(Close Window)
Topic: A TOUGH QUESTION TO ANSWER..
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 9, 2012 11:05PM)
Would you want there to be a Supreme Being or would you prefetr that we are here by one big accident?

I have thougth about asking this as a two part question. The second part of the question is obvious. WHY?

Not sure if this would be considered a poll or a question.

Anyway here is my answer.

I would opt for the supreme being deal. The reason is that I hope there is more than just this.

Not looking for a debate here just curious about what you would prefer and if possible answer why. Just don't want to start a debate with the why. So don't answer the why if you are going to debate.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 9, 2012 11:11PM)
Part of me wants there to be a supreme being, so there's someone to be mad at.
Part of me doesn't want there to be a supreme being, so there's no one to be mad at.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 9, 2012 11:13PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:11, critter wrote:
Part of me wants there to be a supreme being, so there's someone to be mad at.
Part of me doesn't want there to be a supreme being, so there's no one to be mad at.
[/quote]

Wow. What a great answer. That blows me away. I am serious.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Jun 9, 2012 11:14PM)
Aces, I'm with you a hundred percent on this.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Jun 9, 2012 11:19PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:11, critter wrote:
Part of me wants there to be a supreme being, so there's someone to be mad at.
Part of me doesn't want there to be a supreme being, so there's no one to be mad at.
[/quote]
I guess I'm not as blown away by this as Acesover is. I don't need to be mad at a supreme being while here, and beyhond this world I won't be mad at anyone. That's what I hope for.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 9, 2012 11:25PM)
I'm just glad God does exist so we can have discussions like this. Without God we do not exist. Why? Because I think deep down we love the idea of someone loving us the way only God could.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 9, 2012 11:27PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:19, Bob1Dog wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:11, critter wrote:
Part of me wants there to be a supreme being, so there's someone to be mad at.
Part of me doesn't want there to be a supreme being, so there's no one to be mad at.
[/quote]
I guess I'm not as blown away by this as Acesover is. I don't need to be mad at a supreme being while here, and beyhond this world I won't be mad at anyone. That's what I hope for.
[/quote]

Thought we weren't supposed to debate our answers? :P
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 9, 2012 11:31PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:27, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:19, Bob1Dog wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:11, critter wrote:
Part of me wants there to be a supreme being, so there's someone to be mad at.
Part of me doesn't want there to be a supreme being, so there's no one to be mad at.
[/quote]
I guess I'm not as blown away by this as Acesover is. I don't need to be mad at a supreme being while here, and beyhond this world I won't be mad at anyone. That's what I hope for.
[/quote]

Thought we weren't supposed to debate our answers? :P
[/quote]

I know. Hope it does not continue. I should not have responded to our post as I did. That started it. Mad at myself :mad:
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Jun 9, 2012 11:31PM)
Not meant to be a debate. I respect your response, but just not blown over by it as acesover is and I stated why. I don't expect or wish debate either. That tonguey thing back at ya! (I don't feel like looking it up)
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jun 9, 2012 11:38PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:25, The great Gumbini wrote:
I'm just glad God does exist so we can have discussions like this. Without God we do not exist. Why? Because I think deep down we love the idea of someone loving us the way only God could.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

How very tautological of you.

As to the OP, it certainly may feel "nice" to some to have the safety net of "it all has some purpose, some plan," I honestly don't think I have a desire for it to be one way or another. I do, however, know that IF there were some supreme being, especially if they resembled the one described in "the bible," then I would want nothing to do with them. This is presuming an omnipotent and omniscient being.
Unlike Critter, I do not have a particular desire for such a being to blame, or absence of one to blame, I just know that they would BE to blame.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 9, 2012 11:39PM)
I'd like to note that I don't feel that way all the time.
Sometimes I hope there's a supreme being with a switch to turn off the ****-storm, and then I hope that he's having a good day so that he'll flick that switch.
When I'm in a better mood I see something cool and think "wouldn't it be great if somebody made that for us?"
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Jun 9, 2012 11:52PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:38, gdw wrote:
I do, however, know that IF there were some supreme being, especially if they resembled the one described in "the bible," then I would want nothing to do with them. This is presuming an omnipotent and omniscient being.
Unlike Critter, I do not have a particular desire for such a being to blame, or absence of one to blame, I just know that they would BE to blame.
[/quote]
Seems like you're looking at more than ONE supreme being, no? :)
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Jun 10, 2012 12:06AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:39, critter wrote:
I'd like to note that I don't feel that way all the time.
Sometimes I hope there's a supreme being with a switch to turn off the ****-storm, and then I hope that he's having a good day so that he'll flick that switch.
When I'm in a better mood I see something cool and think "wouldn't it be great if somebody made that for us?"
[/quote]
Critter, again, not a debate here, just sharing experiences. Through my life there have been numerous (if not more!) times when something happened that had no explanation. Nothing special really. For instance. Once I was in a hurry to get to a place I NEEDED to be at by a certain time and the traffic was terrible. All the traffic lights worked for me. I didn't ask for it, it just happened. Other times I have narrowly missed car accidents, and other mishaps. It could have gone either way. There's another thread here discussing these occurrences, and they're not equal to the random occurrences we've shared in yet another thread. But sometimes, things just seem to work out for the better. Every time that happens to me I say a prayer of thanks. That's all. Bad things happen too. But as long as I'm still here, there's nothing bad that can happen to me.

Does this make any sense?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 10, 2012 12:13AM)
Yeah I respect what you're saying.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 10, 2012 12:21AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:05, acesover wrote:
Would you want there to be a Supreme Being or would you prefetr that we are here by one big accident?
...
[/quote]

Being a person it's difficult not to project that sense of personhood onto the rest of existence when dealing with sentimental issues.

That said, would you really want all of existence to be at the whim of anyone, including yourself? Consider the chaos inherent to an existence where one plus one would be two or something else depending on the mood of the supreme being - which you can never know, predict or expect. What would be the basis of any expectations of the world in such a situation?

Once you put limits on the caprice of your posited supreme being you are also presuming to take on a role which permits you to be more than your supreme being. So, my vote is "no" to all such models... I'm simply not that arrogant.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 10, 2012 12:35AM)
It's not an either/or proposition, though. What if we are here because a Supreme Being had one big accident?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 10, 2012 12:37AM)
My answer to the OP is that it depends on the nature of the supreme being.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 10, 2012 12:45AM)
Who said we are here by accident? The fact that we are even disucussing this on a computer is the the result of millions of years of evolution. That's no accident.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 10, 2012 12:51AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:45, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
Who said we are here by accident? The fact that we are even disucussing this on a computer is the the result of millions of years of evolution. That's no accident.
[/quote]

Does this post express a belief?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 10, 2012 12:52AM)
Supreme cuz sometimes you want more than pepperoni.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 10, 2012 12:56AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:45, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
Who said we are here by accident? The fact that we are even disucussing this on a computer is the the result of millions of years of evolution. That's no accident.
[/quote]

Does this post express a belief?
[/quote]

Why are you so intent on saying atheists have a belief? We don't have a belief. Get over it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 10, 2012 12:58AM)
I always had a weird thing for pursuing truth. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Jun 10, 2012 12:59AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:35, mastermindreader wrote:
What if we are here because a Supreme Being had one big accident?
[/quote]Well that could certainly be interpreted in different ways. :0 <-- old scool!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 10, 2012 01:03AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:56, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:45, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
Who said we are here by accident? The fact that we are even disucussing this on a computer is the the result of millions of years of evolution. That's no accident.
[/quote]

Does this post express a belief?
[/quote]

Why are you so intent on saying atheists have a belief? We don't have a belief. Get over it.
[/quote]

Actually, I'll put it in the form of a question. A yes/no question, even. Maybe our difference is entirely semantic.

Let's say someone says, "There is no God." Do you believe that person has made a true statement?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 10, 2012 01:05AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:35, mastermindreader wrote:
...What if we are here because a Supreme Being had one big accident?
[/quote]

Supreme being has an accident? And just who would decide whether it was an accident, a supremer being? And we're supposed to clean up the mess?

I heard a bulimic interpretation of cosmology once. A big binge theory where for six days god ate, and on the seventh...
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 10, 2012 01:07AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:59, Tom Cutts wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:35, mastermindreader wrote:
What if we are here because a Supreme Being had one big accident?
[/quote]Well that could certainly be interpreted in different ways. :0 <-- old scool!
[/quote]

I think you picked up on the meaning I intended. I mean, how can you discuss eschatology without the schat?

:eek:
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 10, 2012 01:11AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:56, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:45, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
Who said we are here by accident? The fact that we are even disucussing this on a computer is the the result of millions of years of evolution. That's no accident.
[/quote]

Does this post express a belief?
[/quote]

Why are you so intent on saying atheists have a belief? We don't have a belief. Get over it.
[/quote]

Actually, I'll put it in the form of a question. A yes/no question, even. Maybe our difference is entirely semantic.

Let's say someone says, "There is no God." Do you believe that person has made a true statement?
[/quote]

Let's say somone says that there is no Santa. Is that person making a true statement?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 10, 2012 01:16AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:11, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:56, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:45, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
Who said we are here by accident? The fact that we are even disucussing this on a computer is the the result of millions of years of evolution. That's no accident.
[/quote]

Does this post express a belief?
[/quote]

Why are you so intent on saying atheists have a belief? We don't have a belief. Get over it.
[/quote]

Actually, I'll put it in the form of a question. A yes/no question, even. Maybe our difference is entirely semantic.

Let's say someone says, "There is no God." Do you believe that person has made a true statement?
[/quote]

Let's say somone says that there is no Santa. Is that person making a true statement?
[/quote]

I don't blame you for not wanting to answer.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 10, 2012 01:22AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:11, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
Let's say somone says that there is no Santa. Is that person making a true statement?
[/quote]

Obviously not:

[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:52, MagicSanta wrote:
Supreme cuz sometimes you want more than pepperoni.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 10, 2012 01:32AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:11, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:56, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:45, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
Who said we are here by accident? The fact that we are even disucussing this on a computer is the the result of millions of years of evolution. That's no accident.
[/quote]

Does this post express a belief?
[/quote]

Why are you so intent on saying atheists have a belief? We don't have a belief. Get over it.
[/quote]

Actually, I'll put it in the form of a question. A yes/no question, even. Maybe our difference is entirely semantic.

Let's say someone says, "There is no God." Do you believe that person has made a true statement?
[/quote]

Let's say somone says that there is no Santa. Is that person making a true statement?
[/quote]

I don't blame you for not wanting to answer.
[/quote]

It sounds like you learned indoctrination at the same church as mine. Are you the one knocking on my door on the weekends telling me you have "good news"?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 10, 2012 01:36AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:32, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:11, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:56, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:45, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
Who said we are here by accident? The fact that we are even disucussing this on a computer is the the result of millions of years of evolution. That's no accident.
[/quote]

Does this post express a belief?
[/quote]

Why are you so intent on saying atheists have a belief? We don't have a belief. Get over it.
[/quote]

Actually, I'll put it in the form of a question. A yes/no question, even. Maybe our difference is entirely semantic.

Let's say someone says, "There is no God." Do you believe that person has made a true statement?
[/quote]

Let's say somone says that there is no Santa. Is that person making a true statement?
[/quote]

I don't blame you for not wanting to answer.
[/quote]

It sounds like you learned indoctrination at the same church as mine. Are you the one knocking on my door on the weekends telling me you have "good news"?
[/quote]

I'm the one asking you a very simple yes/no question. If you can't or won't answer it, you really have no cause for complaining that I'm misconstruing your position.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 10, 2012 02:15AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:32, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:11, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:56, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:45, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
Who said we are here by accident? The fact that we are even disucussing this on a computer is the the result of millions of years of evolution. That's no accident.
[/quote]

Does this post express a belief?
[/quote]

Why are you so intent on saying atheists have a belief? We don't have a belief. Get over it.
[/quote]

Actually, I'll put it in the form of a question. A yes/no question, even. Maybe our difference is entirely semantic.

Let's say someone says, "There is no God." Do you believe that person has made a true statement?
[/quote]

Let's say somone says that there is no Santa. Is that person making a true statement?
[/quote]

I don't blame you for not wanting to answer.
[/quote]

It sounds like you learned indoctrination at the same church as mine. Are you the one knocking on my door on the weekends telling me you have "good news"?
[/quote]

Calling it anight, but if the suspense is killing you...

I'm not a theist;
I've never been a theist; and
I wasn't raised to be a theist.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 10, 2012 04:10AM)
Not tough for me to answer. I really, truly wish there was a supreme being, and I truly wish that he or she or it was a benevolent being, and it would give me great comfort to know that I might be reunited with loved ones who have passed away.

That's what I would like to believe.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 10, 2012 06:55AM)
I would vote for a god that created things the way they are.
Message: Posted by: DiabolusMagic (Jun 10, 2012 07:18AM)
My answer would be neither. We, as magicians, should know better than anyone that everything has an explanation, and it's never supernatural.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 10, 2012 07:30AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:37, LobowolfXXX wrote:
My answer to the OP is that it depends on the nature of the supreme being.
[/quote]
Bingo.
If the supreme being is benevolent, non-judgemental, undemanding, non-narcissistic and VERY OBVIOUS and CLEAR in its communications with us: YES.
If the supreme being is malevolent/dictatorial: NO
If the supreme being is ambivalent, uncommunicative and mysterious: NO; such a being may as well not exist for all practical purposes.

ACCIDENT I can (and do) live with--accidents happen. :)
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 10, 2012 07:37AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 08:18, DiabolusMagic wrote:
My answer would be neither. We, as magicians, should know better than anyone that everything has an explanation, and it's never supernatural.
[/quote]
We're not discussing "what is," but rather "what you would prefer."

If not 'supreme being' and not 'cosmic happenstance' (aka accident), what 'third option' are you describing when you say, "Neither"?
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Jun 10, 2012 08:54AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:05, acesover wrote:
Would you want there to be a Supreme Being or would you prefetr that we are here by one big accident?

I have thougth about asking this as a two part question. The second part of the question is obvious. WHY?

Not sure if this would be considered a poll or a question.

Anyway here is my answer.

I would opt for the supreme being deal. The reason is that I hope there is more than just this.

Not looking for a debate here just curious about what you would prefer and if possible answer why. Just don't want to start a debate with the why. So don't answer the why if you are going to debate.
[/quote]


I say, supreme being. IF he/she/it (I call him God) were fair to all. If he kept things simple and the plan included everyone. The plan would need to include men, women, all races, children, the blind, the deaf, the poor, the rich, the uneducated, and all the members of the Café. And if you didn't need a lawyer to understand the contract because it simply read, "just trust me." In exchange for that trust I would be guaranteed peace of mind forever. Now that would be a deal.

Tom
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 10, 2012 09:00AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:38, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:25, The great Gumbini wrote:
I'm just glad God does exist so we can have discussions like this. Without God we do not exist. Why? Because I think deep down we love the idea of someone loving us the way only God could.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

How very tautological of you.

As to the OP, it certainly may feel "nice" to some to have the safety net of "it all has some purpose, some plan," I honestly don't think I have a desire for it to be one way or another. I do, however, know that IF there were some supreme being, especially if they resembled the one described in "the bible," then I would want nothing to do with them. This is presuming an omnipotent and omniscient being.
Unlike Critter, I do not have a particular desire for such a being to blame, or absence of one to blame, I just know that they would BE to blame.
[/quote]

Did you answer the original question or just comcment on critters response? I am not sure.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 10, 2012 09:03AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:21, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:05, acesover wrote:
Would you want there to be a Supreme Being or would you prefetr that we are here by one big accident?
...
[/quote]

Being a person it's difficult not to project that sense of personhood onto the rest of existence when dealing with sentimental issues.

That said, would you really want all of existence to be at the whim of anyone, including yourself? Consider the chaos inherent to an existence where one plus one would be two or something else depending on the mood of the supreme being - which you can never know, predict or expect. What would be the basis of any expectations of the world in such a situation?

Once you put limits on the caprice of your posited supreme being you are also presuming to take on a role which permits you to be more than your supreme being. So, my vote is "no" to all such models... I'm simply not that arrogant.
[/quote]

That is all well aand wonderful as are all yor posts. Did you answer the question of the original post?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 10, 2012 09:05AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:35, mastermindreader wrote:
It's not an either/or proposition, though. What if we are here because a Supreme Being had one big accident?
[/quote]

Be cause sby their very nature Supreme Beings don't have accidents. Now can you answer the question. or just add another clever response that has nothing to do with the original question?
Message: Posted by: DiabolusMagic (Jun 10, 2012 09:06AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 08:37, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 08:18, DiabolusMagic wrote:
My answer would be neither. We, as magicians, should know better than anyone that everything has an explanation, and it's never supernatural.
[/quote]
We're not discussing "what is," but rather "what you would prefer."

If not 'supreme being' and not 'cosmic happenstance' (aka accident), what 'third option' are you describing when you say, "Neither"?
[/quote]

Basically, just as you can't classify evolution as an "accident" because it follows a distinct and observable pattern you cannot assume that the universe is an accident either because unlike evolution which we can observed over a long period cosmic changes and processes that may explain further the true workings of the cosmos may take place over such incredibly long span of time that they will remain unobserved.

In other words, "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't". We just don't (any may never) know what that method is.
Message: Posted by: Bill Nuvo (Jun 10, 2012 09:09AM)
No I would not want there to be a surpreme being.

Because all evidence thus far suggests that the universe has done fine without one and I wouldn't want to muck things up :)
Message: Posted by: Bill Hilly (Jun 10, 2012 09:34AM)
It's not (just) that I'm too lazy to write so resort to copy and paste, but these three posts are how I feel most of the time:

[quote]On 2012-06-10 00:11, critter wrote:
Part of me wants there to be a supreme being, so there's someone to be mad at.
Part of me doesn't want there to be a supreme being, so there's no one to be mad at.[/quote]

[quote]On 2012-06-10 05:10, stoneunhinged wrote:
Not tough for me to answer. I really, truly wish there was a supreme being, and I truly wish that he or she or it was a benevolent being, and it would give me great comfort to know that I might be reunited with loved ones who have passed away.

That's what I would like to believe.[/quote]

[quote]On 2012-06-10 09:54, TomBoleware wrote:
I say, supreme being. IF he/she/it (I call him God) were fair to all. If he kept things simple and the plan included everyone. The plan would need to include men, women, all races, children, the blind, the deaf, the poor, the rich, the uneducated, and all the members of the Café. And if you didn't need a lawyer to understand the contract because it simply read, "just trust me." In exchange for that trust I would be guaranteed peace of mind forever. Now that would be a deal. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 10, 2012 09:44AM)
I am a believer, but this is a loaded question.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 10, 2012 09:46AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 10:06, DiabolusMagic wrote:...
Basically, just as you can't classify evolution as an "accident" because ...
[/quote]

Basically - evolution occurs as the environment/context changes in ways that are unplanned, unexpected ... so "accident" pretty much sums us the process of "shi* happens and those which happen to be slightly better at getting through it have better chances of passing on their genes to the next generation"

Consider one of the human experiments in selective breeding for tameness in foxes and getting droopy eared and droopy tailed animals in the process - no plan for the ears it just happened.

Any sense of "plan" is a perception on the part of someone looking at a collection of data that has no relevance to those individuals who experienced all that change over time.
Message: Posted by: DiabolusMagic (Jun 10, 2012 11:33AM)
I never said "plan". I said there was a method and that things happen for a reason. As you just stated, the reason in evolution is adaption. And even your example of "**** happens" is flawed in the context of evolution because environmental changes that lead to adaption are not random or accidental themselves and occur for a reason.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 10, 2012 11:41AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 12:33, DiabolusMagic wrote:
I never said "plan". I said there was a method and that things happen for a reason. As you just stated, the reason in evolution is adaption. And even your example of "**** happens" is flawed in the context of evolution because environmental changes that lead to adaption are not random or accidental themselves and occur for a reason.
[/quote]
That sounds very subjective.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 10, 2012 11:42AM)
[divided post] What do you mean by "a reason"--beyond simple cause and effect?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 10, 2012 11:54AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 12:33, DiabolusMagic wrote:
... environmental changes that lead to adaption are not random or accidental themselves and occur for a reason.
[/quote]

You appear to be conflating the notion of "reason" as motivation/purpose with "process that we know a little bit about but cannot accurately predict" such as hurricanes and earthquakes and weather.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 10, 2012 01:23PM)
I'd have to know more about this "Supreme Being." Does she/he/it interact with us in any way? Does she/he/it have requirements for us (both in the here and the hereafter)?

Ron
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 10, 2012 01:24PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:36, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:32, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:11, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:56, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:45, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
Who said we are here by accident? The fact that we are even disucussing this on a computer is the the result of millions of years of evolution. That's no accident.
[/quote]

Does this post express a belief?
[/quote]

Why are you so intent on saying atheists have a belief? We don't have a belief. Get over it.
[/quote]

Actually, I'll put it in the form of a question. A yes/no question, even. Maybe our difference is entirely semantic.

Let's say someone says, "There is no God." Do you believe that person has made a true statement?
[/quote]

Let's say somone says that there is no Santa. Is that person making a true statement?
[/quote]

I don't blame you for not wanting to answer.
[/quote]

It sounds like you learned indoctrination at the same church as mine. Are you the one knocking on my door on the weekends telling me you have "good news"?
[/quote]

I'm the one asking you a very simple yes/no question. If you can't or won't answer it, you really have no cause for complaining that I'm misconstruing your position.
[/quote]

What exactly is your question?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 10, 2012 01:28PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 14:24, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:36, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:32, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:11, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 02:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:56, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:45, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
Who said we are here by accident? The fact that we are even disucussing this on a computer is the the result of millions of years of evolution. That's no accident.
[/quote]

Does this post express a belief?
[/quote]

Why are you so intent on saying atheists have a belief? We don't have a belief. Get over it.
[/quote]

Actually, I'll put it in the form of a question. A yes/no question, even. Maybe our difference is entirely semantic.

Let's say someone says, "There is no God." Do you believe that person has made a true statement?
[/quote]

Let's say somone says that there is no Santa. Is that person making a true statement?
[/quote]

I don't blame you for not wanting to answer.
[/quote]

It sounds like you learned indoctrination at the same church as mine. Are you the one knocking on my door on the weekends telling me you have "good news"?
[/quote]

I'm the one asking you a very simple yes/no question. If you can't or won't answer it, you really have no cause for complaining that I'm misconstruing your position.
[/quote]

What exactly is your question?
[/quote]

If someone says, "There is no God," do you believe that person has made a true statement?
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 10, 2012 01:54PM)
Lobowof, I answered that wuestion with a comment that perhaps didn't satisy you. I think if someone say's there "is no God", they believe that because either believe there is no evidence of a god, or perhthey haven't researched the issue enough. Either way, they are making a true statement as far as what they feel to be true. If you say there IS a god, are YOU making a true statemnet, even though you have no proof?
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 10, 2012 01:54PM)
Lobowof, I answered that question with a comment that perhaps didn't satisfy you. I think if someone say's there "is no God", they believe that because they either believe there is no evidence of a god, or perhaps haven't researched the issue enough. Either way, they are making a true statement as far as what they feel to be true. If you say there IS a god, are YOU making a true statemnet, even though you have no proof?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 10, 2012 02:03PM)
It's a yes or no question. I'm pretty sure your comment didn't answer it. I don't care why you believe someone else might believe it's true or false, and I don't care about what the person "feels" to be true. A crazy person might feel that the statement that he's Abraham Lincoln is true; that doesn't make it true. It's not a trick question, and it's not a difficult question:

Do [i]you[/i] believe that the statement "There is no God" is a true statement?
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 10, 2012 02:31PM)
What kind of serious question is answered with a yes or no? How about anwering MY question with a yes or no, and I'll respond in kind.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 10, 2012 02:37PM)
Well, for example, your first non-answer was about the Tooth Fairy, so here's a good example. If someone said, "There's no such thing as the Tooth Fairy," and you asked me if I believed that statement is true, I'd say yes.

What kind of serious question is answered with a yes or no? All kinds. Including the very one I asked. I strongly suspect that if you asked any theist here if he/she believes the statement "There is no God" is true, that theist would have no trouble answering "No.". It's not an essay question; you either believe the statement "There is no God" is true, or you don't.

I can see that I posed it in the right thread, though!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 10, 2012 02:52PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 08:18, DiabolusMagic wrote:
My answer would be neither. We, as magicians, should know better than anyone that everything has an explanation, and it's never supernatural.
[/quote]

That really underlies a problem that many magicians have. They think that because they are magicians they automatically understand science, philosophy, religion and everything else.

Simply knowing how to do magic tricks qualifies you to do those magic tricks. It does not automatically make you an expert in metaphysics, philosophy, science, the paranormal, or anything else for that matter.

"There is no god!"

"How do you know that?"

"Because I know that you can do a color change with a double lift."

Just because something may not be readily explainable by natural means does not automatically mean that there is trickery, fraud or credulity at work. Only pseudo-skeptics think that way.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 10, 2012 02:57PM)
One could also mention that there are a variety of sciences. I have a fair working knowledge of my science, but little knowledge of quantum physics.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 10, 2012 03:01PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 10:05, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 01:35, mastermindreader wrote:
It's not an either/or proposition, though. What if we are here because a Supreme Being had one big accident?
[/quote]

Be cause sby their very nature Supreme Beings don't have accidents. Now can you answer the question. or just add another clever response that has nothing to do with the original question?
[/quote]

Oh, I was unaware that you understood the "very nature" of Supreme Beings.

My bad.

But if that "very nature" means a fair and loving deity that doesn't order the destruction of those who hold other gods before him (which pretty much rules out the God of the Old Testament,) then, yes, I wouldn't mind that.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 10, 2012 04:24PM)
I don't believe there is a tooth fairy.

Just sayin'.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 10, 2012 04:35PM)
Jeff-

Well you might as well quit putting teeth under your pillow 'cause she doesn't believe in you anymore either. You've got to believe for this stuff to work. Remember what almost happened to Tinker Belle?

For what it's worth, though, I put my old set of dentures under my pillow hoping I could score some big bucks, but all she left me was a tube of Polident.
Message: Posted by: Bill Hilly (Jun 10, 2012 05:10PM)
[quote]On 2012-06-10 17:24, stoneunhinged wrote:
I don't believe there is a tooth fairy.

Just sayin'.[/quote]
At least you believe there's a Santa.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 10, 2012 05:10PM)
Then there was the bully who left other kids' teeth under his pillow...
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Jun 10, 2012 06:16PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:05, acesover wrote:
Would you want there to be a Supreme Being or would you prefetr that we are here by one big accident?

I have thougth about asking this as a two part question. The second part of the question is obvious. WHY?

Not sure if this would be considered a poll or a question.

Anyway here is my answer.

I would opt for the supreme being deal. The reason is that I hope there is more than just this.

Not looking for a debate here just curious about what you would prefer and if possible answer why. Just don't want to start a debate with the why. So don't answer the why if you are going to debate.
[/quote]

Me too- who wouldn't? That is how all of this started in the first place. It is OK to whistle in the dark, just don't expect a response you are going to appreciate....

Jim
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 10, 2012 06:22PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr7OLKVKrVA
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 10, 2012 10:41PM)
Did I really belive that people would answer the question posed?
Answer: I hoped so but did not think it would happen. A few did. Thanks for that I was just curious.

A few answered but then it went off on a debate again. Isn't that a surprise here on the Café? :)
The thing is I was pretty sure of those who would go off on a tangent or derail the topic. No real surprises there.

No one asked what kind of Supreme Being you wanted. No one asked if you believed in a Supreme Being or not. No one asked you to put all sorts of limitations on this made up supreme being. In other words no one asked you to build a supreme being.

It is like asking, would you pick up a 100 dollar bill if you saw it lying in the street? And the answers come back: Not if it was on fire and I had just spilled gasoline on myself. Or not if it was surrounded by rattle snakes. Ad nauseum.

It wasn't a trick question. Just a question. Not even asking what your beliefs are. Just a question asking would you...(read original post)

Seems like a lot of people want to create their own supreme being...is that ironic or what?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 10, 2012 10:54PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 17:35, mastermindreader wrote:
Jeff-

Well you might as well quit putting teeth under your pillow 'cause she doesn't believe in you anymore either. You've got to believe for this stuff to work. Remember what almost happened to Tinker Belle?

For what it's worth, though, I put my old set of dentures under my pillow hoping I could score some big bucks, but all she left me was a tube of Polident.
[/quote]

LOL!!!!!!

I SIMPLY ADORE how two threads now are evolving into dentistry, my second favourite subject

In fact, spirituality, magic and dentistry may easily cause me to cyber hug you all!!

Good root canal to all!

Kam
p.s I am the tooth fairy
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 10, 2012 10:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 18:10, Steve_Mollett wrote:
Then there was the bully who left other kids' teeth under his pillow...
[/quote]

And this is why I love you Mr Mollett lol!!

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 10, 2012 11:03PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:05, acesover wrote:
Would you want there to be a Supreme Being or would you prefetr that we are here by one big accident?

I have thougth about asking this as a two part question. The second part of the question is obvious. WHY?

Not sure if this would be considered a poll or a question.

Anyway here is my answer.

I would opt for the supreme being deal. The reason is that I hope there is more than just this.

Not looking for a debate here just curious about what you would prefer and if possible answer why. Just don't want to start a debate with the why. So don't answer the why if you are going to debate.
[/quote]

In answer to your question acesover...

I would prefer there to be a Supreme Being.

Why? Because it offers me a Supreme Power to feel unified under with others who may have diverse thoughts, opinions, and backgrounds.

But most importantly, it gives me a reason to sustain integrity when no-one is watching me. A Supreme Being-less society does not consider a crime a crime, unless you get caught doing it....

A Supreme Being allows for us to be responsible for our own actions, to take account of our own actions since we are going to be brought to a reckoning when we die.

"O SON OF BEING! Bring thyself to account each day ere thou art summoned to a reckoning; for death, unheralded, shall come upon thee and thou shalt be called to give account for thy deeds." - Baha'u'llah

Kam
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 10, 2012 11:13PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-11 00:03, kambiz wrote:

But most importantly, it gives me a reason to sustain integrity when no-one is watching me.
[/quote]

That's an interesting take. My inclination is the exact opposite - in a society with a supreme being, it's never the case that nobody is watching. And since by one definition, integrity is what you do when nobody is watching...
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 10, 2012 11:20PM)
Well in that case then Lobo, I agree with you. A Supreme Being ensures I sustain integrity (full stop) :)


Kam
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 10, 2012 11:49PM)
Ummmm...
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 10, 2012 11:56PM)
Maybe I misunderstood you?
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 11, 2012 12:12AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 15:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It's a yes or no question. I'm pretty sure your comment didn't answer it. I don't care why you believe someone else might believe it's true or false, and I don't care about what the person "feels" to be true. A crazy person might feel that the statement that he's Abraham Lincoln is true; that doesn't make it true. It's not a trick question, and it's not a difficult question:

Do [i]you[/i] believe that the statement "There is no God" is a true statement?
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 11, 2012 12:13AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:05, acesover wrote:

Anyway here is my answer.

I would opt for the supreme being deal. The reason is that I hope there is more than just this.

[/quote]

Not sure why you think that if there is a "Supreme Being" that there would be more than just this. Just because there might be a higher power is no guarantee that we get anything more than this life. So best to live it as if this is the only one we get.

So in answer to your question it doesn't matter to me if there is a god or isn't. Knowing for certain of its existence wouldn't change how I am living my life on iota.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 11, 2012 12:16AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 17:35, mastermindreader wrote:
Jeff-

Well you might as well quit putting teeth under your pillow 'cause she doesn't believe in you anymore either. You've got to believe for this stuff to work. Remember what almost happened to Tinker Belle?

For what it's worth, though, I put my old set of dentures under my pillow hoping I could score some big bucks, but all she left me was a tube of Polident.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 11, 2012 12:18AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 17:35, mastermindreader wrote:
Jeff-

Well you might as well quit putting teeth under your pillow 'cause she doesn't believe in you anymore either. You've got to believe for this stuff to work. Remember what almost happened to Tinker Belle?

For what it's worth, though, I put my old set of dentures under my pillow hoping I could score some big bucks, but all she left me was a tube of Polident.
[/quote]

A tube of Polident is better than waking up the next morning and finding nothing. That stuff isn't cheap...lol.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 11, 2012 12:20AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-11 01:13, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:05, acesover wrote:

Anyway here is my answer.

I would opt for the supreme being deal. The reason is that I hope there is more than just this.

[/quote]

Not sure why you think that if there is a "Supreme Being" that there would be more than just this. Just because there might be a higher power is no guarantee that we get anything more than this life. So best to live it as if this is the only one we get.

So in answer to your question it doesn't matter to me if there is a god or isn't. Knowing for certain of its existence wouldn't change how I am living my life on iota.
[/quote]


...and this is where we are at a crossroads Payne.

I totally agree with you in that it is "best we live it as if this is the only one we get"

So how do you define what is best for you? Is it just what gives you enjoyment and pleasure?

This is a critical question, no?

Kam
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 11, 2012 12:25AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-11 01:12, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 15:03, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It's a yes or no question. I'm pretty sure your comment didn't answer it. I don't care why you believe someone else might believe it's true or false, and I don't care about what the person "feels" to be true. A crazy person might feel that the statement that he's Abraham Lincoln is true; that doesn't make it true. It's not a trick question, and it's not a difficult question:

Do [i]you[/i] believe that the statement "There is no God" is a true statement?
[/quote]
[/quote]

I'll be happy to answer your question if you answer mine, but since I got mine out twice before you asked yours, and since you seem rather unwilling or unable to give a straight answer to a simple question, I don't think we can spot you one on credit.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 11, 2012 12:27AM)
Why do people who DON'T believe in God talk so much about Him? You don't have to answer just think about it though ok?


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 11, 2012 12:29AM)
I've also spent a lot of time talking about Batman.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 11, 2012 12:30AM)
I can see evidence of that critter...........ONLY JOKING!!!

:)

Kam
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 11, 2012 12:35AM)
Now, I'm not meaning that as flippantly as it may at first sound.
What I'm saying is that you don't have to believe something is real to think about it and have opinions on it.
I've read the Idiot's Guide to Sherlock Holmes. Holmes is interesting.
Religious history is also interesting.
How many people are still talking about the Greek and Roman gods in comparison with the numbers that still actually believe in them?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 11, 2012 12:36AM)
...well I agree with you critter (yay!!)

Religious evolution has put an end to believing in the Roman and Greek gods....hasn't it?

Kam
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 11, 2012 12:37AM)
You may have spoken about Batman a lot. However you have a high interest in the God topic. Like I said there is no need to answer---I just want those who don't believe to ask themselves why the need to discuss God so much. Maybe, just maybe it's NOT that you don't believe as much as you have not found Him yet? It just seems to me that there is a fascination with non-believers for God and I find it interesting. Very interesting.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 11, 2012 12:39AM)
Kam,
Not quite. I have friends who worship them. Not as many as I do friends who worship Norse and Celtic gods though.
I respect my Asatru and Druid homies.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 11, 2012 12:43AM)
Well, as with all evolution, there are those who defy it .....and it may be to their personal demise...

Giraffes have evolved into a long necked animal, but there are some who defy it and resultingly cant reach the leaves of the good stuff up top ;)

the good news is that humans have free will...

Kam
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 11, 2012 12:44AM)
Critter---it's not the same. Non-believer's even started their own group (athiest) Now there is no such name for those who do not believe in mythic gods. No there is an uncanny fascination with God among non-believers and I find it it quite fascinating (In the words of Spock). Live long and prosper.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 11, 2012 12:46AM)
Eric, in some ways I agree with you....the inner and last calling for all is the acknowledgment of a God

Kam
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 11, 2012 12:46AM)
God only attracts two kinds of people---those who believe and those who don't!


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 11, 2012 12:48AM)
Belief and non-belief all relies on definitions. In many ways, I'm convinced that the God that we try to define does not exist either.

Kam
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 11, 2012 12:52AM)
Most people aren't aware that I was raised Southern Baptist by a far-right family. I was even a hard-core creationist all the way through Junior High and the beginning of high school. I even remember plugging my ears when talk of evolution came up in school so that I wouldn't be "corrupted."
Well, this thread isn't about my beliefs anyway. Just some fun Critterivia there for ya'.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 11, 2012 12:56AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-11 01:44, The great Gumbini wrote:
Critter---it's not the same. Non-believer's even started their own group (athiest) Now there is no such name for those who do not believe in mythic gods. No there is an uncanny fascination with God among non-believers and I find it it quite fascinating (In the words of Spock). Live long and prosper.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

The term was first used be theists to (derogatorily) describe others, not a self-identifier.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 11, 2012 01:12AM)
I'm pretty sure that the atheists don't believe in the Greek or Roman gods either if it makes everyone feel better :)
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 11, 2012 09:00AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-11 01:27, The great Gumbini wrote:
Why do people who DON'T believe in God talk so much about Him? You don't have to answer just think about it though ok?


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

Religious belief is pervasive in the world. In the U.S. alone there are over 300,000 churches! It's on our money, in our music, in our pledge of allegiance, and some would even like to legislate based on religious teachings. So to the extent that one's beliefs inform their decisions, it has real world implications. It certainly is a topic worthy of discussion.

Ron
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 11, 2012 09:22AM)
Anyone care to answer the question of the original post?

We have done this discussion a lot of times. . Move along nothing to see here. Same old points made time after time after time.

Now back to the OP.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 11, 2012 09:48AM)
By the way.

HERE IS THE ORIGINAL POST:

Would you want there to be a Supreme Being or would you prefetr that we are here by one big accident?

I have thougth about asking this as a two part question. The second part of the question is obvious. WHY?

Not sure if this would be considered a poll or a question.

Anyway here is my answer.

I would opt for the supreme being deal. The reason is that I hope there is more than just this.

Not looking for a debate here just curious about what you would prefer and if possible answer why. Just don't want to start a debate with the why. So don't answer the why if you are going to debate.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 11, 2012 09:52AM)
It seems to me all have given their answer to the question of the original post but are now going off on one.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 11, 2012 09:53AM)
Kam,

We don't look to define God---we seek to KNOW Him. In a relationship we look to know one another and to find out more about the one we love. When people try to put God in a box conflict will occur. His ways are higher than ours. Yet we still try to know Him the best we can for one reason---we love Him. I have a personal relationship with Him and I am always trying to know Him more. As a result He draws closer to me and I learn more and more about Him and I'm glad I do. For those who don't know Him or believe in Him I feel sad for you because you are missing out on a relationship that will be like no other. Even if you don't believe in Him now at least keep seeking. A closed mouth won't get fed and a closed mind won't find answers.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 11, 2012 11:13AM)
Eric, in general I agree with your post above.

There is however a mysterious relationship between God, his chosen earthly Representatives, and humankind. The nature of that relationship, for me at least, is a fascinating exploration, filled with awe and wonder......

Good magic to you too my friend :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 11, 2012 12:33PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-11 01:52, critter wrote:
Most people aren't aware that I was raised Southern Baptist by a far-right family. I was even a hard-core creationist all the way through Junior High and the beginning of high school. I even remember plugging my ears when talk of evolution came up in school so that I wouldn't be "corrupted."
Well, this thread isn't about my beliefs anyway. Just some fun Critterivia there for ya'.
[/quote]

I feel your pain. I grew up in the Catholic church and was afraid to even have an impure though up till my mid 20's. It was a tough puberty. :)
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 11, 2012 04:24PM)
For the record, I too was brought up Catholic. Baptized in the Catholic church, went to Sunday school, received communion, confirmation - the whole thing.


Ron
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 12, 2012 12:13AM)
Please don't confuse being raised in ANY church with a real relationship with God. In fact I have found when I'm alone with God I feel the closest to Him. The best way to describe it is you are all by yourself yet you know you are not alone. Churches do a lot of good. But I know they can be in the way at times depending on the church you go to. I am fortunate I came to God before I ever sat in any sermon. Anyway get away with God for awhile and just see what happens.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 12, 2012 12:57AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-11 17:24, R.S. wrote:

For the record, I too was brought up Catholic. Baptized in the Catholic church, went to Sunday school, received communion, confirmation - the whole thing.

[/quote]

I guess I was fortunate. My mother was the religious one but she couldn't drive. My father was more apathetic than agnostic. He just wanted Sundays to himself and not waste it by going to church. So I was 25 before I ever attended a church service. And I must admit it was sort of hard to keep from laughing when I did. American Baptist. When the minister came out wading waist deep in the font behind the alter I almost lost it.

Probably a good thing I didn't go to church any earlier as I would have been a problem child. I ask far too many questions and saw through the whole scheme. I remember being six or seven when someone tried to explain the devil and hell to me. I told them that that was just stuff you told people to make them act good. I never bought it for a second.

Then of course when you get older you find out about other religions, a lot of them far older than the current ones. You start to put two and two together and come to the realization that they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. Consequently I don't suffer from guilt or shame so it's hard for religion to get a foothold in my life as I don't have any "sins" that I feel need to be somehow forgiving by an invisible father figure in the sky.

Life's been good so far for me. I've not suffered hardships nor difficult times so I've really never had reason to seek solace in some supernatural entity. I suppose if there was a god and it really wanted me to believe in it it would have provided me with a reason to do so. So far, I can't see how my life would be any better nor different if there was such an entity in it.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 12, 2012 08:42AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-11 12:13, kambiz wrote:
Eric, in general I agree with your post above.

There is however a mysterious relationship between God, his chosen earthly Representatives, and humankind. The nature of that relationship, for me at least, is a fascinating exploration, filled with awe and wonder......

Good magic to you too my friend :)

Kam
[/quote]

God chose no one to represent Him in these times. In case you have forgotten they choose to do so through Free Will. Some God may be pleased with and others not so much. Either way though they made the decisions not God.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 12, 2012 09:20AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 01:57, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-11 17:24, R.S. wrote:

For the record, I too was brought up Catholic. Baptized in the Catholic church, went to Sunday school, received communion, confirmation - the whole thing.

[/quote]

I guess I was fortunate. My mother was the religious one but she couldn't drive. My father was more apathetic than agnostic. He just wanted Sundays to himself and not waste it by going to church. So I was 25 before I ever attended a church service. And I must admit it was sort of hard to keep from laughing when I did. American Baptist. When the minister came out wading waist deep in the font behind the alter I almost lost it.

Probably a good thing I didn't go to church any earlier as I would have been a problem child. I ask far too many questions and saw through the whole scheme. I remember being six or seven when someone tried to explain the devil and hell to me. I told them that that was just stuff you told people to make them act good. I never bought it for a second.

Then of course when you get older you find out about other religions, a lot of them far older than the current ones. You start to put two and two together and come to the realization that they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. Consequently I don't suffer from guilt or shame so it's hard for religion to get a foothold in my life as I don't have any "sins" that I feel need to be somehow forgiving by an invisible father figure in the sky.

Life's been good so far for me. I've not suffered hardships nor difficult times so I've really never had reason to seek solace in some supernatural entity. I suppose if there was a god and it really wanted me to believe in it it would have provided me with a reason to do so. So far, I can't see how my life would be any better nor different if there was such an entity in it.
[/quote]

I can only say I am happy for you in that you feel that your life is going well. I am also happy for you that you have a not sinned. So in that respect you already know God somewhat but are not yet aware of it. You have done nothing to warrant displeasure with God other than to poke a little fun at Him here and from your post have lived a perfect and sin free life. You seem to be a shining example of a good christian minus the belief. That is if we can believe all tha stuff about a sinfree life that you say you have lifed. That is not for me to judge.


Your only flaw and I do find it a major one is tht you say you have no reason to seek God because you have not suffered any hard ships etc. If that would be your only reason for seeking God I am sorry to say you are probably lost already.

It would seem to me that you should have sought out God a long time ago for all the wonderful things that He has already bestowed on you in this life, if we can believe your story. However you seem to be doing it in reverse in that you would be seeking God for a favor because you have suffered a hardship and now need His assistance to help you throoughthis hardship. That is not seeking God. That is nothing more than seeking the good life until something goes wrong and then blame God for it Then to top it off ask for His help after shunning Him all of your life. How do you think that would turn out if it was a person that you slighted all your life and poked fun at them every chance you got? Then suddenly found yourself in need of their assistance for whatever reason after all thrse years because you fell on bad times and now want their help. Well I cannot answer for God but I can probably answer for most people if they were the one shunned and poked fun at. I think it would probably go something like this, "tough darts, that's a shame Payne". Suck it up, as they say, you reap what you sow.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 12, 2012 10:07AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 10:20, acesover wrote:

It would seem to me that you should have sought out God a long time ago for all the wonderful things that He has already bestowed on you in this life, if we can believe your story. However you seem to be doing it in reverse in that you would be seeking God for a favor because you have suffered a hardship and now need His assistance to help you throoughthis hardship. That is not seeking God. That is nothing more than seeking the good life until something goes wrong and then blame God for it Then to top it off ask for His help after shunning Him all of your life. How do you think that would turn out if it was a person that you slighted all your life and poked fun at them every chance you got? Then suddenly found yourself in need of their assistance for whatever reason after all thrse years because you fell on bad times and now want their help. Well I cannot answer for God but I can probably answer for most people if they were the one shunned and poked fun at. I think it would probably go something like this, "tough darts, that's a shame Payne". Suck it up, as they say, you reap what you sow.

[/quote]

Who said I was going to ask the great invisible sky daddy for anything if and when my life becomes filled with pain and adversity? It would be kind of silly for me to ask anything from something that doesn't exist. I'd get as much help and comfort from those Pink Unicorns on Alpha Centari than I would from the equally imaginary gods.

No, if I fall flat on my face I'll get through it on my own. No need to beg made up celestial entities for help. Life isn't fair and there are no promises and guarantees. I've gotten this far on my own. I'm pretty sure I'll finish the race under my own power as well.

But thanks for your concern.

As for the sin thing. It is quite true that I have never committed one. Since I'm not a devote of the faith the rules and regulations simply don't apply to me. Thus I can do all those things that are forbidden to followers of your faith without guilt or fear of admonishment. So I can happily eat Ham and Bacon, shellfish, wear poly-cotton blends, and do most anything I like on Saturday and Sunday without the slightest bit of guilt. :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 12, 2012 10:43AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 11:07, Payne wrote:
Since I'm not a devote of the faith the rules and regulations simply don't apply to me. Thus I can do all those things that are forbidden to followers of your faith without guilt or fear of admonishment. So I can happily eat Ham and Bacon, shellfish, wear poly-cotton blends, and do most anything I like on Saturday and Sunday without the slightest bit of guilt. :)
[/quote]

To say nothing of theft and murder!
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 12, 2012 10:48AM)
Payne, I think the problem with your acid wit with regard to religion is that people feel insulted. I am not a believer, but I don't feel that believers are beneath me in any way. In fact, I envy them. You say that you don't need any help. Well, I would like some; I just don't believe it's available. You seem pround of your lack of belief. I am disappointed by my inability to believe.

It's not important, but it interests me how two people with similar points of view seem to have such different points of view. You come across as angry, as if the existence of religious belief insults you personally. I truly don't think that's how you mean it, but that's how it comes across to me.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 12, 2012 11:37AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 11:07, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 10:20, acesover wrote:

It would seem to me that you should have sought out God a long time ago for all the wonderful things that He has already bestowed on you in this life, if we can believe your story. However you seem to be doing it in reverse in that you would be seeking God for a favor because you have suffered a hardship and now need His assistance to help you throoughthis hardship. That is not seeking God. That is nothing more than seeking the good life until something goes wrong and then blame God for it Then to top it off ask for His help after shunning Him all of your life. How do you think that would turn out if it was a person that you slighted all your life and poked fun at them every chance you got? Then suddenly found yourself in need of their assistance for whatever reason after all thrse years because you fell on bad times and now want their help. Well I cannot answer for God but I can probably answer for most people if they were the one shunned and poked fun at. I think it would probably go something like this, "tough darts, that's a shame Payne". Suck it up, as they say, you reap what you sow.

[/quote]

Who said I was going to ask the great invisible sky daddy for anything if and when my life becomes filled with pain and adversity? It would be kind of silly for me to ask anything from something that doesn't exist. I'd get as much help and comfort from those Pink Unicorns on Alpha Centari than I would from the equally imaginary gods.

No, if I fall flat on my face I'll get through it on my own. No need to beg made up celestial entities for help. Life isn't fair and there are no promises and guarantees. I've gotten this far on my own. I'm pretty sure I'll finish the race under my own power as well.

But thanks for your concern.

As for the sin thing. It is quite true that I have never committed one. Since I'm not a devote of the faith the rules and regulations simply don't apply to me. Thus I can do all those things that are forbidden to followers of your faith without guilt or fear of admonishment. So I can happily eat Ham and Bacon, shellfish, wear poly-cotton blends, and do most anything I like on Saturday and Sunday without the slightest bit of guilt. :)
[/quote]

OK lets answer your questions as you asked them You start off by saying Who said I was going to ask the great invisible, etc. etc... Did you forget what you posted originally? Here is a cut and paste of it: Life's been good so far for me. I've not suffered hardships nor difficult times so I've really never had reason to seek solace in some supernatural entity. Which by its wording if you had these haardships you would ask. But I am sure you will say that is not what you meant.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


This next part of your post is really off the wall you must admit. It makes for a horrible defense. Here it is as another cut and paste: As for the sin thing. It is quite true that I have never committed one. Since I'm not a devote of the faith the rules and regulations simply don't apply to me. Thus I can do all those things that are forbidden to followers of your faith without guilt or fear of admonishment. So I can happily eat Ham and Bacon, shellfish, wear poly-cotton blends, and do most anything I like on Saturday and Sunday without the slightest bit of guilt. :)


With this thought in mind as long as YOU feel that murder and robbery and lets throw in rape for good measure is not a sin or an offence this gives you the right to do these things. Well alrighty then. I can see now why you feel you hve done nothing wrong in your life. :) Just as an example in your defense Icanhear it now. Your honor I saw the watch lying on the counter of the jewerly store and I really believe in my heart tht if I took it there is nothing wrong with that.. The judge looks at you and says "OK I understand. NOT GUILTY. :) Next case". Joy breaks out in the courtroom with all of the defendants jumping up an down saying I thought it was ok to do that.
:dancing: <-----defendants Payne-------> :banana:

Thanks for your input on this topic Payne I think it goes a long way into seeing who you are.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 12, 2012 11:54AM)
Wow, you just love putting words in peoples mouths don't you?

Where did I say that I would break man's law? It's only the silly irrelevant list of sin's that I ignore. I don't steal because somebody's deity supposedly told some old guy on a mountain top that it was wrong. I don't steal because it's against man's law. Society eons ago figured out all by themselves that a flourishing and vibrant culture needed to maintain certain rules of conduct if it was going to survive. Societal evolution in action. This is how the golden rule eventually got worked out. Not because of some made up supernatural entity carved them in stone. But because people sat down and worked it out for themselves. Clever creatures we humans be.

I obey the laws of the land, the laws of man. The laws we vote on, reject or ammened as we move ever forward. I don't pay any attention to the completely irrevelant sins listed in ancient books.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jun 12, 2012 12:23PM)
[quote]On 2012-06-12 12:54, Payne wrote:
This is how the golden rule eventually got worked out. Not because of some made up supernatural entity carved them in stone. But because people sat down and worked it out for themselves.[/quote]
Of course, you cannot possibly be certain of this.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 12, 2012 12:57PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 11:48, stoneunhinged wrote:
Payne, I think the problem with your acid wit with regard to religion is that people feel insulted. I am not a believer, but I don't feel that believers are beneath me in any way. In fact, I envy them. You say that you don't need any help. Well, I would like some; I just don't believe it's available. You seem pround of your lack of belief. I am disappointed by my inability to believe.

It's not important, but it interests me how two people with similar points of view seem to have such different points of view. You come across as angry, as if the existence of religious belief insults you personally. I truly don't think that's how you mean it, but that's how it comes across to me.
[/quote]

I'm not angry. Some of my best friends are believers. It's just fun to yank their chains and upset the apple cart from time to time. Everybody needs a hobby. :)

Not even I believe half the stuff I write here. :)
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 12, 2012 01:00PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 13:23, S2000magician wrote:

[Of course, you cannot possibly be certain of this.

[/quote]

Of course not, but cultural anthropologists have done a lot of research in this regard. I'd trust their findings over a bunch of superstitious bronze age shepard's any day :)
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jun 12, 2012 01:15PM)
[quote]On 2012-06-12 14:00, Payne wrote:
[quote]On 2012-06-12 13:23, S2000magician wrote:
Of course, you cannot possibly be certain of this.[/quote]
I'd trust [cultural anthropologists'] findings over a bunch of superstitious bronze age shepard's any day :)[/quote]
Sounds like elitism to me. ;)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 12, 2012 01:28PM)
In response to Payne, acesover wrote:

[quote]With this thought in mind as long as YOU feel that murder and robbery and lets throw in rape for good measure is not a sin or an offence this gives you the right to do these things. Well alrighty then. I can see now why you feel you hve done nothing wrong in your life. Just as an example in your defense Icanhear it now. Your honor I saw the watch lying on the counter of the jewerly store and I really believe in my heart tht if I took it there is nothing wrong with that.. The judge looks at you and says "OK I understand. NOT GUILTY. Next case". Joy breaks out in the courtroom with all of the defendants jumping up an down saying I thought it was ok to do that. [/quote]

That has to be one of the most blatant examples of the straw man fallacy I have ever seen. Payne was very clearly referring to "sins" such as failing to observe the Sabbath, etc. He was clearly not implying that he was not bound by civil and/or criminal laws.

Payne certainly doesn't need me to defend him, but since you decided to use a court room analogy, and since I'm a former defense attorney, I can't resist. Therefore:

Legally speaking, your response was irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. Additionally, it assumes facts not in evidence and thus should be stricken from the record.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 12, 2012 01:39PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 14:15, S2000magician wrote:

Sounds like elitism to me. ;)

[/quote]

You say that as if it's a bad thing :)
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 12, 2012 01:40PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 14:28, mastermindreader wrote:

That has to be one of the most blatant examples of the straw man fallacy I have ever seen. Payne was very clearly referring to "sins" such as failing to observe the Sabbath, etc. He was clearly not implying that he was not bound by civil and/or criminal laws.

Payne certainly doesn't need me to defend him, but since you decided to use a court room analogy, and since I'm a former defense attorney, I can't resist. Therefore:

Legally speaking, your response was irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. Additionally, it assumes facts not in evidence and thus should be stricken from the record.
[/quote]

Thanks for the support!
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 12, 2012 01:45PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 12:54, Payne wrote:
Wow, you just love putting words in peoples mouths don't you?

Where did I say that I would break man's law? It's only the silly irrelevant list of sin's that I ignore. I don't steal because somebody's deity supposedly told some old guy on a mountain top that it was wrong. I don't steal because it's against man's law. Society eons ago figured out all by themselves that a flourishing and vibrant culture needed to maintain certain rules of conduct if it was going to survive. Societal evolution in action. This is how the golden rule eventually got worked out. Not because of some made up supernatural entity carved them in stone. But because people sat down and worked it out for themselves. Clever creatures we humans be.

I obey the laws of the land, the laws of man. The laws we vote on, reject or ammened as we move ever forward. I don't pay any attention to the completely irrevelant sins listed in ancient books.
[/quote]

As you are quite knowledble and obviously very opininated which of the 10 commandments do you feel besides the first are as you say and I quote, "silly irrelevant list of sin's"?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 12, 2012 01:46PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 12:54, Payne wrote:
Wow, you just love putting words in peoples mouths don't you?

Where did I say that I would break man's law? It's only the silly irrelevant list of sin's that I ignore. I don't steal because somebody's deity supposedly told some old guy on a mountain top that it was wrong. I don't steal because it's against man's law. Society eons ago figured out all by themselves that a flourishing and vibrant culture needed to maintain certain rules of conduct if it was going to survive. Societal evolution in action. This is how the golden rule eventually got worked out. Not because of some made up supernatural entity carved them in stone. But because people sat down and worked it out for themselves. Clever creatures we humans be.

I obey the laws of the land, the laws of man. The laws we vote on, reject or ammened as we move ever forward. I don't pay any attention to the completely irrevelant sins listed in ancient books.
[/quote]

By the way I did not put any words in your mouth I just quoted you. Then commented on your quotes.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jun 12, 2012 01:47PM)
[quote]On 2012-06-12 14:39, Payne wrote:
[quote]On 2012-06-12 14:15, S2000magician wrote:
Sounds like elitism to me. ;)[/quote]
You say that as if it's a bad thing :)[/quote]
A sure sign of a guilty conscience.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 12, 2012 01:59PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 14:28, mastermindreader wrote:
In response to Payne, acesover wrote:

[quote]With this thought in mind as long as YOU feel that murder and robbery and lets throw in rape for good measure is not a sin or an offence this gives you the right to do these things. Well alrighty then. I can see now why you feel you hve done nothing wrong in your life. Just as an example in your defense Icanhear it now. Your honor I saw the watch lying on the counter of the jewerly store and I really believe in my heart tht if I took it there is nothing wrong with that.. The judge looks at you and says "OK I understand. NOT GUILTY. Next case". Joy breaks out in the courtroom with all of the defendants jumping up an down saying I thought it was ok to do that. [/quote]

That has to be one of the most blatant examples of the straw man fallacy I have ever seen. Payne was very clearly referring to "sins" such as failing to observe the Sabbath, etc. He was clearly not implying that he was not bound by civil and/or criminal laws.

Payne certainly doesn't need me to defend him, but since you decided to use a court room analogy, and since I'm a former defense attorney, I can't resist. Therefore:

Legally speaking, your response was irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. Additionally, it assumes facts not in evidence and thus should be stricken from the record.
[/quote]

OK lets answer your post. you say: That has to be one of the most blatant examples of the straw man fallacy I have ever seen. Payne was very clearly referring to "sins" such as failing to observe the Sabbath, etc. He was clearly not implying that he was not bound by civil and/or criminal laws.

Now I say: You know this how? Have you conferred with Payne. Do you even represent Payne. NO!...Well remove this man fromthe court room he is out of order. WATCHING AS THEY ESCOURT YOU OUT.
I heaar the people in the courtroom mumbling, "that is what he gets for putting his nose where it does not belong".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next you say, "Payne certainly doesn't need me to defend him," STOP! THEN DON'T.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I say, Your honor is he new at this? As he stated facts not in evidence? But we have the posts of Mr. Payne right here that Acesover quoted. The judge looks and says, yes you are correct Acesover the mindreader is out of order the record stands. And so it goes another day in the days of our lives or is it as the world turns? Whatever, so it goes. :)

This is just if you want to play silly games.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 12, 2012 02:06PM)
LOL!!

Please cite where Payne stated that he did not recognize laws relating to murder, rape and theft.

That allegation is purely a product of your imagination. A strawman who doesn't exist.

But I am happy to leave the question to the jury. How many here feel that Payne stated that he was not obligated to obey civil or criminal laws?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jun 12, 2012 02:13PM)
[quote]On 2012-06-12 15:06, mastermindreader wrote:
LOL!!

Please cite where Payne stated that he did not recognize laws relating to murder, rape and theft.

That allegation is purely a product of your imagination. A strawman who doesn't exist.

But I am happy to leave the question to the jury. How many here feel that Payne stated that he was not obligated to obey civil or criminal laws?[/quote]
Rats! You removed your question about laying the groundwork for an insanity defense, and I was about to ask if that were one of those shovel-ready projects about which we've heard so much lately.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 12, 2012 02:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 15:06, mastermindreader wrote:
LOL!!

Please cite where Payne stated that he did not recognize laws relating to murder, rape and theft.

That allegation is purely a product of your imagination. A strawman who doesn't exist.

But I am happy to leave the question to the jury. How many here feel that Payne stated that he was not obligated to obey civil or criminal laws?
[/quote]

OK you asked for it. Here is his post his words: I can do all those things that are forbidden to followers of your faith without guilt or fear of admonishment.


Now why is that statement important? Because my faith has the 10 commandments that forbid certain things. Let me cite two of them. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. However Payne says again I quote: I can do all those things that are forbidden to followers of your faith without guilt or fear of admonishment Now according to Payne's post he does not have to bide by these laws . So there I cited it for you..
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 12, 2012 02:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 14:45, acesover wrote:

As you are quite knowledble and obviously very opininated which of the 10 commandments do you feel besides the first are as you say and I quote, "silly irrelevant list of sin's"?

[/quote]

1.You shall have no other gods before me.

Clearly a violation of the first amendment of the constitution promising freedom of and from religion. No reason to obey this "law" if not an adherent.

2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

This seems to me to limit freedom of speech and self expression. So again one is not bound to obey it unless one proscribes to this belief system. Plus only the Muslims seem to take this one to heart as every Christian church I've ever been in is chuck full of graven images.

3.You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

Another clear violation of the First Amendment. Safe to ignore.

4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Oops, that pesky Freedom of Religion thing again. Blue laws were struck down all over the country ages ago. I bet even you don't keep this one as it was intended. Unless you've never gone shopping or to a movie on the weekend.

5.Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

Generally a good idea. Unless you're parents are jerks or beat you. But in no way a law so it can be safely ignored without fear of reprisal.

6.You shall not murder.

Now this is a law, but not exclusive to Abrahamic religions. The code of Hammurabi which predates your precious 10 commandments by a thousand years or so covered this as well.

7.You shall not commit adultery.

In most states no longer a prosecutable crime. Sufficient reason for a divorce. but no one is getting sent up the river for it these days. so commit at your own discretion. :)

8.You shall not steal.

Only legal if you're a Wall Street Banker. The rest of us can and will be convicted if apprehended. Again not original to the 10 Commandments as it too can be found in older laws laid down by other gods, deities and kings.

9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Only a crime in certain circumstances. But generally a good idea. Do it only if you're certain you can get away with it :)

10.You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s

Not illegal in the slightest. In fact our entire economy is based on coveting our neighbors possessions. We'd be in a world of hurt if we made this into a law.

So all in all most of the 10 Commandments really aren't at all applicable. The two that are are already covered by our legal system. But for the most part other than theft and murder they can be ignored with little fear of reprisal or punishment.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 12, 2012 02:38PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 15:35, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 15:06, mastermindreader wrote:
LOL!!

Please cite where Payne stated that he did not recognize laws relating to murder, rape and theft.

That allegation is purely a product of your imagination. A strawman who doesn't exist.

But I am happy to leave the question to the jury. How many here feel that Payne stated that he was not obligated to obey civil or criminal laws?
[/quote]

OK you asked for it. Here is his post his words: I can do all those things that are forbidden to followers of your faith without guilt or fear of admonishment.


Now why is that statement important? Because my faith has the 10 commandments that forbid certain things. Let me cite two of them. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. However Payne says again I quote: I can do all those things that are forbidden to followers of your faith without guilt or fear of admonishment Now according to Payne's post he does not have to bide by these laws . So there I cited it for you..
[/quote]

Give me a G
Give me a U
Give me a I
Give me a L
Give me a T
Give me a Y.

What does it spell?
This part will get me in trouble...the blonde in the jury box looks confused and says nothing... :confused:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 12, 2012 02:45PM)
Payne-

You noted "9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

I believe this might include acesover's false allegation that you feel no obligation to honor laws against murder, rape and theft.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 12, 2012 02:51PM)
Payne says: So all in all most of the 10 Commandments really aren't at all applicable. The two that are are already covered by our legal system. But for the most part other than theft and murder they can be ignored with little fear of reprisal or punishment.

Well anyway Payne hopes this is true. He won't know "for sure" for a while.

He is in the twenty some percent In the U.S. that do not believe in God. All I know is that if I were Payne and believed what he believes in I would just go on living my life and not trash talk others religious beliefs. I keep hearing him say that people are trying to convert him. Well it is not coming from The Café. Lots of opinions both ways but I see no push to convert anyone to either belief.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 12, 2012 02:53PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 15:45, mastermindreader wrote:
Payne-

You noted "9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

I believe this might include acesover's false allegation that you feel no obligation to honor laws against murder, rape and theft.
[/quote]

Stop picking on Acesover. He is really a nice guy.

signed

Anonymous lol :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 12, 2012 04:26PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 15:53, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 15:45, mastermindreader wrote:
Payne-

You noted "9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

I believe this might include acesover's false allegation that you feel no obligation to honor laws against murder, rape and theft.
[/quote]

Stop picking on Acesover. He is really a nice guy.

signed

Anonymous lol :)
[/quote]

Okay. I'm sure he is. So are most of the folks here. (Even the ones I argue with!)
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 12, 2012 04:28PM)
Not me. I'm a curmudgeon-in-training.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 12, 2012 04:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 15:51, acesover wrote:

He is in the twenty some percent In the U.S. that do not believe in God.
[/quote]

That statistic is a bit misleading, I think, because many average people don't really make the fine distinctions we've been making here between atheism, theism, agnosticism, deism, etc. The poll I believe you were referring to showed that 20% of the respondents, when asked for their religion, selected "atheist." But on a later question, 20% of those self-described atheists answered "yes" to the question "Do you believe in God?" (!)

Some people are atheists and agnostics because they have seriously reasoned out their personal beliefs. A lot of people, though, are a lot more casual than that and are likely to say that they are atheist or agnostic when all they really mean is that they don't believe in organized religion, don't go to church, or really haven't given much serious thought to the matter.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 12, 2012 04:39PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 17:28, critter wrote:
Not me. I'm a curmudgeon-in-training.
[/quote]

You're progressing well, grasshopper, but generally your remarks aren't nasty or cutting enough.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 12, 2012 05:26PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 15:37, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 14:45, acesover wrote:

As you are quite knowledble and obviously very opininated which of the 10 commandments do you feel besides the first are as you say and I quote, "silly irrelevant list of sin's"?

[/quote]

1.You shall have no other gods before me.

Clearly a violation of the first amendment of the constitution promising freedom of and from religion. No reason to obey this "law" if not an adherent.

2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

This seems to me to limit freedom of speech and self expression. So again one is not bound to obey it unless one proscribes to this belief system. Plus only the Muslims seem to take this one to heart as every Christian church I've ever been in is chuck full of graven images.

3.You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

Another clear violation of the First Amendment. Safe to ignore.

4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Oops, that pesky Freedom of Religion thing again. Blue laws were struck down all over the country ages ago. I bet even you don't keep this one as it was intended. Unless you've never gone shopping or to a movie on the weekend.

5.Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

Generally a good idea. Unless you're parents are jerks or beat you. But in no way a law so it can be safely ignored without fear of reprisal.

6.You shall not murder.

Now this is a law, but not exclusive to Abrahamic religions. The code of Hammurabi which predates your precious 10 commandments by a thousand years or so covered this as well.

7.You shall not commit adultery.

In most states no longer a prosecutable crime. Sufficient reason for a divorce. but no one is getting sent up the river for it these days. so commit at your own discretion. :)

8.You shall not steal.

Only legal if you're a Wall Street Banker. The rest of us can and will be convicted if apprehended. Again not original to the 10 Commandments as it too can be found in older laws laid down by other gods, deities and kings.

9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Only a crime in certain circumstances. But generally a good idea. Do it only if you're certain you can get away with it :)

10.You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s

Not illegal in the slightest. In fact our entire economy is based on coveting our neighbors possessions. We'd be in a world of hurt if we made this into a law.

So all in all most of the 10 Commandments really aren't at all applicable. The two that are are already covered by our legal system. But for the most part other than theft and murder they can be ignored with little fear of reprisal or punishment.
[/quote]

3 of the 10 commandments are actually laws, but out of those 3 one is questionable. #6. Though shalt not kill. If a criminal breaks into my house and points a gun to my childs head and promises to shoot him, have I commited a sin if I kill him first?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 12, 2012 05:35PM)
Jeff-

Not to worry. Nowadays the generally accepted translation for that commandment is "You shall not murder." And murder, of course, is the unlawful taking of the life of another which wouldn't be the case in the example you cited.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 12, 2012 05:43PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 18:35, mastermindreader wrote:
Jeff-

Not to worry. Nowadays the generally accepted translation for that commandment is "You shall not murder." And murder, of course, is the unlawful taking of the life of another which wouldn't be the case in the example you cited.

Good thoughts,

Bob
[/quote]

Man's law condones self defense, but the reliligious interpretation is fuzzy at best in several religions, whether it's interpreted as flying planes into buildings is not only but what god wants, or a Christian who believes that killing an aboortion doctor is what the lord wants. Mad made laws are specific. Religious rules are open to what whatever interpretation a person believes it means.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 12, 2012 05:50PM)
Of course. I'm just telling you how it's generally interpreted. If it literally meant "Thou shalt not kill," how would all those holy wars and the Crusades have been justified?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 12, 2012 05:50PM)
Jeff-

You have lawyers in your family, and you don't think that man-made laws are subject to all sorts of interpretation?
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 12, 2012 07:18PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 01:13, The great Gumbini wrote:
Please don't confuse being raised in ANY church with a real relationship with God. In fact I have found when I'm alone with God I feel the closest to Him. The best way to describe it is you are all by yourself yet you know you are not alone. Churches do a lot of good. But I know they can be in the way at times depending on the church you go to. I am fortunate I came to God before I ever sat in any sermon. Anyway get away with God for awhile and just see what happens.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

Please don't confuse being atheist with never having had a proper religious upbringing, never having attended the "right" church, or never having had a sense of a "real relationship" with God. One can fully believe something and then, after a re-examination of those beliefs, cease believing. The fact that many atheists are former preachers/ministers/priests etc., testifies to that fact.


Ron
:)
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 07:36PM)
Evolution dictates that when all trees grow to a level unreachable by the giraffe, it's the striving to continue to reach those heights, which prompts the gradual progress and development of the species to adapt to the new environment.

To categorize Gods educational framework to be exempt from that makes no rational sense. To be a preacher/minister in the church for so long, only to realize that some of the stuff therein just doesn't make sense any more, should, even to those who are lesser-developed mammals, prompt one to seek further clarification and extend oneself to ask "why?".....and thereby seek the truth.....
......not to just give up on the source of education altogether.

When you go to school Ron, you sit in grade 5 for 20 years, learn again and again the same thing, I'm not surprised you're tired of it, but giving up in the entire concept of education altogether, makes no rational sense.

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 12, 2012 07:42PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 18:50, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Jeff-

You have lawyers in your family, and you don't think that man-made laws are subject to all sorts of interpretation?
[/quote]

Everything is open to "some" interpretation, such as someone flashes a gun in my presence and is incoherently rambling about how how some people deserve to die, as opposed to someone waiting outside an abortion clinic with a bomb or gun because they feel their god would want them to kill a doctor, nurses, and patients inside a clinic. Actual law can only be interpreted in so many ways, but the Bible can be interpreted in as many ways as there are people who read it.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 12, 2012 07:43PM)
[quote]
When you go to school Ron, you sit in grade 5 for 20 years, learn again and again the same thing, I'm not surprised you're tired of it, but giving up in the entire concept of education altogether, makes no rational sense.
[/quote]
Giving up a previous educational paradigm makes sense if you learn and embrace a new paradigm.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 07:50PM)
Now onto the real subject of evolution. So, are we therefore genuinely saying that the evolution of man-made laws has created such a wonderful society?

Evolution has given rise to what Payne has written?

To commit adultery "at your own discretion"?
To bear false witness "only if you can get away with it"?

Man o man.....there is no clearer light of day than the differences I see here. And this what I wrote in my original response to the OP. A Supreme Being provides education directly catered for the era/age that we live in. From there on in, that education elevates our consciousness to a point that we are aware at all times and under all conditions what our responsibilities are, not just to ourselves but to our fellow co-habitants on this earth.

"Truthfulness is the foundation of all human virtues"......not recognizing how that simple truth, which is not a law of any land, can contribute towards a more prosperous and developing society, again, makes no rational sense. Every societal problem you can think of has lack of truthfulness at its core. So, Payne, don't be truthful, because you can get away with it, but know that at least you are living a good life.

It's sobering times indeed.....I'm off to educate neighbourhoods on what the man-made evolving laws have forgotten to educate them about.

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 07:53PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 20:43, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
When you go to school Ron, you sit in grade 5 for 20 years, learn again and again the same thing, I'm not surprised you're tired of it, but giving up in the entire concept of education altogether, makes no rational sense.
[/quote]
Giving up a previous educational paradigm makes sense if you learn and embrace a new paradigm.
[/quote]

A God-less educational paradigm has the consequences outlined in my previous post Steve, look up and hopefully you will see my concerns :)

.....and no jokes about my school bully putting my teeth under my pillow please ....lol

Kam
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 12, 2012 07:54PM)
All codes of law are man-made, and societies/individuals have, throughout history, picked and chosen what suited them and their social fabric, like diners at a buffet.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 08:01PM)
Yes I agree with Steve, and that's the problem. While no one is watching I can screw anyone over that I like...

I don't like this new paradigm....let's try again

Kam
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 12, 2012 08:02PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 20:53, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 20:43, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
When you go to school Ron, you sit in grade 5 for 20 years, learn again and again the same thing, I'm not surprised you're tired of it, but giving up in the entire concept of education altogether, makes no rational sense.
[/quote]
Giving up a previous educational paradigm makes sense if you learn and embrace a new paradigm.
[/quote]

A God-less educational paradigm has the consequences outlined in my previous post Steve, look up and hopefully you will see my concerns :)

.....and no jokes about my school bully putting my teeth under my pillow please ....lol

Kam
[/quote]

Your concerns are understandable though, to my mind, quaint. Since I dismiss the existence of divinities as human-born myth, I see a 'god-based educational paradigm' as philosophically unnecessary. I prefer the paradigm of humanity looking at the benefits/deficits of their laws rationally and amending them to promote the greatest benefit for the greatest number and the defense of all within the society those laws are written to serve.
Ultimately, we are responsible for our own actions and our ability to interact in harmony--no gods/goddesses required.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 08:03PM)
Sounds good enough for me Steve, let's start something like that together.....

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 08:06PM)
.....but tell me something, how are we going to monitor the concerns about truthfulness and its impact on society?

Kam
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 12, 2012 08:06PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:01, kambiz wrote:
Yes I agree with Steve, and that's the problem. While no one is watching I can screw anyone over that I like...

I don't like this new paradigm....let's try again

Kam
[/quote]

Would you have dishonesty made a crime?
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 12, 2012 08:06PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLgYAHHkPFs
:cool:
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 12, 2012 08:07PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 20:36, kambiz wrote:
Evolution dictates that when all trees grow to a level unreachable by the giraffe, it's the striving to continue to reach those heights, which prompts the gradual progress and development of the species to adapt to the new environment.

To categorize Gods educational framework to be exempt from that makes no rational sense. To be a preacher/minister in the church for so long, only to realize that some of the stuff therein just doesn't make sense any more, should, even to those who are lesser-developed mammals, prompt one to seek further clarification and extend oneself to ask "why?".....and thereby seek the truth.....
......not to just give up on the source of education altogether.

When you go to school Ron, you sit in grade 5 for 20 years, learn again and again the same thing, I'm not surprised you're tired of it, but giving up in the entire concept of education altogether, makes no rational sense.

Kam
[/quote]

Hold on Kam - to set the record straight, I was in grade 5 for 12 years... NOT 20!! :)

Seriously though, that's a poor analogy. Use the Santa Claus analogy instead. Kids are taught to believe in Santa Claus from a young age. In fact, you might say they have no say in it. As kids, they simply accept and absorb as fact that which their parents (and society) instill in them. And guess what? They REALLY believe in Santa! But then, when they get older, they start thinking for themselves. They see inconsistencies (multiple Santa's in the same mall perhaps, or the problem of loading 1 billion presents into something the size of a station wagon). They put 2 and 2 together and then they simply stop believing. Atheists didn't become atheists because they "gave up." They became atheists because they PERSISTED in the pursuit of truth! A recent Pew Study showed that atheists as a whole are MORE knowledgeable about religion than believers - not less.


Ron
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 12, 2012 08:08PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:06, kambiz wrote:
.....but tell me something, how are we going to monitor the concerns about truthfulness and its impact on society?

Kam
[/quote]

How do we manage it in a pluralistic society NOW?
Life is not a utopia; it is what it is--and it demands compromise to survive.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 08:09PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:06, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:01, kambiz wrote:
Yes I agree with Steve, and that's the problem. While no one is watching I can screw anyone over that I like...

I don't like this new paradigm....let's try again

Kam
[/quote]

Would you have dishonesty made a crime?
[/quote]

Absolutely not..... tell you what, why don't we put God back then

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 12, 2012 08:12PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 20:36, kambiz wrote:
Evolution dictates that when all trees grow to a level unreachable by the giraffe, it's the striving to continue to reach those heights, which prompts the gradual progress and development of the species to adapt to the new environment.
[/quote]

It's not the striving of the giraffe that causes the species to adapt to a new environment. It's just that those genetic strains that are no longer sustainable simply die out.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 12, 2012 08:14PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:12, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 20:36, kambiz wrote:
Evolution dictates that when all trees grow to a level unreachable by the giraffe, it's the striving to continue to reach those heights, which prompts the gradual progress and development of the species to adapt to the new environment.
[/quote]

It's not the striving of the giraffe that causes the species to adapt to a new environment. It's just that those genetic strains that are no longer sustainable simply die out.
[/quote]

Exactly.

Ron
:)
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 08:14PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:08, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:06, kambiz wrote:
.....but tell me something, how are we going to monitor the concerns about truthfulness and its impact on society?

Kam
[/quote]

How do we manage it in a pluralistic society NOW?
Life is not a utopia; it is what it is--and it demands compromise to survive.
[/quote]

I said it before and I'll say it again Steve, there is already a living example of how that will work for everyone to examine today

Kam
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 12, 2012 08:16PM)
R.S. with all due respect when one truly has a relationship (not upbringing, not church, and not even believing) with God it is IMPOSSIBLE to turn from Him. This is why people have laid their lives down and have been killed for their relationship (not belief as is so stated although the belief they speak of is that action word I talked about earlier) with God. They could no more turn their back on God then turn their back on the single most important earthly love in their life. Lets face it people are lazy and if we don't get what we want when we want it we lose interest. Show God you want to know Him. How? Simple take some time early in the morning go out side and keep asking Him if He is real to reveal Himself to you. For how long? Until He does. He will. Unbelief He can heal. Denying His existence may take longer but He will still reveal Himself. Just take 10 minutes each day until He makes Himself known. You will not be sorry. We just get so busy in our daily lives with worry and all we forget to take time for what is important. The Bible says IF you seek Him He will be found. The Bible WILL NOT make an exception for you since God does not treat those who seek Him differently. Try it you'll like it.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 12, 2012 08:17PM)
But will it work without demanding that everyone embrace divinity?
If not, gooooooood luck!
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 12, 2012 08:20PM)
"You've got to let your own conscience be your guide."
-Dai Vernon
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 12, 2012 08:20PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:16, The great Gumbini wrote:
R.S. with all due respect when one truly has a relationship (not upbringing, not church, and not even believing) with God it is IMPOSSIBLE to turn from Him. This is why people have laid their lives down and have been killed for their relationship (not belief as is so stated although the belief they speak of is that action word I talked about earlier) with God. They could no more turn their back on God then turn their back on the single most important earthly love in their life. Lets face it people are lazy and if we don't get what we want when we want it we lose interest. Show God you want to know Him. How? Simple take some time early in the morning go out side and keep asking Him if He is real to reveal Himself to you. For how long? Until He does. He will. Unbelief He can heal. Denying His existence may take longer but He will still reveal Himself. Just take 10 minutes each day until He makes Himself known. You will not be sorry. We just get so busy in our daily lives with worry and all we forget to take time for what is important. The Bible says IF you seek Him He will be found. The Bible WILL NOT make an exception for you since God does not treat those who seek Him differently. Try it you'll like it.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

That assumes, without question, that God exists and that he is Jehovah.
That's fine for you, but I and many others don't buy into that assumption.
So there you are.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 08:21PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:12, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 20:36, kambiz wrote:
Evolution dictates that when all trees grow to a level unreachable by the giraffe, it's the striving to continue to reach those heights, which prompts the gradual progress and development of the species to adapt to the new environment.
[/quote]

It's not the striving of the giraffe that causes the species to adapt to a new environment. It's just that those genetic strains that are no longer sustainable simply die out.
[/quote]

An even better reality to use for the analogy Bob :)

Yes it is the genetic strains. Religion is still religion, giraffes are still giraffes, the genetic strains of each are similar from one generation to the next. However, it still adapts to its environment, the ever changing world, and ever growing tree.

It would be folly for the giraffe species to totally die out just because it's environment is changing. The species must and WILL gradually adapt. To kill God altogether goes against everything rational

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 08:28PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:07, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 20:36, kambiz wrote:
Evolution dictates that when all trees grow to a level unreachable by the giraffe, it's the striving to continue to reach those heights, which prompts the gradual progress and development of the species to adapt to the new environment.

To categorize Gods educational framework to be exempt from that makes no rational sense. To be a preacher/minister in the church for so long, only to realize that some of the stuff therein just doesn't make sense any more, should, even to those who are lesser-developed mammals, prompt one to seek further clarification and extend oneself to ask "why?".....and thereby seek the truth.....
......not to just give up on the source of education altogether.

When you go to school Ron, you sit in grade 5 for 20 years, learn again and again the same thing, I'm not surprised you're tired of it, but giving up in the entire concept of education altogether, makes no rational sense.

Kam
[/quote]

Hold on Kam - to set the record straight, I was in grade 5 for 12 years... NOT 20!! :)

Seriously though, that's a poor analogy. Use the Santa Claus analogy instead. Kids are taught to believe in Santa Claus from a young age. In fact, you might say they have no say in it. As kids, they simply accept and absorb as fact that which their parents (and society) instill in them. And guess what? They REALLY believe in Santa! But then, when they get older, they start thinking for themselves. They see inconsistencies (multiple Santa's in the same mall perhaps, or the problem of loading 1 billion presents into something the size of a station wagon). They put 2 and 2 together and then they simply stop believing. Atheists didn't become atheists because they "gave up." They became atheists because they PERSISTED in the pursuit of truth! A recent Pew Study showed that atheists as a whole are MORE knowledgeable about religion than believers - not less.


Ron
[/quote]

Ron, if however, the concept of Santa was maintained during your education, clarifying the real meaning behind all the skeptical reasoning which you have rightly embraced, then the possibility if Santa being real becomes more and more possible.

Your last statement about knowledgeable about religion may have been overstepping the mark don't you think ;)

Have you read any Holy Texts outside the Bible, from cover to cover?

Kam
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 12, 2012 08:30PM)
"Intelligence flourishes only in the ages when belief withers."
- Emile M. Cioran
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 12, 2012 08:31PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:21, kambiz wrote:...
It would be folly for the giraffe species to totally die out just because it's environment is changing. The species must and WILL gradually adapt. To kill God altogether goes against everything rational

Kam
[/quote]

Perhaps a cue to learn a little bit about the fossil record. It appears that species die out when they are not so well equiped to thrive in the place they are - and can't get a place that's more accomedating. There are fosilized remains of astounding looking creatures which appear to have lived very long ago. Similarly in more recent times the large bears and large birds are pretty well gone from the earth with the sabre toothed cats.

Creatures of the mind live on as they maintain a useful social function. Greek Mythology was pretty open about that stuff.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 12, 2012 08:34PM)
[quote]
To kill God altogether goes against everything rational

Kam
[/quote]
"You cannot kill what does not live!"
-Judge Death

"Everything rational"...hmmm...from where I stand, maintaining the god-myth goes against rationality.

So there you are.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 08:35PM)
....maintaining honesty is a useful social function...

...so's not committing adultery.

...so is non-excessive use of alcohol...

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 12, 2012 08:35PM)
Personally, I believe that the following offers an excellent perspective:

http://beatsandbuds.com/post/21749216761/robert-anton-wilson-religion-for-the-hell-of-it

This is an audio by the late Robert Anton Wilson. It may enlighten, it may offend, it may cause you fall fall out of your seat laughing. Whatever... I think it's brilliant.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 08:36PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:34, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
To kill God altogether goes against everything rational

Kam
[/quote]
"You cannot kill what does not live!"
-Judge Death

"Everything rational"...hmmm...from where I stand, maintaining the god-myth goes against rationality.

So there you are.
[/quote]

Yes, but Steve, you are totally ignoring all the "useful social functions" that surround that myth

Kam
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 12, 2012 08:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:35, kambiz wrote:
....maintaining honesty is a useful social function...

...so's not committing adultery.

...so is non-excessive use of alcohol...

Kam
[/quote]

Correct--and men can resolve to positive action without 'divinities as watchmen.'
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 08:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:35, mastermindreader wrote:
Personally, I believe that the following offers an excellent perspective:

http://beatsandbuds.com/post/21749216761/robert-anton-wilson-religion-for-the-hell-of-it

This is an audio by the late Robert Anton Wilson. It may enlighten, it may offend, it may cause you fall fall out of your seat laughing. Whatever... I think it's brilliant.

Good thoughts,

Bob
[/quote]

Is that the same as the essay of the same title, Bob?

Kam
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 12, 2012 08:38PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:36, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:34, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
To kill God altogether goes against everything rational

Kam
[/quote]
"You cannot kill what does not live!"
-Judge Death

"Everything rational"...hmmm...from where I stand, maintaining the god-myth goes against rationality.

So there you are.
[/quote]

Yes, but Steve, you are totally ignoring all the "useful social functions" that surround that myth

Kam
[/quote]

Not at all; I'm keeping the meat (social behavior) and discarding the shell (the myth).
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 08:39PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:37, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:35, kambiz wrote:
....maintaining honesty is a useful social function...

...so's not committing adultery.

...so is non-excessive use of alcohol...

Kam
[/quote]

Correct--and men can resolve to positive action without 'divinities as watchmen.'
[/quote]

You can make that statement to Payne :)

....and the radio hosts in my town who preach God-lessness and their central teaching "a crime's not a crime, until you get caught"

Kam
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 12, 2012 08:40PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:16, The great Gumbini wrote:
R.S. with all due respect when one truly has a relationship (not upbringing, not church, and not even believing) with God it is IMPOSSIBLE to turn from Him. This is why people have laid their lives down and have been killed for their relationship (not belief as is so stated although the belief they speak of is that action word I talked about earlier) with God. They could no more turn their back on God then turn their back on the single most important earthly love in their life. Lets face it people are lazy and if we don't get what we want when we want it we lose interest. Show God you want to know Him. How? Simple take some time early in the morning go out side and keep asking Him if He is real to reveal Himself to you. For how long? Until He does. He will. Unbelief He can heal. Denying His existence may take longer but He will still reveal Himself. Just take 10 minutes each day until He makes Himself known. You will not be sorry. We just get so busy in our daily lives with worry and all we forget to take time for what is important. The Bible says IF you seek Him He will be found. The Bible WILL NOT make an exception for you since God does not treat those who seek Him differently. Try it you'll like it.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

I, and many are others are living proof that it IS possible to stop believing in something. You stopped believing in Santa Claus at some point in your life, didn't you? And you REALLY REALLY believed, as practically all kids do. I was no less sincere in my belief in a God than any other theist.

Yes, people have laid down their lives for their God. The 9/11 hijackers are a good example of that. Is that something that's noble or desireable?

Yes, people are lazy. Intellectually lazy. It's easier to accept a warm comforting notion that things will all be made right in another life by a loving being. It's more difficult to accept the hard reality of life and the fact that nobody knows for sure what death brings.

If a Supreme Being wants me to believe, he wouldn't have allowed me to use my intellect which caused me to STOP believing in the first place!

The bible also says:
Matthew 18:19
"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven."

What do you, as a SINCERE believer, think would happen if you and another 100% sincere believer prayed for an end to childhood cancers? Try it.


Ron
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 12, 2012 08:40PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:37, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:35, mastermindreader wrote:
Personally, I believe that the following offers an excellent perspective:

http://beatsandbuds.com/post/21749216761/robert-anton-wilson-religion-for-the-hell-of-it

This is an audio by the late Robert Anton Wilson. It may enlighten, it may offend, it may cause you fall fall out of your seat laughing. Whatever... I think it's brilliant.

Good thoughts,

Bob
[/quote]

Is that the same as the essay of the same title, Bob?

Kam
[/quote]

No. Same attitude, different material. Note that that link only goes to the first 15 minutes of his presentation. The rest of it can be heard on YouTube, if you are interested, where it is posted in several parts.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 12, 2012 08:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:28, kambiz wrote:
Ron, if however, the concept of Santa was maintained during your education, clarifying the real meaning behind all the skeptical reasoning which you have rightly embraced, then the possibility if Santa being real becomes more and more possible.

Your last statement about knowledgeable about religion may have been overstepping the mark don't you think ;)

Have you read any Holy Texts outside the Bible, from cover to cover?

Kam
[/quote]

That's like me telling you after you have rejected Leprechauns, "Yeah but if the concept of Leprechauns was maintained clarifying the real meaning behind all the skeptical reasoning which you have rightly embraced, then the possibility of Leprechauns being real becomes more and more possible."


Why should I maintain a concept that I have examined and rejected?

Why was my last statement "overstepping the mark"? I cited an actual study that was done. And here it is:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1745/religious-knowledge-in-america-survey-atheists-agnostics-score-highest

Best,
Ron
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 12, 2012 09:01PM)
"That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons, even death may die."
-Howard Phillips Lovecraft
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 12, 2012 09:12PM)
Ron-

Just took the quiz at the Pew site that consisted of questions taken from the survey you cited. I was amazed to see that only 59% of Catholics correctly identified the Catholic teaching as to whether the transformation of the wine and wafer at communion are actual or symbolic.

Too bad that didn't list Deists as a category. The only question I missed was the last one about the Great Awakening. (I guess I slept through it.)
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 12, 2012 09:46PM)
Again you CAN lose your faith. TRUE. However I am NOT talking faith---I'm talking a real 100 percent, NOT made up fantasy, RELATIONSHIP with the Almighty Creator GOD Himself. All of you who "lost faith" (and this may sting a bit) have never had a true RELATIONSHIP with God. Now there is one other possibility and that is you did and do have a relationship with God but for some reason you feel He let you down. You can be Catholic till your hair turns a wonderful green but if you DO NOT have a relationship with God you will never know Him in a life changing way. No religion has it 100 percent right. Man created religion and in so doing has made every attempt to create God in the process. God created us to love Him and worship Him in a loving way (not a master way). This is why you have people today trying to do away with God (although that is NOT possible). You have people trying to do away with the 10 Commandments and trying to war against God's Holy Land totally unaware of the end result to such attempts. You say you don't believe in God. Well then I can assume you do not believe in His Word. Read Ezek.36-40 and look at Israel and her surrounding enemies. You are SEEING this prophesy being fulfilled by NON BELIEVING people. Can you tell me why Iran refuses to acknowledge Israel as it's own State? Look at how the events in Egypt has now caused Egypt to no longer want to keep a peace treaty with Israel that has been in place for years. They are all poised to attack Israel just as prophesied in the Scriptures. Iran wants a nuclear weapon because it says to defend itself. From whom? No one wants to attack Iran they are the ones tossing the bombs into Israel. The Nations will meet yet again to see what "action" should be taken yet Iran is clear it will not listen. Now for you non believers listen carefully. The Bible is CRYSTAL CLEAR on this when (not if) when these nations war against Israel God will intervene and destroy Israel's attackers. The carnage will be devastating and Israel will be burying the attackers for over 8 months. When this happens and it will Im sure some of you may say "It was just a chance thing." Remember this could not have come about before Israel became a Nation (for the second time---something NO other Nation ever did) and the surrounding Countries would ally against her. This is all happening now by Countries who DO NOT believe in the Bible (YET ARE FULFILLING IT"S WRITINGS!). Non Believers are bringing about what is written! Tell me any other writings where those who do not believe what is written are the ones who bring about what is written! Anyway I hope you read Ezek. and I hope you watch the events in the Middle East---all your doubts will go away---then you will have to decide if you want that ReLATIONSHIP with God and see why we who do know Him LOVE Him so much.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 09:53PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:40, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:16, The great Gumbini wrote:
R.S. with all due respect when one truly has a relationship (not upbringing, not church, and not even believing) with God it is IMPOSSIBLE to turn from Him. This is why people have laid their lives down and have been killed for their relationship (not belief as is so stated although the belief they speak of is that action word I talked about earlier) with God. They could no more turn their back on God then turn their back on the single most important earthly love in their life. Lets face it people are lazy and if we don't get what we want when we want it we lose interest. Show God you want to know Him. How? Simple take some time early in the morning go out side and keep asking Him if He is real to reveal Himself to you. For how long? Until He does. He will. Unbelief He can heal. Denying His existence may take longer but He will still reveal Himself. Just take 10 minutes each day until He makes Himself known. You will not be sorry. We just get so busy in our daily lives with worry and all we forget to take time for what is important. The Bible says IF you seek Him He will be found. The Bible WILL NOT make an exception for you since God does not treat those who seek Him differently. Try it you'll like it.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

I, and many are others are living proof that it IS possible to stop believing in something. You stopped believing in Santa Claus at some point in your life, didn't you? And you REALLY REALLY believed, as practically all kids do. I was no less sincere in my belief in a God than any other theist.

Yes, people have laid down their lives for their God. The 9/11 hijackers are a good example of that. Is that something that's noble or desireable?

Yes, people are lazy. Intellectually lazy. It's easier to accept a warm comforting notion that things will all be made right in another life by a loving being. It's more difficult to accept the hard reality of life and the fact that nobody knows for sure what death brings.

If a Supreme Being wants me to believe, he wouldn't have allowed me to use my intellect which caused me to STOP believing in the first place!

The bible also says:
Matthew 18:19
"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven."

What do you, as a SINCERE believer, think would happen if you and another 100% sincere believer prayed for an end to childhood cancers? Try it.


Ron
[/quote]


This post, Ron, tells me you have NO IDEA what religion is (since you are so knowledgeable about religion)....really it goes against everything in the Bahai Faith.

Dying in the neame of God is embraced when you will not give up on your love and true sacrificial services for ALL mankind, NOT 9/11...

Yes people are intellectually lazy, when an entirely new paradigm of what religion is, is introduced, yet "the people are wandering in the paths of delusion, bereft of discernment, to see God with their own eyes, or hear His melody with their own ears"......

Kam on mate :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 12, 2012 09:57PM)
[img]http://www.southerntransitaccessories.com/man%20on%20wall.gif[/img]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 12, 2012 09:59PM)
Sometimes lol just doesn't say it.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 10:15PM)
I'm sorry if you found my post head bangingly funny

Kam
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 12, 2012 10:26PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 20:50, kambiz wrote:

"Truthfulness is the foundation of all human virtues"......not recognizing how that simple truth, which is not a law of any land, can contribute towards a more prosperous and developing society, again, makes no rational sense. Every societal problem you can think of has lack of truthfulness at its core. So, Payne, don't be truthful, because you can get away with it, but know that at least you are living a good life.

[/quote]

Perhaps, but society would crumble if we only spoke the truth, or at least what we believed to be the truth to each other. Most peoples egos won't allow then to hear the unadulterated truth. There wouldn't be a magic club in existence if everyone truthfully told one another exactly what they thought of each others performances. Our society is cushioned by a thousands little lies we tell each other and ourselves every single day. As the Bible says, "For everything there is a season" There are times to lie and times to tell the truth. But no one can be truthfull all the time and hope to survive unscathed. :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 12, 2012 10:30PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 23:15, kambiz wrote:
I'm sorry if you found my post head bangingly funny

Kam
[/quote]

Your posts seem to run an amazing gamut between advocating an all-encompassing, all-supporting religion, disavowing knowledge, and telling people that they're simply wrong or ignorant in their beliefs.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 12, 2012 10:41PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 22:46, The great Gumbini wrote:
Again you CAN lose your faith. TRUE. However I am NOT talking faith---I'm talking a real 100 percent, NOT made up fantasy, RELATIONSHIP with the Almighty Creator GOD Himself. All of you who "lost faith" (and this may sting a bit) have never had a true RELATIONSHIP with God. Now there is one other possibility and that is you did and do have a relationship with God but for some reason you feel He let you down. You can be Catholic till your hair turns a wonderful green but if you DO NOT have a relationship with God you will never know Him in a life changing way.

[/quote]


A perfect example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

[quote]

No religion has it 100 percent right. Man created religion and in so doing has made every attempt to create God in the process. God created us to love Him and worship Him in a loving way (not a master way). This is why you have people today trying to do away with God (although that is NOT possible). You have people trying to do away with the 10 Commandments and trying to war against God's Holy Land totally unaware of the end result to such attempts. You say you don't believe in God. Well then I can assume you do not believe in His Word. Read Ezek.36-40 and look at Israel and her surrounding enemies. You are SEEING this prophesy being fulfilled by NON BELIEVING people. Can you tell me why Iran refuses to acknowledge Israel as it's own State? Look at how the events in Egypt has now caused Egypt to no longer want to keep a peace treaty with Israel that has been in place for years. They are all poised to attack Israel just as prophesied in the Scriptures. Iran wants a nuclear weapon because it says to defend itself. From whom? No one wants to attack Iran they are the ones tossing the bombs into Israel. The Nations will meet yet again to see what "action" should be taken yet Iran is clear it will not listen. Now for you non believers listen carefully. The Bible is CRYSTAL CLEAR on this when (not if) when these nations war against Israel God will intervene and destroy Israel's attackers. The carnage will be devastating and Israel will be burying the attackers for over 8 months. When this happens and it will Im sure some of you may say "It was just a chance thing." Remember this could not have come about before Israel became a Nation (for the second time---something NO other Nation ever did) and the surrounding Countries would ally against her. This is all happening now by Countries who DO NOT believe in the Bible (YET ARE FULFILLING IT"S WRITINGS!). Non Believers are bringing about what is written! Tell me any other writings where those who do not believe what is written are the ones who bring about what is written! Anyway I hope you read Ezek. and I hope you watch the events in the Middle East---all your doubts will go away---then you will have to decide if you want that ReLATIONSHIP with God and see why we who do know Him LOVE Him so much.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

And all these people thought the time was right for Armageddon to occur. None of them were correct so I really don't take too much stock in your predictions of Jesus' immanent return. I've always wondered how long it's going to take before people just stop waiting.

Failed prophecies:
About 30 CE: The Christian Scriptures (New Testament), when interpreted literally, appear to record many predictions by Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) that God's Kingdom would arrive within a very short period, or was actually in the process of arriving. For example, Jesus is recorded as saying in Matthew 16:28: "...there shall be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." In Matthew 24:34, Yeshua is recorded as saying: "...This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Since the life expectancy in those days was little over 30 years, Jesus appears to have predicted his second coming sometime during the 1st century CE. It didn't happen. More details.

About 60 CE: Interpreting the Epistles of Paul of Tarsus literally, his writings seem to imply that Jesus would return and usher in a rapture during the lifetime of persons who were living in the middle of the 1st century. More details.

About 90 CE: Saint Clement 1 predicted that the world end would occur at any moment.

2nd Century CE: Prophets and Prophetesses of the Montanist movement predicted that Jesus would return sometime during their lifetime and establish the New Jerusalem in the city of Pepuza in Asia Minor.

365 CE: A man by the name of Hilary of Poitiers, announced that the end would happen that year. It didn't.

375 to 400 CE: Saint Martin of Tours, a student of Hilary, was convinced that the end would happen sometime before 400 CE.

500 CE: This was the first year-with-a-nice-round-number-panic. The antipope Hippolytus and an earlier Christian academic Sextus Julius Africanus had predicted Armageddon at about this year.

968 CE: An eclipse was interpreted as a prelude to the end of the world by the army of the German emperor Otto III.

992: Good Friday coincided with the Feast of the Annunciation; this had long been believed to be the event that would bring forth the Antichrist, and thus the end-times events foretold in the book of Revelation. Records from Germany report that a new sun rose in the north and that as many as 3 suns and 3 moons were fighting. There does not appear to be independent verification of this remarkable event.

1000-JAN-1: Many Christians in Europe had predicted the end of the world on this date. As the date approached, Christian armies waged war against some of the Pagan countries in Northern Europe. The motivation was to convert them all to Christianity, by force if necessary, before Christ returned in the year 1000. Meanwhile, some Christians had given their possessions to the Church in anticipation of the end. Fortunately, the level of education was so low that many citizens were unaware of the year. They did not know enough to be afraid. Otherwise, the panic might have been far worse than it was. Unfortunately, when Jesus did not appear, the church did not return the gifts. Serious criticism of the Church followed. The Church reacted by exterminating some heretics. Agitation settled down quickly, as it later did in the year 2000.

1000-MAY: The body of Charlemagne was disinterred on Pentecost. A legend had arisen that an emperor would rise from his sleep to fight the Antichrist.

1005-1006: A terrible famine throughout Europe was seen as a sign of the nearness of the end.

1033: Some believed this to be the 1000th anniversary of the death and resurrection of Jesus. His second coming was anticipated. Jesus' actual date of execution is unknown, but is believed to be in the range of 27 to 33 CE.

1147: Gerard of Poehlde decided that the millennium had actually started in 306 CE during Constantine's reign. Thus, the world end was expected in 1306 CE.

1179: John of Toledo predicted the end of the world during 1186. This estimate was based on the alignment of many planets.

1205: Joachim of Fiore predicted in 1190 that the Antichrist was already in the world, and that King Richard of England would defeat him. The Millennium would then begin, sometime before 1205.

1284: Pope Innocent III computed this date by adding 666 years onto the date the Islam was founded.

1346 and later: The black plague spread across Europe, killing one third of the population. This was seen as the prelude to an immediate end of the world. Unfortunately, the Christians had previously killed a many of the cats, fearing that they might be familiars of Witches. The fewer the cats, the more the rats. It was the rat fleas that spread the black plague.

1496: This was approximately 1500 years after the birth of Jesus. Some mystics in the 15th century predicted that the millennium would begin during this year.

1524: Many astrologers predicted the imminent end of the world due to a world wide flood. They obviously had not read the Genesis story of the rainbow.

1533: Melchior Hoffman predicted that Jesus' return would happen a millennium and a half after the nominal date of his execution, in 1533. The New Jerusalem was expected to be established in Strasbourg, Germany. He was arrested and died in a Strasbourg jail.

1669: The Old Believers in Russia believed that the end of the world would occur in this year. 20 thousand burned themselves to death between 1669 and 1690 to protect themselves from the Antichrist.

1689: Benjamin Keach, a 17th century Baptist, predicted the end of the world for this year.

1736: British theologian and mathematician William Whitson predicted a great flood similar to Noah's for OCT-13 of this year.

1783: On JUN-08, a volcanic eruption in southern Iceland started. It pumped massive amounts of toxic dust, sulphur dioxide and fluorine into the atmosphere. Cattle died, crops failed, and about one quarter of the island's population died of starvation. By the end of June, poisonous clouds had reached England and much of Europe. Boats had to stay in harbor because they could not navigate. There was massive loss of life in England, particularly among farm workers. Many predicted that the end of the world was imminent.

1792: This was the date of the end of the world calculated by some believers in the Shaker movement.

1794: Charles Wesley, one of the founders of Methodism, thought that Doomsday would occur in this year.

1830: Margaret McDonald, a Christian prophetess, predicted that Robert Owen would be the Antichrist. Owen helped found New Harmony, IN.

1832?: Joseph Smith (1805-1844) was the founder of the Church of Christ, which became the Restorationist movement after many schisms. It now includes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- a.k.a. the Mormons, and about a hundred other denominations and sects. He heard a voice while praying. He wrote, in Doctrines and Covenants section 130:

14: "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:"

15: "Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter."

16: "I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face."

17: "I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time." 14
The year in which this event occurred is not recorded. However, one commentator suggested 1832 or earlier. 16 Smith is later recorded as having said:
"I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written--the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old." 17

Smith would have reached the age of 85 during 1890. Unfortunately, by that year, Smith had been dead for almost a half century, having been assassinated by a mob
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 12, 2012 10:49PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 22:59, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Sometimes lol just doesn't say it.
[/quote]

For me, Robert Anton Wilson said it best:

[quote]
Death makes me realize how deeply I have internalized the agnosticism I preach in all my books. I consider dogmatic belief and dogmatic denial very childish forms of conceit in a world of infinitely whirling complexity. None of us can see enough from one corner of space-time to know "all" about the rest of space-time.

Every day is full of wonderments to me: Death will probably come to me as the greatest wonderment of all.[/quote]

http://www.rawilson.com/thoughts.html

BTW- Here's one of Wilson's favorite jokes from the same page:

[quote]A doctor, a nurse and the president of an HMO were standing with St. Peter at the pearly gates. St. Peter asks the doctor why he believes he should be given entrance to heaven. The doctor replies that he has worked his whole career to heal and treat people. St. Peter allows the doctor into heaven. St. Peter turns to the nurse and asks why she should be given entrance to heaven. The nurse replies that her whole career she was right there along side the doctor taking of the patient and making them as comfortable as was possible. St. Peter allows the nurse into heaven. St. Peter next asks the president of the HMO why he believed he should be given entrance into heaven. The HMO president replies that he was right there with the doctor and the nurse making sure these procedures were affordable. St. Peter opens the pearly gates as he tells the HMO president "Okay, but you can only stay for two days."[/quote]

:eek:
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 12, 2012 11:08PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 23:30, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 23:15, kambiz wrote:
I'm sorry if you found my post head bangingly funny

Kam
[/quote]

Your posts seem to run an amazing gamut between advocating an all-encompassing, all-supporting religion, disavowing knowledge, and telling people that they're simply wrong or ignorant in their beliefs.
[/quote]

Sorry Lobo, but to be fair-minded, for Ron to equate the 9/11 tragedy to people giving up their lives for God is not a reflection of an understanding of what religions purpose is (which he claims to be knowledgeable of).....

The purpose of religion is clear. People using it for their own whims and pleasures is deviating from that purpose and is therefore not religion.

I may adhere to a religion that is all-embracing, but that statement is not an absolute one, and if you want to know what exactly that means, I will leave it to you to investigate for yourself.

Kam
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 13, 2012 12:25AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 00:08, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 23:30, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 23:15, kambiz wrote:
I'm sorry if you found my post head bangingly funny

Kam
[/quote]

Your posts seem to run an amazing gamut between advocating an all-encompassing, all-supporting religion, disavowing knowledge, and telling people that they're simply wrong or ignorant in their beliefs.
[/quote]

Sorry Lobo, but to be fair-minded, for Ron to equate the 9/11 tragedy to people giving up their lives for God is not a reflection of an understanding of what religions purpose is (which he claims to be knowledgeable of).....

The purpose of religion is clear. People using it for their own whims and pleasures is deviating from that purpose and is therefore not religion.

I may adhere to a religion that is all-embracing, but that statement is not an absolute one, and if you want to know what exactly that means, I will leave it to you to investigate for yourself.

Kam
[/quote]

I don't want to put words in Ron's mouth, but I didn't see anything in the post you're commenting on that purported to be describing religion's [i]purpose.[/i]
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 13, 2012 12:28AM)
Payne don't blame the Scriptures because men misinterpreted them. There has NEVER been in history a time such as now when all these things are coming together. Payne? NEVER. You need to understand this. I can tell you there are more than a few people watching Israel and the surrounding Countries very carefully. These meetings taking place within a couple of weeks are not just for show. There is a real concern over matters that have developed over the past 9 months with Iran and nuclear power. I know it is fun to argue sides on this but when EVIDENCE hits you in the face and all you can do is come back with how people were wrong before I think the issue of a closed mind has to be addressed. The Bible says Israel WILL be attacked by all surrounding Countries. They will invade Israel. God will step in and destroy the attacking Countries. Destroy that is---not simply a victory but a statement. Payne this will happen. When it does I highly recommend after the world stops trembling that all non believers take a second look at God's Word the Bible. In the mean time keep a close eye on the Middle East. If you live in california tune in to 107.9 FM on fridays at 3:00 pm and you will hear a show where you will learn a lot about what is happening and how it pertains to the Bible. It is time to at least keep an eye on the events (and keep the Bible close so you can get answers). Anyone can say "I don't believe" but when things are coming to pass right in front of our eyes then we MUST at least consider what it could mean. And folks lets face it there is something going on in the Middle East and it ain't pretty!


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 13, 2012 12:35AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 01:25, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 00:08, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 23:30, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 23:15, kambiz wrote:
I'm sorry if you found my post head bangingly funny

Kam
[/quote]

Your posts seem to run an amazing gamut between advocating an all-encompassing, all-supporting religion, disavowing knowledge, and telling people that they're simply wrong or ignorant in their beliefs.
[/quote]

Sorry Lobo, but to be fair-minded, for Ron to equate the 9/11 tragedy to people giving up their lives for God is not a reflection of an understanding of what religions purpose is (which he claims to be knowledgeable of).....

The purpose of religion is clear. People using it for their own whims and pleasures is deviating from that purpose and is therefore not religion.

I may adhere to a religion that is all-embracing, but that statement is not an absolute one, and if you want to know what exactly that means, I will leave it to you to investigate for yourself.

Kam
[/quote]

I don't want to put words in Ron's mouth, but I didn't see anything in the post you're commenting on that purported to be describing religion's [i]purpose.[/i]
[/quote]


I think the words "noble" and "desireable" points out purpose, to me anyway.

Maybe I am wrong, who am I anyway....

Kam
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 13, 2012 12:36AM)
BTW the Bible says that no man knows the day or the hour the Lord will return. But the Bible says to "watch" and when we see these things come to pass to know the time is at hand. These refrences Payne stated above only shows the Bible is true again---they did not know the day or hour did they? But when those "predictions" were made Israel was NOT yet a Nation again. So of course the Lord would not return at that time. But today we see things looking more like the time is closer than ever. Now of course peace could all of a sudden break out and all people could live in harmony. I wonder what the odds are on that in Vegas?


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 13, 2012 12:37AM)
You are Kam.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 13, 2012 12:43AM)
Getting back to the original question, that old-testament punishing Lord of War is one of the ones I hope doesn't exist.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 13, 2012 12:58AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 01:35, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 01:25, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 00:08, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 23:30, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 23:15, kambiz wrote:
I'm sorry if you found my post head bangingly funny

Kam
[/quote]

Your posts seem to run an amazing gamut between advocating an all-encompassing, all-supporting religion, disavowing knowledge, and telling people that they're simply wrong or ignorant in their beliefs.
[/quote]

Sorry Lobo, but to be fair-minded, for Ron to equate the 9/11 tragedy to people giving up their lives for God is not a reflection of an understanding of what religions purpose is (which he claims to be knowledgeable of).....

The purpose of religion is clear. People using it for their own whims and pleasures is deviating from that purpose and is therefore not religion.

I may adhere to a religion that is all-embracing, but that statement is not an absolute one, and if you want to know what exactly that means, I will leave it to you to investigate for yourself.

Kam
[/quote]

I don't want to put words in Ron's mouth, but I didn't see anything in the post you're commenting on that purported to be describing religion's [i]purpose.[/i]
[/quote]


I think the words "noble" and "desireable" points out purpose, to me anyway.

Maybe I am wrong, who am I anyway....

Kam
[/quote]

You may be right; as I say, I hesitate (somewhat) to put words in his mouth, but discussion would be pretty pointless if we didn't do our best to ascribe meaning to others' words. I took him to simply be describing a (extreme, obviously) real world action that was (regardless of whether rightly or wrongly) motivated by the religious beliefs of the individuals in question, said action being neither noble nor desirable.

But, as always, I appreciate your clarifying how you came to a different interpretation, and it goes a long way toward explaining your reaction.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 13, 2012 12:58AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 01:37, The great Gumbini wrote:
You are Kam.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

That may be so, and I'm happy to be mistaken, I will only learn.

Is it mistaken then to read from Ron's post that he has used the 9/11 tragedy as a reason to no longer believe in God?

Kam
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2012 12:59AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 23:41, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 22:46, The great Gumbini wrote:
Again you CAN lose your faith. TRUE. However I am NOT talking faith---I'm talking a real 100 percent, NOT made up fantasy, RELATIONSHIP with the Almighty Creator GOD Himself. All of you who "lost faith" (and this may sting a bit) have never had a true RELATIONSHIP with God. Now there is one other possibility and that is you did and do have a relationship with God but for some reason you feel He let you down. You can be Catholic till your hair turns a wonderful green but if you DO NOT have a relationship with God you will never know Him in a life changing way.

[/quote]


A perfect example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

[quote]

No religion has it 100 percent right. Man created religion and in so doing has made every attempt to create God in the process. God created us to love Him and worship Him in a loving way (not a master way). This is why you have people today trying to do away with God (although that is NOT possible). You have people trying to do away with the 10 Commandments and trying to war against God's Holy Land totally unaware of the end result to such attempts. You say you don't believe in God. Well then I can assume you do not believe in His Word. Read Ezek.36-40 and look at Israel and her surrounding enemies. You are SEEING this prophesy being fulfilled by NON BELIEVING people. Can you tell me why Iran refuses to acknowledge Israel as it's own State? Look at how the events in Egypt has now caused Egypt to no longer want to keep a peace treaty with Israel that has been in place for years. They are all poised to attack Israel just as prophesied in the Scriptures. Iran wants a nuclear weapon because it says to defend itself. From whom? No one wants to attack Iran they are the ones tossing the bombs into Israel. The Nations will meet yet again to see what "action" should be taken yet Iran is clear it will not listen. Now for you non believers listen carefully. The Bible is CRYSTAL CLEAR on this when (not if) when these nations war against Israel God will intervene and destroy Israel's attackers. The carnage will be devastating and Israel will be burying the attackers for over 8 months. When this happens and it will Im sure some of you may say "It was just a chance thing." Remember this could not have come about before Israel became a Nation (for the second time---something NO other Nation ever did) and the surrounding Countries would ally against her. This is all happening now by Countries who DO NOT believe in the Bible (YET ARE FULFILLING IT"S WRITINGS!). Non Believers are bringing about what is written! Tell me any other writings where those who do not believe what is written are the ones who bring about what is written! Anyway I hope you read Ezek. and I hope you watch the events in the Middle East---all your doubts will go away---then you will have to decide if you want that ReLATIONSHIP with God and see why we who do know Him LOVE Him so much.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

And all these people thought the time was right for Armageddon to occur. None of them were correct so I really don't take too much stock in your predictions of Jesus' immanent return. I've always wondered how long it's going to take before people just stop waiting.

Failed prophecies:
About 30 CE: The Christian Scriptures (New Testament), when interpreted literally, appear to record many predictions by Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) that God's Kingdom would arrive within a very short period, or was actually in the process of arriving. For example, Jesus is recorded as saying in Matthew 16:28: "...there shall be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." In Matthew 24:34, Yeshua is recorded as saying: "...This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Since the life expectancy in those days was little over 30 years, Jesus appears to have predicted his second coming sometime during the 1st century CE. It didn't happen. More details.

About 60 CE: Interpreting the Epistles of Paul of Tarsus literally, his writings seem to imply that Jesus would return and usher in a rapture during the lifetime of persons who were living in the middle of the 1st century. More details.

About 90 CE: Saint Clement 1 predicted that the world end would occur at any moment.

2nd Century CE: Prophets and Prophetesses of the Montanist movement predicted that Jesus would return sometime during their lifetime and establish the New Jerusalem in the city of Pepuza in Asia Minor.

365 CE: A man by the name of Hilary of Poitiers, announced that the end would happen that year. It didn't.

375 to 400 CE: Saint Martin of Tours, a student of Hilary, was convinced that the end would happen sometime before 400 CE.

500 CE: This was the first year-with-a-nice-round-number-panic. The antipope Hippolytus and an earlier Christian academic Sextus Julius Africanus had predicted Armageddon at about this year.

968 CE: An eclipse was interpreted as a prelude to the end of the world by the army of the German emperor Otto III.

992: Good Friday coincided with the Feast of the Annunciation; this had long been believed to be the event that would bring forth the Antichrist, and thus the end-times events foretold in the book of Revelation. Records from Germany report that a new sun rose in the north and that as many as 3 suns and 3 moons were fighting. There does not appear to be independent verification of this remarkable event.

1000-JAN-1: Many Christians in Europe had predicted the end of the world on this date. As the date approached, Christian armies waged war against some of the Pagan countries in Northern Europe. The motivation was to convert them all to Christianity, by force if necessary, before Christ returned in the year 1000. Meanwhile, some Christians had given their possessions to the Church in anticipation of the end. Fortunately, the level of education was so low that many citizens were unaware of the year. They did not know enough to be afraid. Otherwise, the panic might have been far worse than it was. Unfortunately, when Jesus did not appear, the church did not return the gifts. Serious criticism of the Church followed. The Church reacted by exterminating some heretics. Agitation settled down quickly, as it later did in the year 2000.

1000-MAY: The body of Charlemagne was disinterred on Pentecost. A legend had arisen that an emperor would rise from his sleep to fight the Antichrist.

1005-1006: A terrible famine throughout Europe was seen as a sign of the nearness of the end.

1033: Some believed this to be the 1000th anniversary of the death and resurrection of Jesus. His second coming was anticipated. Jesus' actual date of execution is unknown, but is believed to be in the range of 27 to 33 CE.

1147: Gerard of Poehlde decided that the millennium had actually started in 306 CE during Constantine's reign. Thus, the world end was expected in 1306 CE.

1179: John of Toledo predicted the end of the world during 1186. This estimate was based on the alignment of many planets.

1205: Joachim of Fiore predicted in 1190 that the Antichrist was already in the world, and that King Richard of England would defeat him. The Millennium would then begin, sometime before 1205.

1284: Pope Innocent III computed this date by adding 666 years onto the date the Islam was founded.

1346 and later: The black plague spread across Europe, killing one third of the population. This was seen as the prelude to an immediate end of the world. Unfortunately, the Christians had previously killed a many of the cats, fearing that they might be familiars of Witches. The fewer the cats, the more the rats. It was the rat fleas that spread the black plague.

1496: This was approximately 1500 years after the birth of Jesus. Some mystics in the 15th century predicted that the millennium would begin during this year.

1524: Many astrologers predicted the imminent end of the world due to a world wide flood. They obviously had not read the Genesis story of the rainbow.

1533: Melchior Hoffman predicted that Jesus' return would happen a millennium and a half after the nominal date of his execution, in 1533. The New Jerusalem was expected to be established in Strasbourg, Germany. He was arrested and died in a Strasbourg jail.

1669: The Old Believers in Russia believed that the end of the world would occur in this year. 20 thousand burned themselves to death between 1669 and 1690 to protect themselves from the Antichrist.

1689: Benjamin Keach, a 17th century Baptist, predicted the end of the world for this year.

1736: British theologian and mathematician William Whitson predicted a great flood similar to Noah's for OCT-13 of this year.

1783: On JUN-08, a volcanic eruption in southern Iceland started. It pumped massive amounts of toxic dust, sulphur dioxide and fluorine into the atmosphere. Cattle died, crops failed, and about one quarter of the island's population died of starvation. By the end of June, poisonous clouds had reached England and much of Europe. Boats had to stay in harbor because they could not navigate. There was massive loss of life in England, particularly among farm workers. Many predicted that the end of the world was imminent.

1792: This was the date of the end of the world calculated by some believers in the Shaker movement.

1794: Charles Wesley, one of the founders of Methodism, thought that Doomsday would occur in this year.

1830: Margaret McDonald, a Christian prophetess, predicted that Robert Owen would be the Antichrist. Owen helped found New Harmony, IN.

1832?: Joseph Smith (1805-1844) was the founder of the Church of Christ, which became the Restorationist movement after many schisms. It now includes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- a.k.a. the Mormons, and about a hundred other denominations and sects. He heard a voice while praying. He wrote, in Doctrines and Covenants section 130:

14: "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:"

15: "Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter."

16: "I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face."

17: "I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time." 14
The year in which this event occurred is not recorded. However, one commentator suggested 1832 or earlier. 16 Smith is later recorded as having said:
"I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written--the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old." 17

Smith would have reached the age of 85 during 1890. Unfortunately, by that year, Smith had been dead for almost a half century, having been assassinated by a mob
[/quote]

OMG. You really have issues. Where did you find this information. I am sure someone somewhere also predicted that Jesus would give them the winning lottery numbers if you asked him. I bet that did not happen either. I do not know who is more delusional those that predicted what you posted, or you for posting it.

You mention a whole bunch of people I never even heard of. I looked up some of them. They were nothing but clerics, not prophets any more than you or I. Their word is not to be taken seriously by anyone much someone who professes to have some knowlede of the bible. If they said just about anything else not involviing religion you would not even care.

Joe from New York said the world would end last Tuesday. How did that work out? He is still wandering around New York but crossed out the date on his sign and changed it to July 5th. I am surprised you did not quote him. Who cares what he or people like him say?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2012 01:24AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 01:28, The great Gumbini wrote:
Payne don't blame the Scriptures because men misinterpreted them. There has NEVER been in history a time such as now when all these things are coming together. Payne? NEVER. You need to understand this. I can tell you there are more than a few people watching Israel and the surrounding Countries very carefully. These meetings taking place within a couple of weeks are not just for show. There is a real concern over matters that have developed over the past 9 months with Iran and nuclear power. I know it is fun to argue sides on this but when EVIDENCE hits you in the face and all you can do is come back with how people were wrong before I think the issue of a closed mind has to be addressed. The Bible says Israel WILL be attacked by all surrounding Countries. They will invade Israel. God will step in and destroy the attacking Countries. Destroy that is---not simply a victory but a statement. Payne this will happen. When it does I highly recommend after the world stops trembling that all non believers take a second look at God's Word the Bible. In the mean time keep a close eye on the Middle East. If you live in california tune in to 107.9 FM on fridays at 3:00 pm and you will hear a show where you will learn a lot about what is happening and how it pertains to the Bible. It is time to at least keep an eye on the events (and keep the Bible close so you can get answers). Anyone can say "I don't believe" but when things are coming to pass right in front of our eyes then we MUST at least consider what it could mean. And folks lets face it there is something going on in the Middle East and it ain't pretty!


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

When these things come to pass the paynes of this world will have an explanation, because for them there will never be proof.

We discussed critical thinking a while back. People such as payne have a mental block when it comes to religion no matter what proof is offered. This is a form of denial and is one of the most prevelant faults of people who consider themselves to be critical thinkers. In other words they are biased and cannot accept what is in front of them if it does not agree with their preconceived notions. I asked many times what proof would one need in order to believe in God. I have yet to get any kind of legitimate answer. That should tell you something.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 13, 2012 01:45AM)
Proof, to me, would be something more than the hearsay that is generally offered by all major religions.

Thomas Paine wrote in "The Age of Reason:"

[quote]Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.[/quote]

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/reason1.htm
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 13, 2012 02:01AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 02:24, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 01:28, The great Gumbini wrote:
Payne don't blame the Scriptures because men misinterpreted them. There has NEVER been in history a time such as now when all these things are coming together. Payne? NEVER. You need to understand this. I can tell you there are more than a few people watching Israel and the surrounding Countries very carefully. These meetings taking place within a couple of weeks are not just for show. There is a real concern over matters that have developed over the past 9 months with Iran and nuclear power. I know it is fun to argue sides on this but when EVIDENCE hits you in the face and all you can do is come back with how people were wrong before I think the issue of a closed mind has to be addressed. The Bible says Israel WILL be attacked by all surrounding Countries. They will invade Israel. God will step in and destroy the attacking Countries. Destroy that is---not simply a victory but a statement. Payne this will happen. When it does I highly recommend after the world stops trembling that all non believers take a second look at God's Word the Bible. In the mean time keep a close eye on the Middle East. If you live in california tune in to 107.9 FM on fridays at 3:00 pm and you will hear a show where you will learn a lot about what is happening and how it pertains to the Bible. It is time to at least keep an eye on the events (and keep the Bible close so you can get answers). Anyone can say "I don't believe" but when things are coming to pass right in front of our eyes then we MUST at least consider what it could mean. And folks lets face it there is something going on in the Middle East and it ain't pretty!


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

When these things come to pass the paynes of this world will have an explanation, because for them there will never be proof.

We discussed critical thinking a while back. People such as payne have a mental block when it comes to religion no matter what proof is offered. This is a form of denial and is one of the most prevelant faults of people who consider themselves to be critical thinkers. In other words they are biased and cannot accept what is in front of them if it does not agree with their preconceived notions. I asked many times what proof would one need in order to believe in God. I have yet to get any kind of legitimate answer. That should tell you something.
[/quote]

What proof would be needed for Eric to say he's wrong about his whole "end times" idea? Do you think if it doesn't happen in 5 years, or 10, or 20, or 40, the response will be anything other than, "Well, it just hasn't happened YET, but it's getting [i]really[/i] close"?
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 13, 2012 05:16AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 22:46, The great Gumbini wrote:

All of you who "lost faith" (and this may sting a bit) have never had a true RELATIONSHIP with God. Now there is one other possibility and that is you did and do have a relationship with God but for some reason you feel He let you down. [/quote]

How incredibly arrogant of you to assume that it's not posssible for someone could have spent many years with a "true relationship" with god, but for reason's you either don't understand or refuse to accept, you just dismiss because it doesn't fit into your realm of possibilities. And what about thast "other possibility" that you so generously offer as a way to say perhaps we DID have a relationhip, but we were "let down". Can you give me an example of how someone could be "let down" but a god that we have learned to expect a 50/50 chance of getting what we prayed for from the time we began praying, or losing people we cared about all of out lives. yet we never lost faith? What exactly do you mean by being let down?

Since you have no problem assuming that we either never had a relationship with god, or we were let down, I'll make a broad generalization ("and this may sting a bit")of my own. Often people who show such intolerence for anyone with other views, have problems that go deeper than just a religious belief. It must be that your views are so strong because you are overcompensating for your own wavering beliefs in your faith.

Does that statement anger or hurt you? If it does, perhaps you sould be a little more tolerant in the future agains't those who don't share your absolute certainty on god's intent or who's idea's and views you can't seem to grasp.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 13, 2012 05:42AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 01:58, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 01:37, The great Gumbini wrote:
You are Kam.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

That may be so, and I'm happy to be mistaken, I will only learn.

Is it mistaken then to read from Ron's post that he has used the 9/11 tragedy as a reason to no longer believe in God?

Kam
[/quote]

I did not use 9/11 as a reason to no longer believe in God. I was a non-believer long before that. I was pointing out that in the minds of the hijackers, they were carrying out God's will. Their religious convictions were just as strong (if not stronger) than some of the posters here. Do you think they would have carried out a suicide mission if they did NOT fully believe they would be rewarded by Allah with everlasting life and 72 virgins in the afterlife? It's not just rhetoric. The fundamentalist Muslims REALLY believe what they tell us they believe! Just as fundamentalist Christians really believe what they tell us they believe. How many times have we heard of children in this country dying because their Christian parents refused to seek medical help waiting for God to cure their child? Our beliefs inform our decisions. That's why it's so important that we have a rational basis for making decisions. You can't do that when you're living in a bubble of your own religious indoctrinations.

PS - Kam, I never claimed to be, nor am I any sort of religious expert. Far from it. However, does one have to be an expert in Irish mythology in order to not believe in leprechaun claims? Would you say that those who are not well versed in Irish traditions are in no position to disbelieve in leprechauns?

Ron
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 13, 2012 05:55AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-12 21:16, The great Gumbini wrote:

...Show God you want to know Him. How? Simple take some time early in the morning go out side and keep asking Him if He is real to reveal Himself to you. For how long? Until He does.

If God created me, he knows what it takes to reveal himself to me. You say "God created us to love Him and worship Him in a loving way (not a master way)." How sure are you about that? If I have to go out every morning and keep asking him what he already knows, that sounds a little more like a "master way" than the loving way you portray.

Perhaps you believe god is omniscient. If that's the case, it makes no difference if I keep asking him every morning. If that was his plan for me, I'd already be doing it. I have no say in in what an omniscient god has planned out for me since before I was born.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 13, 2012 05:55AM)
Hi Ron

I agree with your sentiments above wholeheartedly. It is for exactly those reasons that I adhere to the Bahai religion. I wish you well and apologize for any misunderstandings or assumptions that I made about the content of your posts.

Forums are horrible places to have dialogue. I hope to shake all of you by the hand one day, because you have all helped me to learn so much :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 13, 2012 11:17AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 01:59, acesover wrote:

OMG. You really have issues. Where did you find this information. I am sure someone somewhere also predicted that Jesus would give them the winning lottery numbers if you asked him. I bet that did not happen either. I do not know who is more delusional those that predicted what you posted, or you for posting it.

You mention a whole bunch of people I never even heard of. I looked up some of them. They were nothing but clerics, not prophets any more than you or I. Their word is not to be taken seriously by anyone much someone who professes to have some knowlede of the bible. If they said just about anything else not involviing religion you would not even care.

Joe from New York said the world would end last Tuesday. How did that work out? He is still wandering around New York but crossed out the date on his sign and changed it to July 5th. I am surprised you did not quote him. Who cares what he or people like him say?
[/quote]

Yet everyone of them had looked at the "signs" interpreted the "prophecies" and come to the conclusion that the end times were upon us. It's no different today. Harold Camping just last year thought that the rapture would occur and the end times begin. It didn't. Why should we take Gumbini's prognostications any more seriously than all the other failed predictions in the past. Especially since they are based around the unremarkable fact that there is unrest in the Middle East.

I'll be the first to admit that "I made a mistake" when Christ come riding in one his great white stallion. But since the odds of that actually occurring are nil it's an admition I won't have to make. The world will eventually end. Our time on it will cease long before the planet does. No doubt we'll do ourselves in some stupid pointless way. But, barring a meteor strike, it will be our own doing and not of any supernatural agency.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 13, 2012 11:22AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 02:45, mastermindreader wrote:
Proof, to me, would be something more than the hearsay that is generally offered by all major religions.

Thomas Paine wrote in "The Age of Reason:"

[quote]Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication � after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.[/quote]

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/reason1.htm
[/quote]

:ohyes: :applause:
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2012 11:30AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 02:45, mastermindreader wrote:
Proof, to me, would be something more than the hearsay that is generally offered by all major religions.

Thomas Paine wrote in "The Age of Reason:"

[quote]Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.[/quote]

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/reason1.htm
[/quote]

Again to vague an answer. You are telling us what proof you would not accept not what proof you would accept.

Would Jesus the Son of God have to apper to you and say Here I am. Do you want me to perform miracle for you? Is that the kind of proof you need? While people like that were discussed in the bible namely Thomas who doubted. When Jesus appeard to him and had him put his hand in the wounds it wasn't until then and only then that Thomas believed...is that the kind of proof you need?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 13, 2012 11:31AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 12:30, acesover wrote:

Would Jesus the Son of God have to apper to you and say Here I am. Do you want me to perform miracle for you? Is that the kind of proof you need? While people like that were discussed in the bible namely Thomas who doubted, when Jesus appeard to him and had him put his hand in the wounds it wasn't until then and only then that Thomas believed...is that the kind of proof you need?

[/quote]

That would be nice. :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2012 11:35AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 12:31, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 12:30, acesover wrote:

Would Jesus the Son of God have to apper to you and say Here I am. Do you want me to perform miracle for you? Is that the kind of proof you need? While people like that were discussed in the bible namely Thomas who doubted, when Jesus appeard to him and had him put his hand in the wounds it wasn't until then and only then that Thomas believed...is that the kind of proof you need?

[/quote]

That would be nice. :ohyes:
[/quote]

That is not an answer. Try and stay on track here.

I will ask again because it seems like you don't understand the question. What kind of proof would you need? I did not ask what would be nice. Read the words, stay focused here.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 13, 2012 11:45AM)
What proof?

God talking to me right now. Himself. In Person and in English.
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Jun 13, 2012 11:53AM)
"If God created me, he knows what it takes to reveal himself to me."

Why in the world would God want to come to YOU?
God owes you nothing. He doesn't have to prove anything to anybody. He is GOD.

I'm really surprised so many here cant' understand that.



On a smaller scale, it's like asking, why don't Obama come eat lunch with me today. :)


Tom
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 13, 2012 12:06PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 12:53, TomBoleware wrote:
"If God created me, he knows what it takes to reveal himself to me."

Why in the world would God want to come to YOU?
God owes you nothing. He doesn't have to prove anything to anybody. He is GOD.

I'm really surprised so many here cant' understand that.



On a smaller scale, it's like asking, why don't Obama come eat lunch with me today. :)


Tom
[/quote]

Well okay, then don't ask a bearded guy to tell me to worship Him either.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 13, 2012 12:25PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 12:30, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 02:45, mastermindreader wrote:
Proof, to me, would be something more than the hearsay that is generally offered by all major religions.

Thomas Paine wrote in "The Age of Reason:"

[quote]Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.[/quote]

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/reason1.htm
[/quote]

Again to vague an answer. You are telling us what proof you would not accept not what proof you would accept.

Would Jesus the Son of God have to apper to you and say Here I am. Do you want me to perform miracle for you? Is that the kind of proof you need? While people like that were discussed in the bible namely Thomas who doubted. When Jesus appeard to him and had him put his hand in the wounds it wasn't until then and only then that Thomas believed...is that the kind of proof you need?
[/quote]

You are using hearsay (the doubting Thomas story, not written until long after the events it describes) to prove other hearsays (the miracles described in the Gospels, all of which were likewise written long after the events they purport to describe).

That is what is known as double hearsay and is not evidential of anything. No book, including the Bible is "self-proving."

Have you ever read Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason?" You can find the entire text at the link I provided above.

He suggests a much more simple proof of God than that provided in second hand "revelations" written by men. And he suggests that men can experience that revelation first hand simply by beholding God's creation. Don't make the mistake of lumping me in with atheists. I'm not.

I do not require a proof of God as I already have one that is satisfactory to me. As I said, the revelation of God is self evident in His creation. That's it.

Beyond that I know nothing about Him. I just do the best I can and hope for the best.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2012 12:38PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 12:45, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
What proof?

God talking to me right now. Himself. In Person and in English.
[/quote]

Well that is an answer. However I do not see that happening just yet. However in End Times of which I have no idea when it will occur God wil appear in person to all.

I am not positive that He will not appear to you personally to convert you to a believer even though he loves you. But you must remember because He loves you he gave you free will to make your own decisions. However if he did appear to you inperson, how would you know it was really God? Sooner or later you have to take that leap of faith. What if it was mstermindreader dressed up in a God costume? If he then took it off and said I fooled you would you lose your belief? Yet for that brief moment you believed. If so and again you say I don't believe, you never believed in the first place. Which proves there is nothing that can convince you is there? The only thing that can make you believe in God is your own Free Will.

You really don't want proof. By your own free will you are satisfied with what you have now. Good for you. As they say "enjoy".

Good luck in accomplishing your hopes and desires.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 13, 2012 12:38PM)
[quote]
Why in the world would God want to come to YOU?
God owes you nothing. He doesn't have to prove anything to anybody. He is GOD.
[/quote]

"Hi, (Deity) here. Just wanted to say it's important enough to me that you believe in me that if you do it I'll give you a cloud and a golden mandolin, and if you don't I'll throw you in a pit of fire and let an ex-employee poke you with a sharp stick. Forever.
But, other than that, I can't be bothered to do any legwork."


*Disclaimer* The preceeding was satire towards the quoted post, in no way intended as an argument for, or against, any belief system.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2012 12:48PM)
Is it really that difficult for people to see that they must accept God through their Free Will?

It would mean nothing if he made you accept Him.

It is like giving you a piece of marble and asking you to create a masterpiece. But instead of using a chisel and sculptor tools we set up a computer system that does all the work for you and carves out a statue. All you had to do was turn on a switch and it was done for you. Is that really a masterpiece? Well that is the arguement that many give here. Why doesn'tGod just make me do it as he is God? Because He loved you so much He gave you free will to determine your own destiny. It is really quite simple.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 13, 2012 12:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:38, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 12:45, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
What proof?

God talking to me right now. Himself. In Person and in English.
[/quote]

Well that is an answer. However I do not see that happening just yet. However in End Times of which I have no idea when it will occur God wil appear in person to all.

I am not positive that He will not appear to you personally to convert you to a believer even though he loves you. But you must remember because He loves you he gave you free will to make your own decisions. However if he did appear to you inperson, how would you know it was really God? Sooner or later you have to take that leap of faith. What if it was mstermindreader dressed up in a God costume? If he then took it off and said I fooled you would you lose your belief? Yet for that brief moment you believed. If so and again you say I don't believe, you never believed in the first place. Which proves there is nothing that can convince you is there? The only thing that can make you believe in God is your own Free Will.

You really don't want proof. By your own free will you are satisfied with what you have now. Good for you. As they say "enjoy".

Good luck in accomplishing your hopes and desires.
[/quote]

Wow, talk about putting words in my mouth... :lol:

I say that God doesn't exist.

If you can't prove to me He does, I say He doesn't.

Right here, right now. Meet me... God.

Impostors?

He is God, He should be able to make me know He is God and not an impostor.

If He can't even do that, when He can do everything else, he ain't God.

Good luck to you too.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 13, 2012 12:52PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:48, acesover wrote:
Is it really that difficult for people to see that they must accept God through their Free Will?

It would mean nothing if he made you accept Him.

It is like giving you a piece of marble and asking you to create a masterpiece. But instead of using a chisel and sculptor tools we set up a computer system that does all the work for you and carves out a statue. All you had to do was turn on a switch and it was done for you. Is that really a masterpiece? Well that is the arguement that many give here. Why doesn'tGod just make me do it as he is God? Because He loved you so much He gave you free will to determine your own destiny. It is really quite simple.
[/quote]

He loves you so much that he gave you a chance to go to Hell?

:worry:
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 13, 2012 12:57PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 02:24, acesover wrote:

I asked many times what proof would one need in order to believe in God. I have yet to get any kind of legitimate answer. That should tell you something.

[/quote]

I've answered that question. Just because you didn't like the answer doesn't mean I didn't provide you with one. But in case you missed it my answer is thus.

"When you decide exactly what it would take for you to believe in Zeus, Ra, Odin or any one of the multitude of gods that have been worshiped in other cultures and other times then you will know what it takes for me to believe in yours. To me your god is no different than any other. So when you discover that one thing that can make you believe in Zeus as fervently as you believe in Yahweh then you'll have your answer
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Jun 13, 2012 01:03PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:48, acesover wrote:
Is it really that difficult for people to see that they must accept God through their Free Will?

It would mean nothing if he made you accept Him.

It is like giving you a piece of marble and asking you to create a masterpiece. But instead of using a chisel and sculptor tools we set up a computer system that does all the work for you and carves out a statue. All you had to do was turn on a switch and it was done for you. Is that really a masterpiece? Well that is the arguement that many give here. Why doesn'tGod just make me do it as he is God? Because He loved you so much He gave you free will to determine your own destiny. It is really quite simple.
[/quote]


I think you right acesover.
God kept it simple for us simple minded people.
He didn't say challenge me and I will prove myself.
He said have have faith in me.

Not always easy to prove that faith, but it is always that simple.

Tom
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 13, 2012 01:05PM)
But when the Egyptians challenged him he felt like he had to prove himself, if you take that account as accurate.
This word "simple..." I do not think it means what you think it means.
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Jun 13, 2012 01:09PM)
Oh sure he could, I'm just saying he is not obligated to do anything.
The burden of proof is on us, not him.

Tom
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 13, 2012 01:10PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 14:09, TomBoleware wrote:
Oh sure he could, I'm just saying he is not obligated to do anything.
The burden of proof is on us, not him.

Tom
[/quote]

:hysteric:
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 13, 2012 01:12PM)
"Because I think deep down we love the idea of someone loving us the way only God could."

Yeah...I love my kids like that. I make them worship the ground I walk on and if they do anything wrong I plan on blow torching their feet and water boarding them for the rest of eternity. That's how much I love my kids.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 13, 2012 01:13PM)
The Book of Job provides an interesting insight into the lengths the god of the Old Testament was willing to go to to provide proof. He destroyed everything the poor guy had and everyone he loved just to prove that Job was his loyal servant.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 13, 2012 01:14PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:48, acesover wrote:
Is it really that difficult for people to see that they must accept God through their Free Will?
[/quote]

We've been through this. Free will is an illusion. If you're god is omniscient then it knows the future. If it knows the future then it's predetermined. If everything is predetermined then we really have no choice in anything. We might think we're chosing to go right instead of left of our own free will. But since god already knew which direction we were going to choose we really didn't have any say so in the matter. It's simply impossible to have free will with an all-knowing god in the picture. I am not even writing this under my own free will as god already knew exactly what I was going to say even before it created the universe.

[quote]

It would mean nothing if he made you accept Him.

[/quote]

This didn't seem to bother it in the Old Testament past where it would make its presence known at the drop of a hat.

[quote]

It is like giving you a piece of marble and asking you to create a masterpiece. But instead of using a chisel and sculptor tools we set up a computer system that does all the work for you and carves out a statue. All you had to do was turn on a switch and it was done for you. Is that really a masterpiece? Well that is the arguement that many give here. Why doesn'tGod just make me do it as he is God? Because He loved you so much He gave you free will to determine your own destiny. It is really quite simple.

[/quote]

Yet it loves us so much that it's perfectly happy to cast us in a lake of fire for all eternity simply because we couldn't take the stories of a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds any more seriously than the myths and legends of other cultures.

It loves us enough to find us guilty of crimes that we ourselves didn't commit. But were instigated by our ancient ancestors when Eve disobeyed its explicit instruction. Instructions by the way it gave to her in person. So why wasn't her free will negated by it doing this? It also must not be to impressive of a god if Eve felt that she could somehow get away with disobeying it. But then again she hadn't yet partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge so she more than likely wasn't firing on all cylinders :)
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 13, 2012 01:21PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:51, Pakar Ilusi wrote:

I say that God doesn't exist.

If you can't prove to me He does, I say He doesn't.

Right here, right now. Meet me... God.

[/quote]

Pakar my man, you're doing it completely wrong. you're supposed to go outside early in the morning all by yourself and keep asking god to make its presence known to you over and over again until it decides to do so.

Failing that try saying Bettlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice :)

Both have an equal chance of netting a result.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 13, 2012 01:28PM)
Jeff your comments don't sting a bit. You see my friend I have a relationship with God and I have seen His mighty hand move in my life (no brag just fact). I could not turn from such a great love in my life. I would turn on myself first. It is clear and obvious that those who do not believe have NOT had this relationship with God (yet). Once you have had this in your life you would never let it go even if times got hard. You need to see that this relationship is in fact possible and is available to those who will truly seek Him. You can try all the "stings" you want but it will have no effect on me because of my relationship with God. I don't mean to be mean with anyone about this I simply want you to know God really does exist and He will reveal Himself to you if you really want that. The Middle East is just one example of things moving in the right direction for Christ to come. Another of course is the only way to buy or sell is for a mark to be given talked about in Revelation. Until very recently this technology did not exist---today we know it does. Everything is pointing strongly to what the Bible says. How long before the Middle East erupts? I honestly don't know. However going the way it is I think 5 years is way to generous.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 13, 2012 01:31PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 14:13, mastermindreader wrote:
The Book of Job provides an interesting insight into the lengths the god of the Old Testament was willing to go to to provide proof. He destroyed everything the poor guy had and everyone he loved just to prove that Job was his loyal servant.
[/quote]

But he only did it as a bet. So we're little more than playthings to this god. It loves us so much that it's more than willing to kill, maim and destroy whatever it wants simply so it can win a wager. Perfectly pointless and perverse especially when you consider that due to its omniscient nature it already knew the outcome of the bet.

That's the sick and twisted deity you get stuck with if you take the story of Job literally. However as a fable you get a valuable lesson on the power of faith and putting your trust in god. Which is why I've never understood why a small segment of the religious community takes everything in the Bible literally. Don't they see that by doing this that it makes god into a pretty horrific personage and you miss the teachings and lessons to be found in many of the stories?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 13, 2012 01:33PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 14:21, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:51, Pakar Ilusi wrote:

I say that God doesn't exist.

If you can't prove to me He does, I say He doesn't.

Right here, right now. Meet me... God.

[/quote]

Pakar my man, you're doing it completely wrong. you're supposed to go outside early in the morning all by yourself and keep asking god to make its presence known to you over and over again until it decides to do so.

Failing that try saying Bettlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice :)

Both have an equal chance of netting a result.
[/quote]

I see... :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 13, 2012 01:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 14:28, The great Gumbini wrote:
Jeff your comments don't sting a bit. You see my friend I have a relationship with God and I have seen His mighty hand move in my life (no brag just fact). I could not turn from such a great love in my life. I would turn on myself first. It is clear and obvious that those who do not believe have NOT had this relationship with God (yet). Once you have had this in your life you would never let it go even if times got hard. You need to see that this relationship is in fact possible and is available to those who will truly seek Him. You can try all the "stings" you want but it will have no effect on me because of my relationship with God. I don't mean to be mean with anyone about this I simply want you to know God really does exist and He will reveal Himself to you if you really want that. The Middle East is just one example of things moving in the right direction for Christ to come. Another of course is the only way to buy or sell is for a mark to be given talked about in Revelation. Until very recently this technology did not exist---today we know it does. Everything is pointing strongly to what the Bible says. How long before the Middle East erupts? I honestly don't know. However going the way it is I think 5 years is way to generous.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

We'll come back to this post in 5 years and see what happens okay?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 13, 2012 01:36PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 14:28, The great Gumbini wrote:

Everything is pointing strongly to what the Bible says. How long before the Middle East erupts? I honestly don't know. However going the way it is I think 5 years is way to generous.

[/quote]

So ten years from now when nothing has changed and the endtimes are still "just around the corner" will you be willing to throw in the towel? How about in fifteen? Twenty? How long are you willing to wait?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 13, 2012 02:16PM)
It's not about the waiting so much as feeling smug about being rewarded while others suffer while time goes by. A sort of passive-aggressive way to wish ill upon others while avoiding responsibility for a toxic inner life.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2012 02:20PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:51, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:38, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 12:45, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
What proof?

God talking to me right now. Himself. In Person and in English.
[/quote]

Well that is an answer. However I do not see that happening just yet. However in End Times of which I have no idea when it will occur God wil appear in person to all.

I am not positive that He will not appear to you personally to convert you to a believer even though he loves you. But you must remember because He loves you he gave you free will to make your own decisions. However if he did appear to you inperson, how would you know it was really God? Sooner or later you have to take that leap of faith. What if it was mstermindreader dressed up in a God costume? If he then took it off and said I fooled you would you lose your belief? Yet for that brief moment you believed. If so and again you say I don't believe, you never believed in the first place. Which proves there is nothing that can convince you is there? The only thing that can make you believe in God is your own Free Will.

You really don't want proof. By your own free will you are satisfied with what you have now. Good for you. As they say "enjoy".

Good luck in accomplishing your hopes and desires.
[/quote]

Wow, talk about putting words in my mouth... :lol:

I say that God doesn't exist.

If you can't prove to me He does, I say He doesn't.

Right here, right now. Meet me... God.

Impostors?

He is God, He should be able to make me know He is God and not an impostor.

If He can't even do that, when He can do everything else, he ain't God.

Good luck to you too.
[/quote]

Guess you missed the free will post. Or chose to ignore it. Whatever.

Have a nice day.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 13, 2012 02:20PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:16, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
It's not about the waiting so much as feeling smug about being rewarded while others suffer while time goes by. A sort of passive-aggressive way to wish ill upon others while avoiding responsibility for a toxic inner life.
[/quote]

Hey, I would rather they "see the light...". If it takes time, it takes time.

We all have toxic inner lives imho... What with all the pollution and stuff. :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2012 02:23PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:52, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:48, acesover wrote:
Is it really that difficult for people to see that they must accept God through their Free Will?

It would mean nothing if he made you accept Him.

It is like giving you a piece of marble and asking you to create a masterpiece. But instead of using a chisel and sculptor tools we set up a computer system that does all the work for you and carves out a statue. All you had to do was turn on a switch and it was done for you. Is that really a masterpiece? Well that is the arguement that many give here. Why doesn'tGod just make me do it as he is God? Because He loved you so much He gave you free will to determine your own destiny. It is really quite simple.
[/quote]

He loves you so much that he gave you a chance to go to Hell?

:worry:
[/quote]

And some choose it.

If He gave you no choice what would that be like? Take responsibility for your own actions. Grow up. Blame no one but yourself for your situation. You had choices and you made them. Now live and die with those choices. Simple as that.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 13, 2012 02:26PM)
"The Book of Job provides an interesting insight into the lengths the god of the Old Testament was willing to go to to provide proof. He destroyed everything the poor guy had and everyone he loved just to prove that Job was his loyal servant."


Job: "God, I am your most loyal subject and yet you've destroyed my property, my family, given me boils, and left me to die on a dung heap. Why God, why?"
God: "You know Job,...there is just something about you that ****es me off. "
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2012 02:30PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:57, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 02:24, acesover wrote:

I asked many times what proof would one need in order to believe in God. I have yet to get any kind of legitimate answer. That should tell you something.

[/quote]

I've answered that question. Just because you didn't like the answer doesn't mean I didn't provide you with one. But in case you missed it my answer is thus.

"When you decide exactly what it would take for you to believe in Zeus, Ra, Odin or any one of the multitude of gods that have been worshiped in other cultures and other times then you will know what it takes for me to believe in yours. To me your god is no different than any other. So when you discover that one thing that can make you believe in Zeus as fervently as you believe in Yahweh then you'll have your answer
[/quote]

Oh my aren't we clever? Give me a break with your what you feel is a clever answer. It is a dodge and you know it.

What would make me decide has nothing to do with what what would make you decide. Clever but no cigar. However if that were true, with all the information you have which is the same that I have you would believe already. So by your explanation you are already a believer unless your post is just a lot of made up payne stuff. Oh yeah, wait, it is.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 13, 2012 02:33PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:23, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:52, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:48, acesover wrote:
Is it really that difficult for people to see that they must accept God through their Free Will?

It would mean nothing if he made you accept Him.

It is like giving you a piece of marble and asking you to create a masterpiece. But instead of using a chisel and sculptor tools we set up a computer system that does all the work for you and carves out a statue. All you had to do was turn on a switch and it was done for you. Is that really a masterpiece? Well that is the arguement that many give here. Why doesn'tGod just make me do it as he is God? Because He loved you so much He gave you free will to determine your own destiny. It is really quite simple.
[/quote]

He loves you so much that he gave you a chance to go to Hell?

:worry:
[/quote]

And some choose it.

If He gave you no choice what would that be like? Take responsibility for your own actions. Grow up. Blame no one but yourself for your situation. You had choices and you made them. Now live and die with those choices. Simple as that.
[/quote]

Hmm, too bad for Gandhi. He was such a nice man, did some good things too...

Well...
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 13, 2012 02:34PM)
I'd venture that the only reason these religion threads have managed to survive so long is because we've managed to maintain a civil tone, but...
:)
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 13, 2012 02:34PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:34, critter wrote:
I'd venture that the only reason these religion threads have managed to survive so long is because we've managed to maintain a civil tone, but...
:)
[/quote]

Only God knows... :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 13, 2012 02:35PM)
"You can try all the "stings" you want but it will have no effect on me because of my relationship with God. I don't mean to be mean with anyone about this I simply want you to know God really does exist and He will reveal Himself to you if you really want that."

And you can't tell a schizophrenic that the voices they hear are not real.

Latching on to a meditative device such as god can help the mind refocus itself. It is a common practice of many religions and meditation practices. It doesn't even matter what it is. It is like an athlete who visualizes their golf or batting swing. Visualization can help actually create synapses in the brain that improve performance. Bringing your problems to an imaginary being can help with coping of loss and difficult times. Those who consult on how to grow rich suggest staring at the things you want to possess: a fancy new car, a beautiful wife, and mansion. And the focus and visualization help achieve success, help train the brain to stay focused. Believe in a god is exactly like this. It becomes a real physical presence just as in Zen mediation where you are to focus your attention in your groin to build concentration. The fact is any thing can work: a believe in god, meditating on your navel, contemplating the porsche.

The difference is the guy contemplating the porsche doesn't try and stop me from buying birth control.
Message: Posted by: satellite23 (Jun 13, 2012 02:38PM)
I believe in God. Just saying.

Here is an example I myself came up with that would help prove my point:

Let's say I walk down the street with a yellow shirt on. I take a nice long stroll, but nobody sees me with my yellow shirt. When I get back home, I change into a red shirt and tell my fiends that I walked around with a yellow shirt on. However, they don't believe me because their senses tell them something different, and they never have any proof that I was wearing a yellow shirt. Therefore, they don't believe that I ever wore a yellow shirt.

So, that story is insignificant compared to God/no God. Who cares if I wore a yellow shirt or red shirt?

That is not the point, though. The point is that just because there is no proof that something happened/exists doesn't mean that is does happen/exist. I really wore a yellow shirt, even though there is no proof that I did!

The same argument can be applies to many things. For instance: love. There is no physical proof of it, but nearly everybody believes in it. Why?

Things like love have to be put into place by something that hasn't been explained yet. Maybe it's a chemical reaction, maybe it's in our minds, or maybe a higher being is allowing us to experience it. No matter what the explanation, I believe in God.

Also, for those of you who believe in the big bang theory, combustion, etc: I'm not an expert on those topics, but I also have an opinion on them. How can something be created out of nothing? It can't. There has to be a higher being that created the concept of nothing to begin with and likewise turn it into something. Yes, I believe that God created the concept of nothing--therefore, people cannot argue that God was created from nothing. No--he created nothing.

I'm not going to rule out the big bang theory or evolution. In fact, I tend to lean towards those theories as opposed to the Genesis creation stories that I have been taught in the full 17 years of my life. It's really hard to doubt science.

What I'm saying is that science and religion can both be right. God created the big bang, and all the creatures that came out of the bang are constantly evolving to reach the highest point of spiritual fulfillment.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 13, 2012 02:38PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:30, acesover wrote:

What would make me decide has nothing to do with what what would make you decide. Clever but no cigar. However if that were true, with all the information you have which is the same that I have you would believe already.

[/quote]

No, it's readily apparent that I have accessed MORE information than you have. If you possessed the same information that I have you too would now be an atheist :)
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 13, 2012 02:38PM)
I call forth The Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Bah! Your God stands no chance!
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 13, 2012 02:40PM)
FYI,
We prefer to call them "people [i]with[/i] schizophrenia." It's generally passe to refer to a person [i]as[/i] a disease.
Though I have often done this myself out of old habits.
This is just for general informational purposes.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2012 02:48PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 14:12, Slide wrote:
"Because I think deep down we love the idea of someone loving us the way only God could."

Yeah...I love my kids like that. I make them worship the ground I walk on and if they do anything wrong I plan on blow torching their feet and water boarding them for the rest of eternity. That's how much I love my kids.
[/quote]

Have you given them reason to love you? Or do you just demand they do so? Are you worthy of their love or are you just their father? Remember they grow up and will form their own opinion of you from your actions. If they love you as grown ups you were probably a good father. However if they merely toloerate you because you because you are their father...not such a good job on your part. :)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2012 02:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:33, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:23, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:52, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:48, acesover wrote:
Is it really that difficult for people to see that they must accept God through their Free Will?

It would mean nothing if he made you accept Him.

It is like giving you a piece of marble and asking you to create a masterpiece. But instead of using a chisel and sculptor tools we set up a computer system that does all the work for you and carves out a statue. All you had to do was turn on a switch and it was done for you. Is that really a masterpiece? Well that is the arguement that many give here. Why doesn'tGod just make me do it as he is God? Because He loved you so much He gave you free will to determine your own destiny. It is really quite simple.
[/quote]

He loves you so much that he gave you a chance to go to Hell?

:worry:
[/quote]

And some choose it.

If He gave you no choice what would that be like? Take responsibility for your own actions. Grow up. Blame no one but yourself for your situation. You had choices and you made them. Now live and die with those choices. Simple as that.
[/quote]

Hmm, too bad for Gandhi. He was such a nice man, did some good things too...

Well...
[/quote]

Are you comparing yourself to Gandhi? If not what point are you trying to make?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 13, 2012 02:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:38, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
I call forth The Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Bah! Your God stands no chance!
[/quote]

Sorry but the great Cthulhu not only ate your weak Flying Spaghetti Monster of a god but also consumed the AntiPasta whose arrival was to mark the end times wherein we all had to go to middle eastern restaurants and consume unhealthy amounts of falafel
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 13, 2012 02:56PM)
"How can something be created out of nothing? It can't. There has to be a higher being that created the concept of nothing to begin with and likewise turn it into something. Yes, I believe that God created the concept of nothing--therefore, people cannot argue that God was created from nothing. No--he created nothing. "

Why couldn't the universe have created nothing?

You are correct that just because something hasn't been proved, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And a belief in god is a theory, one of many. Some are more scientific, some are less. But all it is, is a theory, it is not proof. Many would say, including me, it is not a very good theory, full of holes and requires a childlike degree of naiveté .

And I would say that atheists as a whole have no problems with you believing anything you want, if it helps you make it through the night.

Where the objection comes in is when you try and take your (in my opinion) lame theory and use that to control people, to change laws that restrict freedom, to use as an excuse to picket service men's funerals like the Westboro Baptist Church, or recommend that you beat your children if they show any signs of being gay, to prevent a loving couple from marrying, as an excuse to pollute the earth because after all its the end of days, and on and on and on. That is why some people so despise religious people and get so angry when people proselytize
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 13, 2012 03:00PM)
"
Have you given them reason to love you? Or do you just demand they do so? Are you worthy of their love or are you just their father? Remember they grow up and will form their own opinion of you from your actions."

Oh, I just demand it and I give them no reason to love me other than the threat of blow torch and water boarding for eternity if they don't. No, no need to be worthy of their love; I created them, that is all they need to know. hmmm....

"However if they merely toloerate you because you because you are their father." Yep, just like a good catholic.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2012 03:06PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:38, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:30, acesover wrote:

What would make me decide has nothing to do with what what would make you decide. Clever but no cigar. However if that were true, with all the information you have which is the same that I have you would believe already.

[/quote]

No, it's readily apparent that I have accessed MORE information than you have. If you possessed the same information that I have you too would now be an atheist :)
[/quote]

So then your religious beliefs or disbeliefs are in a state of flux and keep changing as you gain more information? Sooner or later you will know everything and be all knowing as that as what some men want but cannot never attain.

You asked me what would make me believe in your zeus and his buddies and I told you but because you did not like the answer you put in qualifiers that you have more information than me. Well the exact opposite is true, as I have more info than you as I am sure I do, because I believe in God and you don't.

That logic of yours (more info) is non ending. Nice try but it does not work. Go read another book,or google something and catch up. It gets back to the critical thinking with the knowledge one posesses without bias and that is where you fall short... GOD AHEAD, as soon as you see that sign you must stop because you are biased and do not want that. So no amoount of knowledge will ever change you. Good luck with that.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 13, 2012 03:36PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 16:06, acesover wrote:

That logic of yours (more info) is non ending. Nice try but it does not work. Go read another book,or google something and catch up. It gets back to the critical thinking with the knowledge one posesses without bias and that is where you fall short... GOD AHEAD, as soon as you see that sign you must stop because you are biased and do not want that. So no amoount of knowledge will ever change you. Good luck with that.

[/quote]

I'm not the biased one here. Why do you think so many atheists study the world's religions. Like theists we too are looking for answers and ever seeking the "truth". But unlike some theists we are open to new ideas and evidence. We evaluate the new information and adjust our world view accordingly. Unlike other un-named individuals on this board who have decreed that they already know all the answers and no amount of evidence will ever change their minds.

[quote]
On 2012-06-01 19:24, acesover wrote:

Let me make it simple. I am not going to change my faith. I feel that what I believe I can say I know.

MY FAITH AND WHAT I BELIEVE MAKES ME CONFIDENT THAT I KNOW. Maybe I am wrong but I am not about to say'MAYBE" I am wrong because my faith is so strong that I know I am right just as the others know they are right.

That is my story and I am sticking to it.

Maybe I am wrong but iin my mind I am sure I am right. I do not see why you cannot see my point of view. I do no mean agree that I am right, just my philosphy on this. That abeing that I know I am right.
[/quote]

I'm willing (and have) changed my opinion on many things when presented with new, verifiable evidence. So who exactly is the critical thinker here. The one that admits that he'll change his mind if given sufficent evidence to do so. Or the one who KNOWS simply because it "feels" right and refuse to even consider that they might be wrong?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 13, 2012 03:55PM)
Now will anyone whose opinions about religion have changed as the result of anything that has been set forth in this thread, please raise their hands?

Anyone? Buehler? Anyone?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2012 04:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 16:36, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 16:06, acesover wrote:

That logic of yours (more info) is non ending. Nice try but it does not work. Go read another book,or google something and catch up. It gets back to the critical thinking with the knowledge one posesses without bias and that is where you fall short... GOD AHEAD, as soon as you see that sign you must stop because you are biased and do not want that. So no amoount of knowledge will ever change you. Good luck with that.

[/quote]

I'm not the biased one here. Why do you think so many atheists study the world's religions. Like theists we too are looking for answers and ever seeking the "truth". But unlike some theists we are open to new ideas and evidence. We evaluate the new information and adjust our world view accordingly. Unlike other un-named individuals on this board who have decreed that they already know all the answers and no amount of evidence will ever change their minds.

[quote]
On 2012-06-01 19:24, acesover wrote:

Let me make it simple. I am not going to change my faith. I feel that what I believe I can say I know.

MY FAITH AND WHAT I BELIEVE MAKES ME CONFIDENT THAT I KNOW. Maybe I am wrong but I am not about to say'MAYBE" I am wrong because my faith is so strong that I know I am right just as the others know they are right.

That is my story and I am sticking to it.

Maybe I am wrong but iin my mind I am sure I am right. I do not see why you cannot see my point of view. I do no mean agree that I am right, just my philosphy on this. That abeing that I know I am right.
[/quote]

I'm willing (and have) changed my opinion on many things when presented with new, verifiable evidence. So who exactly is the critical thinker here. The one that admits that he'll change his mind if given sufficent evidence to do so. Or the one who KNOWS simply because it "feels" right and refuse to even consider that they might be wrong?
[/quote]

You make a very valid point. However there comes a point when the evidence is so overwhelming and points you in a direction that you are so positive nothing or no one can change your mind. That statement of course contradicts what I say about critical thinking..I will have to get back to you on that, ha ha :) .

Payne, When I say "I KNOW" I am only stating what millions of others know to be their truth which differs from mine. I suppose all of us who believe in A Supreme Being believe we are right, or as I say, just to show how positive I am, I say, I know, rather than say I believe. Just semantics and stopping someone from coming back and saying yes, you believe, but do you know? So I avoid that by sayign I know. Just a defense mode.

I have said here several times that I am not a missionary and am not trying to convert anyone. It would be great if everyone believed in the same things and had the same ideals etc. but we don't. I have to say to us.,GET OVER IT. As long as you are not hurting me or mine and I am not hurting you or yours all is fine. However in this world we have zealots which we can seen for example from the Middle East.

It is rather strange or coinsidence or possibly prophecy that that is where all the problems are at this time, well not all, but a good portion of them and the most likely place to trigger something horrific. And what is the biggest problem there? Religious beliefs. It has been said in the bible that this is where the end of times will start and it looks to be right. That in itself does not make all the other things in the bible true, but I believe they are and while I also believe the bible, it cannot be taken literally but has to be taken as to the time it was written and the conditions at that time and the lost translation or mistranslation through time. Just cya here want to cover all my bases ,ha ha.

I would go on to giive my interputation of Adam and EVe and the Tree of knowledge etc and I do not know if an apple was involved or not but it was a book written for the people at that time who were not educated and the examples had to be simple and understandable tothem. Not unlike fairy tales with a lesson in them. OK enough for now.

The bad thing about a topic such as this is that one gets upset when he reads someones post and it contrdicts everything one believes in so strongly that it sometimes triggers a bad response...been there done that. This is longer than I had planned. The end of this post.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2012 04:43PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 16:55, mastermindreader wrote:
Now will anyone whose opinions about religion have changed as the result of anything that has been set forth in this thread, please raise their hands?

Anyone? Buehler? Anyone?
[/quote]

Ok I changed. I am an athiest. I cannot understand those bead mumbling catholics, and those fish eaters on those special days, kneeling and gettin gup an down during their services. Whats with all that? They are just plain weird. Just kidding. :)

You are right in your post. By that I assume you mean that all of this posting will not change anyones mind. It may expose us to how others think and why. And that is a good thing.
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Jun 13, 2012 04:57PM)
Nope not a change. Hard to change other people, they have to do that on their own.

One last thought from me,

According to a recent Gallup poll, more than Ninety percent of Americans believe in God. How can this 8/6/7, probably more like 5, percent of the people say all the others are wrong? Certainly this few has no real proof, else more would believe it.
Surely the least bit of real solid evidence would have already made the nightly news.

I haven't seen any evidence here, or on the news, to not believe along with the others.

Tom
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 13, 2012 05:17PM)
People ask for OTHERS to prove God's existence. We can not prove this to you. Only God can. Believers who KNOW God can only point people in the right direction. Just as on a blind date we can introduce you but then it's up to you. The Bible is very clear if you draw closer to God He will draw close to you. If you seek Him with your whole being you will find Him. How long will it take? It took me 28 years. But I prayed to God and asked if He was really real to please let me know. I started to read the Bible and though man this is some interesting stuff. Then I actually saw things happen in my life that were brought about by God's mighty hand. I'm 54 now and I'm still looking to know Him more. I'm not a stuffy person and I do not always walk as I should but I know when those slip ups happen I turn to God and ask Him to forgive me and go on learning more about Him. I know when I am weak He is strong. I'm glad I'm able to lean on the One who helps me day to day. You too can have this but I can not prove it to you. YOU however can prove it to you. God will reveal Himself if you seek Him. Go ahead prove me wrong and give it a 100 percent try.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 13, 2012 05:27PM)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx
The results were obtained via telephone interviews.
Now ask yourself:
What sorts of people are most likely to want to complete a telephone survey- Those who believe strongly enough in something to want to talk to a random stranger on the phone about it, or those who don't believe in that thing at all?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 13, 2012 05:57PM)
I was unaware that the existence of God could sufficiently be proven (or disproven) by a public opinion poll. Centuries ago most people, including scientists and people of faith, believed that the Sun revolved around the earth.

Were they right?

[quote]Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.

"And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness."

- Alcuin (in a letter to Charlemagne) 798 CE. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 13, 2012 06:05PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:35, Slide wrote:
... I simply want you to know God really does exist and He will ...
[/quote]

Since when does the Easter Rabbit want to be called god, especially with a capital G?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 13, 2012 06:07PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 17:15, acesover wrote:

It is rather strange or coinsidence or possibly prophecy that that is where all the problems are at this time, well not all, but a good portion of them and the most likely place to trigger something horrific. And what is the biggest problem there? Religious beliefs. It has been said in the bible that this is where the end of times will start and it looks to be right. That in itself does not make all the other things in the bible true, but I believe they are and while I also believe the bible, it cannot be taken literally but has to be taken as to the time it was written and the conditions at that time and the lost translation or mistranslation through time. Just cya here want to cover all my bases ,ha ha.

[/quote]

Not strange at all and hardly prophetic. When much of the Bible was written the middle east was in turmoil. and it's been pretty much in a constant state of turmoil ever since. So really it wasn't too much of a stretch to make such a prophecy. Now if the prophecies had mentioned either the oil reserves or the rise of Islam I might be persuaded to take your prophecies a little more seriously. But to predict a world in turmoil in an already tumultuous land. Not much of a stretch there. There is also a bit of self fulfilling prophecy to be had with the return of the Israeli state. So it's return isn't all that shockingly prophetic either. So all in all I find the whole end times predicitons to be less than compelling.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 13, 2012 06:08PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:40, critter wrote:
FYI,
We prefer to call them "people [i]with[/i] schizophrenia." It's generally passe to refer to a person [i]as[/i] a disease.
Though I have often done this myself out of old habits.
This is just for general informational purposes.
[/quote]

Unfortunately you can't have that sort of disease in the room without the person. They are not "with" a disease. They have the disease. They have an arm (or two). They have a pattern of chemical and behavioral traits we call schizophrenia.

Or do mental illnesses now count as the "plus one" on invitations?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 13, 2012 06:16PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 18:57, mastermindreader wrote:
I was unaware that the existence of God could sufficiently be proven (or disproven) by a public opinion poll. Centuries ago most people, including scientists and people of faith, believed that the Sun revolved around the earth.

Were they right?

[quote]Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.

"And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness."

- Alcuin (in a letter to Charlemagne) 798 CE. [/quote]
[/quote]

Ah, you touch upon the notions of rancor and vanity. Tanrums and social justification. Do you think they are related? Perhaps Alcuin believed such could be the case?

One might attempt to prove that one could imagine (or hold) a sense of primal divinity in an "all things" type sense - or instead argue that there are as many gods as there are things, each with its own nature and they in turn guided by their various qualia - those things close to human nature may as well be seen in terms of human nature ( see above ;) )

As far as the sun goes - it works out very well to live with a model of the sun and moon going around the earth. Such has proved workable for most practical agrarian purposes for millenia. It's only when you get enough detailed observations to notice some tiny features of the motions of some things in the sky (planets in retrograde part of orbit) that it gets more sensible to use the Copernican model. Same for Newton's laws of motion.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2012 06:30PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 19:07, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 17:15, acesover wrote:

It is rather strange or coinsidence or possibly prophecy that that is where all the problems are at this time, well not all, but a good portion of them and the most likely place to trigger something horrific. And what is the biggest problem there? Religious beliefs. It has been said in the bible that this is where the end of times will start and it looks to be right. That in itself does not make all the other things in the bible true, but I believe they are and while I also believe the bible, it cannot be taken literally but has to be taken as to the time it was written and the conditions at that time and the lost translation or mistranslation through time. Just cya here want to cover all my bases ,ha ha.

[/quote]

Not strange at all and hardly prophetic. When much of the Bible was written the middle east was in turmoil. and it's been pretty much in a constant state of turmoil ever since. So really it wasn't too much of a stretch to make such a prophecy. Now if the prophecies had mentioned either the oil reserves or the rise of Islam I might be persuaded to take your prophecies a little more seriously. But to predict a world in turmoil in an already tumultuous land. Not much of a stretch there. There is also a bit of self fulfilling prophecy to be had with the return of the Israeli state. So it's return isn't all that shockingly prophetic either. So all in all I find the whole end times predicitons to be less than compelling.
[/quote]

Here is something to consider. Not my thinking or writing and I veryseldom use he net as a resource but this is interesting beause of the mention of the rise Islam not being mentioned in the bible.

Is Islam in the bible?





The religion of the end time in bible prophecy

The religion of the end time will be one where the false prophet will deceive the whole world and cause the world to worship the Antichrist by doing miracles such as pulling fire from the sky. This religion already exists but will be made universal by the power given the Antichrist and the false prophet by the devil. The bible doesn't specifically tells us what that religion will be called, but we can determine what it will be by looking at the facts. The world is pretty much dominated by Christianity and Islam (over half of the worlds population combined). While Hinduism, Atheism and Communism make up most of the remainder, it doesn't look like they will play much of a role in the end time.

Christianity today is full of churches proclaiming that all religions worship the same God and therefore we should embrace them. The Catholic church promotes that idea with Interfaith doctrine and goes as far as to state in the Catechism that the Muslims worship the same God as Christianity and therefore will enjoy the same salvation equally. This means that they think it doesn't matter if you're a Christian or a Muslim and that you can find salvation through either religion.

The Muslims, on the other hand, have no such belief. In fact, Muslim doctrine teaches that Jesus is just a prophet, not the manifestation of God in the flesh, and that He will return at the end time to teach Christians the Muslim way and convert them. The prophecies of the bible and the Muslim prophecies concerning the Antichrist (the Muslim Mahdi) and the false prophet (the Muslim Jesus) mirror each other but the good guys of Islam are the bad guys of the bible. This is a very good indication that the Antichrist will rise as the Mahdi of Islam and will unite the Christian world with him via the false prophet and create a global Islamic religion. The bible tells us that this end time religion will be forced upon people or they will be killed if they refuse. The Muslim prophecies tell us that the Muslims will kill any who won't convert to Islam.

The bible tells us that the world will be fooled by the false prophet performing miracles in the sight of men, like pulling fire from the sky. The false prophet will seem to everyone to have Godly power and will fool everyone into worshiping the Antichrist.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 13, 2012 06:35PM)
I agree. And for many people it works out very well to live with a model of a beneficent God ruling over and personally involving Himself in the affairs of men.

For others, not so much. (Particularly if they don't have the same beliefs as the majority.)
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 13, 2012 07:07PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 16:55, mastermindreader wrote:
Now will anyone whose opinions about religion have changed as the result of anything that has been set forth in this thread, please raise their hands?

Anyone? Buehler? Anyone?
[/quote]

Me!!!!

My opinions and thoughts and understandings on life have changed quite a lot actually

I'm thankful for all this :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 13, 2012 07:16PM)
Excellent, Kam. You will get a gold star on your report card! :eek:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 13, 2012 07:27PM)
My post before my last one was an answer to Jonathan. Acesover got a post in there ahead of me!

As to acesover's question - Is Islam in the Bible? Well, parts of it are (in a sense), considering that it is an Abrahamic religion. But Islam did not appear until the 7th Century, so of course it isn't mentioned in the Bible.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 13, 2012 08:19PM)
"The bible tells us that the world will be fooled by the false prophet performing miracles in the sight of men, like pulling fire from the sky. The false prophet will seem to everyone to have Godly power and will fool everyone into worshiping the Antichrist."

Good lord.

I would really appreciate it if people stopped saying "The Bible" as if it is some logically coherent structure written by one person. It is a collection of stories, epistles, myth, and strange prophesy. The final collection was put together by the vatican some time after the 10th century (if I'm not mistaken) and many stories were left out, others were put in, all of it was political and based on a religious struggle for power. We know that now having uncovered gnostic gospels and other manuscripts including one believed to have been written by Jesus's brother. How come that didn't get in there.

It would be great if you could just say: In the book of Revelations, or in Paul's letter to whomever. That way we'd know how much credence to give what you say. It is possible to accept certain books that ancient collection and not others.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 13, 2012 08:22PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 19:08, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:40, critter wrote:
FYI,
We prefer to call them "people [i]with[/i] schizophrenia." It's generally passe to refer to a person [i]as[/i] a disease.
Though I have often done this myself out of old habits.
This is just for general informational purposes.
[/quote]

Unfortunately you can't have that sort of disease in the room without the person. They are not "with" a disease. They have the disease. They have an arm (or two). They have a pattern of chemical and behavioral traits we call schizophrenia.

Or do mental illnesses now count as the "plus one" on invitations?
[/quote]

It's not an idea that I came up with, it's just the way they're teaching us to say it these days. Kind of like how we're not supposed to say "subjects" anymore.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 13, 2012 09:01PM)
Although, having had a short thunk about it, I suppose an argument could be made for a person being with or without some of the [i]symptoms[/i] of schizophrenia. Supposing that they respond well to anti-psychotic medications, that is. They would still have schizophrenia, but not display signs of schizophrenia. Just a thought.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 13, 2012 10:38PM)
Islam came later you guys. It is actually the first religion to try to refute Christian teaching. They teach Jesus was a great prophet but not the Son of God. There will be an antichrist that will come. This will happen AFTER the new Temple is built. This antichrist will stand in The Most Holy part of the Temple and proclaim to be God and will demand people to worship him. There will be thing he will do that will appear to be miracles and he will usher in a peace treaty that will last only three and half years. The animal sacrifices will start back up in this Temple. There was a need for a red hefer and until about 25 or so years ago none were to be found. Now in Israel there is reported to be one that will be continually made available for when the time is right. How this is being done is a matter of debate most believe cloning is taking place. But there is one at the ready. It is at the point in time where too many things are coming together to ignore. But I have learned there are 3 types of people in the World. Those who make things happen, those who watch things happen and those who ask "what happened". Which one are you?


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 13, 2012 10:44PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 23:38, The great Gumbini wrote:
Islam came later you guys. It is actually the first religion to try to refute Christian teaching. They teach Jesus was a great prophet but not the Son of God. There will be an antichrist that will come. This will happen AFTER the new Temple is built. This antichrist will stand in The Most Holy part of the Temple and proclaim to be God and will demand people to worship him. There will be thing he will do that will appear to be miracles and he will usher in a peace treaty that will last only three and half years. The animal sacrifices will start back up in this Temple. There was a need for a red hefer and until about 25 or so years ago none were to be found. Now in Israel there is reported to be one that will be continually made available for when the time is right. How this is being done is a matter of debate most believe cloning is taking place. But there is one at the ready. It is at the point in time where too many things are coming together to ignore. But I have learned there are 3 types of people in the World. Those who make things happen, those who watch things happen and those who ask "what happened". Which one are you?


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]


Eric, how do you understand the stance of the Unitarian Church claiming that they have evidence to prove that Jesus was a Prophet, and not the Son of God?

Kam
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 14, 2012 12:24AM)
To be honest Kam I have yet to see any position that accepts Jesus as a Prophet yet does not accept what this Prophet has to say as truth to make any sense at all. How can you call someone a Prophet of God if the Prophet is lying as to who he is? Jesus was very clear He was/is the Son of God. He also claimed He and the Father are One. ALL of these churches and entities and religions that profess Jesus is indeed a Prophet but then turn around and say He IS NOT whom He claimed to be is like a cat chasing it's tail. A Prophet MUST MUST MUST speak the truth. The Bible is clear AGAIN on this. It teaches if a person claims to be a prophet and says a certain thing will happen and it does not. Then we are not to believe that person is a prophet. Jesus knows WHO He is. The term Abba means "daddy" in an intimate relationship. This is the actual word Jesus used when talking TO the Father. And GOD Himself declared "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased". You know the amazing thing about the Bible is the more you study and the deeper you study it the more you can see it MUST be the Word of God. Folks you spend so much time kicking against a Book that is so awesome! Yes it is blunt and tells it like it is. No punches are pulled and some pretty awful things happened. But it tells the truth. No sugar coating. I do hope most of the people on here have read it at least once. I have several times and it always never fails to amaze me how I'll find new understanding of things I've read before and just never saw the real meaning. It always deepens my walk. There are a lot of things I question in life. But my love for God and His love for me is unconditional. His Word is 100 percent True. And His ways are the absolute best ways. Those I do not question. Are there a lot of studies and religions that try to refute what God says? You bet. But God and His Word stand firm. It challenges anyone to read it and follow what it says and see if their lives improve. that's awesome! that's God and that's His Word.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 14, 2012 12:38AM)
Well Eric, I can put hand on heart and tell you that the President of the Unitarian Church in Australia is a dental patient of mine, and He puts his hand on his heart and tells me that the accounts related to Jesus claiming He is the Son of God are incorrect....

I have no idea personally, and as a Bahai, I can tell you that the Bahai position is that He is the Son of God, but I am keen to know what all this from a Unitarian point of view really means?

Kam
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 14, 2012 12:40AM)
You naysayers of the bible confuse me. Why would you worry about something you know does not exist and is all made up? Why would you discuss the bible when you know it not to be true or factual? What would be your point?

The only reason I can think of is that you are a missionary of sorts trying to convert those who believe it to be true and factual, to your way of thinking that it is not. But for the life of me I cannot figure out why? Surely you are not trying to save us. If so from what?

At least those who are trying to convert you (and I am not one of them) are trying to save, what they feel is your immortal soul. Yet your discouraging them from their belief serves no purpose. I just don't understand. :confused:
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 14, 2012 12:40AM)
Oh, I thought ABBA meant "Swedish band loved by all."
Well, I have learned something today.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 14, 2012 12:43AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 01:38, kambiz wrote:
Well Eric, I can put hand on heart and tell you that the President of the Unitarian Church in Australia is a dental patient of mine...

Kam
[/quote]

So I take it there isn't something like HIPAA where you live?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2012 12:52AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 01:40, acesover wrote:
You naysayers of the bible confuse me. Why would you worry about something you know does not exist and is all made up? Why would you discuss the bible when you know it not to be true or factual? What would be your point?
[/quote]

I discuss books from everyone from Shakespeare to Stephen King that aren't true or factual. I love literature. What is so confusing about that?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 14, 2012 12:57AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 01:43, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 01:38, kambiz wrote:
Well Eric, I can put hand on heart and tell you that the President of the Unitarian Church in Australia is a dental patient of mine...

Kam
[/quote]

So I take it there isn't something like HIPAA where you live?
[/quote]

No HIPPA but they have kangaroos.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 14, 2012 01:18AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 01:57, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 01:43, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 01:38, kambiz wrote:
Well Eric, I can put hand on heart and tell you that the President of the Unitarian Church in Australia is a dental patient of mine...

Kam
[/quote]

So I take it there isn't something like HIPAA where you live?
[/quote]

No HIPPA but they have kangaroos.
[/quote]

....and koalas too.....now they're cute :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2012 01:19AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 01:52, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 01:40, acesover wrote:
You naysayers of the bible confuse me. Why would you worry about something you know does not exist and is all made up? Why would you discuss the bible when you know it not to be true or factual? What would be your point?
[/quote]

I discuss books from everyone from Shakespeare to Stephen King that aren't true or factual. I love literature. What is so confusing about that?
[/quote]I just finished Grisham's Calico Joe. Good tale with lots of baseball.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 14, 2012 01:20AM)
I like the Devils.
I knew about kangaroos 'cause of the poacher scene from Crocodile Dundee.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2012 01:20AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 01:40, critter wrote:
Oh, I thought ABBA meant "Swedish band loved by all."
Well, I have learned something today.
[/quote]

You know people who like ABBA?
Message: Posted by: Bill Hilly (Jun 14, 2012 01:53AM)
I’m going to bare my heart here and answer acesover’s question about what would prove the existence of God to me.

My mother has Alzheimer’s Disease. Seven weeks ago she had a mini stroke. She’s recovering from that, physically, but she’s losing blocks of memory with increasing frequency. There are blocks of years that she can’t remember now. My dad had a couple of strokes last year and is losing control of his body in different ways each day. Monday he couldn’t stand or walk. Tuesday he could. This afternoon he couldn’t recognize who my mom was. This evening he could. I am staying with them now and have stopped taking gigs to care for them full time. And I am watching them die a little more each day.

My cat has been my source of comfort through this. I hold her and pet her and cry myself to sleep some nights. It’s difficult to explain how important she is to my wellbeing. Last month I was told she has cancer and will die in three to four months. She’s eight years old. Almost all of the other pets I’ve had lived to be 18 to 20 years old, so I was kind of counting another eight years with her.

My heart is breaking and I am in such sadness that I can literally feel the life force leaving me. I have accepted what is happening to my parents since I have seen it with three of my grandparents too. But with all of this happening at once I really no longer have a desire to live. In fact, I feel now that I plan to leave this world after I have taken care of my family’s final needs.

I have prayed, prayed sincerely. I have prayed that my cat’s cancer disappears and that I can have her for at least a few years after my parents are gone. I have no one else. If that would happen, not only would it prove for me the existence of God, but also the power of prayer. And if that would happen I state here and now, in public, that I will dedicate my life to preaching and proclaiming the Word of God and the power of prayer to all who will hear me.

All I ask is to have my cat. I am in tears now and can’t write anymore.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 14, 2012 01:56AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 02:20, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 01:40, critter wrote:
Oh, I thought ABBA meant "Swedish band loved by all."
Well, I have learned something today.
[/quote]

You know people who like ABBA?
[/quote]

Do you not hear the drums, Fernando?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 14, 2012 07:43AM)
"Jesus was very clear He was/is the Son of God."

oh man...clearly you've never read the bible. NO WHERE does Jesus say he was the son of god. He said he was the son of man, as we all are. It is shorthand for saying he is "everyman". Please show me anywhere in the kings james version of the bible where jesus said he was the son of god.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 14, 2012 07:54AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:51, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:33, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:23, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:52, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:48, acesover wrote:
Is it really that difficult for people to see that they must accept God through their Free Will?

It would mean nothing if he made you accept Him.

It is like giving you a piece of marble and asking you to create a masterpiece. But instead of using a chisel and sculptor tools we set up a computer system that does all the work for you and carves out a statue. All you had to do was turn on a switch and it was done for you. Is that really a masterpiece? Well that is the arguement that many give here. Why doesn'tGod just make me do it as he is God? Because He loved you so much He gave you free will to determine your own destiny. It is really quite simple.
[/quote]

He loves you so much that he gave you a chance to go to Hell?

:worry:
[/quote]

And some choose it.

If He gave you no choice what would that be like? Take responsibility for your own actions. Grow up. Blame no one but yourself for your situation. You had choices and you made them. Now live and die with those choices. Simple as that.
[/quote]

Hmm, too bad for Gandhi. He was such a nice man, did some good things too...

Well...
[/quote]

Are you comparing yourself to Gandhi? If not what point are you trying to make?
[/quote]

That Gandhi was not Christian and is destined for eternal ***ation by the Christian version of God.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 14, 2012 07:56AM)
"Why would you worry about something you know does not exist and is all made up? Why would you discuss the bible when you know it not to be true or factual"

Well, there are so many answers to this, it is hard to know where to start. First, the King James version of the bible is one of the most important books of western literature. Unless you've studied it, it is impossible to make sense of most of western art: music, literature, painting - all had references and imagery drawn from the bible. Certain sections of the King James bible, the psalms, ecclesiastics, are some of the most beautiful passages in the english language, certainly matching shakespeare in eloquence.

But you assume that atheists were just born that way. Some of us, like myself, have done years of study on religion. I have been a member of a few churchs, studied buddism, and I have done extensive reading in christianity. Add to that I used to teach meditation classes at the local Episcopal church and sat zen medication for 10 years. It was only after a thorough study, many many hours spent in mediation, prayer etc that I came to the conclusion that christianity was incorrect and actually did much more harm than good. In otherwords: I undertook my own study of the subject and I didn't just believe what some nutjob in the pulpit spewed at me. My question to you is: if you believe in christianity than wouldn't it be important enough to you to find the TRUTH? Rather than blindly accepting what you are told as whole cloth? Even when I was involved with the church, I knew the church wasn't the answer: the answer comes from deep meditation, forgetting what you've been told and finding the answers yourself, the same way Jesus AND the buddha did.

And third: books like mein kampf, and other books of prejudice and hatred must be studied so that those ideas can be exposed when presented in more modern terms. Know your enemy. In today's world, with religious Fundamentalists creating one of the most dangerous threats to human survival, it is vastly important that fundamentalism be challenged and fought on all fronts. Including a magic forum.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 14, 2012 07:58AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 02:53, Bill Hilly wrote:
I�m going to bare my heart here and answer acesover�s question about what would prove the existence of God to me.

My mother has Alzheimer�s Disease. Seven weeks ago she had a mini stroke. She�s recovering from that, physically, but she�s losing blocks of memory with increasing frequency. There are blocks of years that she can�t remember now. My dad had a couple of strokes last year and is losing control of his body in different ways each day. Monday he couldn�t stand or walk. Tuesday he could. This afternoon he couldn�t recognize who my mom was. This evening he could. I am staying with them now and have stopped taking gigs to care for them full time. And I am watching them die a little more each day.

My cat has been my source of comfort through this. I hold her and pet her and cry myself to sleep some nights. It�s difficult to explain how important she is to my wellbeing. Last month I was told she has cancer and will die in three to four months. She�s eight years old. Almost all of the other pets I�ve had lived to be 18 to 20 years old, so I was kind of counting another eight years with her.

My heart is breaking and I am in such sadness that I can literally feel the life force leaving me. I have accepted what is happening to my parents since I have seen it with three of my grandparents too. But with all of this happening at once I really no longer have a desire to live. In fact, I feel now that I plan to leave this world after I have taken care of my family�s final needs.

I have prayed, prayed sincerely. I have prayed that my cat�s cancer disappears and that I can have her for at least a few years after my parents are gone. I have no one else. If that would happen, not only would it prove for me the existence of God, but also the power of prayer. And if that would happen I state here and now, in public, that I will dedicate my life to preaching and proclaiming the Word of God and the power of prayer to all who will hear me.

All I ask is to have my cat. I am in tears now and can�t write anymore.
[/quote]

God or no God, you stay strong okay? So sorry to hear all that befalling you...

Be with them as much as you can.

Prayer does help, even if God isn't there.

We will all die, no need to hasten the inevitable, still many more sunsets to see... ;)
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 14, 2012 08:11AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 02:53, Bill Hilly wrote:
I’m going to bare my heart here and answer acesover’s question about what would prove the existence of God to me.

My mother has Alzheimer’s Disease. Seven weeks ago she had a mini stroke. She’s recovering from that, physically, but she’s losing blocks of memory with increasing frequency. There are blocks of years that she can’t remember now. My dad had a couple of strokes last year and is losing control of his body in different ways each day. Monday he couldn’t stand or walk. Tuesday he could. This afternoon he couldn’t recognize who my mom was. This evening he could. I am staying with them now and have stopped taking gigs to care for them full time. And I am watching them die a little more each day.

My cat has been my source of comfort through this. I hold her and pet her and cry myself to sleep some nights. It’s difficult to explain how important she is to my wellbeing. Last month I was told she has cancer and will die in three to four months. She’s eight years old. Almost all of the other pets I’ve had lived to be 18 to 20 years old, so I was kind of counting another eight years with her.

My heart is breaking and I am in such sadness that I can literally feel the life force leaving me. I have accepted what is happening to my parents since I have seen it with three of my grandparents too. But with all of this happening at once I really no longer have a desire to live. In fact, I feel now that I plan to leave this world after I have taken care of my family’s final needs.

I have prayed, prayed sincerely. I have prayed that my cat’s cancer disappears and that I can have her for at least a few years after my parents are gone. I have no one else. If that would happen, not only would it prove for me the existence of God, but also the power of prayer. And if that would happen I state here and now, in public, that I will dedicate my life to preaching and proclaiming the Word of God and the power of prayer to all who will hear me.

All I ask is to have my cat. I am in tears now and can’t write anymore.
[/quote]

Man oh man, Bill, I pray for you brother....

I pray God responds to your prayers in a way that is eternally best for you my friend.

Please be aware that prayers are always answered. Sometimes prayers are answered to strengthen ones resolve during tests.

I'll be honest with you mate, there is really good chance that your cats cancer will not just disappear, but rather God will bestow upon you the will and desire to find the courage to overcome and detach yourself from the pain of these tests. Youre services that you are rendering to your parents are admirable indeed, and I pray that these sorts of contributions you are making towards service to others will be continued through other means when your parents and cat do eventually pass away (and, as with all life, they will pass away some day).....find that strength brother, I know you can do it and use that inner strength to resume your services in their honour and in memory of your love for them :)

I , for one will always be here for you

Kam
Message: Posted by: satellite23 (Jun 14, 2012 08:55AM)
It's really funny how ignorant many people are when it comes to Christianity...including me.

According to the majority of Christians, including me, Gandhi is not going to receive eternal ***ation just because he had different religious beliefs.

And we do not beat our children when they show signs of being gay. We understand that being gay is a natural process. However, marriages under Catholicism are supposed to be formed for the sake of creation. Last time I checked, two guys or two girls together cannot create another life form. That is why we don't condone same-sex marriage; not because we don't think the two people shouldn't love each other, but because of our basis of marriage to begin with. If two males or two females could create life together, then Christian viewpoints would probably be different.

And again, Slide, you are wrong in thinking that all Christians preach about the end of days and go door-to-door to tell you how you need to be saved. That is wrong; I make fun of people who do that kind of stuff. I blow them off just as much as you or the next guy.

I think it's funny how people always think that Christians are controlling, trying to take away everybody's freedom. That, again, is not true. However, it seems to me that people are becoming more and more morally bad for the sake of "freedom." For instance; abortion. People promote it for the sake of "freedom," but in every case abortion is not the answer. Never. And yet it is acceptable because of "freedom."

Is it freedom when people look down on you when you say your religious beliefs? I think not. Is it freedom when you are not allowed to speak against other beliefs and ideas like abortion? I think not. Is it freedom when people are murderers are killed? I think not.

In all of the above cases, one group or person has more authority or "freedom" over another. When expressing my beliefs and being looked down on, the people who look down on me have more power than me to express their non-beliefs. When dealing with legalizing abortion, the people who legalize it have more power to do so than me. When dealing with capital punishment, the people who punish the murderer have more power than the victim.

Any way you look at it, every single side is fighting for power. EVERY SINGLE SIDE. Christians, Buddhists, atheists, Jews, the government, whatever. Every single side is striving for more power, so--in theory, no side can win. Ever.

Now, I know what you're thinking. If I'm trying to promote freedom, then why am I arguing against gay people?

I'm not. I embrace them just as much as you. What I don't want to happen is same-sex marriages. But, then again, that's just me trying to take control over them. You're right--it is. But, the other way around, legalizing same-sex marriage would be taking control over me. Neither side can win.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 14, 2012 09:00AM)
So Gandhi will go to Christian Heaven?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 14, 2012 09:04AM)
Hi Bob,

The concept of "Abrahamic religions" is tendentious and polemical. Islam actually rejects the Bible, and considers the received texts of the Jewish and Christian scriptures to have been falsified by the adherents of those religions. Although the Noble Qu'ran and the Hadiths refer to versions of some Bible stories that differ signficantly from the versions in the Bible texts, there is no real continuity between Judaism and Christianity on the one hand, and Islam on the other.

Hi Pakar,

I fear that Gandhi was not as good a man as most people seem to believe. The Jews however do not believe that he would be consigned to hellfire simply because he did not follow their religion.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 14, 2012 09:05AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 10:04, Woland wrote:
Hi Bob,

The concept of "Abrahamic religions" is tendentious and polemical. Islam actually rejects the Bible, and considers the received texts of the Jewish and Christian scriptures to have been falsified by the adherents of those religions. Although the Noble Qu'ran and the Hadiths refer to versions of some Bible stories that differ signficantly from the versions in the Bible texts, there is no real continuity between Judaism and Christianity on the one hand, and Islam on the other.

Hi Pakar,

I fear that Gandhi was not as good a man as most people seem to believe. The Jews however do not believe that he would be consigned to hellfire simply because he did not follow their religion.
[/quote]

Well, okay then. ;)
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 14, 2012 09:23AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-06 21:44, Steve_Mollett wrote:
One psychological theory on the development of religion is that faith in a higher intelligence with a higher purpose helps to:
A. Reduce the fear of our own mortality;
B. Give life purpose where none can be observed and;
C. Explain neatly all that is beyond our understanding.

Faith in positive forces gives comfort and hope; belief in the existence of negative (evil) forces gives form to our fears and a neat explanation for life's tragedies and injustices.

That's one set of ideas on the subject; needless to say, there are many more.
[/quote]

From a different thread. ;)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 14, 2012 09:30AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 01:52, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 01:40, acesover wrote:
You naysayers of the bible confuse me. Why would you worry about something you know does not exist and is all made up? Why would you discuss the bible when you know it not to be true or factual? What would be your point?
[/quote]

I discuss books from everyone from Shakespeare to Stephen King that aren't true or factual. I love literature. What is so confusing about that?
[/quote]

I understand that. However those books were written for your entertainment not as a way to live your life.

There is nothing confusing about your love for literature. What is confusing is your trying to prove that the bible is fiction, while many believe it is not. Why must you try and prove your errorenous point? :) My question is why are you so set on proving your point? What makes it so important to you to try and prove it is fiction? The reason I ask is because in your post you seem to put it in the same category as Stephen Kings and Shakesphere writings and I checked here on The Café and did not find you discussing any of there writings as you do the bible. Seems as if you put it in the category of fiction but are obsessed by the bible. Kind of a strange reaction over a book that you believes to be fiction. So again I am asking. Of all the books you have read and it seems that according to you it is many, why single out the bible?

I am not pulling these questions out of the air as you are the one who put the bible in this category not me. If there are other books which you feel so strongly about I would be curious to know which ones they are that evoke such fervor in you to discuss them as you do the bible...for they must be very interesting and profound and thought provoking and would make for a very interesting thread here on The Café.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 14, 2012 09:45AM)
Be happy to start a shakespeare thread. I just don't think anyone would post to it.

"and we do not beat our children when they show signs of being gay. We understand that being gay is a natural process. However, marriages under Catholicism are supposed to be formed for the sake of creation."

First, yes you do: not you personally, but I'll be happy to send you link after link after link of preachers proposing this very thing. Very recently too.

And so if a couple is infertile are they not allowed to marry? If they cannot create a child and need to adopt, that means they are not married in your eyes? Should we pass a law that states if you do not have children, your marriage is automatically null and void?

Sorry, it is a specious argument
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 14, 2012 09:50AM)
"What makes it so important to you to try and prove it is fiction?"

Because as a result of your belief people are killed, children are beaten, wars are fought, people are denied the pursuit of happiness.

Because people believe it to be the word of god, The Westboro Baptist church protests at times of people's most sorrowful moments. They say God hates Fags because the bible tells them that. They pollute the earth because it is the end of days. Natural disasters are seen as god's punishment. Do I need to go on. Because people believe in the veracity of the bible, they make the earth a more dangerous, hateful, judgmental, place.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 14, 2012 09:51AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 01:24, The great Gumbini wrote:

A Prophet MUST MUST MUST speak the truth. The Bible is clear AGAIN on this. It teaches if a person claims to be a prophet and says a certain thing will happen and it does not. Then we are not to believe that person is a prophet.

[/quote]

Then what are we to make of these prophecies?

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Christ proclaime that he will return before a generation passes. Clearly he was wrong. So by your own admission we must reject his status as a prophet :)
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 14, 2012 10:02AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 02:53, Bill Hilly wrote:

All I ask is to have my cat. I am in tears now and can’t write anymore.

[/quote]

Hang in their and know you've got friends here on the Café to call on in your time of need. I lost a great cat a few years ago. It's tough. but a new cat soon came into our lives a little while later. I'm sure that when the time comes a new cat will find you too.
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Jun 14, 2012 10:04AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 02:53, Bill Hilly wrote:
I’m going to bare my heart here and answer acesover’s question about what would prove the existence of God to me.

My mother has Alzheimer’s Disease. Seven weeks ago she had a mini stroke. She’s recovering from that, physically, but she’s losing blocks of memory with increasing frequency. There are blocks of years that she can’t remember now. My dad had a couple of strokes last year and is losing control of his body in different ways each day. Monday he couldn’t stand or walk. Tuesday he could. This afternoon he couldn’t recognize who my mom was. This evening he could. I am staying with them now and have stopped taking gigs to care for them full time. And I am watching them die a little more each day.

My cat has been my source of comfort through this. I hold her and pet her and cry myself to sleep some nights. It’s difficult to explain how important she is to my wellbeing. Last month I was told she has cancer and will die in three to four months. She’s eight years old. Almost all of the other pets I’ve had lived to be 18 to 20 years old, so I was kind of counting another eight years with her.

My heart is breaking and I am in such sadness that I can literally feel the life force leaving me. I have accepted what is happening to my parents since I have seen it with three of my grandparents too. But with all of this happening at once I really no longer have a desire to live. In fact, I feel now that I plan to leave this world after I have taken care of my family’s final needs.

I have prayed, prayed sincerely. I have prayed that my cat’s cancer disappears and that I can have her for at least a few years after my parents are gone. I have no one else. If that would happen, not only would it prove for me the existence of God, but also the power of prayer. And if that would happen I state here and now, in public, that I will dedicate my life to preaching and proclaiming the Word of God and the power of prayer to all who will hear me.

All I ask is to have my cat. I am in tears now and can’t write anymore.
[/quote]


Bill, I pray for you too.

Your family is very blessed to have someone like you to care for them. God certainly provided for them when he put you on this earth.

Hang in there my friend, you will be rewarded. Your time will come.

I've lost several pets over my lifetime and I know it's never easy. They too become a big part of the family. While I've never tried to 'replace' a lost pet, I did find that a new one did help with the healing.

I've never owned but one cat but I haven't forgot him. Got him when I was a child and he lived to be twenty years old. I thought that was some kind of world record for a cat. Later in life I got a cat for my young son. He carried the kitten around by the neck and it didn't take long for that poor cat to realize he was in the wrong place, so he went back home in a hurry. Never owned another cat, but I have raised a few house dogs over the years. Today we have a ****zu dog that's about five years old. I understand how pets do become family.

Bill, stay strong and if you ever need help or just need somebody to talk too, you know where to find me. We all here for you if you need us.

Tom
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2012 10:06AM)
Acesover-

Please cite the post in which I said the Bible was fiction. That may be difficult because I have repeatedly stated my opinion that it is a combination of history, folklore, poetry, allegory, metaphor etc.

It is also one of the most widely read and influential books in history.

It is, therefore, impossible to understand much of human history and thought without a knowledge of the Bible.

Do I accept it unconditionally as literal truth? Obviously not. Is it important work? Obviously yes.

So why wouldn't I want to discuss it?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2012 10:36AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 10:45, Slide wrote:
Be happy to start a shakespeare thread. I just don't think anyone would post to it.
[/quote]

Why don't? I certainly would. I can't be the only former English major around here.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2012 10:39AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 10:50, Slide wrote:
"What makes it so important to you to try and prove it is fiction?"

Because as a result of your belief people are killed, children are beaten, wars are fought, people are denied the pursuit of happiness.
[/quote]

So are you saying that Christianity is a net minus for the planet?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2012 10:47AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 11:36, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 10:45, Slide wrote:
Be happy to start a shakespeare thread. I just don't think anyone would post to it.
[/quote]

Why don't? I certainly would. I can't be the only former English major around here.
[/quote]

You're not. You knew I was an English major didn't you? (That's what forced me into law school - there were no teaching jobs to speak of available at the time and law school was the only option.)

I'm still a bit baffled by acesover's confusion as to why I would be so interested in the Bible. When I was in college we studied the Bible as literature, myth and literature, psychology and literature as well as most of the classic works.

How would it be remotely possible, for example, to begin to understand the works of James Joyce and other major writers without understanding bibilical and mythological allusions, etc.?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2012 10:51AM)
To say nothing of Milton.

"The Bible as Literature" was one of my undergrad electives. Interesting class.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2012 10:57AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 11:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
To say nothing of Milton.
[/quote]

Or Dante. (Or Andrew Lloyd Webber, for that matter.)
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 14, 2012 11:11AM)
"Facts" and "truth" do not necessarily coincide. I think it would be possible for someone to assert that the Bible is not necessarily factual, but does communicate the truth.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2012 11:29AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 12:11, Woland wrote:
"Facts" and "truth" do not necessarily coincide. I think it would be possible for someone to assert that the Bible is not necessarily factual, but does communicate the truth.
[/quote]

Absolutely. The same can be said about most classic works. There is as much truth to be found in Shakespeare, et al, and the poets, as in any work of non-fiction.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2012 11:37AM)
Maybe more, in Shakespeare.

Highly recommended reading -

"Shakespeare: The Invention of The Human," by Harold Bloom.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 14, 2012 11:45AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 08:54, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:51, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:33, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 15:23, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:52, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-13 13:48, acesover wrote:
Is it really that difficult for people to see that they must accept God through their Free Will?

It would mean nothing if he made you accept Him.

It is like giving you a piece of marble and asking you to create a masterpiece. But instead of using a chisel and sculptor tools we set up a computer system that does all the work for you and carves out a statue. All you had to do was turn on a switch and it was done for you. Is that really a masterpiece? Well that is the arguement that many give here. Why doesn'tGod just make me do it as he is God? Because He loved you so much He gave you free will to determine your own destiny. It is really quite simple.
[/quote]

He loves you so much that he gave you a chance to go to Hell?

:worry:
[/quote]

And some choose it.

If He gave you no choice what would that be like? Take responsibility for your own actions. Grow up. Blame no one but yourself for your situation. You had choices and you made them. Now live and die with those choices. Simple as that.
[/quote]

Hmm, too bad for Gandhi. He was such a nice man, did some good things too...

Well...
[/quote]

Are you comparing yourself to Gandhi? If not what point are you trying to make?
[/quote]

That Gandhi was not Christian and is destined for eternal ***ation by the Christian version of God.
[/quote]

You have this on good authority that Gandhi is eternally ****ed? Here I thougth that would be between God and Gandhi. You must have inside info. don't' let it get out that you have an inside contact or everyone will want to talk to you. :)

Your mailbox will be full. shhhhh
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 14, 2012 11:49AM)
Carrie Sue told me in NVMS that Gandhi went to Hell for being an unbeliever when I asked her. I think it was last year. Apparently, she's the one with the inside info.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2012 11:51AM)
Those who say he [i]didn't[/i] go there apparently have some inside info, too.
Message: Posted by: satellite23 (Jun 14, 2012 12:12PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 10:45, Slide wrote:
"and we do not beat our children when they show signs of being gay. We understand that being gay is a natural process. However, marriages under Catholicism are supposed to be formed for the sake of creation."

First, yes you do: not you personally, but I'll be happy to send you link after link after link of preachers proposing this very thing. Very recently too.
[/quote]

Well, I have never really heard of those stories. Thanks for giving me a different view. However, I do not believe that the Church--meaning the Vatican condones such behavior. Unjust violence is a big no-no of Catholicism, and that is an unjust cause.

[quote]
On 2012-06-14 10:45, Slide wrote:
And so if a couple is infertile are they not allowed to marry? If they cannot create a child and need to adopt, that means they are not married in your eyes? Should we pass a law that states if you do not have children, your marriage is automatically null and void?

Sorry, it is a specious argument
[/quote]

That is also a very good point. Maybe I didn't word myself correctly--or maybe I just was ignorant on such a topic. Again, thanks for bringing it up. I cannot answer that question, but I think you might be able to find something in here:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

This entire thread has been VERY interesting to read and discuss. I have not meant to offend anybody, I just wanted to express my point of view.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 14, 2012 12:14PM)
Quite right.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 14, 2012 12:20PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 12:49, critter wrote:
Carrie Sue told me in NVMS that Gandhi went to Hell for being an unbeliever when I asked her. I think it was last year. Apparently, she's the one with the inside info.
[/quote]

I remember that. :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2012 12:29PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 13:12, satellite23 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 10:45, Slide wrote:
"and we do not beat our children when they show signs of being gay. We understand that being gay is a natural process. However, marriages under Catholicism are supposed to be formed for the sake of creation."

First, yes you do: not you personally, but I'll be happy to send you link after link after link of preachers proposing this very thing. Very recently too.
[/quote]

Well, I have never really heard of those stories. Thanks for giving me a different view. However, I do not believe that the Church--meaning the Vatican condones such behavior. Unjust violence is a big no-no of Catholicism, and that is an unjust cause.

[quote]
On 2012-06-14 10:45, Slide wrote:
And so if a couple is infertile are they not allowed to marry? If they cannot create a child and need to adopt, that means they are not married in your eyes? Should we pass a law that states if you do not have children, your marriage is automatically null and void?

Sorry, it is a specious argument
[/quote]

That is also a very good point. Maybe I didn't word myself correctly--or maybe I just was ignorant on such a topic. Again, thanks for bringing it up. I cannot answer that question, but I think you might be able to find something in here:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

This entire thread has been VERY interesting to read and discuss. I have not meant to offend anybody, I just wanted to express my point of view.
[/quote]

I don't think that the marriage-for-procreation argument is [i]entirely[/i] specious. One might take the position that if gay marriage is disfavored or disallowed, then (some) people who would otherwise be involved in gay relationships might instead marry someone of the opposite sex and have children. And we know that DOES, in fact, happen.

As to how brilliant an idea it is, that's another question entirely.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 14, 2012 12:42PM)
"One might take the position that if gay marriage is disfavored or disallowed, then (some) people who would otherwise be involved in gay relationships might instead marry someone of the opposite sex and have children. And we know that DOES, in fact, happen. "

Yeah, those are GREAT marriages.

Gay people usually adopt if they want kids. and of course Lesbians can have their own kids.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 14, 2012 12:45PM)
If Gandhi went to hell and Jim Baker went to heaven, I'll take hell
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 14, 2012 12:49PM)
"So are you saying that Christianity is a net minus for the planet?"

Good question.

On the one hand we have Bach. On the other the Inquisition.
On the one hand we have Dr. Martin Luther King, on the other we have the Westboro Church

is it net minus.

Yes, it is net minus.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2012 12:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 13:42, Slide wrote:
Yeah, those are GREAT marriages.
[/quote]

Guess you missed that last line.


[quote]
Gay people usually adopt if they want kids. and of course Lesbians can have their own kids.
[/quote]

Adoption isn't procreation. If the goal is procreation, then heterosexual marriage that leads to more births is preferable to adopting children who already exist.

To anticipate the rebuttal, I'll type it slowly this time. I'm not saying it's a [i]good[/i] idea; I'm saying it's not a [i]specious[/i] idea.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2012 12:53PM)
Hmmm
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 14, 2012 01:29PM)
Quite right at 1:14 refers to Lobo at 12:51.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 14, 2012 01:31PM)
"I'm saying it's not a specious idea."

I'm not either. I'm saying it's a specious argument. If you are saying that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation, then those who cannot reproduce cannot get married.

You can't say: these two people here can't reproduce, so they can't get married and these people over here can't reproduce, and yet they get to be married.

If your criteria for banning marriage is that marriage is for procreation ONLY, then marriage should be disallowed for everyone who either can't or won't reproduce, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 14, 2012 01:52PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 14:31, Slide wrote:

If your criteria for banning marriage is that marriage is for procreation ONLY, then marriage should be disallowed for everyone who either can't or won't reproduce, regardless of their sexual orientation.

[/quote]

Plus with nearly seven billion people living on the face of the world the lack of procreation doesn't seem to be an issue. So using it as a basis for marriage seems rather outdated. Dowries generally are no longer a prerequisite for marriage either. They once were, but society has moved beyond that and wives are no longer looked upon simply as property and baby making mechanisms.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 14, 2012 02:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 11:06, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover-

Please cite the post in which I said the Bible was fiction. That may be difficult because I have repeatedly stated my opinion that it is a combination of history, folklore, poetry, allegory, metaphor etc.

It is also one of the most widely read and influential books in history.

It is, therefore, impossible to understand much of human history and thought without a knowledge of the Bible.

Do I accept it unconditionally as literal truth? Obviously not. Is it important work? Obviously yes.

So why wouldn't I want to discuss it?
[/quote]

Let me understand you. You do not accept it as unconditionally true. Would that make it fiction in your mind? Or is it that you only feel some is true and some is false? Or is it because you do not understand what is being said? Or is it you do not believe in God and want others to see it your way? These questions are all just part of the discussion that you want to take part in. However if something is written and it is untrue I kind of get the feeliing that that would be called fiction or a lie. Not sure which way you want to go on this. I just wonder why those guys made up all those untruths you refer too. Do you think they wanted to fool us? If so I wonder why.

Your questionof Why wouldn't I want to discuss it, can only be answered by you. Could be possibly thatyou wishto avoid a very volatile topic.Could be you want do try and make people see things yur way. However, discussion is one thing, trying to prove something is false is quite another. In a discussion there should be open mindedness unless one is discussing ones own religion. I say that because as I have said in the past that people who beileve and are devout in their religion know they are right so trying to make them change their mind is quite pointless unless you just wish to stir the pot so to speak. Two people who both believe in the bible can discuss issues they havae with it. However if another person does not believe in the bible it no longer stays a discussion, it escalates into a debate. Most debates have a reason for their existance. So why would you debate someones religious beliefs? Are you trying to convince them they are wrong and you are right? What is your side in this debate? Are you trying to say some of the bible is right and other parts are wrong? If so how do you know? By your posts you seem so sure yet it is not your religion that givies you that insight but rather what you think is correct.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jun 14, 2012 02:21PM)
Bill Hilly
If I was a praying man you'd be on the top of my list.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 14, 2012 02:22PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 12:49, critter wrote:
Carrie Sue told me in NVMS that Gandhi went to Hell for being an unbeliever when I asked her. I think it was last year. Apparently, she's the one with the inside info.
[/quote]

Since when do you believe Carrie Sue? I did not know you were a follower of hers.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 14, 2012 02:26PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 15:22, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 12:49, critter wrote:
Carrie Sue told me in NVMS that Gandhi went to Hell for being an unbeliever when I asked her. I think it was last year. Apparently, she's the one with the inside info.
[/quote]

Since when do you believe Carrie Sue? I did not know you were a follower of hers.
[/quote]

Speaking for myself here...

I don't believe you both when it comes to questions about the afterlife. If there is even an afterlife.

Just want to know what your positions are. ;)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 14, 2012 02:46PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 15:26, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 15:22, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 12:49, critter wrote:
Carrie Sue told me in NVMS that Gandhi went to Hell for being an unbeliever when I asked her. I think it was last year. Apparently, she's the one with the inside info.
[/quote]

Since when do you believe Carrie Sue? I did not know you were a follower of hers.
[/quote]

Speaking for myself here...

I don't believe you both when it comes to questions about the afterlife. If there is even an afterlife.

Just want to know what your positions are. ;)
[/quote]

You want to know about carrie sue and me and our positions? What are you a pervert? :)
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 14, 2012 02:59PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 15:46, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 15:26, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 15:22, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 12:49, critter wrote:
Carrie Sue told me in NVMS that Gandhi went to Hell for being an unbeliever when I asked her. I think it was last year. Apparently, she's the one with the inside info.
[/quote]

Since when do you believe Carrie Sue? I did not know you were a follower of hers.
[/quote]

Speaking for myself here...

I don't believe you both when it comes to questions about the afterlife. If there is even an afterlife.

Just want to know what your positions are. ;)
[/quote]

You want to know about carrie sue and me and our positions? What are you a pervert? :)
[/quote]

I REALLY did not mean THAT. Eeewww... :sick:

But from the way you're asking...

I think it's you who should be worried. ;)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 14, 2012 03:00PM)
I don'tknow how to break it to youguys but here are the top 20- religions and beliefs in the United States as of 2001.

Even if your numbers are growing, you are way behind if you are agnostic or atheist. But what do all these people know? :)


If you have a hard time folowing Christianity is at 76.5%-----Agnostic is at .5%---Atheist is at .4%

.
2000 % Change
1990 - 2000
Christianity 151,225,000 159,030,000 224,437,959 76.5% +5%
Nonreligious/Secular 13,116,000 27,539,000 38,865,604 13.2% +110%
Judaism 3,137,000 2,831,000 3,995,371 1.3% -10%
Islam 527,000 1,104,000 1,558,068 0.5% +109%
Buddhism 401,000 1,082,000 1,527,019 0.5% +170%
Agnostic 1,186,000 991,000 1,398,592 0.5% -16%
Atheist 902,000 1,272,986 0.4%
Hinduism 227,000 766,000 1,081,051 0.4% +237%
Unitarian Universalist 502,000 629,000 887,703 0.3% +25%
Wiccan/Pagan/Druid 307,000 433,267 0.1%
Spiritualist 116,000 163,710 0.05%
Native American Religion 47,000 103,000 145,363 0.05% +119%
Baha'i 28,000 84,000 118,549 0.04% +200%
New Age 20,000 68,000 95,968 0.03% +240%
Sikhism 13,000 57,000 80,444 0.03% +338%
Scientology 45,000 55,000 77,621 0.02% +22%
Humanist 29,000 49,000 69,153 0.02% +69%
Deity (Deist) 6,000 49,000 69,153 0.02% +717%
Taoist 23,000 40,000 56,452 0.02% +74%
Eckankar 18,000 26,000 36,694 0.01% +44%
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 14, 2012 03:03PM)
And people wonder why the world is in such a state? :hysteric:

(And why are Humanist included in there? I'm a Humanist...)
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 14, 2012 03:28PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 15:15, acesover wrote:

[Let me understand you. You do not accept it as unconditionally true.

[/quote]

The Bible is true, it's just not factual. Just as Aesop's Fables are true but far from factual. There is much the Bible can teach us. However history and science are not among them. Most of the Bible can easily be shown to be in error with known historical events and scientific facts. But this in no way negates te valuable lessons to be learned from the text. Even the believers in the Middle Ages knew the stories in the Bible weren't lterally true. that they were Allegory, parable, myth and legend. It is only in the last century or so that the bible has begun to be seen as literal and true.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 14, 2012 03:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 16:28, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 15:15, acesover wrote:

[Let me understand you. You do not accept it as unconditionally true.

[/quote]

The Bible is true, it's just not factual. Just as Aesop's Fables are true but far from factual. There is much the Bible can teach us. However history and science are not among them. Most of the Bible can easily be shown to be in error with known historical events and scientific facts. But this in no way negates te valuable lessons to be learned from the text. Even the believers in the Middle Ages knew the stories in the Bible weren't lterally true. that they were Allegory, parable, myth and legend. It is only in the last century or so that the bible has begun to be seen as literal and true.
[/quote]

Does that mean we are getting dumber and dumber or more gullible?

Just as a side note what are some of the thngs you refer to as "Most of the Bible" that can be shown to be in error with known historical events and scientific facts. Not all because you said "most of" and there are probably hundreds of these in the bible so just give me a few. Say maybe 10.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 14, 2012 03:57PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 15:22, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 12:49, critter wrote:
Carrie Sue told me in NVMS that Gandhi went to Hell for being an unbeliever when I asked her. I think it was last year. Apparently, she's the one with the inside info.
[/quote]

Since when do you believe Carrie Sue? I did not know you were a follower of hers.
[/quote]

I believe that she [i]exists[/i], but I'm not a follower ;)
Was only pointing out the source that the notion came from.
The validity of that source is up to the reader to determine.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 14, 2012 03:59PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 12:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Those who say he [i]didn't[/i] go there apparently have some inside info, too.
[/quote]

I don't know if he did or didn't, but if there is a Hell and he was sent there, then... dude. Come on. Dude.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 14, 2012 04:10PM)
[quote]Most of the Bible can easily be shown to be in error with known historical events and scientific facts.[/quote]

Actually I think the contrary is true. The more that archaeologists study the lands of the Bible, the better it looks.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 14, 2012 04:18PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 16:37, acesover wrote:

Just as a side note what are some of the thngs you refer to as "Most of the Bible" that can be shown to be in error with known historical events and scientific facts. Not all because you said "most of" and there are probably hundreds of these in the bible so just give me a few. Say maybe 10.

[/quote]

Basic Errors

The World is Round not flat as described in the Bible
Bats are not Birds
Insects have Six legs Not Four
No known species of Birds have Four Legs
Rabbits don’t chew their cud
The moon doesn’t not produce its own light
The sun doesn’t orbit the earth.
Snakebite can’t be cured with a brass serpent on a pole
Snails don’t melt
Pi isn’t 3

These are all factual errors easily found in the Bible. Strange that if this were the word of a perfect god that it would make these rudimentary mistakes. There are many, many more to be found such as there is no extra biblical evidence to back up the stories of the great flood any of the events surrounding Moses, the tower of Babel the collapse of the walls of Jericho or the life of Christ.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2012 04:23PM)
Acesover-

Sorry you feel that I am not entitled to participate in this discussion and/or that I am a non-believer. How many times to I have to point out that I am a Deist?

By the way, did you note the statistic on Deist in the list you posted:

"Deity (Deist) 6,000 49,000 69,153 0.02% +717% " (Christianity only was up by 5%)

But, then again, since when is truth decided by popular vote or an opinion poll? As I also pointed out previously, centuries ago nearly everyone believed the sun rotated around the earth.

I'd point out that even the Catholic Church does not advocate the position that the Bible is completely and literally true. And it is quite adamant that it is not a book that should be interpreted individually by everyone. In fact, as late as the 19th Century, Catholics were not encouraged to read the Bible themselves at all.

You requested 10 examples of where the Bible is literally or historically incorrect. I already suggested that you read Thomas Paine's (one of our Founding Fathers, I'd point out) "The Age of Reason." If you decide to read it you will discover hundreds of examples.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jun 14, 2012 04:26PM)
[quote]On 2012-06-14 17:18, Payne wrote:
The sun doesn’t orbit the earth.[/quote]
According to Einstein, this is as reasonable a position as saying that the earth orbits the sun.

You weaken your argument when you include citations such as this.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 14, 2012 04:28PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 17:18, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 16:37, acesover wrote:

Just as a side note what are some of the thngs you refer to as "Most of the Bible" that can be shown to be in error with known historical events and scientific facts. Not all because you said "most of" and there are probably hundreds of these in the bible so just give me a few. Say maybe 10.

[/quote]

Basic Errors

The World is Round not flat as described in the Bible
Bats are not Birds
Insects have Six legs Not Four
No known species of Birds have Four Legs
Rabbits don’t chew their cud
The moon doesn’t not produce its own light
The sun doesn’t orbit the earth.
Snakebite can’t be cured with a brass serpent on a pole
Snails don’t melt
Pi isn’t 3

These are all factual errors easily found in the Bible. Strange that if this were the word of a perfect god that it would make these rudimentary mistakes. There are many, many more to be found such as there is no extra biblical evidence to back up the stories of the great flood any of the events surrounding Moses, the tower of Babel the collapse of the walls of Jericho or the life of Christ.
[/quote]

You are going to hve to do better than that. I need passage numbers. I have no idea what you said is even in the bible or taken out of context if it is. You want me to believe you but you won't believe the bible. That would be quie a leap of faith for me that I am not ready to take just yet. I am just saying...


Scientific evidence of world wide flood: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm


I would not be surprised if yo udispute this evidence as I have said before your bias which inhibits "creaative thinking". In othher words you don't want it to be true so you discount it or look for ways to discount it but for sure never consider it a possibility. Whatever floats your ark.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2012 04:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 17:26, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-06-14 17:18, Payne wrote:
The sun doesn’t orbit the earth.[/quote]
According to Einstein, this is as reasonable a position as saying that the earth orbits the sun.
[/quote]

Given that the original Church position, based on Scripture, was that the earth was the center of the universe, Einstein's relativistic observation is really irrelevant in the context of this discussion.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jun 14, 2012 04:44PM)
[quote]On 2012-06-14 17:35, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On 2012-06-14 17:26, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-06-14 17:18, Payne wrote:
The sun doesn’t orbit the earth.[/quote]
According to Einstein, this is as reasonable a position as saying that the earth orbits the sun.[/quote]
Given that the original Church position, based on Scripture, was that the earth was the center of the universe, Einstein's relativistic observation is really irrelevant in the context of this discussion.[/quote]
It is relevant to the extent that the geocentric model is held out as a factual error; there is nothing erroneous about the original church position, based on Scripture.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 14, 2012 04:46PM)
Payne,

Just another observation on the rabbit deal of yours. Explanation of which I am sure you will reject as you are biased and we know bias does not make one a critical thinker, and that is exactly what this needs, "critical thinking".

rabbit deal of yours: http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 14, 2012 04:52PM)
Just curious here. How can one say that anything is or is not the center of the universe when the universe expanding so quickly and is so vast how would one determine where the center of the universe is. Not the center of a solar system, but the center of the universe.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2012 04:53PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 14:31, Slide wrote:
"I'm saying it's not a specious idea."

I'm not either. I'm saying it's a specious argument. If you are saying that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation, then those who cannot reproduce cannot get married.

You can't say: these two people here can't reproduce, so they can't get married and these people over here can't reproduce, and yet they get to be married.
[/quote]

But you CAN say, "People who are capable of procreating cannot enter into marriage in which they cannot procreate" (given the proscription on extramarital sex).
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2012 04:57PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 17:44, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-06-14 17:35, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On 2012-06-14 17:26, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-06-14 17:18, Payne wrote:
The sun doesn’t orbit the earth.[/quote]
According to Einstein, this is as reasonable a position as saying that the earth orbits the sun.[/quote]
Given that the original Church position, based on Scripture, was that the earth was the center of the universe, Einstein's relativistic observation is really irrelevant in the context of this discussion.[/quote]
It is relevant to the extent that the geocentric model is held out as a factual error; there is nothing erroneous about the original church position, based on Scripture.
[/quote]

Why, then, did the Church initially reject the Copernican model? The problem with the biblical version of geocentrism is that it held that the earth was the literal center of the universe. I don't believe Einstein believed that. Interestingly, though, many pagans would, but for a different reason. They hold the wonderful view that the universe may be represented by a circle with an infinite circumference whose center is everywhere.

Einstein, though, didn't see the universe as infinite, so I guess he might have argued with that view. :eek:
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 14, 2012 04:58PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 17:28, acesover wrote:

Scientific evidence of world wide flood: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

[/quote]

Sorry, this is not scientific evidence as it hasn't been peer reviewed. Thus it's only opinion. Not only that but it's wrong.

Why Polystrate Fossils are not evidence for a world wide flood

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

Why fossils of Sea Life are found on mountain tops

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

Most the rest of the paper debunked here

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 14, 2012 04:58PM)
Payne,

I wontgo any furthher but here is soethingonyou rsnail deal also. I am strating to get like you and looking up things onthe internet whichInormallydo notdo.. Anyway here it is: http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20010624.htm
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2012 04:59PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 17:18, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 16:37, acesover wrote:

Just as a side note what are some of the thngs you refer to as "Most of the Bible" that can be shown to be in error with known historical events and scientific facts. Not all because you said "most of" and there are probably hundreds of these in the bible so just give me a few. Say maybe 10.

[/quote]

Basic Errors

The World is Round not flat as described in the Bible
Bats are not Birds
Insects have Six legs Not Four
No known species of Birds have Four Legs
Rabbits don’t chew their cud
The moon doesn’t not produce its own light
The sun doesn’t orbit the earth.
Snakebite can’t be cured with a brass serpent on a pole
Snails don’t melt
Pi isn’t 3

These are all factual errors easily found in the Bible. Strange that if this were the word of a perfect god that it would make these rudimentary mistakes. There are many, many more to be found such as there is no extra biblical evidence to back up the stories of the great flood any of the events surrounding Moses, the tower of Babel the collapse of the walls of Jericho or the life of Christ.
[/quote]

The "bats/birds" distinction doesn't do much to advance your position, either, as it's a purely arbitrary definitional distinction (and wasnt written in English originally, anyway). Perhaps the equivalent for "birds" at the time meant "things that can fly," which isn't [i]inherently[/i] wrong; we just have criteria that we find more salient now.

It's a bit like laughing at Einstein and thinking he was an idiot because for his whole life, he thought Pluto was a planet.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 14, 2012 05:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 17:46, acesover wrote:
Payne,

Just another observation on the rabbit deal of yours. Explanation of which I am sure you will reject as you are biased and we know bias does not make one a critical thinker, and that is exactly what this needs, "critical thinking".

rabbit deal of yours: http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html
[/quote]

Yes, I’ve seen this before and it's a reasonable argument. If we weren't talking about an all knowing being that, according to tradition, guided the hand of not only the writers of the Bible, but the translators as well. You think it might have said “Whoa there Moses! Go back and fix that previous sentence. Rabbits don’t chew their cud so they’re OK to eat. I made ‘em extra tasty too!”.
But it didn’t. It allowed the error to stand. So now there’s a mistake in its perfect infallible book. Not so much a problem if one wasn’t all heckbent to take it as the inerrant factual word of god. But some people do. And when you find one of those niggling little errors they have to start tap dancing all around it. Thus the sad apologetics start up. “There wasn’t a word for it back then” “What it really means is”, “What they meant to say was” and every other excuse they can possibly come up with to keep from saying that the Bible is wrong on this particular point.
It seems that the book is the literal word of god, until it isn’t. Then it becomes the interpreted word of god. One would think a manuscript written by a perfect infallible being would be a little more clear and easy to understand.
We can split hares (pun intended) all we want. But in the end you’re going to finally have to admit that the Bible is too full of basic errors of fundamental knowledge to be divinely written.
Don’t you find it odd that it contains not a single shred of information that wasn’t known at the time? How many lives could have been saved over the millennia had god told us about basic germ theory or given us a hint about antibiotics? How hard would it have been for it to tell his people about basic celestial mechanics or give them a mathematical system that could figure Pi.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 14, 2012 05:43PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 17:59, LobowolfXXX wrote:

The "bats/birds" distinction doesn't do much to advance your position, either, as it's a purely arbitrary definitional distinction (and wasnt written in English originally, anyway). Perhaps the equivalent for "birds" at the time meant "things that can fly," which isn't [i]inherently[/i] wrong; we just have criteria that we find more salient now.

It's a bit like laughing at Einstein and thinking he was an idiot because for his whole life, he thought Pluto was a planet.
[/quote]

Like I said, arbitrary for mere mortals. But this is god(s) we're talking about. It would know better as it made the things and you really think it would have straightened out the matter, at least on any one of the multiple revisions of the text. :)

But I'll give you the birds and the bee's. Getting the celestial mechanics completely wrong demonstrates that the Bible is not infallible and in fact contains many factual errors.

But only if you take it literally.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2012 05:57PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 18:43, Payne wrote:

But I'll give you the birds and the bee's. Getting the celestial mechanics completely wrong demonstrates that the Bible is not infallible and in fact contains many factual errors.

But only if you take it literally.
[/quote]

That's part of the irony in this discussion. Acesover has stated that he is Catholic. Even the Catholic Church has long warned against a strictly literal interpretation of Scripture. In fact the faith is based equally on scripture, dogma and everything laid out in its catechism. (In which it plainly states that the big bang theory, evolution, science, etc. aren't incompatible with the faith.)

That's why you don't often see Catholics engaging in arguments about Biblical literalism. That's mainly a modern fundamentalist Protestant argument.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 14, 2012 06:20PM)
Here you go Aces, knock yourself out...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html


Ron
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 14, 2012 06:28PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 17:26, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-06-14 17:18, Payne wrote:
The sun doesn’t orbit the earth.[/quote]
According to Einstein, this is as reasonable a position as saying that the earth orbits the sun.

You weaken your argument when you include citations such as this.
[/quote]

Hi Bill!

This made me think... if it's reasonable to conclude that the Sun orbits the Earth, then wouldn't it also be reasonable to conclude that the Sun orbits ALL the planets in our Solar System? I mean, if your perspective was from Mars, the same "logic" would apply and you could say the Sun orbits Mars. And so forth for each planet. And that's a model that's unsustainable. Agree or disagree?


Ron
:)
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 14, 2012 07:23PM)
Hi Payne,

The Bible does not define pi as 3.
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Jun 14, 2012 07:49PM)
To those of us who believe the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, it was not given for the purpose of arguing with non-believers. Any attempt to do so just conjures up the old saying (no, not in the Bible), "When you wrestle with a pig you both get dirty - and the pig likes it."

As 1 Cor. 1:18 says, "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." Arguments such as those put forth in this thread only support that verse.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 14, 2012 07:59PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 20:23, Woland wrote:
Hi Payne,

The Bible does not define pi as 3.
[/quote]

From 1 Kings 7

23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits[o] to measure around it.

Looks like 3 to me :)

Kind of difficult to compute the actual value of Pi in roman numerals and without a decimal point. It'd look something like III.XIV So in Biblical times I suppose Pi was three and a little extra. It can't be exactly ten cubits across and thirty cubits around. The math doesn't work that way. So if the Bible was going to be literally accurate it should have said "Thirty Cubits and a little bit more".
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jun 14, 2012 08:08PM)
[quote]On 2012-06-14 19:28, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On 2012-06-14 17:26, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-06-14 17:18, Payne wrote:
The sun doesn’t orbit the earth.[/quote]
According to Einstein, this is as reasonable a position as saying that the earth orbits the sun.

You weaken your argument when you include citations such as this.[/quote]
Hi Bill!

This made me think... if it's reasonable to conclude that the Sun orbits the Earth, then wouldn't it also be reasonable to conclude that the Sun orbits ALL the planets in our Solar System? I mean, if your perspective was from Mars, the same "logic" would apply and you could say the Sun orbits Mars. And so forth for each planet. And that's a model that's unsustainable. Agree or disagree?


Ron
:)[/quote]
Howdy, Ron!

Yup. It's not that the model is unsustainable, it's that the viewpoints are inconsistent. That's OK. (Sort of like you and me disagreeing on things. I say "sort of" because for the solar system model any of the viewpoints is perfectly valid, whereas for our disagreements, clearly I'm right and you're wrong. ;) )
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jun 14, 2012 08:13PM)
[quote]On 2012-06-14 17:58, Payne wrote:
[quote]On 2012-06-14 17:28, acesover wrote:
Scientific evidence of world wide flood: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
[/quote]
Sorry, this is not scientific evidence as it hasn't been peer reviewed. Thus it's only opinion.[/quote]
Not-being-peer-reviewed isn't sufficient to prove that it isn't scientific evidence. All peer-reviewed scientific evidence wasn't peer-reviewed until it was . . . well . . . reviewed by peers; but it was equally scientific before and after.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 14, 2012 09:03PM)
I have finally decided to take this stance. Here is the explanation: My buddy while playing Texas Holdem said he has a flush and the board shows 1 spade, 1 diamond, 1 club and 2 hearts and everyone says you can't have a flush. To which he replies, "believe what you want" and just looks at his cards and raises.

So, BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2012 09:07PM)
Until the showdown, when he loses the pot. Reality doesn't care what anyone believes.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 14, 2012 09:11PM)
Your are learning :)
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 14, 2012 09:19PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 22:03, acesover wrote:
I have finally decided to take this stance. Here is the explanation: My buddy while playing Texas Holdem said he has a flush and the board shows 1 spade, 1 diamond, 1 club and 2 hearts and everyone says you can't have a flush. To which he replies, "believe what you want" and just looks at his cards and raises.

So, BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
[/quote]


acesover, that's the worst case FOR a belief system I have ever seen lol

I cant believe anything when what I am looking for will be the worlds greatest ever recorded miracle.

The question is, for how long will your eyes be shut from the reality that there is no flush on the table....its laughable that you cant stand up for all your ancestors who believed as you believe, and say "ENOUGH"....its time to stop this delusion...

Kam
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 14, 2012 09:34PM)
Acesover,

I would like to share with you a wonderful book called Misquoting Jesus: http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170

I read this a few years ago. It was written by a former evangelical minister and bible scholar. What he discovered in his research was that much of the new testiment was re-written by the scribes of the 12th and 13th century, and that whole sections of the new testiment (including the "Let him without sin cast the first stone" ) was actually written by one of the scribes in the 1300's. You can read his research if you like. As a result of his study, he went from being an evangelical to an agnostic.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2012 10:03PM)
Slide-

I agree. Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" is one of the best non-fiction works I've read in recent years. Funny you should mention it because I was just rereading part of it earlier today.

I would offer two minor corrections, though. As Mr. Ehrman point out in his work, he did NOT discover these things about the Bible. They have been well known to textual historians and religious scholars for decades. He wrote the book because most lay people aren't the least bit familiar with textual criticism and what has been learned from it.

Also, he didn't become an agnostic because of what he "found" in his research. He clearly states in the question and answer section at the end of the book, that he lost his faith for other reasons related to the problem of an all-loving god presiding over a world in which horrific tragedies are allowed to happen regularly.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 14, 2012 10:16PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 22:07, mastermindreader wrote:
Until the showdown, when he loses the pot. Reality doesn't care what anyone believes.
[/quote]

I don't think you are a poker player or you would have asked what the cards actually were before saying he lost the hand. Let me just give you a hint. A lot of hands beat a flush.

Think ouside the box. Come on you are smarter than that. So his "believe what you want" could very well be a come on. Just like me saying believe what YOU want it does not matter, only the truth matters. All is well that ends well. So believe what you want it is definitely your decision to gather the information and decide what you will, or as I said...believe what you want. Just like the saying goes. You cannot see the forest because of the trees. No flush, BUT. No scientific proof BUT.

In the end no one knows for sure do they? There are some who claim to know one way or the other. There are some who know they are right they are the devout believers. But for the most part I believe like my buddy says. Believe what you want...it does not matter to him what you believe. He knows the truth, he knows what he is holding and all you are doing is guessing and taking into acount his statement saying I have a flush. A simple analogy here would be the two cards inhishand are the bible and that holds al lthe answers to the hand, because he is holding the nuts. Hope you undersand poker terms.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 14, 2012 10:22PM)
I have a question....

In the womb, which is the environment given to you when you were a foetus, would you consider your mother all-loving for providing for your needs in the womb?

What if for some reason you went through a heart palpitation (which can be a traumatic occurence for the foetus)....would you dishonour your mother for all that she has provided for you?

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2012 10:23PM)
The fact is that I've been a poker player for over 40 years and have won a large number of local hold em tournaments.

I really won't stoop to condescending comments like, "I know you are smarter than that," because I'm sure you understood exactly what I meant. Your little poker story was presented as an example of how people can believe whatever they want, not as a lesson in poker strategy.

Nice try at back peddling, though.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 14, 2012 10:26PM)
I don't know whether he won the hand, but I know he didn't have a flush. That's proof, not faith.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 14, 2012 10:30PM)
You don't need the best hand to win always as you can bluff. Is the man bluffing? No! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5698x5qVWeg
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2012 10:36PM)
Acesover-

To get a bit back on topic, though, do you agree or disagree with the following statement. I'd really like to know:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 14, 2012 10:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 23:23, mastermindreader wrote:
The fact is that I've been a poker player for over 40 years and have won a large number of local hold em tournaments.

I really won't stoop to condescending comments like, "I know you are smarter than that," because I'm sure you understood exactly what I meant. Your little poker story was presented as an example of how people can believe whatever they want, not as a lesson in poker strategy.

Nice try at back peddling, though.
[/quote]


Bob, do you play any online stuff?

Myself and the boys have our own little poker league that's been happening the past 3 years or so....fancy some external challenges lol

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2012 10:41PM)
I did play on line frequently until they made on-line gambling illegal in my state. Bummer.

But I prefer live casino tournament play. I play much better when I can see my opponents.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 14, 2012 10:42PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 23:16, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 22:07, mastermindreader wrote:
Until the showdown, when he loses the pot. Reality doesn't care what anyone believes.
[/quote]

I don't think you are a poker player or you would have asked what the cards actually were before saying he lost the hand. Let me just give you a hint. A lot of hands beat a flush.

Think ouside the box. Come on you are smarter than that. So his "believe what you want" could very well be a come on. Just like me saying believe what YOU want it does not matter, only the truth matters. All is well that ends well. So believe what you want it is definitely your decision to gather the information and decide what you will, or as I said...believe what you want. Just like the saying goes. You cannot see the forest because of the trees. No flush, BUT. No scientific proof BUT.

In the end no one knows for sure do they? There are some who claim to know one way or the other. There are some who know they are right they are the devout believers. But for the most part I believe like my buddy says. Believe what you want...it does not matter to him what you believe. He knows the truth, he knows what he is holding and all you are doing is guessing and taking into acount his statement saying I have a flush. A simple analogy here would be the two cards inhishand are the bible and that holds al lthe answers to the hand, because he is holding the nuts. Hope you undersand poker terms.
[/quote]


Mate I hope you answer the question above from Bob....

"For the people are wandering in the paths of delusion, bereft of discernment to see God with their own eyes, or hear His Melody with their own ears. Thus have We found them, as thou also dost witness." - Baha'u'llah

Kam
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 15, 2012 12:21AM)
The Bible says the prophecies that are written are written so when they happen people will believe. Israel becoming a Nation for the second time (something that NO other Nation can boast) was prophesied in the Bible. All the prophesies of the coming Messiah were written so we would know Him when He came. In Revelation we see what and who we are to be looking for. How can you even attempt to argue against such evidence? God declared "This is My Son in Whom I am well pleased". Jesus said "If you have seen the Son you have seen the Father."

Bill God is able to heal your cat (as well as your parents). If He will or not I don't know. I will pray that He heals all three because I know that my God is able to do over and above what we ask. But I ask that you pray to Him and ask Him to guide you and help you to have a relationship with Him. He is able to merely speak and all 3 will be healed. But Bill one day even if they all are healed one day they will either go to Him or Christ will return before they pass. So please understand one day you will pray for them to live and they will not. We are all appointed to die once (unless the Lord returns first) and then we will shut our eyes here and open them in Heaven. But Bill here is something you can do NOW. Love them and let them know you love them. My dog Angel was diagnosed with cancer almost 5 years ago. Yes she is showing signs of the cancer taking her body but she has hung in there. We do pray for her and she has good days and God has sustained her (Praise God) but again one day we know either the Lord will return or she will go to Him. Yes by the way I do believe our pets will go to Heaven too. Some misunderstand when the Bible speaks of no dogs in Heaven. These were a different dog then we have today. Those dogs were wild animals that often tore their pray to shreds and then went searching for more. But what I'm saying is pray and love. Then let God decide what is best. Cast (heave up hard) your cares upon Him for He cares for you. Take that burden off of you and give it to Him. You pray and you love.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 15, 2012 12:26AM)
When do we pass the collection basket?

:eek:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 15, 2012 12:32AM)
Israel is the only nation to become a nation twice? Hmmm. Didn't Russia once again become a nation after the fall of the Soviet Union? And what happened when East Germany and West Germany were reunited? Didn't that mean that Germany became a nation once again?

Those examples are just off the top of my head, but I imagine our history buffs here could give innumerable other examples. How many nations lost their sovereignty due to foreign invasion and later regained their independence and became nations again?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 15, 2012 01:10AM)
“It has been said, 'the truth will make men free.' The truth alone has never made anyone free. It is only doubt which will bring mental emancipation.”
-Anton LaVey
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 15, 2012 01:24AM)
Just remembered another country that became a nation at least twice- The Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 15, 2012 03:04AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 23:23, mastermindreader wrote:
The fact is that I've been a poker player for over 40 years and have won a large number of local hold em tournaments.
[/quote]

You mean you don't win always?

Some mentalist you are.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 15, 2012 03:08AM)
Even Chan Canasta dumped a couple, to throw 'em off track.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 15, 2012 03:42AM)
There would be no point in winning all the time. Who would play with me? Besides, it's hard to catch a fish if you don't bait your hook. :eek:
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 15, 2012 06:50AM)
Y'all would probably be interested in Heribert Illig's theory that the centuries from A.D. 614 through A.D. 911 are entirely fictional, and were interpolated into the chronicles by later scribes. This of course alters the chronology of many major events considerably.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 15, 2012 07:04AM)
Hi Payne,

[quote]Kind of difficult to compute the actual value of Pi in roman numerals and without a decimal point. It'd look something like III.XIV So in Biblical times I suppose Pi was three and a little extra. It can't be exactly ten cubits across and thirty cubits around. The math doesn't work that way. So if the Bible was going to be literally accurate it should have said "Thirty Cubits and a little bit more".[/quote]

There are a couple of problems with this objection, which I hope you will forgive me as characterizing as architypical of the "village atheist" school of Bible criticism. :)

First, such a reader is assuming that the Bible wants to teach you mathematics. Rather than trying to understand what the Bible is communicating, such a reader arbitrarily demand that the Bible communicate whatever it is that such a reader may from time to time think should be communicated.

The Bible is not a mathematical textbook, but a set of moral instructions that are conveyed in various ways, including through histories and allegories. For the purpose of describing the Temple and its appurtenances, the figures given are perfectly adequate.

Second of all, the measurements may in fact be entirely accurate. As was pointed out and published about 1850 years ago, if the diameter of 10 cubits was measured from outer edge to outer edge, and the thickness of the vessel was about one hand's breadth, the circumference of the inner surface, which is relevant to the actual volume of water, would be very close to 30 cubits.

Thirdly, there is an anomalous spelling in the verse you cite. The word for measuring line is spelled (in transliteration) QWH rather than QH. As I am sure you know, the ancient Hebrews used their alphabet as numerals as well, so that there is a numerical value that can be determined for every word. If you take the ratio of the unusual spelling to the usual spelling (QWH/QH or 111/106) you get a figure that is closer to the true value of pi than the 22/7 - and within 1/10,000 of the true value. For an irrational number that can only be approximated, that is pretty good.

The first point is the most important. The Bible was written in the language of human beings, was intended to be studied and used by human beings, and is not a substitute for mathematics.

Unlike the Caliph Omar, we don't assume that every other book in the world either repeats what is already in one book, or contradicts what is already in that one book, and hence superfluous.
Message: Posted by: satellite23 (Jun 15, 2012 07:59AM)
I want to add another comment to this discussion:

"Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong. Paper, rock, and scissors they all have their pros and cons."

-Relient K quote, a pop-punk band who instills Christian themes in their songs.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 15, 2012 08:06AM)
A good way to make money is to write books about god as there is a ready made market for them.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 15, 2012 08:30AM)
Well said Woland.....said like a man who maintains perspective and sees the value of things for what they are

Kam
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 15, 2012 09:29AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 23:23, mastermindreader wrote:
The fact is that I've been a poker player for over 40 years and have won a large number of local hold em tournaments.

I really won't stoop to condescending comments like, "I know you are smarter than that," because I'm sure you understood exactly what I meant. Your little poker story was presented as an example of how people can believe whatever they want, not as a lesson in poker strategy.

Nice try at back peddling, though.
[/quote]

While you are partly correct you are the one who jumped and said, until he lost the hand. making it a contuiuance of the story which was incorrect. But because you said it I guess we have to overlook it because you don't make mistakes. You will know a condescending comment when I make it...like my last statement...now that was condescending.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 15, 2012 09:36AM)
Acesover-

Any particular reason that you have ignored the question I posed to you earlier? Maybe you missed it, so here it is again. Do you agree or disagree with the following sentence?

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.

I think that your answer could pretty well resolve the differences we seem to be having here.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 15, 2012 09:37AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 04:42, mastermindreader wrote:
There would be no point in winning all the time. Who would play with me? Besides, it's hard to catch a fish if you don't bait your hook. :eek:
[/quote]

Good point. Stuey Ungar made that mistake playing Gin.

BTW, what's this thread about? Maybe I can make a contribution somehow. :jump:
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 15, 2012 09:38AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 22:19, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 22:03, acesover wrote:
I have finally decided to take this stance. Here is the explanation: My buddy while playing Texas Holdem said he has a flush and the board shows 1 spade, 1 diamond, 1 club and 2 hearts and everyone says you can't have a flush. To which he replies, "believe what you want" and just looks at his cards and raises.

So, BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
[/quote]



acesover, that's the worst case FOR a belief system I have ever seen lol

I cant believe anything when what I am looking for will be the worlds greatest ever recorded miracle.

The question is, for how long will your eyes be shut from the reality that there is no flush on the table....its laughable that you cant stand up for all your ancestors who believed as you believe, and say "ENOUGH"....its time to stop this delusion...

Kam
[/quote]

You missed the whole point of the post. The person saying believe what you want only madae a statement not a proclamation of his belief when he said believe what you want. He told all there to believe what you want after saying he had a flush (which was impossible). There are a lot of strange statements uttered in a poker game just as there are a lot of strange posts made here. So it is up to you to believe what you want.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 15, 2012 09:40AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 10:37, stoneunhinged wrote:

BTW, what's this thread about? Maybe I can make a contribution somehow.
[/quote]

That's a tough question to answer.
:eek:
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 15, 2012 09:43AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 23:26, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I don't know whether he won the hand, but I know he didn't have a flush. That's proof, not faith.
[/quote]

You also missed the point of the post. Read the post I made to Kams response a little further down.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jun 15, 2012 09:43AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 10:40, mastermindreader wrote:
That's a tough question to answer.
[/quote]

You're being tautological. LOL!
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 15, 2012 09:52AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 23:36, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover-

To get a bit back on topic, though, do you agree or disagree with the following statement. I'd really like to know:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.
[/quote]

Yes.

However the issue remains that mans apperanace is trying to be explained scientifically and no consideration is given by the scientific community that a Supreme Being put the whole thing in motion which obviously includes the appearance of man.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 15, 2012 09:56AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 23:42, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 23:16, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 22:07, mastermindreader wrote:
Until the showdown, when he loses the pot. Reality doesn't care what anyone believes.
[/quote]

I don't think you are a poker player or you would have asked what the cards actually were before saying he lost the hand. Let me just give you a hint. A lot of hands beat a flush.

Think ouside the box. Come on you are smarter than that. So his "believe what you want" could very well be a come on. Just like me saying believe what YOU want it does not matter, only the truth matters. All is well that ends well. So believe what you want it is definitely your decision to gather the information and decide what you will, or as I said...believe what you want. Just like the saying goes. You cannot see the forest because of the trees. No flush, BUT. No scientific proof BUT.

In the end no one knows for sure do they? There are some who claim to know one way or the other. There are some who know they are right they are the devout believers. But for the most part I believe like my buddy says. Believe what you want...it does not matter to him what you believe. He knows the truth, he knows what he is holding and all you are doing is guessing and taking into acount his statement saying I have a flush. A simple analogy here would be the two cards inhishand are the bible and that holds al lthe answers to the hand, because he is holding the nuts. Hope you undersand poker terms.
[/quote]


Mate I hope you answer the question above from Bob....

"For the people are wandering in the paths of delusion, bereft of discernment to see God with their own eyes, or hear His Melody with their own ears. Thus have We found them, as thou also dost witness." - Baha'u'llah

Kam
[/quote]

As I said lots of hands beat a flush. What he said I have a flush and what you believe...ahhh now that is the question isn't it? Not trying to turn this into a poker thread but if you make your decision on this hand by his statement you are a fool.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 15, 2012 10:05AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 10:52, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-14 23:36, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover-

To get a bit back on topic, though, do you agree or disagree with the following statement. I'd really like to know:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.
[/quote]

Yes.

However the issue remains that mans apperanace is trying to be explained scientifically and no consideration is given by the scientific community that a Supreme Being put the whole thing in motion which obviously includes the appearance of man.
[/quote]

I would hardly say that no consideration is given to the idea that a Supreme Being put the whole thing into motion. As a Deist, I agree totally with that. And many scientists would agree as well, even though they will readily state that the question is really outside the scope of science.

You might want to read Francis Collins' (of the Human Genome Project) book "The Language of God - A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 15, 2012 10:20AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 08:04, Woland wrote:
Hi Payne,

[quote]Kind of difficult to compute the actual value of Pi in roman numerals and without a decimal point. It'd look something like III.XIV So in Biblical times I suppose Pi was three and a little extra. It can't be exactly ten cubits across and thirty cubits around. The math doesn't work that way. So if the Bible was going to be literally accurate it should have said "Thirty Cubits and a little bit more".[/quote]

There are a couple of problems with this objection, which I hope you will forgive me as characterizing as architypical of the "village atheist" school of Bible criticism. :)

First, such a reader is assuming that the Bible wants to teach you mathematics. Rather than trying to understand what the Bible is communicating, such a reader arbitrarily demand that the Bible communicate whatever it is that such a reader may from time to time think should be communicated.

The Bible is not a mathematical textbook, but a set of moral instructions that are conveyed in various ways, including through histories and allegories. For the purpose of describing the Temple and its appurtenances, the figures given are perfectly adequate.

Second of all, the measurements may in fact be entirely accurate. As was pointed out and published about 1850 years ago, if the diameter of 10 cubits was measured from outer edge to outer edge, and the thickness of the vessel was about one hand's breadth, the circumference of the inner surface, which is relevant to the actual volume of water, would be very close to 30 cubits.

Thirdly, there is an anomalous spelling in the verse you cite. The word for measuring line is spelled (in transliteration) QWH rather than QH. As I am sure you know, the ancient Hebrews used their alphabet as numerals as well, so that there is a numerical value that can be determined for every word. If you take the ratio of the unusual spelling to the usual spelling (QWH/QH or 111/106) you get a figure that is closer to the true value of pi than the 22/7 - and within 1/10,000 of the true value. For an irrational number that can only be approximated, that is pretty good.

The first point is the most important. The Bible was written in the language of human beings, was intended to be studied and used by human beings, and is not a substitute for mathematics.

Unlike the Caliph Omar, we don't assume that every other book in the world either repeats what is already in one book, or contradicts what is already in that one book, and hence superfluous.
[/quote]

I KNEW THAT THERE STUFF HE SAID ABOUT THAT OTHER STUFF. :)
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 15, 2012 10:47AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 08:04, Woland wrote:

The Bible is not a mathematical textbook, but a set of moral instructions that are conveyed in various ways, including through histories and allegories. For the purpose of describing the Temple and its appurtenances, the figures given are perfectly adequate.

[/quote]

Quite true. For rational human beings. However if your one of those who takes the bible literally and need everything in it to be true and factual then Pi becomes 3. It's all there in black and white. An unfortunate perspective adopted by far too many a fundamentalist.

Pi in the bible is a cheap parlor trick used to point out that book is not a text on History, Mathematics or Law. But instead is a series of stories to aid us in our ethical and moral development.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 15, 2012 11:04AM)
"However the issue remains that mans apperanace is trying to be explained scientifically and no consideration is given by the scientific community that a Supreme Being put the whole thing in motion which obviously includes the appearance of man. "

In order for that to happen there would have to be evidence of that, not conjecture based on a lack of understanding. If I don't understand how a TV works, I can't just say Unicorns built it. I need to base scientfic explaination on evidence.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 15, 2012 06:02PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 12:04, Slide wrote:
"However the issue remains that mans apperanace is trying to be explained scientifically and no consideration is given by the scientific community that a Supreme Being put the whole thing in motion which obviously includes the appearance of man. "

In order for that to happen there would have to be evidence of that, not conjecture based on a lack of understanding. If I don't understand how a TV works, I can't just say Unicorns built it. I need to base scientfic explaination on evidence.
[/quote]

Well if you subscribe to the Big Bang theory then this is what you believe.

First there was nothing. Then there was something.

And you believe that? very scientific indeed. That is the explanation of the BBT.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 15, 2012 06:26PM)
Once again, acesover, the Catholic Church itself has no problem with the Big Bang Theory (or evolution for that matter). What happened "before" the Big Bang is a metaphysical question to which the Church offers an answer.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 15, 2012 06:47PM)
Hi Bob,

Quite right about the Big Bang, and evolution too, I think. A physicist named Gerald Schroeder has written several books in which he shows how the 6 days of Creation fit the broad outlines of the Big Bang, cosmogenesis, and the origins of life, as imagined by mainstream science.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 15, 2012 06:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 10:37, stoneunhinged wrote:
what's this thread about?
[/quote]

It's about 14 pages too long. :yawn:
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 15, 2012 07:03PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 19:26, mastermindreader wrote:
Once again, acesover, the Catholic Church itself has no problem with the Big Bang Theory (or evolution for that matter). What happened "before" the Big Bang is a metaphysical question to which the Church offers an answer.
[/quote]

Bob, I've noticed you say this multiple times now but where in the Bible does it talk about the big bang theory?

Kam
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 15, 2012 07:31PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 19:26, mastermindreader wrote:
Once again, acesover, the Catholic Church itself has no problem with the Big Bang Theory (or evolution for that matter). What happened "before" the Big Bang is a metaphysical question to which the Church offers an answer.
[/quote]

I have been in agreement with the evolution theory for a long time now. Just to make it short it goes like this. God created whatever and let it evolve by itself. Then when man appeared he gave him an immortal soul. That is my short version. I could go on and on about this.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 15, 2012 07:50PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 19:55, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 10:37, stoneunhinged wrote:
what's this thread about?
[/quote]

It's about 14 pages too long. :yawn:
[/quote]

:thumbsup:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 15, 2012 08:04PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 20:03, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 19:26, mastermindreader wrote:
Once again, acesover, the Catholic Church itself has no problem with the Big Bang Theory (or evolution for that matter). What happened "before" the Big Bang is a metaphysical question to which the Church offers an answer.
[/quote]

Bob, I've noticed you say this multiple times now but where in the Bible does it talk about the big bang theory?

Kam
[/quote]
The role and contributions of science are discussed at length in the Catholic Catechism. I never stated that the Bible talked about the Big Bang. (Unless you interpret "Let there be Light" as being entirely consistent with the BB.)

All I've said is that the Catholic Church doesn't find the Big Bang theory to be inconsistent with Scripture or other Catholic teachings.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 15, 2012 08:09PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 12:04, Slide wrote:
"However the issue remains that mans apperanace is trying to be explained scientifically and no consideration is given by the scientific community that a Supreme Being put the whole thing in motion which obviously includes the appearance of man. "

In order for that to happen there would have to be evidence of that, not conjecture based on a lack of understanding. If I don't understand how a TV works, I can't just say Unicorns built it. I need to base scientfic explaination on evidence.
[/quote]

You're still missing it - the unicorns are running a simulation. The mice told them to.
All praise the cheese!
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 15, 2012 08:26PM)
Bob of course I'm NOT speaking of civil wars that DEVIDE a Nation. I'm talking the complete losing of a Nation that is for lack of any other words removed from the face of the earth (off maps). And then returns to be a Nation again. That has never happened in history with the exception of Israel. Even the US can boast a "return" to a United States after our own civil war. No I'm talking the actual doing away of a Nation and then the returning of that Nation. Israel is THE ONLY one that can boast that. It is actually a very good trivia question. And it should be noted it is in the Bible it would happen.

Pretty interesting developments in Egypt this week huh folks? Well believe me this is just the tip of the unrest we will see in coming weeks. One thing for sure it seems the treaty between Egypt and Israel (that has been in place for over 30 years) will never be the same again. The question now remains who will govern Egypt? Israel is watching and so is God.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 15, 2012 08:30PM)
The problem with the Big Bang Theory (while very amusing) is the "Where did that come from" questions. With the Big Bang you must start with "I don't know" and then you go from there. So the starting point is the only problem. We want to know. With God we do.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 15, 2012 08:44PM)
The Big Bang Theory is science. "Where did that come from?" or "Why?" questions are in the province of metaphysics, religion and philosophy. They are not necessarily incompatible, except for those who insist in the literal interpretation and complete inerrancy of Scripture.

And last I looked, Germany did not cease to exist as a nation because of civil war. They were defeated in war and divided into separate entities entirely. Only with reunification did Germany become a nation again nearly half a century later.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 15, 2012 08:58PM)
But if asked where is Germany you would know correct? With Israel if asked back then you would say "It does not exist anymore". Bob there is a huge difference. Germany was (even in YOUR own words) "divided". Israel was NON EXISTENT.

The Big Bang theory is not only science it is a theory. The question is how did it begin? You must start with "I don't know" in order to begin the theory of the Big Bang. That too is fact. The Bible is clear "In the beginning God..." Science not so clear "In the beginning we don't know what happened..." You see the difference? You have the right to start with "I don't know" however I like my starting point better "God...".


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 15, 2012 09:02PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 21:58, The great Gumbini wrote:
...I like my starting point better "God...".
[/quote]
can and do respect that. :) bravo :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 15, 2012 09:57PM)
Eric-

Actually, Israel had political autonomy three times, twice in ancient history.

The Republic of the Congo ceased to exist when Mobuto took over. It became Zaire. If, during that time, I asked you where the Republic of the Congo was, you wouldn't be able to tell me because it no longer existed.

It now exists once again.

Similarly, Siam existed until 1939 when it became Thailand. Siam no longer existed. But in 1945 it became Siam again until 1949. Now it is Thailand once again and Siam no longer exists. So add Thailand and Siam to the list.

I'm certain there are many other examples.
Message: Posted by: hoodrat (Jun 15, 2012 10:17PM)
I just played one of my favorite Café games! When I come across a thread with many pages of responses like this one, I like to read the initial post and then read the latest post. Often, the two have nothing in common! Case in point:

The initial post for this thread was:

Would you want there to be a Supreme Being or would you prefetr that we are here by one big accident?
I have thougth about asking this as a two part question. The second part of the question is obvious. WHY?
Not sure if this would be considered a poll or a question.
Anyway here is my answer.
I would opt for the supreme being deal. The reason is that I hope there is more than just this.
Not looking for a debate here just curious about what you would prefer and if possible answer why. Just don't want to start a debate with the why. So don't answer the why if you are going to debate.

And the latest response is:

Actually, Israel had political autonomy three times, twice in ancient history.
The Republic of the Congo ceased to exist when Mobuto took over. It became Zaire. If, during that time, I asked you where the Republic of the Congo was, you wouldn't be able to tell me because it no longer existed.
It now exists once again.
Similarly, Siam existed until 1939 when it became Thailand. Siam no longer existed. But in 1945 it became Siam again until 1949. Now it is Thailand once again and Siam no longer exists. So add Thailand and Siam to the list.
I'm certain there are many other examples.

GOTTA LOVE IT! LOL :)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 15, 2012 10:25PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 23:17, hoodrat wrote:
I just played one of my favorite Café games! When I come across a thread with many pages of responses like this one, I like to read the initial post and then read the latest post. Often, the two have nothing in common! Case in point:

The initial post for this thread was:

Would you want there to be a Supreme Being or would you prefetr that we are here by one big accident?
I have thougth about asking this as a two part question. The second part of the question is obvious. WHY?
Not sure if this would be considered a poll or a question.
Anyway here is my answer.
I would opt for the supreme being deal. The reason is that I hope there is more than just this.
Not looking for a debate here just curious about what you would prefer and if possible answer why. Just don't want to start a debate with the why. So don't answer the why if you are going to debate.

And the latest response is:

Actually, Israel had political autonomy three times, twice in ancient history.
The Republic of the Congo ceased to exist when Mobuto took over. It became Zaire. If, during that time, I asked you where the Republic of the Congo was, you wouldn't be able to tell me because it no longer existed.
It now exists once again.
Similarly, Siam existed until 1939 when it became Thailand. Siam no longer existed. But in 1945 it became Siam again until 1949. Now it is Thailand once again and Siam no longer exists. So add Thailand and Siam to the list.
I'm certain there are many other examples.

GOTTA LOVE IT! LOL :)
[/quote]

Ha, ha. I posted the initial post. I mentioned a while back what you just called attentioin to and I got scolded. :)

Like you say, GOT TO LOVE IT. YEP :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 15, 2012 10:32PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 21:58, The great Gumbini wrote:
...I like my starting point better "God...".
[/quote]

No argument from me there. I'm a Deist* remember, not an atheist. I believe in God, I just don't believe in second hand revelations.

* http://altreligion.about.com/od/alternativereligionsaz/p/Deism.htm
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 15, 2012 10:36PM)
Hoodrat-

It's sort of like reading a book. If you just look at the first page and the last page you are unlikely to understand what happened in between. Not a good way to read a book.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 15, 2012 11:57PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 21:26, The great Gumbini wrote:

Bob of course I'm NOT speaking of civil wars that DEVIDE a Nation. I'm talking the complete losing of a Nation that is for lack of any other words removed from the face of the earth (off maps). And then returns to be a Nation again. That has never happened in history with the exception of Israel.

[/quote]

There is Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, Three nations that were absorbed by the Soviet Union and no longer appeared on maps. They have since been restored. So Israel isn't the only nation in the history of the world that this has occurred to.

There also is not currently a red bull in Israel, or anywhere else in the world for that matter. I think the last applicant for the position was back in 2002 or 2004. But it failed the test as blemishes and imperfections were found on the beast. So even if the Temple is completed there is no way to sanctify it and make it usable.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 16, 2012 12:06AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 19:02, acesover wrote:

Well if you subscribe to the Big Bang theory then this is what you believe.

First there was nothing. Then there was something.

And you believe that? very scientific indeed. That is the explanation of the BBT.

[/quote]

First, this isn't what proponents the Big Bang Theory believe. It's a bit more complicated than that. But even if it wasn't and we accepted that there was, as you've so succinctly phrased it, "nothing and then something". How is this any different than what you believe? You've got a supernatural power that "spoke" the universe into existence. So how did it do that? What were the processes involved? You stil lhave the problem of there being "nothing and then something". Putting a god(s) into the equation supplies mankind with no usable data. It's intellectually lazy and does nothing to increase our knowledge of the inner workings of the universe.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 16, 2012 12:12AM)
Apparently you can't get a Red Bull in Israel.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3399039,00.html

??
Message: Posted by: Bill Hilly (Jun 16, 2012 12:35AM)
Pakar Ilusi, kambiz, Payne, Tom Boleware, Al Angello, and The great Gumbini,

Thank you guys so much. I've always appreciated reading you posts and now please know that what you said to me means a lot.

Thanks,
Bill Hilly
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 16, 2012 12:45AM)
You are very welcome Bill.

I wish you the best and you and your family (cat included of course) are in my prayers.


Eric
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 16, 2012 12:54AM)
Payne,

No, No and No. Israel was actually separated from their land. They no longer even stayed in the land. This you need to know was so very different. They were dispersed as it were. This was a full complete doing away with a Nation. Israel alone holds this event. In all the cases quoted above at least a remnant was left in the country. Not so with Israel. And the returning of Israel happened years upon years later. Israel has a fantastic history. The Nation of Israel people and land were thought to be gone. Now they are a strong Nation only seeking to live in a land that God gave to them.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 16, 2012 01:13AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 01:54, The great Gumbini wrote:
Payne,

No, No and No. Israel was actually separated from their land. They no longer even stayed in the land. This you need to know was so very different. They were dispersed as it were. This was a full complete doing away with a Nation. Israel alone holds this event. In all the cases quoted above at least a remnant was left in the country. Not so with Israel. And the returning of Israel happened years upon years later. Israel has a fantastic history. The Nation of Israel people and land were thought to be gone. Now they are a strong Nation only seeking to live in a land that God gave to them.

[/quote]

Are you saying that there was a time when there were no Jews in Israel? If so could you please tell me when that was? According to this article there has always been a Jewish presence in Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Land_of_Israel

You seem to be moving the goal posts here. First you state that no country has be re-instated in the history of the world. When it is shown that this is not the case you then come up with some new criteria. It is more than likely that there were Lithoanians or Estonians who fled their country when it was absorbed by the Soviet Union but have now returned. So will you now say that there weren't sufficent numbers of refugees for this to count.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 16, 2012 04:37AM)
Jew

1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism.
3. A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah.

How are you defining your term "Jews"?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 16, 2012 04:43AM)
This is hilarious...

.....when will we ever recognize the destiny and future of the human race is in our hands....

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 16, 2012 07:11AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 05:43, kambiz wrote:
This is hilarious...

.....when will we ever recognize the destiny and future of the human race is in our hands....

Kam
[/quote]

I think many of us have always realized that.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 16, 2012 07:46AM)
Hundreds of small city-states were conquered, engulfed, and exiled by the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and later empires. How many of them are still in their land, speaking their language, in cultural continuity with what they once were?
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 16, 2012 10:27AM)
Kam,

When we can control floods, earthquakes, tornados and tsunamis I think we may be closer to realizing WE run things.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 16, 2012 10:53AM)
Eric, and what makes you think that the symptoms of society so lamentably lacking in a spiritual education is NOT causing all the so-called natural disasters you have mentioned?

You drill for oil in Texas, you get an earthquake in LA, how convinced are you that we are not responsible?
You cut down the trees in Brazil, you get a hole in the ozone layer. You pump carbon monoxide into the sky in Russia, you get a tornado in Perth. You are discounting the absolute interconnectedness of the planet, and how our lack of care and turning away from the Divine guidance contributes to these disasters....

I have no doubt, that God is not responsible....

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 16, 2012 11:00AM)
How about "No one is responsible." Earthquakes are the result of the shifting of tectonic plates, a natural process which happens regularly. We just don't usually notice it.

And, believe it or not, it is not Zeus that fires off those lightning bolts. They, too, are caused by natural processes and are not consciously created by a divine being.

(When I was a little boy my grandfather told me that it rained when the people on the moon took a pee.)
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 16, 2012 11:08AM)
That may also be true Bob, but I have little doubt that God is not responsible. According to Bahai teachings however, all manifestations of suffering in this planet are predominantly caused from mankinds unwillingness to stay firm and adhere to divine guidance.

There are "some" instances however where a natural disaster is a requirement for the progression of the earths balance etc. Winter may be considered a natural disaster to many animals, for example, but it is a necessary requirement for the refreshing arrival of spring.....but these natural disasters are quite rare, in comparison to the number we see today...


But I'm happy to accept that it "just happens", as long as a Divinity is not blamed....

Kam
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 16, 2012 12:35PM)
Kam,

I agree that we as a people can be far more blessed if we look to God. But to have our own destiny in our own hands is unattainable. Yes we do have control over a lot and wiser choices would yield much many many blessings. I was just not sure if you meant we control all of our destiny. I think I see what you are saying now.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 16, 2012 01:28PM)
[quote]You drill for oil in Texas, you get an earthquake in LA, how convinced are you that we are not responsible? [/quote]

Completely convinced.

And in the geat TMC/NVMS tradition of veering off into tangential directions, let me add that [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47835612/ns/us_news-environment/#.T9veTfErf7B]the National Research Council thinks fracking does not cause earthquakes, either:[/url]

[quote]The controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas does not pose a high risk for triggering earthquakes large enough to feel, but other types of energy-related drilling can make the ground noticeably shake, a major government science report concludes.

Even those man-made tremors large enough to be an issue are very rare, says a special report by the National Research Council. In more than 90 years of monitoring, human activity has been shown to trigger only 154 quakes, most of them moderate or small, and only 60 of them in the United States. That's compared to a global average of about 14,450 earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 or greater every year, said the report, released Friday.
[/quote]

Drill, baby, drill!
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 16, 2012 03:53PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 20:31, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 19:26, mastermindreader wrote:
Once again, acesover, the Catholic Church itself has no problem with the Big Bang Theory (or evolution for that matter). What happened "before" the Big Bang is a metaphysical question to which the Church offers an answer.
[/quote]

I have been in agreement with the evolution theory for a long time now.
[/quote]

Just curious to hear why you, as a theist, think that many other theists reject evolutionary theory.


Ron
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 16, 2012 04:09PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-15 21:30, The great Gumbini wrote:
The problem with the Big Bang Theory (while very amusing) is the "Where did that come from" questions. With the Big Bang you must start with "I don't know" and then you go from there. So the starting point is the only problem. We want to know. With God we do.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

It's more than amusing. Its the best explanation we have for the current state of the universe. You do know the difference between "theory" in common usage and a "scientific theory", don't you?

The fact that science takes a "I don't know" stance on certain questions is a point FOR the scientific method - not against it.

Of course we all want to know the answers to the big questions. But our desire to know is not an excuse to postulate something. For example, why stop at God as the ultimate explanation? What if we want to know what caused God? I think a SUPER DUPER SUPREME BEING (who likes ice cream, but only strawberry) created God. With the SUPER DUPER SUPREME BEING, now we know!


Ron
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 16, 2012 04:15PM)
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
- Isaac Asimov
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 16, 2012 04:19PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 11:53, kambiz wrote:
Eric, and what makes you think that the symptoms of society so lamentably lacking in a spiritual education is NOT causing all the so-called natural disasters you have mentioned?

You drill for oil in Texas, you get an earthquake in LA, how convinced are you that we are not responsible?
You cut down the trees in Brazil, you get a hole in the ozone layer. You pump carbon monoxide into the sky in Russia, you get a tornado in Perth. You are discounting the absolute interconnectedness of the planet, and how our lack of care and turning away from the Divine guidance contributes to these disasters....

I have no doubt, that God is not responsible....

Kam
[/quote]

The Earth experienced extreme weather, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc. long before humans ever had a presence on the planet. No "turning away from the Divine guidance" was required for those weather events to occur.

And I'm sorry Kam, but I'm still confused as to your position. Are you a Deist, Theist, Atheist, or Agnostic?

Ron
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 16, 2012 07:11PM)
Ron,

It is very simple. If you take the Big Bang Theory back as far as you can you MUST admit the point just prior to that is "I don't know". That then is your starting point. Argue as you may this is simply a fact. It is very hard to admit that because it seems almost as if proponents of the theory are making up a story. I mean lets face it this is how the account would have to go since something comes from something with the exception belonging to God Who always was and always will be. So from I don't know what came the right mixture of events that caused a Big Bang (I would imagine it should be call a REALLY REALLY Big Bang) that tossed into motion the perfect set of events that caused the earth and all life form to exist. However, on the other hand we have "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Was there a Big Bang? Maybe maybe not. But you see the believer starts with God. You mention my understanding of the word "theory" as used in science. Yes I'm fully aware it is not just a simple idea. I would also like to take this opportunity to explain to you that the words "faith" and "belief" used in the Bible are not merely fancy hopeful words as well. The both are in fact very "action" oriented. We see and THEN we believe. We have faith in Whom we KNOW. These words are predicated on a knowledge.

Why stop at God as the ultimate explanation? Simple once you found the answer what else would you look for? If I loose my cell found I will look for it. But once I find it I look no further. Now let me ask you this. The Bible has been around for a long time. What is it about "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" that you find so hard to believe? Let's say if you do not believe God exists today is it possible God existed long enough to create the heavens and the earth? Ron I would be most interested to hear your answer to this question.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 16, 2012 07:23PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 17:09, R.S. wrote:
Its the best explanation we have for the current state of the universe. You do know the difference between "theory" in common usage and a "scientific theory", don't you?

The fact that science takes a "I don't know" stance on certain questions is a point FOR the scientific method - not against it.
[/quote]

If you believe the Big Bang theory, that's a great example of what I mean by faith and evidence, but no proof. If, as you said in that thread, that in the absence of proof what you need is more evidence, not faith, then I imagine you'll have to reserve judgment on the Big Bang...almost certainly for the rest of your life.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 16, 2012 08:36PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 17:19, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 11:53, kambiz wrote:
Eric, and what makes you think that the symptoms of society so lamentably lacking in a spiritual education is NOT causing all the so-called natural disasters you have mentioned?

You drill for oil in Texas, you get an earthquake in LA, how convinced are you that we are not responsible?
You cut down the trees in Brazil, you get a hole in the ozone layer. You pump carbon monoxide into the sky in Russia, you get a tornado in Perth. You are discounting the absolute interconnectedness of the planet, and how our lack of care and turning away from the Divine guidance contributes to these disasters....

I have no doubt, that God is not responsible....

Kam
[/quote]

The Earth experienced extreme weather, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc. long before humans ever had a presence on the planet. No "turning away from the Divine guidance" was required for those weather events to occur.

And I'm sorry Kam, but I'm still confused as to your position. Are you a Deist, Theist, Atheist, or Agnostic?

Ron
[/quote]

My position in all this Ron is this, and it's very simple:

I follow the guidance of the Spirit of Truth, no matter where it manifests itself. The evidence is clear in all the INDEPENDENT global religious Scriptures. The Spirit manifests itself from age to age within different human embodiments. All of these embodiments of the Spirit share a Message tailored for a specific time. All these Manifestations claim that a God exists, so I believe in an Unknowable Essence, but my relationship with Him only develops form through my relationship with the Spirit of Truth, Who's most recent Manifestation is Baha'u'llah, that's all I know, and that's my position after years of independent investigation

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 16, 2012 10:31PM)
Apologies Ron, I wanted to address your point about natural disasters, but I forgot.

Yes I agree that there were natural disasters before humans came, but the frequency of those is as little known to me as it is to you :) we will put that question down to faith huh? Lol

Kam
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 16, 2012 11:32PM)
"If you believe the Big Bang theory, that's a great example of what I mean by faith and evidence, but no proof. "

If there was proof, it would stop being a theory. It would be a proof. But theory's don't require faith. A theory is the most plausible explanation of a series of observances and a new theory based on new evidence is not shunned (as in religion) it is embraced. Faith, for the most part, closes you off from the truth. Any thing that challenges your faith is to be ignored, shut out, or shunned. In science, things that challenge your understanding are what scientists live for.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 16, 2012 11:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 00:32, Slide wrote:
"If you believe the Big Bang theory, that's a great example of what I mean by faith and evidence, but no proof. "

If there was proof, it would stop being a theory. It would be a proof. But theory's don't require faith. A theory is the most plausible explanation of a series of observances and a new theory based on new evidence is not shunned (as in religion) it is embraced. Faith, for the most part, closes you off from the truth. Any thing that challenges your faith is to be ignored, shut out, or shunned. In science, things that challenge your understanding are what scientists live for.
[/quote]


Faith(n): Belief that is not based on proof

One of many definitions, of course, but a very common one. So, as you say, it is unproven. And since it's unproven, one who believes in it is engaging in an act of faith.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 16, 2012 11:55PM)
Fact of the matter is no one knows how the universe came into existance. It is all conjecture. In other words guesses. You can call them scientific guesses. However the only thing that makses them scientific is that some scientiet made the something up...HE HAS NO PROOF OF HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED. End of story.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 16, 2012 11:56PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 00:32, Slide wrote:
"If you believe the Big Bang theory, that's a great example of what I mean by faith and evidence, but no proof. "

If there was proof, it would stop being a theory. It would be a proof. But theory's don't require faith. A theory is the most plausible explanation of a series of observances and a new theory based on new evidence is not shunned (as in religion) it is embraced. Faith, for the most part, closes you off from the truth. Any thing that challenges your faith is to be ignored, shut out, or shunned. In science, things that challenge your understanding are what scientists live for.
[/quote]


This is EXACTLY what true religion is, in a sorta kinda way :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 16, 2012 11:59PM)
Addressing my own post above about proof of the Big Bang Theory. You guys know what proof is don't you ? It is what you scientific guys say us religious guys don't have. :) Just to let you know, you don't either. :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 17, 2012 12:31AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 00:55, acesover wrote:
Fact of the matter is no one knows how the universe came into existance. It is all conjecture. In other words guesses. You can call them scientific guesses. However the only thing that makses them scientific is that some scientiet made the something up...HE HAS NO PROOF OF HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED. End of story.
[/quote]

You still don't really seem to have an understanding of what is meant by a scientific theory. Pay particular attention to the last sentence in the following quote:

[quote]A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5][/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

And for the umpteenth time, the Catholic Church has no problem with the Big Bang theory. Why do you?
Message: Posted by: Bill Hilly (Jun 17, 2012 02:33AM)
Anybody here subscribe to the Big Crunch possibility?
Message: Posted by: Devious (Jun 17, 2012 02:35AM)
Self edit, sorry folks.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 17, 2012 08:19AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 20:23, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 17:09, R.S. wrote:
Its the best explanation we have for the current state of the universe. You do know the difference between "theory" in common usage and a "scientific theory", don't you?

The fact that science takes a "I don't know" stance on certain questions is a point FOR the scientific method - not against it.
[/quote]


If you believe the Big Bang theory, that's a great example of what I mean by faith and evidence, but no proof. If, as you said in that thread, that in the absence of proof what you need is more evidence, not faith, then I imagine you'll have to reserve judgment on the Big Bang...almost certainly for the rest of your life.
[/quote]

I accept BB theory as the best explanation for the current state of the universe (so far). Got anything better to explain the expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background radiation, etc. etc.?

That being said, I encourage the gathering of more evidence, and if modifications to the theory are justified, so be it. Even if something came along that was SO persuasive that we had to completely chuck out the BBT theory, I'm OK with that too as long as it stands up to rigorous scientific standards. But we can make tentative judgements now based on what we do know. And what we do know fits nicely with BB theory.


Ron
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 17, 2012 08:30AM)
Getting back to earthquakes for a moment, I was interested to see [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/15/james-lovelock-interview-gaia-theory?CMP=twt_gu]James Lovelock's interview in the Guardian.[/url]

[quote]Three years ago, he received a heating bill for the winter totalling £6,000. His age means he has to have the heating on full in his poorly insulted home and, with his disabled son, Tom, living in a house next door, his outgoings on fuel rocketed. Damp winters on the edge of Dartmoor were taking their toll, so in recent years he has overwintered in St Louis, his wife's hometown in Missouri. The experience altered his attitude to the politics and economics of energy. Having already upset many environmentalists – for whom he is something of a guru – with his long-time support for nuclear power and his hatred of wind power (he has a picture of a wind turbine on the wall of his study to remind him how "ugly and useless they are"), he is now coming out in favour of "fracking", the controversial technique for extracting natural gas from the ground. He argues that, while not perfect, it produces far less CO2 than burning coal: "Gas is almost a give-away in the US at the moment. They've gone for fracking in a big way. Let's be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it."[/quote]

Good to see that a man in his tenth decade can still think for himself and change his mind.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 17, 2012 08:32AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 00:55, acesover wrote:
... You can call them scientific guesses. However the only thing that makses them scientific is that some scientiet made the something up...
[/quote]

As it happens that is not the case. The story of n-rays is a pretty good example of just how much that is not the case.

The only thing that keeps "guesses" as "scientific" is that those guesses have been used to calculate and predict measurable things which would not be found unless those specific guesses were relevant to the shared world we live in ... and that those measurable things have then been experimentally verified. Science = best model of observable/measurable existence available at this time.

You are welcome to call any statement you want your belief and to have faith in anything you imagine and your feelings will be valid and true for you.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 17, 2012 09:03AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 20:11, The great Gumbini wrote:
Ron,

It is very simple. If you take the Big Bang Theory back as far as you can you MUST admit the point just prior to that is "I don't know". That then is your starting point. Argue as you may this is simply a fact. It is very hard to admit that because it seems almost as if proponents of the theory are making up a story. I mean lets face it this is how the account would have to go since something comes from something with the exception belonging to God Who always was and always will be. So from I don't know what came the right mixture of events that caused a Big Bang (I would imagine it should be call a REALLY REALLY Big Bang) that tossed into motion the perfect set of events that caused the earth and all life form to exist. However, on the other hand we have "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Was there a Big Bang? Maybe maybe not. But you see the believer starts with God. You mention my understanding of the word "theory" as used in science. Yes I'm fully aware it is not just a simple idea. I would also like to take this opportunity to explain to you that the words "faith" and "belief" used in the Bible are not merely fancy hopeful words as well. The both are in fact very "action" oriented. We see and THEN we believe. We have faith in Whom we KNOW. These words are predicated on a knowledge.

Why stop at God as the ultimate explanation? Simple once you found the answer what else would you look for? If I loose my cell found I will look for it. But once I find it I look no further. Now let me ask you this. The Bible has been around for a long time. What is it about "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" that you find so hard to believe? Let's say if you do not believe God exists today is it possible God existed long enough to create the heavens and the earth? Ron I would be most interested to hear your answer to this question.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

Simple logic dictates that you don't presuppose the answer to the question that you're asking. In this case the question being, who/what created the universe? You say, "But you see the believer starts with God." (And I'll add that they end there too, with no scientific testing of that hypothesis along the way). Why is it that that's the ONLY place that sort of logic is applied? When you hear a rattle in your car, do you take it to the mechanic and tell him to start by just replacing the entire engine? When you experience shortness of breath and slight chest pains after a rigourous workout, do you immediately go to the doctor and demand a heart transplant? Why are the rules of logic changed when it comes to the question of the origin of the universe? As Hitchens said, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."


"What is it about "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" that you find so hard to believe?"

That is an unfalsifiable claim.


"Let's say if you do not believe God exists today is it possible God existed long enough to create the heavens and the earth?"

Sure. Of course, this is again an unfalsifiable claim.


Ron
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 17, 2012 09:12AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 21:36, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 17:19, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 11:53, kambiz wrote:
Eric, and what makes you think that the symptoms of society so lamentably lacking in a spiritual education is NOT causing all the so-called natural disasters you have mentioned?

You drill for oil in Texas, you get an earthquake in LA, how convinced are you that we are not responsible?
You cut down the trees in Brazil, you get a hole in the ozone layer. You pump carbon monoxide into the sky in Russia, you get a tornado in Perth. You are discounting the absolute interconnectedness of the planet, and how our lack of care and turning away from the Divine guidance contributes to these disasters....

I have no doubt, that God is not responsible....

Kam
[/quote]

The Earth experienced extreme weather, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc. long before humans ever had a presence on the planet. No "turning away from the Divine guidance" was required for those weather events to occur.

And I'm sorry Kam, but I'm still confused as to your position. Are you a Deist, Theist, Atheist, or Agnostic?

Ron
[/quote]

My position in all this Ron is this, and it's very simple:

I follow the guidance of the Spirit of Truth, no matter where it manifests itself. The evidence is clear in all the INDEPENDENT global religious Scriptures. The Spirit manifests itself from age to age within different human embodiments. All of these embodiments of the Spirit share a Message tailored for a specific time. All these Manifestations claim that a God exists, so I believe in an Unknowable Essence, but my relationship with Him only develops form through my relationship with the Spirit of Truth, Who's most recent Manifestation is Baha'u'llah, that's all I know, and that's my position after years of independent investigation

Kam
[/quote]

Kam my friend,

This is nothing but a word salad. I was looking for a one word answer. Deist? :)

Just curious, that's all.

Ron
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 17, 2012 09:17AM)
What do the words "In the beginning..." do for the reader? What do they permit the reader to imagine and gain a sense of knowing about?

Have you considered that the words are not: "In your beginning I..." ?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 17, 2012 09:29AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 09:30, Woland wrote:
Getting back to earthquakes for a moment, I was interested to see [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/15/james-lovelock-interview-gaia-theory?CMP=twt_gu]James Lovelock's interview in the Guardian.[/url]

[quote]..."fracking", the controversial technique for extracting natural gas from the ground. He argues that, while not perfect, it produces far less CO2 than burning coal...[/quote]


[/quote]
But CO2 and earthquakes are not the only issues with energy extraction; there are other big problems with fracking (Halliburton one of the major pioneers of the technique interestingly enough), not the least of which is contamination of the water table:
[quote][M]ore than 1,000 other cases of contamination have been documented by courts and state and local governments in Colorado, New Mexico, Alabama, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In one case, a house exploded after hydraulic fracturing created underground passageways and methane seeped into the residential water supply. In other cases, the contamination occurred not from actual drilling below ground, but on the surface, where accidental spills and leaky tanks, trucks and waste pits allowed benzene and other chemicals to leach into streams, springs and water wells

It is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of each contamination, or measure its spread across the environment accurately, because the precise nature and concentrations of the chemicals used by industry are considered trade secrets. Not even the EPA knows exactly what's in the drilling fluids. And that, EPA scientists say, makes it impossible to vouch for the safety of the drilling process or precisely track its effects.

"I am looking more and more at water quality issues…because of a growing concern," said Joyel Dhieux, a drilling field inspector who handles environmental review at the EPA’s regional offices in Denver. “But if you don't know what's in it I don't think it’s possible." http://www.propublica.org/article/buried-secrets-is-natural-gas-drilling-endangering-us-water-supplies-1113 [/quote]

So it's kind of like saying that the stuff in Dr. Bob's tonic bottle is safe, even though the manufacturer refuses to say exactly what ingredients are in the bottle. I would view this push towards fracking with a lot more skepticism.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 17, 2012 09:38AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 09:32, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 00:55, acesover wrote:
... You can call them scientific guesses. However the only thing that makses them scientific is that some scientiet made the something up...
[/quote]

As it happens that is not the case. The story of n-rays is a pretty good example of just how much that is not the case.

The only thing that keeps "guesses" as "scientific" is that those guesses have been used to calculate and predict measurable things which would not be found unless those specific guesses were relevant to the shared world we live in ... and that those measurable things have then been experimentally verified. Science = best model of observable/measurable existence available at this time.

You are welcome to call any statement you want your belief and to have faith in anything you imagine and your feelings will be valid and true for you.
[/quote]

I agree with yor last statement if when you say you...you mean all inclusive including yourself. Then I agree. However if your you means only those who disagree with your way of thinking then I do not agree.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 17, 2012 09:55AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 01:31, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 00:55, acesover wrote:
Fact of the matter is no one knows how the universe came into existance. It is all conjecture. In other words guesses. You can call them scientific guesses. However the only thing that makses them scientific is that some scientiet made the something up...HE HAS NO PROOF OF HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED. End of story.
[/quote]

You still don't really seem to have an understanding of what is meant by a scientific theory. Pay particular attention to the last sentence in the following quote:

[quote]A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5][/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

And for the umpteenth time, the Catholic Church has no problem with the Big Bang theory. Why do you?
[/quote]

Whoever wrote that quote was indeed very intelligent individual. However I would have a lot more respect for him if he ended it by saying: " However even with all that data it is still only a theory and until proof positive is obtained it will remain so". :)

I have said before that I can go along with the BBT and a few post above I told you how I see it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 17, 2012 10:02AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 10:38, acesover wrote:...

I agree with yor last statement if when you say you...you mean all inclusive including yourself. Then I agree. However if your you means only those who disagree with your way of thinking then I do not agree.
[/quote]

a* - look at how far you are willing to go in order to distract yourself and others.

You (anyone) get to believe as you please. What you ask others to believe about what you claim to believe is...

So, how are you doing the the distinctions between statements about the inner world of how you feel and the outer world of what can be measured?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 17, 2012 10:14AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 10:12, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 21:36, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 17:19, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 11:53, kambiz wrote:
Eric, and what makes you think that the symptoms of society so lamentably lacking in a spiritual education is NOT causing all the so-called natural disasters you have mentioned?

You drill for oil in Texas, you get an earthquake in LA, how convinced are you that we are not responsible?
You cut down the trees in Brazil, you get a hole in the ozone layer. You pump carbon monoxide into the sky in Russia, you get a tornado in Perth. You are discounting the absolute interconnectedness of the planet, and how our lack of care and turning away from the Divine guidance contributes to these disasters....

I have no doubt, that God is not responsible....

Kam
[/quote]

The Earth experienced extreme weather, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc. long before humans ever had a presence on the planet. No "turning away from the Divine guidance" was required for those weather events to occur.

And I'm sorry Kam, but I'm still confused as to your position. Are you a Deist, Theist, Atheist, or Agnostic?

Ron
[/quote]

My position in all this Ron is this, and it's very simple:

I follow the guidance of the Spirit of Truth, no matter where it manifests itself. The evidence is clear in all the INDEPENDENT global religious Scriptures. The Spirit manifests itself from age to age within different human embodiments. All of these embodiments of the Spirit share a Message tailored for a specific time. All these Manifestations claim that a God exists, so I believe in an Unknowable Essence, but my relationship with Him only develops form through my relationship with the Spirit of Truth, Who's most recent Manifestation is Baha'u'llah, that's all I know, and that's my position after years of independent investigation

Kam
[/quote]

Kam my friend,

This is nothing but a word salad. I was looking for a one word answer. Deist? :)

Just curious, that's all.

Ron
[/quote]

Word salad because you didn't understand a component? If so, what parts can I clarify for you.

Let there be no doubt, the relationship a Bahai has with the mysteries of the world and it's Unknowable Essence is unheard of in the history of the world. If I could put it into a modern-day recognized word, I would, but I genuinely cannot categorically fathom a description for a God. I struggle to fathom a description for Baha'u'llah but at least He presented me with a limited form, by which my petty, useless and limited mind could find some comfort, because really, for me, talking about anything unlimited and an Essence of the Essence of Essences is really fruitless......

Kam
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 17, 2012 11:34AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 11:02, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 10:38, acesover wrote:...

I agree with yor last statement if when you say you...you mean all inclusive including yourself. Then I agree. However if your you means only those who disagree with your way of thinking then I do not agree.
[/quote]

a* - look at how far you are willing to go in order to distract yourself and others.

You (anyone) get to believe as you please. What you ask others to believe about what you claim to believe is...

So, how are you doing the the distinctions between statements about the inner world of how you feel and the outer world of what can be measured?
[/quote]

NO WHERE DO I ASK ANYONE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING. Quite the opposite I say and continue to say, believe what you want.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 17, 2012 11:47AM)
Acesover-

Once again I would point out that the word "theory" as used in science does NOT mean the same thing as when you say "It's only a theory." Reread the last sentence of the quote I provided:

[quote]Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5][/quote]

See also, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

[quote]A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.[/quote]

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 17, 2012 11:48AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 11:14, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 10:12, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 21:36, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 17:19, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-16 11:53, kambiz wrote:
Eric, and what makes you think that the symptoms of society so lamentably lacking in a spiritual education is NOT causing all the so-called natural disasters you have mentioned?

You drill for oil in Texas, you get an earthquake in LA, how convinced are you that we are not responsible?
You cut down the trees in Brazil, you get a hole in the ozone layer. You pump carbon monoxide into the sky in Russia, you get a tornado in Perth. You are discounting the absolute interconnectedness of the planet, and how our lack of care and turning away from the Divine guidance contributes to these disasters....

I have no doubt, that God is not responsible....

Kam
[/quote]

The Earth experienced extreme weather, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc. long before humans ever had a presence on the planet. No "turning away from the Divine guidance" was required for those weather events to occur.

And I'm sorry Kam, but I'm still confused as to your position. Are you a Deist, Theist, Atheist, or Agnostic?

Ron
[/quote]

My position in all this Ron is this, and it's very simple:

I follow the guidance of the Spirit of Truth, no matter where it manifests itself. The evidence is clear in all the INDEPENDENT global religious Scriptures. The Spirit manifests itself from age to age within different human embodiments. All of these embodiments of the Spirit share a Message tailored for a specific time. All these Manifestations claim that a God exists, so I believe in an Unknowable Essence, but my relationship with Him only develops form through my relationship with the Spirit of Truth, Who's most recent Manifestation is Baha'u'llah, that's all I know, and that's my position after years of independent investigation

Kam
[/quote]

Kam my friend,

This is nothing but a word salad. I was looking for a one word answer. Deist? :)

Just curious, that's all.

Ron
[/quote]

Word salad because you didn't understand a component? If so, what parts can I clarify for you.

Let there be no doubt, the relationship a Bahai has with the mysteries of the world and it's Unknowable Essence is unheard of in the history of the world. If I could put it into a modern-day recognized word, I would, but I genuinely cannot categorically fathom a description for a God. I struggle to fathom a description for Baha'u'llah but at least He presented me with a limited form, by which my petty, useless and limited mind could find some comfort, because really, for me, talking about anything unlimited and an Essence of the Essence of Essences is really fruitless......

Kam
[/quote]

How about "monotheism"?
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 17, 2012 05:39PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4VD8uvgec
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 17, 2012 07:12PM)
Hahahahaha........thanks Steve, whatever floats your boat ;)

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 17, 2012 07:21PM)
To external eyes looking in Lobo, the Bahai Faith is a monotheistic religion, however, there are so many other elements which add richness and depth to ones understanding of creation, which take it into deistic, agnostic and polytheistic elements, as well as other areas which cannot be summarized with one word....

.....but either way, if you can't be bothered, then Steve has it all worked out for you on the religions behalf lol

Kam
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 17, 2012 07:23PM)
Bahá'u'lláh taught that there is one God whose successive revelations of His will to humanity have been the chief civilizing force in history."

From Bahai.org. Is that not an authoritative website regarding Baha'i teachings? "one God" is a pretty good working definition of monotheism,
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 17, 2012 07:27PM)
Not exactly......it depends on the way one views the descriptions detailed in the Writings in the nature of the minor and major Prophets in religious history.

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 17, 2012 07:29PM)
Hey, I just answered a question you now deleted!!

Hahahaha

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 17, 2012 07:29PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 03:33, Bill Hilly wrote:
Anybody here subscribe to the Big Crunch possibility?
[/quote]

? No idea how much matter there is but that's one of the possibilities. Since that idea made it to popular culture there've been some significant observations which suggest there is something acting which has a net effect of making galaxies appear to accelerate away from each other. Also there's a great deal of missing matter/energy predicted by the standard model so it's an exciting time for physics in the large (and small) while folks look for more details.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 17, 2012 07:31PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 20:29, kambiz wrote:
Hey, I just answered a question you now deleted!!

Hahahaha

Kam
[/quote]

Sorry about that! I'd hoped to change it fast enough so that wouldn't happen.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 17, 2012 07:32PM)
Bahai.org is the official Bahai website, yes.....

The description presented there summarizes things for the external reader, who may want a general description, but as I say Baha'u'llah revealed 100 volumes of the Word of God. There's a lot in there which gives a richer understanding of what forces are at play

Kam
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 17, 2012 07:46PM)
I'm sorry if I appear to be oversimplifying, but those 100 volumes either came from the same God, or they came from multiple Gods, unless some very basic laws of logic have been suspended. There either is, or isn't, exactly one God.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 17, 2012 07:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 20:46, LobowolfXXX wrote:
...some very basic laws of logic have been suspended. There either is, or isn't, exactly one God.
[/quote]

You are avoiding two questions there:
1) Does formal logic apply to religious issues
2) How could one come to feel certain that there is one or more than one thing which people are calling divine and some are calling God? In this case the allegory of the ants and the foot might serve for dialog.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 17, 2012 08:48PM)
Formal logic should always apply to religious issues Jonathan. However, to all intents and purposes Lobo is correct in that those 100 volumes came from the one God. However, there are several other perspectives of seeing that which are at once easy to understand, yet predominantly humbling as what is exactly "logic".....

My understanding of this will not be divulged further, since it is definitely delving into the really deeper parts of Baha'i theology, the understanding of which is very much subjective and definitely not critical to the workings of the Baha'i Faith. I would not do the several passages relating to this (that I am aware of) and the several untranslated passages (from the Farsi and Arabic, that my wife is aware of)any justice by expressing my own opinion here, beacause I may well be very very wrong.....

....its a work in progress for me....or BS as Steve puts it lol


Kam
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 17, 2012 09:33PM)
[quote]
Capricious God Violently Shakes Ant Farm Day After Bestowing Orange Slices Upon Colony

APPLETON, WI—Less than 24 hours after their god bestowed two delicious orange slices upon them, local ants reported the capricious deity had picked up the entire ant farm in which they live and shaken it violently, leaving many to wonder what they had done to incur the all-powerful being's deadly wrath.

"Yesterday, when we received his bountiful gift of sweet fruit, we thought we had pleased him mightily with the tireless labors of our digging," worker ant #103 said Saturday as she helped to rebuild the underground passages and chambers the vengeful god had completely decimated without warning. "But now he has laid waste to everything we, his followers, have erected to his glory. Why? Why has he done this to us?"

"Must we dig in different directions, or perhaps dig even longer and more complex tunnels?" the ant continued. "He has given us no clear sign, no indication of what he wants from us! How does one please such a fickle god?"

The deity, whom the ants know as "Marcus," has long been feared for his volatile and arbitrary behavior. Though he occasionally grants the insects small gifts of sugar water, sources said he routinely abandons the ant farm for days at a time, which sows chaos throughout the colony as hunger-driven hysteria rules its tunnels. Marcus has also been known to smite individual ants by concentrating the sun's rays into deadly beams with his mysterious lens of fire.'[/quote]

[url=http://www.theonion.com/articles/capricious-god-violently-shakes-ant-farm-day-after,28532/] More here [/url]
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 17, 2012 09:44PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 12:47, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover-

Once again I would point out that the word "theory" as used in science does NOT mean the same thing as when you say "It's only a theory." Reread the last sentence of the quote I provided:

[quote]Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5][/quote]

See also, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

[quote]A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.[/quote]

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml
[/quote]

Alright, just give me an answer. Are you saying that the Big Bang Theory is fact?

Do we have different semantics for differnet communitites? I mean do us common folk use the word theory to mean one thing and the scientific community use theory to mean something else? Are we supposed to put more trust in what the scientific community says? If so I won't even mentioin gloman warming which is not climate change or something else. No beating around the bush here. Is The Big BAng Theory fact or is it a theory? I am tirerd of hearing it is a a scientific theory but it is more than a theory. :confused: . Because I can then say that God created everything and it is a religious theory and then ask. Why should the scientific community hold more clout than the religious community? I am not saying they should because I do not believe they should. But they should hold no less. That statement should draw fire. Incoming

I feel that the scientific community are just playing with words in order to further what they bellieve. It is like being pregnant...you not a little pregnant, you are or you aren't. Just as its a theory or its a fact. Thta is al lI am saying.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 17, 2012 09:51PM)
Hi landmark,

You are correct in that there "seems" to be mixed messages coming from God throughout history. However, unlike the ants, we are capable, with our intellect and powers of investigation, to discern exactly what the message is from God for His servants.

If you have any questions regarding this, I hope to be able to assit you with it. I, personally, feel comfortable with where I am at with regards to the "perceived" mixed messages from different religious Texts. It appears that you have some questions from your post above :)

Am I correct?

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 17, 2012 09:54PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 22:44, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 12:47, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover-

Once again I would point out that the word "theory" as used in science does NOT mean the same thing as when you say "It's only a theory." Reread the last sentence of the quote I provided:

[quote]Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5][/quote]

See also, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

[quote]A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.[/quote]

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml
[/quote]

Alright, just give me an answer. Are you saying that the Big Bang Theory is fact?

Do we have different semantics for differnet communitites? I mean do us common folk use the word theory to mean one thing and the scientific community use theory to mean something else? Are we supposed to put more trust in what the scientific community says? If so I won't even mentioin gloman warming which is not climate change or something else. No beating around the bush here. Is The Big BAng Theory fact or is it a theory? I am tirerd of hearing it is a a scientific theory but it is more than a theory. :confused: . Because I can then say that God created everything and it is a religious theory and then ask. Why should the scientific community hold more clout than the religious community? I am not saying they should because I do not believe they should. But they should hold no less. That statement should draw fire. Incoming

I feel that the scientific community are just playing with words in order to further what they bellieve. It is like being pregnant...you not a little pregnant, you are or you aren't. Just as its a theory or its a fact. Thta is al lI am saying.
[/quote]


I think acesover makes some valid points here (I'm trying to be impartial)

Kam
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 17, 2012 09:58PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 20:55, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 20:46, LobowolfXXX wrote:
...some very basic laws of logic have been suspended. There either is, or isn't, exactly one God.
[/quote]

You are avoiding two questions there:
1) Does formal logic apply to religious issues
2) How could one come to feel certain that there is one or more than one thing which people are calling divine and some are calling God? In this case the allegory of the ants and the foot might serve for dialog.
[/quote]

There is one other issue that everyone seems to be avoiding. That is how many people believe in Christinaty and how many are agnostics or atheists? Don't these numbers count for anything? Or can we definitely say the majority here is wrong? :)

The minority believes the majority is wrong, hmmm? Have to give this some thought.

I am sue you guys have some sort of answer as to why th majority is wrong. I for one would like to hear it. Wait I take that back I probably don't want to hear it but go ahead anyway. We definitely know the the minority blows their horns louder. Which I am sure you ae going to respond with, In order to be heard. :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 17, 2012 10:11PM)
No. I don't believe the Big Bang Theory is a fact. It is a scientific theory that, at present, best explains what we have observed and learned about the nature of the universe.

Yes. "Scientific theory," as noted in the links I provided does NOT mean the same thing as the word "theory" means in ordinary conversation.

[quote]A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them. Since humans are living organisms and are part of the universe, science explains all of these things about ourselves.

These scientific theories--such as the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, evolution, genetics, plate tectonics, and big bang cosmology--are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form of knowledge that humans possess. Thus, it is important for every educated person to understand where scientific knowledge comes from, and how to emulate this method of gaining knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking.[/quote]

http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html

A detailed explanation of the differences between scientific "facts," "hypotheses," and "theories" can be found at the same link. I highly recommend that you read it because it answers every single question you keep asking.

But don't worry! There is nothing there that should shake your faith or contradict it. As I keep telling you, your own Church doesn't dispute the Big Bang theory and, in fact, it was developed initially by a priest.

Good thoughts,

Bob
PS - Must I keep reminding you that I am NOT an atheist? :)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 17, 2012 10:30PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 22:51, kambiz wrote:
Hi landmark,

You are correct in that there "seems" to be mixed messages coming from God throughout history. However, unlike the ants, we are capable, with our intellect and powers of investigation, to discern exactly what the message is from God for His servants.

If you have any questions regarding this, I hope to be able to assit you with it. I, personally, feel comfortable with where I am at with regards to the "perceived" mixed messages from different religious Texts. It appears that you have some questions from your post above :)

Am I correct?

Kam
[/quote]
"As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods,
They kill us for their sport."

Lots of ways to tell the story. Lots of ways to fill in the dots. We Flatlanders can't see off the page. Let's just all get along and not worry about that which can't be known.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 17, 2012 10:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 23:11, mastermindreader wrote:
No. I don't believe the Big Bang Theory is a fact. It is a scientific theory that, at present, best explains what we have observed and learned about the nature of the universe.

Yes. "Scientific theory," as noted in the links I provided does NOT mean the same thing as the word "theory" means in ordinary conversation.

[quote]A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them. Since humans are living organisms and are part of the universe, science explains all of these things about ourselves.

These scientific theories--such as the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, evolution, genetics, plate tectonics, and big bang cosmology--are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form of knowledge that humans possess. Thus, it is important for every educated person to understand where scientific knowledge comes from, and how to emulate this method of gaining knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking.[/quote]

http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html

A detailed explanation of the differences between scientific "facts," "hypotheses," and "theories" can be found at the same link. I highly recommend that you read it because it answers every single question you keep asking.

But don't worry! There is nothing there that should shake your faith or contradict it. As I keep telling you, your own Church doesn't dispute the Big Bang theory and, in fact, it was developed initially by a priest.

Good thoughts,

Bob
PS - Must I keep reminding you that I am NOT an atheist? :)
[/quote]


Back on June 15 I posted this:

I have been in agreement with the evolution theory for a long time now. Just to make it short it goes like this. God created whatever and let it evolve by itself. Then when man appeared he gave him an immortal soul. That is my short version. I could go on and on about this.

This also includes the BBT in my thinking. The whatever bit being the BBT.


I know you are not an atheist but rather one who believes in a diety if I am not mistaken
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 17, 2012 10:53PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 23:11, mastermindreader wrote:
No. I don't believe the Big Bang Theory is a fact. It is a scientific theory that, at present, best explains what we have observed and learned about the nature of the universe.

Yes. "Scientific theory," as noted in the links I provided does NOT mean the same thing as the word "theory" means in ordinary conversation.

[quote]A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them. Since humans are living organisms and are part of the universe, science explains all of these things about ourselves.

These scientific theories--such as the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, evolution, genetics, plate tectonics, and big bang cosmology--are the most reliable, most rigorous, and most comprehensive form of knowledge that humans possess. Thus, it is important for every educated person to understand where scientific knowledge comes from, and how to emulate this method of gaining knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking.[/quote]

http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html

A detailed explanation of the differences between scientific "facts," "hypotheses," and "theories" can be found at the same link. I highly recommend that you read it because it answers every single question you keep asking.

But don't worry! There is nothing there that should shake your faith or contradict it. As I keep telling you, your own Church doesn't dispute the Big Bang theory and, in fact, it was developed initially by a priest.

Good thoughts,

Bob
PS - Must I keep reminding you that I am NOT an atheist? :)
[/quote]

It is an interesting article by an intelligent individual. Having said that in order to have used scientific method and according to him cretive thinking which go hand in hand it seems that one must dismiss religious possibilities (a supreme being). Is not that in of it self prejudice? Where is the unbiased creative thinking? If one is to follow true creative thinking and scientific thinking does one have to forego religious possibilities?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 18, 2012 12:02AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 23:30, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-17 22:51, kambiz wrote:
Hi landmark,

You are correct in that there "seems" to be mixed messages coming from God throughout history. However, unlike the ants, we are capable, with our intellect and powers of investigation, to discern exactly what the message is from God for His servants.

If you have any questions regarding this, I hope to be able to assit you with it. I, personally, feel comfortable with where I am at with regards to the "perceived" mixed messages from different religious Texts. It appears that you have some questions from your post above :)

Am I correct?

Kam
[/quote]
"As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods,
They kill us for their sport."

Lots of ways to tell the story. Lots of ways to fill in the dots. We Flatlanders can't see off the page. Let's just all get along and not worry about that which can't be known.
[/quote]


I agree with you landmark, lots of ways of telling the story. However, don't you think the story, as told by those who back up their words with their deeds, holds more weight than the story as told by Jonny Boy down the road who offers it as just that...a "story"??

What factors command our collective attention as a human race to the words spoken by someone?

Kam
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 18, 2012 12:27AM)
Ron at what point then do you believe any history books? To be able to prove something in history happened you would have to be there is what you are saying? I wonder at what point to you believe any account of anything that ever happened that YOU did not see? And at what point do you actually believe an account of history? You have 2 books in front of you. The Bible (written by men inspired by God) and a History book written a couple of hundred years ago talking about a war that is being described to an author. Do you NOT believe either one? Let's say the soldier telling the story is the only living soldier from that war and he wanted to tell his story. Are you saying since you can not "prove" either one we are not to give it too much weight?


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 18, 2012 04:48AM)
[quote]I agree with you landmark, lots of ways of telling the story. However, don't you think the story, as told by those who back up their words with their deeds, holds more weight than the story as told by Jonny Boy down the road who offers it as just that...a "story"??
[/quote]
Our deeds have no bearing on whether the story we told is true, which is unknowable. So perhaps it would be better to concentrate on the deeds, and not fight over the story.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 18, 2012 05:00AM)
No-ones fighting landmark, and I genuinely value your thoughts.......I really enjoy friendly exploration :)

I struggle with the idea that anyone who is anyone could have access to the truth about all mysteries in the universe. There are only a handful of individuals in the earths history who have claimed to have access to all knowledge (that we are aware of as of today), and all of the universe's mysteries.....why would you believe anyone who is anyone instead?

Kam
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 18, 2012 05:48AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-18 01:27, The great Gumbini wrote:
Ron at what point then do you believe any history books? To be able to prove something in history happened you would have to be there is what you are saying? I wonder at what point to you believe any account of anything that ever happened that YOU did not see? And at what point do you actually believe an account of history? You have 2 books in front of you. The Bible (written by men inspired by God) and a History book written a couple of hundred years ago talking about a war that is being described to an author. Do you NOT believe either one? Let's say the soldier telling the story is the only living soldier from that war and he wanted to tell his story. Are you saying since you can not "prove" either one we are not to give it too much weight?


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

No, you don't have to "be there", but the claims in said book must be falsifiable. If there was an ancient book by numerous authors that told of Leprechauns and the magical powers of Leprechauns and was held in high regard by the Irish community and some folks even today contend that the book was inerrant, would you automatically believe in Leprechauns? What if there was another ancient book about Garden Fairies which the Scottish held in high regard, which by the way, CONFLICTED with the claims of the book of Leprechauns? How would you go about determining which, if either, book was correct?

Where there are claims, the burden of proof is on the claimant to provide sufficent proof for those claims. In my Leprechaun analogy, I wouldn't expect YOU Gumbini, to disprove the claims of the Irish. And then if you can't do that (disprove the claims) I wouldn't then call for support of Leprechaun claims because YOU failed to disprove them.


Ron
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 18, 2012 10:30AM)
So far, the big bang theory is the best model available.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 18, 2012 11:39AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-18 01:27, The great Gumbini wrote:

You have 2 books in front of you. The Bible (written by men inspired by God) and a History book written a couple of hundred years ago talking about a war that is being described to an author. Do you NOT believe either one?

[/quote]

Depends on the source material. Lets look at the 200 year old history book first. Lets assume it's an account of one of the Napoleonic wars since those occurred a couple of hundred years ago. So first we'd have to examine the source material the author used to compile the text. there are two types. Primary and Secondary. Primary evidence is material that was written in period by individual that had first hand knowledge of the events at hand. these generally come in the form of letters, journals, reports and dispatches. Even ledgers and inventory lists can be used as an aid to determine events. The more first hand accounts one has the better an overview one can establish for the event in question. Then you can start using secondary information to aid you in your appraisal as well as any archaeological evidence that has been discovered.

So you don't actually have to be present at a historical event to piece it together. but yopu have to trust the source material and have evidence to support your finding.

ancient history is a bit trickier as there is little first hand or Primary evidence to be had. We know that personages like Julius Caesar existed because not only do we have his writings but we have the writing of others who lived in Rome at the time that mention him and the events he described in his own writings We also have archaeological evidence in the form of Statues, coins and other artifacts that bear his name and likeness that were created during his lifetime.

Personages like Alexander the Great are not quite as clear and need to be pieced together from secondary sources. The first Biography of him was written 400 years after his death and I know of no primary writings that describe his exploits. We do however have records for dynasties he founded and archaeological evidence for battles he fought. So we can substantiate some of the events recorded about him in his biography.

Unfortunately the Bible has little in the way of evidence to back up any of its claims. There is no extra biblical evidence to support the existence of the Garden of Eden, Adam, Eve, Noah, The Ark, A World Wide Flood, The Tower of Babel, Moses, The enslavement of the Jews by the Egyptians, any of the Plagues of Egypt, The wandering of several million Jews in the desert for 40 years. There has never been anything found that verifies that any of these events ever actually took place.

No historians alive at the time of Christ mention him or any of the events surrounding his life. None of the celestial events, the star that signified his birth or the darkness that came upon his death are mentioned anywhere other than the bible. No record of a tax requiring everyone to their homeland has ever been found and the town of Nazareth exists on no maps drawn up in the period.

So there is no Primary, secondary or archaeological evidence to back up any of the claims or event described in the bible. Which is why it is not looked upon as a book of history by serious historians and archaeologists.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 18, 2012 12:32PM)
Payne:

I share your non-belief in superstition, but sometimes we do things that we critizise others for doing. I find it frustrating when devout Christrians claim to know that there IS a god that rules the world, but even though we have science on our side, we shouldn't go down to that level. Some folks like to say that atheism is a religion (even though atheism is a religion like abstistence is a sexual position), but religion is indoctrinated from birth, so understanding is important.

I'm very guilty of being frustrated at beliefs, but I always remember that I used to believe that stuff, so I try to understand when I can.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 18, 2012 12:43PM)
Everyone has beliefs that are based in proof.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 18, 2012 12:54PM)
I'm still waiting for proof of religion (other than an old book).
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 18, 2012 01:30PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-18 13:32, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
Payne:

I share your non-belief in superstition, but sometimes we do things that we critizise others for doing. I find it frustrating when devout Christrians claim to know that there IS a god that rules the world, but even though we have science on our side, we shouldn't go down to that level. Some folks like to say that atheism is a religion (even though atheism is a religion like abstistence is a sexual position), but religion is indoctrinated from birth, so understanding is important.

I'm very guilty of being frustrated at beliefs, but I always remember that I used to believe that stuff, so I try to understand when I can.
[/quote]

As I've said before. The Bible has many truths to be found in it but it's far from factual. It is a collection of teachings and instruction. It's a book of philosophy, not one on science, math nor history. It is an important part of our culture and society. But it also is not the end all be all text that many believe it to be either. Still it has much to teach us if we temper those teachings with logic, compassion and reason.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 18, 2012 01:31PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-18 13:43, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Everyone has beliefs that are based in proof.
[/quote]

It's just that some peoples proofs aren't as provable as others :)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 18, 2012 04:02PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-18 13:43, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Everyone has beliefs that are based in proof.
[/quote]

Other way around
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 18, 2012 04:18PM)
The Ipuwer Papyrus appears to describe the plagues that are described in the Bible.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 18, 2012 04:23PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-18 14:31, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-18 13:43, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Everyone has beliefs that are based in proof.
[/quote]

It's just that some peoples proofs aren't as provable as others :)
[/quote]

The very notion of proof requires a foundation of shared belief. What's an enthymeme to a person who does not share the presumed references and their valuations?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 18, 2012 04:57PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-18 17:18, Woland wrote:
The Ipuwer Papyrus appears to describe the plagues that are described in the Bible.
[/quote]

Appears, but probably doesn't. Anymore than the Tale of Gilgamesh substantiates the story of Noah and the flood.

From Wikipedia

Some have interpreted the document as an Egyptian account of the Plagues of Egypt and the Exodus in the Old Testament of the Bible, and it is often cited as proof for the Biblical account by various religious organisations.[24]

The association of the Ipuwer Papyrus with the Exodus as describing the same event is generally rejected by Egyptologists.[25] Roland Enmarch, author of a new translation of the papyrus, notes: "The broadest modern reception of Ipuwer amongst non-Egyptological readers has probably been as a result of the use of the poem as evidence supporting the Biblical account of the Exodus."[26] While Enmarch himself rejects synchronizing the texts of the Ipuwer Papyrus and The Book of Exodus on grounds of historicity, in The reception of a Middle Egyptian poem: The Dialogue of Ipuwer.. he acknowledges that there are some textual parallels "particularly the striking statement that ‘the river is blood and one drinks from it’ (Ipuwer 2.10), and the frequent references to servants abandoning their subordinate status (e.g. Ipuwer 3.14–4.1; 6.7–8; 10.2–3). On a literal reading, these are similar to aspects of the Exodus account."[27] Commenting on such attempts to draw parallels, he writes that "all these approaches read Ipuwer hyper-literally and selectively" and points out that there are also conflicts between Ipuwer and the biblical account. He suggests that "it is more likely that Ipuwer is not a piece of historical reportage and that historicising interpretations of it fail to account for the ahistorical, schematic literary nature of some of the poem’s laments," but other Egyptologists disagree (see Genre section above). Examining what Enmarch calls "the most extensively posited parallel", the river becoming blood, he notes that it should not be taken "absolutely literally" as a description of an event but that both Ipuwer and Exodus might be metaphorically describing what happens at times of catastrophic Nile floods when the river is carrying large quantities of red earth, mentioning that Kitchen has also discussed this phenomenon.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jun 18, 2012 06:35PM)
Hi Payne, Maybe you're right. But maybe the Egyptologists are wrong.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 18, 2012 07:01PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-18 19:35, Woland wrote:

Hi Payne, Maybe you're right. But maybe the Egyptologists are wrong.

[/quote]

True, but we'll never know for sure either way. However there is no corroborating evidence for the rest of the story. A little hard for several million Jews to wander about a pretty tiny patch of desert for 40 years without leaving a trace. Especially with teams of archaeologists searching for any trace at all.

It's possible that the Ipuwer Papyrus and the Bible are both telling the same story of a catastrophic series of natural disasters that hit Egypt long before the written word. Just as Gilgamesh and the story of Noah could be ancient yet fanciful tales about the same great, but localized flood.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 18, 2012 07:08PM)
[quote]

There is one other issue that everyone seems to be avoiding. That is how many people believe in Christinaty and how many are agnostics or atheists? Don't these numbers count for anything? Or can we definitely say the majority here is wrong? :)

The minority believes the majority is wrong, hmmm? Have to give this some thought.

I am sue you guys have some sort of answer as to why th majority is wrong. I for one would like to hear it. Wait I take that back I probably don't want to hear it but go ahead anyway. We definitely know the the minority blows their horns louder. Which I am sure you ae going to respond with, In order to be heard. :)
[/quote]

The Hellenistic religion swept a large portion of the ancient world via Greece and Imperial Rome. Rome's grandeur and power, in particular, spread the worship of the Olympian gods throughout the empire.

If numbers, and the power and influence of a society, gives credence to a system of belief, would that not validate the existence and power of the Hellenistic pantheon under the rule of Jupiter (Zeus)?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 18, 2012 07:16PM)
Since when was the validity of scientific findings decided by the majority vote of non-scientists?

Many thousands of years ago a majority of the world's people believed the world was flat. Only a small minority thought otherwise.

There are now more Muslims in the world than Catholics. Does that mean that Islam must be the correct religion? Millions of Muslims can't be wrong, can they?
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 18, 2012 07:21PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfRkcJ0BLS0
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 18, 2012 07:47PM)
Great link Steve! Loved it.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 18, 2012 10:22PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-18 20:08, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]

There is one other issue that everyone seems to be avoiding. That is how many people believe in Christinaty and how many are agnostics or atheists? Don't these numbers count for anything? Or can we definitely say the majority here is wrong? :)

The minority believes the majority is wrong, hmmm? Have to give this some thought.

I am sue you guys have some sort of answer as to why th majority is wrong. I for one would like to hear it. Wait I take that back I probably don't want to hear it but go ahead anyway. We definitely know the the minority blows their horns louder. Which I am sure you ae going to respond with, In order to be heard. :)
[/quote]

The Hellenistic religion swept a large portion of the ancient world via Greece and Imperial Rome. Rome's grandeur and power, in particular, spread the worship of the Olympian gods throughout the empire.

If numbers, and the power and influence of a society, gives credence to a system of belief, would that not validate the existence and power of the Hellenistic pantheon under the rule of Jupiter (Zeus)?
[/quote]


NO.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 18, 2012 11:04PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-18 20:16, mastermindreader wrote:
Since when was the validity of scientific findings decided by the majority vote of non-scientists?

Many thousands of years ago a majority of the world's people believed the world was flat. Only a small minority thought otherwise.

There are now more Muslims in the world than Catholics. Does that mean that Islam must be the correct religion? Millions of Muslims can't be wrong, can they?
[/quote]

We are talking about christians here and muslims. Not catholics and muslims.
However both christians and muslims believve in a supreme being so their belif is not that far removed from one another in that respect.

To answer your question about validiity of scientific findings. This is not an election but rather what people believe, so I do not understand your point.

Because a handful of people, scientists in this case beieve something that in no way makes it true. As a matter of fact I am not sure what you are referring to when you mention the valadidy of scientific findings. Do you mean that they have proved that there is no supreme being? Exactly what are you referring too?

I have to just smile at you trying to make your point when you actually do the opposite when you say; "Many thousands of years ago a majority of the world's people believed the world was flat. Only a small minority thought otherwise.: Do you know why they thought this? Because the scientific community told them so. Those that believed otherwise were thought to be crazy. So much for the scientific community being the end all.

I would imagine Doctors would be called part of the scientific community and many doctors have told numerous patients that their case was hopeless only to find out from another member of the same community that the said prognoasis was incorrect and the patient was cured. Sounds to me like the scientific communithy is only human after all and not really all knowing. They only thing the scientific has tha has not changed is that it is in a consant state of flux and this is as it should be. However unfortunately they often overstep their importance and decide on matters that they do not really undertand. They express their findings of these matters while not knowing everything there is to know. As a result many people just get in line and agree with them and use their findings as an explanation, because they do not believe in a supreme being and it is very convienent to say that science says this is how it is.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 18, 2012 11:21PM)
Payne,

While you appear to make points that will be fun to explore, there really remains a question that I would enjoy hearing your answer to. If it's a fact that the Jewish people were not slaves in Egypt and never had an Exodus as described in the Bible, then where in the world did they come from? And where in the world were they all those years? Now if you say they were in Egypt then how did they leave? You do believe the Jews existed right? Do you then believe they got their start as described in the Scriptures? Passover is observed by Jewish people ALL over the world due to the accounts in the Torah. One of the worlds oldest religions keep several feasts and holy days because what the Scriptures say. It seems to me that they take these words very seriously and their lives seem to live these things today. Anyway I'd like to hear your thoughts on these things.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 18, 2012 11:21PM)
Acesover, I would struggle to lump Christians together (and I suppose Muslims for that matter) since there is only divisions to be seen....you make it sound like the numbers mean something.....Christianity is so divided today, its almost like a million different religions. There is not even coherence on the station of Jesus. that's pretty fundamental I think, if you want to use the numbers to mean anything.. :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 18, 2012 11:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 00:21, kambiz wrote:
Acesover, I would struggle to lump Christians together (and I suppose Muslims for that matter) since there is only divisions to be seen....you make it sound like the numbers mean something.....Christianity is so divided today, its almost like a million different religions. There is not even coherence on the station of Jesus. that's pretty fundamental I think, if you want to use the numbers to mean anything.. :)

Kam
[/quote]

Well exactly how would you like to divide them? I am not sure what you are saying. You are saying that Christians believe in Jesus Christ. Is that right or wrong in what you mean by christianity?

Also I am not exactly sure what you mean when you say I make it sound like numbers mean something. Also I am lost when you mention the "station of Jesus". Jesus is the son of God. Are there some christians tht see Jesus differently?. So as I said I am not sure what you mean when you say "station of Jesus." You mention several things that I just do not understand what you mean. It is probably just me. Maybe it is just late at night and I am not thinking correctly.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 18, 2012 11:56PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 00:37, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 00:21, kambiz wrote:
Acesover, I would struggle to lump Christians together (and I suppose Muslims for that matter) since there is only divisions to be seen....you make it sound like the numbers mean something.....Christianity is so divided today, its almost like a million different religions. There is not even coherence on the station of Jesus. that's pretty fundamental I think, if you want to use the numbers to mean anything.. :)

Kam
[/quote]

Well exactly how would you like to divide them? I am not sure what you are saying. You are saying that Christians believe in Jesus Christ. Is that right or wrong in what you mean by christianity?

Also I am not exactly sure what you mean when you say I make it sound like numbers mean something. Also I am lost when you mention the "station of Jesus". Jesus is the son of God. Are there some christians tht see Jesus differently?. So as I said I am not sure what you mean when you say "station of Jesus." You mention several things that I just do not understand what you mean. It is probably just me. Maybe it is just late at night and I am not thinking correctly.
[/quote]


I'm not doing the dividing mate :), the clear divisions are already there....

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_beliefs.htm

In fact members of some denominations kill members of other denominations, such is their differences. So how can you clump them as one for your statistical analysis?

Kam
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 19, 2012 01:23AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 00:21, The great Gumbini wrote:
Payne,

While you appear to make points that will be fun to explore, there really remains a question that I would enjoy hearing your answer to. If it's a fact that the Jewish people were not slaves in Egypt and never had an Exodus as described in the Bible, then where in the world did they come from? And where in the world were they all those years?

[/quote]

Nova had a very good episode on this very subject a year or two ago. It really is quite informative and presents an interesting theory on the origins of the Jewish people and the creation and formation of the Bible. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buried-secrets.html

[quote]

Now if you say they were in Egypt then how did they leave? You do believe the Jews existed right?

[/quote]

There is no evidence of them being in Egypt in Biblical times so they didn't have to leave. Yes, I do believe that Jews existed. Just not when and where you do.

[quote]

Do you then believe they got their start as described in the Scriptures?

[/quote]

No, because there isn't sufficient historical or archaeological evidence to support the claims

[quote]

Passover is observed by Jewish people ALL over the world due to the accounts in the Torah. One of the worlds oldest religions keep several feasts and holy days because what the Scriptures say. It seems to me that they take these words very seriously and their lives seem to live these things today. Anyway I'd like to hear your thoughts on these things.

[/quote]

Hindus and Muslims celebrate holidays described in their scripture. Does this make the events they are celebrating true? Romans and Greeks had festivals and feast days as well in honor of their gods. Is Zeus real? I have just as much reason to believe that Passover is celebrating actual events as I do that because that Muslims observe Miraj that Mohamed actually rode a horse into heaven.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 19, 2012 01:30AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 00:37, acesover wrote:

Are there some christians tht see Jesus differently?.

[/quote]

There are 41,000 different denominations of Christianity. So yes, some Christians view Jesus differently

Here are just a few

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 19, 2012 01:53AM)
Acesover wrote:

[quote]I have to just smile at you trying to make your point when you actually do the opposite when you say; "Many thousands of years ago a majority of the world's people believed the world was flat. Only a small minority thought otherwise.: Do you know why they thought this? Because the scientific community told them so. Those that believed otherwise were thought to be crazy. So much for the scientific community being the end all.[/quote]

Actually, I have to smile at your view of history. Thousands of years ago, science, religion, and magic were virtually indistinguishable. There was no "scientific community" such as you refer to.

Most people believed the world was flat simply because that's the way it looked and that's what the priests said.

So much for your conclusion.

But to reiterate my point- Truth isn't determined by a majority vote.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 19, 2012 08:26AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 00:56, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 00:37, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 00:21, kambiz wrote:
Acesover, I would struggle to lump Christians together (and I suppose Muslims for that matter) since there is only divisions to be seen....you make it sound like the numbers mean something.....Christianity is so divided today, its almost like a million different religions. There is not even coherence on the station of Jesus. that's pretty fundamental I think, if you want to use the numbers to mean anything.. :)

Kam
[/quote]

Well exactly how would you like to divide them? I am not sure what you are saying. You are saying that Christians believe in Jesus Christ. Is that right or wrong in what you mean by christianity?

Also I am not exactly sure what you mean when you say I make it sound like numbers mean something. Also I am lost when you mention the "station of Jesus". Jesus is the son of God. Are there some christians tht see Jesus differently?. So as I said I am not sure what you mean when you say "station of Jesus." You mention several things that I just do not understand what you mean. It is probably just me. Maybe it is just late at night and I am not thinking correctly.
[/quote]


I'm not doing the dividing mate :), the clear divisions are already there....

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_beliefs.htm

In fact members of some denominations kill members of other denominations, such is their differences. So how can you clump them as one for your statistical analysis?

Kam
[/quote]

WE were talking about christinaty not about the idosyncrancies of each religion. The point was that these people are all christians and believe in Jesus Christ. .We were not tqlking about what holiday they celebrate or how they worship, but rather that they worship and believe in Jesus Christ.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 19, 2012 08:36AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 02:30, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 00:37, acesover wrote:

Are there some christians tht see Jesus differently?.

[/quote]

There are 41,000 different denominations of Christianity. So yes, some Christians view Jesus differently

Here are just a few

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
[/quote]

However they all believe in Jesus Christ. Some believe He was crucified by driving nails into His palms others believe the nails wefr driven into His wrists as not to break any bones, Neither of these beliefs is a stretch and theuy both believe in Jesus Christ. the differences you speak of are minor the important thing is that they believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

When you cite 40,000 denominations of christinaty it would be better said that there are 40,000 different denominations of christinaty with one common belief and that is their belief of Jesus Christ. I think that is more important than a few nit picking things one may find and call differences.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 19, 2012 08:56AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 02:53, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover wrote:

[quote]I have to just smile at you trying to make your point when you actually do the opposite when you say; "Many thousands of years ago a majority of the world's people believed the world was flat. Only a small minority thought otherwise.: Do you know why they thought this? Because the scientific community told them so. Those that believed otherwise were thought to be crazy. So much for the scientific community being the end all.[/quote]

Actually, I have to smile at your view of history. Thousands of years ago, science, religion, and magic were virtually indistinguishable. There was no "scientific community" such as you refer to.

Most people believed the world was flat simply because that's the way it looked and that's what the priests said.

So much for your conclusion.

But to reiterate my point- Truth isn't determined by a majority vote.
[/quote]

The times we speak of you are correct in that there was no scientific community. I am not even sure the word science was even in use. However there were scholars and to be honest when doing some researach on this it ws not a theory that was as widely accepted as we are led to believe. Many did not believe in the flat earth theoroy. Many scholars did not agree with it. Sounds like myth busters to me. :)

Of course that was not what brought this (flalt earth theory) into the discussion in the first place it was my use of the term scientific community of that era and which for all intents and purposes did not exist but rather scholars, which would now be our scientists.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 19, 2012 09:07AM)
The Greek and Roman pantheons were real for them and an active force in their societies.

A•, your dismissal of another's worldview speaks to the core of who you are.

As regards the flat earth, look up Eratosthenes.

IMHO reading remains fundamental,

J
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 19, 2012 10:28AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 10:07, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
The Greek and Roman pantheons were real for them and an active force in their societies.

A•, your dismissal of another's worldview speaks to the core of who you are.

As regards the flat earth, look up Eratosthenes.

IMHO reading remains fundamental,

J
[/quote]

Not my dismissal but rather my disagreement with anothers view. There is a vast difference in the two words. IMHO reading remains fundamental :)


Science: The word "science" came from the Latin word for knowledge: scientia. From the 1200's to until the 1840's science was known as natural philosophy.

So in the times we are speaking of the scientists that you speak of were philosophers not scientists.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 19, 2012 12:43PM)
The more I think about it I think you are all right. There is no Supreme Being, yes there is a Supreme Being. The Big Bang Theory is wrong, the Big Band Theory is dead on. I looked these posts over and they all seem correct to me they are all dead on extremely correct in their thinking and logic.

So it seems that everyone is correct and there is no wrong answer. Sort of BELIEVE WHAT YU WANT. Yeah that works. I am done here you are all correct in your thoughts and logic including myslef. No one is more right than anyone else everyone is correct. I vote yes if that is the way you want. I will vote no if that is the way you want. I agree. Everyone goes home happy and we all lived happily ever after. :dancing:
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Jun 19, 2012 02:33PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 13:43, acesover wrote:
The more I think about it I think you are all right. There is no Supreme Being, yes there is a Supreme Being. The Big Bang Theory is wrong, the Big Band Theory is dead on. I looked these posts over and they all seem correct to me they are all dead on extremely correct in their thinking and logic.

So it seems that everyone is correct and there is no wrong answer. Sort of BELIEVE WHAT YU WANT. Yeah that works. I am done here you are all correct in your thoughts and logic including myslef. No one is more right than anyone else everyone is correct. I vote yes if that is the way you want. I will vote no if that is the way you want. I agree. Everyone goes home happy and we all lived happily ever after. :dancing:
[/quote]


acesover,

I used to wonder why some people say things a little louder and with more conviction, as if trying to convince themselves. Well, they are. They have a belief....but they don’t have faith. They don’t believe it in their heart. They’re testing it, just saying it out loud.....hoping somebody will believe them, but most importantly, hoping they will believe it them self. When you hoping the evidence comes back and convinces you, you simply don’t have faith.

Bottom line, you need faith to deal with God.

acesover, keep the faith. There is a God.


"Have faith in God. For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be removed and be cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says. Therefore I say to you whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them." Jesus Christ, Mark 11:22-24.


Tom
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 19, 2012 03:38PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 15:33, TomBoleware wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 13:43, acesover wrote:
The more I think about it I think you are all right. There is no Supreme Being, yes there is a Supreme Being. The Big Bang Theory is wrong, the Big Band Theory is dead on. I looked these posts over and they all seem correct to me they are all dead on extremely correct in their thinking and logic.

So it seems that everyone is correct and there is no wrong answer. Sort of BELIEVE WHAT YU WANT. Yeah that works. I am done here you are all correct in your thoughts and logic including myslef. No one is more right than anyone else everyone is correct. I vote yes if that is the way you want. I will vote no if that is the way you want. I agree. Everyone goes home happy and we all lived happily ever after. :dancing:
[/quote]


acesover,

I used to wonder why some people say things a little louder and with more conviction, as if trying to convince themselves. Well, they are. They have a belief....but they don’t have faith. They don’t believe it in their heart. They’re testing it, just saying it out loud.....hoping somebody will believe them, but most importantly, hoping they will believe it them self. When you hoping the evidence comes back and convinces you, you simply don’t have faith.

Bottom line, you need faith to deal with God.

acesover, keep the faith. There is a God.


"Have faith in God. For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be removed and be cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says. Therefore I say to you whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them." Jesus Christ, Mark 11:22-24.


Tom
[/quote]

Whoa...ha ha. That last post of mine was all sarcasm. I am a true believer and a devout catholic and nothing can change that. Sorry for the misconseption. I am not about to change.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 19, 2012 03:55PM)
One question I've always wondered about concerns the cherry picking of the bible that most people do.

People who believe the bible is historical fact and the word of god love to quote parts of the old testament that supports their particular postion and yet things like Don't Eat Pork, don't eat shell fish and many of the items from the Torah are ignored. If it is the word of god, shouldn't you be living like an Orthadox jew only more so? Did god suddenly change his mind about shell fish for christians and not for jews? Was God wrong about shell fish? if what he says in the Torah, is now no good, in the grand scheme of time, it sounds like god changes his mind every few seconds.

So, let me ask the christians: do you eat pork and shellfish even though you are told not to in the bible. And if so, how do you justify ignoring the word of god there and not when it comes to things like homosexuality?
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Jun 19, 2012 04:24PM)
[quote]

Whoa...ha ha. That last post of mine was all sarcasm. I am a true believer and a devout catholic and nothing can change that.
Sorry for the misconseption. I am not about to change.
[/quote]

I thought so. :)

And it was me the one not so clear in my post, (sorry bout that)
I think the non believers have more to prove and they are the ones looking for the proof.


Thanks,
Tom
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 19, 2012 04:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-18 23:22, acesover wrote:...

NO.
[/quote]

IMHO that's dismissal. Zeus is not amused. :)
And perhaps some who live in onther belief systems are not so amused either. Disagreement can be phrased as a constructive addition to a dialog.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 19, 2012 04:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 16:55, Slide wrote:
One question I've always wondered about concerns the cherry picking of the bible that most people do.

People who believe the bible is historical fact and the word of god love to quote parts of the old testament that supports their particular postion and yet things like Don't Eat Pork, don't eat shell fish and many of the items from the Torah are ignored. If it is the word of god, shouldn't you be living like an Orthadox jew only more so? Did god suddenly change his mind about shell fish for christians and not for jews? Was God wrong about shell fish? if what he says in the Torah, is now no good, in the grand scheme of time, it sounds like god changes his mind every few seconds.

So, let me ask the christians: do you eat pork and shellfish even though you are told not to in the bible. And if so, how do you justify ignoring the word of god there and not when it comes to things like homosexuality?
[/quote]

Just a quick heads up on the old testament. eatiing pork bck then was not a good idea due to the way it was cooked jusgt as today one must be careful to cook it correctlyor you can become violently ill and sometimes die. Of course this is true for a lot of foods but more so from pork.

As far as mhosexuality is concerned that is up to the individual but I for one find it rather not my style and kind of feel it is how shall I say ...revolting especially when it goes beyond oral betwen men. Need I say more?

I also just find nothing stimulating about two men kissing passionately. If you like and condone this sort of behavior well that is your choice as God gave you free will. I have no problem as to what you like or dislike, just donn't try and convince otherwise as I have my own thoughts on this as I have already stated and there is no room for debate. I have given it much thought because of the times we live in, and I am not about to change my mind. That is not to say I would shun people in the gay community. As a matter of fact one individual that I do business with on a regular basis is gay and we have no problem getting along. We both know how the other feels as far as our sexuality is concerned. Also I am close friends with another individual that goes the other way as we have a common interet in pool. He is an exceptiona;l player and we get along great together and I have gone to several tournaments with him in the past. However my copetitive days of pool are over ow because of my eye as I lost the sight of my left eye and have horrible depth perception.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 19, 2012 06:08PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 17:35, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-18 23:22, acesover wrote:...

NO.
[/quote]

IMHO that's dismissal. Zeus is not amused. :)
And perhaps some who live in onther belief systems are not so amused either. Disagreement can be phrased as a constructive addition to a dialog.
[/quote]

Asked and answered. Some people are not quite as verbose as yourself. A question was asked which could be answered with a yes or a no answer. I answered with NO.

If those other people along with Zeus are not amused that is OK as I was not put here or hired to amuse them. :) Until then the answer remains, NO.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 19, 2012 07:28PM)
And it was a rhetorical question at that!

Amayyyyyzing! :jump:
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 19, 2012 07:58PM)
Well I have never met someone that says the Bible is ALL wrong on every point. You see as Christians we believe the Bible to be God's Word and therefore without error. We do however realize that people will believe the Bible is saying something it is not. Most people I have spoken with about the Bible basically pick and choose what to believe is accurate and what is not. It that case those who do not believe in the Bible may have an advantage. Christians do believe that God's Word contains the truth and is without error and we accept that as fact. Not blindly but by study.

Science is good in a lot of ways. I'm glad God invented it too. I have a hard time with some things scientists say. Plus they don't always agree (At least there is a uniform theme running through the Scriptures) on certain things they study. For example a simple thing like "How old is the earth?" Some say billions of years others millions and still some thousands. Only The Jews and Christians break it down to just over 10,000 years. Science has been wrong about quite a bit of things (agent orange) but it is trying. As a matter of fact science has been wrong about things more than the Bible (wrong here is from the non believes point of view). But then again science does not claim to be right all the time. Science is NOT perfect---God is.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 19, 2012 08:09PM)
A schizophrenic patient believes he is dead.
The patient's psychiatrist, trying to cure the him of his delusion asks, "Do dead people bleed?"
The patient says, "No, of course not!"
The Psychiatrist pricks the patient's finger and blood oozes.
"Well," asks the doctor, what does that show you?"
"I was WRONG...!" the dumbfounded patient exclaims, staring at the blood as the doctor smiles and nods.
"Dead people DO bleed!" the patient concludes aloud.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 19, 2012 08:17PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 20:58, The great Gumbini wrote:
Well I have never met someone that says the Bible is ALL wrong on every point. You see as Christians we believe the Bible to be God's Word and therefore without error. We do however realize that people will believe the Bible is saying something it is not. Most people I have spoken with about the Bible basically pick and choose what to believe is accurate and what is not. It that case those who do not believe in the Bible may have an advantage. Christians do believe that God's Word contains the truth and is without error and we accept that as fact. Not blindly but by study.

Science is good in a lot of ways. I'm glad God invented it too. I have a hard time with some things scientists say. Plus they don't always agree (At least there is a uniform theme running through the Scriptures) on certain things they study. For example a simple thing like "How old is the earth?" Some say billions of years others millions and still some thousands. Only The Jews and Christians break it down to just over 10,000 years. Science has been wrong about quite a bit of things (agent orange) but it is trying. As a matter of fact science has been wrong about things more than the Bible (wrong here is from the non believes point of view). But then again science does not claim to be right all the time. Science is NOT perfect---God is.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

Gumbini,

How do you reconcile this...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html


Ron
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 19, 2012 08:34PM)
I would love to here who the scientists are who believe the earth is only "thousands" of years old.
I can't imagine that there are any. There's nothing in the Bible that supports that conclusion either, so I'm surprised that so many believers think it is so.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jun 19, 2012 08:40PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 21:17, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 20:58, The great Gumbini wrote:
Well I have never met someone that says the Bible is ALL wrong on every point. You see as Christians we believe the Bible to be God's Word and therefore without error. We do however realize that people will believe the Bible is saying something it is not. Most people I have spoken with about the Bible basically pick and choose what to believe is accurate and what is not. It that case those who do not believe in the Bible may have an advantage. Christians do believe that God's Word contains the truth and is without error and we accept that as fact. Not blindly but by study.

Science is good in a lot of ways. I'm glad God invented it too. I have a hard time with some things scientists say. Plus they don't always agree (At least there is a uniform theme running through the Scriptures) on certain things they study. For example a simple thing like "How old is the earth?" Some say billions of years others millions and still some thousands. Only The Jews and Christians break it down to just over 10,000 years. Science has been wrong about quite a bit of things (agent orange) but it is trying. As a matter of fact science has been wrong about things more than the Bible (wrong here is from the non believes point of view). But then again science does not claim to be right all the time. Science is NOT perfect---God is.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

Gumbini,

How do you reconcile this...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html


Ron
[/quote]

For starters:
1. JEDP
2. Translation
3. Transliteration
4. What the Bible is vs. what it is not.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 19, 2012 08:58PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 20:58, The great Gumbini wrote:
Well I have never met someone that says the Bible is ALL wrong on every point. You see as Christians we believe the Bible to be God's Word and therefore without error. We do however realize that people will believe the Bible is saying something it is not. Most people I have spoken with about the Bible basically pick and choose what to believe is accurate and what is not. It that case those who do not believe in the Bible may have an advantage. Christians do believe that God's Word contains the truth and is without error and we accept that as fact. Not blindly but by study.

Science is good in a lot of ways. I'm glad God invented it too. I have a hard time with some things scientists say. Plus they don't always agree (At least there is a uniform theme running through the Scriptures) on certain things they study. For example a simple thing like "How old is the earth?" Some say billions of years others millions and still some thousands. Only The Jews and Christians break it down to just over 10,000 years. Science has been wrong about quite a bit of things (agent orange) but it is trying. As a matter of fact science has been wrong about things more than the Bible (wrong here is from the non believes point of view). But then again science does not claim to be right all the time. Science is NOT perfect---God is.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

Eric, you argue that "We do however realize that people will believe the Bible is saying something it is not."

I'm confused. A god who created everything should have the common sense to NOT make his word so confusing that the world is at war because his word is so vague that every person can interpret it in a different way. Was it a sick joke on his part, or did he just not care enough to make it clear what his intentions are/were? You can make the argument of "free will", but if, as the Bible says, god is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, then he has already determined what we will do before we are born, thus free will can't exist.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 19, 2012 09:05PM)
Ron,

I'll tell you what pick the one you think is the biggest "error" or contradiction and I'll help clear it up ok? These are very old points that have been reviewed before. Example the light and the darkness and the sun and moon are two different events. Actually if you read the Scriptures you will find the moon was for light at night (Gen 1;16). These do appear (appear) to be contradictions on the surface however you will find upon closer study most go hand in hand to show a complete view. Also realize if these were truly honest contradictions then the arguments you all have made would be valid ones and in fact I for one would never have believed that the Bible was without error or contradictions for this long. One the surface they do appear to contradict but you will find they do not. Some are easier to explain and some will take a little understanding of times and customs but all can be explained. This is nothing new in fact I'm surprised someone hasn't used at least part of this list up until now. I normally have people by now say things like "Well if you believe the Bible has no contradictions what about..." and then one of these will be brought up. You did a very nice job finding a nice list we can all have fun with. So let me know if you have a favorite and we will start with that ok?


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 19, 2012 09:12PM)
Sure free will can (and does) exist. You can toss a book to someone and most people will catch it. They have the free will NOT to but almost all will. I say almost all yet so far everyone I tossed one to did. I like to whisper to someone what I'm going to do (toss the book) and tell them "watch they will catch it.) and sure enough they do. Now this is a simple explaination and we are more complex however God knows all so He knows the outcome of our decisions. that's how He can prophesy with 100 percent accuracy because He knows. He has made His Word clear in fact it is so clear people try to complicate it and that is where you can have wars etc. Free will we do have and we will answer one way or the other on how we use it.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 19, 2012 09:23PM)
What day of the week was the last supper?

How did Judas die?

For starters.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 19, 2012 09:59PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 22:12, The great Gumbini wrote:
Sure free will can (and does) exist. You can toss a book to someone and most people will catch it. They have the free will NOT to but almost all will. I say almost all yet so far everyone I tossed one to did. I like to whisper to someone what I'm going to do (toss the book) and tell them "watch they will catch it.) and sure enough they do. Now this is a simple explaination and we are more complex however God knows all so He knows the outcome of our decisions. that's how He can prophesy with 100 percent accuracy because He knows. He has made His Word clear in fact it is so clear people try to complicate it and that is where you can have wars etc. Free will we do have and we will answer one way or the other on how we use it.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

If free will exists, then what are my options? God supposedly knows how many hairs are on my head and has everything all planned out for me (the "all knowing part). So do I try to tell god that I don't care that he has evertyhing all planned out, I'm just going to try and screw him over and fight it? First of all, a god would be more powerful than to let me override his plan, but even if I tried, I imagine he'd get him pretty mad and I would end up in hell anyway. You can't have it both ways. If god created me and knows exactly what I'm going to do in life, then I'm a goner from the start, because he knew I was going to be a non-believer. A god that created me just so I would burn in hell for eternity is not a god I consider moral or worthy of my respect.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 19, 2012 10:19PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 22:23, mastermindreader wrote:
What day of the week was the last supper?

How did Judas die?

For starters.
[/quote]

You will find what you are looking for here: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 19, 2012 10:21PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 21:34, mastermindreader wrote:
I would love to here who the scientists are who believe the earth is only "thousands" of years old.
I can't imagine that there are any. There's nothing in the Bible that supports that conclusion either, so I'm surprised that so many believers think it is so.
[/quote]

No one said they were smart scientists. :)
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 19, 2012 10:35PM)
Really, the arguments here are laughable considering no-one on this thread has read any of the Bahai Writings which explains clearly and rationally all the challenges being laid down by theists and atheists alike in this thread....

......but you guys keep going ahead....

This is fun!! :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 19, 2012 10:50PM)
Sorry you feel my arguments are laughable.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 19, 2012 10:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 23:19, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 22:23, mastermindreader wrote:
What day of the week was the last supper?

How did Judas die?

For starters.
[/quote]

You will find what you are looking for here: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html
[/quote]

Well that site certainly tries to harmonize the conflicting accounts of Matthew and Acts. Sadly, IMO it fails utterly and doesn't really come to any conclusion beyond tentative speculation.

The plain language of the accounts differ and are irreconcilable.

So what day was the Last Supper?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 19, 2012 11:03PM)
As Rodney once said, Why can't we all just get along?.

Come on boys and girls believe what you want and let everyone else alone. Does anyone see a problem with that?

No one here is going to convince one to change their religious beliefs nor are they going to change the mind of an atheist. So I say as that smarter than we realize great card player often says, "believe what you want". And as I say. Please don't try and force your beliefs on me. I am quite content with my religious beliefs and my relationsip with God.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 19, 2012 11:11PM)
Bob,

That very wonderful tool Acesover mentioned above is HIGHLY recommended by myself to not only you but everyone who has questions on the Scriptures. Apologetics is a wonderful study and I recommend it to show the very earnest hard work people put in to verify the accuracy of the Scriptures. I read books by Josh McDowell that were very good as well. This is the deep study that normally reduces the questions about the Scriptures and why I said there are answers and if there were not most studied believers would have jumped ship if we thought it was not real. But through studies like this material offers you will get answers.

Acesover I thank you for this. I have Bookmarked it and will use it.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 19, 2012 11:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 23:50, mastermindreader wrote:
Sorry you feel my arguments are laughable.
[/quote]


Sorry, Bob, if anyone is "exempt" from my statement, you would be the only one :)

I find the majority of your posts very well informed, and based on thorough study and for that I will respect you more than I respect your mentalism (and believe me I respect your contributions to mentalism)

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 19, 2012 11:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 00:03, acesover wrote:
As Rodney once said, Why can't we all just get along?.

Come on boys and girls believe what you want and let everyone else alone. Does anyone see a problem with that?

No one here is going to convince one to change their religious beliefs nor are they going to change the mind of an atheist. So I say as that smarter than we realize great card player often says, "believe what you want". And as I say. Please don't try and force your beliefs on me. I am quite content with my religious beliefs and my relationsip with God.
[/quote]

Wouldn't that be a nice thing? If only religious folks just worshipped their faith in their own way and not make laws that impose their beliefs on everyone, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I understand that most people worship in their own way without dragging unwilling people into their beliefs, but if you want "everyone to get along", I suggest you contact your politicians and tell them to practice their faith without forcing it on the minority who don't share their beliefs. I'm not evem talking about people who knock on my door in the morning to tell me I have "good news". I'm talking about those who decide to set science back decades because thier faith tells them that stem cells that would otherwise be discarded are better off going in the trash than help people who are actually living improve their quality of life.

We won't complain about your beliefs if you don't shove it down the throats of those who choose to believe otherwise. I don't knock on people doors on a Saturday morning to tell them there's no good news.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 19, 2012 11:17PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 00:15, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 23:50, mastermindreader wrote:
Sorry you feel my arguments are laughable.
[/quote]


Sorry, Bob, if anyone is "exempt" from my statement, you would be the only one :)

I find the majority of your posts very well informed, and based on thorough study and for that I will respect you more than I respect your mentalism (and believe me I respect your contributions to mentalism)

Kam
[/quote]

I was just busting you Kam! :)
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 19, 2012 11:24PM)
I suspected so :)

I will contend however, that all the points being raised by the atheists as to why the Christian Faith is this and that, are answered conclusively in the Baha'i Writings.

All the discrepancies you see in the Bible, are fully explained in the Baha'i Writings. All the supposed "cruelty" exhibited by this All-Knowing All-Loving God in the Old and New Testaments, are fully explained using rational theological arguments, in the Baha'i Writings...

...but as I say, seeing all this to and fro-ing argument is not to seek the truth by anyone, because when one is making it up as one goes along with one's own explanations is funny to watch, since most of it is very irrational thinking...

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 19, 2012 11:25PM)
Kam, I've listened and tried to understand the points you make in your PM's to me, but I think it would be more enlightening if you were to discuss it on the public forum rather than in private. I consider you a very sincere and nice person, but in the end, I feel it's more productive if we share the views we've talked about in private in public. You bring up some good points, but since I have no intention of converting, talking in private is not in the best interest of your promoting your beliefs. I look forward to speaking with you again in a public discussion.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 19, 2012 11:27PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 21:17, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 20:58, The great Gumbini wrote:
Well I have never met someone that says the Bible is ALL wrong on every point. You see as Christians we believe the Bible to be God's Word and therefore without error. We do however realize that people will believe the Bible is saying something it is not. Most people I have spoken with about the Bible basically pick and choose what to believe is accurate and what is not. It that case those who do not believe in the Bible may have an advantage. Christians do believe that God's Word contains the truth and is without error and we accept that as fact. Not blindly but by study.

Science is good in a lot of ways. I'm glad God invented it too. I have a hard time with some things scientists say. Plus they don't always agree (At least there is a uniform theme running through the Scriptures) on certain things they study. For example a simple thing like "How old is the earth?" Some say billions of years others millions and still some thousands. Only The Jews and Christians break it down to just over 10,000 years. Science has been wrong about quite a bit of things (agent orange) but it is trying. As a matter of fact science has been wrong about things more than the Bible (wrong here is from the non believes point of view). But then again science does not claim to be right all the time. Science is NOT perfect---God is.


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

Gumbini,

How do you reconcile this...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html


Ron
[/quote]

Honestly I have never before seen such drivel in my life. Do you really expect someone to answer these questions here? There is not enough bandwidh here to even begin.

Besides it is nonsense and childish.

Even the first question is nonsense. About light and dark. For some reason th eposter of this drivel equates light with the sun. Remembeer there was nothing. He created light and darkness and seperated the two. At this time I have no idea yet if God even created the sun but it is impied by this simplistiic question that the sun is the source of all light which did not even exist until God created it. Again remember there was nothing.

It goes on to say Adam lived x number of years and died the day he ate the fruit as if that is a contradiction. Do you have any concept what is meant when God said Adam died the day he ate the fruit? Please do not post such childish junk that you find on the net. I could go on and on but as I said there is not enough bandwith to do it and besides this posting of whomever postd this ridiculous list does not warrant a response.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 19, 2012 11:29PM)
....also the reality is, that the atheists do have a valid reason to question the ccontents of the Bible, it begs a huge amount of questions. It's whole validity is rationally put into question by the atheists. The questions about the cruelty of the Biblical God is a valid one. The pointlessness of doing ANYTHING if God is All-Knowing, Ominpotent and Omniscient are all very valid questions.

.....again the answers to ALL these valid questions are not conclusively answered by the Christians, their understanding of truth is either 2000 years old or its man-made, one or the other, and as a result its either laughable or inconsistent with logic....again, the rational, non man-made answers are out there :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 19, 2012 11:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 00:25, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
Kam, I've listened and tried to understand the points you make in your PM's to me, but I think it would be more enlightening if you were to discuss it on the public forum rather than in private. I consider you a very sincere and nice person, but in the end, I feel it's more productive if we share the views we've talked about in private in public. You bring up some good points, but since I have no intention of converting, talking in private is not in the best interest of your promoting your beliefs. I look forward to speaking with you again in a public discussion.
[/quote]


Sounds good Jeff :)

As I've said to you over PM, I have no intention to convert anyone. My words in this forum are not endowed with any spirit. My purpose here is to expand consciousness which is already happening. Up until 3 months ago, a large majority of people in this forum had not even heard of Baha'u'llah. Now you all have and it means you all have another thing to think about. Something Lobo said today in another one of the threads again, made all my efforts worthwhile in these forums :)

Please understand also that you sought me with a PM questioning about the Baha'i perspective on "hell" which I obliged to answer for you. I'm an open book mate, happy to discuss everything in public or privately :)

Thanks again my friend, and I do see you as a friend, we shared some nice moments over PM :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 19, 2012 11:36PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 00:29, kambiz wrote:
....also the reality is, that the atheists do have a valid reason to question the ccontents of the Bible, it begs a huge amount of questions. It's whole validity is rationally put into question by the atheists. The questions about the cruelty of the Biblical God is a valid one. The pointlessness of doing ANYTHING if God is All-Knowing, Ominpotent and Omniscient are all very valid questions.

.....again the answers to ALL these valid questions are not conclusively answered by the Christians, their understanding of truth is either 2000 years old or its man-made, one or the other, and as a result its either laughable or inconsistent with logic....again, the rational, non man-made answers are out there :)

Kam
[/quote]

I'm glad you agree that the questions are valid, but asserting that "non man-made answers are out there" add's nothing to our understanding of the universe. You are simply filling in the blanks about things that are hard to understand with some "being" that's even more difficult to understand. Whoever said "I don't know" is a bad thing?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 19, 2012 11:36PM)
I would think that 2000 years looks different from a human perspective than from an eternal one.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 19, 2012 11:38PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 00:29, kambiz wrote:
....also the reality is, that the atheists do have a valid reason to question the ccontents of the Bible, it begs a huge amount of questions. It's whole validity is rationally put into question by the atheists. The questions about the cruelty of the Biblical God is a valid one. The pointlessness of doing ANYTHING if God is All-Knowing, Ominpotent and Omniscient are all very valid questions.

.....again the answers to ALL these valid questions are not conclusively answered by the Christians, their understanding of truth is either 2000 years old or its man-made, one or the other, and as a result its either laughable or inconsistent with logic....again, the rational, non man-made answers are out there :)

Kam
[/quote]

What cruelty are you speaking of? Are you speakingof The Old Testament? Which was written for the Jews who just wandered for 40 years and suffered unbearable hardships. You do not tell them that if they break a law of God you will be punished by having no supper tonight or for that matter put them in jail for 5 years and cloth and feed them because that would be a break from what they just went through.. These people just suffered hardships that you or I have no idea for the last 40 years.

So your idea of cruel today and that of the Jews of the time I would say are probably two entirely different concepts. Do not compare today with the time that the Old Testament was written for you or I have o no idea what they went through and as I said what you feel is cruel and what they feel was cruel are probably two different things entirely. Thepunishment had to be whta today is considered cruel because whaat they had at that time was extreme hardship and what we have today is a cakewalk. For someone who just suffered for 40 years wandering the desert do you think punishimg them by saying no soup for you tonight is punishment? Do you think that putting them is prison and feeding them is punishment? Well think again. Howevr they knew stoning was punishment and of course we feel it is cruel. But put it in perspective as punishment goes and what they have jus endured. How do you punish someone who has just went through hades for 40 years?
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 20, 2012 12:00AM)
There is no need to even go into the Old Testament. If you want to discuss cruelty, there are gems everywhere. One of my favorites is Exodus 21:20-21. - "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

The kinder, gentler God of the New Testament says it's okay to beat your slave as long as he stays alive for a couple days. If he dies, the punishment was usually a small fine. Often people think I'm wrong for considering myself more moral than the god of the Bible, but since I don't condone slavery, much less how much to charge for slaves or how to treat them, nor have I ever condoned the killing of innocent children simply because they were disobedient, I disagree. People can say "It's God's way", or "we can't question His motives", or one of my favorites, he is too complicated to understand". That's BS that was drilled into our minds as children. I firmly believe that most people with even a bit of morality wouldn't even consider doing most things that Gods word in the Bible considers just fine.

Don't be ashamed that you are more moral than the people who wrote that book supposedly being the word of God. Be proud that wouldn't do the things the Bible condones.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 12:16AM)
Does anyone here understand the concept "the collective body of mankind has been through its adolescence and is now approaching maturity"??

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 20, 2012 12:20AM)
Are you referring to evolution?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 12:21AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 00:36, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 00:29, kambiz wrote:
....also the reality is, that the atheists do have a valid reason to question the ccontents of the Bible, it begs a huge amount of questions. It's whole validity is rationally put into question by the atheists. The questions about the cruelty of the Biblical God is a valid one. The pointlessness of doing ANYTHING if God is All-Knowing, Ominpotent and Omniscient are all very valid questions.

.....again the answers to ALL these valid questions are not conclusively answered by the Christians, their understanding of truth is either 2000 years old or its man-made, one or the other, and as a result its either laughable or inconsistent with logic....again, the rational, non man-made answers are out there :)

Kam
[/quote]

I'm glad you agree that the questions are valid, but asserting that "non man-made answers are out there" add's nothing to our understanding of the universe. You are simply filling in the blanks about things that are hard to understand with some "being" that's even more difficult to understand. Whoever said "I don't know" is a bad thing?
[/quote]


I "do" know the answers to these questions Jeff. The answers are very rational, and explains a lot, both intellectually and when observed scientifically in all humans that I encounter :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 12:22AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 01:20, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
Are you referring to evolution?
[/quote]

Yes.....partially.....what makes you think that evolution is ONLY an "observable" theory?

Kam
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 12:23AM)
....and secondly, what makes you think that religions are EXEMPT from evolution?

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 20, 2012 12:34AM)
Please explain what you mean by "observable". We only found about about the former planet Pluto in 1930, yet we know that it takes 248 years to circle the sun. We didn't "observe" that obviously.

Secondly, religion has nothing to do with evolution (unless someone is a fundie who believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old and humans rode around on dinosaurs...Some Adam and Eve believers still think that men have one less rib than women), but even people who don't go that far tend to lump religion and evolution together.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you meant by "observable". Jeff
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 01:12AM)
By observeable I'm talking about many things. For example, when religious truth was addressed to humanity during Jesus's time, the concept of original sin was introduced. This concept of original sin served a purpose "at the time"....what do you think was the purpose of this concept during Jesus's time, knowing that intellectually, humans were not as advanced as they are today, both individually and collectively?

Today, the concept of original sin has been abrogated by Baha'u'llah's message. The nature of man in religious terms has evolved to what Baha'u'llah describes as "latent capacities". This is a very interesting area of Bahai theology that I could write pages and pages on to explain fully. By "observeable" I mean this: that the nature of man as described by Baha'u'llah presents a revolutionary change in educational methodology, absolutely unseen in all modern day education. When a child gets educated using these Baha'i concepts as the core of the educational model, the results are "OBSERVEABLY" different to all other educational models present in the world today.

Now that is just ONE example as to how religious truth has EVOLVED.....

Kam
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 20, 2012 02:01AM)
First of all, you are starting off with an argument from scripture. Just because there are some facts contained in the Bible (such as places that exist or existed), doesn't make the entire book true. There may or may not have been a person named Jesus, but for the sake of argument, let's say there was. That's a far cry from saying that person went around performing miracles. As far as the "original sin", you are taking a leap of faith that one act that happened thousands of years ago caused this god to condemn all future mankind. If there IS a god, I'd like to think he/she is a little better than that.

I don't know what "Baha'u'llah" is, so when I asked you "what makes you think that evolution is ONLY an "observable" theory" really makes no sense to me.

Can you explain it to me in a way that doesn't involve a religious belief? In other words, what part of "evolution" (in non-religious talk) were you referring to in your original post? Thanks.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2012 02:18AM)
One of the main differences between philosophers and scientists is that philosophers tend to more readily know (or at least admit) when they're doing metaphysics.

He who is without presuppositions among you, let him cast the first stone.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 20, 2012 02:28AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 03:18, LobowolfXXX wrote:
One of the main differences between philosophers and scientists is that philosophers tend to more readily know (or at least admit) when they're doing metaphysics.

He who is without presuppositions among you, let him cast the first stone.
[/quote]

If you're trying to compare science with metaphysics, you make a good point with casting stones. I believe stones were the weapon of choice when metaphysics was replaced with science. I have this bump on my knee. I was going to see an actual doctor who studied science, but perhaps a good philosopher or metaphysicist may be the way to go.

I believe you're a little off on the "main difference" between the two.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2012 02:34AM)
Metaphysics is still out there, as science doesn't answer moral questions. And if you're looking for someone to advance the case for psychics, you've come to the wrong place. Well, actually, you've come to the right place, but I'm not the right person.

I just wonder how many "scientific facts" that you're so sure of today will be scoffed at and dismissed in the next century or two.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2012 02:46AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 03:28, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 03:18, LobowolfXXX wrote:
One of the main differences between philosophers and scientists is that philosophers tend to more readily know (or at least admit) when they're doing metaphysics.

He who is without presuppositions among you, let him cast the first stone.
[/quote]

If you're trying to compare science with metaphysics, you make a good point with casting stones. I believe stones were the weapon of choice when metaphysics was replaced with science. I have this bump on my knee. I was going to see an actual doctor who studied science, but perhaps a good philosopher or metaphysicist may be the way to go.

I believe you're a little off on the "main difference" between the two.
[/quote]

It wasn't philosophers who were lobotomizing tens of thousands of people in the last century.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 04:22AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 03:01, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
First of all, you are starting off with an argument from scripture. Just because there are some facts contained in the Bible (such as places that exist or existed), doesn't make the entire book true. There may or may not have been a person named Jesus, but for the sake of argument, let's say there was. That's a far cry from saying that person went around performing miracles. As far as the "original sin", you are taking a leap of faith that one act that happened thousands of years ago caused this god to condemn all future mankind. If there IS a god, I'd like to think he/she is a little better than that.

I don't know what "Baha'u'llah" is, so when I asked you "what makes you think that evolution is ONLY an "observable" theory" really makes no sense to me.

Can you explain it to me in a way that doesn't involve a religious belief? In other words, what part of "evolution" (in non-religious talk) were you referring to in your original post? Thanks.
[/quote]

Jeff it is plain and obvious you do not read my answers to your questions fully, or there are serious miscommunication issues between us..... I just don't think I can help you on these matters as I get the feeling your mind is totally closed to such concepts as the one I just presented :)

Good day to you sir :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 07:50AM)
"Just a quick heads up on the old testament. eatiing pork bck then was not a good idea due to the way it was cooked jusgt as today one must be careful to cook it correctlyor you can become violently ill and sometimes die. Of course this is true for a lot of foods but more so from pork. "

You really didn't answer the question Aces.

Orthodox jews today don't eat pork, not because of the health issues because they are forbidden by the bible. They use separate plates for dairy. They have all sorts of restrictions outlined by god in the Torah. Why aren't christians under the same edict?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2012 08:22AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 01:00, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
There is no need to even go into the Old Testament. If you want to discuss cruelty, there are gems everywhere. One of my favorites is Exodus 21:20-21. - "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

The kinder, gentler God of the New Testament says it's okay to beat your slave as long as he stays alive for a couple days. If he dies, the punishment was usually a small fine. Often people think I'm wrong for considering myself more moral than the god of the Bible, but since I don't condone slavery, much less how much to charge for slaves or how to treat them, nor have I ever condoned the killing of innocent children simply because they were disobedient, I disagree. People can say "It's God's way", or "we can't question His motives", or one of my favorites, he is too complicated to understand". That's BS that was drilled into our minds as children. I firmly believe that most people with even a bit of morality wouldn't even consider doing most things that Gods word in the Bible considers just fine.

Don't be ashamed that you are more moral than the people who wrote that book supposedly being the word of God. Be proud that wouldn't do the things the Bible condones.
[/quote]
O

OK lets read the passage. <quote> "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. <end quote> It says that if a man beats his servant and the servant dies he shall surely be punished. It says nothing about how long it will take.

However if the man lives and does not die he will not be punished. Everyone will die eventually. The day or two is nothing more than stating that if the servant lives and does not die as a result of the beating then man is not responsible for the servants death, as everyone dies. But if he died because of the beating the man will be punished it says that in the first passage. Read it again.

So maybe you should pick another favorite. :)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2012 08:56AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 08:50, Slide wrote:
"Just a quick heads up on the old testament. eatiing pork bck then was not a good idea due to the way it was cooked jusgt as today one must be careful to cook it correctlyor you can become violently ill and sometimes die. Of course this is true for a lot of foods but more so from pork. "

You really didn't answer the question Aces.

Orthodox jews today don't eat pork, not because of the health issues because they are forbidden by the bible. They use separate plates for dairy. They have all sorts of restrictions outlined by god in the Torah. Why aren't christians under the same edict?
[/quote]

Maybe because christians do not follow the Torah. :)

Animals that chewed their cud were considered unclean at one time. Times have changed but obviously the writings in the old testament did not. However in the new testament there are changes. This may help to clarify it: http://www.ucg.org/booklet/what-does-bible-teach-about-clean-and-unclean-meats/does-new-testament-abolish-meat-distinct/
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 20, 2012 10:00AM)
Yes once again it's NOT what is written but how it is received by someone that seems to cause so much misunderstanding. There is a very good rule I'd like to share with everyone when reading Scriptures. If something seems odd or hard to understand STUDY it very well until you get an answer. Sometimes the use of the words back then were more meaningful then today. For example today people name their children by how cute a name is or after a celebrity. In Biblical times children were named by their actions or events that took place relating to their birth and even today I have heard that some Jewish families will wait days to see how their new born is acting before they name him or her. I brought up earlier how the words "faith" and "belief" were used in Biblical times. What is still the most fascinating thing about the Bible is how the prophecies are coming true even today. The changed lives that the Lord is leading people to live. This is evidence and proof.

The Bahai faith believes that there were several messengers that came at different times that were suited for the people at that time. However when it come to Muhammad their is a problem in that he talks against Jesus and His teachings. Messengers of God do not talk against but rather confirm what the others have said. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. The argument is set forth that people did not understand what Jesus was saying and was misquoted. This simply is not the case. The Bible is a continuous thread that is amazing in that so many authors in such a time span could have laid out such a continuity in it's message. But then again it is the Word of God so what would you expect.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 11:06AM)
Eric, can you provide a quote from the Quran where Muhammad talks against Jesus?

Kam
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 11:13AM)
"Maybe because christians do not follow the Torah. " so christians don't follow the old testiment? That is news to me. So do you believe then that the old testiment/torah is NOT the word of God, then? I'm confused. Was that a false god? did god change his mind?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2012 11:18AM)
Per the Bible, he changed the rules. Are you a "false parent" if your child has an 8:00 curfew one year and a 9:00 curfew the next year?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 11:18AM)
"The biblical position is clear. Distinctions between clean and unclean meats existed long before the New Testament was written; they were followed by the leaders and other members of the early Church; and they will still apply at the time of Christ's return in the future, when He will enforce them. Therefore they are clearly to be observed today as well by members of the modern Church, which "keeps the commandments of God and has the testimony of Jesus Christ""

From your link aces. I read that as saying that christians should follow the dietary restrictions found in the Torah. So do you?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 11:23AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 12:18, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Per the Bible, he changed the rules. Are you a "false parent" if your child has an 8:00 curfew one year and a 9:00 curfew the next year?
[/quote]

Hey Lobo, your inspiring me :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2012 12:48PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 12:13, Slide wrote:
"Maybe because christians do not follow the Torah. " so christians don't follow the old testiment? That is news to me. So do you believe then that the old testiment/torah is NOT the word of God, then? I'm confused. Was that a false god? did god change his mind?
[/quote]

Christians follow the Old testament except, and this is a big exception where it conflicts with the New Testament. While this may seem to some as double talk especially to those who want to believe otherwise, many of these differences as some people see them are in translation or in they way they are interputed.

So while you may feel that my statement was to general when I said and I quote here, " Maybe because christians do not follow the Torah. Perhaps I should have added to the very letter, and it would have explained it better.

Jesus taught from the Old Testament and you must remember who and when he was teaching. Remember the times. There were no cars, planes, internet, etc so please do not try and inturpert what was taught by Jesus then in order to make it logical to you now. Consider the times and the education and knowledge poscessed by these people at the time of His teaching. Would it make sense to these people if Jesus mentioned Stealth Bombers or would it make more sense if He mentioned fire from the sky?

Obviously you know the New Testament came after the Old testament and is about the life of Jesus and took approximatel 50 or so years to write by several authors. While most of the Old Testament was handed down to Moses from God. Do not confuse the Old and New testament as one smooth transition of thought from the old to the new. The Torah while for the most part is the Old testament it is not laid out in the same order as the Old testament. With the changes of the order of books it makes the transation into the New Testament easier to understand and more logical.

This topic makes for a very long winded discussion and does not lend itself to this medium (typing on a forum). It is much easier for participants to voice their opinion live when what was said is still fresh in the minds of those who hear it. Having said that I feel I cannot do my end of this discussion justice in this format so I will bow out. I will end by saying, BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 20, 2012 12:59PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 12:06, kambiz wrote:
Eric, can you provide a quote from the Quran where Muhammad talks against Jesus?

Kam
[/quote]

I think it was either an episode of south Park or Celebrity Death Match
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 01:44PM)
"Christians follow the Old testament except, and this is a big exception where it conflicts with the New Testament"

So god wrote two sets of rules? and why drop the pork restriction after Jesus was crucified? Was he planning a series of Jesus Rib joints?

50 years? Try at least 1000 years. It is well documented by bible scholars that much of the bible was rewritten by the monk scribes and has been added to, rewritten, and changed constantly through the 1300's.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 01:48PM)
"Per the Bible, he changed the rules. Are you a "false parent" if your child has an 8:00 curfew one year and a 9:00 curfew the next year?"

Why would a deity change the rules. Perhaps he has changed the rules again, if he can change the rule so willy nilly. HAHAHA.

Man, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

How do you know he hasn't changed the rules again? My Darwin was his new change of rules.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 01:49PM)
So if he has changed the rules, are all the rules changed? where did jesus say " go and eat pork".

Are the 10 commandments now changed as well. This is a pretty inconsistant god you got on your hands. Can't seem to make up his mind on a ham sandwich
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 01:55PM)
"Jesus taught from the Old Testament and you must remember who and when he was teaching. Remember the times. There were no cars, planes, internet, etc so please do not try and inturpert what was taught by Jesus then in order to make it logical to you now."

So you are saying that the bible is not to be taken literally then. It is not the unchanging word of god but was written to appeal to an uneducated nomadic tribe. in words that they can understand and is open to interpretation. Not to be taken as "gospel" so to speak.

I'm learning all sorts of things.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2012 02:28PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 14:44, Slide wrote:
"Christians follow the Old testament except, and this is a big exception where it conflicts with the New Testament"

So god wrote two sets of rules? and why drop the pork restriction after Jesus was crucified? Was he planning a series of Jesus Rib joints?

50 years? Try at least 1000 years. It is well documented by bible scholars that much of the bible was rewritten by the monk scribes and has been added to, rewritten, and changed constantly through the 1300's.
[/quote]

You know it is people like you that make me just have to post. If you read my post I said the New testmant and it took around 50 or so years to write it. stretching it for some people who say other wise maybe 100 years. But 1,000 years, you are completely lost in this topic. It is way over your head. Don't talk aboaut translations because you are showing you rignorance on this topic. Do you even know how many people are responsible for writing the bible, not the stroy you are comiing up with about monks writing it. Jeeez...give me a break. It will probably be changed further by some people who think they know what the original authors meant. So lets stretch it to 2,000 years. Yea...WOW. Joe down the street just thought of something new and now has his own version add another year. Seriously what is wrong with you?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2012 02:40PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 14:55, Slide wrote:
"Jesus taught from the Old Testament and you must remember who and when he was teaching. Remember the times. There were no cars, planes, internet, etc so please do not try and inturpert what was taught by Jesus then in order to make it logical to you now."

So you are saying that the bible is not to be taken literally then. It is not the unchanging word of god but was written to appeal to an uneducated nomadic tribe. in words that they can understand and is open to interpretation. Not to be taken as "gospel" so to speak.

I'm learning all sorts of things.
[/quote]

I doubt you are learning anything as you have a closed mind on this topic.

I am definitely saying that every passage in the old testament is not to be taken literally. Some yes some no. If you were a believer you might have a chance to understand, but as I imagine by your posts you are not, and are just here to show how smart you think you are, you have no chance of ever knowing. You are blinded by your bias. You like it that way so enjoy. BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT. But try and post without being saracastic and making light on ones religious beliefs just because you have none. In some parts of the world such comments can cause you seriouis bodily harm. However not from a christian. Try talking in that tone to a devout muslim.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 02:43PM)
Aces, please read "Misquoting Jesus" by famed scholar Bart Ehrman. Or any of the books Elaine Pegels. For your information, I spend nearly 10 years studying religions and my library at one time contained over 100 texts on chritianity, spirtuality, buddhism, etc.

Far from being lost in the topic, I would say your myopic view of christianity, circumscribed by the teachings of the Catholic church have given you a very narrow view on biblical scholorship.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 02:45PM)
"In some parts of the world such comments can cause you seriouis bodily harm. However not from a christian."

Ever heard of the Spanish Inquistion? Ever heard of the salem witch trials, ever heard of the holocaust (which by the way, your pope never spoke out against) ? Please, dude, you are so blinded by your faith that you miss the truth.
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Jun 20, 2012 02:47PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-10 00:05, acesover wrote:
Would you want there to be a Supreme Being or would you prefetr that we are here by one big accident?

I have thougth about asking this as a two part question. The second part of the question is obvious. WHY?

Not sure if this would be considered a poll or a question.

Anyway here is my answer.

I would opt for the supreme being deal. The reason is that I hope there is more than just this.

Not looking for a debate here just curious about what you would prefer and if possible answer why. Just don't want to start a debate with the why. So don't answer the why if you are going to debate.
[/quote]

Returning to your original post, I would prefer that there be (and believe that there is) a Supreme Being, because I have proven time and time again that I am not qualified to create the beauty I see all around me, nor have I ever run across anyone else who is.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 02:48PM)
"I doubt you are learning anything as you have a closed mind on this topic"

Friend, throughout this thread it is YOU that shown to be closed minded. Anything that challanges your faith generates a knee jerk reaction. If you want to be open minded, read Misquoting Jesus and let me know what you think. I'll even buy you a copy if you like.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 02:50PM)
Aces,

You don't have to buy the book. Here is an interview with Bart Ehrman: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156

"Scholar Bart Ehrman's new book explores how scribes — through both omission and intention — changed the Bible. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is the result of years of reading the texts in their original languages.

Ehrman says the modern Bible was shaped by mistakes and intentional alterations that were made by early scribes who copied the texts. In the introduction to Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman writes that when he came to understand this process 30 years ago, it shifted his way of thinking about the Bible. He had been raised as an Evangelical Christian.

Ehrman is also the author of Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, which chronicles the period before Christianity as we know it, when conflicting ideas about the religion were fighting for prominence in the second and third centuries.

The chairman of the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, Ehrman also edited a collection of the early non-canonical texts from the first centuries after Christ, called Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament."
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jun 20, 2012 02:51PM)
Kam, you do know that the Muslim Clerics (Sunni and Syiah) regard your Bahai Faith as Apostasy right?

That Bahaullah's claims to Prophethood (or whatever) is regarded as false right?

If you still take from the teachings of Islam (the Quran and Hadith), what do you say to the one billion Muslim Ummah who say you of the Bahai Faith are apostates?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 02:58PM)
So Aces,

Here you have a respected biblical scholar who is the chairman of the religious studies department at Chapel Hill. I assume even you would agree to his credentials. He is the one who presented this data. If you are as open minded as you say, please listen to the podcast, read the book and then let me know what you think.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2012 03:13PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 15:45, Slide wrote:
"In some parts of the world such comments can cause you seriouis bodily harm. However not from a christian."

Ever heard of the Spanish Inquistion? Ever heard of the salem witch trials, ever heard of the holocaust (which by the way, your pope never spoke out against) ? Please, dude, you are so blinded by your faith that you miss the truth.
[/quote]

I am sure if the Pope said something Hilter would have stopped. :)

Again you bring up history, Salem witch rials. Think of the time and the mind set of the people. I don't think we burned any witches lately. Unless you know something I don't. Quite a while ago. Do you have any idea how many withhes were actually burned and killed? Go ahead take a guess.

You site the Spanish Inquistion...again think of the mind set and the time. We are talking today, now 2012. Not 100's of years ago or 2 thousand years ago if refrencing the bible. Today now, 2012.

Nothing is going to happenif you make fun of the witch trials in Salem today, in fact it is a money maker for the. Again however use the tone on a devout muslim today now. See what happens.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2012 03:23PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 15:50, Slide wrote:
Aces,

You don't have to buy the book. Here is an interview with Bart Ehrman: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156

"Scholar Bart Ehrman's new book explores how scribes — through both omission and intention — changed the Bible. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is the result of years of reading the texts in their original languages.

Ehrman says the modern Bible was shaped by mistakes and intentional alterations that were made by early scribes who copied the texts. In the introduction to Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman writes that when he came to understand this process 30 years ago, it shifted his way of thinking about the Bible. He had been raised as an Evangelical Christian.

Ehrman is also the author of Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, which chronicles the period before Christianity as we know it, when conflicting ideas about the religion were fighting for prominence in the second and third centuries.

The chairman of the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, Ehrman also edited a collection of the early non-canonical texts from the first centuries after Christ, called Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament."
[/quote]

Just take this for what it is worth. These men were extremely intelligent. I imagine so is Ehrman. So what is your point?

For a bunch of amoral foul-ups, the Nazis at Nuremberg were an above average group. Four of them, Schacht, Seyss-Inquart, Göring and Dönitz were in the genius range. In fact, Schacht and Seyss-Inquart possessed IQ's equaled by a mere 1 percent of humanity. Unfortunately, Hitler himself was never tested (though some have attempted to estimate his IQ), leading to much speculation about his relative intelligence.

Should we go along with what they taught and believe? They were definitely misguided in their thinking wouldn't you agree?


I am sure I can find hundreds if not thousands of books that disagree with Ehrman. but you know what. I don't care. I am not interested in what they think. I have my own beliefs and am a christian and a devout catholic. I use the bible and get a lot out of it. I read it and try and put it into perspective of living my life and when it was written as to what it means.

Out of curosity what is your belief?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 03:37PM)
"Should we go along with what they taught and believe? They were definitely misguided in their thinking wouldn't you agree?"

They aren't biblical scholars. Ehrman is. Well respected. It is not a matter of believing or not beleiving what he says, he has done the scholorship and he is a well known respected scholar. Unless you are saying no scholorship is to be trusted. Then we can throw out all the babies with the bath water and we are back in the dark ages.


"I am sure I can find hundreds if not thousands of books that disagree with Ehrman. but you know what. I don't care. I amnot interested in what they think."

Isn't that the definition of closed mind. Please: do not call me closed minded when you yourself take this attitude.

"Out of curosity what is your belief? " I believe in human creativity.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2012 03:39PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 15:58, Slide wrote:
So Aces,

Here you have a respected biblical scholar who is the chairman of the religious studies department at Chapel Hill. I assume even you would agree to his credentials. He is the one who presented this data. If you are as open minded as you say, please listen to the podcast, read the book and then let me know what you think.
[/quote]

I think he is well educated,intelligent and means well.

However none of these attributes make me want to bow down to what he believes. I do not see him as an enlightened individual in the ways of God. He is educated and he has formed an opinion. Whether he is right or wrong is another matter entirely. I do not see people following him and callng him the new leader and the light. He is a human being that is falliable just like you and I.

That is what I think. You asked.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 03:42PM)
"We are talking today, now 2012."

I just gave you the most obvious examples. If you want modern day examples, let me provide these links for you;

http://www.godhatesfags.com/
http://www.shewired.com/soapbox/2012/05/02/north-carolina-pastor-advocates-breaking-gay-kids-wrists-and-punching-them
http://www.complex.com/city-guide/2012/05/north-carolina-pastor-says-gays-and-lesbians-should-be-put-in-electrified-concentration-camps
http://notachristian.org/christianatrocities.html
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2012 03:43PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 16:37, Slide wrote:
"Should we go along with what they taught and believe? They were definitely misguided in their thinking wouldn't you agree?"

They aren't biblical scholars. Ehrman is. Well respected. It is not a matter of believing or not beleiving what he says, he has done the scholorship and he is a well known respected scholar. Unless you are saying no scholorship is to be trusted. Then we can throw out all the babies with the bath water and we are back in the dark ages.


"I am sure I can find hundreds if not thousands of books that disagree with Ehrman. but you know what. I don't care. I amnot interested in what they think."

Isn't that the definition of closed mind. Please: do not call me closed minded when you yourself take this attitude.

"Out of curosity what is your belief? " I believe in human creativity.
[/quote]

You believe in human creativity? What exactly is that? I honestly do not know.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 03:44PM)
"However none of these attributes make me want to bow down to what he believes"

The good thing is scholorship doesn't require you bow down. Look at the evidence and decide. The fact that you won't even listen to what he says, says a lot
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 03:46PM)
"You believe in human creativity? What exactly is that? I honestly do not know. "

Human creativity: the power of the human mind to create works of art, exand knowledge, investigate the world, imagination. Nearly everything you see around you is the result of human creativity.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2012 03:46PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 14:48, Slide wrote:
"Per the Bible, he changed the rules. Are you a "false parent" if your child has an 8:00 curfew one year and a 9:00 curfew the next year?"

Why would a deity change the rules. Perhaps he has changed the rules again, if he can change the rule so willy nilly. HAHAHA.

Man, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

How do you know he hasn't changed the rules again? My Darwin was his new change of rules.
[/quote]

If that's your best interpretation of the change in covenants from the Old Testament to the New, as pretty straightforwardly laid out in the Bible, I hope you didn't waste too many of those "nearly ten years" you spent studying religion on Christianity.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 03:49PM)
Lobo, you crack me up dude.

Tell me how would we know if he changes the rules again?

Seriously: do you actually believe that god "changed the rules" That is YOUR best interpretation? :)

This is an amusing site.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2012 03:58PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 16:37, Slide wrote:
"Should we go along with what they taught and believe? They were definitely misguided in their thinking wouldn't you agree?"

They aren't biblical scholars. Ehrman is. Well respected. It is not a matter of believing or not beleiving what he says, he has done the scholorship and he is a well known respected scholar. Unless you are saying no scholorship is to be trusted. Then we can throw out all the babies with the bath water and we are back in the dark ages.


"I am sure I can find hundreds if not thousands of books that disagree with Ehrman. but you know what. I don't care. I amnot interested in what they think."

Isn't that the definition of closed mind. Please: do not call me closed minded when you yourself take this attitude.

"Out of curosity what is your belief? " I believe in human creativity.
[/quote]

No that is not the definition of a closed mind.

Because I am not in a state of flux with my religious belief you feel that is a closed mind. Obviously you have no concept of what religion is. I don't need people to tell me what to believe in. I am not about to change on a daily basis in my religious beliefs and I do not feel that is having a closed mind. I read the bible and have read several other books and pamphlets that contradict the bible and have found them all lacking. Many pick up the homosexauality issue and say see the bible is bad. They believe tht men should have sex with men. However I feel it is unnatural and as I have stated before when it goes beyond oral I find it revolting. I also stated I see nothing stimulating about two men kissing passionatley. Why must every discussion of the bible bring up this point. We can discuss it time and time again. I do not care what you say it is not normal. Unfortunately I do believe that some people are predisposesd this way but again I say it is not normal. That does not make them bad people,just not my style. Your milage may differ. I don't know or care to know if it does. I have a post somewhere in this thread about just this issue and if you read it you will know my feelings on it. If it floats your boat that is fine as God gave you free will to decide.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2012 03:58PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 16:49, Slide wrote:
Lobo, you crack me up dude.

Tell me how would we know if he changes the rules again?

Seriously: do you actually believe that god "changed the rules" That is YOUR best interpretation? :)

This is an amusing site.
[/quote]

The Biblical view is that obviously, he did. It's explicitly stated. I suspect that the Christian view is that if there were yet another new covenant (actually, I suspect that the first Christian view is that there won't be), then another prophet would be sent.

But if you think it's all so ridiculous, I'm really curious...what were you doing for those "nearly ten years" that you spent studying religion? How many hours a week? Which religions? The change from Mosaic to the blood covenant is a pretty big and pretty explicit; you probably heard about that and dismissed it out of hand in the first hour you studied Christianity...what about the other 9+ years?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 20, 2012 04:02PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 16:39, acesover wrote:...
I think he is well educated,intelligent and means well.

However ...
[/quote]

IMHO still dismissive of others. :(
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2012 04:02PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 16:49, Slide wrote:
Lobo, you crack me up dude.
[/quote]

Thanks, by the way! I assure you, it's mutual.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 04:18PM)
I have to tell you aces and Lobo

When I listen to you guys, to me it is like listening to someone who believes they were abducted by aliens.

By the way, I think god changed the rules on homosexuality. Once the pork was allowed, the gays were right behind.

Lobo: as far as what I studied :I spent a long time studying the Desert Fathers, The Cloud of Unknowing, the collected works of Thomas Merton, the works of Pagels. I studied the gnostic books, I read new translations of the new testament newly translated from the original greek. I studied buddhism, particularly zen and theravadian buddhism. Most of my studies focused on Christianity in its earliest days which coincided and meshed with early buddhism which I am convinced had a common heritage. I sat zen mediation for about 10 years and taught meditation at the local Episcopal church. I spent many years in the Episcopal church and held just about every layman role except deacon.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 04:20PM)
For me: early christianity was all about meditation. That is where you would find the truth: as in the Desert Fathers. The preoccupation with the bible had little impact on the early christians who found the truth through prayer and mediation, not what they read in a book.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2012 04:27PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 16:46, Slide wrote:
"You believe in human creativity? What exactly is that? I honestly do not know. "

Human creativity: the power of the human mind to create works of art, exand knowledge, investigate the world, imagination. Nearly everything you see around you is the result of human creativity.
[/quote]

I would go onto give you my thoughts on this and the thoughts of others but I believe that would be a rehash and we went over that about 20 pages go. I will just throw this out. Where did we all come from? There was nothing and here we are now. If you question this as I said go back to the beginning of this thread.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2012 04:30PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 16:44, Slide wrote:
"However none of these attributes make me want to bow down to what he believes"

The good thing is scholorship doesn't require you bow down. Look at the evidence and decide. The fact that you won't even listen to what he says, says a lot
[/quote]

I don't know. I just take Jesus' word over his. But that is just me.

Unfortunately Jesus does not have a podcast. :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 20, 2012 04:35PM)
Let's try the show of hands again. Anybody change their minds yet?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2012 04:36PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 16:46, Slide wrote:
"You believe in human creativity? What exactly is that? I honestly do not know. "

Human creativity: the power of the human mind to create works of art, exand knowledge, investigate the world, imagination. Nearly everything you see around you is the result of human creativity.
[/quote]

Is that a religious belief or just a mind set?

By the way everything I see around me is the result of God's gift to man, his ingenuity. How he uses it is his free will.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 20, 2012 04:41PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 17:35, mastermindreader wrote:
Let's try the show of hands again. Anybody change their minds yet?
[/quote]

I did change my mind. I said I was done posting to this thread and started posting again. Does that count? I am going to try and refrain again. Just that some people come up with such off the wall comments that just make me cringe and I have to post. No will power here. :) OK I am done...for sure, maybe, unless...
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2012 04:42PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 17:18, Slide wrote:
I have to tell you aces and Lobo

When I listen to you guys, to me it is like listening to someone who believes they were abducted by aliens.
[/quote]

That's an interesting effect to have, considering that I'm not even a theist. Which of my posts sounded like someone who believes he was abducted by aliens?
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 20, 2012 05:41PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 12:06, kambiz wrote:
Eric, can you provide a quote from the Quran where Muhammad talks against Jesus?

Kam
[/quote]

Although not a quote from Muhammaad, verse 19:88 is interesting...

Those who say: ‘The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,’ preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack, the earth break asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a son to the Merciful, when it does not become the Lord of Mercy to beget one!
—Qur’an 19:88


Ron
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jun 20, 2012 06:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 22:05, The great Gumbini wrote:
Ron,

I'll tell you what pick the one you think is the biggest "error" or contradiction and I'll help clear it up ok? These are very old points that have been reviewed before. Example the light and the darkness and the sun and moon are two different events. Actually if you read the Scriptures you will find the moon was for light at night (Gen 1;16). These do appear (appear) to be contradictions on the surface however you will find upon closer study most go hand in hand to show a complete view. Also realize if these were truly honest contradictions then the arguments you all have made would be valid ones and in fact I for one would never have believed that the Bible was without error or contradictions for this long. One the surface they do appear to contradict but you will find they do not. Some are easier to explain and some will take a little understanding of times and customs but all can be explained. This is nothing new in fact I'm surprised someone hasn't used at least part of this list up until now. I normally have people by now say things like "Well if you believe the Bible has no contradictions what about..." and then one of these will be brought up. You did a very nice job finding a nice list we can all have fun with. So let me know if you have a favorite and we will start with that ok?


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

Eric,

I'll doubt you'll go far "clearing things up" when you couldn't even get past the first one (light and darkness). Do you want to give that one another shot?

Also, you won't even get CHRISTIANS to agree on the many many many inconsistencies in the Bible. Let me know when believers come to a consensus on biblical interpretation and then we can discuss.

Also, I believe Payne already posted some factual errors from the Bible, so you may want to refer to that as well.

Ron
:)
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Jun 20, 2012 06:18PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 17:35, mastermindreader wrote:
Let's try the show of hands again. Anybody change their minds yet?
[/quote]

Not a change, but convinced more than ever now, there are a lot of people on here needing help bad.

Surely some of these folks are not allowed out in the real world. :)

Tom
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 06:25PM)
Ron that's not talking against Jesus. That's reflecting on the correct interpretation of what the Son of God means. It's just informing the reader that a "literal" translation of the phrase "Son of God" is a dangerous state of understanding. A vast majority of Christian theologians would agree with this interoretation of its meaning :)

I will give an example of someone who talks AGAINST someone else: "James is a liar, evil doer and everything he teaches is false"

So I ask again, is there any quotes from the Quran that talks AGAINST Jesus?

Kam
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 06:26PM)
To me the most interesting thing about studying Christianity, especially early christianity. is the difference between the early christians and this very recent obsession with the bible. In the early days, the written word, i.e. the bible was not a big part of the christian method. It was mediation, prayer - a true looking within to find the answers yourself. This is the genius of the early Desert Fathers and the mystics such as St John of the Cross. Reading the Dark Night of the Soul, you really saw spirituality at its most passionate and intense.

It was only much much later that the written word in the christian religion began to dominate and when that happened, as far as I'm concerned, that was the end of christianity as the early christians would recognize it and it became so corrupted as to be a shell of the intensity of the original religion. Today, christianity is so watered down and corrupt to be really empty and souless as a religion. and the people today (and this is why I argue with you Aces) - you are missing the true great joy and revelation and spiritual awakening that the Christian religion used to engender. You have basically missed what christianity was really all about. And That I find incredibly sad.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 20, 2012 06:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 22:05, The great Gumbini wrote:
Ron,

I'll tell you what pick the one you think is the biggest "error" or contradiction and I'll help clear it up ok? These are very old points that have been reviewed before. Example the light and the darkness and the sun and moon are two different events. Actually if you read the Scriptures you will find the moon was for light at night (Gen 1;16). These do appear (appear) to be contradictions on the surface however you will find upon closer study most go hand in hand to show a complete view. Also realize if these were truly honest contradictions then the arguments you all have made would be valid ones and in fact I for one would never have believed that the Bible was without error or contradictions for this long. One the surface they do appear to contradict but you will find they do not. Some are easier to explain and some will take a little understanding of times and customs but all can be explained. This is nothing new in fact I'm surprised someone hasn't used at least part of this list up until now. I normally have people by now say things like "Well if you believe the Bible has no contradictions what about..." and then one of these will be brought up. You did a very nice job finding a nice list we can all have fun with. So let me know if you have a favorite and we will start with that ok?


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]

Why did God curse the serpent?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 06:36PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 15:51, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
Kam, you do know that the Muslim Clerics (Sunni and Syiah) regard your Bahai Faith as Apostasy right?

That Bahaullah's claims to Prophethood (or whatever) is regarded as false right?

If you still take from the teachings of Islam (the Quran and Hadith), what do you say to the one billion Muslim Ummah who say you of the Bahai Faith are apostates?
[/quote]

You know what Pakar, I say good luck to them. Such has been the radiance and love of those blessed persecuted Baha'is in Iran, that they have transformed those Muslims who know them, to such an extent that I'm convinced that when a regime change does occurr we will see a mass explosion in Bahai community membership in that country. We are seeing it with Muslims who have left Iran and can choose their religion freely and we are seeing it in the production of recent movies (Iranian Taboo) by Muslims on the sad plight of the persecuted Baha'is .....

The reality is this. Nowhere does it say in the Quran that the Bahai Faith will arise in the future and all Muslims should kill the Baha'is. Nowhere does Muhammad Himself say anything of the sort. Muhammads mission was very specific, to remove idol worship from that region and to create a framework for nation building. He said He was the final prophet, and called all the Divine Teachers before him prophets too. What does a prophet do? Amongst other things He prophesies. Baha'u'llah says He is the fulfillment of ALL prophecies from every Divine Teacher since the beginning of Abrahamic religious commencement.


Kam
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 20, 2012 06:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 23:35, kambiz wrote:
Really, the arguments here are laughable considering no-one on this thread has read any of the Bahai Writings which explains clearly and rationally all the challenges being laid down by theists and atheists alike in this thread....

......but you guys keep going ahead....

This is fun!! :)

Kam
[/quote]
Sorry, but your credibility left the building with Elvis long ago. ;)
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 06:39PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 19:26, Slide wrote:
To me the most interesting thing about studying Christianity, especially early christianity. is the difference between the early christians and this very recent obsession with the bible. In the early days, the written word, i.e. the bible was not a big part of the christian method. It was mediation, prayer - a true looking within to find the answers yourself. This is the genius of the early Desert Fathers and the mystics such as St John of the Cross. Reading the Dark Night of the Soul, you really saw spirituality at its most passionate and intense.

It was only much much later that the written word in the christian religion began to dominate and when that happened, as far as I'm concerned, that was the end of christianity as the early christians would recognize it and it became so corrupted as to be a shell of the intensity of the original religion. Today, christianity is so watered down and corrupt to be really empty and souless as a religion. and the people today (and this is why I argue with you Aces) - you are missing the true great joy and revelation and spiritual awakening that the Christian religion used to engender. You have basically missed what christianity was really all about. And That I find incredibly sad.
[/quote]

So slide you've pointed out that God changed the rules from Old Testament to New Testament. What makes YOU think He hasn't changed the rules again?

What is your understanding of the Islamic, Babi and Bahai religions?

Kam
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 20, 2012 06:40PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 00:15, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 00:03, acesover wrote:
As Rodney once said, Why can't we all just get along?.

Come on boys and girls believe what you want and let everyone else alone. Does anyone see a problem with that?

No one here is going to convince one to change their religious beliefs nor are they going to change the mind of an atheist. So I say as that smarter than we realize great card player often says, "believe what you want". And as I say. Please don't try and force your beliefs on me. I am quite content with my religious beliefs and my relationsip with God.
[/quote]

Wouldn't that be a nice thing? If only religious folks just worshipped their faith in their own way and not make laws that impose their beliefs on everyone, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I understand that most people worship in their own way without dragging unwilling people into their beliefs, but if you want "everyone to get along", I suggest you contact your politicians and tell them to practice their faith without forcing it on the minority who don't share their beliefs. I'm not evem talking about people who knock on my door in the morning to tell me I have "good news". I'm talking about those who decide to set science back decades because thier faith tells them that stem cells that would otherwise be discarded are better off going in the trash than help people who are actually living improve their quality of life.

We won't complain about your beliefs if you don't shove it down the throats of those who choose to believe otherwise. I don't knock on people doors on a Saturday morning to tell them there's no good news.
[/quote]
:applause:
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 06:41PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 19:37, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 23:35, kambiz wrote:
Really, the arguments here are laughable considering no-one on this thread has read any of the Bahai Writings which explains clearly and rationally all the challenges being laid down by theists and atheists alike in this thread....

......but you guys keep going ahead....

This is fun!! :)

Kam
[/quote]
Sorry, but your credibility left the building with Elvis long ago. ;)
[/quote]

Steady Steve S.T.E.A.D.Y

Hey, why so cruel????

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 20, 2012 06:46PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 19:41, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 19:37, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 23:35, kambiz wrote:
Really, the arguments here are laughable considering no-one on this thread has read any of the Bahai Writings which explains clearly and rationally all the challenges being laid down by theists and atheists alike in this thread....

......but you guys keep going ahead....

This is fun!! :)

Kam
[/quote]
Sorry, but your credibility left the building with Elvis long ago. ;)
[/quote]

Steady Steve S.T.E.A.D.Y

Hey, why so cruel????

Kam
[/quote]

Kam, he was making a comparison to Elvis, so you should have said, "Don't Be Cruel." :eek:
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 20, 2012 06:47PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 03:34, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Metaphysics is still out there, as science doesn't answer moral questions. And if you're looking for someone to advance the case for psychics, you've come to the wrong place. Well, actually, you've come to the right place, but I'm not the right person.

I just wonder how many "scientific facts" that you're so sure of today will be scoffed at and dismissed in the next century or two.
[/quote]

That depends on how much we learn - updating our understanding is a major facet of the scientific method.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 20, 2012 06:49PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 09:22, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 01:00, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
There is no need to even go into the Old Testament. If you want to discuss cruelty, there are gems everywhere. One of my favorites is Exodus 21:20-21. - "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

The kinder, gentler God of the New Testament says it's okay to beat your slave as long as he stays alive for a couple days. If he dies, the punishment was usually a small fine. Often people think I'm wrong for considering myself more moral than the god of the Bible, but since I don't condone slavery, much less how much to charge for slaves or how to treat them, nor have I ever condoned the killing of innocent children simply because they were disobedient, I disagree. People can say "It's God's way", or "we can't question His motives", or one of my favorites, he is too complicated to understand". That's BS that was drilled into our minds as children. I firmly believe that most people with even a bit of morality wouldn't even consider doing most things that Gods word in the Bible considers just fine.

Don't be ashamed that you are more moral than the people who wrote that book supposedly being the word of God. Be proud that wouldn't do the things the Bible condones.
[/quote]
O

OK lets read the passage. <quote> "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. <end quote> It says that if a man beats his servant and the servant dies he shall surely be punished. It says nothing about how long it will take.

However if the man lives and does not die he will not be punished. Everyone will die eventually. The day or two is nothing more than stating that if the servant lives and does not die as a result of the beating then man is not responsible for the servants death, as everyone dies. But if he died because of the beating the man will be punished it says that in the first passage. Read it again.

So maybe you should pick another favorite. :)
[/quote]
Besides which, "Exodus" is very much OLD Testament.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 20, 2012 06:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 12:18, Slide wrote:
"The biblical position is clear. Distinctions between clean and unclean meats existed long before the New Testament was written; they were followed by the leaders and other members of the early Church; and they will still apply at the time of Christ's return in the future, when He will enforce them. Therefore they are clearly to be observed today as well by members of the modern Church, which "keeps the commandments of God and has the testimony of Jesus Christ""

From your link aces. I read that as saying that christians should follow the dietary restrictions found in the Torah. So do you?
[/quote]
And where does that put St. Peter's dream in "Acts"?
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 06:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 19:46, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 19:41, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 19:37, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 23:35, kambiz wrote:
Really, the arguments here are laughable considering no-one on this thread has read any of the Bahai Writings which explains clearly and rationally all the challenges being laid down by theists and atheists alike in this thread....

......but you guys keep going ahead....

This is fun!! :)

Kam
[/quote]
Sorry, but your credibility left the building with Elvis long ago. ;)
[/quote]

Steady Steve S.T.E.A.D.Y

Hey, why so cruel????

Kam
[/quote]

Kam, he was making a comparison to Elvis, so you should have said, "Don't Be Cruel." :eek:
[/quote]

Lol YES.....

Steve, Don't Be Cruel!!!

Now get back to work on other stuff!

Kam
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 20, 2012 07:02PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 19:46, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 19:41, kambiz wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 19:37, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-19 23:35, kambiz wrote:
Really, the arguments here are laughable considering no-one on this thread has read any of the Bahai Writings which explains clearly and rationally all the challenges being laid down by theists and atheists alike in this thread....

......but you guys keep going ahead....

This is fun!! :)

Kam
[/quote]
Sorry, but your credibility left the building with Elvis long ago. ;)
[/quote]

Steady Steve S.T.E.A.D.Y

Hey, why so cruel????

Kam
[/quote]

Kam, he was making a comparison to Elvis, so you should have said, "Don't Be Cruel." :eek:
[/quote]
Thank yuh--thank yuh vera' much.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 20, 2012 07:29PM)
"What makes YOU think He hasn't changed the rules again?

What is your understanding of the Islamic, Babi and Bahai religions? "

Little to none. And you might be correct. Seems like there is a game changer every thousand years or so with god.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 08:11PM)
Earlier in this thread (on page 19) I asked if anyone was aware of the concept of body of mankind going through an evolution in consciousness from adolescnce into maturity.....



"All created things have their degree, or stage, of maturity. The period of maturity in the life of a tree is the time of its fruit bearing. The maturity of a plant is the time of its blossoming and flower. The animal attains a stage of full growth and completeness, and in the human kingdom man reaches his maturity when the lights of intelligence have their greatest power and development.


From the beginning to the end of his life man passes through certain periods, or stages, each of which is marked by certain conditions peculiar to itself. For instance, during the period of childhood his conditions and requirements are characteristic of that degree of intelligence and capacity. After a time he enters the period of youth, in which his former conditions and needs are superseded by new requirements applicable to the advance in his degree. His faculties of observation are broadened and deepened; his intelligent capacities are trained and awakened; the limitations and environment of childhood no longer restrict his energies and accomplishments. At last he passes out of the period of youth and enters the stage, or station, of maturity, which necessitates another transformation and corresponding advance in his sphere of life activity. New powers and perceptions clothe him, teaching and training commensurate with his progression occupy his mind, special bounties and bestowals descend in proportion to his increased capacities, and his former period of youth and its conditions will no longer satisfy his matured view and vision.


Similarly, there are periods and stages in the life of the aggregate world of humanity, which at one time was passing through its degree of childhood, at another its time of youth but now has entered its long presaged period of maturity, the evidences of which are everywhere visible and apparent. Therefore, the requirements and conditions of former periods have changed and merged into exigencies which distinctly characterize the present age of the world of mankind. That which was applicable to human needs during the early history of the race could neither meet nor satisfy the demands of this day and period of newness and consummation. Humanity has emerged from its former degrees of limitation and preliminary training. Man must now become imbued with new virtues and powers, new moralities, new capacities. New bounties, bestowals and perfections are awaiting and already descending upon him. The gifts and graces of the period of youth, although timely and sufficient during the adolescence of the world of mankind, are now incapable of meeting the requirements of its maturity. The playthings of childhood and infancy no longer satisfy or interest the adult mind.


From every standpoint the world of humanity is undergoing a reformation.........."


Abdu'l-Baha
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 08:15PM)
It is humbly hoped that the above passage may aid understanding as to why some religious Texts speak to us as if we are "9 year olds"

How we have matured :)

The more "mature" answers are out there, and its not just random made up stuff by another man....

As Bob has pointed out "has anyone changed their minds yet????"

We are all men randomly chit chatting, our words have little influence on others. There are however, several Men throughout history Who have shaped and changed the minds of millions. There is one Man, that has done this, that no-one on this thread really is aware of...

I humbly propose His Writings for all to study. It's a VAST arena of knowledge, explained in a way that can be put to the test to clarify its validity. I am here to clarify any misunderstandings :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 20, 2012 08:28PM)
Try this guy's writings:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/cold_turkey/

I am here to shake my head cynically if there are any misunderstandings--or whatever.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 20, 2012 09:47PM)
Your link, Mr Elvis-lover Mollett, indicates to me that you need to read more "advanced" things. There were some very valid points made in your article you quoted. Yes life is a bummer sometimes, its d.a.r.n hard, and yes the struggles of humanity have been the subject of millions of pieces of literature.

However, I recommend this book to you (I read yours, will you read mine? Ah-huh Elvis :) )

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/bic/COL/

Kam
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 21, 2012 01:10AM)
Kam,

Jesus is and was the literal Son of God. He called God Abba. And God called Him Son. This is plain and clear. Also what is clear is other religions do not believe this is the case. God the Father took OF Himself and gave His Son to us. The word "of" is crucial here. Today with DNA this is a NO BRAINER. God the Father and His Son have THE SAME EXACT DNA as it were. This is why to reject Jesus is to reject the ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. Oh hear O Israel the Lord thy God is ONE. The reason the Bible comes under attack is simple it speaks the TRUTH and people like to say The truth hurts. Jesus was clear No man comes to the Father but through the Son. There are thousands of beliefs and religions and then there is the ONE WAY to the Father. The message is clear and simple---the decision however is yours to make. The Bible sets forth God who wants to have a relationship with His people and He will save them. Other religions put the WORKS on the people to try to save themselves. The Bible says apart from Jesus there is no Salvation. This is what the Bible says and This is what the Bible means. This message has not and will not change. If you are sure your religion is right and will get you to heaven---then you one day will stand before God and give your reasons as to why you believe the way you did. But if you want full assurance that you are saved then The Bible is the only writing I know that lays out the plan of Salvation so very clear. This Salvation is available for ALL. In Jesus Salvation is 100 percent guaranteed. Do you have the same assurance with your belief's? Do you KNOW that if today was your last that you would be with God? Is there any other book where a promised Savior was promised and then years later came? Set aside what you believe happened just look at the writings. Is it true the Bible promised a Savior? Yes. Is it true the Bible says that Savior came? Yes. Now the question is a simple one---do you believe in what the Bible says?

All other writings may speak some wonderful things---but do they offer the Savior? They may speak of good ways to live and what you can do to please God---but do they offer the Savior? What makes the Bible such a threat? It offers the truth. It offers Jesus to ANY AND ALL who will believe. It offers the ONLY way to the Father. Like it or not that is what the Bible offers. You have religion or you have Jesus---which do you want now? And which do you want when you stand before the Living God? That's the Bible---when all is said and done that is what the Bible is all about!


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 21, 2012 01:17AM)
So did God win this here election?

What is the score?
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 21, 2012 01:25AM)
Tommy God always wins---and I know you know that.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 21, 2012 01:50AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 02:10, The great Gumbini wrote:
Kam,

Jesus is and was the literal Son of God. He called God Abba. And God called Him Son. This is plain and clear. Also what is clear is other religions do not believe this is the case. God the Father took OF Himself and gave His Son to us. The word "of" is crucial here. Today with DNA this is a NO BRAINER. God the Father and His Son have THE SAME EXACT DNA as it were. This is why to reject Jesus is to reject the ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. Oh hear O Israel the Lord thy God is ONE. The reason the Bible comes under attack is simple it speaks the TRUTH and people like to say The truth hurts. Jesus was clear No man comes to the Father but through the Son. There are thousands of beliefs and religions and then there is the ONE WAY to the Father. The message is clear and simple---the decision however is yours to make. The Bible sets forth God who wants to have a relationship with His people and He will save them. Other religions put the WORKS on the people to try to save themselves. The Bible says apart from Jesus there is no Salvation. This is what the Bible says and This is what the Bible means. This message has not and will not change. If you are sure your religion is right and will get you to heaven---then you one day will stand before God and give your reasons as to why you believe the way you did. But if you want full assurance that you are saved then The Bible is the only writing I know that lays out the plan of Salvation so very clear. This Salvation is available for ALL. In Jesus Salvation is 100 percent guaranteed. Do you have the same assurance with your belief's? Do you KNOW that if today was your last that you would be with God? Is there any other book where a promised Savior was promised and then years later came? Set aside what you believe happened just look at the writings. Is it true the Bible promised a Savior? Yes. Is it true the Bible says that Savior came? Yes. Now the question is a simple one---do you believe in what the Bible says?

All other writings may speak some wonderful things---but do they offer the Savior? They may speak of good ways to live and what you can do to please God---but do they offer the Savior? What makes the Bible such a threat? It offers the truth. It offers Jesus to ANY AND ALL who will believe. It offers the ONLY way to the Father. Like it or not that is what the Bible offers. You have religion or you have Jesus---which do you want now? And which do you want when you stand before the Living God? That's the Bible---when all is said and done that is what the Bible is all about!


Good magic to all,


Eric
[/quote]


Eric, so you are saying that God has DNA?

Like DNA, that runs through your body and my body??

It bemuses me that in the 21st century, people can rationalise this, if that's the case. I would love to be educated on your views here Eric, regarding your use of the word DNA.

Anyway, I can categorically tell you that not ALL Christians believe that Jesus was the literal Son of God.

Either way, to categorize Muhammad as someone being AGAINST Jesus for interpreting what the Son of God means is unfair and makes no sense :)

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 21, 2012 03:01AM)
So the basic argument from some seems to be that the Bible is the literal word of God because the Bible says it is. In other words, it is a self referential and self proving document.

If anything appears to be contradictory in the text we're told it's because it's either been translated wrong or that the words don't really mean what we think they mean (so much for the idea of divinely inspired translators), or because we are reading it incorrectly.

I'm still wondering what day of the week the Last Supper was on, how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, how many women came to the tomb, where they went directly after, and to whom, if anyone, they told what they had witnessed. None of the Gospels are in agreement on these things. And yet biblical literalists will insist that all of the stories are nonetheless true in every detail.

Why? Because the Bible says so.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 21, 2012 03:35AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 02:10, The great Gumbini wrote:
This is why to reject Jesus is to reject the ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. [/quote]

Yes , I agree with this, unless you lived BEFORE Jesus, in which case, who saved them?? Did they reject the One True God, then?


[quote]
Jesus was clear No man comes to the Father but through the Son. There are thousands of beliefs and religions and then there is the ONE WAY to the Father. [/quote]

So if Jesus was the ONE WAY, how do you explain these quotes, some of which came BEFORE Jesus came to earth?

1. This the path. There is no other that leads to vision. ­Buddhism, Dhammapada 20:274

2. Whoso seeks guidance elsewhere, God will lead him astray. ­Islám, Imám Alí, Hadith

3. He that hath Me not is bereft of all things. Turn ye away from all that is on earth and seek none else but Me. ­Bahá'í Faith, Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 169

4. Abandoning all duties, come to Me alone for shelter. ­Hinduism, Bhagavad Gita 18:66

5. There is only one religious way. This one way is that of good thoughts, good words, and good deeds, the way of heaven, of ight and of purity, of the infinite Creator. ­Zoroastrianism, The Teachings of the Magi, p. 22



Be fair Eric........be fair in your judgement.....Jesus would want that :)

Jesus said "by their fruits ye shall know them"......I'm sure if you were fair, you can work out what was meant by that .....






[quote]
This message has not and will not change. [/quote]


Well, as can be evidently seen, the message DID change from Old Testament to New Testament. How can you rationalize that Eric?


[quote]
In Jesus Salvation is 100 percent guaranteed. [/quote]

Of course it is, but the Jews before Jesus were similarly assured of eternal life, yet they missed the Messiah altogether, for what? They interpreted their own Scripture in a way that was completely closed-minded, so much so that when the Chosen Messiah Himself came and explained the "symbolic" truth behind their Scripture, they rejected Him, denied Him and scoffed at Him. The Jews were adamant, 100% guaranteed, in fact that they were right in their interpretations. But they were wrong, weren't they Eric? If I was a Jew, and I knew what you know, Eric, it would be a mistake to not at least investigate Jesus's claims, wouldn't it?


quote]
Do you have the same assurance with your belief's? Do you KNOW that if today was your last that you would be with God? ........Now the question is a simple one---do you believe in what the Bible says?

[/quote]

Yes, I do have the same assurances Eric, and I'm assured of eternal life in the presence of my Lord....but not because I closed my mind to everything else except Baha'u'llah, but beacuse I opened my eyes and saw the pattern of Divine Revelation since the beginning of recored history, even all the indigenous religions.....

I do believe in what the Bible says, but I am hesitant to interpret it like the Jews did and miss out on God like they did.....



Kam
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 21, 2012 03:42AM)
When you eliminate the humans, then whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 21, 2012 09:44AM)
Kam,

Let's not forget the Jews were also the first to accept Jesus as well. Again the Bible refers to the Jews who rejected Jesus because as a "people" they did. However a lot did in fact accept Him as their Savior. You keep saying that I am not keeping an open mind. I want to remind you Jesus said that NO man comes to the Father except by Him. I believe Him. I'm very well aware of the "All roads lead to God" theory. But keep in mind it is my position that the Bible is the final authority on matters concerning God since it is His Word. So when Jesus said He is THE way The Truth and The Life I believe Him. Do all roads lead to God? I will tell you this---all who do not believe in Jesus better hope so.

Anyone who has ever studied the Bible can easily see this is NO ordinary book. There is no cover up or sugar coating. Even in moments that most would love to hide---the Bible exposes the actions of people doing things that should not have been done. Part of the problem people have in reading the Bible is with preconceived notions. On a fun simple scale here are 2 questions you can ask most people and these will be their answers. What fruit did Eve eat that she was NOT supposed to eat? And how many wise men did Herod send to see where Jesus was born? Most will answer the fruit was an apple---yet the Bible never says it's an apple and on the wise men most will answer 3 they say the three wise men were sent---when in fact the Bible never gives the number of wise men it does however list three gifts so most assume each brought one gift each. Now these are small fun assumptions. But there are bigger assumptions that come that are more serious and can cause some people to have a hard time with wanting to read the Bible and learn about God.

I will look over the posts and see what questions are on here and try to get some answers to them for you. I have to be off to work though so I will check the other questions later when I get home.


Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jun 21, 2012 03:12PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 17:18, Slide wrote:
I have to tell you aces and Lobo

When I listen to you guys, to me it is like listening to someone who believes they were abducted by aliens.

By the way, I think god changed the rules on homosexuality. Once the pork was allowed, the gays were right behind.

Lobo: as far as what I studied :I spent a long time studying the Desert Fathers, The Cloud of Unknowing, the collected works of Thomas Merton, the works of Pagels. I studied the gnostic books, I read new translations of the new testament newly translated from the original greek. I studied buddhism, particularly zen and theravadian buddhism. Most of my studies focused on Christianity in its earliest days which coincided and meshed with early buddhism which I am convinced had a common heritage. I sat zen mediation for about 10 years and taught meditation at the local Episcopal church. I spent many years in the Episcopal church and held just about every layman role except deacon.
[/quote]


Then you should understand JEDP theory and Biblical source criticism and the different modes of interpretation of Sacred Scripture. I am sure you also know and understand the theology of the word covenant. the fact that the new covenant does not do away with none of the the old covenants and that the Greek word for covenant that is used, Diatheke, is a legal term that does not grant reciprocity to the person receiving or, most importantly, ACCEPTING, the contract. It is a contract that only goes one way, thus when God grants a covenant, He is the one making it and technically, He is the only one bound to it. The other party can simply choose to accept or walk away, at anytime.

Peace and Godspeed.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jun 21, 2012 03:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 19:25, kambiz wrote:
Ron that's not talking against Jesus. That's reflecting on the correct interpretation of what the Son of God means. It's just informing the reader that a "literal" translation of the phrase "Son of God" is a dangerous state of understanding. A vast majority of Christian theologians would agree with this interoretation of its meaning :)

I will give an example of someone who talks AGAINST someone else: "James is a liar, evil doer and everything he teaches is false"

So I ask again, is there any quotes from the Quran that talks AGAINST Jesus?

Kam
[/quote]

The term Son of God, Only Begotten Son etc... speaks of the incarnate Christ.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 21, 2012 04:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 04:01, mastermindreader wrote:
So the basic argument from some seems to be that the Bible is the literal word of God because the Bible says it is....
[/quote]

See first commandment, language thereof.

"I am...
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 21, 2012 04:17PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 02:10, The great Gumbini wrote:

Jesus is and was the literal Son of God. He called God Abba. And God called Him Son. This is plain and clear. Also what is clear is other religions do not believe this is the case. God the Father took OF Himself and gave His Son to us. The word "of" is crucial here. Today with DNA this is a NO BRAINER. God the Father and His Son have THE SAME EXACT DNA as it were. This is why to reject Jesus is to reject the ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. Oh hear O Israel the Lord thy God is ONE. The reason the Bible comes under attack is simple it speaks the TRUTH and people like to say The truth hurts. Jesus was clear No man comes to the Father but through the Son. There are thousands of beliefs and religions and then there is the ONE WAY to the Father. The message is clear and simple---the decision however is yours to make. The Bible sets forth God who wants to have a relationship with His people and He will save them. Other religions put the WORKS on the people to try to save themselves. The Bible says apart from Jesus there is no Salvation. This is what the Bible says and This is what the Bible means. This message has not and will not change. If you are sure your religion is right and will get you to heaven---then you one day will stand before God and give your reasons as to why you believe the way you did. But if you want full assurance that you are saved then The Bible is the only writing I know that lays out the plan of Salvation so very clear. This Salvation is available for ALL. In Jesus Salvation is 100 percent guaranteed. Do you have the same assurance with your belief's? Do you KNOW that if today was your last that you would be with God? Is there any other book where a promised Savior was promised and then years later came? Set aside what you believe happened just look at the writings. Is it true the Bible promised a Savior? Yes. Is it true the Bible says that Savior came? Yes. Now the question is a simple one---do you believe in what the Bible says?

[/quote]

This assumes that A: there is a god(s) and B: That they are the ones put forth in the christian Bible.

Since there is no compelling evidence for these or any other god(s) we can safely reject A and thus ignore B

[quote]

All other writings may speak some wonderful things---but do they offer the Savior? They may speak of good ways to live and what you can do to please God---but do they offer the Savior?

[/quote]

Do they have to? Is there some sort of rule that for a religion to be valid it has to have a saviour?

[quote]

What makes the Bible such a threat?

[/quote]

the Bible isn't a threat. It's those that are threatening us with it that we are wary of.

[quote]

It offers the truth.

[/quote]

Perhaps. well at least one group of peoples interpritation of it.

[quote]
It offers Jesus to ANY AND ALL who will believe. It offers the ONLY way to the Father. Like it or not that is what the Bible offers. You have religion or you have Jesus---which do you want now? And which do you want when you stand before the Living God? That's the Bible---when all is said and done that is what the Bible is all about!

[/quote]

A nice offer I suppose. If one is into that sort of thing. I'm not so I think I'll pass. thanks for the offer though.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jun 21, 2012 04:32PM)
It's STILL a buncha' B******t! :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 21, 2012 04:53PM)
So what day of the week was Last Supper on, how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, how many women came to the tomb, where did they go directly after, and to whom, if anyone, did they tell what they had witnessed?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 21, 2012 06:03PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 17:17, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 02:10, The great Gumbini wrote:

Jesus is and was the literal Son of God. He called God Abba. And God called Him Son. This is plain and clear. Also what is clear is other religions do not believe this is the case. God the Father took OF Himself and gave His Son to us. The word "of" is crucial here. Today with DNA this is a NO BRAINER. God the Father and His Son have THE SAME EXACT DNA as it were. This is why to reject Jesus is to reject the ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. Oh hear O Israel the Lord thy God is ONE. The reason the Bible comes under attack is simple it speaks the TRUTH and people like to say The truth hurts. Jesus was clear No man comes to the Father but through the Son. There are thousands of beliefs and religions and then there is the ONE WAY to the Father. The message is clear and simple---the decision however is yours to make. The Bible sets forth God who wants to have a relationship with His people and He will save them. Other religions put the WORKS on the people to try to save themselves. The Bible says apart from Jesus there is no Salvation. This is what the Bible says and This is what the Bible means. This message has not and will not change. If you are sure your religion is right and will get you to heaven---then you one day will stand before God and give your reasons as to why you believe the way you did. But if you want full assurance that you are saved then The Bible is the only writing I know that lays out the plan of Salvation so very clear. This Salvation is available for ALL. In Jesus Salvation is 100 percent guaranteed. Do you have the same assurance with your belief's? Do you KNOW that if today was your last that you would be with God? Is there any other book where a promised Savior was promised and then years later came? Set aside what you believe happened just look at the writings. Is it true the Bible promised a Savior? Yes. Is it true the Bible says that Savior came? Yes. Now the question is a simple one---do you believe in what the Bible says?

[/quote]

This assumes that A: there is a god(s) and B: That they are the ones put forth in the christian Bible.

Since there is no compelling evidence for these or any other god(s) we can safely reject A and thus ignore B

[quote]

All other writings may speak some wonderful things---but do they offer the Savior? They may speak of good ways to live and what you can do to please God---but do they offer the Savior?

[/quote]

Do they have to? Is there some sort of rule that for a religion to be valid it has to have a saviour?

[quote]

What makes the Bible such a threat?

[/quote]

the Bible isn't a threat. It's those that are threatening us with it that we are wary of.

[quote]

It offers the truth.

[/quote]

Perhaps. well at least one group of peoples interpritation of it.

[quote]
It offers Jesus to ANY AND ALL who will believe. It offers the ONLY way to the Father. Like it or not that is what the Bible offers. You have religion or you have Jesus---which do you want now? And which do you want when you stand before the Living God? That's the Bible---when all is said and done that is what the Bible is all about!

[/quote]

A nice offer I suppose. If one is into that sort of thing. I'm not so I think I'll pass. thanks for the offer though.
[/quote]

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 21, 2012 06:04PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 17:32, Steve_Mollett wrote:
It's STILL a buncha' B******t! :)
[/quote]

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 21, 2012 06:04PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 17:53, mastermindreader wrote:
So what day of the week was Last Supper on, how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, how many women came to the tomb, where did they go directly after, and to whom, if anyone, did they tell what they had witnessed?
[/quote]

BELIEVE WHT YOU WANT.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 21, 2012 06:06PM)
WOW THIS IS SO MUCH EASIER AND RELAXING. MY BLOOD PRESSURE WENT DOWN 20 POINTS.


BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Jun 21, 2012 06:41PM)
Acesover, the problem is, and I think you will agree,

Those that haven't 'experienced' God have no idea what they're talking about. It's all just guess work.
Sure it's good to know some of the bible trivial, but to understand God you have to know God.
Some things you just can't learn in school.

Go home, they have His number. lol


Tom
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 21, 2012 07:43PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 19:41, TomBoleware wrote:
Acesover, the problem is, and I think you will agree,

Those that haven't 'experienced' God have no idea what they're talking about. It's all just guess work.
Sure it's good to know some of the bible trivial, but to understand God you have to know God.
Some things you just can't learn in school.

Go home, they have His number. lol


Tom
[/quote]

Conversely those that have known god(s) and then through careful study and evaluation have decided for themselves that its existence was all in their heads have often time felt a tremendous sense of relief. They experience a level of freedom and joy they never received while under the oppressive presence of an supposedly (yet completely imaginary) all seeing bring.

It's a two way street. I will never experience "gos(s)". I simply don't have the receptors I guess. You however will never be able to experience the absolute freedom that a life without god(s) in it offers.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 21, 2012 07:44PM)
I agree absoutely.

What bothers me the most are the individuals that believe they are so witty and sophisticated, as if not believing in God is the in thing. They make sarcastic remarks rather than meaningful discussion. They would rather make light of ones beliefs. Again I believe they feel it shows their sophistication. But what it shows is their total lack of respect for their their fellow human beings feelings, to say nothing of his or her beliefs. To try and discuss with one of these individuals is like trying to explain chemistry to a squirel. The difference being the squirel is a little more intelligent. :) By that I mean at least the squirel looks to the future and stores food and just does not live for today.

I certainly don't mind individuals having different beliefs than myself ( believe what you want...I feel bad for them) what upsets me is them telling me how wrong I am in their smug sarcastic tone. I have never tried to convert anyone. If asked I will answer. But I will not preach and tell them what will happen to their immortal soul. What would be the point? They do not believe they have a soul to lose.

If they only stepped back and saw themselves as to how they come across in their responses I believe they would realize how rude and ignorant their comments are. I don't know what came first with these individuals their lack of morals, or their lack of respect for others, or their lack of belief in God. I guess all of these things are sort of tied into one. I cannot fathom being so empty and so self centered.

While I do get upset with them I truly feel sorry for them. It is sad that they do not realize how empty their life is without God and they are nothing but a shell. That is not what God wanted for them. He gave them the greatest gift of all, free will and the chance to be with Him for all eternity which of course they will scoff at and continualy say there is no proof, besides why didn't He make us all know and understand Him? That is where they just do not get it. They are truly unaware of God's love for them. As I said He gave them free will and they made terrible decisions and shut their eyes to the truth.

Just a little bit of how I feel.

I would like to end by saying. BELIVE WHAT YOU WANT
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 21, 2012 07:45PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 19:41, TomBoleware wrote:
Acesover, the problem is, and I think you will agree,

Those that haven't 'experienced' God have no idea what they're talking about. It's all just guess work.
Sure it's good to know some of the bible trivial, but to understand God you have to know God.
Some things you just can't learn in school.

Go home, they have His number. lol


Tom
[/quote]

I agree absoutely.

What bothers me the most are the individuals that believe they are so witty and sophisticated, as if not believing in God is the in thing. They make sarcastic remarks rather than meaningful discussion. They would rather make light of ones beliefs. Again I believe they feel it shows their sophistication. But what it shows is their total lack of respect for their their fellow human beings feelings, to say nothing of his or her beliefs. To try and discuss with one of these individuals is like trying to explain chemistry to a squirel. The difference being the squirel is a little more intelligent. By that I mean at least the squirel looks to the future and stores food and just does not live for today.

I certainly don't mind individuals having different beliefs than myself ( believe what you want...I feel bad for them) what upsets me is them telling me how wrong I am in their smug sarcastic tone. I have never tried to convert anyone. If asked I will answer. But I will not preach and tell them what will happen to their immortal soul. What would be the point? They do not believe they have a soul to lose.

If they only stepped back and saw themselves as to how they come across in their responses I believe they would realize how rude and ignorant their comments are. I don't know what came first with these individuals their lack of morals, or their lack of respect for others, or their lack of belief in God. I guess all of these things are sort of tied into one. I cannot fathom being so empty and so self centered.

While I do get upset with them I truly feel sorry for them. It is sad that they do not realize how empty their life is without God and they are nothing but a shell. That is not what God wanted for them. He gave them the greatest gift of all, free will and the chance to be with Him for all eternity which of course they will scoff at and continualy say there is no proof, besides why didn't He make us all know and understand Him? That is where they just do not get it. They are truly unaware of God's love for them. As I said He gave them free will and they made terrible decisions and shut their eyes to the truth.

Just a little bit of how I feel.

I would like to end by saying. BELIVE WHAT YOU WANT
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 21, 2012 07:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 20:43, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 19:41, TomBoleware wrote:
Acesover, the problem is, and I think you will agree,

Those that haven't 'experienced' God have no idea what they're talking about. It's all just guess work.
Sure it's good to know some of the bible trivial, but to understand God you have to know God.
Some things you just can't learn in school.

Go home, they have His number. lol


Tom
[/quote]

Conversely those that have known god(s) and then through careful study and evaluation have decided for themselves that its existence was all in their heads have often time felt a tremendous sense of relief. They experience a level of freedom and joy they never received while under the oppressive presence of an supposedly (yet completely imaginary) all seeing bring.

It's a two way street. I will never experience "gos(s)". I simply don't have the receptors I guess. You however will never be able to experience the absolute freedom that a life without god(s) in it offers.
[/quote

While it is not up for vote, and while being in the majority does not count for anything. Your thoughts and ideas are in the minority. But of course you knew that. Perhaps you guys just know more know than most everyone else.

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 21, 2012 08:00PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 17:17, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 02:10, The great Gumbini wrote:

Jesus is and was the literal Son of God. He called God Abba. And God called Him Son. This is plain and clear. Also what is clear is other religions do not believe this is the case. God the Father took OF Himself and gave His Son to us. The word "of" is crucial here. Today with DNA this is a NO BRAINER. God the Father and His Son have THE SAME EXACT DNA as it were. This is why to reject Jesus is to reject the ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. Oh hear O Israel the Lord thy God is ONE. The reason the Bible comes under attack is simple it speaks the TRUTH and people like to say The truth hurts. Jesus was clear No man comes to the Father but through the Son. There are thousands of beliefs and religions and then there is the ONE WAY to the Father. The message is clear and simple---the decision however is yours to make. The Bible sets forth God who wants to have a relationship with His people and He will save them. Other religions put the WORKS on the people to try to save themselves. The Bible says apart from Jesus there is no Salvation. This is what the Bible says and This is what the Bible means. This message has not and will not change. If you are sure your religion is right and will get you to heaven---then you one day will stand before God and give your reasons as to why you believe the way you did. But if you want full assurance that you are saved then The Bible is the only writing I know that lays out the plan of Salvation so very clear. This Salvation is available for ALL. In Jesus Salvation is 100 percent guaranteed. Do you have the same assurance with your belief's? Do you KNOW that if today was your last that you would be with God? Is there any other book where a promised Savior was promised and then years later came? Set aside what you believe happened just look at the writings. Is it true the Bible promised a Savior? Yes. Is it true the Bible says that Savior came? Yes. Now the question is a simple one---do you believe in what the Bible says?

[/quote]

This assumes that A: there is a god(s) and B: That they are the ones put forth in the christian Bible.

Since there is no compelling evidence for these or any other god(s) we can safely reject A and thus ignore B

[quote]

All other writings may speak some wonderful things---but do they offer the Savior? They may speak of good ways to live and what you can do to please God---but do they offer the Savior?

[/quote]

Do they have to? Is there some sort of rule that for a religion to be valid it has to have a saviour?

[quote]

What makes the Bible such a threat?

[/quote]

the Bible isn't a threat. It's those that are threatening us with it that we are wary of.

[quote]

It offers the truth.

[/quote]

Perhaps. well at least one group of peoples interpritation of it.

[quote]
It offers Jesus to ANY AND ALL who will believe. It offers the ONLY way to the Father. Like it or not that is what the Bible offers. You have religion or you have Jesus---which do you want now? And which do you want when you stand before the Living God? That's the Bible---when all is said and done that is what the Bible is all about!

[/quote]

A nice offer I suppose. If one is into that sort of thing. I'm not so I think I'll pass. thanks for the offer though.
[/quote]


Ha, ha. This assumes that you are right, which you are not so back to your A and B.

Makes as much sense as your post.

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Jun 21, 2012 08:14PM)
Payne,

Where do you get this, "god(s)'" from. There is only One God for me.
I understand some do worship God in a different way, but I can't speak for them.

Kind of like you talking out of both sides of your mouth when you say, god's. :)

You don't 'know' God and then turn around and say, oh there is no God. That doesn't even make sense.
You either believe there is a God or you don't. You don't 'know' for sure and then all of a sudden not know.


When the student is ready.....

Tom
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Jun 21, 2012 08:26PM)
Acesover,

I'll leave you with my personal thoughts on the demanding non believers,

I used to wonder why some people say things a little louder and with more conviction, as if trying to convince themselves.
Well, they are. They have a belief....but they don’t have faith. They don’t believe it in their heart. They’re testing it,
just saying it out loud.....hoping somebody will believe them, but most importantly, hoping they will believe it them self.
When you hoping the evidence comes back and convinces you, you simply don’t have faith.

But that's just my opinion, and of course they are entitled to theirs.

Tom
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 21, 2012 08:29PM)
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about where Muhammad talked AGAINST Jesus? I also listed a whole list of questions addressed to Eric, but any Christian's response would aid my understanding of the truth......I am a good student, I promise to listen!

I think Bob is still waiting for an answer to his question too....

Its easy picking on poor old Payne's beliefs, but we, the theologians of Arabia and Seattle want answers, O brethren of Christ! :)

Do you have answers to our questions?

Kam
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Jun 21, 2012 08:36PM)
.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 21, 2012 08:40PM)
Tom, the people asking the questions that I was referring to DO believe in God....

Kam
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Jun 21, 2012 08:42PM)
Ok, Good.

Sorry bout that. :)

Tom
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 21, 2012 08:45PM)
Oops I wrote too quickly for you lol

:)

Kam
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Jun 21, 2012 08:55PM)
How you answer before I ask. LOL

Sorry, I don't have answers for your questions.
I'm far from being an expert with all the bible details.
Wish I could help.

Tom
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 21, 2012 09:18PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-20 03:34, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Metaphysics is still out there, as science doesn't answer moral questions. And if you're looking for someone to advance the case for psychics, you've come to the wrong place. Well, actually, you've come to the right place, but I'm not the right person.

I just wonder how many "scientific facts" that you're so sure of today will be scoffed at and dismissed in the next century or two.
[/quote]

There will probably be many facts" that will be scoffed at not just in the next century or so, but even in the next decade or so. That's the beauty of science. We don't look at one book and say "there's the answer - no more research needed!" Scients LOVE to be proven wrong. That's how science evolves and that's why we are no longer healing mental illness by casting out evil spirits or Satan (expect for some hardcore church members who still think excorcism is a cure).
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 21, 2012 09:22PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 21:55, TomBoleware wrote:
How you answer before I ask. LOL
[/quote]

God told me lol....

Now there's proof if I ever saw one lol

Alternatively, I just asked Bob :) Is Bob God? that's another question.....

Kam
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 21, 2012 09:36PM)
Yes, "Bob" is God, kind of. Provided you are a member of the Church of the Sub-Genius.

J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.

[img]http://www.thegiant.org/wiki/images/f/f7/Bobdobbs.jpg[/img]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._%22Bob%22_Dobbs




Get slack!
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 21, 2012 09:54PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 21:14, TomBoleware wrote:
Payne,

Where do you get this, "god(s)'" from. There is only One God for me.
I understand some do worship God in a different way, but I can't speak for them.

Kind of like you talking out of both sides of your mouth when you say, god's. :)

[/quote]

Just trying to be all inclusive. god(s) is my way of saying that there have been thousands of god(s) worshiped by multitudes of people over the ages. So what makes one of them the correct one and all the other wrong?


[quote]

You don't 'know' God and then turn around and say, oh there is no God. That doesn't even make sense.
You either believe there is a God or you don't. You don't 'know' for sure and then all of a sudden not know.

[/quote]

You don't know for sure that there is one either. Your belief in there being one is just as Strong ans my belief there is no such thing. Neither of us can "prove" our position. But we believe it just the same. Fortunately since I am not the one making the extraordinary claim I don't have to prove my position. After all atheism is the default position. No one is born with a belief in god(s). They have to be indoctrinated. :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 21, 2012 09:57PM)
No one is born an atheist, either, I think the default position would be agnostic. (Inasmuch as a newborn doesn't really have an opinion on the issue.)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 21, 2012 10:04PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 22:57, mastermindreader wrote:
No one is born an atheist, either, I think the default position would be agnostic. (Inasmuch as a newborn doesn't really have an opinion on the issue.)
[/quote]

+1
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jun 21, 2012 10:07PM)
[quote]


You don't know for sure that there is one either. Your belief in there being one is just as Strong ans my belief there is no such thing. Neither of us can "prove" our position. But we believe it just the same. Fortunately since I am not the one making the extraordinary claim I don't have to prove my position. After all atheism is the default position. No one is born with a belief in god(s). They have to be indoctrinated. :)
[/quote]

Theists, especially, those of the Abrahamic faiths are sure, as it is called faith. From a theological standpoint, atheism is not the default position as everyone is born with a conscience and, more importantly, a soul which is always trying to reconnect with it's Creator in spite of misdirected desires and influences.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 21, 2012 10:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 19:04, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 17:53, mastermindreader wrote:
So what day of the week was Last Supper on, how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, how many women came to the tomb, where did they go directly after, and to whom, if anyone, did they tell what they had witnessed?
[/quote]

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
[/quote]


BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT? Are you atheist/agnostic, or do believe in a non-Christian book? (I'm asking because I honestly don't know for sure what your faith is or isn't.)

1 Peter 3:15 (KJV) says: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear"

Saying "Believe what you want" is not what the Christian Bible asks of you. That particular verse was the beginning of the end of my religious beliefs. I tried to find answers to defend my faith, but the more I read, the more it bacame impossible to give answers to legitimate questions about my faith. At least I tried though. I tried for years.

If a "believer" ever responds to questions about the Bible with a remark like "Believe what you want", they have either given up on their beliefs or well on their way.
Message: Posted by: kambiz (Jun 21, 2012 10:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 23:07, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]


You don't know for sure that there is one either. Your belief in there being one is just as Strong ans my belief there is no such thing. Neither of us can "prove" our position. But we believe it just the same. Fortunately since I am not the one making the extraordinary claim I don't have to prove my position. After all atheism is the default position. No one is born with a belief in god(s). They have to be indoctrinated. :)
[/quote]

Theists, especially, those of the Abrahamic faiths are sure, as it is called faith. From a theological standpoint, atheism is not the default position as everyone is born with a conscience and, more importantly, a soul which is always trying to reconnect with it's Creator in spite of misdirected desires and influences.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]


+1

Kam
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 21, 2012 11:03PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 22:54, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 21:14, TomBoleware wrote:
Payne,

Where do you get this, "god(s)'" from. There is only One God for me.
I understand some do worship God in a different way, but I can't speak for them.

Kind of like you talking out of both sides of your mouth when you say, god's. :)

[/quote]

Just trying to be all inclusive. god(s) is my way of saying that there have been thousands of god(s) worshiped by multitudes of people over the ages. So what makes one of them the correct one and all the other wrong?


[quote]

You don't 'know' God and then turn around and say, oh there is no God. That doesn't even make sense.
You either believe there is a God or you don't. You don't 'know' for sure and then all of a sudden not know.

[/quote]

You don't know for sure that there is one either. Your belief in there being one is just as Strong ans my belief there is no such thing. Neither of us can "prove" our position. But we believe it just the same. Fortunately since I am not the one making the extraordinary claim I don't have to prove my position. After all atheism is the default position. No one is born with a belief in god(s). They have to be indoctrinated. :)
[/quote]

I am sure you mean informed. :)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 21, 2012 11:08PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 23:51, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 19:04, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 17:53, mastermindreader wrote:
So what day of the week was Last Supper on, how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, how many women came to the tomb, where did they go directly after, and to whom, if anyone, did they tell what they had witnessed?
[/quote]

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
[/quote]


BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT? Are you atheist/agnostic, or do believe in a non-Christian book? (I'm asking because I honestly don't know for sure what your faith is or isn't.)

1 Peter 3:15 (KJV) says: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear"

Saying "Believe what you want" is not what the Christian Bible asks of you. That particular verse was the beginning of the end of my religious beliefs. I tried to find answers to defend my faith, but the more I read, the more it bacame impossible to give answers to legitimate questions about my faith. At least I tried though. I tried for years.

If a "believer" ever responds to questions about the Bible with a remark like "Believe what you want", they have either given up on their beliefs or well on their way.
[/quote]


I really have to say that the last line in your post is one of the most off the wall assumptions I have ever heard. I am a devout catholic and if you have been following this thread at all you would know that.

However I am not a missionary. That is not my calling. If you really think you can change someones mind on a thread on a fourm go right ahead. Knock yourself out. But I will stick to my saying.

BELIEVE WHAT YoU WANT.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 21, 2012 11:12PM)
I suspect it's more that Aces has read the bit about trying to teach a pig to sing.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 21, 2012 11:14PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 23:51, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 19:04, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 17:53, mastermindreader wrote:
So what day of the week was Last Supper on, how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, how many women came to the tomb, where did they go directly after, and to whom, if anyone, did they tell what they had witnessed?
[/quote]

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
[/quote]


BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT? Are you atheist/agnostic, or do believe in a non-Christian book? (I'm asking because I honestly don't know for sure what your faith is or isn't.)

1 Peter 3:15 (KJV) says: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear"

Saying "Believe what you want" is not what the Christian Bible asks of you. That particular verse was the beginning of the end of my religious beliefs. I tried to find answers to defend my faith, but the more I read, the more it bacame impossible to give answers to legitimate questions about my faith. At least I tried though. I tried for years.

If a "believer" ever responds to questions about the Bible with a remark like "Believe what you want", they have either given up on their beliefs or well on their way.
[/quote]


Read my post of Jun 21, 2012 8:45pm ....and stop assuming. :)

Oh yea I almost forgot. BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jun 21, 2012 11:21PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 23:51, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 19:04, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 17:53, mastermindreader wrote:
So what day of the week was Last Supper on, how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, how many women came to the tomb, where did they go directly after, and to whom, if anyone, did they tell what they had witnessed?
[/quote]

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
[/quote]


BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT? Are you atheist/agnostic, or do believe in a non-Christian book? (I'm asking because I honestly don't know for sure what your faith is or isn't.)

1 Peter 3:15 (KJV) says: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear"

Saying "Believe what you want" is not what the Christian Bible asks of you. That particular verse was the beginning of the end of my religious beliefs. I tried to find answers to defend my faith, but the more I read, the more it bacame impossible to give answers to legitimate questions about my faith. At least I tried though. I tried for years.

If a "believer" ever responds to questions about the Bible with a remark like "Believe what you want", they have either given up on their beliefs or well on their way.
[/quote]

Not really. Atheists always want proof of God's existence. I don't have to prove anything. I don't have to prove God's existence as their conversion is not my concern, because I don't care what they believe or choose not to believe. I care about them as a person, as a child of God, I pray for them, but I don't care about their belief or unbelief. I don't worry about things I have no control over, like them converting and drones circling the countryside spying on people (another thread). I can't even control whether I will go to bed at night or wake up in the morning. I just ask that when atheists quote or rather interpret Sacred Scripture they know what they are talking about, they know theology and they get their history straight. History is always hit or miss, quoting/interpreting of Sacred Scripture and theology are ALWAYS a big miss.

I also have to say your quote from 1 Peter is a bit out of context. Verses 13-22 instruct a believer how to act in the face of persecution. They are to remain Christ like, courageous and steadfast in faith, rejoice in their suffering because of their hope and not suffer the fear of sinners. They are not to return evil for evil and when someone sees them and questions why they do not fear then they respond with "Faith and Hope in Jesus Christ."

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 22, 2012 12:00AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 00:03, acesover wrote:

I am sure you mean informed. :)

[/quote]

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE :_
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 22, 2012 12:07AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 23:07, Dreadnought wrote:

Theists, especially, those of the Abrahamic faiths are sure, as it is called faith.

[/quote]

I am just as sure that no such thing as a god(s) has ever existed. It's called reason :)

[quote]

From a theological standpoint, atheism is not the default position as everyone is born with a conscience


[/quote]

Debatable.

[quote]

and, more importantly, a soul which is always trying to reconnect with it's Creator in spite of misdirected desires and influences.

[/quote]

Highly debatable as there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of a soul.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 22, 2012 12:28AM)
So what day of the week was Last Supper on, how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, how many women came to the tomb, where did they go directly after, and to whom, if anyone, did they tell what they had witnessed?

Believe what I want? You mean I should just pick one of the Gospels and go with that account?

But I can tell you this- when I was a practicing Catholic I would have had no problem answering that question. I am not trying to argue that the events described in the Gospels didn't happen. I'm simply pointing out the serious problems that arise when one insists on a literal interpretation of Scripture.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 22, 2012 01:30AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 22:57, mastermindreader wrote:
No one is born an atheist, either, I think the default position would be agnostic. (Inasmuch as a newborn doesn't really have an opinion on the issue.)
[/quote]

Bob, how do personally differentiate your definition of atheist and agnostic? I find them to be very similar and consider myself an "agnostic atheist", but many people have their own definitions of each. I'd be interested in hearing yours.

Jeff
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 22, 2012 01:44AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 00:08, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 23:51, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 19:04, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 17:53, mastermindreader wrote:
So what day of the week was Last Supper on, how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, how many women came to the tomb, where did they go directly after, and to whom, if anyone, did they tell what they had witnessed?
[/quote]

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
[/quote]


BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT? Are you atheist/agnostic, or do believe in a non-Christian book? (I'm asking because I honestly don't know for sure what your faith is or isn't.)

1 Peter 3:15 (KJV) says: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear"

Saying "Believe what you want" is not what the Christian Bible asks of you. That particular verse was the beginning of the end of my religious beliefs. I tried to find answers to defend my faith, but the more I read, the more it bacame impossible to give answers to legitimate questions about my faith. At least I tried though. I tried for years.

If a "believer" ever responds to questions about the Bible with a remark like "Believe what you want", they have either given up on their beliefs or well on their way.
[/quote]


I really have to say that the last line in your post is one of the most off the wall assumptions I have ever heard. I am a devout catholic and if you have been following this thread at all you would know that.

However I am not a missionary. That is not my calling. If you really think you can change someones mind on a thread on a fourm go right ahead. Knock yourself out. But I will stick to my saying.

BELIEVE WHAT YoU WANT.
[/quote]

Have you read your Bible? The last sentence of my post wouldn't make any sense to an atheist or someone of a different religion, but as a Catholic, you should understand why it not only makes sense, but you should be important to you in your faith if you want to call yourself a Catholic as I did for 20+ years.

It has nothing to do with me changing anyone's beliefs on anything, it's about the believer follwing what their Bible tells them to do. I'm not the one who's claiming to follow the word of the Bible. It's up to the believer to do as the Bible tells you.

You can pick and choose what parts of the Bible you choose to follow, but don't get offended when you are called on the parts you prefer to toss aside.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 22, 2012 01:52AM)
Jeff-

Most people I know who call themselves atheists either don't believe in God, or have an affirmative belief that God doesn't exist. I call the former position "weak atheism" and the latter "strong atheism."

An agnostic either doesn't know or care if God exists, or has come to a firm conclusion, based on reason, that it is beyond the scope of human knowledge to know whether or not there is a deity. I refer to the former as "weak agnosticism" and the latter as "strong agnosticism."

In general most atheists I know who have seriously considered their position, are actually strong agnostics.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 22, 2012 01:57AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 00:21, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 23:51, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 19:04, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-21 17:53, mastermindreader wrote:
So what day of the week was Last Supper on, how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, how many women came to the tomb, where did they go directly after, and to whom, if anyone, did they tell what they had witnessed?
[/quote]

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT.
[/quote]


BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT? Are you atheist/agnostic, or do believe in a non-Christian book? (I'm asking because I honestly don't know for sure what your faith is or isn't.)

1 Peter 3:15 (KJV) says: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear"

Saying "Believe what you want" is not what the Christian Bible asks of you. That particular verse was the beginning of the end of my religious beliefs. I tried to find answers to defend my faith, but the more I read, the more it bacame impossible to give answers to legitimate questions about my faith. At least I tried though. I tried for years.

If a "believer" ever responds to questions about the Bible with a remark like "Believe what you want", they have either given up on their beliefs or well on their way.
[/quote]

Not really. Atheists always want proof of God's existence. I don't have to prove anything. I don't have to prove God's existence as their conversion is not my concern, because I don't care what they believe or choose not to believe. I care about them as a person, as a child of God, I pray for them, but I don't care about their belief or unbelief. I don't worry about things I have no control over, like them converting and drones circling the countryside spying on people (another thread). I can't even control whether I will go to bed at night or wake up in the morning. I just ask that when atheists quote or rather interpret Sacred Scripture they know what they are talking about, they know theology and they get their history straight. History is always hit or miss, quoting/interpreting of Sacred Scripture and theology are ALWAYS a big miss.

I also have to say your quote from 1 Peter is a bit out of context. Verses 13-22 instruct a believer how to act in the face of persecution. They are to remain Christ like, courageous and steadfast in faith, rejoice in their suffering because of their hope and not suffer the fear of sinners. They are not to return evil for evil and when someone sees them and questions why they do not fear then they respond with "Faith and Hope in Jesus Christ."

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

"Atheists always want proof of God's existence"

Really? I think I missed that part in our secret atheists meetings. I spent most of my life believeing without question. I never asked for proof. Perhaps I should have questioned it years ago instead of blindly following the herd all those years.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 22, 2012 02:13AM)
It seems like atheism is misundersttod among the religious. Perhaps I should start knocking on doors on a Saturday afternoon dressed in a suit telling people there is no good news. Of course since we have no atheist book, I would have to hand them a newspaper or something. At least I won't get caught in any tricky questions I can't answer since I have no beliefs I'm trying to convince anyone of. Either that or the theists who's only understanding of atheism is what they read about on a biased Christian site can do a few minutes of resarch on an actual non-biased site. Don't worry, Jesus actually encourages you to question His word. You just have to question it in the right places. If you're into Scientology, you aren't going to hear about Xenu on a Scientology sponsored site.

If you REALLY want an understand of other points of view, don't refer to a site that's designed by a religion who survives on your continued financial support to provide you with the correct information.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 22, 2012 02:18AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 03:13, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
At least I won't get caught in any tricky questions I can't answer since I have no beliefs I'm trying to convince anyone of.
[/quote]

Here we go again. You've stated in these parts that you believe that the statement "There is no God" is a true statement. So you *do* in fact have a belief. Moreover, it's a belief you have no proof for.

I guess you could say you're not trying to convince anyone of it, but having read several of your posts, I would believe such a statement to be false.

Of course, I wouldn't have any proof for my belief.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 22, 2012 02:25AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 02:52, mastermindreader wrote:
Jeff-

Most people I know who call themselves atheists either don't believe in God, or have an affirmative belief that God doesn't exist. I call the former position "weak atheism" and the latter "strong atheism."

An agnostic either doesn't know or care if God exists, or has come to a firm conclusion, based on reason, that it is beyond the scope of human knowledge to know whether or not there is a deity. I refer to the former as "weak agnosticism" and the latter as "strong agnosticism."

In general most atheists I know who have seriously considered their position, are actually strong agnostics.

Good thoughts,

Bob
[/quote]

That's a common definition. I actually often call agnostics "atheists who are afraid to commit", but in fact there are "gnostic atheists". It really boils down to a personal label, but some people take it too seriously and insist on a specific label. Personally I don't put much importance in it. I calll myself anything from non-religious to unsure and everything in-between, depending on how I'm asked.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 22, 2012 02:30AM)
The only problem I have with "strong atheism" is that I find it intellectually indefensible.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 22, 2012 02:36AM)
Are you actually going to let a thing like that stop you?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 22, 2012 02:38AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 03:36, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Are you actually going to let a thing like that stop you?
[/quote]

??????
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 22, 2012 02:42AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 03:18, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 03:13, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
At least I won't get caught in any tricky questions I can't answer since I have no beliefs I'm trying to convince anyone of.
[/quote]

Here we go again. You've stated in these parts that you believe that the statement "There is no God" is a true statement. So you *do* in fact have a belief. Moreover, it's a belief you have no proof for.

I guess you could say you're not trying to convince anyone of it, but having read several of your posts, I would believe such a statement to be false.

Of course, I wouldn't have any proof for my belief.
[/quote]

SIGH... Lobo, you calim that "You've stated in these parts that you believe that the statement "There is no God" is a true statement."

For the life of me I don't understand why some people feel that it's so important for believers to put words in the mouths of people or twist words around. It's mind boggling. Please show me ANYWHERE I've posted that I KNOW there is no God and I know that to be true (other than MY opinion that is mine and mine alone). Show me anywhere I wrote that. It can even be on another site (I'll link you other sites I post religious topics on and you can even check those). Maybe I had a stroke in the middle of a post and wrote that somewhere, but I doubt it.

A lot of religious people love putting words in our mouths, but it's just a BS. Prove me wrong and show me where I said that I "know" god is fake and I said so. I really want to know.

I hope you aren't just another religious bully who figures they can say whatever they want because nobody will call them on it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 22, 2012 02:44AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 03:38, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 03:36, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Are you actually going to let a thing like that stop you?
[/quote]

??????
[/quote]

That's not aimed at you, personally; just an observation that having an intellectually indefensible position doesn't often slow anyone down around here.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 22, 2012 02:47AM)
Back when I was defending criminals I had no problem taking intellectually indefensible positions. :eek:

But, seriously, I'd like to see a well reasoned defense of strong atheism (as defined above). I never have, though. As I noted elsewhere, even Richard Dawkins, when pushed, has conceded that he is actually a strong agnostic.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jun 22, 2012 02:54AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 03:44, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 03:38, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 03:36, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Are you actually going to let a thing like that stop you?
[/quote]

??????
[/quote]

That's not aimed at you, personally; just an observation that having an intellectually indefensible position doesn't often slow anyone down around here.
[/quote]

lol
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 22, 2012 02:57AM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 03:42, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 03:18, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-22 03:13, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote:
At least I won't get caught in any tricky questions I can't answer since I have no beliefs I'm trying to convince anyone of.
[/quote]

Here we go again. You've stated in these parts that you believe that the statement "There is no God" is a true statement. So you *do* in fact have a belief. Moreover, it's a belief you have no proof for.

I gue