God calling you home.

robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
God calling you home.

Another post I started reminded me of this so, we have these cures for disease, these ways to stave off death. What does "god" think about that? When someone dies and a religious person just says "it was his time". How bout when someone is cured, does that mean man has managed to intervene between god and his uh, judgement call? Does that then make man..god?

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Nah.I think God likes to

Nah.

I think God likes to post hoc. If you get cured, that's God's will. If you don't, that's also God's will. There's no way out of it.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Nah.I

butterbattle wrote:

Nah.

I think God likes to post hoc. If you get cured, that's God's will. If you don't, that's also God's will. There's no way out of it.

 

Unless it was Satan.  Or human failure.

 

Satan temps humans, humans fail morally, god gives humans some divine justice, humans slowly invent ways past gods curses, which are actually our own fault.

So does that mean humans are actually less cursed now than they were in the past?  Are we rising above our own moral failings by curing diseases and increasing happiness on earth?  I bet I could make that argument, if I were a theist.

 

 

That is one thing I think is bad about the Westborrow Baptist Church people...if we are so corrupt and God hates us so much, why are we happier now than ever before?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I found God!

(DAMN I'd hate to be caught in the water with one of those things.... whew!)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Nah.I

butterbattle wrote:

Nah.

I think God likes to post hoc. If you get cured, that's God's will. If you don't, that's also God's will. There's no way out of it.

So, god making them sick in the first place, was his way of putting them through some kind of test, yes yes I see. lol

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: Unless it

mellestad wrote:
 Unless it was Satan.  Or human failure. 

Satan temps humans, humans fail morally, god gives humans some divine justice, humans slowly invent ways past gods curses, which are actually our own fault.

So does that mean humans are actually less cursed now than they were in the past?  Are we rising above our own moral failings by curing diseases and increasing happiness on earth?  I bet I could make that argument, if I were a theist.

LOL! Maybe that's part of the reason the rapture is coming soon. Because of Adam and Eve, little children deserve to die slow painful deaths from obscure diseases, and God is pissed that evil science is preventing justice by healing them.  

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


KenO5
KenO5's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2010-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Mysterious ways!

The great get out of a tricky question card - "The lord moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform!" I find it amazing that the evangelists know all about god most of the time - god want this and god wants that and god is a jealous god and that makes god angry - but any tricky question - oh, he moves in mysterious ways! I had this on my doorstep the other day when I was accosted by two bible thumpers. I aksed them some tricky ones - such as "Why, when Mark is the first gospel to be written, does he not mention the Virgin birth - (and in addition to this, as you know, the original Hebrew never mentions a virgin)"

"Oh, but it was prophesied"

"Yes, in dreams. How much faith do you have in your own dreams?"

"Not much."

"But yet, your religion is based on one man's dream that his wife was giving birth to the son of god!"

"Oh but it was prophesied"

"Also, how come my wife wasn't cured of her ME but my brother's cancer went into remission. i prayed for both of them."

"Oh.....he moves in mysterious wa........."

"Bye!"

 


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Just 10 sec of research

Ken05,

You are so right - Mark doesn't mention a virgin birth.  As a matter of fact, Mark doesn't recount the birth narrative at all.  You will notice (if you would have taken the 10 sec to research) Mark's gospel begins with Jesus' baptism.

Oh yes - that original Hebrew.  The gospels were not written in Hebrew.  They were written in Greek and Aramaic, but since you want to talk about Hebrew, let's take a look at that.

Let's first look to see if Jesus was prophesied only in a dream.

Isaiah 7:17 - was written approximately 700 years BC.  So, Matthew (Who does write about the birth of Jesus) says this quoting Isaiah 7:17.

"Behold, the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel."

The Hebrew word used in Isaiah (almah) means young woman OR virgin, the Greek that is in Matthew is parthenos and it only means one thing . . . a virgin.  So let me see if I can get this straight. 

Either you are correct OR a Jew (Matthew) whose culture was Hebrew, knew both the Hebrew and Greek language, and was immersed in the culture of the time was right when he penned the word "parthenos."

I think I am going to with Matthew on this one.  

Let’s take this a step further.  If you really believe that asking why Mark doesn’t mention the virgin birth is a tough question – then you must not know much about scripture.

200 years BC there is a document named LXX -  The Septuagint.  Now remember this is 200 years before Christ was born.  The Septuagint is the Old Testament translated from the Hebrew to the Greek.  There were 70 Hebrew scholars translating and when they get to Isaiah 7:14 and then more specifically when they get to the Hebrew word almah . . . what Greek word to you think they translated it into.  You guessed it . . . parthenos.

Don't believe everything you read.  Go do the research.  For years, an idiot named Rook Hawkins listed himself (and this site perpetuated it) that he was an ancient text expert.  The guy was a high school graduate.  Most of what he wrote here is simply crap.  Go to some credible sources.  You may not believe in the virgin birth . . . that is your prerogative, but the language in scripture does not support your belief. 

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote:Ken05,You are

REVLyle wrote:

Ken05,

You are so right - Mark doesn't mention a virgin birth.  As a matter of fact, Mark doesn't recount the birth narrative at all.  You will notice (if you would have taken the 10 sec to research) Mark's gospel begins with Jesus' baptism.

Oh yes - that original Hebrew.  The gospels were not written in Hebrew.  They were written in Greek and Aramaic, but since you want to talk about Hebrew, let's take a look at that.

Let's first look to see if Jesus was prophesied only in a dream.

Isaiah 7:17 - was written approximately 700 years BC.  So, Matthew (Who does write about the birth of Jesus) says this quoting Isaiah 7:17.

"Behold, the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel."

The Hebrew word used in Isaiah (almah) means young woman OR virgin, the Greek that is in Matthew is parthenos and it only means one thing . . . a virgin.  So let me see if I can get this straight. 

Either you are correct OR a Jew (Matthew) whose culture was Hebrew, knew both the Hebrew and Greek language, and was immersed in the culture of the time was right when he penned the word "parthenos."

I think I am going to with Matthew on this one.  

Let’s take this a step further.  If you really believe that asking why Mark doesn’t mention the virgin birth is a tough question – then you must not know much about scripture.

200 years BC there is a document named LXX -  The Septuagint.  Now remember this is 200 years before Christ was born.  The Septuagint is the Old Testament translated from the Hebrew to the Greek.  There were 70 Hebrew scholars translating and when they get to Isaiah 7:14 and then more specifically when they get to the Hebrew word almah . . . what Greek word to you think they translated it into.  You guessed it . . . parthenos.

Don't believe everything you read.  Go do the research.  For years, an idiot named Rook Hawkins listed himself (and this site perpetuated it) that he was an ancient text expert.  The guy was a high school graduate.  Most of what he wrote here is simply crap.  Go to some credible sources.  You may not believe in the virgin birth . . . that is your prerogative, but the language in scripture does not support your belief. 

 

 

Doesn't the book of Isaiah go on to supply the answer to that prophecy? Namely, that he went out, found a virgin and got her very normally preggers? Doesn't the prophecy have more to do with Isaiah's boss staying in power than with a messiah? IIRC, the book of Isaiah says the prophecy failed spectacularly. 

So, hows about some quote mining?

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:REVLyle

Kavis wrote:

REVLyle wrote:

Ken05,

You are so right - Mark doesn't mention a virgin birth.  As a matter of fact, Mark doesn't recount the birth narrative at all.  You will notice (if you would have taken the 10 sec to research) Mark's gospel begins with Jesus' baptism.

Oh yes - that original Hebrew.  The gospels were not written in Hebrew.  They were written in Greek and Aramaic, but since you want to talk about Hebrew, let's take a look at that.

Let's first look to see if Jesus was prophesied only in a dream.

Isaiah 7:17 - was written approximately 700 years BC.  So, Matthew (Who does write about the birth of Jesus) says this quoting Isaiah 7:17.

"Behold, the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel."

The Hebrew word used in Isaiah (almah) means young woman OR virgin, the Greek that is in Matthew is parthenos and it only means one thing . . . a virgin.  So let me see if I can get this straight. 

Either you are correct OR a Jew (Matthew) whose culture was Hebrew, knew both the Hebrew and Greek language, and was immersed in the culture of the time was right when he penned the word "parthenos."

I think I am going to with Matthew on this one.  

Let’s take this a step further.  If you really believe that asking why Mark doesn’t mention the virgin birth is a tough question – then you must not know much about scripture.

200 years BC there is a document named LXX -  The Septuagint.  Now remember this is 200 years before Christ was born.  The Septuagint is the Old Testament translated from the Hebrew to the Greek.  There were 70 Hebrew scholars translating and when they get to Isaiah 7:14 and then more specifically when they get to the Hebrew word almah . . . what Greek word to you think they translated it into.  You guessed it . . . parthenos.

Don't believe everything you read.  Go do the research.  For years, an idiot named Rook Hawkins listed himself (and this site perpetuated it) that he was an ancient text expert.  The guy was a high school graduate.  Most of what he wrote here is simply crap.  Go to some credible sources.  You may not believe in the virgin birth . . . that is your prerogative, but the language in scripture does not support your belief. 

 

 

Doesn't the book of Isaiah go on to supply the answer to that prophecy? Namely, that he went out, found a virgin and got her very normally preggers? Doesn't the prophecy have more to do with Isaiah's boss staying in power than with a messiah? IIRC, the book of Isaiah says the prophecy failed spectacularly. 

So, hows about some quote mining?

 

If you would like to discuss the "prophecy" issue . . . then let's do that.  The issue I was addressing was simply the language issue.  The statements by Ken05 were simply untrue or ignorant.  If you would like to add to that debate . . . let's go.  If you want to take on another issue - I am game, but to simply bring up another topic rather than dealing with the first is poor debate.

Quote mining???  Not sure what you are talking about.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3277
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote:The Hebrew

REVLyle wrote:

The Hebrew word used in Isaiah (almah) means young woman OR virgin, the Greek that is in Matthew is parthenos and it only means one thing . . . a virgin. 

 

 

well, "rev," unlike rook hawkins--or even you, i'm willing to guess--i have at least a BA in religion and that includes two semesters in greek and one in hebrew.  the only things keeping me from being well on my way to a PhD, in fact, are money and the atlantic ocean.  i can definitely say that parthenos means virgin by implication (even strong's says this).  it doesn't depend on any physical state of purity but on a woman's status as unmarried (the people of the ancient world were no more naive than us, and knew very well that the two didn't always correspond).

renowned jewish scholar jon d. levenson in his book the death and resurrection of the beloved son covers the midrashic link between the matthean version of the virgin birth of christ and the LXX rendering of isaiah.  his words are (p. 206), "[...] the idea is midrashically linked to Isa 7:14, which speaks of a "young woman" ('alma) giving birth to son named "Immanuel."  The midrash in question seems to depend upon the Septuagint rendering of 'alma as parthenos, a Greek word that often denotes a virgin [...]" (my emphasis).

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote: If you would

REVLyle wrote:

 If you would like to discuss the "prophecy" issue . . . then let's do that.  The issue I was addressing was simply the language issue.  The statements by Ken05 were simply untrue or ignorant.  If you would like to add to that debate . . . let's go.  If you want to take on another issue - I am game, but to simply bring up another topic rather than dealing with the first is poor debate.

Quote mining???  Not sure what you are talking about.

My point was this: It doesn't matter what that prophecy says when invoked in support of Jesus.  It was not a messianic prophecy.  It's irrelevant.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Not even close to a PhD

 

WOW - a whole BA in religion.  You took 2 whole semesters in Greek?  Let me tell you what we call that in Seminary . . . baby Greek.  If you only have two semesters in Greek and one in Hebrew - I promise you, you are lacking more than money before you will be able to obtain a PhD.  That doesn't even qualify you for a MDiv or a MTh.

Let's look at your claim.

Did you even look at what you wrote?  The word Parthenos implies virginity.  Let me post strong's definition:  parthenos par-then'-os of unknown origin; a maiden; by implication, an unmarried daughter:--virgin

So, if the word as Jon D. Levenson wrote, "often denotes a virgin" and the word "implies virginity" - is that enough for us to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin?  Again, I am not asking what you believe as far as your faith, but rather, what does the text say?

If you understand anything about Biblical or systematic theology, you know that one looks at all the texts that apply to a subject in order to form one's theology.  Even in our own language, words have many definitions.  In the 80's, if I said something was "bad" it could mean that something was really bad or it could mean that something was good or cool.  The only way to understand what I meant, is that you would have to have been there to see the situation or to hear my voice inflections as I said, "That's bad."  BUT THERE IS ANOTHER WAY.  When we want to know exactly what people mean when they use particular words we are to read them in context.  The same is true for the Bible.  When we look at the context or the whole of scripture . . . then we get a better idea of exactly what a word means.  It is also important to understand hermeneutics as well.

You have already admitted that the word parthenos implies virginity.  So, how could we know if that implication is correct or not?  Go to the NT. 

Matthew 1:23 - Matthew is quoting Isaiah and he uses the word parthenos
Luke 1:27 - we are told that Gabriel was sent to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph. - In this verse the word parthenos is also used.

Man, how do we know if Mary was simply a young maid or a virgin.  Again, let's simply look at the text and look at how you, me, and Levenson view it.
1.  Christians, as I am, believe in the virgin birth. I believe that the use of the word, "pathenos" in the NT and in the Isaiah passage (in the LXX) means virgin.

2.  Levenson - A Jew, believes in God but of course rejects the virgin birth and Jesus as the Son of God.  
3.  iwbiek - an atheist, doesn't believe in either God or Jesus as the Son of God

Quite a situation here . . . except one thing.  God knew that there would be people like you and Levenson . . . so God took care of it.  If you and I only had this one word, "prothenos," upon which to stake our acceptance or denial of the doctrine of Jesus' Virgin birth . . . this might be dificult.  Let's continue to look at scripture.    

In Matthew 1:18 - we read that Mary was betrothed to Joseph and BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.  Now, perhaps you might argue - "That just means before they got married."  I certainly would not put it past you.  Let's go to another passage. 

Luke 1:34 - Mary has been told that she will be the mother of Jesus.  She asked the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"

1.  If you think she is asking "How can this be" because the word parthenos in verse 34 means - young woman instead of virgin - instead of taking more Greek or Hebrew - I would suggest a biology class.
2.  Here is the kicker . . . The fact of the matter is that the word "parthenos" does not even appear in verse 34.  The Greek actually says:  "How shall be this since man not I am knowing." or to make it flow a little better - "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"

You see iwbiek, the belief of Jesus' virgin birth is not based upon A word, but rather the fullness of God's Word.  You may have a BA, but if it only provides you with arrogance, you missed the point of the degree.

I stated and you quoted:  the Greek that is in Matthew is parthenos and it only means one thing . . . a virgin. Why would I make such a strong statement????


The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

 

 Strong's Number:   3933  
Original WordWord Origin
parqenoßof unknown origin
Transliterated WordTDNT Entry
Parthenos5:826,786
Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech
par-then'-os   Noun Feminine
 Definition
  1. a virgin
    1. a marriageable maiden
    2. a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man
    3. one's marriageable daughter
  2. a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity
    1. one who has never had intercourse with women
 
 NAS Word Usage - Total: 15
chaste 1, virgin 9, virgin's 1, virgins 4
 
NAS Verse Count
Matthew4
Luke1
Acts1
1 Corinthians6
2 Corinthians1
Revelation1


Total14

 

Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." These files are public domain.

 

Lastly let me say this.  I wrote about Rook Hawkins because I did the research and found the truth.  This website promoted a lie.  This website supported Rook's claim that he was an ancient text expert.  He certainly was not.  You most certainly are not either - and yet you think you are.  I understand that even after years of study, I have so far to go.  I believe that God will continue to show me the truth contained in his word.  That truth is more than a match for the foolishness of this world.  You are doing exactly what Romans 1 tells us people of this world do with the truth of God.  Even when you had the privilege to go to school and learn more about Him - you threw it away.  I am sorry for you. 

 

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:REVLyle

Kavis wrote:

REVLyle wrote:

 If you would like to discuss the "prophecy" issue . . . then let's do that.  The issue I was addressing was simply the language issue.  The statements by Ken05 were simply untrue or ignorant.  If you would like to add to that debate . . . let's go.  If you want to take on another issue - I am game, but to simply bring up another topic rather than dealing with the first is poor debate.

Quote mining???  Not sure what you are talking about.

My point was this: It doesn't matter what that prophecy says when invoked in support of Jesus.  It was not a messianic prophecy.  It's irrelevant.

Simply because you state that it is not a messianic prophecy does not mean it is not.  Many, who reject Christ line up with you, but many, many scholars do believe it is a messianic prophecy.  There is no reason for you or I to copy/paste opposing views - because both of us could do that all day and it would simply be pointless. 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote:Kavis

REVLyle wrote:

Kavis wrote:

REVLyle wrote:

 If you would like to discuss the "prophecy" issue . . . then let's do that.  The issue I was addressing was simply the language issue.  The statements by Ken05 were simply untrue or ignorant.  If you would like to add to that debate . . . let's go.  If you want to take on another issue - I am game, but to simply bring up another topic rather than dealing with the first is poor debate.

Quote mining???  Not sure what you are talking about.

My point was this: It doesn't matter what that prophecy says when invoked in support of Jesus.  It was not a messianic prophecy.  It's irrelevant.

Simply because you state that it is not a messianic prophecy does not mean it is not.  Many, who reject Christ line up with you, but many, many scholars do believe it is a messianic prophecy.  There is no reason for you or I to copy/paste opposing views - because both of us could do that all day and it would simply be pointless. 

Fair enough.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3277
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote: That doesn't

REVLyle wrote:

 

That doesn't even qualify you for a MDiv or a MTh.

really, asshole?  is that why i was accepted to the MDiv program at yale divinity with damn near a free ride, and was granted a deferral, when they don't grant deferrals as a matter of course?  i didn't go because i decided to stay in europe and get married.

seminary is a fucking joke, and a BA from any prestigious religion program that actually teaches higher criticism is worth twice as much as any bullshit DD degree from a fundy seminary.  in fact, i guarantee i could enter the MDiv or MTh program at whatever podunk seminary you attend (assuming you actually attend one), audit all the fucking courses, and walk out with a degree the same day.  then i could go home, take a nice long shit while brushing up on one of those goddamn kay arthur studies i had to do as a missionary, read a little bit from my expensive paperweight--ahem--i mean wayne grudem, spend the night drinking rum and writing up a thesis i wouldn't even dare submit as a freshman in my alma mater, "defend" it--hungover--before a group of nosepicking pseudo-scholars, and walk away with my doctorate the next day.

when i was at new staff training with campus crusade i got chewed out by my team leader because i stumped a DD from dallas theological with a difficult question during a lesson in one of their bullshit "graduate level" courses we were required to pay for and attend.  he didn't even have the balls to "rebuke" me in person.

and just why the fuck did you post all that wall of bullshit text when it all boils down to, "i believe parthenos always means a biological virgin because i believe in the virgin birth because it says so in the bible and i believe the bible is the word of god because i'm a christian."  why not just say that and not waste both our time?  or better yet, shut the fuck up if all you're gonna do is hand me a half-assed bible study.  listen, dickwad, scripture proves nothing when it comes to linguistics.  i don't give two hoots in hell if you can "prove" the virgin birth using inductive bible study.  i wasn't arguing about the virgin birth at all, but about the meaning of a greek word.  for the meaning of a word, you have to look at other sources as well.  you know, other texts besides the bible? 

btw, how do you know levenson believes in god?  being a jew does not necessitate belief in god.  i'm willing to bet money you never heard of levenson before i mentioned him anyway.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
William Cowpers is actually the cow's ass. End of story.

As the theism I have left in me amounts to little more than "Well if the dude actually exists, I'll borrow a minigun and turn that Lord Motherfucker into swiss cheese!"

I'm afraid I'm not much help here. But yeah... the whole "God's Plan!" is stacked higher and deeper with inconsistency. It's usually followed by a hollow "God works in mysterious ways", that is SO amazingly convenient to the first (HIGHLY) irrational and inconsistent precept that they forever unify themselves in circular reasoning and imagination gone horribly wrong.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
WTF??!!!!!! XD

Kapkao wrote:

DID I ACTUALLY POST THIS ONE?!?!?

I thought this post was deleted. DAMMIT Answers in Gene Simmons! We HAD A DEAL!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Can some one please direct me to

 

a weight of evidence that proves the possibility of a virgin birth, please? I'm afraid I think it might be a complete crock...

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
???

My, My, what angst. Is this the atheist's version of "goddidit"?? When backed into a corner, proven ignorant of the facts, and unable to defend your position, just go into a "rant" spewing out obscene words and making completely ridicules claims of "supernatural intelligence and abilities"??? Yeah right! You can just "pull a doctorate out of your ass" anytime you like even in a drunken stupor. One would have to be in a drunken stupor to say such stupid things.

If you are going to enter in to a debate, please don't go in unarmed. If you do, and get your ass kicked, accept your defeat gracefully, or do some research and come back with a logical and rational response. If you just want to be the big fish in the pond, you will have to find a much smaller pond, or maybe a goldfish bowl. As for me, I realize I am a very small fish, and that's ok.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3277
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:My, My, what

gramster wrote:

My, My, what angst. Is this the atheist's version of "goddidit"?? When backed into a corner, proven ignorant of the facts, and unable to defend your position, just go into a "rant" spewing out obscene words and making completely ridicules claims of "supernatural intelligence and abilities"??? Yeah right! You can just "pull a doctorate out of your ass" anytime you like even in a drunken stupor. One would have to be in a drunken stupor to say such stupid things.

If you are going to enter in to a debate, please don't go in unarmed. If you do, and get your ass kicked, accept your defeat gracefully, or do some research and come back with a logical and rational response. If you just want to be the big fish in the pond, you will have to find a much smaller pond, or maybe a goldfish bowl. As for me, I realize I am a very small fish, and that's ok.

bugger off.  "rev" clearly implied, with his bullshit spew about matthew being aware of the cultural context, that parthenos only ever means "virgin" in a biological sense, period.  when i called him on it, invoking not only my meager education in greek but the words of two renowned scholars as well (strong and levenson, the former of whom is a hero even to evangelicals), he tried to shift the goalposts and claim he only meant the particular way the writer of matthew uses it (which i actually agree with).  furthermore, he also seemed to imply that it naturally follows that we have to take the same word in the septuagint version of isaiah in the same way, which it doesn't.  i came into the debate armed with reputable scholarship.  he came into the debate armed with a sunday school-level inductive bible study full of naked assertions, the most naked of which being that the bible forms a coherent unity.  you tell me who came in unarmed.

he's also the one who decided i somehow claimed to be an "ancient texts expert," which i certainly never did.  "rev" made an elementary error, and it only requires an elementary education to point an elementary error.  furthermore, he tried to wow me with his seminary education, and i merely pointed out that seminary is a fucking joke.

now, if you really think i'm the only one in this discussion who has been unreasonable you're either a moron or "rev" himself (who is also a moron, incidentally).  either way, once again, bugger off. 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Wrong forum.

Trollville is down the hall and to your left. I'll catch up with you once you get there!

gramster wrote:

My, My, what angst. Is this the atheist's version of "goddidit"?? When backed into a corner, proven ignorant of the facts, and unable to defend your position, just go into a "rant" spewing out obscene words and making completely ridicules claims of "supernatural intelligence and abilities"??? Yeah right! You can just "pull a doctorate out of your ass" anytime you like even in a drunken stupor. One would have to be in a drunken stupor to say such stupid things.

If you are going to enter in to a debate, please don't go in unarmed. If you do, and get your ass kicked, accept your defeat gracefully, or do some research and come back with a logical and rational response. If you just want to be the big fish in the pond, you will have to find a much smaller pond, or maybe a goldfish bowl.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:a

Atheistextremist wrote:


a weight of evidence that proves the possibility of a virgin birth, please? I'm afraid I think it might be a complete crock...

I think either the Mayans or the Aztecs had something of a "Woman getting impregnated by the sun" myth a while back (I don't know long). I guess you could call that "evidence"

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
REVLyle wrote:That doesn't

REVLyle wrote:
That doesn't even qualify you for a MDiv or a MTh.

Oh wow. Master of divinity and theology. Am I the only one who appreciates the absurdity of being a master of figments of imagination? It's like having a degree in middle earthology.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3277
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:REVLyle

KSMB wrote:

REVLyle wrote:
That doesn't even qualify you for a MDiv or a MTh.

Oh wow. Master of divinity and theology. Am I the only one who appreciates the absurdity of being a master of figments of imagination? It's like having a degree in middle earthology.

i agree with you in one sense but disagree in another.  it depends on where a person gets the degree and what their intentions are.  when i applied for the MDiv at yale, i was still a theist, albeit a very liberal one who basically wanted to use the degree, on the advice of my old professors, as a stepping stone to a PhD and the academic world.

i would still like to continue my religious education because

a. i enjoy it immensely, and

b. in a world where people are slaughtering each other by the truckload in the name of religion, i think it's helpful to have at least some scholars who understand the development of the whole mess.

i'm not sure if i would go for an MDiv now, however, since most MDiv programs, whether you plan to go into the ministry or not, require you to do some sort of practical ministry work, which i don't think i could stomach now.  besides, my interests have drifted steadily more toward judaism over the years, so i might go for an MA in jewish studies.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:REVLyle

KSMB wrote:

REVLyle wrote:
That doesn't even qualify you for a MDiv or a MTh.

Oh wow. Master of divinity and theology. Am I the only one who appreciates the absurdity of being a master of figments of imagination? It's like having a degree in middle earthology.

Why care?

I think some of you occasionally forget to ask "Are these sorts of people even worth the time of day?"

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3277
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: I think some

Kapkao wrote:

 

I think some of you occasionally forget to ask "Are these sorts of people even worth the time of day?"

probably not, kap, but as someone who was educated in the field of religion (at a credible institution), and continues reading voraciously in the subject down to the present day, i really have a sore spot for these seminary-educated, evangelical nitwits who know how to use a lexicon and have absorbed some josh mcdowell-esque drivel about what "the greek" says and thus think they're some kind of authorities.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:KSMB

iwbiek wrote:
KSMB wrote:
REVLyle wrote:

That doesn't even qualify you for a MDiv or a MTh.

Oh wow. Master of divinity and theology. Am I the only one who appreciates the absurdity of being a master of figments of imagination? It's like having a degree in middle earthology.

i agree with you in one sense but disagree in another.  it depends on where a person gets the degree and what their intentions are.  when i applied for the MDiv at yale, i was still a theist, albeit a very liberal one who basically wanted to use the degree, on the advice of my old professors, as a stepping stone to a PhD and the academic world.

i would still like to continue my religious education because

a. i enjoy it immensely, and

b. in a world where people are slaughtering each other by the truckload in the name of religion, i think it's helpful to have at least some scholars who understand the development of the whole mess.

i'm not sure if i would go for an MDiv now, however, since most MDiv programs, whether you plan to go into the ministry or not, require you to do some sort of practical ministry work, which i don't think i could stomach now.  besides, my interests have drifted steadily more toward judaism over the years, so i might go for an MA in jewish studies.

Yes I know, it does depend on that. In my personal opinion, the study of religion is a proper academic subject, whereas theology is the study of figments of imagination and equivalent of tooth fairyology. In the good seminaries, you can study lots of things needed for rigorous religious studies like Greek, Hebrew, textual criticism, history and such subjects. But you can also study those things at secular universities and skip the layers of crap that even good seminaries add to a good education (like ministry, devotional stuff, etc.).


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3277
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:Yes I know, it

KSMB wrote:

Yes I know, it does depend on that. In my personal opinion, the study of religion is a proper academic subject, whereas theology is the study of figments of imagination and equivalent of tooth fairyology. In the good seminaries, you can study lots of things needed for rigorous religious studies like Greek, Hebrew, textual criticism, history and such subjects. But you can also study those things at secular universities and skip the layers of crap that even good seminaries add to a good education (like ministry, devotional stuff, etc.).

there are very few good seminaries anymore.  i suppose princeton might be one.  divinity schools on the whole are more liberal.  most of the professors in my religion program came out of divinity school, particular duke, yale, and the university of chicago (some fantastic scholars there, including bernard mcginn and jonathan z. smith).

the reason i would now choose a secular university for graduate studies is because my interests are no longer sufficiently tied with christianity to warrant divinity school--that and the ministry work.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Kapkao

iwbiek wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

 

I think some of you occasionally forget to ask "Are these sorts of people even worth the time of day?"

probably not, kap, but as someone who was educated in the field of religion (at a credible institution), and continues reading voraciously in the subject down to the present day, i really have a sore spot for these seminary-educated, evangelical nitwits who know how to use a lexicon and have absorbed some josh mcdowell-esque drivel about what "the greek" says and thus think they're some kind of authorities.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Big laughs

 

iwbiek wrote:

"...seminary-educated, evangelical nitwits who know how to use a lexicon and have absorbed some josh mcdowell-esque drivel about what "the greek" says..."

 

I grew up surrounded by this. And fucking Simeon.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I

Atheistextremist wrote:

I grew up surrounded by this. And fucking Simeon.

I grew up dodging that kind of shit like the plague. (Including hiding from grandma and pastor during a baptism ceremony)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao

Kapkao wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

I grew up surrounded by this. And fucking Simeon.

I grew up dodging that kind of shit like the plague. (Including hiding from grandma and pastor during a baptism ceremony)

I didn't grow up with that, at least those people apparently knew something. The people I grew up around know absolutely nothing and had zero drive to know anything. They don't even care to know anymore about their own religion than what the preacher says on sunday.

Here is a pathetic example: A friend who is 36 years old and is about 1/2 jesus freak thought jews believed in jesus just like him, he thought they were just a different race.... lol.

I don't know how I came out of this mess at all.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Apology Accepted

Upon revisiting this site I was pleased to see that you have at least come back with a coherent response. Such as it is. To me this in itself is a form of an apology. To modify ones bad behavior in response to having it pointed out.

I also apologize for throwing "crap" your way. I just wanted to see your response. From now on I will try to be more focused on "reason". When people go into a "rant" during a discussion and sling profanities it is usually because they have no other rational option.

I am sure that you are well qualified and intelligent, and that you have at least one or two doctorates in much more meaningful fields of study. I have found that it is usually beneficial to look at a subject from a basic logical position before going into a detailed study of the ancient languages. As for the topic of the virgin birth it makes no sense to me to argue this point in detail, especially on this site.

For a Christian to believe that the bible writers are using the term generally translated as "virgin" to just mean young woman would be absurd. Hmm, "this shall be a sign unto you...a young woman of child bearing age shall give birth" (paraphrased of course). Wow! now that's a really good clue. As for the atheist, he won't give a damn anyway. There is no way to prove such a claim.

There are many topics that are much more relevant to the readers of this site. I will focus on these in the future. Topics like the myth that God is going to burn "sinners" throughout ceaseless ages of eternity. A good study on the subject of hell will reveal that this is not supported by the bible. The myth that evolution is strongly supported by science, and creationism is not would also be a good topic. The problem of pain and suffering which is also commonly misunderstood, and others I will be addressing in the future.

Keep an eye out for "Just ask Grandpa" A Christian's answers to common questions and myths


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3277
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:Upon

gramster wrote:

Upon revisiting this site I was pleased to see that you have at least come back with a coherent response. Such as it is. To me this in itself is a form of an apology. To modify ones bad behavior in response to having it pointed out.

you're free to take it however you want, hoss.  that's your prerogative.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen