@theists: are you trying to change us or understand us?

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
@theists: are you trying to change us or understand us?

Before I ask my question to the theists I will admit that I've done similar things when visiting a theist website, but with a very specific agenda. I was very curious at how some types of theists thought so I would log in and watch their posts.

As for my question to the theists, what exactly are you doing here? Are you trying to convert us? test us? test yourself? or maybe you are unsure of your belief system and are searching for other possibilities?

@atheists, feel free to post if you have an opinion.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Bronze Age Mythology is such

Bronze Age Mythology is such epic, dark fantasy fun, some days. Makes me almost want to join a bible youth group...

 

...only it doesn't.

 

“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)


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
buddyd

Thanks buddy, while I'm checking that out and gathering my thoughts,  i got a question for you.  I try not to label someone without knowing their viewpoints really well, but you seem to be one of those who take the bible as a whole. Tell me your thoughts on RRS blasphemy challenge on youtube. Well not only the challenge itself, but Mark 3;29 "But whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."  It is found my most of us to be ridiculous and irrational that the all powerful Jesus can't even save us from mere words that come from our mouths, but will forgive us for murder or rape, etc.

I can't speak for Sapient or RRS but I think one of it's points was to show this irrationality. It just gets down to the heart of why we find so much of the bible to be utterly ridiculous. 

As long as I'm on the subject, how do you explain free will with his omniscience (or omnipotence)? If he knew from the beginning of creation that my name wasn't in the book of life, then why would he create me just to burn me in hell? Seems kinda sick doesn't it? And how am I to have any free will at all if he is in control of everything? If he is in control how am I to be held responsible for anything? It's been discussed over and over here but I don't give a shit. It's old news the long-timers here, but there are many newcomers(who are welcome to jump in). You and I have only touched on god's control and creating people that seem to be born to suffer. It's a never ending argument but I'd like to hear more of your thoughts.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


buddyd
Theist
buddyd's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2012-03-26
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:Thanks

tonyjeffers wrote:

Thanks buddy, while I'm checking that out and gathering my thoughts,  i got a question for you.  I try not to label someone without knowing their viewpoints really well, but you seem to be one of those who take the bible as a whole. Tell me your thoughts on RRS blasphemy challenge on youtube. Well not only the challenge itself, but Mark 3;29 "But whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."  It is found my most of us to be ridiculous and irrational that the all powerful Jesus can't even save us from mere words that come from our mouths, but will forgive us for murder or rape, etc.

I can't speak for Sapient or RRS but I think one of it's points was to show this irrationality. It just gets down to the heart of why we find so much of the bible to be utterly ridiculous. 

As long as I'm on the subject, how do you explain free will with his omniscience (or omnipotence)? If he knew from the beginning of creation that my name wasn't in the book of life, then why would he create me just to burn me in hell? Seems kinda sick doesn't it? And how am I to have any free will at all if he is in control of everything? If he is in control how am I to be held responsible for anything? It's been discussed over and over here but I don't give a shit. It's old news the long-timers here, but there are many newcomers(who are welcome to jump in). You and I have only touched on god's control and creating people that seem to be born to suffer. It's a never ending argument but I'd like to hear more of your thoughts.

 

I take blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to mean to reject the Holy Spirit. Meaning that you never accept the Holy Spirit (you never get saved) and after your death it will be to late. It is unforgivable. The original three of this website were "shock jocks". They tried to do something so outrageous that it would grab people's attention. They were targeting teens and it worked for a while. The whole premise was taking Scripture out of context. When Christ died on the cross He became sin (2 Corinthians 5:21). He put my sin on His shoulder and placed his righteousness (He had never sinned) inside of me. So when God sees me He sees someone who is perfect. Not because I am righteous but because Jesus was righteous. God despises sin but now that I am righteous the Holy Spirit can dwell inside of me. But if I refuse this gift that means I did not place my sin on Jesus (because I did not believe) and I rejected the Holy Spirit (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit).

 

Romans 9 addresses the issue. Basically Paul writes can a potter make one lump of clay for a noble use and another for common use? He talks about Pharaoh and God basically says I put you in this position to tear you down. God tells Moses I will have compassion on whom I have compassion and I will have mercy on whom I have mercy. I suggest you read the chapter to get an idea of this subject. It is harsh, but in the end Paul gives his answer to the question. His answer is "who are you to question God". Not a good answer, I know. You are a human so you think on a human level. Is it ok to create a beautiful vase with one lump of clay and create an ashtray with another? You wouldn't feel bad for the ashtray. In John 9 the disciples come up on a man born blind and they ask "who sinned the man or his parents". And Jesus says neither basically he was born blind so that today I could show my glory. You were created to give glory to God. I wear a pair of shoes until they do not serve their purpose anymore. When man does not serve his purpose he is thrown away.

I would say "I think therefore I am". So I assume since I am thinking I am doing it on my own (freewill). Now with that said I also would say that God at times, for His own reasons, has manipulated people's thoughts, emotions, and actions for His own will. So I guess in that since it is not always "free will". I do not believe that I am a robot (determinism) or that God created the world and then just left it alone (Deist).

 

In the end it comes down to the fact God created you because He wanted to. Right now since you are still alive He offers you salvation but if you reject it until death (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) you will die in your sins and be damned to hell.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well Buddy

buddyd wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:


buddyd wrote:

I think you are going to hell and there is nothing I can do about it. Depressing situation. 

 

Bald assertion

 

buddyd wrote:

The complexity of life blows my mind. Evolution doesn't add up. Naturally something does not come out of nothing. Energy or matter can not evolve into something such as thought.

 

 

Fallacious appeal to complexity. Thought is demonstrably a property of energy and matter. Nothing has never been shown to exist. Randomness has never been shown to exist

 

buddyd wrote:

The fact that the eyewitnesses were martyred and never deny Jesus.

 

Fallacious ad populum

 

buddyd wrote:

In the Bible it claims that 500 witnessed the resurrection and nowhere in history have we found a document that said I claimed to be one of the 500 but I lied. Nowhere did we find a document that said I looked for one of the 500 but I couldn't find them.

 

Fallacious ad populum

 

 

buddyd wrote:

I believe in God because of experiences and dreams also (but I realize that is personal and not good evidence). 

 

Subjective assertion

 

buddyd wrote:

But let me try this one, it's tough to explain in writing.

In Daniel 9:20-27 it says that there will be 70 sevens (seventy sets of seven years) there will be 69 sets from the time that a decree goes out to rebuild Jerusalem to the time that the Anointed one comes to die (Jesus). So there will be 69 sets of 7 years.

69X7=483

So there will be 483 years between the time that Jerusalem is rebuilt to the time of Christ

The decree to rebuild went out between 448-440 BC  (There is debate)

Jewish calendar is lunar 360 days in their calendar

360x483=173,880

so 173,880 days between rebuilding and Christ

173,880/365=476 (rounded)

so 476 solar years

from 448-440 BC add 476 years

28-36 AD

Daniel said over 600 years before it happened and in text that predate Christ that Jesus would die on the cross around 28-36 AD (one of many reasons why I believe)

 

I'd like to accuse this of being an appeal to insufficient statistics. As it is, I think this argument is just plain weird. 

 

buddyd wrote:

I have my evidences, but most people have made up their minds on the subject and shut out all other possibilities.

 

Assertion with prejudicial language and a hint of strawman...

 

 

 

It's clear that you are close minded.You did not research and only said  "Fallacious ad populum" when you didn't want to agree with something, like a child holding his hands over his ears and shouting. At least Tony research to argue my claims. Energy does not think, nonliving does not become living.  Hegesippus and Josephus wrote of the martyrdom of James. Tacitus also wrote of persecuting Christians (He was a Roman Official). The 500 witnesses were written about in 1 Corinthians 15. The Jews and Romans were not friendly to the Christians during this time so if they had some proof otherwise they would have pointed it out during this time. It's not absolute proof but it makes you seem irrational to say Christians have no proof at all. Any intellectually honest evolutionist will say that the complexity of life is a major weakness in their argument.

 

non living does become living. Look around and ask yourself what organic life consists of, what it uses to fuel itself. We are made up of non-living atoms and all our energy derives from the hydrogen reactions of the sun. That we don't comprehend the biochemical function of our cellular cytoplasm does not change this reality. We are molecular beings. Our molecules are not alive. 

Appealing to 500 supposed witnesses is an appeal to the crowd. Call this criticism narrow minded if you like but here we seek testable explanations or admit that we do not know. Your argument, rather than being a coherent hypothesis supported by data and co-supported by related hypotheses, is to point at a dubious report of an alleged crowd of people and say, the supernatural happened, they saw it. Recognising the truth of this criticism is not narrow mindedness but a position of intellectual integrity. 

None of your points supports the fact that the supernatural exists. They simply suggest that some people believed the teachings of the cult. And they still do. I'm sure I could find hundreds of thousands of southern baptists who insisted they had directly experienced the hand of god in their lives. They would all provide a different definition of god. Their experiences would be all subjective. There would still be no material proof. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
How can anyone argue with this

buddyd wrote:

 

I take blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to mean to reject the Holy Spirit. Meaning that you never accept the Holy Spirit (you never get saved) and after your death it will be to late. It is unforgivable.  

In the end it comes down to the fact God created you because He wanted to. Right now since you are still alive.

He offers you salvation but if you reject it until death (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) you will die in your sins and be damned to hell.

 

drivel.

The centrepiece of the christian doctrine is a fallacy from force. Believe these entirely unsupported supernatural assertions or I will torture you forever. 

That buddy can make this point with a straight virtual face clearly indicates the sociopathic nature of the person and the doctrine we are dealing with.

Buddy says torture is justified on the basis of assertion without evidence. His proof is to repeat this broken argument over and over and over.  

 

 

 

 

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


buddyd
Theist
buddyd's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2012-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

buddyd wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:


buddyd wrote:

I think you are going to hell and there is nothing I can do about it. Depressing situation. 

 

Bald assertion

 

buddyd wrote:

The complexity of life blows my mind. Evolution doesn't add up. Naturally something does not come out of nothing. Energy or matter can not evolve into something such as thought.

 

 

Fallacious appeal to complexity. Thought is demonstrably a property of energy and matter. Nothing has never been shown to exist. Randomness has never been shown to exist

 

buddyd wrote:

The fact that the eyewitnesses were martyred and never deny Jesus.

 

Fallacious ad populum

 

buddyd wrote:

In the Bible it claims that 500 witnessed the resurrection and nowhere in history have we found a document that said I claimed to be one of the 500 but I lied. Nowhere did we find a document that said I looked for one of the 500 but I couldn't find them.

 

Fallacious ad populum

 

 

buddyd wrote:

I believe in God because of experiences and dreams also (but I realize that is personal and not good evidence). 

 

Subjective assertion

 

buddyd wrote:

But let me try this one, it's tough to explain in writing.

In Daniel 9:20-27 it says that there will be 70 sevens (seventy sets of seven years) there will be 69 sets from the time that a decree goes out to rebuild Jerusalem to the time that the Anointed one comes to die (Jesus). So there will be 69 sets of 7 years.

69X7=483

So there will be 483 years between the time that Jerusalem is rebuilt to the time of Christ

The decree to rebuild went out between 448-440 BC  (There is debate)

Jewish calendar is lunar 360 days in their calendar

360x483=173,880

so 173,880 days between rebuilding and Christ

173,880/365=476 (rounded)

so 476 solar years

from 448-440 BC add 476 years

28-36 AD

Daniel said over 600 years before it happened and in text that predate Christ that Jesus would die on the cross around 28-36 AD (one of many reasons why I believe)

 

I'd like to accuse this of being an appeal to insufficient statistics. As it is, I think this argument is just plain weird. 

 

buddyd wrote:

I have my evidences, but most people have made up their minds on the subject and shut out all other possibilities.

 

Assertion with prejudicial language and a hint of strawman...

 

 

 

It's clear that you are close minded.You did not research and only said  "Fallacious ad populum" when you didn't want to agree with something, like a child holding his hands over his ears and shouting. At least Tony research to argue my claims. Energy does not think, nonliving does not become living.  Hegesippus and Josephus wrote of the martyrdom of James. Tacitus also wrote of persecuting Christians (He was a Roman Official). The 500 witnesses were written about in 1 Corinthians 15. The Jews and Romans were not friendly to the Christians during this time so if they had some proof otherwise they would have pointed it out during this time. It's not absolute proof but it makes you seem irrational to say Christians have no proof at all. Any intellectually honest evolutionist will say that the complexity of life is a major weakness in their argument.

 

non living does become living. Look around and ask yourself what organic life consists of, what it uses to fuel itself. We are made up of non-living atoms and all our energy derives from the hydrogen reactions of the sun. That we don't comprehend the biochemical function of our cellular cytoplasm does not change this reality. We are molecular beings. Our molecules are not alive. 

Appealing to 500 supposed witnesses is an appeal to the crowd. Call this criticism narrow minded if you like but here we seek testable explanations or admit that we do not know. Your argument, rather than being a coherent hypothesis supported by data and co-supported by related hypotheses, is to point at a dubious report of an alleged crowd of people and say, the supernatural happened, they saw it. Recognising the truth of this criticism is not narrow mindedness but a position of intellectual integrity. 

None of your points supports the fact that the supernatural exists. They simply suggest that some people believed the teachings of the cult. And they still do. I'm sure I could find hundreds of thousands of southern baptists who insisted they had directly experienced the hand of god in their lives. They would all provide a different definition of god. Their experiences would be all subjective. There would still be no material proof. 

 

 

 

Nowhere in history have we found any contradiction to the 500 witnesses. I'm not sure what you want, it happened 2000 years ago. I can't show you Jesus' facebook account. I can't show you a home video. The fact that 500 people saw a dead man now become alive is supernatural. The fact that Daniel predicted the coming of the Messiah 600 years before it happened is supernatural. That fact that the eyewitnesses claimed what they saw was supernatural and then they were martyred but refused to deny the message they preached. Once again nonliving does not become living. I was a member of an atheist club of a hand full of PhD students in science and they agreed that this is where evolution falls short. They do not have a good theory on the beginning. They have faith. Any intellectually honest person would agree.


buddyd
Theist
buddyd's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2012-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

buddyd wrote:

 

I take blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to mean to reject the Holy Spirit. Meaning that you never accept the Holy Spirit (you never get saved) and after your death it will be to late. It is unforgivable.  

In the end it comes down to the fact God created you because He wanted to. Right now since you are still alive.

He offers you salvation but if you reject it until death (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) you will die in your sins and be damned to hell.

 

drivel.

The centrepiece of the christian doctrine is a fallacy from force. Believe these entirely unsupported supernatural assertions or I will torture you forever. 

That buddy can make this point with a straight virtual face clearly indicates the sociopathic nature of the person and the doctrine we are dealing with.

Buddy says torture is justified on the basis of assertion without evidence. His proof is to repeat this broken argument over and over and over.  

 

 

 

 

 

Assume God is a torturer and a mean bigot. He is still the man with "the big stick". He makes the rules you can follow them or pay the consequences. I have explained the rules to you but it's your life do as you please.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Buddy

 

buddyd wrote:
 

Nowhere in history have we found any contradiction to the 500 witnesses. I'm not sure what you want, it happened 2000 years ago. I can't show you Jesus' facebook account. I can't show you a home video. The fact that 500 people saw a dead man now become alive is supernatural. The fact that Daniel predicted the coming of the Messiah 600 years before it happened is supernatural. That fact that the eyewitnesses claimed what they saw was supernatural and then they were martyred but refused to deny the message they preached.

 

 

Your gospel, written by nobody knows who, and which claims to report 500 eyewitness accounts to a man rising from the death, is an apologetic doctrine of a cult. It is not history. It's not objective. It's a fabrication. No dead people have ever risen, bar those in a misunderstood coma.

 

buddyd wrote:
 

Once again nonliving does not become living. I was a member of an atheist club of a hand full of PhD students in science and they agreed that this is where evolution falls short. They do not have a good theory on the beginning. They have faith. Any intellectually honest person would agree.

 

Evolutionary theory relates to changes which take place in living organisms over time as a result of environmental pressures that impact on reproductive success. It does not relate to abiogenesis, the ignition of life for which there are multiple hypotheses thus far inadequately supported. 

The intellectually honest person faced with not knowing the fundamentals of abiogeneis would offer up the three most crucial words ever heard in education: "I don't know." There is no faith required for honest admissions of ignorance. 

You on the other hand, faced with not knowing say: "God did it - and if you disagree with me you burn alive". Your belief in the supernatural has no empirical proof and is entirely based on faith.

 

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This side step

buddyd wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

buddyd wrote:

 

I take blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to mean to reject the Holy Spirit. Meaning that you never accept the Holy Spirit (you never get saved) and after your death it will be to late. It is unforgivable.  

In the end it comes down to the fact God created you because He wanted to. Right now since you are still alive.

He offers you salvation but if you reject it until death (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) you will die in your sins and be damned to hell.

 

drivel.

The centrepiece of the christian doctrine is a fallacy from force. Believe these entirely unsupported supernatural assertions or I will torture you forever. 

That buddy can make this point with a straight virtual face clearly indicates the sociopathic nature of the person and the doctrine we are dealing with.

Buddy says torture is justified on the basis of assertion without evidence. His proof is to repeat this broken argument over and over and over.  

 

 

 

 

 

Assume God is a torturer and a mean bigot. He is still the man with "the big stick". He makes the rules you can follow them or pay the consequences. I have explained the rules to you but it's your life do as you please.

 

Does not resolve the fact your hypothetical god concept is morally inconsistent. Tell me this. It's judgement day and the judging is done and all the sinners are in the pit.

God, weary from listening to trillions of pathetic 'crimes' says in suitably sepulchral tones: "Buddy! Come over here, my child - help. I need you to press the ignite button on the lake of fire. My RSI is playing up from signing the book of death."

Would you press the ignite button that would burn billions of men, women, kids? Would you press the ignite button on the lake of fire if god asked you to do so?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
buddyd wrote:tonyjeffers

buddyd wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

OK buddyd  I got the 69 part and thank you.  and I knew it said "like a flood"  no confusion there.   Can you direct me to where I can find any proof that a Hebrew week can also mean a year? Because in Daniel 10 he is using the words day, week, month , and year.  I don't accept that we are to just switch back and forth just to handily fit our numbers into equations and prophecies. 

Although I am not completely closed minded, I do believe many of these prophesies are just self-fullfilled and written after the supposed fact, and I would still like to know, if for no other reason just to see how one could base much of their faith on such stories.

 

 

No problem. shabua is the normal way to say week but in Daniel 9:24 he says šā·ḇu·‘îm . http://interlinearbible.org/daniel/9-24.htm and http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/29-27.htm You can see the difference in this interlinear Bible (Hebrew/English Bible).

I gotta say that will be a handy website when I learn my way around it a little better. OK I'm really trying to see your side here but I just can't see how a week can be a year.  -

se bu a ="the week" ,  sa bu im ="weeks"  , sa nim ="years"     So the only difference in his wording here seems to be that he is making "week" plural into "weeks" . not saying "sa nim"-years.   I'm failing to see the connection here and it's not out of stubbornness. I just don't see it. What am i missing here? If he wanted to say years , why didn't he say "sa nim" ??

 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


buddyd
Theist
buddyd's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2012-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

buddyd wrote:
 

Nowhere in history have we found any contradiction to the 500 witnesses. I'm not sure what you want, it happened 2000 years ago. I can't show you Jesus' facebook account. I can't show you a home video. The fact that 500 people saw a dead man now become alive is supernatural. The fact that Daniel predicted the coming of the Messiah 600 years before it happened is supernatural. That fact that the eyewitnesses claimed what they saw was supernatural and then they were martyred but refused to deny the message they preached.

 

 

Your gospel, written by nobody knows who, and which claims to report 500 eyewitness accounts to a man rising from the death, is an apologetic doctrine of a cult. It is not history. It's not objective. It's a fabrication. No dead people have ever risen, bar those in a misunderstood coma.

 

buddyd wrote:
 

Once again nonliving does not become living. I was a member of an atheist club of a hand full of PhD students in science and they agreed that this is where evolution falls short. They do not have a good theory on the beginning. They have faith. Any intellectually honest person would agree.

 

Evolutionary theory relates to changes which take place in living organisms over time as a result of environmental pressures that impact on reproductive success. It does not relate to abiogenesis, the ignition of life for which there are multiple hypotheses thus far inadequately supported. 

The intellectually honest person faced with not knowing the fundamentals of abiogeneis would offer up the three most crucial words ever heard in education: "I don't know." There is no faith required for honest admissions of ignorance. 

You on the other hand, faced with not knowing say: "God did it - and if you disagree with me you burn alive". Your belief in the supernatural has no empirical proof and is entirely based on faith.

 

 

 

 

What's odd to me is that you have no doubt that a living man could not die and then live again. But you absolutely believe that something that never lived became life. The Gospel is 2000 years old. A claim was made at the time of 500 witnesses no one that we have found wrote against it. There was no video, no dna, no one took a picture. Tell me what you would like to see from a 2000 year old event. A theory takes FAITH. It is what you believe without overwhelming proof.


buddyd
Theist
buddyd's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2012-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

buddyd wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

buddyd wrote:

 

I take blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to mean to reject the Holy Spirit. Meaning that you never accept the Holy Spirit (you never get saved) and after your death it will be to late. It is unforgivable.  

In the end it comes down to the fact God created you because He wanted to. Right now since you are still alive.

He offers you salvation but if you reject it until death (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) you will die in your sins and be damned to hell.

 

drivel.

The centrepiece of the christian doctrine is a fallacy from force. Believe these entirely unsupported supernatural assertions or I will torture you forever. 

That buddy can make this point with a straight virtual face clearly indicates the sociopathic nature of the person and the doctrine we are dealing with.

Buddy says torture is justified on the basis of assertion without evidence. His proof is to repeat this broken argument over and over and over.  

 

 

 

 

 

Assume God is a torturer and a mean bigot. He is still the man with "the big stick". He makes the rules you can follow them or pay the consequences. I have explained the rules to you but it's your life do as you please.

 

Does not resolve the fact your hypothetical god concept is morally inconsistent. Tell me this. It's judgement day and the judging is done and all the sinners are in the pit.

God, weary from listening to trillions of pathetic 'crimes' says in suitably sepulchral tones: "Buddy! Come over here, my child - help. I need you to press the ignite button on the lake of fire. My RSI is playing up from signing the book of death."

Would you press the ignite button that would burn billions of men, women, kids? Would you press the ignite button on the lake of fire if god asked you to do so?

 

 

It is true that sinners go to hell but also sinners go to heaven. We are all sinners, but God offered mercy to us. Some accepted it and others rejected it. If you do not want to listen that is up to you. The Bible says I will help judge the dead (meaning the lost). You have your chance, you have no one else to blame.


buddyd
Theist
buddyd's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2012-03-26
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:buddyd

tonyjeffers wrote:

buddyd wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

OK buddyd  I got the 69 part and thank you.  and I knew it said "like a flood"  no confusion there.   Can you direct me to where I can find any proof that a Hebrew week can also mean a year? Because in Daniel 10 he is using the words day, week, month , and year.  I don't accept that we are to just switch back and forth just to handily fit our numbers into equations and prophecies. 

Although I am not completely closed minded, I do believe many of these prophesies are just self-fullfilled and written after the supposed fact, and I would still like to know, if for no other reason just to see how one could base much of their faith on such stories.

 

 

No problem. shabua is the normal way to say week but in Daniel 9:24 he says šā·ḇu·‘îm . http://interlinearbible.org/daniel/9-24.htm and http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/29-27.htm You can see the difference in this interlinear Bible (Hebrew/English Bible).

I gotta say that will be a handy website when I learn my way around it a little better. OK I'm really trying to see your side here but I just can't see how a week can be a year.  -

se bu a ="the week" ,  sa bu im ="weeks"  , sa nim ="years"     So the only difference in his wording here seems to be that he is making "week" plural into "weeks" . not saying "sa nim"-years.   I'm failing to see the connection here and it's not out of stubbornness. I just don't see it. What am i missing here? If he wanted to say years , why didn't he say "sa nim" ??

 

 

No problem, give me some time on this to find my book with the outside references. But sabuim is more than just plural it is masculine. It is not a proper word in Hebrew. It is a form of Hebrew literature to give the idea that the days will pass quickly. Such as a year feels like a week.


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
 I am not surprised you did

 I am not surprised you did not answer Atheistextremist question on pushing the button or mine on the validity of the account of "the 500".

You believe so strongly in "the 500", but indirectly you are really simply believing the writings of a man who offers no substantial evidence to support this claim.

How did Paul know there were 500 who witnessed the resurrection? Where did he get this information from?

Considering the time period, any written history has to be taken with a grain of salt. Historians use various methods and often multiple sources to validate written accounts. In the lack thereof, they seek archaeological evidence or resort to presenting the most logical hypotheses.

 

buddyd wrote:

It is true that sinners go to hell but also sinners go to heaven. We are all sinners, but God offered mercy to us. Some accepted it and others rejected it. If you do not want to listen that is up to you. The Bible says I will help judge the dead (meaning the lost). You have your chance, you have no one else to blame.

You are looking for answers in the wrong places.

What happens to a drug addicted child soldier who dies in combat? Do your prayers reach across the world into their veins, to ebb the flow of unnatural ecstasy they are poisoned with that drives them? Can your late night stammering and Sunday morning ramblings grant salvation to murderous boys and girls, more zombie than human? Imagine the world through their eyes - a red glaze coats their dreams in a hazy fog of memory - sleep is their only solace from the never ending pain that penetrates every facet of their reality.

The Bible does not apply to the modern world; it is a reflection of an ancient mentality and unrefined way of thinking. The world has since evolved. Close your Bible and take a look around.


buddyd
Theist
buddyd's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2012-03-26
User is offlineOffline
ax wrote: I am not

ax wrote:

 I am not surprised you did not answer Atheistextremist question on pushing the button or mine on the validity of the account of "the 500".

You believe so strongly in "the 500", but indirectly you are really simply believing the writings of a man who offers no substantial evidence to support this claim.

How did Paul know there were 500 who witnessed the resurrection? Where did he get this information from?

Considering the time period, any written history has to be taken with a grain of salt. Historians use various methods and often multiple sources to validate written accounts. In the lack thereof, they seek archaeological evidence or resort to presenting the most logical hypotheses.

 

buddyd wrote:

It is true that sinners go to hell but also sinners go to heaven. We are all sinners, but God offered mercy to us. Some accepted it and others rejected it. If you do not want to listen that is up to you. The Bible says I will help judge the dead (meaning the lost). You have your chance, you have no one else to blame.

You are looking for answers in the wrong places.

What happens to a drug addicted child soldier who dies in combat? Do your prayers reach across the world into their veins, to ebb the flow of unnatural ecstasy they are poisoned with that drives them? Can your late night stammering and Sunday morning ramblings grant salvation to murderous boys and girls, more zombie than human? Imagine the world through their eyes - a red glaze coats their dreams in a hazy fog of memory - sleep is their only solace from the never ending pain that penetrates every facet of their reality.

The Bible does not apply to the modern world; it is a reflection of an ancient mentality and unrefined way of thinking. The world has since evolved. Close your Bible and take a look around.

 

Paul was a pharisee who lived in Jerusalem, which is the place that Jesus showed Himself. So Paul was a contemporary and a local. He made a claim in a letter and we find no one challenging it in any other documents. He was discipled by eyewitnesses, that would probably be a source that would have told him of the 500 witnesses. That is about the best you can get from a 2000 year old event. What do you want? Jesus was not a big deal for most of the world. It was an event in a small nation in a huge empire. Peter was an eyewitness, Matthew was an eyewitness, John was an eyewitness, James was an eyewitness, Jude was an eyewitness and they also wrote of the resurrection. Luke went to eyewitnesses and wrote about it and Mark also was a contemporary and wrote about the resurrection. Polycarp was a student of John and he wrote of what Jesus did, Paul claimed to have a supernatural event on the road to Damascus. Josephus wrote of the Christian movement. As far as pushing the button I did answer it (I thought). The Bible says I am going to judge people, so in effect I am going to push the button. Right now I am telling you how to go to heaven, Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart He rose from them grave then you will be saved.

 

As far as the child soldier goes, anyone who dies without Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior goes to hell. You say the Bible does not apply to the modern world but you don't think the Roman Empire had the same problems? The message of the Gospel is spread much more efficiently today than it was back then. I see the world and it has many of the same problems it had in the New Testament period.


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
buddyd wrote:Paul was a

buddyd wrote:

Paul was a pharisee who lived in Jerusalem, which is the place that Jesus showed Himself. So Paul was a contemporary and a local. He made a claim in a letter and we find no one challenging it in any other documents. He was discipled by eyewitnesses, that would probably be a source that would have told him of the 500 witnesses. That is about the best you can get from a 2000 year old event. What do you want? Jesus was not a big deal for most of the world. It was an event in a small nation in a huge empire. Peter was an eyewitness, Matthew was an eyewitness, John was an eyewitness, James was an eyewitness, Jude was an eyewitness and they also wrote of the resurrection. Luke went to eyewitnesses and wrote about it and Mark also was a contemporary and wrote about the resurrection. Polycarp was a student of John and he wrote of what Jesus did, Paul claimed to have a supernatural event on the road to Damascus. Josephus wrote of the Christian movement. As far as pushing the button I did answer it (I thought). The Bible says I am going to judge people, so in effect I am going to push the button. Right now I am telling you how to go to heaven, Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart He rose from them grave then you will be saved.

It is more likely that a group of people conspired to create religious propaganda which could be used to incite rebellion against the Roman Empire. Christianity was not initially popular with the upper caste until it was seen as a potential threat. The antichrist (Nero) came and went, and over time Christianity evolved into a new system of control.
 
buddyd wrote:

As far as the child soldier goes, anyone who dies without Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior goes to hell. You say the Bible does not apply to the modern world but you don't think the Roman Empire had the same problems? The message of the Gospel is spread much more efficiently today than it was back then. I see the world and it has many of the same problems it had in the New Testament period.

It is very easy to pass judgement on someone when you are in a privileged position to do so. If it were your head on the chopping block, you may see life differently.

Your point of view is clear, but like any point of view, you must remember everyone is entitled to opposing opinions. Just because you enjoy a specific belief or principle, does not mean it is absolutely right.

Even if "supernatural" events in the Bible turned out to be true, it would simply provide support for ancient astronaut theory.

If we can successfully achieve immortality, which current research models suggest is within reach, then what will you believe? Will you infinitely ponder if you are going to be saved, or do you deny the possibility of this ground breaking evolution which has been proven as scientifically plausible?

If the Bible is adaptable to the modern world, please provide reference to locations within the Gospel which discuss mind uploading and life extension.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Hey buddyd     For

  Hey buddyd

 

   For what it's worth I would like to compliment you on your forum manners here so far.  Lately we have had Christian posters here who, when confronted with our "recalcitrance",  make an utter mockery of the "peace that passeth all understanding."   They just go nuts.  Some even try and sabotage the web site, itself.

  We atheist forum members aren't blameless either, but I think that we still appreciate when our opponents are as circumspect as you appear to be.

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  Hey

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Hey buddyd

 

   For what it's worth I would like to compliment you on your forum manners here so far.  Lately we have had Christian posters here who, when confronted with our "recalcitrance",  make an utter mockery of the "peace that passeth all understanding."   They just go nuts.  Some even try and sabotage the web site, itself.

  We atheist forum members aren't blameless either, but I think that we still appreciate when our opponents are as circumspect as you appear to be.

Ditto,   I was going to tell him that he might catch a little fall-out from attitudes hung over from conversations with a couple "jackholes" in our midst.  I don't take him telling me that he believes I am destined for hell any differently than he takes me telling him that the bible that he holds dear is complete monkey shit.  I hate christianity not christians. (well not all of them anyway)  After all, I used to be one.  However ridiculous they may be to us, I think he is sincere in his beliefs and words.   I hope he sticks around.

 

 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


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

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Hey buddyd

 

   For what it's worth I would like to compliment you on your forum manners here so far.  Lately we have had Christian posters here who, when confronted with our "recalcitrance",  make an utter mockery of the "peace that passeth all understanding."   They just go nuts.  Some even try and sabotage the web site, itself.

  We atheist forum members aren't blameless either, but I think that we still appreciate when our opponents are as circumspect as you appear to be.

I don't. Well.. I do, but it's rather boring when theists and atheists are polite and respectful. It means I have to behave myself when addressing these people.

“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: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Answer this question, Buddy.

 

buddyd wrote:

 

Assume God is a torturer and a mean bigot. He is still the man with "the big stick". He makes the rules you can follow them or pay the consequences. I have explained the rules to you but it's your life do as you please.

 

Would you press the ignite button that would burn billions of men, women, kids, Buddy? Would you press the ignite button on the lake of fire if god asked you to do so?

Be honest. Yes or no...  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
All living cells

 

buddyd wrote:

What's odd to me is that you have no doubt that a living man could not die and then live again. But you absolutely believe that something that never lived became life. The Gospel is 2000 years old. A claim was made at the time of 500 witnesses no one that we have found wrote against it. There was no video, no dna, no one took a picture. Tell me what you would like to see from a 2000 year old event. A theory takes FAITH. It is what you believe without overwhelming proof.

 

All living cells are made of the constituent elements of the crust of planet Earth. We can look at them under an electron microscope. We can view their development in the rocks. We can see that anaerobic bacteria are older and were forced into mud to escape the poisonous respirations of oxygen from later life forms. We can look at the organelles inside procaryotic cells. We can read the DNA of the mitochondria that power us at the cellular level and see that it is most closely related to the bacteria Rickettsia prowazekii. You have to ask yourself, Buddy, what the heck is a bacterial remnant doing living inside the cells of all multicellular organisms - including you?

Talking like this you can see that on the one hand we have empirical evidence, which allows us to say things about reality, to know if things are more or less true. And on the other hand we have belief in the face of no evidence. Religious faith. Compratively, your skeptical empiricist never insists they know they absolute truth. They'll say that on the basis of the data gathered so far, this seems most probable. And when new data is available, a scientific hypothesis is modifiable - it changes to meet the new information or it is discarded. Does your position change to meet new information, Buddy? Could you ever discard your hypothesis?

As far as the point above goes, what I believe is that organic life is comprised of inanimate atoms that together form a biochemical system. Life, in a way, is 'dead'. The fundamental atoms and molecules that underlie it do not live. But for reasons not fully understood, under certain circumstances, molecules interact and combine to form self replicating systems that we label life. Some systems are simple, some complex. These systems have terraformed the planet and continue to do so, demonstrably. Life is responsible for its own evolution to a large degree. 

And sure - as I've already pointed out - when it comes to abiogenesis, I don't know. But I won't be threatened into accepting your dogma, which is what your proselytizing here is actually all about. The perpetration of the threat. Isn't it interesting that Paul's angelic Jesus concept 'died' not to to save the world from sin but to rescue the followers of this new cult from the fallacious appeal to the club underpinning Judaism. 

 

 

 

 

 

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


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I find it silly when

I find it silly when believers say life could not arise from a non-living matter. There is no such thing as non-living matter, atoms are highly structured bundles of energy, they vibrate, radiate, combine together, repel each other. They live by the grace of basic forces, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. They bind other kinds of energy, like kinetic/heat. After all, what is the life, if not extremely organized energy embodied as the matter?

We know that complexity of matter increases, given energy and time. An appropriate source of energy (like heat, UV, electric, etc) makes more complex chemical reactions possible and unlocks new kinds of them. Abiogenesis is a way too long and gradual process, but I believe there is a similarly marvelous example of chemistry around us, called photosynthesis. This is another example of a chemistry that our science still learns to reproduce (water-splitting photocatalysts, etc), yet it is real. It is essentially a building of living matter directly out of non-living materials - atmospheric CO2 and photons. Light and air become wood, leaf and fruit, which may become flesh and blood. It is like countless tiny resurrections happening every second around the world. And what is awesome about it? Our scientists are working towards controlling the process!

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Buddy

buddyd wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

buddyd wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

OK buddyd  I got the 69 part and thank you.  and I knew it said "like a flood"  no confusion there.   Can you direct me to where I can find any proof that a Hebrew week can also mean a year? Because in Daniel 10 he is using the words day, week, month , and year.  I don't accept that we are to just switch back and forth just to handily fit our numbers into equations and prophecies. 

Although I am not completely closed minded, I do believe many of these prophesies are just self-fullfilled and written after the supposed fact, and I would still like to know, if for no other reason just to see how one could base much of their faith on such stories.

 

 

No problem. shabua is the normal way to say week but in Daniel 9:24 he says šā·ḇu·‘îm . http://interlinearbible.org/daniel/9-24.htm and http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/29-27.htm You can see the difference in this interlinear Bible (Hebrew/English Bible).

I gotta say that will be a handy website when I learn my way around it a little better. OK I'm really trying to see your side here but I just can't see how a week can be a year.  -

se bu a ="the week" ,  sa bu im ="weeks"  , sa nim ="years"     So the only difference in his wording here seems to be that he is making "week" plural into "weeks" . not saying "sa nim"-years.   I'm failing to see the connection here and it's not out of stubbornness. I just don't see it. What am i missing here? If he wanted to say years , why didn't he say "sa nim" ??

 

 

No problem, give me some time on this to find my book with the outside references. But sabuim is more than just plural it is masculine. It is not a proper word in Hebrew. It is a form of Hebrew literature to give the idea that the days will pass quickly. Such as a year feels like a week.

 

Are you out there buddyd?  If I have successfully de-bunked Daniel's prophecy with a simple observation, then I sure would like to know, considering that so many justify part of their faith on his prophecies.

It kinda reminds me of the great pyramid (so-called) prophecies.  They take numbers and measurements of corridors and coffers and try to translate them any way they see fit just to make them fit dates of time that would seem to be foretelling future events.

I'm not implying that's what you have done, but aside from Daniel it's been done many ways and many times.

And likewise if you can show me that it fits, i would find it interesting enough to give it further investigation. But why would I take it any further if it's bogus from the git-go, let alone it probably being written after the supposed fact.

If it is in fact wrong, you don't have to worry about losing any credibility here. After all, you didn't personally come up with this stuff.

I didn't have a pulpit in a church like you, but I still used to preach the stuff.  Shit I bought a few copies of "the pyramid book" just to give out to friends.  Anything seems believable if you want it to bad enough.

I'll be waitin'

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Nicely put, Lum

Luminon wrote:

I find it silly when believers say life could not arise from a non-living matter. There is no such thing as non-living matter, atoms are highly structured bundles of energy, they vibrate, radiate, combine together, repel each other. They live by the grace of basic forces, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. They bind other kinds of energy, like kinetic/heat. After all, what is the life, if not extremely organized energy embodied as the matter?

We know that complexity of matter increases, given energy and time. An appropriate source of energy (like heat, UV, electric, etc) makes more complex chemical reactions possible and unlocks new kinds of them. Abiogenesis is a way too long and gradual process, but I believe there is a similarly marvelous example of chemistry around us, called photosynthesis. This is another example of a chemistry that our science still learns to reproduce (water-splitting photocatalysts, etc), yet it is real. It is essentially a building of living matter directly out of non-living materials - atmospheric CO2 and photons. Light and air become wood, leaf and fruit, which may become flesh and blood. It is like countless tiny resurrections happening every second around the world. And what is awesome about it? Our scientists are working towards controlling the process!

 

 

Though I'm not sure atoms are alive. They are energized, obviously. Maybe that is intrinsically the same thing and we just don't recognise the fact...

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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
buddyd wrote:Assume God is a

buddyd wrote:

Assume God is a torturer and a mean bigot. He is still the man with "the big stick". He makes the rules you can follow them or pay the consequences. 

 

             Okay, God can hurt us ....really, really hurt us.   So we better obey him.  Or "pay the consequences"  

 

   I can understand the comparison well enough.   Might makes right.  Nevertheless, why would any right minded person feel that it made good sense to worship and love someone ( ie, God ) who related to you on those stark terms ?   Obedience can be coerced but love ?

 

   What woman would say she truly loved a man if her participation in that relationship were predicated upon threats and coercion ?   Is that the kind of "love" and "worship" that satisfies God ?  Since when do hostages feel love for the one who holds them captive ?  (  I know of the Stockholm Syndrome but would that be a comparison that Christians would want to claim ? )

 

  Okay God, I will obey you because you said you'll hurt me if I don't.   Now you want me to love you and worship you  ?  The principle of "Obey me or else" does not logically flow into any sense of genuine love   let alone sincere worship except in the most twisted and bizarre ways.

  

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I post here because-

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Before I ask my question to the theists I will admit that I've done similar things when visiting a theist website, but with a very specific agenda. I was very curious at how some types of theists thought so I would log in and watch their posts.

As for my question to the theists, what exactly are you doing here? Are you trying to convert us? test us? test yourself? or maybe you are unsure of your belief system and are searching for other possibilities?

@atheists, feel free to post if you have an opinion.

 

You could say I'm trying to change someones. But, isn't that common for everyone. We all seem to be trying to make all others like our selves. On one side we all have social drawings and attractions to others, in turn we want to be with those that are of one's own kind. It looks as though Atheists are up to the same thing. They are in a movement at this time to become accepted by others. Therefore they have to (as anyone else) present their ideas and information to the public just as any religion or other organizations. I am with a small membership of individuals that study anything and everything. In the case of Christianity and the bible we have our own findings and determinations, of which we would like others others to look at but decide for themselves. In essence---from those findings we are trying to give the info for them to change themselves. In this case-we aren't directly trying to change them- we are trying to get them to change. But then again we do as all others at making an attempt to change others. Both work together. On one side we want to change others but yet it up to them to change-so we put away trying to change them and give the info for them to change themselves. We are not Theists, Deists, or Atheists. We find that none of these titles apply to us. We find them all wrong and make attempts to show/tell our side.

     That's a tough job as all have kinda made up their own minds and to get through to the meat of the process is always resisted. We consider what we have is quite new, but yet very old-that means that at one time there was what we have found and it was lost. That says it is new to us but was in ancient times of a particular people. The bible (as it is referred to) is the pathway to understanding those people. The book is a simple (which is seen after the fact of study) matter of interpretation. Present interpretations of religions are highly flawed, but there is another that hasn't been seen. To get a person to actually contemplate our info is quite a task. Atheists have the idea that the book is nonsense, and with the interpretation that is presently given they are right. But they don't seek where it could be of worth and reject it out of hand without searching where/how it can be useful. The problem here is that all sides are to superficial to understand it and it's purpose is to be used to change the world systems created by people and propagate what will make the world peaceful.

   So, yes we all come here to change someone if one can. everyone does it.

  

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The problem of Christianity is

buddyd wrote:

To Tony: If there is no God then me poisoning the minds of others shouldn't matter. I would say that morality doesn't exist if there is no God. I am pastor of a church, I don't force anyone to come. What specifically is your problem with Christianity? What belief of Christianity do you think is harming others? I don't hate anyone, I'm not violent, I am charitable. I am not perfect but I think most would like me if they got to know me. 2.1 billion people claim Christianity, finding a bad one wouldn't be hard, but what do you find harmful in Christian theology?

The same as what's wrong with civilization, neither one works as they are both the same. Civilization works in the material sense (and for the sake of material acquisition) but it doesn't work for making peace between worldly factions. Proper Christianity ended before 100AD when in was taken over by authoritarians making it as it still is today. Civilization is a religion of the belief and processes of materialistic venture, and interpreting life from a physical/material mindset. Present day Christianity supports this mental concept as do all other religions. Religion and belief are one and the same-what one believes "is" what ones religion is. If what is termed Christianity supports the world as made by people then it's not Christianity because today's Christianity also still believes in the civilization concept which is a different mentality then proper and true Christianity.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
buddyd wrote:You attempted

buddyd wrote:
You attempted to change the subject. We were talking about the motives behind Christian charity. But in response to your last post I will say this, you think too highly of yourself. I had a pair of shoes that I wore around as long as they served their purpose I was pleased with them, but the day I found a hole in them and they no longer served their purpose I threw them away. I did not take it that they had to in them and they no longer served their purpose I threw them away. I did not take it that they had to kiss my butt, I took it as they had a purpose and they didn't cut it anymore. You were created to serve God and the day He has had enough of you not serving your purpose you will be thrown away. You are the created and He is the creator. I did not ask for the opinion of my shoes because they were created and more can be created to replace them. To the shoes life isn't fair. But you have a choice you can repent and except Jesus as your personal Lord and savior or you can be tossed away. the created and He is the creator. I did not ask for the opinion of my shoes because they were created and more can be created to replace them. To the shoes life isn't fair. But you have a choice you can repent and except Jesus as your personal Lord and savior or you can be tossed away
Man, that is fucking cold. Jahweh is such a prick.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You need to understand

buddyd wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

buddyd wrote:

 

I take blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to mean to reject the Holy Spirit. Meaning that you never accept the Holy Spirit (you never get saved) and after your death it will be to late. It is unforgivable.  

In the end it comes down to the fact God created you because He wanted to. Right now since you are still alive.

He offers you salvation but if you reject it until death (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) you will die in your sins and be damned to hell.

 

drivel.

The centrepiece of the christian doctrine is a fallacy from force. Believe these entirely unsupported supernatural assertions or I will torture you forever. 

That buddy can make this point with a straight virtual face clearly indicates the sociopathic nature of the person and the doctrine we are dealing with.

Buddy says torture is justified on the basis of assertion without evidence. His proof is to repeat this broken argument over and over and over.  

 

 

 

 

 

Assume God is a torturer and a mean bigot. He is still the man with "the big stick". He makes the rules you can follow them or pay the consequences. I have explained the rules to you but it's your life do as you please.

That the concept of European Christianity is just European ideology. They kept their ancient religion and attached JC to it. What we still have today is the dark age, middle age, medieval thinking. Proper Christianity has little or nothing to do with their ancient religion. Their idea of God is really nothing more then their own personality forced onto the masses. JC has/ nothing in common with their ancient beliefs. When looking at European religions that claim to be Christianity it is just what their ancient religions were, and today they are the same as BC. What we have is Europeanism not Christianity. If what they have is true Christianity then there was no reason for JC to show up. There is no difference in their religion BC to AD.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1581
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
God's great displeasure at religious studies . . . .

Old Seer wrote:

buddyd wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

buddyd wrote:

 

I take blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to mean to reject the Holy Spirit. Meaning that you never accept the Holy Spirit (you never get saved) and after your death it will be to late. It is unforgivable.  

In the end it comes down to the fact God created you because He wanted to. Right now since you are still alive.

He offers you salvation but if you reject it until death (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) you will die in your sins and be damned to hell.

 

drivel.

The centrepiece of the christian doctrine is a fallacy from force. Believe these entirely unsupported supernatural assertions or I will torture you forever. 

That buddy can make this point with a straight virtual face clearly indicates the sociopathic nature of the person and the doctrine we are dealing with.

Buddy says torture is justified on the basis of assertion without evidence. His proof is to repeat this broken argument over and over and over.  

 

 

 

 

 

Assume God is a torturer and a mean bigot. He is still the man with "the big stick". He makes the rules you can follow them or pay the consequences. I have explained the rules to you but it's your life do as you please.

That the concept of European Christianity is just European ideology. They kept their ancient religion and attached JC to it. What we still have today is the dark age, middle age, medieval thinking. Proper Christianity has little or nothing to do with their ancient religion. 

  But ancient religions have a lot to do with Christianity. The most profound hurt I felt at christian boards was you'd ask about an alleged parallel between an old testament account and that of a neighboring religion.  And the eyes would glaze over and the reply was silence.  Paradoxically, Religious people need more religious studies (broader knowledge) and  not less!

 

 

:

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Ican understand your posting

danatemporary wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

buddyd wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

buddyd wrote:

 

I take blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to mean to reject the Holy Spirit. Meaning that you never accept the Holy Spirit (you never get saved) and after your death it will be to late. It is unforgivable.  

In the end it comes down to the fact God created you because He wanted to. Right now since you are still alive.

He offers you salvation but if you reject it until death (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) you will die in your sins and be damned to hell.

 

drivel.

The centrepiece of the christian doctrine is a fallacy from force. Believe these entirely unsupported supernatural assertions or I will torture you forever. 

That buddy can make this point with a straight virtual face clearly indicates the sociopathic nature of the person and the doctrine we are dealing with.

Buddy says torture is justified on the basis of assertion without evidence. His proof is to repeat this broken argument over and over and over.  

 

 

 

 

 

Assume God is a torturer and a mean bigot. He is still the man with "the big stick". He makes the rules you can follow them or pay the consequences. I have explained the rules to you but it's your life do as you please.

That the concept of European Christianity is just European ideology. They kept their ancient religion and attached JC to it. What we still have today is the dark age, middle age, medieval thinking. Proper Christianity has little or nothing to do with their ancient religion. 

  But ancient religions have a lot to do with Christianity. The most profound hurt I felt at christian boards was you'd ask about an alleged parallel between an old testament account and that of a neighboring religion.  And the eyes would glaze over and the reply was silence.  Paradoxically, Religious people need more religious studies (broader knowledge) and  not less!

However European religions are based on superiority, predatorism and animalistic relations while Chritianity in it's true form is based on the human aspects of one's self. The Europeans are/were no different then anyone else on the planet, but they claimed the bible for themselves and based it on their religion. There are only 2 basic sets of characteristics that we are of (that is personage, other then the physical), animal and human, of which are mentalities.. The world is existing on the animal characters in it's relation to each other, at least basically. Christianity is of the human characteristics, by which, if the world changed to the human based characters this would be a different world. And, that is supposed to be the mission of Christianity, to change the peoples (according to their own personal will) relationship from animal to human. If the world changed to it's human characters as a relationship type, the whole world systems would collapse. That's what the book of rev is about---when floks see that difference and the masses start changing under the realisation that the animal can't be fixed so rather to solve the problem one and all have to change to the human characters it brings about what the book referres to as "the end times" that is--the end of the man made social ideas and systems. The planet stays the same---the man-made world is removed. JC is the fore-runner of those peoples. Proper Christianity isn't a threat or danger to people particularly, but rather a threat to the ones operating it.  That's why JC was killed---he was a threat to the government (and still is). A Christian is one who is self governed within the mental stature of "Human" and becomes no danger to anyone, and is a follower of no one except the principals of what is Human rather then animal concepts and their consequences. It is present governments, authorities, and religions with their law making and determinations and support of police and military forces that keep the world as it is. 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1581
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Power control and power . .

Unknown Bloggist wrote:
March 24 09  Real Christianity has not existed since  130 AD

 

      The statement is about as close as I could get to your own (for the life of me, I was unable find your original quote). Marcg 24 statement by the bloggist's might be included in your own comments.

  That everyone is speaking English . In the 'Battle for the Bible' John Hus and maybe John Wycliffe were "burned at the stake". John Wycliffe they succeeded at sentencing him to the stake, I know.  And for what ?

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
because he/they were

danatemporary wrote:

Unknown Bloggist wrote:
March 24 09  Real Christianity has not existed since  130 AD

 

      The statement is about as close as I could get to your own (for the life of me, I was unable find your original quote). Marcg 24 statement by the bloggist's might be included in your own comments.

  That everyone is speaking English . In the 'Battle for the Bible' John Hus and maybe John Wycliffe were "burned at the stake". John Wycliffe they succeeded at sentencing him to the stake, I know.  And for what ?

 

a threat to authority. Even tho they weren't true Christians any attempt to show government wrong meant a death sentence. The very same may/will happen again when proper Christianity takes hold within the masses. Then again as in my previous post-that's what's happening (among other things) at the time the people begin to make changes which is the book of revelation. . The ones changing are very likely to be persecuted as before, only this time they'll be right. In the case of Wycliffe it was only a matter of not following the rule of the day. In those times one was persecuted whether right or wrong and was a matter of not believing those who made the rules. The same with the biblical Apostles---you don't go into Rome preaching a new religion without getting killed. In the US of a we have a constitution that allows one to believe as ones sees to. BUT, let proper Christianity take hold and you'll be seeing something quite different, the constitution may not mean much. Government will do what it's always done----try to keep the masses under their belief and materialistic systems as materialism and the pursuit of affluence is what creates most of the problems and divisions within societies, and between countries. When the concept of civilization is questioned and under threat of removal --go hide. Bear in mind that government is still "people" that want to be above the crowd, and contemplate whaey are willing and have to do to keep it that way.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1581
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Christianity "from" the masses . . .

Old Seer wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

  In the 'Battle for the Bible' John Hus and maybe John Wycliffe were "burned at the stake". John Wycliffe they succeeded at sentencing him to the stake, I know.  And for what ?

 

a threat to authority. Even tho they weren't true Christians any attempt to show government wrong meant a death sentence. In the case of Wycliffe it was only a matter of not following the rule of the day. In those times one was persecuted whether right or wrong and was a matter of not believing those who made THE RULES. BUT, let proper Christianity take hold . . .

Government will do what it's always done----try to keep the masses under their belief and materialistic systems as materialism and the pursuit of affluence is what creates most of the problems and divisions within societies

    I havent misrepresented you Old Seer in having included the bloggist's remarks (remember I simply was not able to find the quote you made).

   *  Wycliffe for many who might not know composed a translation in the English language. Most of Europe were poorly educated and the Vulgate (in Latin) was utterly inaccessible to the masses without bootleg copies in Germany and English.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
It's in my postings somewheres.

danatemporary wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

  In the 'Battle for the Bible' John Hus and maybe John Wycliffe were "burned at the stake". John Wycliffe they succeeded at sentencing him to the stake, I know.  And for what ?

 

a threat to authority. Even tho they weren't true Christians any attempt to show government wrong meant a death sentence. In the case of Wycliffe it was only a matter of not following the rule of the day. In those times one was persecuted whether right or wrong and was a matter of not believing those who made THE RULES. BUT, let proper Christianity take hold . . .

Government will do what it's always done----try to keep the masses under their belief and materialistic systems as materialism and the pursuit of affluence is what creates most of the problems and divisions within societies

    I havent misrepresented you Old Seer in having included the bloggist's remarks (remember I simply was not able to find the quote you made).

   *  Wycliffe for many who might not know composed a translation in the English language. Most of Europe were poorly educated and the Vulgate (in Latin) was utterly inaccessible to the masses without bootleg copies in Germany and English.

I probably couldn't find it myself. But that's what our studies have concluded--The proper form of Christianity when it went extinct was about that time after JC. Authoritarian floks stepped in and began to run it by deception. When they took over the original guides were gone. Christianity doesn't have authoritarians.  That's why the pope isn't a Christian--there is no hierarchy of power in Christianity as all that is given up. Where you have people with powers you'll have war. Europeans and others weren't supposed to read the bible because they would find plenty of reasons to question authority. The Euro interpretation stinks and is nothing but a mish mash of idiocy. I know you didn't misrepresent me---I merely got off on one of my infomercials (if it can be called that). We are anxious to have others know what we know so at time I get a bit overdoing.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

danatemporary wrote:
But ancient religions have a lot to do with Christianity. The most profound hurt I felt at christian boards was you'd ask about an alleged parallel between an old testament account and that of a neighboring religion.  And the eyes would glaze over and the reply was silence.  Paradoxically, Religious people need more religious studies (broader knowledge) and  not less!

What  revolutionary idea! Believers actually knowing something about what they believe.

Honestly, i don't think it will ever catch on.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

danatemporary wrote:
Unknown Bloggist wrote:
March 24 09  Real Christianity has not existed since  130 AD
      The statement is about as close as I could get to your own (for the life of me, I was unable find your original quote). Marcg 24 statement by the bloggist's might be included in your own comments.

  That everyone is speaking English . In the 'Battle for the Bible' John Hus and maybe John Wycliffe were "burned at the stake". John Wycliffe they succeeded at sentencing him to the stake, I know.  And for what ?

Considering maybe around 130 the gospels might have started to appear and replace the Pauline end of the world, doomsday cult, change or disappear were the only choices. It was either make up a cult that did not involve his return real soon or forever be street corner cartoon prophets.

Between then and Constantine a century later the bishops all appear to have more or less gone their own way. There is precious little indicating what Christians themselves were actually like. Even if we credit everything suspected of being Christian to Christians they do not appear to be doing recognizably Christian things. And those are about three things so it hardly matters.

The change from he is returning to make you rulers of the earth to if you want to get to heaven is a chance so profound the word REAL does not appear to be applicable to the discussion.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Old Seer wrote:
a threat to authority. Even tho they weren't true Christians any attempt to show government wrong meant a death sentence. The very same may/will happen again when proper Christianity takes hold within the masses. Then again as in my previous post-that's what's happening (among other things) at the time the people begin to make changes which is the book of revelation. . The ones changing are very likely to be persecuted as before, only this time they'll be right. In the case of Wycliffe it was only a matter of not following the rule of the day. In those times one was persecuted whether right or wrong and was a matter of not believing those who made the rules. The same with the biblical Apostles---you don't go into Rome preaching a new religion without getting killed. In the US of a we have a constitution that allows one to believe as ones sees to. BUT, let proper Christianity take hold and you'll be seeing something quite different, the constitution may not mean much. Government will do what it's always done----try to keep the masses under their belief and materialistic systems as materialism and the pursuit of affluence is what creates most of the problems and divisions within societies, and between countries. When the concept of civilization is questioned and under threat of removal --go hide. Bear in mind that government is still "people" that want to be above the crowd, and contemplate whaey are willing and have to do to keep it that way.

Pardon but I have yet to find the Rome that exists in Christian mythology. Beliefs did not matter in the least in the empire. The idea of religion did not exist until maybe the 4th c. AD. There were worship practices. There was no requirement to worship except in times of danger and then it was pro forma and usually only once. Folks could rale all they wanted against Senate and Emperor decisions. Sedition and rebellion were all they cared about. They were pro-active in banning secret societies. But new religions were quite common. All they had to do was register and someone would watch them to verify they were just a religion. There was no reason any proto-christians needed to hide or be secretive.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

danatemporary wrote:
   *  Wycliffe for many who might not know composed a translation in the English language. Most of Europe were poorly educated and the Vulgate (in Latin) was utterly inaccessible to the masses without bootleg copies in Germany and English.

Anyone who could afford to own a copied bible to read was educated in Latin.

Anyone who could afford a printed bible could read their native language. That was so few people it was still inaccessable to the masses.

The masses were quite satisfied to have people read highly selective portions in their own language and think they were freed from the papacy instead of simply changing masters.

Despite the touted merits of the various reformers I don't know of a single one, taken in toto, who was overall any better than what was replaced. In England and Germany there was little more than a change of ownership of the churches so far as the people could tell.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Old Seer wrote:
I probably couldn't find it myself. But that's what our studies have concluded--The proper form of Christianity when it went extinct was about that time after JC. Authoritarian floks stepped in and began to run it by deception. When they took over the original guides were gone. Christianity doesn't have authoritarians.  That's why the pope isn't a Christian--there is no hierarchy of power in Christianity as all that is given up. Where you have people with powers you'll have war. Europeans and others weren't supposed to read the bible because they would find plenty of reasons to question authority. The Euro interpretation stinks and is nothing but a mish mash of idiocy. I know you didn't misrepresent me---I merely got off on one of my infomercials (if it can be called that). We are anxious to have others know what we know so at time I get a bit overdoing.

Before I found the more productive and economical approach of going after the Septuagint I was quite familiar with Christian material.

You keep making pronouncements about real christianity with only the date of 130 AD in play. If one has faith only the gospels and epistles existed before then and without faith only the epistles -- in some form not necessarily the present form and all of them not just the chosen ones. The gospels are silent on Christians as they end before anything which could be imagined to be Christianity starts spreading.

The letters teach a few things and some other things are by inference. There is no way to get an entire body of whatever it was at the time from them. Other than liberal doses of imagination and fantasy how does one arrive at the REAL christianity?

 

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
In biblical writings

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Old Seer wrote:
a threat to authority. Even tho they weren't true Christians any attempt to show government wrong meant a death sentence. The very same may/will happen again when proper Christianity takes hold within the masses. Then again as in my previous post-that's what's happening (among other things) at the time the people begin to make changes which is the book of revelation. . The ones changing are very likely to be persecuted as before, only this time they'll be right. In the case of Wycliffe it was only a matter of not following the rule of the day. In those times one was persecuted whether right or wrong and was a matter of not believing those who made the rules. The same with the biblical Apostles---you don't go into Rome preaching a new religion without getting killed. In the US of a we have a constitution that allows one to believe as ones sees to. BUT, let proper Christianity take hold and you'll be seeing something quite different, the constitution may not mean much. Government will do what it's always done----try to keep the masses under their belief and materialistic systems as materialism and the pursuit of affluence is what creates most of the problems and divisions within societies, and between countries. When the concept of civilization is questioned and under threat of removal --go hide. Bear in mind that government is still "people" that want to be above the crowd, and contemplate whaey are willing and have to do to keep it that way.

Pardon but I have yet to find the Rome that exists in Christian mythology. Beliefs did not matter in the least in the empire. The idea of religion did not exist until maybe the 4th c. AD. There were worship practices. There was no requirement to worship except in times of danger and then it was pro forma and usually only once. Folks could rale all they wanted against Senate and Emperor decisions. Sedition and rebellion were all they cared about. They were pro-active in banning secret societies. But new religions were quite common. All they had to do was register and someone would watch them to verify they were just a religion. There was no reason any proto-christians needed to hide or be secretive.

 

apostles were executed in Rome for preaching their religion. Apostles wrote letters to their converts in the city of Rome. Christians were persecuted by the Romans.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
One cannot find

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Old Seer wrote:
I probably couldn't find it myself. But that's what our studies have concluded--The proper form of Christianity when it went extinct was about that time after JC. Authoritarian floks stepped in and began to run it by deception. When they took over the original guides were gone. Christianity doesn't have authoritarians.  That's why the pope isn't a Christian--there is no hierarchy of power in Christianity as all that is given up. Where you have people with powers you'll have war. Europeans and others weren't supposed to read the bible because they would find plenty of reasons to question authority. The Euro interpretation stinks and is nothing but a mish mash of idiocy. I know you didn't misrepresent me---I merely got off on one of my infomercials (if it can be called that). We are anxious to have others know what we know so at time I get a bit overdoing.

Before I found the more productive and economical approach of going after the Septuagint I was quite familiar with Christian material.

You keep making pronouncements about real christianity with only the date of 130 AD in play. If one has faith only the gospels and epistles existed before then and without faith only the epistles -- in some form not necessarily the present form and all of them not just the chosen ones. The gospels are silent on Christians as they end before anything which could be imagined to be Christianity starts spreading.

The letters teach a few things and some other things are by inference. There is no way to get an entire body of whatever it was at the time from them. Other than liberal doses of imagination and fantasy how does one arrive at the REAL christianity?

an exact formula for Christianity in the bible. It has to be deduced by the evidence given (I can say that only after the fact). It took the guys of our study group 8 years to find the overall contents of the religion. It's a religion based on the makeup of the personage of people. In the letters also there is no formula given as to what Christianity is. The puzzle we encountered is what one of the group came across when he couldn't understand what was being referred to in the letters as they didn't make sense to him. It was something I didn't comprehend previous and neither did any of the others. It rook a bit to see what he was getting at.

 You won't find an exact explanation of Christianity in the letters either because it's not in them. As a fact it can't be found any where in the book as to what it really is as far as a clear explanation . Once found by practical deduction we can now say that what is today is not Christianity. What we're saying is---we found what it really is. And that's why we use the term "proper Christianity", because what is understood by the masses as Christianity really isn't. From that we know that there are no Christians on the planet at this time. To the masses Christianity is an unknown, they simply don't realize it. What we mean is---you can't go to a particular place or page in the book to find a categorized listing of specifications. So far their Christianity is an assumption, and they don't realize that either. (try to tell them and see where you'll get with it).

  We came to see that the letters only referred or re-enforced or clarified or added to something they taught, but not "what"  they taught and that the additional information (the letters) was to be attached and included into something previous. The Apostles taught Christianity but it's nowhere to be found exactly what it is. The letters are an addition to what Christianity is/was at that time. We then realized that Christianity was an unknown. Then the question became---"what" is it. The reference"proper Christianity is used because they have already claimed that title and we don't know what else to refer to it as, except we know that it's nothing more then the same religion that was BC. So, to offset their claim we have to rename Christianity to "proper" Christianity to express the difference.

   If you go over the letters again you'll see we are right. You won't find a direct explanation of what Christianity really is. But- if you search the entire book (omitting Israelite history) you'll find it scattered throughout. If you don't want help that's OK, but it may take you 8 years as it did us. Maybe I should start a new thread on this but you guys get so abrasive that may make it not be worth while.

   

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Agree

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
   *  Wycliffe for many who might not know composed a translation in the English language. Most of Europe were poorly educated and the Vulgate (in Latin) was utterly inaccessible to the masses without bootleg copies in Germany and English.

Anyone who could afford to own a copied bible to read was educated in Latin.

Anyone who could afford a printed bible could read their native language. That was so few people it was still inaccessable to the masses.

The masses were quite satisfied to have people read highly selective portions in their own language and think they were freed from the papacy instead of simply changing masters.

Despite the touted merits of the various reformers I don't know of a single one, taken in toto, who was overall any better than what was replaced. In England and Germany there was little more than a change of ownership of the churches so far as the people could tell.

 

There can be only one Christianity. If there were twenty how would anyone know which is which. Either one is the right one ---or none of them are--it's the latter.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Old Seer wrote:
apostles were executed in Rome for preaching their religion. Apostles wrote letters to their converts in the city of Rome. Christians were persecuted by the Romans.
 

And when there are Roman records of this I will be very interested in reading them. The problem with the Christian mythology is the given reasons for their executions would not have gotten them executed regardless of anything we would reasonably have expected them to preach. They were Galileans telling Judeans their Messiah was coming back real soon and to set their lives in order if they wanted to rule the earth. It is not clear how that could get on the empire's radar. Rome did not have an ideology. It did not run a police state.

They would not have come into conflict with any worship of the city god unless there were some kind of threat to the city. Of all the threats plague is the only possible one in that time frame but none is reported. Plague would have required everyone in the city to sacrifice to the patron god of the city.

IF they were monotheists they would have sacrificed because they knew it was not to a real god. If they were polytheists they would have refused. It is not a choice you want to invoke.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
One cannot find

Old Seer wrote:

an exact formula for Christianity in the bible.

So all kinds of speculation and imagination and obvious BS is accepted as a substitute. They were polytheists else sacrificing to an idol would have been meaningless and their god would have known it and their god did not demand it anyway -- see gospels for silence on the subject.

Or they were monotheists and did sacrifice to the gods and suppressed their smiles while doing so and the justification for persecution is fantasy.

There are lots of things one can do with the available facts. But we both know you are not giving specifics because there is no credible evidence for anything you might say.

And the worst of all possible cases is the switch from doomsday cult to salvation cult because the two cannot be reconciled.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Old Seer wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
   *  Wycliffe for many who might not know composed a translation in the English language. Most of Europe were poorly educated and the Vulgate (in Latin) was utterly inaccessible to the masses without bootleg copies in Germany and English.

Anyone who could afford to own a copied bible to read was educated in Latin.

Anyone who could afford a printed bible could read their native language. That was so few people it was still inaccessable to the masses.

The masses were quite satisfied to have people read highly selective portions in their own language and think they were freed from the papacy instead of simply changing masters.

Despite the touted merits of the various reformers I don't know of a single one, taken in toto, who was overall any better than what was replaced. In England and Germany there was little more than a change of ownership of the churches so far as the people could tell.

There can be only one Christianity. If there were twenty how would anyone know which is which. Either one is the right one ---or none of them are--it's the latter.

There are dozens of mutually exclusive christianities. The idea of right is a joke. The very idea of religion, the invention of a word for it, is two centuries after Constantine. Christians could not have been a religion before the idea was invented. Trying to back fit a later idea upon people to whom the idea would have made no sense at all is absurd.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1581
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Christa-what-ity ?

 

 

Old Seer wrote:
I am looking for a different word to replace Christianity, so far ..

  Christa-what-ity??? #142

   Ambiguity wins the day. I think to help us all along you might want to look to the "cults". I think we all need to understand more about what you are hinting at, Old Seer. Now I am not using the word in the way ultra-fundamentalist Christians  do  nor in the far broader use of the term "cult" commonly seen on this board.  I suggest this only because, we have people claiming a true christianity via radical differences in belief. Most orthodox christianity is determined by defining God and claims surrounding Christ (assuming are willing to toy with the idea of his existence). Remember the board we're on. At the level of ambiguity you've exercised, I would think you invented your own civic organization, (rather than rediscovering some better expression). All I got is it was less 'Pauline' in the group's examination. You could always call yourself  Lifers  but it has a negative connotation. Anyhow, If you are not comfortable with that level of disclosure, I will understand. I have more respect for people being dogged and with exacting definitions than a safer 'making little to no claims', but that's human of me.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok'Ill put it this

danatemporary wrote:

 

 

Old Seer wrote:
I am looking for a different word to replace Christianity, so far ..

  Christa-what-ity??? #142

   Ambiguity wins the day. I think to help us all along you might want to look to the "cults". I think we all need to understand more about what you are hinting at, Old Seer. Now I am not using the word in the way ultra-fundamentalist Christians  do  nor in the far broader use of the term "cult" commonly seen on this board.  I suggest this only because, we have people claiming a true christianity via radical differences in belief. Most orthodox christianity is determined by defining God and claims surrounding Christ (assuming are willing to toy with the idea of his existence). Remember the board we're on. At the level of ambiguity you've exercised, I would think you invented your own civic organization, (rather than rediscovering some better expression). All I got is it was less 'Pauline' in the group's examination. You could always call yourself  Lifers  but it has a negative connotation. Anyhow, If you are not comfortable with that level of disclosure, I will understand. I have more respect for people being dogged and with exacting definitions than a safer 'making little to no claims', but that's human of me.

Yes we are ambiguous. That is because ---(think about this OK) we understand what Christianity really is (that's why we can say there are no Christians on the planet today). Christianity isn't linked to civilization because they are two different mentalities. Understand also that we of this faction are not Christians. We know what it is but cannot accomplish it because of the way the world/is works still at this present time. The ambiguity extends from - one that knows the rudiments of Christianity knows the civil mind--but-- one that is of the civilized mind does not understand the Christian mind. It takes a bit to get beyond the ambiguity. Bear in mind it took 20 to 30 of us 8 years to accomplish our conclusions. If you go go back to one of my statements in this thread (I think it is anyways) where I point out that Christianity is an unknown. We aren't Christians because the world interferes to heavily. One can be from time to time but one always has to get back to dealing with the world as it is on it's premises which remove one from the other. Those claiming to be Christian are civilized, so therefore- being that civilization is a different state of mind/being then Christianity then they---cannot be Christians any more then we. One will find ambiguity in the works until one understands the difference. all in our faction went through the same.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1581
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Dana has a must buy .. ..

  A  MUST  BUY 

 

Quote:
"It takes a bit to get beyond the ambiguity. Bear in mind it took 20 to 30 of us 8 years to accomplish our conclusions. If you go go back to one of my statements in this thread (I think it is anyways) where I point out that Christianity is an unknown. We aren't Christians because the world interferes to heavily. One can be from time to time but one always has to get back to dealing with the world as it is on it's premises which remove one from the other. Those claiming to be Christian are civilized, so therefore- being that civilization is a different state of mind/being then Christianity then they---cannot be Christians any more then we"..................

           You are a dear,     I am sure if I were born a cat my ultra-curiousity, far and above my breed, would have killed me already thousands of times over by about this time.     > Please allow me to say something I dont normally see the need in saying.   Obviously  normal christianity hasnt the necessary lexicon for what you are saying.  I was suggesting cults because they speak of themselves as 'other' be departure in doctrine in  the most emotionally  'emphatic' departure from much of what was past along to Protestant christianity. But that was most unhelpful.   This is a bit of a stretch  but I would like you to buy or pick up a copy of Buddhadharma (one word) Spring 2012 .   I  picked one up  on a lark  and read and re-read the thing more than a couple of times, cover to cover.   I think it has a expanded lexicon YOU NEED! View that as nothing but the kindest and for lack of a better term (and admittedly foreign) my extending 'grace'.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Everyone has a religion

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
   *  Wycliffe for many who might not know composed a translation in the English language. Most of Europe were poorly educated and the Vulgate (in Latin) was utterly inaccessible to the masses without bootleg copies in Germany and English.

Anyone who could afford to own a copied bible to read was educated in Latin.

Anyone who could afford a printed bible could read their native language. That was so few people it was still inaccessable to the masses.

The masses were quite satisfied to have people read highly selective portions in their own language and think they were freed from the papacy instead of simply changing masters.

Despite the touted merits of the various reformers I don't know of a single one, taken in toto, who was overall any better than what was replaced. In England and Germany there was little more than a change of ownership of the churches so far as the people could tell.

There can be only one Christianity. If there were twenty how would anyone know which is which. Either one is the right one ---or none of them are--it's the latter.

There are dozens of mutually exclusive christianities. The idea of right is a joke. The very idea of religion, the invention of a word for it, is two centuries after Constantine. Christians could not have been a religion before the idea was invented. Trying to back fit a later idea upon people to whom the idea would have made no sense at all is absurd.

 

or belongs to one kind/type or another. What one believes is also ones religion. Religion is that which one is ruled by as religion and belief are the same. Civilization is a religion of belief in the superiority of a few over the many. Religion is the rules one follows. If one believes in those that make the rules then they are God, as God is that which rules the person. God and force are one and the same. God is the forces one is under and surrounded by. Everyone exists within these forces. Government "is" force. One can be governed by their own inner forces or you can choose external forces-or you can be of either. There are always external forces that one is under. Christianity is an understanding of the "forces" and comprehending the affects of those forces upon the self and others. Force on it's own has no intelligence, but force can be a product of intelligence. There-fore then---God has no intelligence and can only exist within the framework of own own as "we" are the ones that are the intelligent, and from ones intelligence force upon others can be reasoned to- on how one can have an affect others. It's isn't the material and physical forces that Christianity is about. Christianity is about ones forces upon others and understanding the consequences of applying force on others. In total, It is about the inner forces of ones self and social forces that are inherent within, and of, a society and it's values.

   There are only two concepts by which relations are base upon. They are- human characteristics and animal characteristics. It is impossible for there to be any other as only two kinds of "being" exist within the universe, That is "human", which means being human toward each other. The other is animal being, which is being animalistic toward each other. These two sets of characteristics are of ones  given automatically by nature and not by authority of any person, one is naturally mentally formed with them. These two concepts are what make up one's "person". No one can get out of it---that's it---no place else tp go. ONE of these concepts is "Christianity/Adam". From the knowing of these two you can now make a choice to be a person "you" elect to be. At this time you are a product of the "State", civilized for the purposes of the "State". Civilization exists and functions on the "animal" entity, it's traits and characteristics. (IE- competition is an animal trait). You went to school (by force of the "State&quotEye-wink to be made into what they say you should be. You are going to have a tuff time believing that you are made by the State, but, you are, and the only way out of it is to become a -----Proper Christian, that exists (or tries to at this time) soley on the Human" characteristics. There's nothing wrong with "being" human, and nothing wrong with "being" animal (the only two states of mind that exist). What you have to decide is---what consequences you wish to undergo by "being" one or or the other. The consequences are what you see in the world today. The State promotes the animal, focres it's direction, then regulates how much  of an animal it will allow one to be. Laws are just cages

Your personage is now up to you. There is no such thing as a "human animal". at any given instant you are one or the other. Everything you do is to facilitate one side or the other. In one instance you're human, in the next you can be animal. Your choice now is---which of these do you want to serve, and which do you want to serve you.

 

      

    

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.