A challenge for true faith

Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
A challenge for true faith

Ladies and gentlemen, and when I say this I'm addressing it towards theists,

 

Recently, when paying a visit to the local courthouse, I've come across a little boy selling newspapers. I found out about his story by accident, just seeing him and asking what he was doing there.

The fact is that he has just about enough money to survive. Not much more. The local community has offered him a home and a job, some clothes, and food, occasionally.

If theists were to follow the words of Jesus Christ, then a most sensitive thing to do would be to give all their riches to the poor.

Well, if until now you had no poor to give to, I'm indicating one just for you. The boy is a Christian, too, you do see him going to church and praying, so there should be no problem with commandments against giving anything to "heathens".

 

Now... who's willing? And with what ammount? I'm waiting.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: If

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

If theists were to follow the words of Jesus Christ, then a most sensitive thing to do would be to give all their riches to the poor.

Come on theists. Remember Luke 18:25?


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
I just had a funny visual

I just had a funny visual image, christians throwing their money at each other. When one would give all to the poor then he himself would be poor and the poor would then have the money. It would be hilarious to watch.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I just had a funny

Quote:
I just had a funny visual image, christians throwing their money at each other. When one would give all to the poor then he himself would be poor and the poor would then have the money. It would be hilarious to watch.

I know, BGH, that's the point. Jesus didn't think that one over too well, I guess.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Anyone willing? Come on !

Anyone willing? Come on ! The "no true Christian" fallacy ! Prove it wrong !

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
It's kind of a side track,

It's kind of a side track, but I've always wondered why all the anti-abortion women aren't lining up at the adoption agencies.  Seems like that would be the Christian thing to do, doesn't it?

(psssst... there's a nasty reason why there are so many kids being juggled between foster homes until they're too old to be adopted... I won't tell you what it is, but you can probably figure it out for yourself if you think about who has the money to adopt, and who's likely to have her baby taken by the state...)

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It's kind of a side

Quote:
It's kind of a side track, but I've always wondered why all the anti-abortion women aren't lining up at the adoption agencies.  Seems like that would be the Christian thing to do, doesn't it?

You know what they say: "Love thy neighbour as ye love thyself! If one hits you on the cheek turn the other one too. But not in MY back yard!"

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


AModestProposal
AModestProposal's picture
Posts: 157
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
If you truly believe

If you truly believe absolutely that God is looking out for you, especially if you do good, then give all your money to those who need it. Afterall, it's easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than to get a rich man into heaven. And it's not easy to get a camel through the eye of a needle. I've tried. Angelina knows how to get into heaven (despite being an atheist). She's adopting the less fortunate at a breakneck speed. You have a lot of adopting to do to be as holy as Angelina.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
oooh... oooh... when I was

oooh... oooh...

when I was a theist, my pastor told me that it's not really an eye of a needle.  It's a hole in a wall, and it's kind of tough for a camel to get through it, but possible.

If it's a small camel.

So, logically, Jesus didn't mean it when he said "Give all your money to the poor," because camels CAN fit through the eyes of needles.

Don't you see?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis wrote: If

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
If theists were to follow the words of Jesus Christ, then a most sensitive thing to do would be to give all their riches to the poor.

Well, if until now you had no poor to give to, I'm indicating one just for you. The boy is a Christian, too, you do see him going to church and praying, so there should be no problem with commandments against giving anything to "heathens".

Rigor,

I have to admit, your story makes a very valid point.  Instead of pouring money into this very modern, humongous buildings it should be used for "missions" like helping this boy (I'm actually really curious as to where this is).  It does not serve God to be helping in foreign countries if you have need in your own town or city.

I do however have one issue with the use of Luke 18.  Jesus was making an example of one person in this chapter; it was not a blanket statement for every person.  What good would a believer be if he/she needs money to purchase the items that the poor cannot?  What good could I do if I can't afford to live in a house or buy food for myself? God does not want anyone to do beyond their own means if it means becoming a failure.  Jesus used this one rich man because he already knew his heart and knew that he could not follow because of his love for money over God.  But he did not say that of everyone nor does he demand it from everyone.  Remember also, giving away a ton of money to one person, would this actually help them?  If I see a homeless person on the corner asking for money, I do not give money but ask them what can I do for them like purchase their next meal or go into K-Mart and get them a blanket if it's cold out or a cooler if it's hot out with cold water so they have a place to hold on to it.  It's never been about just giving all that you have, it's about following the will of God when God calls you to act.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Jesus was making an

Quote:
Jesus was making an example of one person in this chapter; it was not a blanket statement for every person.

prove it.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Jesus was making an example of one person in this chapter; it was not a blanket statement for every person.

prove it.

That's right I forgot who I'm addressing.  You can't understand the term "context"...as in within the context of the story or "in context to what was said".... You got me again hamby. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Yes, I did.  I caught you

Yes, I did.  I caught you spouting your opinion as if it's somehow valid, just because it's your opinion.

EVIDENCE, razor!  EVIDENCE!

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Yes, I

Hambydammit wrote:
Yes, I did. I caught you spouting your opinion as if it's somehow valid, just because it's your opinion.

EVIDENCE, razor! EVIDENCE!

You want evidence as to the context in which Luke 18:25 was used?  Read Luke 18:18-30.  You'll notice that the first line states "A certain ruler asked him, 'Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?'" I didn't see that line stating "what must the world do to inherit eternal life."  Read the full passage...there is your biblical evidence to the context of the verse Luke 18:25.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
There goes that jesus

There goes that jesus character again, saying one thing and meaning another. You would think the "son of god" could be a little clearer.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: There goes that

BGH wrote:
There goes that jesus character again, saying one thing and meaning another. You would think the "son of god" could be a little clearer.

He was.  It's not his fault you put your own assumptions as to the meaning of his words... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Peter began to speak: "I

Peter began to speak: "I now realize that it is true that God treats everyone on the same basis. Whoever fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him, no matter what race he belongs to.
(Acts 10:34-35 TEV)

Does anyone think he is religious? If he does not control his tongue, his religion is worthless and he deceives himself. What God the Father considers to be pure and genuine religion is this: to take care of orphans and widows in their suffering and to keep oneself from being corrupted by the world. (James 1:26-27 TEV)

...What he requires of us is this: to do what is just, to show constant love, and to live in humble fellowship with our God.
(Micah 6:8 TEV)

A teacher of the Law came up and tried to trap Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to receive eternal life?"
Jesus answered him, "What do the Scriptures say? How do you interpret them?"
The man answered, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind."; and 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself.'"
"You are right," Jesus replied; "do this and you will live."

(Luke 10:25-28 TEV)

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.
(Mark 16:16 TEV)

Jesus spoke to the Pharisees again. "I am the light of the world," he said. "Whoever follows me will have the light of life and will never walk in darkness."
(John 8:12 TEV)

For just as all people die because of their union with Adam, in the same way all will be raised to life because of their union with Christ.
(1 Corinthians 15:22 TEV)

We struggle and work hard, because we have placed our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all and especially of those who believe.
(1 Timothy 4:10 TEV)

I dunno, razor. Taking all these verses together, it's hard for me to see that it makes sense in context. God treats all people the same. Individual people have different things they have to do. Works get you to heaven. Belief in Jesus gets you to heaven. Everybody goes to heaven.

Seems pretty crazy for you to take that one little passage out of context by not including all these other verses about salvation in the mix... oh, all these other verses that contradict each other.

I know you can explain all of this to yourself. Your explanation makes perfect sense to you, because you start by assuming you're right, and where the facts don't fit, you just change what they mean.

But once again, you're being intellectually dishonest. You're taking what you want to believe, and asserting its truth even though there are other passages that, taken in context, disagree with you.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Well, as far I am concerned

Well, as far I am concerned I don't believe that he ever existed, if he did he was no "son of god" because there is no god.

Meaning is a funny thing, gather ten xians in a room and at least eight out of the ten will interpret meaning different from the guy next to him. Xians put meaning on scripture, I do not, scripture means nothing to me. The xians have a very hard time following the meaning they put into it and change the meaning when it doesn't fit what they want.

Go figure.... more re-interperation! 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
BGH, What gets me hot under

BGH, What gets me hot under the collar is when you put it right there in front of them.

I mean, read my post!  There are at least seven or eight conflicting verses dealing with how to be saved.  You can "read them in context" all you want.  The fact is, Jesus, and the apostles, and the OT writers all said different things.

There's even a passage that says god treats everyone the same, but it doesn't matter!

razor, and all the other theists will smile, nod politely at the dissenters, and keep on believing that their book is inerrant and that all this nonsense makes perfect sense.

If you corner them on science, they'll say, "I don't believe in science."  How do you respond to that?  The best you can do is say, "Ok.  You're looney."   At that point, it's not debate, or even conversation, because logic and meaning have just been tossed to the four winds.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: BGH,

Hambydammit wrote:

BGH, What gets me hot under the collar is when you put it right there in front of them.

I mean, read my post! There are at least seven or eight conflicting verses dealing with how to be saved. You can "read them in context" all you want. The fact is, Jesus, and the apostles, and the OT writers all said different things.

There's even a passage that says god treats everyone the same, but it doesn't matter!

razor, and all the other theists will smile, nod politely at the dissenters, and keep on believing that their book is inerrant and that all this nonsense makes perfect sense.

If you corner them on science, they'll say, "I don't believe in science." How do you respond to that? The best you can do is say, "Ok. You're looney." At that point, it's not debate, or even conversation, because logic and meaning have just been tossed to the four winds.

I think you stated that perfectly. To them it is always about context or misinterpetation, but to us the book is a crock of shit.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I mean,

Hambydammit wrote:
I mean, read my post! There are at least seven or eight conflicting verses dealing with how to be saved. You can "read them in context" all you want. The fact is, Jesus, and the apostles, and the OT writers all said different things.

Using the TEV huh?  OK.  Not exactly the most accurate translation from the greek texts...

Hamby I wonder, would you guys have believed that Bruce Willis' character in The Sixth Sense was alive until it was explained for you (makes me wonder if you would continue to believe that if you didn't see the ending)?  If you were telling the story of the movie, would you have said Bruce Wilis did this or that but never mentioned he was actually dead, what context would the person you were telling the story to assume what was going on with that character or the movie?  I'm not sure I am making any sense to you or anyone else, again...but I'm always hopeful.

Hambydammit wrote:
If you corner them on science, they'll say, "I don't believe in science." How do you respond to that? The best you can do is say, "Ok. You're looney." At that point, it's not debate, or even conversation, because logic and meaning have just been tossed to the four winds.

Just to be clear, even though you took me out of context as well, I did not mean to say only "I don't believe in science."  In the thread, I meant to say "I don't believe in the science that explains human evolution."  I apologize for that. 

 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, razor.  I get it. 

Yeah, razor.  I get it.  You don't believe in any science that disagrees with what you know to be true because a book with dozens of translations from a language you don't read can be interpreted to say so.

Great argument.

Quote:
Hamby I wonder, would you guys have believed that Bruce Willis' character in The Sixth Sense was alive until it was explained for you (makes me wonder if you would continue to believe that if you didn't see the ending)?  If you were telling the story of the movie, would you have said Bruce Wilis did this or that but never mentioned he was actually dead, what context would the person you were telling the story to assume what was going on with that character or the movie?  I'm not sure I am making any sense to you or anyone else, again...but I'm always hopeful.

No, it doesn't make any sense.  It's a movie.  Fiction.  And I figured out he was dead on my own well before the end --  'Cause I used logic.  And your analogy, as usual, doesn't have anything to do with anything.

 Razor, you'll be happy to know that I'm not going to bother with you any more, at least for a while.  You don't debate.  You just assert.  And you lie.  Then you say you weren't lying, and so lie again.  You don't know anything about evolution.  You blithely dismiss whatever science you don't like, and you've once again proven this to everyone reading.

I will gladly grant you the last word in this playground skuffle if you'd like to tell me how mean I am.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Yeah,

Hambydammit wrote:
Yeah, razor. I get it. You don't believe in any science that disagrees with what you know to be true because a book with dozens of translations from a language you don't read can be interpreted to say so.

See this is what I don't understand.  Twice now I explain my intention and you still simpfly for what purpose I don't understand.  

Hambydammit wrote:
No, it doesn't make any sense. It's a movie. Fiction. And I figured out he was dead on my own well before the end -- 'Cause I used logic. And your analogy, as usual, doesn't have anything to do with anything.

The second thing I don't understand.  I put it in a term you'll understand and I know you understand it but you won't address it.  Why?  Guess I'll never truly know. 

Hambydammit wrote:
Razor, you'll be happy to know that I'm not going to bother with you any more, at least for a while. You don't debate. You just assert. And you lie. Then you say you weren't lying, and so lie again. You don't know anything about evolution. You blithely dismiss whatever science you don't like, and you've once again proven this to everyone reading.

Actually it doesn't make me happy because you are basically throwing a hissy fit.  No desire to accept any explination, will run with what you percieved to be a lie and stick with that, and accuse me of assertion for what purpose I still don't understand either.  You ask a question, I answer it according to my faith and according to what is written in the bible.  I post it with the full understanding that you do not accept that word so it confuses me why you ask the question that you won't ever accept an answer for anyway.  It shows very little good will on your part...

So in short, hamby come back!  Let's play nice... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Razor, maybe it would help

Razor, maybe it would help to say it this way:

Just because your bible says it (and you intrepret it a certain way) doesn't make it true.

For instance (and yes, this is a silly example on purpose), if your bible said that at two years of age sheep turn into dogs, that obviously doesn't make it true.  Proof would be something  showing (and proving) that sheep at the age of two actually turn into dogs.

Does that help? 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I do however have

Quote:
I do however have one issue with the use of Luke 18.  Jesus was making an example of one person in this chapter; it was not a blanket statement for every person.  What good would a believer be if he/she needs money to purchase the items that the poor cannot?  What good could I do if I can't afford to live in a house or buy food for myself? God does not want anyone to do beyond their own means if it means becoming a failure.  Jesus used this one rich man because he already knew his heart and knew that he could not follow because of his love for money over God.  But he did not say that of everyone nor does he demand it from everyone.

Very interesting point, razorphreak, and I will base this post on trying to prove you the opposite of what you just said. Of course, using nothing else than the Bible.

To prove that this "giving to the poor" is a must (and I must correct myself, not giving necessarily ALL riches to the poor), I will examine verses throughout the Bible. It should constitute enough proof that within the Bible, this attitude towards the poor is continuous, consistent and compulsory.

First, we have a bit of the Old Testament, within the Deuteronomy:

Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

I think this one is self-explanatory. And Deuteronomy again:

Deut. 26:12. When you have finished paying the complete tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied.

Again, this one quite wraps it up if it comes to compulsory generosity. Leviticus, of course, has its own fair share:

Lev. 19:19ff. Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.

Metaphorical or not, it cannot be avoided. Proverbs and Isaiah do a very synergistic team when it comes to compulsory social service (and as I consider it is one of the very few actually good parts from the Bible):

Prov. 31:8ff. (Commandment for the kings) Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

Is. 58:66ff. Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

They even talk about rights. In the Old Testament.

Now we go on to the New Testament, and we see, regarding the attitude towards the poor, the same lines:

Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

Luke 3:11. And [John the Baptist] would answer and say to them, "Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise."

Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

I guess this is it then. Right from the mouth of Jesus Christ.

 

So yes, I think that the attitude towards the poor must apply to everyone, unlike what you suggested. It is you who has taken out of context, as it is known that the stories Jesus told and the parables he used he didn't use for himself only, but for the crowds.

Furthermore, and I'll go into overkill here, both the OT and the NT state what will happen if you DON'T adopt this attitude towards the poor, and simply mistreat or ignore them:

Ezek. 16:49ff. "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it." (side note: what did God punish Sodom for?)

Is. 10:1-3. "Woe to those who enact evil statutes, and to those who continually record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights... Now what will you do in the day of punishment, and in the devastation which will come from afar? (side note: again, the Bible talks about rights; Isaiah must have been written by someone who had contact with law and systems of justice; possibly a blend between more modern trends at that time and the traditional beliefs, disguising everything as one large parable)

Ezek. 22:29,31. "The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice... Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads," declares the Lord GOD.

James 5:1-6. Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. ...Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. (heavy and gruesome passage)

Jer. 5:28f. "[The wicked] do not plead the cause, the cause of the orphan, that they may prosper; and they do not defend the rights of the poor. Shall I not punish these people?" declares the LORD. "On such a nation as this, shall I not avenge myself?" (I don't know for what reason, Katrina comes to mind...)

Luke 16:19-25. "Now there was a certain rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, gaily living in splendor every day. And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs would come and lick his sores.
Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. And in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue; for I am in agony in this flame.'
But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony...'" (another J.C. parable)

 

So that pretty much wraps it up. Your argument defeated. Should I send you the bank account number?

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Just to

razorphreak wrote:

Just to be clear, even though you took me out of context as well, I did not mean to say only "I don't believe in science." In the thread, I meant to say "I don't believe in the science that explains human evolution." I apologize for that.

 

You have conflicting evidence?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote:

Susan wrote:
Just because your bible says it (and you intrepret it a certain way) doesn't make it true.

For instance (and yes, this is a silly example on purpose), if your bible said that at two years of age sheep turn into dogs, that obviously doesn't make it true. Proof would be something showing (and proving) that sheep at the age of two actually turn into dogs.

Does that help?


I understand what you are saying however I think one of the biggest problems with how many are approaching the bible is in terms of absolutes. If it stated it earlier in the bible it must be true for the WHOLE bible. If I were to say something like "since all atheists don't believe in God, and those who don't believe in God are said to be drug users, then all atheists must be drug users", you'd know it's not true because it wasn't in context with where I heard a specific person, who happened to be an atheist, was a drug user. Those are the kind of statements that I am hearing from quite a few of you regarding specific verses in the bible. It feels like an effort in futility trying to explain every single verse (like the one's that rigor showed) because somehow, my "interpretation" will always be wrong even if I know because of the studies I've put forth in the bible are correct in accordance to how they were based from the original greek versions, what life was like 2000+ years ago, and based upon my faith of what is written is in fact the words from men inspired by God directly.

One note about the poor statements; Rigor I heard something recently, I forget who said it, but I'm sure you'll probably feel resolved in some way - "All Christians are either missionaries or hypocrites." I agree with that as I do with much of what you wrote. I agree with how you stated that the attitude towards the poor must be for all however I think you are almost saying two different things while trying to prove one. Christians above most must be aware of those less fortunate than themselves and that is the point of helping. However simply giving everything you have was NEVER the point of any of those verses nor was it what Jesus was saying. He stated it only to the one man. OK now stop.  Now the examples of the other verses speak of giving when asked and not worrying about the return. I never said don't give...I said God didn't want you to give all to the poor and become unable to help yourself. You give all possible, where what you do with your hands being the biggest asset you have (not material things) because you will receive rewards. Does that mean you shouldn't accept the rewards? Does it mean you shouldn't receive your wages for the work you do? Not at all. God knows what will make you happy as well and you will receive reward on Earth as well as Heaven.

Mark 10:29-31 I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

But that isn't the end of the point that Jesus made nor is it the end of the point of the rest of the bible.

To the question if I had conflicting evidence on human evolution....I say this: I do not accept the evidence presented because I have something that says otherwise but rather I do not agree with the evidence in hand because I do not agree with what has been assumed it represents. The assumptions of how we evolved does not strike me as accurate and while I know it doesn't make any sense to say "You're wrong because I said so", my reasons are beyond my beliefs.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: my

razorphreak wrote:

my reasons are beyond my beliefs.

Your reasons are beyond my belief also...

I am glad you can interpet the evidence better than the actual scientists. 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Your reasons are

BGH wrote:
Your reasons are beyond my belief also...

I am glad you can interpet the evidence better than the actual scientists.

And I'm amazed at how easily you follow the rest accepting blindly at evidence you yourself have never seen.  Most of us will never have the chance to prove the earth isn't flat or that we can fly or even that the moon really isn't made of cheese, but does that mean we should simply accept it because someone else said so?  I see skulls that look like that from an ape yet I am supposed to accept that they were early humans?  Any scientist can explain to his heart's content what he found out of the ground but it doesn't mean it is in fact the truth.  I gave the example of the T-Rex before....same thing. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: And I'm

razorphreak wrote:

And I'm amazed at how easily you follow the rest accepting blindly at evidence you yourself have never seen.

What you don't seem to understand is the evidence is there, you actually can review it. It has been published in journals and reviewed by other scientists as work done properly. It has been rechecked by other scientists looking for mistakes. It is not the word of one guy, it is not professed as devine and unquestionable. It can be debated and discussed with opposing views.

razorphreak wrote:
Most of us will never have the chance to prove the earth isn't flat or that we can fly or even that the moon really isn't made of cheese, but does that mean we should simply accept it because someone else said so?

Same comment: "What you don't seem to understand is the evidence is there, you actually can review it. It has been published in journals and reviewed by other scientists as work done properly. It has been rechecked by other scientists looking for mistakes. It is not the word of one guy, it is not professed as devine and unquestionable. It can be debated and discussed with opposing views. "

razorphreak wrote:
I see skulls that look like that from an ape yet I am supposed to accept that they were early humans? Any scientist can explain to his heart's content what he found out of the ground but it doesn't mean it is in fact the truth. I gave the example of the T-Rex before....same thing.

But... you hold faith in a book written by medevil story tellers who sound delusional and prone to magical thinking? The events in this book are completely unverifiable and seem to have no basis in reality. Rather, the writing seems to stand on the brink of insanity with , zombies, talking bushes, worldwide floods, speaking serpents, virgin births, molding humans out of dirt, making a woman out of a rib, unicorns, dragons.... etc.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: It can be

BGH wrote:
It can be debated and discussed with opposing views.

Don't be a hypocrite.  When I hear that I would actually assume that you'd mean what you say then, as even you have done so on this thread and this last post, reject an "opposing view" as being "delusional".  That does not sound to me like anyone who is debating or discussing but rather "I don't care what you say, what "scientists" have proven is the truth and that's the end of it." 

BGH wrote:
But... you hold faith in a book written by medevil story tellers who sound delusional and prone to magical thinking? The events in this book are completely unverifiable and seem to have no basis in reality. Rather, the writing seems to stand on the brink of insanity with , zombies, talking bushes, worldwide floods, speaking serpents, virgin births, molding humans out of dirt, making a woman out of a rib, unicorns, dragons.... etc.

So the person who came to you with proof of ghosts, what did you say to that?  What about the proof of life on mars?  And the person who's cancer disappeared without any medical intervention?  The proof has been around for quite some time yet you'd rather reject it because it doesn't go with your accepted beliefs.  Calling it insanity does not sound like someone who wants to debate or discuss anything....more like someone who has a prejudice against any idea other than your own.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Nobody ever has had proof of

Nobody ever has had proof of ghosts, and the scientific proof of life on Mars is only bacteria. The stories of cancer disappearing are urban legends.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Don't

razorphreak wrote:

Don't be a hypocrite. When I hear that I would actually assume that you'd mean what you say then, as even you have done so on this thread and this last post, reject an "opposing view" as being "delusional". That does not sound to me like anyone who is debating or discussing but rather "I don't care what you say, what "scientists" have proven is the truth and that's the end of it."

Yes, you and I are debating but according to the teachings of the dogma and the bible, followers are not to question or doubt. In science questioning is encouraged.

razorphreak wrote:
So the person who came to you with proof of ghosts, what did you say to that?

Never has been provided, show me evidence then we will talk.

razorphreak wrote:
What about the proof of life on mars?

No conclusive evidence yet, but they are working on it and when/if they gather any it will be peer reviewed and published. Then I will look at it and make up my mind.

razorphreak wrote:
And the person who's cancer disappeared without any medical intervention? The proof has been around for quite some time yet you'd rather reject it because it doesn't go with your accepted beliefs.

Proof?

razorphreak wrote:
Calling it insanity does not sound like someone who wants to debate or discuss anything....more like someone who has a prejudice against any idea other than your own.

Maybe I should have explained, I am not dismissing the beliefs out of hand. I spent the major part of my life TRYING to believe. Trying to have faith. Trying to follow teachings in the bible. So now looking back, looking at the crazy shit in the bible and remembering how I tried to convince myself it was true leads me to call it insanity. To me, holding on to those IRRATIONAL beliefs in spite of real evidnece is INSANE. It is not prejudice, because I have been there. Prejudice comes when one judges something before know anything about it.

Maybe you should call me POSTJUDICE, that is more acurrate.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak, is there

razorphreak, is there someplace to find an accounting of the actual dollars going to help situations like the story outlines along with a comparative list of the contributors adjusted gross income? 

 

I understand that most religions require a specific percentage of each members income be tithed to their church, and I am sure there are churches that provide relief to those in need but I would like to see some numbers on this.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: One note about the

Quote:
One note about the poor statements; Rigor I heard something recently, I forget who said it, but I'm sure you'll probably feel resolved in some way - "All Christians are either missionaries or hypocrites." I agree with that as I do with much of what you wrote. I agree with how you stated that the attitude towards the poor must be for all however I think you are almost saying two different things while trying to prove one. Christians above most must be aware of those less fortunate than themselves and that is the point of helping. However simply giving everything you have was NEVER the point of any of those verses nor was it what Jesus was saying. He stated it only to the one man. OK now stop.  Now the examples of the other verses speak of giving when asked and not worrying about the return. I never said don't give...I said God didn't want you to give all to the poor and become unable to help yourself. You give all possible, where what you do with your hands being the biggest asset you have (not material things) because you will receive rewards. Does that mean you shouldn't accept the rewards? Does it mean you shouldn't receive your wages for the work you do? Not at all. God knows what will make you happy as well and you will receive reward on Earth as well as Heaven.

...which is exactly why I corrected myself when I replied to you. Check the first part of the post.

Quote:
The assumptions of how we evolved does not strike me as accurate and while I know it doesn't make any sense to say "You're wrong because I said so", my reasons are beyond my beliefs.

I hope you realize the same applies to us on the view of how we were created.

Quote:
So the person who came to you with proof of ghosts, what did you say to that?  What about the proof of life on mars?  And the person who's cancer disappeared without any medical intervention?  The proof has been around for quite some time yet you'd rather reject it because it doesn't go with your accepted beliefs.  Calling it insanity does not sound like someone who wants to debate or discuss anything....more like someone who has a prejudice against any idea other than your own.

Listen, razorphreak, no malice intended, but where are you taking those from? Please, for me, make the effort of showing me where that proof of ghosts, life on Mars and cancer disappearing is ? Any souorce? any document? any site?

I've searched the net about three hours for ghost pictures, and all I've found were pictures of indistinguishable lighting patterns, that are so hard to make up in a shape of a real ghost, that I've had to quit.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/