The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:We simply

BobSpence1 wrote:

We simply want you to make a start on laying out the experiences that contributed to your belief in God. It is you who make it complicated by continuing to find reasons to avoid just going ahead on that basis, asking us to tell you just what we want or expect as evidence.

You're on the wrong forum then


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:BobSpence1

Brian37 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Cap, take heart here, we are not "distracting" you. We simply are not fooled by theism. We simply have played this chess game countless times. And even as you can see by my objections to my friend Bob, I see better tactics to "skin the cat" for lack of better metaphor.

 

Bob is the good cop and I am the bad cop, he is willing to take the more scenic route and I cut to the chase. But, dispite our disagreements he and I are well versed in your thinking and you will have a hard time with both of us, not to mention others here.

Quit complaining about what tactics we use and provide demonstrable evidence other than "words have different meanings". DUH! But how does that translate into evidence? You can fight with Bob or me. You can try the scenic route with him or take me on, but in the end the generic claim of "supernatural" is an unfalsifiable claim and as worthy of consideration as smurfs or vampires.

He's the only friend you've got, me......as most here know...am out for blood(not litterally of course, just in debate).

if you've been reading the posts, most of my complaints have talked about not being on topic.  It has nothing to do with your tactic, just that you shy away from the point.  You're both on the wrong forum to be attempting these approaches.

Another one has been started.  See you there.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Perhaps you need a class in comparative government systems. 

PS: Why do you jump to the NT when we were talking about the OT??? The best way to understand these problems is to do so by pretending the NT doesn't exist while you analyze the OT, otherwise you'll just run off to the Jesus saves exit and ignore the problems.

Our conversation has moved from the book to something of the other forum. 

You say our country is a system of fair justice.  Followers of God see Him in the same way.  Yes we didn't vote for him.  Kings don't get voted in.  He created it, therefore he rules it. 

NT clarifies and completes the OT law, its' not "Jesus Saves" and c ya.

anything else about the book?

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 Actually I never did think that.

And why not?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Well I did

Brian37 wrote:

Well I did think of my parents and I wanted to challenge them, but because of my age and superstitions and lack of knoweldge I was most certainly plyable to their demands, not because I was willing in every case, but because I feared physical punishment or denial of food or affection.

A parent unwilling to learn is a dictator, and god is an empty threat to reality because reality is what we all face.

Being the alpha male doesn't make you  die less or more than a subordinate. Learing and the willingness to conceed when proven wrong  can help all to extend the ride.

It's not my place to get involved in your family life.  It sounds as if there may have not been much love between you and your parents then. 

I apologise and would not expect you to understand the comparison I presented.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Cap.

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Cap. Simple is certainly an atheist message. For what reason(s) do you think mature thinking atheists reject god of abe type ideas?

I know there are many reasons.  Usually it's because they want to make it more complicated than it is. 

That is not intended to upset you, it's honestly how I see it from what I experienced.

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

I feel foolish because this abe god faith is even embarrassing. I am still here because I care.

Thanks

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Your Becky Garrison is just another cleaver brainwashed dreamer. "A Full Out War" is necessary against "Religious Faith" , and was even the " gnosis (knowing) " jesus character message against the masses and majority of NT jesus story writers.

Cap,  Do not think I have come to bring peace (( appeasement with the faithful, the surrenderies to idol master worshiping )) , but instead to bring a sword, to divide the simple "knowing" from the "faithful"

You seemed to have made that clear.  I welcome it.

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

   Amazon review regarding Becky Garrison's book, " The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail"

1out of 5 stars Lacks Understanding of Proactive Atheism, May 7, 2008

   By Christopher Ockman - "I always give writers/critics like this a chance, but I still end up feeling that we're being demonized. There has never been a war fought over the non-existence of God or in the name of a non-God. Of course people put their philosophies up against others'. It's how philosophy grows stronger/how bad or fal

Books like this are just signs of religion growing weak. While we're still a minority, we're growing like the ice caps are melting ( bad analogy, I know ). People are getting smarter/less gullible, and are demanding reason and logic. Go ahead and boohoo about how us mean old atheists are trying to take away your blankies."

 

That review just shows me he missed the point.  From what I read, she wasn't "boohooing about mean atheists", she was clarifying misrepresentations of Christianity by others who claim to follow Christ and how some atheist writers have used their mistakes to back up the claim of no God. 

obviously more to it, but that's in short


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Well I did think of my parents and I wanted to challenge them, but because of my age and superstitions and lack of knoweldge I was most certainly plyable to their demands, not because I was willing in every case, but because I feared physical punishment or denial of food or affection.

A parent unwilling to learn is a dictator, and god is an empty threat to reality because reality is what we all face.

Being the alpha male doesn't make you  die less or more than a subordinate. Learing and the willingness to conceed when proven wrong  can help all to extend the ride.


It's not my place to get involved in your family life.  It sounds as if there may have not been much love between you and your parents then. 

I apologise and would not expect you to understand the comparison I presented.

Boy for someone accusing us of taking things out of context you sure got all of us here beat.

I never accused my parents of not loving me. I simply don't think they understood how their toughness(because that was the way they were raised) conflicted with my sensitive nature(which I didn't understand was ok) So I tried too hard to be what others, not just my parents, but people in general, I fell for it. "I'm not like them, I must be doing something wrong".

. My problems as a kid and teen were average and quite normal considering that I didn't go down the wrong path. So even though my parents and I didn't get along, it was not because we didn't love each other, because MY MOM, who is still alive, shows it in so many ways. IT WAS BECAUSE WE WERE FROM DIFFERENT GENERATIONS. BTW, my mom and I get along far better now, because I have accepted myself the way I am.

AND no one was asking you FYI to be my shrink. It is as if you jumped on normal child hood problems and said to yourself, "AH HA.....his strife as a kid is why he is an atheist now".

 The only reason I dont buy your god claim or any for that matter is because there is no evidence and it is all rooted in mythological antiquity written by people who had no knowledge of scientific reality.

My parents have had an excuse, they could not crawl into my brain to figure out how to communicate with me, nor I them. What is your "all powerful" god's excuse?

Your beef should not be with me, I am doing what humans should do, question. Your beef should be with the logic you use.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:NT clarifies

caposkia wrote:

NT clarifies and completes the OT law, its' not "Jesus Saves" and c ya.

My view is the OT must stand on its own without the NT to provide the foundation. If this foundation fails the entire construct fails. IMO it fails out of the gate from its mythological origins. Christians jump to the OT to argue issues that are none of their concern if they really follow the message of Jesus. Yet they run to the NT as you did to claim it clarifies the OT. If the OT can't stand on its own under dissection the whole house falls. As Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian it is the basic requirement to proceed. 

caposkia wrote:

anything else about the book?

Actually yes, we can talk about the following that we haven't addressed from my post #584:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So let's discuss "toxic church settings", "rigorous rules", playing into the hands of New Atheists or the universal message you think you see in the supposed words of Jesus in the Gospels.The author seemed to think throughout her book that misunderstanding of the gospels was a major problem as you seem to say as well in your posts.

To Which you responded:

caposkia wrote:

Sounds like a good start.  I'd be very interested in discussing it.

How do you see toxic church settings as contributing to the woes of Christianity? IMO I see it as the opening of a door to consideration of other possibilities. In other words as churches rant against ideas by using methods that are unsupportable it blows away all their legitimacy they claim to have from the bible and the message alleged to be of Jesus. It causes people to realize if this is pure bunk perhaps all of the church's ideas are.

As to rigorous rules I would think Garrison primarily means the Catholic Church though they have become quite creative in their attempt to hold followers in recent times. As for example the Church taking the position evolution could have been the way God did it. Other churches that ban alcohol, pork etc do so on very weak basis as well which again weakens their hold when looked at under scrutiny.

As to the universal message you see please explain your position and why it can't be misinterpretation of the original goals of Jesus the man (note not the son of a god)?

 

caposkia wrote:

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 Actually I never did think that.

And why not?

My parents did not treat us in an authoritarian manner. We were allowed to learn and make decisions on our own. Religious belief was not something we questioned because we assumed it to all be true just like Santa until further investigation (at least in my case) showed it to be not likely.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Sure, The

caposkia wrote:
Sure, The United States always goes to war because we like to kill, right?

The United States goes to war for earthly reasons, like securing resources. When the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they acted like the Old Testament God. Was that "good"? Have we descended so far into madness that we should prefer the slaughter of civilians to any other course of action? Would we determine that a god who encourages that kind of behaviour is somehow a positive influence?

caposkia wrote:
Anticipation? or making a point?

My point is that you have a latently violent superego that identifies with the Old Testament's God, and you're defending it like a battered wife makes excuses for her husband.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Boy for

Brian37 wrote:

Boy for someone accusing us of taking things out of context you sure got all of us here beat.

maybe I'm finally understanding your approach!!! (don't dwell on it, just sarcasm)

Brian37 wrote:

I never accused my parents of not loving me. I simply don't think they understood how their toughness(because that was the way they were raised) conflicted with my sensitive nature(which I didn't understand was ok) So I tried too hard to be what others, not just my parents, but people in general, I fell for it. "I'm not like them, I must be doing something wrong".

. My problems as a kid and teen were average and quite normal considering that I didn't go down the wrong path. So even though my parents and I didn't get along, it was not because we didn't love each other, because MY MOM, who is still alive, shows it in so many ways. IT WAS BECAUSE WE WERE FROM DIFFERENT GENERATIONS. BTW, my mom and I get along far better now, because I have accepted myself the way I am.

So to go further with our relevent conversation, though you understand now that your parents wanted you to be what they thought would be right for you and you didn't understand, you know that they still just wanted the best for you.

God is the same understanding except that He knows what is best for you.  You may not understand it, you may feel quite inferior or feel you're doing something wrong always, but you're comparing youself to God as you would your parents and/or friends, you'll never be them because you are yourself.  All you can do is strive to be the best you can be. 

The different generations does make a difference with our human parents, but God is the same and always will be, therefore, the standards have never changed.  Just through the generations, people haven't fully understood, therefore, we still don't fully understand everything. 

That's just the simple comparison.  now we can move on to other ideas.  Keep this one so as to peice it together later.

Brian37 wrote:

AND no one was asking you FYI to be my shrink. It is as if you jumped on normal child hood problems and said to yourself, "AH HA.....his strife as a kid is why he is an atheist now".

talk about taking things out of context

Brian37 wrote:

 The only reason I dont buy your god claim or any for that matter is because there is no evidence and it is all rooted in mythological antiquity written by people who had no knowledge of scientific reality.

I understand that's what you believe.  your matter of fact conclusion as I've said in the past must have research for basis,please present some of it.

Brian37 wrote:

My parents have had an excuse, they could not crawl into my brain to figure out how to communicate with me, nor I them. What is your "all powerful" god's excuse?

we don't listen to Him and ignore him.  Could you legitimately deny that?

Brian37 wrote:

Your beef should not be with me, I am doing what humans should do, question. Your beef should be with the logic you use.

 

I have no beef with you.  I expect you to question.  The only problem is, you're doing more concluding than questioning. 

It was questioning that brought me to the belief I hold today.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:My

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

My view is the OT must stand on its own without the NT to provide the foundation. If this foundation fails the entire construct fails. IMO it fails out of the gate from its mythological origins. Christians jump to the OT to argue issues that are none of their concern if they really follow the message of Jesus. Yet they run to the NT as you did to claim it clarifies the OT. If the OT can't stand on its own under dissection the whole house falls. As Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian it is the basic requirement to proceed. 

The OT does stand on its own.  Jesus just fulfilled the law.  What law?  The OT law, that's precisely how it fits together.  To understand why Jesus did what he did, you need to understand the OT and its law.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So let's discuss "toxic church settings", "rigorous rules", playing into the hands of New Atheists or the universal message you think you see in the supposed words of Jesus in the Gospels.The author seemed to think throughout her book that misunderstanding of the gospels was a major problem as you seem to say as well in your posts.

To Which you responded:

caposkia wrote:

Sounds like a good start.  I'd be very interested in discussing it.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

How do you see toxic church settings as contributing to the woes of Christianity? IMO I see it as the opening of a door to consideration of other possibilities. In other words as churches rant against ideas by using methods that are unsupportable it blows away all their legitimacy they claim to have from the bible and the message alleged to be of Jesus. It causes people to realize if this is pure bunk perhaps all of the church's ideas are.

I think you answered your own question in your response:

"It causes people to realize if this is pure bunk perhaps all of the church's ideas are."

There are so many churches that make up their own rules and become dictator cults, I don't blame someone for walking away from it all.  I almost did myself. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As to rigorous rules I would think Garrison primarily means the Catholic Church though they have become quite creative in their attempt to hold followers in recent times. As for example the Church taking the position evolution could have been the way God did it. Other churches that ban alcohol, pork etc do so on very weak basis as well which again weakens their hold when looked at under scrutiny.

precisely.  As you're noticing, the claims of every church needs scriptural support as well as reasoning to it.  When scrutinizing a church, their teachings should be very clear as to why they follow it and should be able to withstand scrutinization.  If they cannot, then the whole foundation falls apart. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As to the universal message you see please explain your position and why it can't be misinterpretation of the original goals of Jesus the man (note not the son of a god)?

 

you mean just the part through Christ we're saved?  Which part?  That's a very broad question.

Assuming it's Saved through Christ, Jesus came into this world to Die for us because we've so excessively as a human race sinned.  I don't understand how you'd see it as any misrepresentation. 

I might be missing your point or reference.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:The United

HisWillness wrote:

The United States goes to war for earthly reasons, like securing resources. When the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they acted like the Old Testament God. Was that "good"? Have we descended so far into madness that we should prefer the slaughter of civilians to any other course of action? Would we determine that a god who encourages that kind of behaviour is somehow a positive influence?

you must be thinking of another God.  Basically you're saying God wants us to kill people.  Please quote this in the Bible.  or is it that there might be more to each war than you're reading into it as.  I haven't done all the research on the wars of the OT, which one are you refering to, I'll try to find some information.

HisWillness wrote:

My point is that you have a latently violent superego that identifies with the Old Testament's God, and you're defending it like a battered wife makes excuses for her husband.

alright then.  All Hail Hitler.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Boy for someone accusing us of taking things out of context you sure got all of us here beat.

maybe I'm finally understanding your approach!!! (don't dwell on it, just sarcasm)

Brian37 wrote:

I never accused my parents of not loving me. I simply don't think they understood how their toughness(because that was the way they were raised) conflicted with my sensitive nature(which I didn't understand was ok) So I tried too hard to be what others, not just my parents, but people in general, I fell for it. "I'm not like them, I must be doing something wrong".

. My problems as a kid and teen were average and quite normal considering that I didn't go down the wrong path. So even though my parents and I didn't get along, it was not because we didn't love each other, because MY MOM, who is still alive, shows it in so many ways. IT WAS BECAUSE WE WERE FROM DIFFERENT GENERATIONS. BTW, my mom and I get along far better now, because I have accepted myself the way I am.

So to go further with our relevent conversation, though you understand now that your parents wanted you to be what they thought would be right for you and you didn't understand, you know that they still just wanted the best for you.

God is the same understanding except that He knows what is best for you.  You may not understand it, you may feel quite inferior or feel you're doing something wrong always, but you're comparing youself to God as you would your parents and/or friends, you'll never be them because you are yourself.  All you can do is strive to be the best you can be. 

The different generations does make a difference with our human parents, but God is the same and always will be, therefore, the standards have never changed.  Just through the generations, people haven't fully understood, therefore, we still don't fully understand everything. 

That's just the simple comparison.  now we can move on to other ideas.  Keep this one so as to peice it together later.

Brian37 wrote:

AND no one was asking you FYI to be my shrink. It is as if you jumped on normal child hood problems and said to yourself, "AH HA.....his strife as a kid is why he is an atheist now".

talk about taking things out of context

Brian37 wrote:

 The only reason I dont buy your god claim or any for that matter is because there is no evidence and it is all rooted in mythological antiquity written by people who had no knowledge of scientific reality.

I understand that's what you believe.  your matter of fact conclusion as I've said in the past must have research for basis,please present some of it.

Brian37 wrote:

My parents have had an excuse, they could not crawl into my brain to figure out how to communicate with me, nor I them. What is your "all powerful" god's excuse?

we don't listen to Him and ignore him.  Could you legitimately deny that?

Brian37 wrote:

Your beef should not be with me, I am doing what humans should do, question. Your beef should be with the logic you use.

 

I have no beef with you.  I expect you to question.  The only problem is, you're doing more concluding than questioning. 

It was questioning that brought me to the belief I hold today.

I'm not Brian but I have many questions for myself (Besides, we both know Brian will bring up a Spirit knocking up a virgin and a body making a full recovery from 3 day rigor mortis - those evidentiary mountains no christian has been able to climb).

So God knows what is best for all of us but lets us (Christians and non-believers alike) stumble through existence until we just happen upon it? God likes to watch his (alledged) prize creation trip over itself trying to determine what will please him and us? Or is he sadistic enough to enjoy our stumbling?

God doesn't change? Only if you believe Jesus Christ isn't God - if you do then God went through a radical reformation (only to change multiple times in the Epistles (depending on the author) and back to his OT ways in Revelation).

Research? Would you like the physical research or the non-physical research? I can give both.

Is it really that hard to not listen to or ignore the silence from God? Or is this just you attributing your thought processes to him?

If questioning brought you to your belief why did you stop at your first option (especially as that option brings more questions than answers)? Or did the good feelings make you comfortable enough to stop thinking?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Boy for someone accusing us of taking things out of context you sure got all of us here beat.

maybe I'm finally understanding your approach!!! (don't dwell on it, just sarcasm)

Brian37 wrote:

I never accused my parents of not loving me. I simply don't think they understood how their toughness(because that was the way they were raised) conflicted with my sensitive nature(which I didn't understand was ok) So I tried too hard to be what others, not just my parents, but people in general, I fell for it. "I'm not like them, I must be doing something wrong".

. My problems as a kid and teen were average and quite normal considering that I didn't go down the wrong path. So even though my parents and I didn't get along, it was not because we didn't love each other, because MY MOM, who is still alive, shows it in so many ways. IT WAS BECAUSE WE WERE FROM DIFFERENT GENERATIONS. BTW, my mom and I get along far better now, because I have accepted myself the way I am.

So to go further with our relevent conversation, though you understand now that your parents wanted you to be what they thought would be right for you and you didn't understand, you know that they still just wanted the best for you.

God is the same understanding except that He knows what is best for you.  You may not understand it, you may feel quite inferior or feel you're doing something wrong always, but you're comparing youself to God as you would your parents and/or friends, you'll never be them because you are yourself.  All you can do is strive to be the best you can be. 

The different generations does make a difference with our human parents, but God is the same and always will be, therefore, the standards have never changed.  Just through the generations, people haven't fully understood, therefore, we still don't fully understand everything. 

That's just the simple comparison.  now we can move on to other ideas.  Keep this one so as to peice it together later.

Brian37 wrote:

AND no one was asking you FYI to be my shrink. It is as if you jumped on normal child hood problems and said to yourself, "AH HA.....his strife as a kid is why he is an atheist now".

talk about taking things out of context

Brian37 wrote:

 The only reason I dont buy your god claim or any for that matter is because there is no evidence and it is all rooted in mythological antiquity written by people who had no knowledge of scientific reality.

I understand that's what you believe.  your matter of fact conclusion as I've said in the past must have research for basis,please present some of it.

Brian37 wrote:

My parents have had an excuse, they could not crawl into my brain to figure out how to communicate with me, nor I them. What is your "all powerful" god's excuse?

we don't listen to Him and ignore him.  Could you legitimately deny that?

Brian37 wrote:

Your beef should not be with me, I am doing what humans should do, question. Your beef should be with the logic you use.

 

I have no beef with you.  I expect you to question.  The only problem is, you're doing more concluding than questioning. 

It was questioning that brought me to the belief I hold today.

It was not questioning that brought you to your belief. It was a placebo desire to see what you wanted to see. Lots of people looked for ways to justify that the world was flat, but so what?

Quote:
we don't listen to Him and ignore him.  Could you legitimately deny that?

I don't listen to Micky Mouse or Thor or Isis or Allah. Of course I ignore them, but it is impossible to ignore the cheerleaders of fiction who try to sell such absurdities to be fact.

I ignore your god like I ignore Superman. But fans of Superman know he is fiction and aren't trying to establish political parties or nations based on their fiction.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

My view is the OT must stand on its own without the NT to provide the foundation. If this foundation fails the entire construct fails. IMO it fails out of the gate from its mythological origins. Christians jump to the OT to argue issues that are none of their concern if they really follow the message of Jesus. Yet they run to the NT as you did to claim it clarifies the OT. If the OT can't stand on its own under dissection the whole house falls. As Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian it is the basic requirement to proceed. 

The OT does stand on its own.  Jesus just fulfilled the law.  What law?  The OT law, that's precisely how it fits together.  To understand why Jesus did what he did, you need to understand the OT and its law.

If you understand the OT law why is it the Jews don't see what you see? The prophecies claimed to be about Jesus in the OT are badly misconstrued by Christians as compared to the Jewish view. If the OT stands on its own then the messiah was not a piece of the god come to save his creations from himself but rather was to be the one to institute the Kingdom of God on earth. The Jews are extremely specific about this in their interpretation. Since it was their belief system first and Jesus was a Jew he obviously should have been of that opinion. Unless of course Yahweh mislead them. You do understand the Jewish position don't you? If not I'd be more than happy to supply you with information on the subject. You might want to explain how you see Jesus fulfilled the OT law and do so showing how the Jews erred.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

How do you see toxic church settings as contributing to the woes of Christianity? IMO I see it as the opening of a door to consideration of other possibilities. In other words as churches rant against ideas by using methods that are unsupportable it blows away all their legitimacy they claim to have from the bible and the message alleged to be of Jesus. It causes people to realize if this is pure bunk perhaps all of the church's ideas are.

I think you answered your own question in your response:

"It causes people to realize if this is pure bunk perhaps all of the church's ideas are."

There are so many churches that make up their own rules and become dictator cults, I don't blame someone for walking away from it all.  I almost did myself.

So you see how people can determine that religion and god belief are not true? Once you begin to question, all is open to scrutiny and the pretty wrapped package comes apart in a thousand pieces. The claims of talking snakes, world wide floods, people living 900 years, seas being divided, and the not so mighty kingdoms of Judah and Israel all fall victim to a suddenly rational person. No longer are pretty fables, magic, and myths able to stand in the light of reason and logic. Each and every claim now has to stand and when they don't, poof end of the fairy god myth.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As to rigorous rules I would think Garrison primarily means the Catholic Church though they have become quite creative in their attempt to hold followers in recent times. As for example the Church taking the position evolution could have been the way God did it. Other churches that ban alcohol, pork etc do so on very weak basis as well which again weakens their hold when looked at under scrutiny.

precisely.  As you're noticing, the claims of every church needs scriptural support as well as reasoning to it.  When scrutinizing a church, their teachings should be very clear as to why they follow it and should be able to withstand scrutinization.  If they cannot, then the whole foundation falls apart.

My point really was the extent to which churches will go in the face of the harshness of reality and rationality to keep their believers. Since you see part of this, I don't understand why you choose to ignore the problems especially in the OT and conclude its was true and real. I have read many of your posts and have seen you accept the flood, the invasion by Joshua, the 900 year life spans and other tidbits. Considering these things are mythical based on improbability, histories of other lands and archeology I don't see how you resolve it. Just how many 900 year old people have been documented in the real world?

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As to the universal message you see please explain your position and why it can't be misinterpretation of the original goals of Jesus the man (note not the son of a god)?

 

you mean just the part through Christ we're saved?  Which part?  That's a very broad question.

Assuming it's Saved through Christ, Jesus came into this world to Die for us because we've so excessively as a human race sinned.  I don't understand how you'd see it as any misrepresentation. 

I might be missing your point or reference.

You missed the point that Jesus as quoted in the gospels said he was a man, he went out of his way to do so in fact many times. The misinterpretation goes to the core of the message that is given. In Jewish belief the messiah is a man and not part of the god Yahweh. As the legend of Jesus the Christ developed the concept he was part of the god come to save men from himself develops. Jesus the man was specific in goals he put forth. You only consider these stories from your perspective as a believer and seem incapable of standing back from your belief to analyze what else could be. Look again at the gospels especially Mark considering Jesus impartially if you can. If you cannot stand back from your belief or put it aside you are always going to be in the wrong vantage point to grasp. You made this clear you have trouble conceptualizing Jesus as only a man in your above response as you ran off to saved through Christ as Jesus came to die for us. I can see your vantage point as I was once there myself but you aren't trying to see from a neutral view at all or perhaps you just can't.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

My view is the OT must stand on its own without the NT to provide the foundation. If this foundation fails the entire construct fails. IMO it fails out of the gate from its mythological origins. Christians jump to the OT to argue issues that are none of their concern if they really follow the message of Jesus. Yet they run to the NT as you did to claim it clarifies the OT. If the OT can't stand on its own under dissection the whole house falls. As Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian it is the basic requirement to proceed. 

The OT does stand on its own.  Jesus just fulfilled the law.  What law?  The OT law, that's precisely how it fits together.  To understand why Jesus did what he did, you need to understand the OT and its law.

If you understand the OT law why is it the Jews don't see what you see? The prophecies claimed to be about Jesus in the OT are badly misconstrued by Christians as compared to the Jewish view. If the OT stands on its own then the messiah was not a piece of the god come to save his creations from himself but rather was to be the one to institute the Kingdom of God on earth. The Jews are extremely specific about this in their interpretation. Since it was their belief system first and Jesus was a Jew he obviously should have been of that opinion. Unless of course Yahweh mislead them. You do understand the Jewish position don't you? If not I'd be more than happy to supply you with information on the subject. You might want to explain how you see Jesus fulfilled the OT law and do so showing how the Jews erred.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

How do you see toxic church settings as contributing to the woes of Christianity? IMO I see it as the opening of a door to consideration of other possibilities. In other words as churches rant against ideas by using methods that are unsupportable it blows away all their legitimacy they claim to have from the bible and the message alleged to be of Jesus. It causes people to realize if this is pure bunk perhaps all of the church's ideas are.

I think you answered your own question in your response:

"It causes people to realize if this is pure bunk perhaps all of the church's ideas are."

There are so many churches that make up their own rules and become dictator cults, I don't blame someone for walking away from it all.  I almost did myself.

So you see how people can determine that religion and god belief are not true? Once you begin to question, all is open to scrutiny and the pretty wrapped package comes apart in a thousand pieces. The claims of talking snakes, world wide floods, people living 900 years, seas being divided, and the not so mighty kingdoms of Judah and Israel all fall victim to a suddenly rational person. No longer are pretty fables, magic, and myths able to stand in the light of reason and logic. Each and every claim now has to stand and when they don't, poof end of the fairy god myth.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As to rigorous rules I would think Garrison primarily means the Catholic Church though they have become quite creative in their attempt to hold followers in recent times. As for example the Church taking the position evolution could have been the way God did it. Other churches that ban alcohol, pork etc do so on very weak basis as well which again weakens their hold when looked at under scrutiny.

precisely.  As you're noticing, the claims of every church needs scriptural support as well as reasoning to it.  When scrutinizing a church, their teachings should be very clear as to why they follow it and should be able to withstand scrutinization.  If they cannot, then the whole foundation falls apart.

My point really was the extent to which churches will go in the face of the harshness of reality and rationality to keep their believers. Since you see part of this, I don't understand why you choose to ignore the problems especially in the OT and conclude its was true and real. I have read many of your posts and have seen you accept the flood, the invasion by Joshua, the 900 year life spans and other tidbits. Considering these things are mythical based on improbability, histories of other lands and archeology I don't see how you resolve it. Just how many 900 year old people have been documented in the real world?

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As to the universal message you see please explain your position and why it can't be misinterpretation of the original goals of Jesus the man (note not the son of a god)?

 

you mean just the part through Christ we're saved?  Which part?  That's a very broad question.

Assuming it's Saved through Christ, Jesus came into this world to Die for us because we've so excessively as a human race sinned.  I don't understand how you'd see it as any misrepresentation. 

I might be missing your point or reference.

You missed the point that Jesus as quoted in the gospels said he was a man, he went out of his way to do so in fact many times. The misinterpretation goes to the core of the message that is given. In Jewish belief the messiah is a man and not part of the god Yahweh. As the legend of Jesus the Christ developed the concept he was part of the god come to save men from himself develops. Jesus the man was specific in goals he put forth. You only consider these stories from your perspective as a believer and seem incapable of standing back from your belief to analyze what else could be. Look again at the gospels especially Mark considering Jesus impartially if you can. If you cannot stand back from your belief or put it aside you are always going to be in the wrong vantage point to grasp. You made this clear you have trouble conceptualizing Jesus as only a man in your above response as you ran off to saved through Christ as Jesus came to die for us. I can see your vantage point as I was once there myself but you aren't trying to see from a neutral view at all or perhaps you just can't.

Who cares weither Jews viewed Jesus as just a man vs Christians viewing as part of god. The fact remains the motif is the same at the core of all religions from the prior polytheism to the modern monotheism. Each tells the readers that they are the chosen people and that their super heros will vanquish the enemy and save the day, the only thing that changes are the details and names and labels.

Religion is merely the invention of ignorant people who want the placebo of fictional super heros. No magical being will save us, our mortality is born out by nature, not superman vs kriptonite or god(s) vs enemies.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

you mean just the part through Christ we're saved?  Which part?  That's a very broad question.

Assuming it's Saved through Christ, Jesus came into this world to Die for us because we've so excessively as a human race sinned.  I don't understand how you'd see it as any misrepresentation. 

I might be missing your point or reference.

You missed the point that Jesus as quoted in the gospels said he was a man, he went out of his way to do so in fact many times. The misinterpretation goes to the core of the message that is given. In Jewish belief the messiah is a man and not part of the god Yahweh. As the legend of Jesus the Christ developed the concept he was part of the god come to save men from himself develops. Jesus the man was specific in goals he put forth. You only consider these stories from your perspective as a believer and seem incapable of standing back from your belief to analyze what else could be. Look again at the gospels especially Mark considering Jesus impartially if you can. If you cannot stand back from your belief or put it aside you are always going to be in the wrong vantage point to grasp. You made this clear you have trouble conceptualizing Jesus as only a man in your above response as you ran off to saved through Christ as Jesus came to die for us. I can see your vantage point as I was once there myself but you aren't trying to see from a neutral view at all or perhaps you just can't.

Who cares weither Jews viewed Jesus as just a man vs Christians viewing as part of god. The fact remains the motif is the same at the core of all religions from the prior polytheism to the modern monotheism. Each tells the readers that they are the chosen people and that their super heros will vanquish the enemy and save the day, the only thing that changes are the details and names and labels.

Religion is merely the invention of ignorant people who want the placebo of fictional super heros. No magical being will save us, our mortality is born out by nature, not superman vs kriptonite or god(s) vs enemies.

 

Apparently Cap cares among others that accept such fantasy beliefs. If Cap can view these ideas from a neutral point he might be able to see the error of his ways, though so far he keeps going back to Jesus saved you and me. The idea being if part of the belief is shown to be in error perhaps one should reconsider the whole concept. I don't know if he will actually look in a detached unemotional way though it's possible. Cap already looks at his book in ways most fantasy believers do not so there may be hope for him yet. Though he does accept lots of fantasy based ideas as shown in his posts. It may be that each fantasy may have to be imploded one by one in order to even get to the point of impartial observation.

Brian, we have different methods we use to criticize religious beliefs and believers yet in the end there is no compromise on the end result, all religious belief is pure fantasy. I have no reason to believe in any god especially those that are based on the god of Abe. All god of Abe religions are based on mythological origins and aren't part of the real world.

Religion is clearly the invention of people that were ignorant of what things were all about therefore they created ways to explain how things got to be as well as to answer the question is there nothing more after this life. Reality can be a bitch and some never want to face it on their own so they use different ways to make it through life whether it be drugs, sex, or religion. Quitting an addiction is very hard which is what god belief really is in some ways. The person needs to understand the benefit of giving up the drug or behavior. Telling them god belief is pure bunk and magic does not seem to end their faith in fantasy does it? They come back with 9 levels of why their [insert name of deity here] is true and real despite there is absolutely no physical proof or basis. Fantastic tales written long ago by hallucinogenic influenced desert nomads are taken to be the real truth while science and experimentation are said not to show their faith because its in the spiritual world.  My GPS as well as Google can't seem to locate anything in the spiritual world so I think it's up to those that claim this to give coordinates for this place in the land of never was.  Apparently the rants of goat herders and psychotic prophets are to be taken just as serious as science. I don't personally understand how one can ignore reality, yet everyday we encounter such people. 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

you mean just the part through Christ we're saved?  Which part?  That's a very broad question.

Assuming it's Saved through Christ, Jesus came into this world to Die for us because we've so excessively as a human race sinned.  I don't understand how you'd see it as any misrepresentation. 

I might be missing your point or reference.

You missed the point that Jesus as quoted in the gospels said he was a man, he went out of his way to do so in fact many times. The misinterpretation goes to the core of the message that is given. In Jewish belief the messiah is a man and not part of the god Yahweh. As the legend of Jesus the Christ developed the concept he was part of the god come to save men from himself develops. Jesus the man was specific in goals he put forth. You only consider these stories from your perspective as a believer and seem incapable of standing back from your belief to analyze what else could be. Look again at the gospels especially Mark considering Jesus impartially if you can. If you cannot stand back from your belief or put it aside you are always going to be in the wrong vantage point to grasp. You made this clear you have trouble conceptualizing Jesus as only a man in your above response as you ran off to saved through Christ as Jesus came to die for us. I can see your vantage point as I was once there myself but you aren't trying to see from a neutral view at all or perhaps you just can't.

Who cares weither Jews viewed Jesus as just a man vs Christians viewing as part of god. The fact remains the motif is the same at the core of all religions from the prior polytheism to the modern monotheism. Each tells the readers that they are the chosen people and that their super heros will vanquish the enemy and save the day, the only thing that changes are the details and names and labels.

Religion is merely the invention of ignorant people who want the placebo of fictional super heros. No magical being will save us, our mortality is born out by nature, not superman vs kriptonite or god(s) vs enemies.

 

Apparently Cap cares among others that accept such fantasy beliefs. If Cap can view these ideas from a neutral point he might be able to see the error of his ways, though so far he keeps going back to Jesus saved you and me. The idea being if part of the belief is shown to be in error perhaps one should reconsider the whole concept. I don't know if he will actually look in a detached unemotional way though it's possible. Cap already looks at his book in ways most fantasy believers do not so there may be hope for him yet. Though he does accept lots of fantasy based ideas as shown in his posts. It may be that each fantasy may have to be imploded one by one in order to even get to the point of impartial observation.

Brian, we have different methods we use to criticize religious beliefs and believers yet in the end there is no compromise on the end result, all religious belief is pure fantasy. I have no reason to believe in any god especially those that are based on the god of Abe. All god of Abe religions are based on mythological origins and aren't part of the real world.

Religion is clearly the invention of people that were ignorant of what things were all about therefore they created ways to explain how things got to be as well as to answer the question is there nothing more after this life. Reality can be a bitch and some never want to face it on their own so they use different ways to make it through life whether it be drugs, sex, or religion. Quitting an addiction is very hard which is what god belief really is in some ways. The person needs to understand the benefit of giving up the drug or behavior. Telling them god belief is pure bunk and magic does not seem to end their faith in fantasy does it? They come back with 9 levels of why their [insert name of deity here] is true and real despite there is absolutely no physical proof or basis. Fantastic tales written long ago by hallucinogenic influenced desert nomads are taken to be the real truth while science and experimentation are said not to show their faith because its in the spiritual world.  My GPS as well as Google can't seem to locate anything in the spiritual world so I think it's up to those that claim this to give coordinates for this place in the land of never was.  Apparently the rants of goat herders and psychotic prophets are to be taken just as serious as science. I don't personally understand how one can ignore reality, yet everyday we encounter such people. 

Quote:

Brian, we have different methods we use to criticize religious beliefs and believers yet in the end there is no compromise on the end result, all religious belief is pure fantasy.

EXACTAMUNDO!

Many here take the scenic route while I attack the magic directly. There is something to be said for the "good cop bad cop" motif and neither is invalid.  Some respond to one, or the other, or a combo of both. Some will never respond.

I like you have hopes for Cap, if nothing else, even if Cap goes to the grave believing, Cap cannot leave us treating us like a different species. Cap knows us far too well to treat us as such, nor will we do the same. It may not be much, but it is something.

Capt Pineapple and "I Am God As You" I feel the same way about. I treat all their hokie claims the same and have no remorse for my blunt criticism of such. BUT, I don't treat them as if they are bats or snakes or gargoyles. I simply treat their claims accordingly while recognizing that their claims are not them, but merely what they claim.

Cap has stuck around a log time and that may not adress anything other than xenophobia not being a bigoted priority. However, if a thorn in their logic is what I inject, I hope I can keep them around long enough for them to see the error in their use of logic.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
EXACTAMUNDO! .... well

EXACTAMUNDO! .... well close. I'm a big fans of your easily understandable styles Brian37, and pauljohn .... but Brian, you leave me surprisingly baffled by your assessment of my atheist style, which is primarily directed at the religious idol worshiper separatists .... which is why I use "religious" jargon in lots of my rants. Therefore I say things like, the only sensible jesus story character is the atheistic buddha like character which was also polluted by wacky superstitious folklore.

Lumping me and young Pineapple philosophically together puzzles me. I tell you truly, I've been anti-theist since the concept of a creator master seriously entered my young mind. The tradition atheists have there end well covered so I purposely try to inject another method of knocking religion .... and so I say me, you, the dirt, as all existence is g-o-d or nothing is g-o-d. On this issue there is no middle.

When I first began posting I fairly often mentioned the "good cop /  bad cop" and "more than one way to skin a cat." I chose a difficult way to communicate and felt I was improving.

A health issue arose about 3 months ago so I'm now on morphine and relaxers, and have lost the little wit I had .... so I've quit posting much. I was sure having fun with words then.

I'd enjoy reading some of my "hokie" posts, that I didn't explain to you. Please keep in mind you are talking to g-o-d ... ((( no, no, not some retarded religious god idol concept.       ... so lucky, so sad ...

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

EXACTAMUNDO! .... well close. I'm a big fans of your easily understandable styles Brian37, and pauljohn .... but Brian, you leave me surprisingly baffled by your assessment of my atheist style, which is primarily directed at the religious idol worshiper separatists .... which is why I use "religious" jargon in lots of my rants. Therefore I say things like, the only sensible jesus story character is the atheistic buddha like character which was also polluted by wacky superstitious folklore.

Lumping me and young Pineapple philosophically together puzzles me. I tell you truly, I've been anti-theist since the concept of a creator master seriously entered my young mind. The tradition atheists have there end well covered so I purposely try to inject another method of knocking religion .... and so I say me, you, the dirt, as all existence is g-o-d or nothing is g-o-d. On this issue there is no middle.

When I first began posting I fairly often mentioned the "good cop /  bad cop" and "more than one way to skin a cat." I chose a difficult way to communicate and felt I was improving.

A health issue arose about 3 months ago so I'm now on morphine and relaxers, and have lost the little wit I had .... so I've quit posting much. I was sure having fun with words then.

I'd enjoy reading some of my "hokie" posts, that I didn't explain to you. Please keep in mind you are talking to g-o-d ... ((( no, no, not some retarded religious god idol concept.       ... so lucky, so sad ...

 

In all seriousness, whatever health issues you are having, I do hope you overcome them. I don't want you to lose your wit and I never want anyone, not even you, to take me so seriously. I simply don't understand your trying to cling to the word "god" as a form of communication.

Other than that, all kidding aside, I really do want you to get better.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I'm not Brian

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm not Brian but I have many questions for myself (Besides, we both know Brian will bring up a Spirit knocking up a virgin and a body making a full recovery from 3 day rigor mortis - those evidentiary mountains no christian has been able to climb).

it's true.  mainly because granted that story is some of the basis for our belief, it's not why we believe, therefore, it's not something we've been obsessed with as far as explaining the hows.  It really goes without explaining once you understand and believe in my opinion.

jcgadfly wrote:

So God knows what is best for all of us but lets us (Christians and non-believers alike) stumble through existence until we just happen upon it? God likes to watch his (alledged) prize creation trip over itself trying to determine what will please him and us? Or is he sadistic enough to enjoy our stumbling?

are your parents sadistic for allowing you to make mistakes or did they have a better reason... maybe to learn from them?

jcgadfly wrote:

Research? Would you like the physical research or the non-physical research? I can give both.

Is it really that hard to not listen to or ignore the silence from God? Or is this just you attributing your thought processes to him?

If questioning brought you to your belief why did you stop at your first option (especially as that option brings more questions than answers)? Or did the good feelings make you comfortable enough to stop thinking?

research:

After 14ish pages of nothing so far that has "challenged my understanding" I would love any research that you may have to present.  Though that would be better for the other forum, so please put it on there.

is it hard to ignore God?

you tell me.  Is it?  If it was hard to ignore him, then I doubt there would be so many non-believers.

who said I stopped at my first option?  Just more insite on my journey to finding God.

My first option would have been to stick with the Catholic Church, which I did not.

My second option would have been to follow the Jehovah's Witnesses.

My third option would have been to walk away from God altogether.

My fourth option is a bit shadier be it that it's when I started doing more research.  It ranges anywhere from Confucianism and Buhddism to Christian, Jew or Muslim. 

So to answer your question precisely... I didn't.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It was not

Brian37 wrote:

It was not questioning that brought you to your belief. It was a placebo desire to see what you wanted to see. Lots of people looked for ways to justify that the world was flat, but so what?

Quote:
we don't listen to Him and ignore him.  Could you legitimately deny that?

I don't listen to Micky Mouse or Thor or Isis or Allah. Of course I ignore them, but it is impossible to ignore the cheerleaders of fiction who try to sell such absurdities to be fact.

I ignore your god like I ignore Superman. But fans of Superman know he is fiction and aren't trying to establish political parties or nations based on their fiction.

 

you can't look at this post and say you're questioning...


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:[If

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

[If you understand the OT law why is it the Jews don't see what you see?

This is starting to take the process of the other forum again.

quickly though.  I think the NT explained that fairly well... and there are lots of "Jews for Christ" as they call themselves.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So you see how people can determine that religion and god belief are not true? Once you begin to question, all is open to scrutiny and the pretty wrapped package comes apart in a thousand pieces. The claims of talking snakes, world wide floods, people living 900 years, seas being divided, and the not so mighty kingdoms of Judah and Israel all fall victim to a suddenly rational person. No longer are pretty fables, magic, and myths able to stand in the light of reason and logic. Each and every claim now has to stand and when they don't, poof end of the fairy god myth.

I absolutely see how people can determine that religion and God are not true.  Though your conclusion that all listed above cannot stand on their own doesn't exactly hold water.  if it did, I wouldn't be here talking to you about my belief. 

The point was, to misconstrue the truths as those churches did, it's easy to look at those stories and claim they're false because they sound just as far fetched as the stuff those churches have made up.  

It's like the test questions, which one is true.  when you put them all together, any all of them sound very far fetched, and yet one is true.  You have to determine which could possibly happen.  If you've never heard of any of the options, you're left to your best guess. 

Therefore, when these churches teachings are found to be false, instead of assuming that there might be peices of truth here and there, everything else is assumed to be false. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

My point really was the extent to which churches will go in the face of the harshness of reality and rationality to keep their believers. Since you see part of this, I don't understand why you choose to ignore the problems especially in the OT and conclude its was true and real. I have read many of your posts and have seen you accept the flood, the invasion by Joshua, the 900 year life spans and other tidbits. Considering these things are mythical based on improbability, histories of other lands and archeology I don't see how you resolve it. Just how many 900 year old people have been documented in the real world?

Well, here's the thing when it comes to this belief.  As far as I stand right now, either all of it has to be true, or none of it is.  Yes, that goes against the thing I just said about the church, but it is the church that changes the writings of the Bible to accomodate what they want to be true, not the other way around.  Therefore, unless I have other reason to believe so, I understand that the writings in the Bible must be true. 

Keep in mind, the little things pulled out like a staff changing into a snake or a talking donkey really don't hold me to my belief.  If those things were not written in the Bible, it really wouldn't change my stance, therefore you can pull those out as reasons for not believing if you'd like, but it really doesn't matter if those parts are true or not.

Yes I believe they are, but it doesn't matter either way.  It's the stories as a whole you'd have to take into consideration. 

The only reason you have to believing any of that not to be true anyway is the one thing that many have complained about our defense for God.  Lack of evidence.  Therefore, it's really a weak stance on concluding no God. 

Again if God is real, it's understandable that those things happened. 

For the Brians out there who want to take this as me changing my stance.  I never said I don't believe in them.  the point of the above is to say that it's not a strong support against my belief.  That's it, nothing more.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You missed the point that Jesus as quoted in the gospels said he was a man, he went out of his way to do so in fact many times. The misinterpretation goes to the core of the message that is given. In Jewish belief the messiah is a man and not part of the god Yahweh. As the legend of Jesus the Christ developed the concept he was part of the god come to save men from himself develops. Jesus the man was specific in goals he put forth. You only consider these stories from your perspective as a believer and seem incapable of standing back from your belief to analyze what else could be. Look again at the gospels especially Mark considering Jesus impartially if you can. If you cannot stand back from your belief or put it aside you are always going to be in the wrong vantage point to grasp. You made this clear you have trouble conceptualizing Jesus as only a man in your above response as you ran off to saved through Christ as Jesus came to die for us. I can see your vantage point as I was once there myself but you aren't trying to see from a neutral view at all or perhaps you just can't.

This gets into a very extensive concept.  We could go for a while on this.  simply put, Jesus was 100% man and 100% God.  yes, I know, it's not logical, but that's the best way I know how to explain it be it that Jesus is the Son of God. 

The whole reason why Jesus has to emphasize that he was so human was because people knew he was more.  The point was that Jesus humbled himself lower than the angels as the Bible says.  In order for Jesus to do that, he had to be more at some point.  You can't humble yourself to be human if you already are. 

This is going beyond the point that we're at as well though.  I don't expect anyone to accept that or anything else tied to that until we can get beyond the point of whether there's a spiritual world to begin with or not. 

You conclude so much about me, yet you don't have any idea how long I've researched for an understanding of that concept. 

Let's just stay focused further on the book instead of tangenting on this. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Apparently Cap cares among others that accept such fantasy beliefs. If Cap can view these ideas from a neutral point he might be able to see the error of his ways, though so far he keeps going back to Jesus saved you and me. The idea being if part of the belief is shown to be in error perhaps one should reconsider the whole concept. I don't know if he will actually look in a detached unemotional way though it's possible. Cap already looks at his book in ways most fantasy believers do not so there may be hope for him yet. Though he does accept lots of fantasy based ideas as shown in his posts. It may be that each fantasy may have to be imploded one by one in order to even get to the point of impartial observation.

Brian, we have different methods we use to criticize religious beliefs and believers yet in the end there is no compromise on the end result, all religious belief is pure fantasy. I have no reason to believe in any god especially those that are based on the god of Abe. All god of Abe religions are based on mythological origins and aren't part of the real world.

Religion is clearly the invention of people that were ignorant of what things were all about therefore they created ways to explain how things got to be as well as to answer the question is there nothing more after this life. Reality can be a bitch and some never want to face it on their own so they use different ways to make it through life whether it be drugs, sex, or religion. Quitting an addiction is very hard which is what god belief really is in some ways. The person needs to understand the benefit of giving up the drug or behavior. Telling them god belief is pure bunk and magic does not seem to end their faith in fantasy does it? They come back with 9 levels of why their [insert name of deity here] is true and real despite there is absolutely no physical proof or basis. Fantastic tales written long ago by hallucinogenic influenced desert nomads are taken to be the real truth while science and experimentation are said not to show their faith because its in the spiritual world.  My GPS as well as Google can't seem to locate anything in the spiritual world so I think it's up to those that claim this to give coordinates for this place in the land of never was.  Apparently the rants of goat herders and psychotic prophets are to be taken just as serious as science. I don't personally understand how one can ignore reality, yet everyday we encounter such people. 

Obviously you missed the point about not getting stuck in the physical.  Your GPS is a GLOBAL positioning device, thus it doesn't go beyond looking at the GLOBE.  and Google... well I'm not sure what you'd have been looking for through google for the spiritual world.  Miss Cleo maybe??? 

Do you see the flaws in your claims yet?

if all you're here for is to ask questions that aren't going to make a difference for either of us, then why are you on this forum? 

What is it that you'd be looking for for a reason to consider the existance of God?

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I like you have hopes for Cap, if nothing else, even if Cap goes to the grave believing, Cap cannot leave us treating us like a different species. Cap knows us far too well to treat us as such, nor will we do the same. It may not be much, but it is something.

I hope you never thought I was treating you like a different species.  I never intended that to be. 

I hope you see me as treating you all with respect.  That is always my full intention.  I'm sorry if there were times where that didn't seem to be.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

EXACTAMUNDO! .... well close. I'm a big fans of your easily understandable styles Brian37, and pauljohn .... but Brian, you leave me surprisingly baffled by your assessment of my atheist style, which is primarily directed at the religious idol worshiper separatists .... which is why I use "religious" jargon in lots of my rants. Therefore I say things like, the only sensible jesus story character is the atheistic buddha like character which was also polluted by wacky superstitious folklore.

Lumping me and young Pineapple philosophically together puzzles me. I tell you truly, I've been anti-theist since the concept of a creator master seriously entered my young mind. The tradition atheists have there end well covered so I purposely try to inject another method of knocking religion .... and so I say me, you, the dirt, as all existence is g-o-d or nothing is g-o-d. On this issue there is no middle.

When I first began posting I fairly often mentioned the "good cop /  bad cop" and "more than one way to skin a cat." I chose a difficult way to communicate and felt I was improving.

A health issue arose about 3 months ago so I'm now on morphine and relaxers, and have lost the little wit I had .... so I've quit posting much. I was sure having fun with words then.

I'd enjoy reading some of my "hokie" posts, that I didn't explain to you. Please keep in mind you are talking to g-o-d ... ((( no, no, not some retarded religious god idol concept.       ... so lucky, so sad ...

I have enjoyed your posts believe it or not.  You take a different approach for sure, but I like it.  Its different and that's good.  It seems most people conform to their favorite idealism on here and you void that by going your own way.  Power to ya.

I hope you get better.  I'm sorry to hear of your condition.  Take care.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

[If you understand the OT law why is it the Jews don't see what you see?

This is starting to take the process of the other forum again.

quickly though.  I think the NT explained that fairly well... and there are lots of "Jews for Christ" as they call themselves.

Again you go to the NT to explain the OT. Before one word of the NT was written in the Gospels circa 60 CE or later followers would have had to depart from the traditional view. All they had to do so was the OT. I realize Paul's writing is part of this to some point, yet he knows no real details. In Acts James does not take this position at all, rather believers were still following Jewish Law yet Christ died and was resurrected. It was a strange twist on their messiah concept but OK they waited to see what would occur. In a reasonable amount of time, no kingdom of god as expected by Jewish Tradition happens. The explanation is rather simple,  Jews continued to hold to their messiah tradition because that's how they interpreted their own prophecies. Those that become Christian do something else entirely by reading between the lines and reading into scripture things that had no connection at all to the messiah.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So you see how people can determine that religion and god belief are not true? Once you begin to question, all is open to scrutiny and the pretty wrapped package comes apart in a thousand pieces. The claims of talking snakes, world wide floods, people living 900 years, seas being divided, and the not so mighty kingdoms of Judah and Israel all fall victim to a suddenly rational person. No longer are pretty fables, magic, and myths able to stand in the light of reason and logic. Each and every claim now has to stand and when they don't, poof end of the fairy god myth.

I absolutely see how people can determine that religion and God are not true.  Though your conclusion that all listed above cannot stand on their own doesn't exactly hold water.  if it did, I wouldn't be here talking to you about my belief. 

The point was, to misconstrue the truths as those churches did, it's easy to look at those stories and claim they're false because they sound just as far fetched as the stuff those churches have made up.  

It's like the test questions, which one is true.  when you put them all together, any all of them sound very far fetched, and yet one is true.  You have to determine which could possibly happen.  If you've never heard of any of the options, you're left to your best guess. 

Therefore, when these churches teachings are found to be false, instead of assuming that there might be peices of truth here and there, everything else is assumed to be false.

Except this isn't a test quiz and all can be false. 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

My point really was the extent to which churches will go in the face of the harshness of reality and rationality to keep their believers. Since you see part of this, I don't understand why you choose to ignore the problems especially in the OT and conclude its was true and real. I have read many of your posts and have seen you accept the flood, the invasion by Joshua, the 900 year life spans and other tidbits. Considering these things are mythical based on improbability, histories of other lands and archeology I don't see how you resolve it. Just how many 900 year old people have been documented in the real world?

Well, here's the thing when it comes to this belief.  As far as I stand right now, either all of it has to be true, or none of it is.  Yes, that goes against the thing I just said about the church, but it is the church that changes the writings of the Bible to accomodate what they want to be true, not the other way around.  Therefore, unless I have other reason to believe so, I understand that the writings in the Bible must be true. 

Keep in mind, the little things pulled out like a staff changing into a snake or a talking donkey really don't hold me to my belief.  If those things were not written in the Bible, it really wouldn't change my stance, therefore you can pull those out as reasons for not believing if you'd like, but it really doesn't matter if those parts are true or not.

Yes I believe they are, but it doesn't matter either way.  It's the stories as a whole you'd have to take into consideration. 

The only reason you have to believing any of that not to be true anyway is the one thing that many have complained about our defense for God.  Lack of evidence.  Therefore, it's really a weak stance on concluding no God. 

Again if God is real, it's understandable that those things happened. 

For the Brians out there who want to take this as me changing my stance.  I never said I don't believe in them.  the point of the above is to say that it's not a strong support against my belief.  That's it, nothing more.

Therein lies the inevitable wall of difference between you as a believer and those of us that are not. The foundation of God belief that comes to us is based on the book both OT and NT in all of its many versions. You can pretty up the language from early English, yet you can't erase the irrational. You accept that which is not observed and in the real world. You accept the stories that are disproved by history and archeology. It's not just lack of evidence it's also evidence to the contrary. We are not just speaking of bears eating children or Cain and Abel here, we are talking about entire impossibilities of immense proportions. I do remember the warm fuzzy feelings from my years as a believer but they don' stand up to the harsh light of reality from my POV.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You missed the point that Jesus as quoted in the gospels said he was a man, he went out of his way to do so in fact many times. The misinterpretation goes to the core of the message that is given. In Jewish belief the messiah is a man and not part of the god Yahweh. As the legend of Jesus the Christ developed the concept he was part of the god come to save men from himself develops. Jesus the man was specific in goals he put forth. You only consider these stories from your perspective as a believer and seem incapable of standing back from your belief to analyze what else could be. Look again at the gospels especially Mark considering Jesus impartially if you can. If you cannot stand back from your belief or put it aside you are always going to be in the wrong vantage point to grasp. You made this clear you have trouble conceptualizing Jesus as only a man in your above response as you ran off to saved through Christ as Jesus came to die for us. I can see your vantage point as I was once there myself but you aren't trying to see from a neutral view at all or perhaps you just can't.

This gets into a very extensive concept.  We could go for a while on this.  simply put, Jesus was 100% man and 100% God.  yes, I know, it's not logical, but that's the best way I know how to explain it be it that Jesus is the Son of God. 

The whole reason why Jesus has to emphasize that he was so human was because people knew he was more.  The point was that Jesus humbled himself lower than the angels as the Bible says.  In order for Jesus to do that, he had to be more at some point.  You can't humble yourself to be human if you already are. 

This is going beyond the point that we're at as well though.  I don't expect anyone to accept that or anything else tied to that until we can get beyond the point of whether there's a spiritual world to begin with or not. 

You conclude so much about me, yet you don't have any idea how long I've researched for an understanding of that concept. 

We all research and study and to quote Roxy the Reaper*, "You don't know me" 

*Dead Like Me-ShowTime

caposkia wrote:

Let's just stay focused further on the book instead of tangenting on this.  

Fine.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Obviously you

caposkia wrote:

Obviously you missed the point about not getting stuck in the physical.  Your GPS is a GLOBAL positioning device, thus it doesn't go beyond looking at the GLOBE.  and Google... well I'm not sure what you'd have been looking for through google for the spiritual world.  Miss Cleo maybe???

I'm well aware of that I was being a satirical. 

caposkia wrote:

Do you see the flaws in your claims yet?

The only real claim I have made is as far as I can tell there is no such thing as a god. I consider all that I have been taught as a Christian to not be true. What is? Not what I was taught.

caposkia wrote:

if all you're here for is to ask questions that aren't going to make a difference for either of us, then why are you on this forum?

I've learned a lot about you and see in many ways we are not far apart. I promote tolerance and understanding of the views of others not active warfare, though one should always keep a sword handy.

caposkia wrote:

What is it that you'd be looking for for a reason to consider the existance of God?

 

Over the years I have sought to determine if there were such a thing as a god. So far I see no need for one to explain anything. 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


patcleaver
patcleaver's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-11-07
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I absolutely

caposkia wrote:

I absolutely see how people can determine that religion and God are not true. Though your conclusion that all listed above cannot stand on their own doesn't exactly hold water. if it did, I wouldn't be here talking to you about my belief.
The point was, to misconstrue the truths as those churches did, it's easy to look at those stories and claim they're false because they sound just as far fetched as the stuff those churches have made up.

It's like the test questions, which one is true. when you put them all together, any all of them sound very far fetched, and yet one is true. You have to determine which could possibly happen. If you've never heard of any of the options, you're left to your best guess.

Therefore, when these churches teachings are found to be false, instead of assuming that there might be peices of truth here and there, everything else is assumed to be false.

You are missing the whole point of religion. There are 6,000 religions and most of their stories contradict each other. Almost everyone believes that at least 5,999 of those stories are fictional, yet they ignorantly think that the one that they arbitrarily believe in … is true.

People make up fictional stories about religion. All religious stories are fiction. The stories of the OT are fictional and the stories of the NT are fictional just like the 6,000 other fictional stories of other religions. The fictional stories of Christians are no more unique than the fictional stories of other religions – all fictional stories are unique.

The Christian book of fiction is no more believable than the Hindu book of fiction or the Moslem book of fiction or the Sikh book of fiction or the hundreds of other sacred books of fiction and fictional oral stories of thousands of other religions. They are all obviously fiction.

It is not our responsability to choose one of the thousands of silly fictional stories to believe in – it is our responsability to recognize that all the religious stories are fiction.

It does not make any sense at all to search for God until we have reasonable evidence that some God exists, but we have no reasonable evidence at all that God exists. In fact, we know that God is impossible because it is impossible for the immaterial to be aware or to know anything or to think or to be conscious.

All of mankind is on a search for knowledge, but your search for God and religion is not part of our search for knowledge - the search for God and religion is just a search for superstition, ignorance, fear, intolerance and hatred.

Even if there were a God, that would not indicate that any of the 6,000 religions that people follow are true. Most likely, if there were a God, all religions and our religious ideas would still be false.

caposkia wrote:

Well, here's the thing when it comes to this belief. As far as I stand right now, either all of it has to be true, or none of it is. Yes, that goes against the thing I just said about the church, but it is the church that changes the writings of the Bible to accommodate what they want to be true, not the other way around. Therefore, unless I have other reason to believe so, I understand that the writings in the Bible must be true.

Keep in mind, the little things pulled out like a staff changing into a snake or a talking donkey really don't hold me to my belief. If those things were not written in the Bible, it really wouldn't change my stance, therefore you can pull those out as reasons for not believing if you'd like, but it really doesn't matter if those parts are true or not.

Yes I believe they are, but it doesn't matter either way. It's the stories as a whole you'd have to take into consideration.

The only reason you have to believing any of that not to be true anyway is the one thing that many have complained about our defense for God. Lack of evidence. Therefore, it's really a weak stance on concluding no God.

Again if God is real, it's understandable that those things happened.

For the Brians out there who want to take this as me changing my stance. I never said I don't believe in them. the point of the above is to say that it's not a strong support against my belief. That's it, nothing more.

Almost all fictional stories contain lots of facts that are true. The superman movies are filled with things that are true. In many fictional stories everything is true except the existence of the main characters and the plot of the story. Nobody questions that there really is a Jerusalem and a Galilee and there was a Jewish temple. There are also lots of things that are true in all the thousands of fictional stories of other religions – just like in the bible.

The demand for evidence before believing something is not a weak stance for atheism. The existence of magical immaterial beings that existed forever or poofed into existence, and that can create something from nothing is incredibly extraordinary – far more extraordinary then the claim that fairies paint the flowers or that lepricons hide gold at the end of rainbows.

It is evil to make arbitrary decisions that effect other people. The pilot does not check the airplane because he arbitrarily believes that its safe to fly, and hundreds of passengers die. Having arbitrary beliefs is evil because it leads to evil arbitrary decisions. How do you justify your arbitrary evil beliefs?

The silly impossible contradictory things in the bible is not what made me realize that there was no God. What made me realize that there was no God was that people are constantly making up stories just like the stories in the gospels and OT, and you can often tell that the stories are made up because the stories do not make sense - just like the stories in the gospels and OT.

Even if there was a God, there is no evidence that the OT or the Gospels are reliable. They are obviously fictional stories because they are the same type of stories as the thousands of other fictional stories of other religions.

caposkia wrote:

This gets into a very extensive concept. We could go for a while on this. simply put, Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. yes, I know, it's not logical, but that's the best way I know how to explain it be it that Jesus is the Son of God.

The whole reason why Jesus has to emphasize that he was so human was because people knew he was more. The point was that Jesus humbled himself lower than the angels as the Bible says. In order for Jesus to do that, he had to be more at some point. You can't humble yourself to be human if you already are.

This is going beyond the point that we're at as well though. I don't expect anyone to accept that or anything else tied to that until we can get beyond the point of whether there's a spiritual world to begin with or not.

You conclude so much about me, yet you don't have any idea how long I've researched for an understanding of that concept.

Let's just stay focused further on the book instead of tangenting on this.

The gospels are fictional stories. There is little evidence that they were written before the 4th century. There is no reasonable evidence that Mary, Joseph, Jesus of Nazareth or the apostles ever existed. There is no reasonable evidence that Paul was written before the 4th century or that Paul was even writing about Jesus of Nazareth.

Historians at the time of Jesus just made up their historical dialog, so even if there were a Jesus, and the Gospels were written as history, the sayings of Jesus would have been made up by the historians who wrote the Gospels.

The best evidence that Christians have for the gospels existing before the 4th century are fragments of unknown origin that are probably forgeries - just like thousands of other Christian religious artifacts.

There is very little evidence that any Christian religion based on Jesus of Nazareth existed before the 4th century. The references in Tacitus and Pliny the Younger are probably interpolations. The writings of a few fanatics in the third century, that are probably heavily interpolated, and could be forgeries, does not prove that there was an organized religion of Christianity based on Jesus of Nazareth even in the third century.

Only a fictional Jesus could be 100% man and 100% God. The gospels do not claim that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. Son’s of gods are not gods. The Jews often referred to themselves as son’s of God. The OT referred to the people of Israel as the son of god. Son of God was one of the titles of Kings of Israel. Even modern Christians often say they are children of god.

Just because you think that a concept "Jesus was 100% man and 100% God" “makes sense to you” does not mean that the concept is not incoherent. There are lots of people who believe incoherent concepts. If you believe in incoherent concepts then you have simply surrendered part of the rationality that makes you human. Since you’re a Christian, it is clear that this is not the only incoherent concept that you are intentionally infecting your mind with. You are simply refusing to admit the truth that these things are conctradictory and therefore can not be true.  There is one God - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. Everything has a cause and god does not have a cause. The Universe could not have always existed but God could have always existed. Jesus is decended from David through Joseph and Mary was a virgin when she conceived by the Holy Ghost. God is good and omnipotent but the world is filled with unneccessary suffering. God is omnipotent but cannot make a rock that is too heavy for him to lift. God is omnisient but we have free will. God is just and also merciful. God is just and/or merciful but condemns unbelievers to hell forever. "Who made the Universe?" is a reasonable question, but "who made god" is not a reasonable question. Children are not responsible for the sins of their fathers, but Jesus saved us from the original sin when Adam ate the fruit. There are hundreds of contradictions in the bible that many Christians simply choose to believe are not contradictions.
 

when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Pat, nice helpful

Thanks Pat, nice helpful read. Believers frustrate and worry me. Getting kids into superstition is heart breaking and a saddening perpetuating circle of wrong thinking .... yeah, idol worshiper separatists "don't know what they do" ....

Hey Cap, you seem a really nice guy, a most important favorable quality, and thanks for your replies.

I cut to the chase and say "I AM GOD, all is god" ... ( as all connected energy / matter - all existence / thermodynamics ) ... to render common god concepts obviously silly. I also often express my indignation of religion, in a "Jesus story character" sense, like the scolding of peter and the dogmatic church ...

Story, most famous Buddha said thinking on god deities was mostly wasted day dreaming. Many buddhists, maybe especially zen fans, have abandoned using the word  "reincarnation", perverted by silly folklore, as beyond repair, and say it simply meant all existence is "recycling", is in transition, and was an early intuition of today's "thermodynamics". 

 I and many say the only study of g-o-d ( g awe d ) is science, which today also studies how we think and what is consciousness. The more we learn scientifically the more amazed and in awe we are. 

Thank you too, Brian37 .... I really apprechiate your serious entertaining rants.

I dig so many of you RRS fans ... lucky me to know you ...   


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:you must be

caposkia wrote:

you must be thinking of another God.  Basically you're saying God wants us to kill people.  Please quote this in the Bible. 

Joshua, Jericho, marching around the city. Men, women, children and cattle slaughtered. The point of the story being ... ?

caposkia wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

My point is that you have a latently violent superego that identifies with the Old Testament's God, and you're defending it like a battered wife makes excuses for her husband.

alright then.  All Hail Hitler.

I can't even imagine what you're driving at, there. "Superego" is the name Freud gave to the parental conscience, and yours seems to like slaughter.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

EXACTAMUNDO! .... well close. I'm a big fans of your easily understandable styles Brian37, and pauljohn .... but Brian, you leave me surprisingly baffled by your assessment of my atheist style, which is primarily directed at the religious idol worshiper separatists .... which is why I use "religious" jargon in lots of my rants. Therefore I say things like, the only sensible jesus story character is the atheistic buddha like character which was also polluted by wacky superstitious folklore.

Lumping me and young Pineapple philosophically together puzzles me. I tell you truly, I've been anti-theist since the concept of a creator master seriously entered my young mind. The tradition atheists have there end well covered so I purposely try to inject another method of knocking religion .... and so I say me, you, the dirt, as all existence is g-o-d or nothing is g-o-d. On this issue there is no middle.

When I first began posting I fairly often mentioned the "good cop /  bad cop" and "more than one way to skin a cat." I chose a difficult way to communicate and felt I was improving.

A health issue arose about 3 months ago so I'm now on morphine and relaxers, and have lost the little wit I had .... so I've quit posting much. I was sure having fun with words then.

I'd enjoy reading some of my "hokie" posts, that I didn't explain to you. Please keep in mind you are talking to g-o-d ... ((( no, no, not some retarded religious god idol concept.       ... so lucky, so sad ...

 

I too wish you well as I enjoy your comments and hope to see you posting more again soon. You and I are about the same age probably the 2 oldest on this site, so I can relate to a lot you say. So far I'm lucky health wise, probably all the good partying I did in the past, especially in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, OK I still do sometimes. You outdo me on rum drinking however. Thanks for you comments as I do try to make a difference like you do as well.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:A

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

A health issue arose about 3 months ago so I'm now on morphine and relaxers, and have lost the little wit I had .... so I've quit posting much. I was sure having fun with words then.

I AM GOD AS YOU,

Best wishes for a speedy recovery. I hope it's nothing too serious (though I shudder to think you are now on morphine, 3 months later). Good luck, my friend.

I've wondered what happened to you. I'm glad you're feeling well enough to post some.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU, allow me to

I AM GOD AS YOU, allow me to add my condolances and best wishes. I am definitely from the 'baby-boomer' generation, altho people typically are surprised when I tell them my age. Something to be said for physical activity, no smoking little alcohol or red meat, etc...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Again you go to the NT to explain the OT.

I went to the NT because it clearly explained the question you stated.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Before one word of the NT was written in the Gospels circa 60 CE or later followers would have had to depart from the traditional view. All they had to do so was the OT. I realize Paul's writing is part of this to some point, yet he knows no real details. In Acts James does not take this position at all, rather believers were still following Jewish Law yet Christ died and was resurrected. It was a strange twist on their messiah concept but OK they waited to see what would occur. In a reasonable amount of time, no kingdom of god as expected by Jewish Tradition happens. The explanation is rather simple,  Jews continued to hold to their messiah tradition because that's how they interpreted their own prophecies. Those that become Christian do something else entirely by reading between the lines and reading into scripture things that had no connection at all to the messiah.

Interesting.  So the NT completely changed the meaning of the OT. 

Basically with your explanation above, you're saying that close to half the Jews in the world misinterpreted their prophesies to conclude that Jesus is true.   That's quite a radical claim.  How are you going to explain that to them?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Except this isn't a test quiz and all can be false. 

Sure it's not.  I think you understood the point though.  Also, all can be false as much as all can be true.  For your statement to be true, so would this one have to be.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Therein lies the inevitable wall of difference between you as a believer and those of us that are not. The foundation of God belief that comes to us is based on the book both OT and NT in all of its many versions. You can pretty up the language from early English, yet you can't erase the irrational. You accept that which is not observed and in the real world. You accept the stories that are disproved by history and archeology. It's not just lack of evidence it's also evidence to the contrary. We are not just speaking of bears eating children or Cain and Abel here, we are talking about entire impossibilities of immense proportions. I do remember the warm fuzzy feelings from my years as a believer but they don' stand up to the harsh light of reality from my POV.

here we go back to warm fuzzy feelings again.  If that's all you had in your faith, then I'm going to guess you didn't really have much of a walk with God, but more so a walk with your religion. 

I had a feeling as usual that someone would take what I said out of context.  You talk about prettying up the English and not being able to erase the irrational.  Just because I don't fully understand something myself in the Bible doesn't mean that I'm going to dismiss it as true. (just as you wouldn't do the same with science)  You call it irrational becuase you don't understand it yet.  There are many many factors to take into consideration when you take any part of "irational" scripture out to say it can't be true.  I've gone through a few of them I think on this forum.  More on the other forum.

yea, I know, explain a snake from a staff.  Sure.  Explain Ball Lightning.

The differences we have always seem to go back to misunderstood beliefs that religions over the years have put into the paper. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What is it that you'd be looking for for a reason to consider the existance of God?

 

Over the years I have sought to determine if there were such a thing as a god. So far I see no need for one to explain anything. 

Though I appreciate your understanding to where I'm coming from, I still think you're missing something about my faith be it that it's not rooted in a church, but in the Bible.

You sure you're really interested in talking about the book?  from what your saying, it doesn't make sense to me that it would really make a difference.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
patcleaver wrote:You are

patcleaver wrote:

You are missing the whole point of religion. There are 6,000 religions and most of their stories contradict each other. Almost everyone believes that at least 5,999 of those stories are fictional, yet they ignorantly think that the one that they arbitrarily believe in … is true.

People make up fictional stories about religion. All religious stories are fiction. The stories of the OT are fictional and the stories of the NT are fictional just like the 6,000 other fictional stories of other religions. The fictional stories of Christians are no more unique than the fictional stories of other religions – all fictional stories are unique.

The Christian book of fiction is no more believable than the Hindu book of fiction or the Moslem book of fiction or the Sikh book of fiction or the hundreds of other sacred books of fiction and fictional oral stories of thousands of other religions. They are all obviously fiction.

It is not our responsability to choose one of the thousands of silly fictional stories to believe in – it is our responsability to recognize that all the religious stories are fiction.

It does not make any sense at all to search for God until we have reasonable evidence that some God exists, but we have no reasonable evidence at all that God exists. In fact, we know that God is impossible because it is impossible for the immaterial to be aware or to know anything or to think or to be conscious.

All of mankind is on a search for knowledge, but your search for God and religion is not part of our search for knowledge - the search for God and religion is just a search for superstition, ignorance, fear, intolerance and hatred.

Even if there were a God, that would not indicate that any of the 6,000 religions that people follow are true. Most likely, if there were a God, all religions and our religious ideas would still be false.

I think that if you read the book referenced in the introduction of this forum, you'd understand that I know exactly what religion is about.  A lot of your statements above actually parallel the book in many ways. 

You may also be interested to know I agree with your last statement; "if there were a God, all religions and our religious ideas would still be false." 

Care to read the book?

patcleaver wrote:

Almost all fictional stories contain lots of facts that are true. The superman movies are filled with things that are true. In many fictional stories everything is true except the existence of the main characters and the plot of the story. Nobody questions that there really is a Jerusalem and a Galilee and there was a Jewish temple. There are also lots of things that are true in all the thousands of fictional stories of other religions – just like in the bible.

The demand for evidence before believing something is not a weak stance for atheism. The existence of magical immaterial beings that existed forever or poofed into existence, and that can create something from nothing is incredibly extraordinary – far more extraordinary then the claim that fairies paint the flowers or that lepricons hide gold at the end of rainbows.

It is evil to make arbitrary decisions that effect other people. The pilot does not check the airplane because he arbitrarily believes that its safe to fly, and hundreds of passengers die. Having arbitrary beliefs is evil because it leads to evil arbitrary decisions. How do you justify your arbitrary evil beliefs?

The silly impossible contradictory things in the bible is not what made me realize that there was no God. What made me realize that there was no God was that people are constantly making up stories just like the stories in the gospels and OT, and you can often tell that the stories are made up because the stories do not make sense - just like the stories in the gospels and OT.

Even if there was a God, there is no evidence that the OT or the Gospels are reliable. They are obviously fictional stories because they are the same type of stories as the thousands of other fictional stories of other religions.

hmm... something tells me you'd really be interested in reading that book.  Wait... Are you Becky Garrison??!!!! naw wait, she's a believer.. that holds those views.

patcleaver wrote:

The gospels are fictional stories. There is little evidence that they were written before the 4th century. There is no reasonable evidence that Mary, Joseph, Jesus of Nazareth or the apostles ever existed. There is no reasonable evidence that Paul was written before the 4th century or that Paul was even writing about Jesus of Nazareth.

Historians at the time of Jesus just made up their historical dialog, so even if there were a Jesus, and the Gospels were written as history, the sayings of Jesus would have been made up by the historians who wrote the Gospels.

The best evidence that Christians have for the gospels existing before the 4th century are fragments of unknown origin that are probably forgeries - just like thousands of other Christian religious artifacts.

There is very little evidence that any Christian religion based on Jesus of Nazareth existed before the 4th century. The references in Tacitus and Pliny the Younger are probably interpolations. The writings of a few fanatics in the third century, that are probably heavily interpolated, and could be forgeries, does not prove that there was an organized religion of Christianity based on Jesus of Nazareth even in the third century.

Only a fictional Jesus could be 100% man and 100% God. The gospels do not claim that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. Son’s of gods are not gods. The Jews often referred to themselves as son’s of God. The OT referred to the people of Israel as the son of god. Son of God was one of the titles of Kings of Israel. Even modern Christians often say they are children of god.

Just because you think that a concept "Jesus was 100% man and 100% God" “makes sense to you” does not mean that the concept is not incoherent. There are lots of people who believe incoherent concepts. If you believe in incoherent concepts then you have simply surrendered part of the rationality that makes you human. Since you’re a Christian, it is clear that this is not the only incoherent concept that you are intentionally infecting your mind with. You are simply refusing to admit the truth that these things are conctradictory and therefore can not be true.  There is one God - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. Everything has a cause and god does not have a cause. The Universe could not have always existed but God could have always existed. Jesus is decended from David through Joseph and Mary was a virgin when she conceived by the Holy Ghost. God is good and omnipotent but the world is filled with unneccessary suffering. God is omnipotent but cannot make a rock that is too heavy for him to lift. God is omnisient but we have free will. God is just and also merciful. God is just and/or merciful but condemns unbelievers to hell forever. "Who made the Universe?" is a reasonable question, but "who made god" is not a reasonable question. Children are not responsible for the sins of their fathers, but Jesus saved us from the original sin when Adam ate the fruit. There are hundreds of contradictions in the bible that many Christians simply choose to believe are not contradictions.
 

As I say to all who have such conclusive understandings, please present to me your research. 

As far as the books of the Gospels are concerned, the 4th century copies you are refering to are just that.  There is evidence that they were written before then because those are copies.  We don't know how long before then and it is widely accepted by the Christian faith that the gospels were written down at a later time. 

Notice the stories of the Bible are passed along in the stories "VERBALLY".


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Joshua,

HisWillness wrote:

Joshua, Jericho, marching around the city. Men, women, children and cattle slaughtered. The point of the story being ... ?

I can do that too with a story.  Why don't you read it, then ask me the question.  Chapter 1 actually explains it quite well. 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Before one word of the NT was written in the Gospels circa 60 CE or later followers would have had to depart from the traditional view. All they had to do so was the OT. I realize Paul's writing is part of this to some point, yet he knows no real details. In Acts James does not take this position at all, rather believers were still following Jewish Law yet Christ died and was resurrected. It was a strange twist on their messiah concept but OK they waited to see what would occur. In a reasonable amount of time, no kingdom of god as expected by Jewish Tradition happens. The explanation is rather simple,  Jews continued to hold to their messiah tradition because that's how they interpreted their own prophecies. Those that become Christian do something else entirely by reading between the lines and reading into scripture things that had no connection at all to the messiah.

Interesting.  So the NT completely changed the meaning of the OT. 

Basically with your explanation above, you're saying that close to half the Jews in the world misinterpreted their prophesies to conclude that Jesus is true.   That's quite a radical claim.  How are you going to explain that to them?

Judaism did not take the position their messiah would be executed and come back to life in 3 days followed by leaving for his home in the sky. Instead their messiah was to lead them in establishing the kingdom of god on earth. 

I don't see where you get the idea that half the Jews in the 1st century CE misinterpreted Jesus to be true from what I said. In fact history doesn't support exactly how many of any belief system held to be a Jesus follower or Christian, it may have been only a few dozen.

Jews may or may not have been the 1st Christians as opposed to Jesus followers that is something else entirely.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Therein lies the inevitable wall of difference between you as a believer and those of us that are not. The foundation of God belief that comes to us is based on the book both OT and NT in all of its many versions. You can pretty up the language from early English, yet you can't erase the irrational. You accept that which is not observed and in the real world. You accept the stories that are disproved by history and archeology. It's not just lack of evidence it's also evidence to the contrary. We are not just speaking of bears eating children or Cain and Abel here, we are talking about entire impossibilities of immense proportions. I do remember the warm fuzzy feelings from my years as a believer but they don' stand up to the harsh light of reality from my POV.

here we go back to warm fuzzy feelings again.  If that's all you had in your faith, then I'm going to guess you didn't really have much of a walk with God, but more so a walk with your religion. 

I had a feeling as usual that someone would take what I said out of context.  You talk about prettying up the English and not being able to erase the irrational.  Just because I don't fully understand something myself in the Bible doesn't mean that I'm going to dismiss it as true. (just as you wouldn't do the same with science)  You call it irrational becuase you don't understand it yet.  There are many many factors to take into consideration when you take any part of "irational" scripture out to say it can't be true.  I've gone through a few of them I think on this forum.  More on the other forum.

Perhaps I simplify when I say warm fuzzy feelings. I once thought I saw all purpose through God and Jesus but through extensive study in part thanks to parochial schools and Jesuit priests in grad school I see it otherwise today as pure delusion.

As someone that started as a book evangelical Christian (Lutheran) and then became a Catholic I always go to the book for basis. If the book did not exist the god of Abe beliefs would have died thousands of years ago. 

I learned to examine all beliefs based on challenging the idea as untrue and to require proof (in some form) to even consider it as a workable theory. The god of Abe beliefs when examined as such fail. This only leaves the myths to explain which are well documented but have little to substantiate them anymore than Sumerian myths from which some seem to originate.

caposkia wrote:

yea, I know, explain a snake from a staff.  Sure.  Explain Ball Lightning.

The differences we have always seem to go back to misunderstood beliefs that religions over the years have put into the paper. 

You have made all sorts of claims based on the pretty fables (well some are bloody too) from the book on these forums. Time will tell if any are based in the real world or if they should stay in fantasyland. I don't see a way to show a staff can become a snake but perhaps Moses had a matter transducer we have yet to develop. Hey, that would be a way to take CO2 and make it into a fuel to move vehicles. Maybe there are plans for it in the Ark we haven't found. Where's that warehouse where Indiana Jones tripped over it?

As to ball lightning, this is not exactly my field, I am a power systems engineer, BSEE, with 30+ years of experience. I consider Tesla to have had good ideas regarding it though he didn't have the tools available to fully understand it. Faraday on the other hand considered it to be an optical phenomenon and not related to electricity at all. Time will tell. 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Judaism did not take the position their messiah would be executed and come back to life in 3 days followed by leaving for his home in the sky. Instead their messiah was to lead them in establishing the kingdom of god on earth. 

I don't see where you get the idea that half the Jews in the 1st century CE misinterpreted Jesus to be true from what I said. In fact history doesn't support exactly how many of any belief system held to be a Jesus follower or Christian, it may have been only a few dozen.

Jews may or may not have been the 1st Christians as opposed to Jesus followers that is something else entirely.

I was referring to Modern Day Jews, (Jews for Christ) though it is the Jews that were the followers of Christ in the Biblical stories.  Jesus was a Jew.

You'd have to say then that there were many Jews of that time (I don't know how many) that misinterpreted their teachings in order to accept what Jesus was telling them. 

Many of the Jews who discover the truth in Christ conclude that they misunderstood the prophesies in many areas.  Isaiah I feel gives a pretty clear prophesy of the fate of Jesus.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Perhaps I simplify when I say warm fuzzy feelings. I once thought I saw all purpose through God and Jesus but through extensive study in part thanks to parochial schools and Jesuit priests in grad school I see it otherwise today as pure delusion.

As someone that started as a book evangelical Christian (Lutheran) and then became a Catholic I always go to the book for basis. If the book did not exist the god of Abe beliefs would have died thousands of years ago. 

I learned to examine all beliefs based on challenging the idea as untrue and to require proof (in some form) to even consider it as a workable theory. The god of Abe beliefs when examined as such fail. This only leaves the myths to explain which are well documented but have little to substantiate them anymore than Sumerian myths from which some seem to originate.

caposkia wrote:

yea, I know, explain a snake from a staff.  Sure.  Explain Ball Lightning.

The differences we have always seem to go back to misunderstood beliefs that religions over the years have put into the paper. 

You have made all sorts of claims based on the pretty fables (well some are bloody too) from the book on these forums. Time will tell if any are based in the real world or if they should stay in fantasyland. I don't see a way to show a staff can become a snake but perhaps Moses had a matter transducer we have yet to develop. Hey, that would be a way to take CO2 and make it into a fuel to move vehicles. Maybe there are plans for it in the Ark we haven't found. Where's that warehouse where Indiana Jones tripped over it?

As to ball lightning, this is not exactly my field, I am a power systems engineer, BSEE, with 30+ years of experience. I consider Tesla to have had good ideas regarding it though he didn't have the tools available to fully understand it. Faraday on the other hand considered it to be an optical phenomenon and not related to electricity at all. Time will tell. 

I would love to see some of the information presented to you to help you not believe.

As for Ball Lightning, the reason why I keep using that as an example is because even though credible scientists admit that it happens due to the large number of eye-witnesses, science cannot explain the phenomenon.  The only proof of it happening is the sightings by people.  Apparently many of whom hold credibility in the science world. 

though a few thousand in the world can claim to have witnessed ball lightning, it's generally agreed upon by those who haven't seen it that it exists.

However, millions around the world claim to know God, yet it's generally agreed upon by those who don't that he doesn't exist. 

Ironic.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Judaism did not take the position their messiah would be executed and come back to life in 3 days followed by leaving for his home in the sky. Instead their messiah was to lead them in establishing the kingdom of god on earth. 

I don't see where you get the idea that half the Jews in the 1st century CE misinterpreted Jesus to be true from what I said. In fact history doesn't support exactly how many of any belief system held to be a Jesus follower or Christian, it may have been only a few dozen.

Jews may or may not have been the 1st Christians as opposed to Jesus followers that is something else entirely.

I was referring to Modern Day Jews, (Jews for Christ) though it is the Jews that were the followers of Christ in the Biblical stories.  Jesus was a Jew.

You'd have to say then that there were many Jews of that time (I don't know how many) that misinterpreted their teachings in order to accept what Jesus was telling them. 

Many of the Jews who discover the truth in Christ conclude that they misunderstood the prophesies in many areas.  Isaiah I feel gives a pretty clear prophesy of the fate of Jesus.

I certainly wasn't speaking of Jews for Christ and didn't see a clue you jumped from the 1st century to the 21st suddenly. 

I'm sure you do see Isaiah as giving a clear prophecy of Jesus but you do so by neglecting its intent according to Jewish interpretation as well as acceptance of Isaiah's failures such as Isaiah 13:19. But I'm not going to nitpick it for you, pick up a history book and compare Isaiah to what was recorded. See a few Jewish websites and see what Jews say about Isaiah, such as here for example.

caposkia wrote:

I would love to see some of the information presented to you to help you not believe.

My road to disbelief began in college in the 70s with a history class called Western Civilization. I became fascinated with history and studied the Sumerians, ancient Egypt, Rome, the Hittites, the Celts, India, myths, and of course ancient lands regarding the Israelites. The first crack in belief started thanks to Pope Julius II's exploits. As I was originally a Lutheran, the only real church history I knew was about the Bible all being true and Luther fixed the evil errors of the Catholic Church by starting his own. As a Catholic, I learned how Protestants were mistaken in their views and needed to return to the true church of Jesus. What I never learned was how evil and unreal it all was. This first crack opened my eyes to study and research which I have done for over 30 years since. I don't just look at the sick comments of St Ambrose, or the cannibal crusaders of Ma'arrat al Numan, or burning the innocent victims of heresy. No, I gut the whole thing based on all of the problems. From polytheism to failed prophecy, to inaccurate history. Gospels that show a desert prophet with attitude that have multiple choices for events. In the 80's I went to a Jesuit grad school and learned even more. I never read Harris or any of the atheist authors to reach my conclusions the whole god thing was delusion and man made fantasy. I did it from a basis in history. I used Cantor, Freeman, Shaw, and Roux to go down the road to unbelief. 

I read Karen Armstrong's History of God and even James Carroll's Constantine's Sword in the 90's but by then I was free of the god belief and it just reinforced my disbelief. So, you may or may not have seen the information I have, if so, you wore Christian god blinders and saw not a thing in history to impress you to consider, gee whiz, maybe there's a problem here with this god belief stuff.

caposkia wrote:

As for Ball Lightning, the reason why I keep using that as an example is because even though credible scientists admit that it happens due to the large number of eye-witnesses, science cannot explain the phenomenon.  The only proof of it happening is the sightings by people.  Apparently many of whom hold credibility in the science world. 

though a few thousand in the world can claim to have witnessed ball lightning, it's generally agreed upon by those who haven't seen it that it exists.

However, millions around the world claim to know God, yet it's generally agreed upon by those who don't that he doesn't exist. 

Ironic.

All I can tell you about ball lightning is sometime an explanation will come. Once we knew not why illness killed people or why leprosy occurred, now we know about bacteria and viruses. We had no clue about atoms or even our solar system but we know a lot more now. Wait and see an explanation will come.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 I need to say thanks good

 I need to say thanks good friends for wishing me well ... way lucky to know you. I can't stress strongly enough, as we've all heard, that our mental and physical health is our greatest treasure.

I've always been amused that most can get a "perfect" score on a common sense, simple basic, "how to live our lives healthy" test, yet fail to do so.

Regarding religion, I wonder just how much the fantasy of a god's forgiveness and a heavenly, next time afterlife plays into this failure.

Generalizing, religion as has been, plays a huge negative, fear inducing, destructive role in teaching we are born into sin, or from previous life's sins, and that this life's meaning is to gain our, all knowing, powerful, loving creator god's forgiveness. It would be a silly joke if it wasn't so mentally destructive.  Religion of the majority is largely a curse, a slap to human pride and dignity and potential, a hindrance of attainable progress to world unity, oneness, peace, to diminishing ignorance, greed, insecurity, fear, poverty, suffering ...

  What and or is there a cure to fixing religion? In concerned desperation I've, as many suggest fixing the definition of god, because eliminating  "G>AWE<D"  isn't going away ... It's no wonder the fictional "good atheistic", my way or the highway jesus character wept, and said this is the kingdom of god, ye are gods, for eyes that can see  ... as the separatist blind fools created another mythical holy idol demigod jesus savior king .... 

Geezz idol worshipers,

"Stop believing and start thinking.
Stop fearing and start loving.
Live in the moment as purely and as forthright as you can be, and all [possible] goodness will issue forth from within you and from without you.
And you will feel the connection to all things and know that you are all that is, as all that is, is within you, Including your "god". ~ Shalom

  Damn right I am god, just as you, just as the dirt, just as all existence. I didn't need a buddha jesus to tell me so, but hey thanks, old misunderstood friends. Atheism is godly, god is atheist , all is one .... move beyond primitive definitions.

"I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. I'm crying. I am the eggman, they are the eggmen"  ~ prophet John Lennon    

                     


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:HisWillness

caposkia wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Joshua, Jericho, marching around the city. Men, women, children and cattle slaughtered. The point of the story being ... ?

I can do that too with a story.  Why don't you read it, then ask me the question.  Chapter 1 actually explains it quite well. 

No, you can't do that with a story. The Cat in The Hat, for instance, has no slaughter in it. You could interpret the story any way you like, but there is no slaughter in there.

The God of the Torah encourages slaughter and slavery - I don't think there's much to interpret there. We already know that YHWH is a vengeful, jealous god who will strike those down who offend Him. But why would anyone reach the conclusion that such a god is infinitely loving? Does love in the hands of a god change to violent retribution and an imposition of suffering? 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I certainly wasn't speaking of Jews for Christ and didn't see a clue you jumped from the 1st century to the 21st suddenly. 

Not that the "sudden Jump" mattered due to the fact that the NT speaks of those Jews as well.  There was an awefully large number of them who apparently misinterpreted their scriptures.  It's ironic too that only the corrupt Jewish leaders were the ones that saw through the lies.  I guess their dictatorship ways was right after all.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm sure you do see Isaiah as giving a clear prophecy of Jesus but you do so by neglecting its intent according to Jewish interpretation as well as acceptance of Isaiah's failures such as Isaiah 13:19. But I'm not going to nitpick it for you, pick up a history book and compare Isaiah to what was recorded. See a few Jewish websites and see what Jews say about Isaiah, such as here for example.

Your example speaks nothing of the views of Isaiah but of the Torah only.  Isaiah was just one example. 

The Torah does explain of such things for the Jesus and it explains just as the NT does, however, they're (the readers) again missing a few small keys about the process of his rulership.  The NT still says in the end times Jesus will return as King just as the Torah prophesies.  The Torah even specifies the end times.   

Not that this seems to be relevent to our conversation, because you don't even believe God is real. 

All your example proved is why there are still Jews in our world. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

My road to disbelief began in college in the 70s with a history class called Western Civilization. I became fascinated with history and studied the Sumerians, ancient Egypt, Rome, the Hittites, the Celts, India, myths, and of course ancient lands regarding the Israelites. The first crack in belief started thanks to Pope Julius II's exploits. As I was originally a Lutheran, the only real church history I knew was about the Bible all being true and Luther fixed the evil errors of the Catholic Church by starting his own. As a Catholic, I learned how Protestants were mistaken in their views and needed to return to the true church of Jesus. What I never learned was how evil and unreal it all was. This first crack opened my eyes to study and research which I have done for over 30 years since. I don't just look at the sick comments of St Ambrose, or the cannibal crusaders of Ma'arrat al Numan, or burning the innocent victims of heresy. No, I gut the whole thing based on all of the problems. From polytheism to failed prophecy, to inaccurate history. Gospels that show a desert prophet with attitude that have multiple choices for events. In the 80's I went to a Jesuit grad school and learned even more. I never read Harris or any of the atheist authors to reach my conclusions the whole god thing was delusion and man made fantasy. I did it from a basis in history. I used Cantor, Freeman, Shaw, and Roux to go down the road to unbelief. 

I read Karen Armstrong's History of God and even James Carroll's Constantine's Sword in the 90's but by then I was free of the god belief and it just reinforced my disbelief. So, you may or may not have seen the information I have, if so, you wore Christian god blinders and saw not a thing in history to impress you to consider, gee whiz, maybe there's a problem here with this god belief stuff.

it's funny how similar your journey is to mine.  I took the same process in finding God.  It seems you saw the humanistic flaws in religion and decided ultimately that God doesn't make sense.  I took generic study of science, history, and geology among other things to come to the conclusion that God is real. 

I'll have to look further into the names you listed. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

All I can tell you about ball lightning is sometime an explanation will come. Once we knew not why illness killed people or why leprosy occurred, now we know about bacteria and viruses. We had no clue about atoms or even our solar system but we know a lot more now. Wait and see an explanation will come.

I could say the same about God and the spiritual world.  Will you accept that if I conclude the same as you about my belief?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:No, you

HisWillness wrote:

No, you can't do that with a story. The Cat in The Hat, for instance, has no slaughter in it. You could interpret the story any way you like, but there is no slaughter in there.

The God of the Torah encourages slaughter and slavery - I don't think there's much to interpret there. We already know that YHWH is a vengeful, jealous god who will strike those down who offend Him. But why would anyone reach the conclusion that such a god is infinitely loving? Does love in the hands of a god change to violent retribution and an imposition of suffering? 

I'm sure you're "accepting of slaughter and slavery" has no boundaries.  You fail to take into consideration that it was a norm of the times (not initiated by God) and God made explicit laws about the freedoms of slaves (that you cannot force them to work for you if they choose to leave) and so on. 

I would like you to also reference for me the part of scripture that specifies God "encouraging slaughter and slavery".  I mean I need a verse that actually says force this people group to work for you and beat them senseless if they don't.  And something that specifies the joy of watching people kill each other.

You may find that it doesn't exist.  Not to my knowlege anyway.  Slavery of that time was also not what we know it as today. 

I'm sure you'll try to pull the blinders excuse again, but it holds no ground if you're not willing to take everything into consideration. (or put blinders on yourself)


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:HisWillness

caposkia wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

No, you can't do that with a story. The Cat in The Hat, for instance, has no slaughter in it. You could interpret the story any way you like, but there is no slaughter in there.

The God of the Torah encourages slaughter and slavery - I don't think there's much to interpret there. We already know that YHWH is a vengeful, jealous god who will strike those down who offend Him. But why would anyone reach the conclusion that such a god is infinitely loving? Does love in the hands of a god change to violent retribution and an imposition of suffering? 

I'm sure you're "accepting of slaughter and slavery" has no boundaries.  You fail to take into consideration that it was a norm of the times (not initiated by God) and God made explicit laws about the freedoms of slaves (that you cannot force them to work for you if they choose to leave) and so on. 

I would like you to also reference for me the part of scripture that specifies God "encouraging slaughter and slavery".  I mean I need a verse that actually says force this people group to work for you and beat them senseless if they don't.  And something that specifies the joy of watching people kill each other.

You may find that it doesn't exist.  Not to my knowlege anyway.  Slavery of that time was also not what we know it as today. 

I'm sure you'll try to pull the blinders excuse again, but it holds no ground if you're not willing to take everything into consideration. (or put blinders on yourself)

And then Jesus changed it to "Don't beat your slave so badly if he didn't know what you wanted of him but mess him up if he did" (Luke 12:45-48, gadfly's paraphrase). Afterwards Paul changed it to "Obey your master as you would obey Christ".

No wonder so many of you like Paul...Your God is too wishy-washy. He just can't make up his mind.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm sure you do see Isaiah as giving a clear prophecy of Jesus but you do so by neglecting its intent according to Jewish interpretation as well as acceptance of Isaiah's failures such as Isaiah 13:19. But I'm not going to nitpick it for you, pick up a history book and compare Isaiah to what was recorded. See a few Jewish websites and see what Jews say about Isaiah, such as here for example.

Your example speaks nothing of the views of Isaiah but of the Torah only.  Isaiah was just one example.

There are other links such as: Jews for Judaism-Suffering Servant. Also look through their FAQs (found under the resources tab) for more detail on what they believe about the Mosiach (Messiah to you)

As I said, it's not up to me to nitpick for you,  as you point out not only do I not consider Jesus to be the promised messiah of the Jews I don't have any god beliefs at all. I have learned from many Christians that they have great difficulty in understanding Jewish beliefs and prophecy interpretation as it generally contradicts the entire basis for Jesus as the messiah. I see the points the Jews make and they would have validity except for the simple problem it includes the belief in the god Yahweh from the land of never was. If you consider Jewish belief on it's own without considering Yahweh to be a myth (which is really hard for me, but I can do so as a lab experiment) then go through their detailed understanding of Hebrew scriptures it is clear that Jesus does not fit as their expected messiah. Christians seem unwilling to even consider that they have morphed Jewish beliefs into a fantasy interpretation at all. That would require a suspension of belief of Christianity to even consider and Christians generally never seem willing to discuss these possibilities.

caposkia wrote:

The Torah does explain of such things for the Jesus and it explains just as the NT does, however, they're (the readers) again missing a few small keys about the process of his rulership.  The NT still says in the end times Jesus will return as King just as the Torah prophesies.  The Torah even specifies the end times.  

In the interpretation of Christians the Jews miss these things though the Jews claim you misconstrue.

As does the non-canon book of Enoch discuss end times which doesn't mean any is based in the real world.

caposkia wrote:

Not that this seems to be relevent to our conversation, because you don't even believe God is real.

Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I can't analyze the claims of the Jews versus the claims of Christians regarding scripture interpretation. I work with numbers as both an engineer and an accountant and if I can suspend reality to analyze some of the weird methods used by people in business, Bible interpretation is cake.

I have positions on other issues where I don't believe. For example, aliens, which may exist but probably aren't coming and going to our backwater planet; alternative energy methods - oil shale sounded like a great idea once; balanced government budgets; time machines; m theory & string theory which have possibilities but I'm so far only intrigued and the like.

caposkia wrote:

All your example proved is why there are still Jews in our world.

Exactly. Christians are likely completely misinterpreting Jewish fictional literature.

caposkia wrote:

it's funny how similar your journey is to mine.  I took the same process in finding God.  It seems you saw the humanistic flaws in religion and decided ultimately that God doesn't make sense.  I took generic study of science, history, and geology among other things to come to the conclusion that God is real. 

I'll have to look further into the names you listed.

As you may have been distracted by the hot babe on your right you may have missed an extremely important point when you studied. In my case, I was distracted by the hot babe in front of me and put my book down to study later.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

All I can tell you about ball lightning is sometime an explanation will come. Once we knew not why illness killed people or why leprosy occurred, now we know about bacteria and viruses. We had no clue about atoms or even our solar system but we know a lot more now. Wait and see an explanation will come.

I could say the same about God and the spiritual world.  Will you accept that if I conclude the same as you about my belief?

Of course you can. After I die if I find I was lead astray by the poorly done messages of Yahweh's prophets and writers I will file an appeal. If appeals aren't allowed then I guess my butt gets fried in the lake of fire forever. If however after I die I return to where I came from, non-existence then that's that. 

If however there is a 1000 year period established after countless persons suddenly all disappear simultaneously from the Earth and Yahsua is on all forms of electronic media proclaiming he's the one et al per Revelation I'd give in.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:And then

jcgadfly wrote:

And then Jesus changed it to "Don't beat your slave so badly if he didn't know what you wanted of him but mess him up if he did" (Luke 12:45-48, gadfly's paraphrase). Afterwards Paul changed it to "Obey your master as you would obey Christ".

No wonder so many of you like Paul...Your God is too wishy-washy. He just can't make up his mind.

The OT already said not to beat your slave so badly, it just used a few more words.  Basically saying if you hurt your slave to the point of injuring him, then you need to let him free. 

Christ would not beat you.  If that's the case, then how is that different than "don't beat your slave so badly..."?

It's easy to pull out verses and make God look bad.   Remember, your dogs should drink your blood. (actual verse pulled out of context OT)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

There are other links such as: Jews for Judaism-Suffering Servant. Also look through their FAQs (found under the resources tab) for more detail on what they believe about the Mosiach (Messiah to you)

As I said, it's not up to me to nitpick for you,  as you point out not only do I not consider Jesus to be the promised messiah of the Jews I don't have any god beliefs at all. I have learned from many Christians that they have great difficulty in understanding Jewish beliefs and prophecy interpretation as it generally contradicts the entire basis for Jesus as the messiah. I see the points the Jews make and they would have validity except for the simple problem it includes the belief in the god Yahweh from the land of never was. If you consider Jewish belief on it's own without considering Yahweh to be a myth (which is really hard for me, but I can do so as a lab experiment) then go through their detailed understanding of Hebrew scriptures it is clear that Jesus does not fit as their expected messiah. Christians seem unwilling to even consider that they have morphed Jewish beliefs into a fantasy interpretation at all. That would require a suspension of belief of Christianity to even consider and Christians generally never seem willing to discuss these possibilities.

I'm definitely not an expert on Jews issues with Christ.  I do know that the few I have discussed with seemed surprised and intrigued by the scriptures I have mentioned to them including Isaiah. 

Jews for Christ are such because they are not only experts (most of them) in the Jewish laws, but also have done extensive comparitive research to come to their conclusion.  Try to find info on them if you're so inclined to discredit my belief due to Jewish criticism.  I will look at the new link you provided.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In the interpretation of Christians the Jews miss these things though the Jews claim you misconstrue.

As does the non-canon book of Enoch discuss end times which doesn't mean any is based in the real world.

Enoch is one of many.  Another "believable" script written in Genesis by those who so desperately wanted people to follow a fake being.  (sarcasm) 

Right.  Basically what this comes down to is we yet again are going one step to far.  If you really want to debate religious views with me.  The first hurtle we need to get over is the issue of whether there is a spiritual world or not. 

conflicting beliefs don't disprove God.  There is usually a clear history of each religions origin outside of their own scripts.  See "The Next Christiandom" book.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I can't analyze the claims of the Jews versus the claims of Christians regarding scripture interpretation. I work with numbers as both an engineer and an accountant and if I can suspend reality to analyze some of the weird methods used by people in business, Bible interpretation is cake.

Sure, you can, but is it really going to bring progress to the conversation?  We can continue on it if you'd like.  I request a new forum for this if so.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Exactly. Christians are likely completely misinterpreting Jewish fictional literature.

Or vise versa. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As you may have been distracted by the hot babe on your right you may have missed an extremely important point when you studied. In my case, I was distracted by the hot babe in front of me and put my book down to study later.

what can I say, them Catholic school girls...

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Of course you can. After I die if I find I was lead astray by the poorly done messages of Yahweh's prophets and writers I will file an appeal. If appeals aren't allowed then I guess my butt gets fried in the lake of fire forever. If however after I die I return to where I came from, non-existence then that's that. 

If however there is a 1000 year period established after countless persons suddenly all disappear simultaneously from the Earth and Yahsua is on all forms of electronic media proclaiming he's the one et al per Revelation I'd give in.

Unfortunately, the left behind series is a poor fabrication of the book of Revelation. 

That is a whole other conversation and a very long one at that.  My views have differed from many due to the research I have done just on that topic.  Though others who have done similar amounts of research I found have mostly the same views I came to take. 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I'm

caposkia wrote:

I'm definitely not an expert on Jews issues with Christ.  I do know that the few I have discussed with seemed surprised and intrigued by the scriptures I have mentioned to them including Isaiah. 

Jews for Christ are such because they are not only experts (most of them) in the Jewish laws, but also have done extensive comparitive research to come to their conclusion.  Try to find info on them if you're so inclined to discredit my belief due to Jewish criticism.  I will look at the new link you provided.

I don't know where you get the idea Jews that accept Jesus have done extensive research as the rabbis seem to think they have just been deceived. See ask the rabbi here.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In the interpretation of Christians the Jews miss these things though the Jews claim you misconstrue.

As does the non-canon book of Enoch discuss end times which doesn't mean any is based in the real world.

Enoch is one of many.  Another "believable" script written in Genesis by those who so desperately wanted people to follow a fake being.  (sarcasm) 

Right.  Basically what this comes down to is we yet again are going one step to far.  If you really want to debate religious views with me.  The first hurtle we need to get over is the issue of whether there is a spiritual world or not. 

conflicting beliefs don't disprove God.  There is usually a clear history of each religions origin outside of their own scripts.  See "The Next Christiandom" book.

You all ready know my view on the idea of a spiritual world. I have no evidence there is such a thing. However, this doesn't mean that people don't create one for explanations of that which they don't understand.

Since Christianity is derived from the foundation of Jewish mythological beliefs weakness in the foundation will collapse the entire structure. First the Jewish myths would have to be shown to have basis in the real world  before one can address if the second floor of the structure was stable. Such methods are used in engineering to build upon concepts.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I can't analyze the claims of the Jews versus the claims of Christians regarding scripture interpretation. I work with numbers as both an engineer and an accountant and if I can suspend reality to analyze some of the weird methods used by people in business, Bible interpretation is cake.

Sure, you can, but is it really going to bring progress to the conversation?  We can continue on it if you'd like.  I request a new forum for this if so.

What topic would you like to address in this new thread?

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Exactly. Christians are likely completely misinterpreting Jewish fictional literature.

Or vise versa.

So you agree that either Christians or Jews are misinterpreting Jewish fictional literature?

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Of course you can. After I die if I find I was lead astray by the poorly done messages of Yahweh's prophets and writers I will file an appeal. If appeals aren't allowed then I guess my butt gets fried in the lake of fire forever. If however after I die I return to where I came from, non-existence then that's that. 

If however there is a 1000 year period established after countless persons suddenly all disappear simultaneously from the Earth and Yahsua is on all forms of electronic media proclaiming he's the one et al per Revelation I'd give in.

Unfortunately, the left behind series is a poor fabrication of the book of Revelation. 

That is a whole other conversation and a very long one at that.  My views have differed from many due to the research I have done just on that topic.  Though others who have done similar amounts of research I found have mostly the same views I came to take.  

Agreed it is a long conversation but one that would seem essential to the core beliefs of Christianity. If one can't decipher the intent of John's rant in Revelation because of scientific impossibilities or basic ignorance he exhibits then what can one do.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't know where you get the idea Jews that accept Jesus have done extensive research as the rabbis seem to think they have just been deceived. See ask the rabbi here.

  Of course the rabbis think they've just been deceived.  It's why th rabbis are still rabbis. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You all ready know my view on the idea of a spiritual world. I have no evidence there is such a thing. However, this doesn't mean that people don't create one for explanations of that which they don't understand.

Since Christianity is derived from the foundation of Jewish mythological beliefs weakness in the foundation will collapse the entire structure. First the Jewish myths would have to be shown to have basis in the real world before one can address if the second floor of the structure was stable. Such methods are used in engineering to build upon concepts.

...and that's what it comes down to when understanding what to follow. 

I only mentioned that because I see it pointless to discuss with you the problems between Jews and Christians if you don't even believe in either following or any following of a spiritual deity.  it brings no ground to the conversation

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What topic would you like to address in this new thread?

It really doesn't come down to what topic I'd like to discuss.  You chose to join me in my forum.  It seems however you're not interested in the topic.  I am still interested in talking to you if you're up for it, though the topic can be whatever you'd like.

There is already another forum going on the topic of evidence for the spiritual world. 

Anything other than that, you name it. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So you agree that either Christians or Jews are misinterpreting Jewish fictional literature?

Logically one would have to be the case.  They can't both be right as far as "Truth" goes.

Unless of course you're trying to be tricky with your wording into getting me to agree that the literature is fictional, which I do not agree with. 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Agreed it is a long conversation but one that would seem essential to the core beliefs of Christianity. If one can't decipher the intent of John's rant in Revelation because of scientific impossibilities or basic ignorance he exhibits then what can one do.

you suggested for me to present a topic idea.  Is this one you want to persue?

if so, you'll have to tell me logically how this is relevent to you be it that you don't believe in these stories to be anything more than fictional.