied differently than intended. So... I guess the only true method of biblical interpretation is the fundamentalist version of literalism? If that's true, then Independent Fundamental Baptists must be the only real Christians. That'd be good for atheists, because IFBs are pretty easy to argue against.
Izdaari
24th January 2012, 04:53 AM
Izdaari, we seem to have similar values. I think they come from the same place - being an intelligent, aware and empathic species of mammal.
I'll see you in other topics. :)
Sounds good. :hug:
I'll see you in other topics. :)
Sounds good. :hug:
Izdaari
24th January 2012, 05:32 AM
May I ask why you chose that religion from among the thousands that exist? How did you choose?
Interesting question. I wasn't raised in any particular religious tradition. My parents always said they believed in God, but they didn't talk about it, didn't take me to church or go themselves, and didn't teach me anything about it. What I learned, I learned all on my own.
Starting in my early teens and continuing into my early twenties, I looked at all kinds of philosophies, religions and secular belief systems, looking for the truth wherever it might be found. I checked out everything from atheism to Zen, and from existentialism to Ayn Rand's Objectivism. None of the theistic religions seemed true to me, so I couldn't at that point pick any of them. Neither could I confidently assert that no God existed. I was a true agnostic. But I did begin to find order in the universe in the form of Lockean Natural Law, and the Tao, and I saw the same principles at work in economics, symbolized by Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. All of that ties in with my libertarian political philosophy, and is part of what formed it.
Penultimately, I became a believer in my own personal mixture of Zen, Taoism and Vedanta, none of which are really theistic, more like just compatible and complementary Eastern philosophies. What got me thinking Christianity was worth giving a second look was a book by C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy. It was essentially his spiritual autobiography, the story of how a highly intelligent and well educated atheist intellectual (an Oxford don) came to believe in God and orthodox Anglican Christianity. That didn't convince me Christianity was true, but it convinced me to investigate the truth of Christianity's central claims for myself, and especially the Resurrection. And when I did so, I came to the same conclusion Lewis did.
Interesting question. I wasn't raised in any particular religious tradition. My parents always said they believed in God, but they didn't talk about it, didn't take me to church or go themselves, and didn't teach me anything about it. What I learned, I learned all on my own.
Starting in my early teens and continuing into my early twenties, I looked at all kinds of philosophies, religions and secular belief systems, looking for the truth wherever it might be found. I checked out everything from atheism to Zen, and from existentialism to Ayn Rand's Objectivism. None of the theistic religions seemed true to me, so I couldn't at that point pick any of them. Neither could I confidently assert that no God existed. I was a true agnostic. But I did begin to find order in the universe in the form of Lockean Natural Law, and the Tao, and I saw the same principles at work in economics, symbolized by Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. All of that ties in with my libertarian political philosophy, and is part of what formed it.
Penultimately, I became a believer in my own personal mixture of Zen, Taoism and Vedanta, none of which are really theistic, more like just compatible and complementary Eastern philosophies. What got me thinking Christianity was worth giving a second look was a book by C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy. It was essentially his spiritual autobiography, the story of how a highly intelligent and well educated atheist intellectual (an Oxford don) came to believe in God and orthodox Anglican Christianity. That didn't convince me Christianity was true, but it convinced me to investigate the truth of Christianity's central claims for myself, and especially the Resurrection. And when I did so, I came to the same conclusion Lewis did.
Cunt
24th January 2012, 05:52 AM
May I ask why you chose that religion from among the thousands that exist? How did you choose?
Interesting question. I wasn't raised in any particular religious tradition. My parents always said they believed in God, but they didn't talk about it, didn't take me to church or go themselves, and didn't teach me anything about it. What I learned, I learned all on my own.
Starting in my early teens and continuing into my early twenties, I looked at all kinds of philosophies, religions and secular belief systems, looking for the truth wherever it might be found. I checked out everything from atheism to Zen, and from existentialism to Ayn Rand's Objectivism. None of the theistic religions seemed true to me, so I couldn't at that point pick any of them. Neither could I confidently assert that no God existed. I was a true agnostic. But I did begin to find order in the universe in the form of Lockean Natural Law, and the Tao, and I saw the same principles at work in economics, symbolized by Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. All of that ties in with my libertarian political philosophy, and is part of what formed it.
Penultimately, I became a believer in my own personal mixture of Zen, Taoism and Vedanta, none of which are really theistic, more like just compatible and complementary Eastern philosophies. What got me thinking Christianity was worth giving a second look was a book by C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy. It was essentially his spiritual autobiography, the story of how a highly intelligent and well educated atheist intellectual (an Oxford don) came to believe in God and orthodox Anglican Christianity. That didn't convince me Christianity was true, but it convinced me to investigate the truth of Christianity's central claims for myself, and especially the Resurrection. And when I did so, I came to the same conclusion Lewis did.
I didn't read the Lewis thing, but what is it that convinced you about the resurrection?Was it the part where god plans all this, then poses as a human, fakes his death and then goes home to heaven? Cause that part of 'Jesus' never rang really ethical to me. More like some kind of sadistic con-game.
Or do you mean there is just something special about a religion with a resurrection story? I think there have been one or two others...
Interesting question. I wasn't raised in any particular religious tradition. My parents always said they believed in God, but they didn't talk about it, didn't take me to church or go themselves, and didn't teach me anything about it. What I learned, I learned all on my own.
Starting in my early teens and continuing into my early twenties, I looked at all kinds of philosophies, religions and secular belief systems, looking for the truth wherever it might be found. I checked out everything from atheism to Zen, and from existentialism to Ayn Rand's Objectivism. None of the theistic religions seemed true to me, so I couldn't at that point pick any of them. Neither could I confidently assert that no God existed. I was a true agnostic. But I did begin to find order in the universe in the form of Lockean Natural Law, and the Tao, and I saw the same principles at work in economics, symbolized by Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. All of that ties in with my libertarian political philosophy, and is part of what formed it.
Penultimately, I became a believer in my own personal mixture of Zen, Taoism and Vedanta, none of which are really theistic, more like just compatible and complementary Eastern philosophies. What got me thinking Christianity was worth giving a second look was a book by C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy. It was essentially his spiritual autobiography, the story of how a highly intelligent and well educated atheist intellectual (an Oxford don) came to believe in God and orthodox Anglican Christianity. That didn't convince me Christianity was true, but it convinced me to investigate the truth of Christianity's central claims for myself, and especially the Resurrection. And when I did so, I came to the same conclusion Lewis did.
I didn't read the Lewis thing, but what is it that convinced you about the resurrection?Was it the part where god plans all this, then poses as a human, fakes his death and then goes home to heaven? Cause that part of 'Jesus' never rang really ethical to me. More like some kind of sadistic con-game.
Or do you mean there is just something special about a religion with a resurrection story? I think there have been one or two others...
Izdaari
24th January 2012, 06:10 AM
May I ask why you chose that religion from among the thousands that exist? How did you choose?
Interesting question. I wasn't raised in any particular religious tradition. My parents always said they believed in God, but they didn't talk about it, didn't take me to church or go themselves, and didn't teach me anything about it. What I learned, I learned all on my own.
Starting in my early teens and continuing into my early twenties, I looked at all kinds of philosophies, religions and secular belief systems, looking for the truth wherever it might be found. I checked out everything from atheism to Zen, and from existentialism to Ayn Rand's Objectivism. None of the theistic religions seemed true to me, so I couldn't at that point pick any of them. Neither could I confidently assert that no God existed. I was a true agnostic. But I did begin to find order in the universe in the form of Lockean Natural Law, and the Tao, and I saw the same principles at work in economics, symbolized by Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. All of that ties in with my libertarian political philosophy, and is part of what formed it.
Penultimately, I became a believer in my own personal mixture of Zen, Taoism and Vedanta, none of which are really theistic, more like just compatible and complementary Eastern philosophies. What got me thinking Christianity was worth giving a second look was a book by C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy. It was essentially his spiritual autobiography, the story of how a highly intelligent and well educated atheist intellectual (an Oxford don) came to believe in God and orthodox Anglican Christianity. That didn't convince me Christianity was true, but it convinced me to investigate the truth of Christianity's central claims for myself, and especially the Resurrection. And when I did so, I came to the same conclusion Lewis did.
I didn't read the Lewis thing, but what is it that convinced you about the resurrection?Was it the part where god plans all this, then poses as a human, fakes his death and then goes home to heaven? Cause that part of 'Jesus' never rang really ethical to me. More like some kind of sadistic con-game.
Or do you mean there is just something special about a religion with a resurrection story? I think there have been one or two others...
None of that in particular. I don't remember thinking of any of that at the time. No, I was just talking about the historical evidence for the Resurrection being true, like in the Wright video. The George MacDonald/J.R.R. Tolkien concept of True Myth was key for me too, as it was for Lewis.
Interesting question. I wasn't raised in any particular religious tradition. My parents always said they believed in God, but they didn't talk about it, didn't take me to church or go themselves, and didn't teach me anything about it. What I learned, I learned all on my own.
Starting in my early teens and continuing into my early twenties, I looked at all kinds of philosophies, religions and secular belief systems, looking for the truth wherever it might be found. I checked out everything from atheism to Zen, and from existentialism to Ayn Rand's Objectivism. None of the theistic religions seemed true to me, so I couldn't at that point pick any of them. Neither could I confidently assert that no God existed. I was a true agnostic. But I did begin to find order in the universe in the form of Lockean Natural Law, and the Tao, and I saw the same principles at work in economics, symbolized by Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. All of that ties in with my libertarian political philosophy, and is part of what formed it.
Penultimately, I became a believer in my own personal mixture of Zen, Taoism and Vedanta, none of which are really theistic, more like just compatible and complementary Eastern philosophies. What got me thinking Christianity was worth giving a second look was a book by C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy. It was essentially his spiritual autobiography, the story of how a highly intelligent and well educated atheist intellectual (an Oxford don) came to believe in God and orthodox Anglican Christianity. That didn't convince me Christianity was true, but it convinced me to investigate the truth of Christianity's central claims for myself, and especially the Resurrection. And when I did so, I came to the same conclusion Lewis did.
I didn't read the Lewis thing, but what is it that convinced you about the resurrection?Was it the part where god plans all this, then poses as a human, fakes his death and then goes home to heaven? Cause that part of 'Jesus' never rang really ethical to me. More like some kind of sadistic con-game.
Or do you mean there is just something special about a religion with a resurrection story? I think there have been one or two others...
None of that in particular. I don't remember thinking of any of that at the time. No, I was just talking about the historical evidence for the Resurrection being true, like in the Wright video. The George MacDonald/J.R.R. Tolkien concept of True Myth was key for me too, as it was for Lewis.
Hermit
24th January 2012, 06:32 AM
The difference between intelligent design, which God certainly did, and Intelligent Design, is that the capitalized version is an attempt to make science from theology. The likely result is neither good science nor good theology.The end result is the same in so far as neither version allows for the possibility of evolution. The point most critics of Intelligent Design make is that it is essentially no more than Creationism dressed up as science. Its genesis (snortle) is crystal clear. From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism):
After the legal judgment of the case Daniel v. Waters (1975) ruled that teaching creationism in public schools contravened the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the content was stripped of overt biblical references and renamed creation science. When the court case Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ruled that creation science similarly contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to intelligent design, which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory. The Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science and contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes.In short, 'Intelligent Design' is no more than disguised creationism.
Those are good verses, but they're not so good taken out of context and applied differently than intended.Ah. Let's re-contextualise the words. The ensuing interpretations are how the nature of hell gets redefined, for example, and more generally speaking is the cause of the existence of the many thousands of christian denominations, sects as well as factions within individual churches.
I guess the only true method of biblical interpretation is the fundamentalist version of literalism?
According to the chapters and verses I quoted, yes. In reality, the bible is so riddled with incommensurate statements and outright contradictions that "adjustments", cherry picking and "re-contextualisations" are unavoidable. The resulting factionalisation is kind of amusing since it no longer results in internecine warfare like the 30-year-war, or the torture and burning of thousands of 'heretics'.
After the legal judgment of the case Daniel v. Waters (1975) ruled that teaching creationism in public schools contravened the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the content was stripped of overt biblical references and renamed creation science. When the court case Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ruled that creation science similarly contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to intelligent design, which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory. The Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science and contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes.In short, 'Intelligent Design' is no more than disguised creationism.
Those are good verses, but they're not so good taken out of context and applied differently than intended.Ah. Let's re-contextualise the words. The ensuing interpretations are how the nature of hell gets redefined, for example, and more generally speaking is the cause of the existence of the many thousands of christian denominations, sects as well as factions within individual churches.
I guess the only true method of biblical interpretation is the fundamentalist version of literalism?
According to the chapters and verses I quoted, yes. In reality, the bible is so riddled with incommensurate statements and outright contradictions that "adjustments", cherry picking and "re-contextualisations" are unavoidable. The resulting factionalisation is kind of amusing since it no longer results in internecine warfare like the 30-year-war, or the torture and burning of thousands of 'heretics'.
Izdaari
24th January 2012, 06:48 AM
The difference between intelligent design, which God certainly did, and Intelligent Design, is that the capitalized version is an attempt to make science from theology. The likely result is neither good science nor good theology.The end result is the same in so far as neither version allows for the possibility of evolution. The point most critics of Intelligent Design make is that it is essentially no more than Creationism dressed up as science. Its genesis (snortle) is crystal clear. From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism):
After the legal judgment of the case Daniel v. Waters (1975) ruled that teaching creationism in public schools contravened the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the content was stripped of overt biblical references and renamed creation science. When the court case Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ruled that creation science similarly contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to intelligent design, which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory. The Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science and contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes.In short, 'Intelligent Design' is no more than disguised creationism.
Yes, I agree with this criticism of ID. As I said, I'm on the fence between OEC and theistic evolution, so of course I think the latter is a distinct possibility. The Framework Interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_%28Genesis%29) makes sense to me, and it allows for both OEC and TE.
Those are good verses, but they're not so good taken out of context and applied differently than intended.Ah. Let's re-contextualise the words. The ensuing interpretations are how the nature of hell gets redefined, for example, and more generally speaking is the cause of the existence of the many thousands of christian denominations, sects as well as factions within individual churches.
I guess the only true method of biblical interpretation is the fundamentalist version of literalism?
According to the chapters and verses I quoted, yes. In reality, the bible is so riddled with incommensurate statements and outright contradictions that "adjustments", cherry picking and "re-contextualisations" are unavoidable. The resulting factionalisation is kind of amusing since it no longer results in internecine warfare like the 30-year-war, or the torture and burning of thousands of 'heretics'.So we agree that differing interpretations are inevitable, and that denominationalism and factionalism are unavoidable. Catholics say that too, and use it as a argument for their top-down Magisterium approach. They hate the chaos and settle it by taking interpretation out of the hands of the individual believer and giving it to the Church as a whole. I can relate, but I think Catholics have enough of it wrong that I prefer the factionalism.
My faction would be mainline rather than evangelical Protestant, not especially liberal or conservative but orthodox, except to the extent that being post-charismatic, emergent, feminist, gay-friendly and UR-friendly may not be perceived as orthodox. So I probably won't be well loved by the church establishment, except in some of the more liberal churches. And that feels a little funny, since I've always thought of myself as a theological conservative.
After the legal judgment of the case Daniel v. Waters (1975) ruled that teaching creationism in public schools contravened the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the content was stripped of overt biblical references and renamed creation science. When the court case Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ruled that creation science similarly contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to intelligent design, which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory. The Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science and contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes.In short, 'Intelligent Design' is no more than disguised creationism.
Yes, I agree with this criticism of ID. As I said, I'm on the fence between OEC and theistic evolution, so of course I think the latter is a distinct possibility. The Framework Interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_%28Genesis%29) makes sense to me, and it allows for both OEC and TE.
Those are good verses, but they're not so good taken out of context and applied differently than intended.Ah. Let's re-contextualise the words. The ensuing interpretations are how the nature of hell gets redefined, for example, and more generally speaking is the cause of the existence of the many thousands of christian denominations, sects as well as factions within individual churches.
I guess the only true method of biblical interpretation is the fundamentalist version of literalism?
According to the chapters and verses I quoted, yes. In reality, the bible is so riddled with incommensurate statements and outright contradictions that "adjustments", cherry picking and "re-contextualisations" are unavoidable. The resulting factionalisation is kind of amusing since it no longer results in internecine warfare like the 30-year-war, or the torture and burning of thousands of 'heretics'.So we agree that differing interpretations are inevitable, and that denominationalism and factionalism are unavoidable. Catholics say that too, and use it as a argument for their top-down Magisterium approach. They hate the chaos and settle it by taking interpretation out of the hands of the individual believer and giving it to the Church as a whole. I can relate, but I think Catholics have enough of it wrong that I prefer the factionalism.
My faction would be mainline rather than evangelical Protestant, not especially liberal or conservative but orthodox, except to the extent that being post-charismatic, emergent, feminist, gay-friendly and UR-friendly may not be perceived as orthodox. So I probably won't be well loved by the church establishment, except in some of the more liberal churches. And that feels a little funny, since I've always thought of myself as a theological conservative.
Floppit
24th January 2012, 06:52 AM
I struggled to keep pace with the thread once it was in the land of nested quotes! So... I'll kind of switch back to the OP.
I do hope that a lack of belief doesn't end up defining Mindromp. The RD flavour of atheism I think is flawed. It becomes flawed when an anecdote of a person's negative experience of religion is viewed as more compelling than a person's positive anecdote of religion, the former accepted at face value, the latter (rightly) viewed as subjective, inaccurate and unreasoned.
I have pretty much always seen religion as a symptom rather than cause, a by product of human desire to understand our surroundings in a way I don't think other mammals even attempt. If I was given the power to remove all religion instantly I would hesitate, I suspect I would eventually decline to use it because I honestly doubt that the horrors laid at religion's door would actually just stop rather than instead being justified by national security, protection of friends. I think any available fear would quickly fill the gap. But, for many, religion provides a shorthand and perceived support, group identities, purpose and most importantly security of being 'right'. Oddly, I see New Atheism as doing much of the same, just filling a need.
I reckon that people need to find their own pace of change which I think does go hand in hand with finding their own ability to reason and to critically evaluate their reasoning - the last bit, the inward looking without a drive to have succeeded, I think is rare both for individuals and groups.
I do hope that a lack of belief doesn't end up defining Mindromp. The RD flavour of atheism I think is flawed. It becomes flawed when an anecdote of a person's negative experience of religion is viewed as more compelling than a person's positive anecdote of religion, the former accepted at face value, the latter (rightly) viewed as subjective, inaccurate and unreasoned.
I have pretty much always seen religion as a symptom rather than cause, a by product of human desire to understand our surroundings in a way I don't think other mammals even attempt. If I was given the power to remove all religion instantly I would hesitate, I suspect I would eventually decline to use it because I honestly doubt that the horrors laid at religion's door would actually just stop rather than instead being justified by national security, protection of friends. I think any available fear would quickly fill the gap. But, for many, religion provides a shorthand and perceived support, group identities, purpose and most importantly security of being 'right'. Oddly, I see New Atheism as doing much of the same, just filling a need.
I reckon that people need to find their own pace of change which I think does go hand in hand with finding their own ability to reason and to critically evaluate their reasoning - the last bit, the inward looking without a drive to have succeeded, I think is rare both for individuals and groups.
nostrum
25th January 2012, 01:03 AM
Izdaari, we seem to have similar values. I think they come from the same place - being an intelligent, aware and empathic species of mammal.
I'll see you in other topics. :)
:this:
I'll see you in other topics. :)
:this:
Jerome
25th January 2012, 01:06 AM
in the land of nested quotes!
I hate nested quotes, pick the part you are replying to and quote that.
Guys, I just read the conversation, I don't need to reread it under editing license.
I hate nested quotes, pick the part you are replying to and quote that.
Guys, I just read the conversation, I don't need to reread it under editing license.
Cunt
25th January 2012, 02:06 AM
I didn't read the Lewis thing, but what is it that convinced you about the resurrection?Was it the part where god plans all this, then poses as a human, fakes his death and then goes home to heaven? Cause that part of 'Jesus' never rang really ethical to me. More like some kind of sadistic con-game.
Or do you mean there is just something special about a religion with a resurrection story? I think there have been one or two others...
None of that in particular. I don't remember thinking of any of that at the time. No, I was just talking about the historical evidence for the Resurrection being true, like in the Wright video. The George MacDonald/J.R.R. Tolkien concept of True Myth was key for me too, as it was for Lewis.
Evidence of the ressurection being true? Well lets rush this over to the Randi Foundation and get the million!
Or is it 'evidence' only if you have a lot of faith?
Or do you mean there is just something special about a religion with a resurrection story? I think there have been one or two others...
None of that in particular. I don't remember thinking of any of that at the time. No, I was just talking about the historical evidence for the Resurrection being true, like in the Wright video. The George MacDonald/J.R.R. Tolkien concept of True Myth was key for me too, as it was for Lewis.
Evidence of the ressurection being true? Well lets rush this over to the Randi Foundation and get the million!
Or is it 'evidence' only if you have a lot of faith?
Izdaari
25th January 2012, 04:20 AM
I didn't read the Lewis thing, but what is it that convinced you about the resurrection?Was it the part where god plans all this, then poses as a human, fakes his death and then goes home to heaven? Cause that part of 'Jesus' never rang really ethical to me. More like some kind of sadistic con-game.
Or do you mean there is just something special about a religion with a resurrection story? I think there have been one or two others...
None of that in particular. I don't remember thinking of any of that at the time. No, I was just talking about the historical evidence for the Resurrection being true, like in the Wright video. The George MacDonald/J.R.R. Tolkien concept of True Myth was key for me too, as it was for Lewis.
Evidence of the ressurection being true? Well lets rush this over to the Randi Foundation and get the million!
Or is it 'evidence' only if you have a lot of faith?
It couldn't have been the latter, because at the time I was weighing it and making up my mind, I didn't have any Christian faith. I was a Zen/Tao/Vedanta person, and either non-theistic or pantheistic, depending on whether you'd call the Tao a deity (I wouldn't - it's impersonal and not self-aware, more like a hard-to-verbalize concept of how the universe harmonizes than like a god). With regard to the God of Abraham, I was agnostic or a "weak atheist" depending on which terminology you prefer: I simply didn't know, and had neither belief nor disbelief but just a lack of belief. I was, however, open to the possibility that paranormal events could happen. If you completely discount that possibility, I don't think you could find it convincing. I'm sure James Randi wouldn't, at least not without running his tests, and short of time travel, there isn't any way to bring him there with his test equipment.
Or do you mean there is just something special about a religion with a resurrection story? I think there have been one or two others...
None of that in particular. I don't remember thinking of any of that at the time. No, I was just talking about the historical evidence for the Resurrection being true, like in the Wright video. The George MacDonald/J.R.R. Tolkien concept of True Myth was key for me too, as it was for Lewis.
Evidence of the ressurection being true? Well lets rush this over to the Randi Foundation and get the million!
Or is it 'evidence' only if you have a lot of faith?
It couldn't have been the latter, because at the time I was weighing it and making up my mind, I didn't have any Christian faith. I was a Zen/Tao/Vedanta person, and either non-theistic or pantheistic, depending on whether you'd call the Tao a deity (I wouldn't - it's impersonal and not self-aware, more like a hard-to-verbalize concept of how the universe harmonizes than like a god). With regard to the God of Abraham, I was agnostic or a "weak atheist" depending on which terminology you prefer: I simply didn't know, and had neither belief nor disbelief but just a lack of belief. I was, however, open to the possibility that paranormal events could happen. If you completely discount that possibility, I don't think you could find it convincing. I'm sure James Randi wouldn't, at least not without running his tests, and short of time travel, there isn't any way to bring him there with his test equipment.
Cunt
25th January 2012, 04:36 AM
Or is it 'evidence' only if you have a lot of faith?
It couldn't have been the latter, because at the time I was weighing it and making up my mind, I didn't have any Christian faith.Lets try it on me. What evidence?
Do you require more evidence when something is less likely?
Actually, that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that, no matter where the evidence points, you will continue to believe. At least I see it as a problem. You may not.
So you and I are just singing.
It couldn't have been the latter, because at the time I was weighing it and making up my mind, I didn't have any Christian faith.Lets try it on me. What evidence?
Do you require more evidence when something is less likely?
Actually, that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that, no matter where the evidence points, you will continue to believe. At least I see it as a problem. You may not.
So you and I are just singing.
Izdaari
25th January 2012, 05:03 AM
Or is it 'evidence' only if you have a lot of faith?
It couldn't have been the latter, because at the time I was weighing it and making up my mind, I didn't have any Christian faith.Lets try it on me. What evidence?
Do you require more evidence when something is less likely?
Actually, that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that, no matter where the evidence points, you will continue to believe. At least I see it as a problem. You may not.
So you and I are just singing.
It probably is worth re-examining, though I suspect the conclusions we'll draw will depend on the ontological assumptions we bring to the table. It's like a civil law case where the standard is "preponderance of the evidence" and the evidence is balanced such that the conclusion the jurors will draw will depend on who the jurors are.
I'm not up for re-doing and presenting the research right now. That's too much like actual work, when about all I'm ready for is playing video games or maybe watching a light, non-thinking kind of movie, maybe comedy or action. But I assure you I have nothing new or original, only stuff that's well known within the literature of Christian apologetics. The first book I read that made me start really pondering the evidence was the Frank Morison classic, Who Moved the Stone?.
Yeah, we probably are just singing. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :hug:
"I'm Singing in the rain", Gene Kelly - YouTube
It couldn't have been the latter, because at the time I was weighing it and making up my mind, I didn't have any Christian faith.Lets try it on me. What evidence?
Do you require more evidence when something is less likely?
Actually, that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that, no matter where the evidence points, you will continue to believe. At least I see it as a problem. You may not.
So you and I are just singing.
It probably is worth re-examining, though I suspect the conclusions we'll draw will depend on the ontological assumptions we bring to the table. It's like a civil law case where the standard is "preponderance of the evidence" and the evidence is balanced such that the conclusion the jurors will draw will depend on who the jurors are.
I'm not up for re-doing and presenting the research right now. That's too much like actual work, when about all I'm ready for is playing video games or maybe watching a light, non-thinking kind of movie, maybe comedy or action. But I assure you I have nothing new or original, only stuff that's well known within the literature of Christian apologetics. The first book I read that made me start really pondering the evidence was the Frank Morison classic, Who Moved the Stone?.
Yeah, we probably are just singing. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :hug:
"I'm Singing in the rain", Gene Kelly - YouTube
nick
25th January 2012, 06:45 AM
God is real.
Hermit
25th January 2012, 06:55 AM
God is real.
At least that is what around 80% of this planet's human population believes. Problem is, they can't agree on which one.
At least that is what around 80% of this planet's human population believes. Problem is, they can't agree on which one.
charlou
25th January 2012, 07:15 AM
They are narrowing it down, though. Wonder why all the exciting, fun god's are passe, and we're left with the judgemental, vindictive ones, perverting our natural thirst for knowledge and meddling in our sex lives?
Brother Daniel
25th January 2012, 02:00 PM
But I assure you I have nothing new or original, only stuff that's well known within the literature of Christian apologetics. The first book I read that made me start really pondering the evidence was the Frank Morison classic, Who Moved the Stone?.
I can't comment on that particular book (I was too young when I read it), but I've read enough Christian apologetics to be appalled at the sleight-of-hand that is typical of the genre.
I was brought up Christian, and the Christian apologetics I read probably played a role in my de-conversion -- because people who have good arguments don't generally write books full of only bad arguments. And the writers can't even claim stupidity as an excuse; in some cases they're very smart people with an impressive command of the relevant historical data.
I can't comment on that particular book (I was too young when I read it), but I've read enough Christian apologetics to be appalled at the sleight-of-hand that is typical of the genre.
I was brought up Christian, and the Christian apologetics I read probably played a role in my de-conversion -- because people who have good arguments don't generally write books full of only bad arguments. And the writers can't even claim stupidity as an excuse; in some cases they're very smart people with an impressive command of the relevant historical data.
Cunt
25th January 2012, 02:31 PM
I think reading a bunch of 'evidence' is just a way to make it look like a carefully considered position, instead of a popular, ridiculous one.
If there is a god, his idea of intelligent design could be improved by almost any first-year engineering student.
The clearest part for me is when a theist says plainly that no evidence can change their minds. I am reminded of a quote I read that said roughly ' you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into'.
That's why I ask 'what evidence would you accept that you were wrong?' It shows who is discussing, and who is singing.
If there is a god, his idea of intelligent design could be improved by almost any first-year engineering student.
The clearest part for me is when a theist says plainly that no evidence can change their minds. I am reminded of a quote I read that said roughly ' you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into'.
That's why I ask 'what evidence would you accept that you were wrong?' It shows who is discussing, and who is singing.
nick
25th January 2012, 03:05 PM
God is real.
At least that is what around 80% of this planet's human population believes. Problem is, they can't agree on which one.
It is the Lord Christ Jesus.
At least that is what around 80% of this planet's human population believes. Problem is, they can't agree on which one.
It is the Lord Christ Jesus.
Cunt
25th January 2012, 03:13 PM
God is real.
At least that is what around 80% of this planet's human population believes. Problem is, they can't agree on which one.
It is the Lord Christ Jesus.
You mean the artist formerly known as Yahweh?
But he is just a fairy story to frighten children.
At least that is what around 80% of this planet's human population believes. Problem is, they can't agree on which one.
It is the Lord Christ Jesus.
You mean the artist formerly known as Yahweh?
But he is just a fairy story to frighten children.
Brother Daniel
25th January 2012, 03:16 PM
nick's just trolling you. :)
nick
25th January 2012, 05:04 PM
I will pray for the both of you.
Brother Daniel
25th January 2012, 05:33 PM
I will pray for the both of you.:hug:
Hermit
26th January 2012, 01:54 AM
God is real.
At least that is what around 80% of this planet's human population believes. Problem is, they can't agree on which one.
It is the Lord Christ Jesus.
Maybe so, but even then: which Jesus Christ? The Westboro Baptist, a Unitarian one, or any of the thousands of Jesus Christs in between?
At least that is what around 80% of this planet's human population believes. Problem is, they can't agree on which one.
It is the Lord Christ Jesus.
Maybe so, but even then: which Jesus Christ? The Westboro Baptist, a Unitarian one, or any of the thousands of Jesus Christs in between?
nick
26th January 2012, 02:01 AM
There is one Jesus Christ. You can read about him yourself is the KJV1611 Bible.
Izdaari
26th January 2012, 02:17 AM
There is one Jesus Christ. You can read about him yourself is the KJV1611 Bible.
Alrighty, Nick. The trolling is getting a little too transparent. What do you really think? :rofl:
Alrighty, Nick. The trolling is getting a little too transparent. What do you really think? :rofl:
nick
26th January 2012, 02:18 AM
Well you can call it trolling all you want but when you're in Hell you'll remember that this is the day I warned you to turn away from your sins and to the shining light of God.
oblivion
26th January 2012, 02:26 AM
Nick is an atheist. He he likes to play foaming at the mouth fundie on the internet.
charlou
26th January 2012, 02:43 AM
I believe in Nick. His halo shineth light on the truth of his existence. He is my friend. Hallelujah.
nick
26th January 2012, 03:09 AM
Nick is a post-atheist. He he likes to play foaming at the mouth fundie on the internet.
:nada:
:nada:
Hermit
26th January 2012, 03:16 AM
Nick is an atheist. He he likes to play foaming at the mouth fundie on the internet.
Yes. He's so over the top, it's not even a poe. Nick reminds me of a Dachshound pup, tail waggling energetically, rather ineffectively trying to chew a leather sandal for no other reason than that he enjoys doing that. He's so cute.
Yes. He's so over the top, it's not even a poe. Nick reminds me of a Dachshound pup, tail waggling energetically, rather ineffectively trying to chew a leather sandal for no other reason than that he enjoys doing that. He's so cute.
Izdaari
26th January 2012, 04:39 AM
Nick is an atheist. He he likes to play foaming at the mouth fundie on the internet.
Yes. He's so over the top, it's not even a poe. Nick reminds me of a Dachshound pup, tail waggling energetically, rather ineffectively trying to chew a leather sandal for no other reason than that he enjoys doing that. He's so cute.
I wonder if perhaps I know him by another name on a fundie board I've sometimes frequented. :wave:
But yeah, he's cute. At least here. :D
Yes. He's so over the top, it's not even a poe. Nick reminds me of a Dachshound pup, tail waggling energetically, rather ineffectively trying to chew a leather sandal for no other reason than that he enjoys doing that. He's so cute.
I wonder if perhaps I know him by another name on a fundie board I've sometimes frequented. :wave:
But yeah, he's cute. At least here. :D
nick
26th January 2012, 04:42 AM
I am cute everywhere.
Sugreeva
26th January 2012, 04:48 AM
Nick is omniadorable.
Sugreeva
26th January 2012, 04:50 AM
I'm not reading this whole thread- have any retards used the terms "sky daddy", "Buy-bull" or referred to the Old and New Testaments as "fairy tales" yet?
Cunt
26th January 2012, 04:52 AM
I don't think blasphemy is allowed in this thread...
Hermit
26th January 2012, 05:07 AM
I'm not reading this whole thread- have any retards used the terms "sky daddy", "Buy-bull" or referred to the Old and New Testaments as "fairy tales" yet?
Your aversion to reading, inability to focus on a particular activity, or whatever other handicap may be stopping you from reading the entire thread should not be a hurdle to find out for yourself in under a minute. Ever considered using the <Search this Tread> facility, or are you too dense even to operate that?
Your aversion to reading, inability to focus on a particular activity, or whatever other handicap may be stopping you from reading the entire thread should not be a hurdle to find out for yourself in under a minute. Ever considered using the <Search this Tread> facility, or are you too dense even to operate that?
nick
26th January 2012, 05:14 AM
Since you refuse to read the Word of God I don't see how you have the right to criticize anybody
Hermit
26th January 2012, 05:40 AM
Since you refuse to read the Word of God I don't see how you have the right to criticize anybody
Since you refuse to read the word of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Michael Leunig I don't see how you have the right to criticise anybody. :D
I have yet to come across a 'word of god', but having been raised as a church-going christian I have read the bible. :p
Since you refuse to read the word of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Michael Leunig I don't see how you have the right to criticise anybody. :D
I have yet to come across a 'word of god', but having been raised as a church-going christian I have read the bible. :p
Sugreeva
26th January 2012, 05:59 AM
I'm not reading this whole thread- have any retards used the terms "sky daddy", "Buy-bull" or referred to the Old and New Testaments as "fairy tales" yet?
Your aversion to reading, inability to focus on a particular activity, or whatever other handicap may be stopping you from reading the entire thread should not be a hurdle to find out for yourself in under a minute. Ever considered using the <Search this Tread> facility, or are you too dense even to operate that?
Ever consider being sexually attracted to something other than minors?
Your aversion to reading, inability to focus on a particular activity, or whatever other handicap may be stopping you from reading the entire thread should not be a hurdle to find out for yourself in under a minute. Ever considered using the <Search this Tread> facility, or are you too dense even to operate that?
Ever consider being sexually attracted to something other than minors?
Hermit
26th January 2012, 06:01 AM
Haaaalp! I'm being ganged up on by Bart's army of socks! http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Smileys/smiley_panic.gif
Sugreeva
26th January 2012, 06:03 AM
I'm not reading this whole thread- have any retards used the terms "sky daddy", "Buy-bull" or referred to the Old and New Testaments as "fairy tales" yet?
Your aversion to reading, inability to focus on a particular activity, or whatever other handicap may be stopping you from reading the entire thread should not be a hurdle to find out for yourself in under a minute. Ever considered using the <Search this Tread> facility, or are you too dense even to operate that?
Wait Seraph! I have more!
Alternate Answer A) Sooo... that's a yes?
Your aversion to reading, inability to focus on a particular activity, or whatever other handicap may be stopping you from reading the entire thread should not be a hurdle to find out for yourself in under a minute. Ever considered using the <Search this Tread> facility, or are you too dense even to operate that?
Wait Seraph! I have more!
Alternate Answer A) Sooo... that's a yes?
Sugreeva
26th January 2012, 06:03 AM
I'm not reading this whole thread- have any retards used the terms "sky daddy", "Buy-bull" or referred to the Old and New Testaments as "fairy tales" yet?
Your aversion to reading, inability to focus on a particular activity, or whatever other handicap may be stopping you from reading the entire thread should not be a hurdle to find out for yourself in under a minute. Ever considered using the <Search this Tread> facility, or are you too dense even to operate that?
And my final Alternate Answer: Cool story bro.
Your aversion to reading, inability to focus on a particular activity, or whatever other handicap may be stopping you from reading the entire thread should not be a hurdle to find out for yourself in under a minute. Ever considered using the <Search this Tread> facility, or are you too dense even to operate that?
And my final Alternate Answer: Cool story bro.
Izdaari
26th January 2012, 07:04 AM
Since you refuse to read the Word of God I don't see how you have the right to criticize anybody
Since you refuse to read the word of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Michael Leunig I don't see how you have the right to criticise anybody. :D
I have yet to come across a 'word of god', but having been raised as a church-going christian I have read the bible. :p
I have read Marx and Engels, however my political and economic views are on the opposite end of the spectrum, more like Mises and Hayek. Never heard of Leunig.
Since you refuse to read the word of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Michael Leunig I don't see how you have the right to criticise anybody. :D
I have yet to come across a 'word of god', but having been raised as a church-going christian I have read the bible. :p
I have read Marx and Engels, however my political and economic views are on the opposite end of the spectrum, more like Mises and Hayek. Never heard of Leunig.
Hermit
26th January 2012, 07:48 AM
I have read Marx and Engels, however my political and economic views are on the opposite end of the spectrum, more like Mises and Hayek. Never heard of Leunig.
Leunig is much more important than Marx and Engels. He is the inventor of the innocent bystander. So, you can't criticise, K?
Leunig is much more important than Marx and Engels. He is the inventor of the innocent bystander. So, you can't criticise, K?
Izdaari
26th January 2012, 09:31 AM
I have read Marx and Engels, however my political and economic views are on the opposite end of the spectrum, more like Mises and Hayek. Never heard of Leunig.
Leunig is much more important than Marx and Engels. He is the inventor of the innocent bystander. So, you can't criticise, K?
Not until I have some clue what it's about, no. :dunno:
P.S.: Ah, the Aussie cartonist. Ok, I have seen some of his work, and it's very witty. But I don't yet understand why it's important.
Leunig is much more important than Marx and Engels. He is the inventor of the innocent bystander. So, you can't criticise, K?
Not until I have some clue what it's about, no. :dunno:
P.S.: Ah, the Aussie cartonist. Ok, I have seen some of his work, and it's very witty. But I don't yet understand why it's important.
MSG
26th January 2012, 09:42 AM
Because of stuff like this:
http://cruciality.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/tv-sunset.jpg?w=400
http://cruciality.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/tv-sunset.jpg?w=400
MSG
26th January 2012, 09:43 AM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgohyphenhyphenMDhBIB7JQwdwQFxw8Ro4Ik1DCbPZPgJqwXPratTLWit8JChC6_LuRA5Z-HGuztK7tG17qTSltUMN0MmXlv89LSGO_gsSvcsNTS6DIBJnF0Fs5jetnFGwCV9HaCVW3KcS5WhC6UKRg/s400/Leunig-Yabby+Net.jpg
Hermit
26th January 2012, 09:46 AM
^^^ Indeed.
Leunig's work is profounder, wiser, deeper than anything anyone else has ever wrought.
Leunig's work is profounder, wiser, deeper than anything anyone else has ever wrought.
charlou
26th January 2012, 09:57 AM
AA Milne. Just saying. :)
Brother Daniel
26th January 2012, 04:16 PM
I have read Marx and Engels, however my political and economic views are on the opposite end of the spectrum
Being utterly opposed to slavery, Marx was a big supporter of Abe Lincoln. Describing oneself as "opposite" to Marx makes me think of that.
(Yeah, I know that isn't what you meant. ;) )
Being utterly opposed to slavery, Marx was a big supporter of Abe Lincoln. Describing oneself as "opposite" to Marx makes me think of that.
(Yeah, I know that isn't what you meant. ;) )
Brother Daniel
26th January 2012, 04:18 PM
AA Milne. Just saying. :)
A Thought
If I were John and John were Me,
Then he'd be six and I'd be three.
If John were me and I were John,
I shouldn't have these trousers on.
- - AA Milne
A Thought
If I were John and John were Me,
Then he'd be six and I'd be three.
If John were me and I were John,
I shouldn't have these trousers on.
- - AA Milne
Izdaari
26th January 2012, 04:47 PM
I have read Marx and Engels, however my political and economic views are on the opposite end of the spectrum
Being utterly opposed to slavery, Marx was a big supporter of Abe Lincoln. Describing oneself as "opposite" to Marx makes me think of that.
(Yeah, I know that isn't what you meant. ;) )
There are no doubt many things Marx and I would have agreed on. One of them is that if we'd both been there and eligible to vote, we'd both have voted for Lincoln. And we both like good beer (I'm assuming - he was German after all), and like to argue politics. Actually, I probably would have enjoyed knowing and conversing with him. Even more if we could get Lincoln in on it. I'd love to hear Lincoln's opinion of Marx's ideas, and of mine.
:D
Being utterly opposed to slavery, Marx was a big supporter of Abe Lincoln. Describing oneself as "opposite" to Marx makes me think of that.
(Yeah, I know that isn't what you meant. ;) )
There are no doubt many things Marx and I would have agreed on. One of them is that if we'd both been there and eligible to vote, we'd both have voted for Lincoln. And we both like good beer (I'm assuming - he was German after all), and like to argue politics. Actually, I probably would have enjoyed knowing and conversing with him. Even more if we could get Lincoln in on it. I'd love to hear Lincoln's opinion of Marx's ideas, and of mine.
:D
Izdaari
26th January 2012, 04:57 PM
^^^ Indeed.
Leunig's work is profounder, wiser, deeper than anything anyone else has ever wrought.
No question that he's good.
But better than Gary Larson? Berke Breathed? Bill Watterson? Walt Kelly?
I'd have to see a lot more to be convinced.
Leunig's work is profounder, wiser, deeper than anything anyone else has ever wrought.
No question that he's good.
But better than Gary Larson? Berke Breathed? Bill Watterson? Walt Kelly?
I'd have to see a lot more to be convinced.
Izdaari
26th January 2012, 04:58 PM
AA Milne. Just saying. :)
AA Milne was awesome! :cheer:
AA Milne was awesome! :cheer:
PermanentlyEphemeral
26th January 2012, 05:52 PM
After all, the one big gift of atheism to the world is the overthrow of all authorityIt's not. Atheism is just a lack of belief in the existence of a god. That would exclude atheists advocating a theocracy, but nothing else follows.
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
Izdaari
26th January 2012, 06:46 PM
After all, the one big gift of atheism to the world is the overthrow of all authorityIt's not. Atheism is just a lack of belief in the existence of a god. That would exclude atheists advocating a theocracy, but nothing else follows.
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
Before I was a Christian, I had a lack of belief in the existence of a god. I was never able to turn it into a belief that there is no god, probably because my worldview was not rationalist or materialistic. I tried both of those on, but they didn't fit me. I believed there were real paranormal phenomena (yeah, most are hoaxes or hallucinations or something, but I thought some were probably real) and possibly some kind of spirit world, and that made it hard to rule out a god or gods out there somewhere. On my way to becoming a Christian, I was a Zen/Taoist for a few years... still am in a way, underlying my Christianity. I think most of what I learned from them is still valid, just describing aspects of God that can't be verbalized, something the Eastern traditions are better at.
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
Before I was a Christian, I had a lack of belief in the existence of a god. I was never able to turn it into a belief that there is no god, probably because my worldview was not rationalist or materialistic. I tried both of those on, but they didn't fit me. I believed there were real paranormal phenomena (yeah, most are hoaxes or hallucinations or something, but I thought some were probably real) and possibly some kind of spirit world, and that made it hard to rule out a god or gods out there somewhere. On my way to becoming a Christian, I was a Zen/Taoist for a few years... still am in a way, underlying my Christianity. I think most of what I learned from them is still valid, just describing aspects of God that can't be verbalized, something the Eastern traditions are better at.
Brother Daniel
26th January 2012, 06:59 PM
Atheism is just a lack of belief in the existence of a god. That would exclude atheists advocating a theocracy, but nothing else follows.
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
I don't think so. Those who have a belief that there is no God are usually aware of having such a belief.
I've only met a few who deny they have any beliefs. I lean toward dismissing those as idiots.
What often gets denied is that having a belief that there is no God is entailed by the use of the label "atheist".
Which can lead into the whole question of common usage versus prescriptive definitions, and who gets to decide, and all that stuff. A deep rabbit hole, that is.
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
I don't think so. Those who have a belief that there is no God are usually aware of having such a belief.
I've only met a few who deny they have any beliefs. I lean toward dismissing those as idiots.
What often gets denied is that having a belief that there is no God is entailed by the use of the label "atheist".
Which can lead into the whole question of common usage versus prescriptive definitions, and who gets to decide, and all that stuff. A deep rabbit hole, that is.
charlou
26th January 2012, 11:42 PM
I believe there is no god. I believe there is nothing supernatural. Two (directly related) beliefs.
charlou
27th January 2012, 12:01 AM
AA Milne. Just saying. :)
AA Milne was awesome! :cheer:
CHAPTER THREE
in which Pooh and Piglet
go hunting and nearly
catch a Woozle
The Piglet lived in a very grand house in the middle of a beech-tree, and the beech-tree was in the middle of the Forest, and the Piglet lived in the middle of the house. Next to his house was a piece of broken board which had: "TRESPASSERS W" on it. When Christopher Robin asked the Piglet what it meant, he said it was his grandfather's name, and had been in the family a very long time. Christopher Robin said you couldn't be called Trespassers W, and Piglet said yes, you could, because his grandfather was, and it was short for Trespassers Will, which was short for Trespassers William. And his grandfather had had two names in case he lost one - Trespassers after an uncle, and William after Trespassers.
'I've got two names,' said Christopher Robin carelessly.
'Well, there you are, that proves it,' said Piglet.
One fine winter's day when Piglet was brushing away the snow in front of his house, he happened to look up, and there was Winnie-the-Pooh. Pooh was walking round and round in a circle, thinking of something else, and when Piglet called to him, he just went on walking.
'Hallo!" said Piglet, 'what are you doing?'
'Hunting,' said Pooh.
'Hunting what?'
'Tracking something,' said Winnie-the-Pooh very mysteriously.
'Tracking what?' said Piglet, coming closer.
'That's just what I ask myself. I ask myself, What?'
'What do you think you'll answer?'
'I shall have to wait until I catch up with it,' said Winnie-the-Pooh. 'Now, look there.' He pointed to the ground in front of him. 'What do you see there?'
'Tracks,' said Piglet. 'Paw-marks.' He gave a little squeak of excitement. 'Oh, Pooh! do you think it's a-a-a Woozle?'
'It may be,' said Pooh. 'Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. You can never tell with paw marks.'
With these few words he went on tracking, and Piglet, after watching him for a minute or two, ran after him. Winnie-the-Pooh had come to a sudden stop, and was bending over the tracks, in a puzzled sort of way.
'What's the matter?' asked Piglet.
'It's a very funny thing,' said Bear, 'but there seem to be two animals now. This - whatever-it-was - has been joined by another - whatever-it-is - and the two of them are now proceeding in company. Would you mind coming with me, Piglet, in case they turn out to be Hostile Animals?'
Piglet scratched his ear in a nice sort of way, and said that he had nothing to do until Friday, and would be delighted to come, in case it really was a Woozle.
'You mean, in case it really is two Woozles,' said Winnie-the-Pooh, and Piglet said that anyhow he had nothing to do until Friday. So off they went together.
There was a small spinney of larch-trees just here, and it seemed as if the two Woozles, if that is what they were, had been going round this spinney; so round this spinney went Pooh and Piglet after them; Piglet passing the time by telling Pooh what his Grandfather Trespassers W had done to Remove Stiffness after Tracking, and how his Grandfather Trespassers W had suffered in his later years from Shortness of Breath, and other matters of interest, and Pooh wondering what a Grandfather was like, and if perhaps this was Two Grandfathers they were after now, and, if so, whether he would be allowed to take one home and keep it, and what Christopher Robin would say. And still the tracks went on in front of them....
Suddenly Winnie-the-Pooh stopped, and pointed excitedly in front of him, 'Look!'
'What?' said Piglet, with a jump. And then, to show that he hadn't been frightened, he jumped up and down once or twice more in an exercising sort of way.
'The tracks!' said Pooh. 'A third animal has joined the other two!'
'Pooh!' cried Piglet. 'Do you think it is another Woozle?'
'No,' said Pooh, 'because it makes different marks. It is either Two Woozles and one, as it might be, Wizzle, or Two, as it might be, Wizzles and one, if so it is, Woozle. Let us continue to follow them.'
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/charlou/pooh_piglet_more_tracks-1.jpg
So they went on, feeling just a little anxious now, in case the three animals in front of them were of Hostile Intent. And Piglet wished very much that his Grandfather T. W. were there, instead of elsewhere, and Pooh thought how nice it would be if they met Christopher Robin suddenly but quite accidentally, and only because he liked Christopher Robin so much. And then, all of a sudden, Winnie-the-Pooh stopped again, and licked the tip of his nose in a cooling manner, for he was feeling more hot and anxious than ever in his life before. There were four animals in front of them!
'Do you see, Piglet? Look at their tracks! Three, as it were, Woozles, and one, as it was, Wizzle. Another Woozle has joined them!'
And so it seemed to be. There were the tracks; crossing over each other here, getting muddled up with each other there; but, quite plainly every now and then, the tracks of four sets of paws.
'I think,' said Piglet, when he had licked the tip of his nose too, and found that it brought very little comfort, 'I think that I have just remembered something. I have just remembered something that I forgot to do yesterday and shan't be able to do to-morrow. So I suppose I really ought to go back and do it now.'
'We'll do it this afternoon, and I'll come with you,' said Pooh.
'It isn't the sort of thing you can do in the afternoon,' said Piglet quickly. 'It's a very particular morning thing, that has to be done in the morning, and, if possible, between the hours of--What would you say the time was?'
'About twelve.' said Winnie-the-Pooh, looking at the sun.
'Between, as I was saying, the hours of twelve and twelve five. So, really, dear old Pooh, if you'll excuse me--What's that?'
Pooh looked up at the sky, and then, as he heard the whistle again, he looked up into the branches of a big oak-tree, and then he saw a friend of his.
'It's Christopher Robin,' he said.
'Ah, then you'll be all right,' said Piglet. 'You'll be quite safe with him. Good-bye.' and he trotted off home as quickly as he could, very glad to be Out of All Danger again.
Christopher Robin came slowly down his tree.
'Silly old Bear,' he said, 'what were you doing? First you went round the spinney twice by yourself, and then Piglet ran after you and you went round again together, and then you were just going round a fourth time--'
'Wait a moment,' said Winnie-the-Pooh, holding up his paw.
He sat down and thought, in the most thoughtful way he could think. Then he fitted his paw into one of the Tracks...and then he scratched his nose twice, and stood up.
'Yes,' said Winnie-the-Pooh.
'I see now,' said Winnie-the-Pooh.
'I have been Foolish and Deluded,' said he, 'and I am a Bear of No Brain at All.'
'You're the Best Bear in All the World,' said Christopher Robin soothingly.
'Am I?' said Pooh hopefully. And then he brightened suddenly.
'Anyhow,' he said, 'it is nearly Luncheon Time.'
So he went home for it.
~ from Winnie-the-Pooh, by A.A. Milne
Don't get me wrong, though .. Leunig has a corner of my :heart: too.
AA Milne was awesome! :cheer:
CHAPTER THREE
in which Pooh and Piglet
go hunting and nearly
catch a Woozle
The Piglet lived in a very grand house in the middle of a beech-tree, and the beech-tree was in the middle of the Forest, and the Piglet lived in the middle of the house. Next to his house was a piece of broken board which had: "TRESPASSERS W" on it. When Christopher Robin asked the Piglet what it meant, he said it was his grandfather's name, and had been in the family a very long time. Christopher Robin said you couldn't be called Trespassers W, and Piglet said yes, you could, because his grandfather was, and it was short for Trespassers Will, which was short for Trespassers William. And his grandfather had had two names in case he lost one - Trespassers after an uncle, and William after Trespassers.
'I've got two names,' said Christopher Robin carelessly.
'Well, there you are, that proves it,' said Piglet.
One fine winter's day when Piglet was brushing away the snow in front of his house, he happened to look up, and there was Winnie-the-Pooh. Pooh was walking round and round in a circle, thinking of something else, and when Piglet called to him, he just went on walking.
'Hallo!" said Piglet, 'what are you doing?'
'Hunting,' said Pooh.
'Hunting what?'
'Tracking something,' said Winnie-the-Pooh very mysteriously.
'Tracking what?' said Piglet, coming closer.
'That's just what I ask myself. I ask myself, What?'
'What do you think you'll answer?'
'I shall have to wait until I catch up with it,' said Winnie-the-Pooh. 'Now, look there.' He pointed to the ground in front of him. 'What do you see there?'
'Tracks,' said Piglet. 'Paw-marks.' He gave a little squeak of excitement. 'Oh, Pooh! do you think it's a-a-a Woozle?'
'It may be,' said Pooh. 'Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. You can never tell with paw marks.'
With these few words he went on tracking, and Piglet, after watching him for a minute or two, ran after him. Winnie-the-Pooh had come to a sudden stop, and was bending over the tracks, in a puzzled sort of way.
'What's the matter?' asked Piglet.
'It's a very funny thing,' said Bear, 'but there seem to be two animals now. This - whatever-it-was - has been joined by another - whatever-it-is - and the two of them are now proceeding in company. Would you mind coming with me, Piglet, in case they turn out to be Hostile Animals?'
Piglet scratched his ear in a nice sort of way, and said that he had nothing to do until Friday, and would be delighted to come, in case it really was a Woozle.
'You mean, in case it really is two Woozles,' said Winnie-the-Pooh, and Piglet said that anyhow he had nothing to do until Friday. So off they went together.
There was a small spinney of larch-trees just here, and it seemed as if the two Woozles, if that is what they were, had been going round this spinney; so round this spinney went Pooh and Piglet after them; Piglet passing the time by telling Pooh what his Grandfather Trespassers W had done to Remove Stiffness after Tracking, and how his Grandfather Trespassers W had suffered in his later years from Shortness of Breath, and other matters of interest, and Pooh wondering what a Grandfather was like, and if perhaps this was Two Grandfathers they were after now, and, if so, whether he would be allowed to take one home and keep it, and what Christopher Robin would say. And still the tracks went on in front of them....
Suddenly Winnie-the-Pooh stopped, and pointed excitedly in front of him, 'Look!'
'What?' said Piglet, with a jump. And then, to show that he hadn't been frightened, he jumped up and down once or twice more in an exercising sort of way.
'The tracks!' said Pooh. 'A third animal has joined the other two!'
'Pooh!' cried Piglet. 'Do you think it is another Woozle?'
'No,' said Pooh, 'because it makes different marks. It is either Two Woozles and one, as it might be, Wizzle, or Two, as it might be, Wizzles and one, if so it is, Woozle. Let us continue to follow them.'
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y171/charlou/pooh_piglet_more_tracks-1.jpg
So they went on, feeling just a little anxious now, in case the three animals in front of them were of Hostile Intent. And Piglet wished very much that his Grandfather T. W. were there, instead of elsewhere, and Pooh thought how nice it would be if they met Christopher Robin suddenly but quite accidentally, and only because he liked Christopher Robin so much. And then, all of a sudden, Winnie-the-Pooh stopped again, and licked the tip of his nose in a cooling manner, for he was feeling more hot and anxious than ever in his life before. There were four animals in front of them!
'Do you see, Piglet? Look at their tracks! Three, as it were, Woozles, and one, as it was, Wizzle. Another Woozle has joined them!'
And so it seemed to be. There were the tracks; crossing over each other here, getting muddled up with each other there; but, quite plainly every now and then, the tracks of four sets of paws.
'I think,' said Piglet, when he had licked the tip of his nose too, and found that it brought very little comfort, 'I think that I have just remembered something. I have just remembered something that I forgot to do yesterday and shan't be able to do to-morrow. So I suppose I really ought to go back and do it now.'
'We'll do it this afternoon, and I'll come with you,' said Pooh.
'It isn't the sort of thing you can do in the afternoon,' said Piglet quickly. 'It's a very particular morning thing, that has to be done in the morning, and, if possible, between the hours of--What would you say the time was?'
'About twelve.' said Winnie-the-Pooh, looking at the sun.
'Between, as I was saying, the hours of twelve and twelve five. So, really, dear old Pooh, if you'll excuse me--What's that?'
Pooh looked up at the sky, and then, as he heard the whistle again, he looked up into the branches of a big oak-tree, and then he saw a friend of his.
'It's Christopher Robin,' he said.
'Ah, then you'll be all right,' said Piglet. 'You'll be quite safe with him. Good-bye.' and he trotted off home as quickly as he could, very glad to be Out of All Danger again.
Christopher Robin came slowly down his tree.
'Silly old Bear,' he said, 'what were you doing? First you went round the spinney twice by yourself, and then Piglet ran after you and you went round again together, and then you were just going round a fourth time--'
'Wait a moment,' said Winnie-the-Pooh, holding up his paw.
He sat down and thought, in the most thoughtful way he could think. Then he fitted his paw into one of the Tracks...and then he scratched his nose twice, and stood up.
'Yes,' said Winnie-the-Pooh.
'I see now,' said Winnie-the-Pooh.
'I have been Foolish and Deluded,' said he, 'and I am a Bear of No Brain at All.'
'You're the Best Bear in All the World,' said Christopher Robin soothingly.
'Am I?' said Pooh hopefully. And then he brightened suddenly.
'Anyhow,' he said, 'it is nearly Luncheon Time.'
So he went home for it.
~ from Winnie-the-Pooh, by A.A. Milne
Don't get me wrong, though .. Leunig has a corner of my :heart: too.
Cunt
27th January 2012, 12:22 AM
After all, the one big gift of atheism to the world is the overthrow of all authorityIt's not. Atheism is just a lack of belief in the existence of a god. That would exclude atheists advocating a theocracy, but nothing else follows.
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
I am pretty fucking vocal, and collect this statistic - I won't deny the existence of any god until you define it enough to be subject to falsifying evidence.
If your description is not falsifiable, your god doesn't go into the believe/disbelieve category, but poetry and fiction. Perhaps beautiful stuff, but not enough to gamble an hours wages on.
Oh, and so far, every god that has been described clearly enough to falsify, HAS been falsified.
'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. (unless I steal your belongings)
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
I am pretty fucking vocal, and collect this statistic - I won't deny the existence of any god until you define it enough to be subject to falsifying evidence.
If your description is not falsifiable, your god doesn't go into the believe/disbelieve category, but poetry and fiction. Perhaps beautiful stuff, but not enough to gamble an hours wages on.
Oh, and so far, every god that has been described clearly enough to falsify, HAS been falsified.
'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. (unless I steal your belongings)
PermanentlyEphemeral
27th January 2012, 01:07 AM
Atheism is just a lack of belief in the existence of a god. That would exclude atheists advocating a theocracy, but nothing else follows.
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
I don't think so. Those who have a belief that there is no God are usually aware of having such a belief.
I've only met a few who deny they have any beliefs. I lean toward dismissing those as idiots.
What often gets denied is that having a belief that there is no God is entailed by the use of the label "atheist".
Which can lead into the whole question of common usage versus prescriptive definitions, and who gets to decide, and all that stuff. A deep rabbit hole, that is.
Not PZ Meyers and crew.
Or at the Rational Response Squad or whatever they call themselves.
They claim that there is no God and that they don't have a belief.
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
I don't think so. Those who have a belief that there is no God are usually aware of having such a belief.
I've only met a few who deny they have any beliefs. I lean toward dismissing those as idiots.
What often gets denied is that having a belief that there is no God is entailed by the use of the label "atheist".
Which can lead into the whole question of common usage versus prescriptive definitions, and who gets to decide, and all that stuff. A deep rabbit hole, that is.
Not PZ Meyers and crew.
Or at the Rational Response Squad or whatever they call themselves.
They claim that there is no God and that they don't have a belief.
Brother Daniel
27th January 2012, 02:04 AM
Not PZ Meyers and crew.
Or at the Rational Response Squad or whatever they call themselves.
They claim that there is no God and that they don't have a belief.
PZ can be silly at times, but I'd be surprised if he were this silly. I'm not going to believe your claim about him without a linky. (I can easily believe what you're saying about his gang of sycophants, though -- some of them, anyway.)
Or at the Rational Response Squad or whatever they call themselves.
They claim that there is no God and that they don't have a belief.
PZ can be silly at times, but I'd be surprised if he were this silly. I'm not going to believe your claim about him without a linky. (I can easily believe what you're saying about his gang of sycophants, though -- some of them, anyway.)
Floppit
27th January 2012, 09:55 AM
You know, as I go through my normal every day life I rarely talk about god. The subject of god doesn't often pop up, I could count years that go by without once 'debating' a deity's existence. All of that is, of course, with the exception of forum's since I peeped into RD net expecting interesting rational, god free conversation - and left realising I was in the wrong place!
The idea of a group of people who (attempt to) govern their thinking by reason, and talk to each other with an understanding that it, as opposed to faith, should be the measure of accuracy has so much potential that I'm still around. I'm still around despite the god obsession not because of it.
The idea of a group of people who (attempt to) govern their thinking by reason, and talk to each other with an understanding that it, as opposed to faith, should be the measure of accuracy has so much potential that I'm still around. I'm still around despite the god obsession not because of it.
Grumps
28th January 2012, 12:01 PM
After all, the one big gift of atheism to the world is the overthrow of all authorityIt's not. Atheism is just a lack of belief in the existence of a god. That would exclude atheists advocating a theocracy, but nothing else follows.
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
I am pretty fucking vocal, and collect this statistic - I won't deny the existence of any god until you define it enough to be subject to falsifying evidence.
If your description is not falsifiable, your god doesn't go into the believe/disbelieve category, but poetry and fiction. Perhaps beautiful stuff, but not enough to gamble an hours wages on.
Oh, and so far, every god that has been described clearly enough to falsify, HAS been falsified.
'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. (unless I steal your belongings)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, except where all determined efforts to find evidence have only found the absence of such, or all presented 'evidence' has been refuted, in which case all indicators point to the absence of what you're trying to find evidence for.
But that's not quite as catchy, so people tend to not really think of that one much.
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
I am pretty fucking vocal, and collect this statistic - I won't deny the existence of any god until you define it enough to be subject to falsifying evidence.
If your description is not falsifiable, your god doesn't go into the believe/disbelieve category, but poetry and fiction. Perhaps beautiful stuff, but not enough to gamble an hours wages on.
Oh, and so far, every god that has been described clearly enough to falsify, HAS been falsified.
'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. (unless I steal your belongings)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, except where all determined efforts to find evidence have only found the absence of such, or all presented 'evidence' has been refuted, in which case all indicators point to the absence of what you're trying to find evidence for.
But that's not quite as catchy, so people tend to not really think of that one much.
nick
28th January 2012, 01:38 PM
After all, the one big gift of atheism to the world is the overthrow of all authorityIt's not. Atheism is just a lack of belief in the existence of a god. That would exclude atheists advocating a theocracy, but nothing else follows.
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
I am pretty fucking vocal, and collect this statistic - I won't deny the existence of any god until you define it enough to be subject to falsifying evidence.
If your description is not falsifiable, your god doesn't go into the believe/disbelieve category, but poetry and fiction. Perhaps beautiful stuff, but not enough to gamble an hours wages on.
Oh, and so far, every god that has been described clearly enough to falsify, HAS been falsified.
'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. (unless I steal your belongings)
I agree! Man has invented a lot of gods that are false.
Religion is man trying to reach God. Jesus Christ is God trying to reach man.
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
I am pretty fucking vocal, and collect this statistic - I won't deny the existence of any god until you define it enough to be subject to falsifying evidence.
If your description is not falsifiable, your god doesn't go into the believe/disbelieve category, but poetry and fiction. Perhaps beautiful stuff, but not enough to gamble an hours wages on.
Oh, and so far, every god that has been described clearly enough to falsify, HAS been falsified.
'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. (unless I steal your belongings)
I agree! Man has invented a lot of gods that are false.
Religion is man trying to reach God. Jesus Christ is God trying to reach man.
Brother Daniel
28th January 2012, 04:14 PM
and nick is God trolling a message board.
Cunt
28th January 2012, 05:02 PM
After all, the one big gift of atheism to the world is the overthrow of all authorityIt's not. Atheism is just a lack of belief in the existence of a god. That would exclude atheists advocating a theocracy, but nothing else follows.
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
I am pretty fucking vocal, and collect this statistic - I won't deny the existence of any god until you define it enough to be subject to falsifying evidence.
If your description is not falsifiable, your god doesn't go into the believe/disbelieve category, but poetry and fiction. Perhaps beautiful stuff, but not enough to gamble an hours wages on.
Oh, and so far, every god that has been described clearly enough to falsify, HAS been falsified.
'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. (unless I steal your belongings)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, except where all determined efforts to find evidence have only found the absence of such, or all presented 'evidence' has been refuted, in which case all indicators point to the absence of what you're trying to find evidence for.
But that's not quite as catchy, so people tend to not really think of that one much.
How about 'you propose, you supply evidence'?
What evidence have you, nick?
Most vocal atheists turn it into a belief that there is no God.
(and then deny they have a belief.)
I am pretty fucking vocal, and collect this statistic - I won't deny the existence of any god until you define it enough to be subject to falsifying evidence.
If your description is not falsifiable, your god doesn't go into the believe/disbelieve category, but poetry and fiction. Perhaps beautiful stuff, but not enough to gamble an hours wages on.
Oh, and so far, every god that has been described clearly enough to falsify, HAS been falsified.
'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. (unless I steal your belongings)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, except where all determined efforts to find evidence have only found the absence of such, or all presented 'evidence' has been refuted, in which case all indicators point to the absence of what you're trying to find evidence for.
But that's not quite as catchy, so people tend to not really think of that one much.
How about 'you propose, you supply evidence'?
What evidence have you, nick?
nick
28th January 2012, 09:36 PM
http://site.servquote.com/images/kjv_1611.jpg
nostrum
28th January 2012, 09:38 PM
:noo:
Cunt
28th January 2012, 10:19 PM
http://site.servquote.com/images/kjv_1611asshole.jpg
Image broken. 'Proof' went 'poof'. (not that there's anything wrong with that)
Evidence, please. And make it of a more substantial variety or I will harumph in a condescending way.
Image broken. 'Proof' went 'poof'. (not that there's anything wrong with that)
Evidence, please. And make it of a more substantial variety or I will harumph in a condescending way.
nick
29th January 2012, 01:14 AM
http://site.servquote.com/images/kjv_1611.jpg
Nah the image works, I cleared my cache just to make sure. I think it's on your end.
Nah the image works, I cleared my cache just to make sure. I think it's on your end.
MSG
29th January 2012, 03:15 AM
^^^ Indeed.
Leunig's work is profounder, wiser, deeper than anything anyone else has ever wrought.
Have you caught up with the work of first dog on the moon?
http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/DogToWork.jpg
Leunig's work is profounder, wiser, deeper than anything anyone else has ever wrought.
Have you caught up with the work of first dog on the moon?
http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/DogToWork.jpg
Cunt
29th January 2012, 03:16 AM
http://site.servquote.com/images/kjv_1611nick-is-a-cock-mongler.jpg
Nah the image works, I cleared my cache just to make sure. I think it's on your end.
Again I say - the image is BROKEN. Your 'evidence' vanished in a puff of logic.
Nah the image works, I cleared my cache just to make sure. I think it's on your end.
Again I say - the image is BROKEN. Your 'evidence' vanished in a puff of logic.
MSG
29th January 2012, 03:17 AM
i think you hooked one nick
nick
29th January 2012, 03:39 AM
http://site.servquote.com/images/kjv_1611.jpg
Nah the image works, I cleared my cache just to make sure. I think it's on your end.
Again I say - the image is BROKEN. Your 'evidence' vanished in a puff of logic.
maybe you need to check your browser settings, it works for me
Nah the image works, I cleared my cache just to make sure. I think it's on your end.
Again I say - the image is BROKEN. Your 'evidence' vanished in a puff of logic.
maybe you need to check your browser settings, it works for me
charlou
29th January 2012, 04:05 AM
I can see it. Still, yes .. it's a broken image.
Grumps
29th January 2012, 04:40 AM
I can see it. Still, yes .. it's a broken image.
Too shay.
Too shay.
Cunt
29th January 2012, 07:40 PM
http://www.wordsoup.com/blog/Holy%20Bible.jpg
Nah the image works, I cleared my cache just to make sure. I think it's on your end.
Again I say - the image is BROKEN. Your 'evidence' vanished in a puff of logic.
maybe you need to check your browser settings, it works for me
Ah, it seems to be showing now...
Nah the image works, I cleared my cache just to make sure. I think it's on your end.
Again I say - the image is BROKEN. Your 'evidence' vanished in a puff of logic.
maybe you need to check your browser settings, it works for me
Ah, it seems to be showing now...
nick
29th January 2012, 09:29 PM
Good, I'm glad you see the irrefutable Word of God.
Cunt
29th January 2012, 10:27 PM
Could you please direct me to the incest and bestiality? Are there pics? My version just has the odd fancy font...
nick
30th January 2012, 02:00 AM
Why are you so angry with God?
Cunt
30th January 2012, 04:43 AM
I'm not angry, I'm fappey. WHERE IS THE INCEST!?!?!?
Grumps
30th January 2012, 04:49 AM
I'm not angry, I'm fappey. WHERE IS THE INCEST!?!?!?
www.reddit.com/r/incest
www.reddit.com/r/incest
Cunt
30th January 2012, 05:10 AM
FINALLY, sheesh. I looked and looked in that other bible whatsisname posted but there wasn't enough 'juice', if you sniff my meaning...
Grumps
30th January 2012, 05:29 AM
Tissue sales in your local area will increase 10 fold I expect.
Cunt
30th January 2012, 06:12 AM
Fuck tissues. Tissues are for assholes. I like a nice, soft sock. I purchase them from the local WalMart, load the up individually (1 per extrusion) and return them, smoothed carefully, directly to the shelf without even asking for a refund. I sure hope it doesn't play hell with their inventory system or anything.
nick
30th January 2012, 02:59 PM
I will pray for you.
Cunt
31st January 2012, 12:19 AM
Don't pray for me - I'm fine. Pray for whoever finds their toes sticking together in new socks.
nick
31st January 2012, 03:45 AM
You need Jesus so I will pray for you and if you don't like it you can kiss my ass
Cunt
31st January 2012, 04:10 AM
FALSE DICHOTOMY!!!
nick
31st January 2012, 04:23 AM
Your mom is a false dichotomy.
Cunt
31st January 2012, 04:51 AM
Which one? (I have two)
nick
31st January 2012, 04:58 AM
Why
Cunt
31st January 2012, 05:25 AM
I can only assume you will answer relative to the matters importance.
nick
31st January 2012, 05:44 AM
God is real.
Cunt
31st January 2012, 05:54 AM
Which one?
nick
31st January 2012, 06:02 AM
There is only one God.
FedUpWithFaith
31st January 2012, 06:32 AM
Cunt, you can save bandwidth by replacing nick with a chatbot - if indeed he isn't one.
PermanentlyEphemeral
31st January 2012, 12:49 PM
Which one?
Poe's God
Poe's God
Brother Daniel
31st January 2012, 02:18 PM
nick's not a chatbot.
He can be really funny at times.
This just isn't one of those times.
He can be really funny at times.
This just isn't one of those times.
Hermit
31st January 2012, 02:27 PM
http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/418764_317447478296745_227970240577803_868748_2579 80542_n.jpg
Brother Daniel
31st January 2012, 02:29 PM
Good thing I didn't say anything resembling "he's a nice person once you get to know him".
nick
31st January 2012, 02:33 PM
I'm a mean person once you get to know me.
charlou
31st January 2012, 03:10 PM
He's my friend.
Kiss my arse. :) /gratuitous
Kiss my arse. :) /gratuitous
nick
31st January 2012, 03:12 PM
*ass
Cunt
31st January 2012, 09:50 PM
Cunt, you can save bandwidth by replacing nick with a chatbot - if indeed he isn't one.
So far, a chatbot would have been funner.
C'mon, nick! I heard you were entertaining. ENTERTAIN US!!!
So far, a chatbot would have been funner.
C'mon, nick! I heard you were entertaining. ENTERTAIN US!!!
nick
31st January 2012, 11:18 PM
Cunt I am not here to entertain you.
Cunt
31st January 2012, 11:52 PM
Cunt I am...here to entertain you.
That was not very entertaining.
That was not very entertaining.
nick
1st February 2012, 03:00 AM
Agreed, the fake quote thing is p. fucking dumb
Cunt
1st February 2012, 03:23 AM
You will be known here by the quality of your contribution.
charlou
1st February 2012, 03:37 AM
thick and sticky?
Cunt
1st February 2012, 03:58 AM
My most recent contribution is an effervescent effluvient of a pasty, yet greasy consistency.
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 04:24 AM
Cunt, you're a fuckin' poet you know that?
And please, don't ever go near my sister.
And please, don't ever go near my sister.
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 04:25 AM
..
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 04:29 AM
..
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 04:32 AM
--
Adenosine
1st February 2012, 04:32 AM
You know you don't have to write a reason. You can just ignore it. Easier that way.
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 04:35 AM
..
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 04:38 AM
--
maiforpeace
1st February 2012, 04:46 AM
You do know you don't have to put a reason in the edit box to edit, right?
EDIT:
And you get some time to edit without edits being posted.
EDIT:
And you get some time to edit without edits being posted.
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 04:51 AM
And you get some time to edit without edits being posted...
nick
1st February 2012, 05:06 AM
You know you don't have to write a reason. You can just ignore it. Easier that way.
Ignoring FedUpWithFaith is a good idea.
Ignoring FedUpWithFaith is a good idea.
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 05:10 AM
You know you don't have to write a reason. You can just ignore it. Easier that way.
Ignoring FedUpWithFaith is a good idea.
--
Ignoring FedUpWithFaith is a good idea.
--
Cunt
1st February 2012, 05:30 AM
You know you don't have to write a reason. You can just ignore it. Easier that way.
FedUpWithFaith is a good idea.
He IS a good idea!
FedUpWithFaith is a good idea.
He IS a good idea!
nick
1st February 2012, 05:37 AM
And all this science, I don't understand
Cunt
1st February 2012, 05:47 AM
It's just my job
Cunt
1st February 2012, 05:51 AM
William Shatner - "Rocket Man" (1st Generation Copy) - YouTube
charlou
1st February 2012, 06:12 AM
..
..
--
..
--
Found another fatal flaw ... ob, we need multiquote function on the edit box ...
..
--
..
--
Found another fatal flaw ... ob, we need multiquote function on the edit box ...
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 06:28 AM
William Shatner - "Rocket Man" (1st Generation Copy) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvQwXOCKNLY)
How come i can't see any of the Youtube videos in this forum?
How come i can't see any of the Youtube videos in this forum?
Cunt
1st February 2012, 07:07 AM
Don't know. I could collect details, but I would just be asking someone smarter anyway...
Hermit
1st February 2012, 11:27 AM
William Shatner - "Rocket Man" (1st Generation Copy) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvQwXOCKNLY)
How come i can't see any of the Youtube videos in this forum?
Unless others have the same problem on this forum, I'd say it's a problem with your computer's setup.
How come i can't see any of the Youtube videos in this forum?
Unless others have the same problem on this forum, I'd say it's a problem with your computer's setup.
Adenosine
1st February 2012, 01:18 PM
William Shatner - "Rocket Man" (1st Generation Copy) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvQwXOCKNLY)
How come i can't see any of the Youtube videos in this forum?
Try changing your browser's security setting.
How come i can't see any of the Youtube videos in this forum?
Try changing your browser's security setting.
FedUpWithFaith
1st February 2012, 03:24 PM
thanks to both of you. You may well be right though my browser has no problem seeing embedded YT vids on other sites.
Cunt
2nd February 2012, 12:10 AM
Sorry, FedUpWithFaith, but I don't even know how to troubleshoot this kind of thing. I could suggest trying another browser (firefox, palemoon, chrome) but if it didn't work in all those, I would simply be left to assume it is your choice of drink.
Donkeypiss can have strange effects on electronics.
Donkeypiss can have strange effects on electronics.
oblivion
2nd February 2012, 01:02 AM
thanks to both of you. You may well be right though my browser has no problem seeing embedded YT vids on other sites.
I wonder if the other sites are using the same advanced media app.
Would you check out this post and let me know if you see the embedded youtube?
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1023804#post1023804
I wonder if the other sites are using the same advanced media app.
Would you check out this post and let me know if you see the embedded youtube?
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1023804#post1023804
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 02:47 AM
My apologies for the wild goose chase. it didn't work in IE but did on Chrome. i now realize it was a conflict with an IE add-on I'd recently activated
oblivion
2nd February 2012, 02:58 AM
IE is of the devil. :[
FedUpWithFaith
2nd February 2012, 03:09 AM
agree. i use Firefox, Chrome and IE. I would have dispensed with IE but for the fact that it is the only browser that properly supports the version of an add-on I like,
nick
2nd February 2012, 03:11 AM
I use safari even though apple is stupid.
ficus
10th February 2012, 01:49 AM
I used to prefer the term "non-theist" to "atheist", because I didn't identify with New Atheism and on the internet most of the atheists I met were self-identified New Atheists, or were ideologically indistinguishable from them. These days, I answer to "post-atheist".:hug:
Atheism and Theism are both highways to intellectual decrepitude; I prefer being a Radical Skeptic/Idealist, in philosophical terms.
Atheism and Theism are both highways to intellectual decrepitude; I prefer being a Radical Skeptic/Idealist, in philosophical terms.
Izdaari
10th February 2012, 02:12 PM
I used to prefer the term "non-theist" to "atheist", because I didn't identify with New Atheism and on the internet most of the atheists I met were self-identified New Atheists, or were ideologically indistinguishable from them. These days, I answer to "post-atheist".:hug:
Atheism and Theism are both highways to intellectual decrepitude; I prefer being a Radical Skeptic/Idealist, in philosophical terms.
That combo sounds to me like the next door neighbor of Solipsism.
Atheism and Theism are both highways to intellectual decrepitude; I prefer being a Radical Skeptic/Idealist, in philosophical terms.
That combo sounds to me like the next door neighbor of Solipsism.
nick
10th February 2012, 02:36 PM
Philosophy is dumb
Grumps
10th February 2012, 03:09 PM
I agree.
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét