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. 


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

caposkia wrote:

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)

The OT said you could beat a slave till it took him a day or two to die but not so he died immediately. Jesus and Paul had no such restriction (after all Jesus supposedly fulfilled the Law so it didn't apply to believers). Notice the difference?

Christ would not beat you - just condemn you to hell for not kissing his tush. I'd prefer a beating to Christ's kind of "love".

Who needs to pull verses out of context? The're lousy enough as they are.

"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 wrote:I see it

caposkia wrote:

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

I actually find it fascinating to discuss the differences as I would be more likely to accept Judaism in some form then Christianity if it wasn't for the problem of an origin in mythology and the reliance on the unknown as real.

caposkia wrote:

  You chose to join me in my forum.  It seems however you're not interested in the topic.

I was interested enough to buy the book you suggested and I would discuss her book in more detail but we continue to get detoured. Perhaps we can try again?

caposkia wrote:

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

I'll look for it.

caposkia wrote:

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.

I was being satirical to see if you'd notice the fictional part.

caposkia wrote:
 

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. 

Revelation has been so misconstrued and much dogma has grown from it that has become hard core belief in several sects. It is one of many 'interpreted' sections that cause diversity and it's inaccuracies if taken literal are ammo for the atheist. There are several other ways to interpret John's ranting in Revelation however. Understanding what religious people propagate is important in understanding people and their motivations. I have read the Q'uran several times in my attempts to understand Muslims, over  25 years before 9/11 actually as I had several Islamic friends. I still have an Islamic friend but he has become an atheist, though he may always have been one; the freedom he found in the US instead of Iran may have brought it out.

I personally enjoy conversations with believers of all types as I really think a lot of people in general, and I see no reason to limit discussions to the weather. Many people are incapable of discussing issues of religion without becoming irritated or irrational over the discussion. Consider the following as a compliment, you are a person that is reasonable and open to such discussion even though you probably will not ever  succeed in proselytizing with someone like me. There is not enough of reasonable discourse in this world and when one finds it, it is enjoyable. If more people would discuss issues and not bring out the F18s perhaps the world would be a better place. I also realize there is an extremely low possibility of you making a sudden deconversion to the world of atheism but perhaps such discourse can result in better acceptance of diverse views by those claiming to be theists. I've had much practice with theists as I have a sister that is a fundamentalist and a niece that is a missionary. I also have had long discussions with an evangelical singer and a administrator from a ministry center. These two were customers of mine at a tanning salon I owned in Orlando for 15 years. I also have an ex girlfriend with whom  I'm still friendly even though she is another fundie. The ex condition was unrelated to religion, she's has other problems though not enough to ditch her as a friend.

Obama has said that he is willing to have discussions with both Cuba and Iran. I see this as a door opening to further reduce the level of hatred in the world. I see discussions between theists and atheists as a similar thing. That's how these discussions are relevant to me and why I take the time to research and understand ideas that I may never accept.

PS: It's really a hidden agenda to understand most major religions in the event any one of them decides to bring back the Inquisition and burn heretics or infidels at the stake. It might buy me enough time to escape across the border.

____________________________________________________________
"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 like that pauljohn ...Hey,

I like that pauljohn ...

Hey, bright jcgadfly. From my limited reading of wise1800's Nietzsche and others, I often find a simple non christian, atheistic (non deity belief / faith) appreciation of "story jesus", which hopefully helps explain my style of atheistic "preaching" using "religion jargon".  Yeah, I could obviously use alot of improvement.
    See short part 4 of this short essay. Maybe you will get a little something positive out of it. ??? 
    Nietzsche's "The Antichrist", by Travis J. Denneson - Part 4 , IV. The Buddhistic Jesus?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/travis_denneson/antichrist.html


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The OT said

jcgadfly wrote:

The OT said you could beat a slave till it took him a day or two to die but not so he died immediately. Jesus and Paul had no such restriction (after all Jesus supposedly fulfilled the Law so it didn't apply to believers). Notice the difference?

Please reference that.  I don't remember reading it. 

jcgadfly wrote:

Christ would not beat you - just condemn you to hell for not kissing his tush. I'd prefer a beating to Christ's kind of "love".

Who needs to pull verses out of context? The're lousy enough as they are.

I have no idea what religion you grew up with, but that's not the Christ I know.  The Christ I know died for you so that you may live. 

The idea is if you're condemned to hell, it was your own actions that made that so.  Jesus came down and took the hit for you basically. 

As far as pulling verses out of context.  It seems that's the only way a non-believer can make the Bible look bad.  It's the only excuse I've seen so far from 90% of the people on here. 

A great reason why I suggested the book.


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

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I actually find it fascinating to discuss the differences as I would be more likely to accept Judaism in some form then Christianity if it wasn't for the problem of an origin in mythology and the reliance on the unknown as real.

If you find benefit in it, i'm willing to start a new forum about it and discuss what I know.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not an expert in the Jewish faith.  I know bits and peices here and there. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I was interested enough to buy the book you suggested and I would discuss her book in more detail but we continue to get detoured. Perhaps we can try again?

Sure, I appreciate you taking me seriously.  let's try to stay on topic.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

caposkia wrote:

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

I'll look for it.

There's a link for it somewhere amidst the pages of this forum.  Butterbattle started it.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Revelation has been so misconstrued and much dogma has grown from it that has become hard core belief in several sects. It is one of many 'interpreted' sections that cause diversity and it's inaccuracies if taken literal are ammo for the atheist. There are several other ways to interpret John's ranting in Revelation however. Understanding what religious people propagate is important in understanding people and their motivations. I have read the Q'uran several times in my attempts to understand Muslims, over  25 years before 9/11 actually as I had several Islamic friends. I still have an Islamic friend but he has become an atheist, though he may always have been one; the freedom he found in the US instead of Iran may have brought it out.

I personally enjoy conversations with believers of all types as I really think a lot of people in general, and I see no reason to limit discussions to the weather. Many people are incapable of discussing issues of religion without becoming irritated or irrational over the discussion. Consider the following as a compliment, you are a person that is reasonable and open to such discussion even though you probably will not ever  succeed in proselytizing with someone like me. There is not enough of reasonable discourse in this world and when one finds it, it is enjoyable. If more people would discuss issues and not bring out the F18s perhaps the world would be a better place. I also realize there is an extremely low possibility of you making a sudden deconversion to the world of atheism but perhaps such discourse can result in better acceptance of diverse views by those claiming to be theists. I've had much practice with theists as I have a sister that is a fundamentalist and a niece that is a missionary. I also have had long discussions with an evangelical singer and a administrator from a ministry center. These two were customers of mine at a tanning salon I owned in Orlando for 15 years. I also have an ex girlfriend with whom  I'm still friendly even though she is another fundie. The ex condition was unrelated to religion, she's has other problems though not enough to ditch her as a friend.

Obama has said that he is willing to have discussions with both Cuba and Iran. I see this as a door opening to further reduce the level of hatred in the world. I see discussions between theists and atheists as a similar thing. That's how these discussions are relevant to me and why I take the time to research and understand ideas that I may never accept.

PS: It's really a hidden agenda to understand most major religions in the event any one of them decides to bring back the Inquisition and burn heretics or infidels at the stake. It might buy me enough time to escape across the border.

well alright then. 

As I've mentioned many times, I'm not a fan of religion.  I feel it's seperatism and the Christ of the Bible that I have come to know is not about seperatism. 

Anyway, it sounds like you have perfect reason to discuss Revelation and understanding that the conversation about Revelation is not going to convert you or I to each others following is a good ground to start from. 

If you'd like to, start another forum, or let me know and I'll start one, we can get on that. 


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The OT said you could beat a slave till it took him a day or two to die but not so he died immediately. Jesus and Paul had no such restriction (after all Jesus supposedly fulfilled the Law so it didn't apply to believers). Notice the difference?

Please reference that.  I don't remember reading it. 

jcgadfly wrote:

Christ would not beat you - just condemn you to hell for not kissing his tush. I'd prefer a beating to Christ's kind of "love".

Who needs to pull verses out of context? The're lousy enough as they are.

I have no idea what religion you grew up with, but that's not the Christ I know.  The Christ I know died for you so that you may live. 

The idea is if you're condemned to hell, it was your own actions that made that so.  Jesus came down and took the hit for you basically. 

As far as pulling verses out of context.  It seems that's the only way a non-believer can make the Bible look bad.  It's the only excuse I've seen so far from 90% of the people on here. 

A great reason why I suggested the book.

1. Which reference would you like?

2. Bible-believing - just like yours

3. By "making the Bible look bad" do you mean "trying to make sense of the Bible as written instead of adding a pretty interpretation to it"?

"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:I have no

caposkia wrote:

I have no idea what religion you grew up with, but that's not the Christ I know.  The Christ I know died for you so that you may live. 

The idea is if you're condemned to hell, it was your own actions that made that so.  Jesus came down and took the hit for you basically. 

As far as pulling verses out of context.  It seems that's the only way a non-believer can make the Bible look bad.  It's the only excuse I've seen so far from 90% of the people on here.

 

Cap, before you go accusing atheists of taking the bible out of context, why don't you and all who claim to be Christians have a pow wow and get on the same page.

Quote:
The Christ I know died for you so that you may live.

How self centered. A masochist tortures himself to prove to me he loves me/by killing himself for himself so I can kiss his butt. Sounds more like a disturbed stalker, than a hero.

Here is the reality, your Jesus hero did not magically reconstitute his flesh, and I am already alive, right now typing this.

Spare us you emotional appeal, "I did it all for you". That is merely a story you baught because you like the idea of having a magical super hero.

I have much more respect for the REAL soldiers in WW2 who died to maintain my freedom, than a claim of a magical split personality who allegedly escaped losing all his blood, had his brain and vital organs stop all the way down to the celular level, only to get up 3 days later to dance the jig.

 

 

 

"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:1. Which

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Which reference would you like?

Any you're willing to give.  We can go from there.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. Bible-believing - just like yours

That doesn't narrow it down.  You have efficiently exampled how easy it is for any "Bible Believing" sect can change the words to fit their idealism. 

jcgadfly wrote:

3. By "making the Bible look bad" do you mean "trying to make sense of the Bible as written instead of adding a pretty interpretation to it"?

c'mon, I thought you were smarter than that.  You also should know me better than that by now. 

I mean by trying to make sense of the Bible as written instead of pulling out something that sounds bad so that your interpretation can make all Christians look like masochists.   

Remember, according to the Bible, your dog should drink your blood.  oh, and it's ok to rape your wife's sister too.  (just so there's no confusion, it's just more text taken out of context) Oh, it's so easy to do if you don't try. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cap, before

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, before you go accusing atheists of taking the bible out of context, why don't you and all who claim to be Christians have a pow wow and get on the same page.

You've hit the nail on the head Brian.  That's the problem with dispensationalism.  Just like many (NOT ALL) non-believers, even when they're shown the truth of the texts, they still don't want to accept it.

I'd say that when all who claim to be Christian are on the same page, there will also be no more non-believers.  They're both just about as likely.  This is why I hate religion.

Brian37 wrote:

How self centered. A masochist tortures himself to prove to me he loves me/by killing himself for himself so I can kiss his butt. Sounds more like a disturbed stalker, than a hero.

You say that as if you didn't need him to do that for you.  I guess if that was the case, then of course your view would be correct.  The point is, if he didn't do it for you, you'd have to do it. 

You're guilty of a crime, whether you want to admit it or not.  He took the sentence off your head. 

It's going to go nowhere to argue about that unless you're actually a believer in the spiritual realm.  I wouldn't expect you to accept that unless you were.

Brian37 wrote:

Here is the reality, your Jesus hero did not magically reconstitute his flesh, and I am already alive, right now typing this.

you're right, magic isn't a part of it.

Brian37 wrote:

Spare us you emotional appeal, "I did it all for you". That is merely a story you baught because you like the idea of having a magical super hero.

as much as it's a story you didn't buy because you don't like the idea of not being in control.

Brian37 wrote:

I have much more respect for the REAL soldiers in WW2 who died to maintain my freedom, than a claim of a magical split personality who allegedly escaped losing all his blood, had his brain and vital organs stop all the way down to the celular level, only to get up 3 days later to dance the jig.

 

Are you really here to make a point? 

I understand you're very convicted in your beliefs.  Please though, if you want me to follow your understanding, you're going to have to present evidence for your side. 


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

caposkia wrote:
I understand you're very convicted in your beliefs.  Please though, if you want me to follow your understanding, you're going to have to present evidence for your side.

I'm not the one who claims that dead human flesh can reconstitute itself. I do know that human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. That is not "my" evidence. THAT is medical evidence that is backed up by prior data, long before I was born.

I can't help it if your fan club put together a work of fiction and took over 1,000 years to do so and had no knowledge of modern science. Don't blame me for something I did not write.

If you don't want to accept that the death of Jesus is made up fiction, I cant help you. I can tell you that human flesh cannot, has not, nor ever will survive rigor mortis.

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:as much as it's a

Quote:
as much as it's a story you didn't buy because you don't like the idea of not being in control.

That is ROTFLMAO funny.

You're kidding right? Where the heck did that come from? Is life a game of capture the flag to you, and daddy gets the planet? Is that what you are projecting on me because of your own insecurity that you cant replicate the claims in your book?

I am 1 of 6 billion people, please do not accuse me of wanting to be in control of 6 billion people, that is absurd. I am merely pointing out to you that human flesh does not survive rigor mortis, no matter how much you want it to so you can prop up holding your myth.

 

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You're guilty of a

Quote:
You're guilty of a crime, whether you want to admit it or not.  He took the sentence off your head.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Again, you simply like the idea of a magical super hero, and because such an idea appeals to you, you like also thinking such a being gave humans law.

I am no more subject to the laws of your fictional magical Jesus than I would be if you claimed that human's laws came from Harry Potter.

I am bound, by the same nature of evolution in that I am capable of the same emotions and actions as any other human.

Laws are written by US, not Jesus, or Allah or Yahwey, or Osirus or Thor.

It is all in your head, and when you realize that, you will be greatfull to us that we helped you escape your dogmatic mind shackles.

 

 

"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
Geezz Brian37 , the way you

Geezz Brian37 , the way you put your words together, so often makes me instantly bust out belly laughing ... feels good ... "How self centered. A masochist tortures himself to prove to me he loves me/by killing himself for himself so I can kiss his butt. Sounds more like a disturbed stalker, than a hero."

.... yeah, and caring Cap, no supernatural thingy anything, put together, designed, nor created the 100% natural laws of physics (all existence). Why seriously fantasize on such ideas? Besides, anything that could possibly exist outside our natural ability of perception is simply beyond human perception ... Like a dog chasing it's tail and thinking it's getting somewhere. Thousands of yrs of inventing religions and searching for a "higher power" has got us no where of valve, except to show many of us the huge error of human reasoning and folly.   

    "Stop believing, Start thinking"     


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

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Geezz Brian37 , the way you put your words together, so often makes me instantly bust out belly laughing ... feels good ... "How self centered. A masochist tortures himself to prove to me he loves me/by killing himself for himself so I can kiss his butt. Sounds more like a disturbed stalker, than a hero."

.... yeah, and caring Cap, no supernatural thingy anything, put together, designed, nor created the 100% natural laws of physics (all existence). Why seriously fantasize on such ideas? Besides, anything that could possibly exist outside our natural ability of perception is simply beyond human perception ... Like a dog chasing it's tail and thinking it's getting somewhere. Thousands of yrs of inventing religions and searching for a "higher power" has got us no where of valve, except to show many of us the huge error of human reasoning and folly.   

    "Stop believing, Start thinking"     

In all seriousness, you know I like you, but even you don't get a pass from me nor my fangs. Sometimes even what you say makes me cringe. But, I am am always happy to be comic releif to anyone.

And to Cap, even though I am serious in my blunt criticism, always keep in mind that I like shiny objects.

 

"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
Brian37 wrote:I'm not the

Brian37 wrote:

I'm not the one who claims that dead human flesh can reconstitute itself. I do know that human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. That is not "my" evidence. THAT is medical evidence that is backed up by prior data, long before I was born.

I can't help it if your fan club put together a work of fiction and took over 1,000 years to do so and had no knowledge of modern science. Don't blame me for something I did not write.

If you don't want to accept that the death of Jesus is made up fiction, I cant help you. I can tell you that human flesh cannot, has not, nor ever will survive rigor mortis.

uh... yea, you missed the point that THAT was the point.  The fact that the Bible again "points that out" suggests that they weren't trying to hide that scientific understanding. 

Oh ok, so they didn't use the words "rigor mortis" though used a good substitute to acknowlege that human flesh should not have survived by saying, uh... dude! don't go in the cave.  The body's going to stink! 

I'll say again that most people who are trying to make up something and expect others to believe it aren't going to point out evidences that might make their story less believable. 

try again.


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

Brian37 wrote:

That is ROTFLMAO funny.

You're kidding right? Where the heck did that come from? Is life a game of capture the flag to you, and daddy gets the planet? Is that what you are projecting on me because of your own insecurity that you cant replicate the claims in your book?

I am 1 of 6 billion people, please do not accuse me of wanting to be in control of 6 billion people, that is absurd. I am merely pointing out to you that human flesh does not survive rigor mortis, no matter how much you want it to so you can prop up holding your myth.

I'm glad you see my point then.  The purpose of that statement was to point out that my claim (which was the same as your claim from the other side)  was quite absurd. 

Try again.


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

Brian37 wrote:

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Again, you simply like the idea of a magical super hero, and because such an idea appeals to you, you like also thinking such a being gave humans law.

I am no more subject to the laws of your fictional magical Jesus than I would be if you claimed that human's laws came from Harry Potter.

I am bound, by the same nature of evolution in that I am capable of the same emotions and actions as any other human.

Laws are written by US, not Jesus, or Allah or Yahwey, or Osirus or Thor.

It is all in your head, and when you realize that, you will be greatfull to us that we helped you escape your dogmatic mind shackles.

you can't help but use magical because that's your only way of justifying your beliefs.... eh, I'm sure you can do better than that.  Anyway, nice. try again.

So by your justification, the US wrote the laws of your emotions as well... along with scientific laws. 

alright, I'll buy.  what else you got for me?

yea, I'm sure you're going to go off on some tangent about how scientific laws aren't what you were talking about and that flesh can't survive rigor mortis and such.  Get out of your box for a second and take a look around.  Obviously telling me matter of fact beliefs of your own without anything to back them up isn't going to work for me.  I know it wouldn't work for you.

 

 


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

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

.... yeah, and caring Cap, no supernatural thingy anything, put together, designed, nor created the 100% natural laws of physics (all existence). Why seriously fantasize on such ideas? Besides, anything that could possibly exist outside our natural ability of perception is simply beyond human perception ... Like a dog chasing it's tail and thinking it's getting somewhere. Thousands of yrs of inventing religions and searching for a "higher power" has got us no where of valve, except to show many of us the huge error of human reasoning and folly.   

    "Stop believing, Start thinking"     

You make a good point IAGAY.  "anything that could possibly exist outside our natural ability of perception is simply beyond human perception."  and yet everyone is so conclusive about my belief in God being a fantasy.  It's easy to say that from the outside looking in, but once you know God, it's honestly like trying to deny your brother exists.  Sure, maybe sometimes you'd want to, but he's still there whether you want him to be or not right?

Though from what you know of me now, you could easily tell me my brother doesn't exist.  no matter how much I tell you, you may never believe me.  So instead, I'll leave you his contact information and if you choose to meet him, you can on your own.  Same with God. 

I understand many people on here say they've tried that.  I believe them.  Are you sure God didn't present himself to you?  I've asked what they were looking for.  Haven't gotten a strait answer from what I remember. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:And to Cap,

Brian37 wrote:

And to Cap, even though I am serious in my blunt criticism, always keep in mind that I like shiny objects.

I'll remember that. 

no worries about your blunt critcism, I'm just as blunt with you.  We're on the same level as far as that's concerned.  I understand your intentions are good. 


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:You make a

caposkia wrote:
You make a good point IAGAY.  "anything that could possibly exist outside our natural ability of perception is simply beyond human perception."  and yet everyone is so conclusive about my belief in God being a fantasy.  It's easy to say that from the outside looking in, but once you know God, it's honestly like trying to deny your brother exists.  Sure, maybe sometimes you'd want to, but he's still there whether you want him to be or not right?

If I might ask...if God is "simply beyond human perception" as you apparently agree with that, how do you know God?  I'm assuming you're human.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 (opps, I meant "value" in

 (opps, I meant "value" in my last post)

Balkoth, welcome to RRS ... and yeah, exactly. Thanks ....

Caposkia ... but my friend, I AM god, as all is one, as there is no master, no separatism. God is all love, all hate; all power, all weakness; all knowing, all stupidity. All that is existence. Now what?  

Brian37. I'm still under the impression you don't so much disagree with me, but object to my atheist "preaching style". It is based on my life long simplistic rejection of the most common "g-o-d" definitions, which I find ridiculous, rendering so much of the debating between theists and atheists childish.

When a theist asks me if I "believe in gawed?", I smile and ask, "what isn't g-o-d", to then laugh and ask, where did you get those silly god concepts?"

  Because the "god" word isn't going away and no god definition is agreed, I feel like I'm in a catch 22 web, between my like minded atheists and the theists we oppose.     Yes atheists, I don't believe in a theistic defined god; No theists, not your god. Too all, I am god, as all is god. I don't know what more to say???   

I came to RRS not to fit in, but to try and advance the debating, to learn and to improve my communication style. I've been most happy in these regards, and surprised. Thank you all. I really do appreciate honest criticism. HELP!      


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The OT said you could beat a slave till it took him a day or two to die but not so he died immediately. Jesus and Paul had no such restriction (after all Jesus supposedly fulfilled the Law so it didn't apply to believers). Notice the difference?

Please reference that.  I don't remember reading it. 

jcgadfly wrote:

Christ would not beat you - just condemn you to hell for not kissing his tush. I'd prefer a beating to Christ's kind of "love".

Who needs to pull verses out of context? The're lousy enough as they are.

I have no idea what religion you grew up with, but that's not the Christ I know.  The Christ I know died for you so that you may live. 

The idea is if you're condemned to hell, it was your own actions that made that so.  Jesus came down and took the hit for you basically. 

As far as pulling verses out of context.  It seems that's the only way a non-believer can make the Bible look bad.  It's the only excuse I've seen so far from 90% of the people on here. 

A great reason why I suggested the book.

Cap,

Sorry I haven't gotten back to this till now. Illness will out.

To the references:

Ex. 21:20-21

"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.  Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money"

Luke 12:47-48

"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

Eph. 6:5

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

Where did Jesus and Paul diverge from the OT rule? (The NIV changes "continue" to "gets up after" destroying the original meaning and not being that much more humane.)

God offered himself to himself so I could live...as long as I kissed his tush.

Condemnation for my own actions? You mean the ones that his omniscience knew I would perform? As for Jesus taking the hit, if I got the same deal Jesus did, I'd take my own lumps no questions asked. Jesus took no hit as he incurred no risk.

Feel free to tell me what I took out of context - seems quite straightforward to me.


 

"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:

I'm not the one who claims that dead human flesh can reconstitute itself. I do know that human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. That is not "my" evidence. THAT is medical evidence that is backed up by prior data, long before I was born.

I can't help it if your fan club put together a work of fiction and took over 1,000 years to do so and had no knowledge of modern science. Don't blame me for something I did not write.

If you don't want to accept that the death of Jesus is made up fiction, I cant help you. I can tell you that human flesh cannot, has not, nor ever will survive rigor mortis.

 

 

uh... yea, you missed the point that THAT was the point.  The fact that the Bible again "points that out" suggests that they weren't trying to hide that scientific understanding. 

Oh ok, so they didn't use the words "rigor mortis" though used a good substitute to acknowlege that human flesh should not have survived by saying, uh... dude! don't go in the cave.  The body's going to stink! 

I'll say again that most people who are trying to make up something and expect others to believe it aren't going to point out evidences that might make their story less believable. 

try again.

To quote Regan, "There you go again".

You don't even see that you do make the same mistake of inserting a gap answer after the fact, that tons of other people of other labels, even those who claim to be atheists.

If you claim that they were not hiding "science" then where is the modern language? If God was so efficiant, why not mention "entropy" and E=Mc2 in the bible?

I have a more simple explination than your retrofiting attempt to save your myth. Normal mundane human phycology. People competed, just as they do in business today, to sell others a product. In religion, the product is fake, but sold because the writers wanted to believe it and had an agenda. Religion is nothing but Star Wars vs Star Trek. Coke vs Pepsi.

Quote:
I'll say again that most people who are trying to make up something and expect others to believe it aren't going to point out evidences that might make their story less believable.

So why do you do that? For the same reason the world's population once believed the world was flat. You like the idea of having a magical being in the sky, just like humans couldn't orbit the planet, yet still, dispite reality, believed the world was flat.

You are selling what you are selling, not because it is real, but because you believe it is real. So what? Others believe that their fictional beings are real and yours is not real. So?

Yet gravity still doesn't give a crap what you pray to. If you or I trip over our shoelaces, both you and I will fall flat on our face.


 

"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


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

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

And to Cap, even though I am serious in my blunt criticism, always keep in mind that I like shiny objects.

I'll remember that. 

no worries about your blunt critcism, I'm just as blunt with you.  We're on the same level as far as that's concerned.  I understand your intentions are good. 

Great, so you and I like putting on the gloves and verbaly duking it out. I like that. I like chewtoys in any case. But could you relay to your delusional brethren that we wont barbeque their kittens? It's just words and in the end we really all have two arms, two legs, exept for me, as my highschool classmate used to say, "Real men have three".

"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
Balkoth wrote:If I might

Balkoth wrote:

If I might ask...if God is "simply beyond human perception" as you apparently agree with that, how do you know God?  I'm assuming you're human.

it's a good question.

I have a relationship with God.  Just because he's beyond my perception as far as his being, doesn't mean I can't know him still. 

Though we know the universe is there and we know some stuff about it, much of it is "beyond our perception".  Just because it is doesn't mean you don't know it's there or understand some of it. 

 


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Balkoth

caposkia wrote:

Balkoth wrote:

If I might ask...if God is "simply beyond human perception" as you apparently agree with that, how do you know God?  I'm assuming you're human.

it's a good question.

I have a relationship with God.  Just because he's beyond my perception as far as his being, doesn't mean I can't know him still. 

Though we know the universe is there and we know some stuff about it, much of it is "beyond our perception".  Just because it is doesn't mean you don't know it's there or understand some of it. 

 

 

If he's beyond your perception, then where is he exactly?  


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

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

 (opps, I meant "value" in my last post)

Balkoth, welcome to RRS ... and yeah, exactly. Thanks ....

Caposkia ... but my friend, I AM god, as all is one, as there is no master, no separatism. God is all love, all hate; all power, all weakness; all knowing, all stupidity. All that is existence. Now what?  

Brian37. I'm still under the impression you don't so much disagree with me, but object to my atheist "preaching style". It is based on my life long simplistic rejection of the most common "g-o-d" definitions, which I find ridiculous, rendering so much of the debating between theists and atheists childish.

When a theist asks me if I "believe in gawed?", I smile and ask, "what isn't g-o-d", to then laugh and ask, where did you get those silly god concepts?"

  Because the "god" word isn't going away and no god definition is agreed, I feel like I'm in a catch 22 web, between my like minded atheists and the theists we oppose.     Yes atheists, I don't believe in a theistic defined god; No theists, not your god. Too all, I am god, as all is god. I don't know what more to say???   

I came to RRS not to fit in, but to try and advance the debating, to learn and to improve my communication style. I've been most happy in these regards, and surprised. Thank you all. I really do appreciate honest criticism. HELP!      

Just to better support your idea.  I understand your approach and agree with your reasoning for being on RRS. 

I do not agree with your point of view, but that's the fun of it.  You and I both like to take a new and different approach to the age old debate of God or no God.

Again, for those who only see through blinders, I'm sure I can speak for IGAY in saying that neither of us are saying that we know more than the next person or that our way is right and no one else is right unless they completely agree with us.

I know for a fact there are many people who agree with IGAY's point of view and there are many also who have the same understanding as I do about my following. 

Neither of us are founders of our beliefs and have only come to the conclusions we have through honest research and understanding.

Just for the record, IGAY and I do not agree.  To claim that IGAY is doing anything more than supporting the idea that there is no God is falling into the same dispensationalist black hole that many religions have fallen into.

IGAY, if I misrepresented your understanding, please forgive me and feel free to correct whatever I misunderstood. 


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

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

 (opps, I meant "value" in my last post)

Balkoth, welcome to RRS ... and yeah, exactly. Thanks ....

Caposkia ... but my friend, I AM god, as all is one, as there is no master, no separatism. God is all love, all hate; all power, all weakness; all knowing, all stupidity. All that is existence. Now what?  

Brian37. I'm still under the impression you don't so much disagree with me, but object to my atheist "preaching style". It is based on my life long simplistic rejection of the most common "g-o-d" definitions, which I find ridiculous, rendering so much of the debating between theists and atheists childish.

When a theist asks me if I "believe in gawed?", I smile and ask, "what isn't g-o-d", to then laugh and ask, where did you get those silly god concepts?"

  Because the "god" word isn't going away and no god definition is agreed, I feel like I'm in a catch 22 web, between my like minded atheists and the theists we oppose.     Yes atheists, I don't believe in a theistic defined god; No theists, not your god. Too all, I am god, as all is god. I don't know what more to say???   

I came to RRS not to fit in, but to try and advance the debating, to learn and to improve my communication style. I've been most happy in these regards, and surprised. Thank you all. I really do appreciate honest criticism. HELP!      

Just to better support your idea.  I understand your approach and agree with your reasoning for being on RRS. 

I do not agree with your point of view, but that's the fun of it.  You and I both like to take a new and different approach to the age old debate of God or no God.

Again, for those who only see through blinders, I'm sure I can speak for IAGAY in saying that neither of us are saying that we know more than the next person or that our way is right and no one else is right unless they completely agree with us.

I know for a fact there are many people who agree with IAGAY's point of view and there are many also who have the same understanding as I do about my following. 

Neither of us are founders of our beliefs and have only come to the conclusions we have through honest research and understanding.

Just for the record, IAGAY and I do not agree.  To claim that IGAY is doing anything more than supporting the idea that there is no God is falling into the same dispensationalist black hole that many religions have fallen into.

IAGAY, if I misrepresented your understanding, please forgive me and feel free to correct whatever I misunderstood. 


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
IAGAY wrote:Balkoth, welcome

IAGAY wrote:
Balkoth, welcome to RRS ... and yeah, exactly.

 

Thanks.

caposkia wrote:
it's a good question.

I have a relationship with God.  Just because he's beyond my perception as far as his being, doesn't mean I can't know him still. 

Though we know the universe is there and we know some stuff about it, much of it is "beyond our perception".  Just because it is doesn't mean you don't know it's there or understand some of it. 

 

So when you originally agreed with this statement...

 

Quote:
anything that could possibly exist outside our natural ability of perception is simply beyond human perception.

 

That sounds a lot like you're saying "we simply can't percieve God at all because he's outside our natural ability of perception."

 

Now you seem to be saying that..."simply beyond human perception"...doesn't mean simply beyond human perception.  Apparently it means you can sense God's presence (within human perception) but not his position in the universe (outside of human perception).

 

Is that actually what you're claiming?


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
IAGAY wrote:Balkoth, welcome

Double post, oops.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The OT said

jcgadfly wrote:

The OT said you could beat a slave till it took him a day or two to die but not so he died immediately. Jesus and Paul had no such restriction (after all Jesus supposedly fulfilled the Law so it didn't apply to believers). Notice the difference?

Quote:

Cap,

Sorry I haven't gotten back to this till now. Illness will out.

To the references:

Ex. 21:20-21

"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.  Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money"

Luke 12:47-48

"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

Eph. 6:5

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

Where did Jesus and Paul diverge from the OT rule? (The NIV changes "continue" to "gets up after" destroying the original meaning and not being that much more humane.)

God offered himself to himself so I could live...as long as I kissed his tush.

Condemnation for my own actions? You mean the ones that his omniscience knew I would perform? As for Jesus taking the hit, if I got the same deal Jesus did, I'd take my own lumps no questions asked. Jesus took no hit as he incurred no risk.

Feel free to tell me what I took out of context - seems quite straightforward to me.

Ah, ok I see where you're talking about.

I'd have to do a little bit of a history lesson for myself to get all the details on these happenings and comparison.  Though your concern had to do with Jesus and Paul not enforcing those regulations. 

From what I understand, Jesus didn't reiterate laws that were already being followed explicitly.  There was no need, unless somewhere you're saying Jesus or Paul said that Jesus said beat your slave as much as you'd like. 

Also, just to clarify the first Ex. reference.  It's not that he continue to beat the slave a day or to, it's if the slave survives for a day or two.  The law basically stated it's punishable to kill your slaves (be it that they contracted to be there in the first place)  If it cannot be proven that you were trying to kill your slave, then you're free to go.  It was not against the laws to beat a slave for reasons of not doing the work they were supposed to do. 

I don't fully understand why in the case of a contracted slave it was ok to beat them, though I guess it was the punishment for not completing the tasks your were paid to do.  (not sure). 

It should be understood though that those slaves chose to be there.  (from what I understand through the history of the culture outside the Bible) It was nothing like slavery as we American's understand it. 


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

Balkoth wrote:

IAGAY wrote:
Balkoth, welcome to RRS ... and yeah, exactly.

 

Thanks.

caposkia wrote:
it's a good question.

I have a relationship with God.  Just because he's beyond my perception as far as his being, doesn't mean I can't know him still. 

Though we know the universe is there and we know some stuff about it, much of it is "beyond our perception".  Just because it is doesn't mean you don't know it's there or understand some of it. 

 

So when you originally agreed with this statement...

 

Quote:
anything that could possibly exist outside our natural ability of perception is simply beyond human perception.

 

That sounds a lot like you're saying "we simply can't percieve God at all because he's outside our natural ability of perception."

 

Now you seem to be saying that..."simply beyond human perception"...doesn't mean simply beyond human perception.  Apparently it means you can sense God's presence (within human perception) but not his position in the universe (outside of human perception).

 

Is that actually what you're claiming?

Once you buy a naked assertion as fact, you can and will make it up as you go along to justify holding an unfounded position. It is the same mental mind trick one pulls on themself to hold a belief in Allah, or Isis or Thor. Cap simply fails to see that because it is held on a position of ego, feeling and emotion, not reality.

"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
Brian37 wrote:To quote

Brian37 wrote:

To quote Regan, "There you go again".

You don't even see that you do make the same mistake of inserting a gap answer after the fact, that tons of other people of other labels, even those who claim to be atheists.

If you claim that they were not hiding "science" then where is the modern language? If God was so efficiant, why not mention "entropy" and E=Mc2 in the bible?

explain how that would be relevent to the people of that time?  The Bible is useful for all generations, but was written for the people of that time.  It seems that minor detail is always overlooked.

Brian37 wrote:

I have a more simple explination than your retrofiting attempt to save your myth. Normal mundane human phycology. People competed, just as they do in business today, to sell others a product. In religion, the product is fake, but sold because the writers wanted to believe it and had an agenda. Religion is nothing but Star Wars vs Star Trek. Coke vs Pepsi.

Then reading through the Bible (their advertising) and understanding the history of the people and their views,  I'd have to say they had terrible ads and were more likely to turn people away than to draw them in.  It's a wonder it survived!!

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I'll say again that most people who are trying to make up something and expect others to believe it aren't going to point out evidences that might make their story less believable.
Quote:

So why do you do that? For the same reason the world's population once believed the world was flat. You like the idea of having a magical being in the sky, just like humans couldn't orbit the planet, yet still, dispite reality, believed the world was flat.

uh... maybe the same reason why the Bible does it????  could it be?  If the Bible is truth, then the truth is why it does that.  The truth isn't always what you want to hear, stories and legends usually are.  It seems you agree that the Bible doesn't give you what you'd want to hear.

Brian37 wrote:

You are selling what you are selling, not because it is real, but because you believe it is real. So what? Others believe that their fictional beings are real and yours is not real. So?

uh... sooooo lets call the whole thing off. dun dun!

Brian37 wrote:

Yet gravity still doesn't give a crap what you pray to. If you or I trip over our shoelaces, both you and I will fall flat on our face.

yup, I just checked, your theory about gravity is correct.  Excuse me while I get some gauze for my nose...


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
SmallChristian wrote:If he's

SmallChristian wrote:

If he's beyond your perception, then where is he exactly?  

where would you expect Him to be?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Once you buy a

Brian37 wrote:

Once you buy a naked assertion as fact, you can and will make it up as you go along to justify holding an unfounded position. It is the same mental mind trick one pulls on themself to hold a belief in Allah, or Isis or Thor. Cap simply fails to see that because it is held on a position of ego, feeling and emotion, not reality.

if my ego had a play in it, I'd still be a catholic.  I must be a masochist to be in it for the emotions as well.


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The OT said you could beat a slave till it took him a day or two to die but not so he died immediately. Jesus and Paul had no such restriction (after all Jesus supposedly fulfilled the Law so it didn't apply to believers). Notice the difference?

Quote:

Cap,

Sorry I haven't gotten back to this till now. Illness will out.

To the references:

Ex. 21:20-21

"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.  Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money"

Luke 12:47-48

"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

Eph. 6:5

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

Where did Jesus and Paul diverge from the OT rule? (The NIV changes "continue" to "gets up after" destroying the original meaning and not being that much more humane.)

God offered himself to himself so I could live...as long as I kissed his tush.

Condemnation for my own actions? You mean the ones that his omniscience knew I would perform? As for Jesus taking the hit, if I got the same deal Jesus did, I'd take my own lumps no questions asked. Jesus took no hit as he incurred no risk.

Feel free to tell me what I took out of context - seems quite straightforward to me.

Ah, ok I see where you're talking about.

I'd have to do a little bit of a history lesson for myself to get all the details on these happenings and comparison.  Though your concern had to do with Jesus and Paul not enforcing those regulations. 

From what I understand, Jesus didn't reiterate laws that were already being followed explicitly.  There was no need, unless somewhere you're saying Jesus or Paul said that Jesus said beat your slave as much as you'd like. 

Also, just to clarify the first Ex. reference.  It's not that he continue to beat the slave a day or to, it's if the slave survives for a day or two.  The law basically stated it's punishable to kill your slaves (be it that they contracted to be there in the first place)  If it cannot be proven that you were trying to kill your slave, then you're free to go.  It was not against the laws to beat a slave for reasons of not doing the work they were supposed to do. 

I don't fully understand why in the case of a contracted slave it was ok to beat them, though I guess it was the punishment for not completing the tasks your were paid to do.  (not sure). 

It should be understood though that those slaves chose to be there.  (from what I understand through the history of the culture outside the Bible) It was nothing like slavery as we American's understand it. 

 I never said anything about beating a slave for two days - way to strawman. If Jesus and Paul were making such radical changes (neither slave nor free), why not change the rules for the followers? Oh yeah, they didn't change the culture because they condoned it. Oops.

Chose to be there?

You mean like this?

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.  If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.  If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges.  He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. (Ex. 21:2-6)

 

"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


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The OT said you could beat a slave till it took him a day or two to die but not so he died immediately. Jesus and Paul had no such restriction (after all Jesus supposedly fulfilled the Law so it didn't apply to believers). Notice the difference?

 

Cap,

Sorry I haven't gotten back to this till now. Illness will out.

To the references:

Ex. 21:20-21

"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.  Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money"

Luke 12:47-48

"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

Eph. 6:5

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

Where did Jesus and Paul diverge from the OT rule? (The NIV changes "continue" to "gets up after" destroying the original meaning and not being that much more humane.)

God offered himself to himself so I could live...as long as I kissed his tush.

Condemnation for my own actions? You mean the ones that his omniscience knew I would perform? As for Jesus taking the hit, if I got the same deal Jesus did, I'd take my own lumps no questions asked. Jesus took no hit as he incurred no risk.

Feel free to tell me what I took out of context - seems quite straightforward to me.

Ah, ok I see where you're talking about.

I'd have to do a little bit of a history lesson for myself to get all the details on these happenings and comparison.  Though your concern had to do with Jesus and Paul not enforcing those regulations. 

From what I understand, Jesus didn't reiterate laws that were already being followed explicitly.  There was no need, unless somewhere you're saying Jesus or Paul said that Jesus said beat your slave as much as you'd like. 

Also, just to clarify the first Ex. reference.  It's not that he continue to beat the slave a day or to, it's if the slave survives for a day or two.  The law basically stated it's punishable to kill your slaves (be it that they contracted to be there in the first place)  If it cannot be proven that you were trying to kill your slave, then you're free to go.  It was not against the laws to beat a slave for reasons of not doing the work they were supposed to do. 

I don't fully understand why in the case of a contracted slave it was ok to beat them, though I guess it was the punishment for not completing the tasks your were paid to do.  (not sure). 

It should be understood though that those slaves chose to be there.  (from what I understand through the history of the culture outside the Bible) It was nothing like slavery as we American's understand it. 

 

 I never said anything about beating a slave for two days - way to strawman. If Jesus and Paul were making such radical changes (neither slave nor free), why not change the rules for the followers? Oh yeah, they didn't change the culture because they condoned it. Oops.

Chose to be there?

You mean like this?

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.  If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.  If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges.  He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. (Ex. 21:2-6)

 

 

"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


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:if my ego had

caposkia wrote:

if my ego had a play in it, I'd still be a catholic.  I must be a masochist to be in it for the emotions as well.

 Care to respond to my post?  That's what Brian was specifically replying to with his post.

To save you time: 

When you say God is beyond human perception, do you mean God is beyond human perception or not?

Saying "We can sense God is there...but we can't sense God's location" is saying that part of God is NOT beyond human perception.  So, is he beyond human perception or not?


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

SmallChristian wrote:

If he's beyond your perception, then where is he exactly?  

where would you expect Him to be?

In fantasy land; thanks for not answering my question.  And its him, not Him.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Haven't forgotten about you

Been slightly busy doing tax stuff so I haven't had enough time to really get into the responses I'd like to make on the book from this thread. I'm working on a post directly addressing the topic in this book. I should have something on it this week end.

 

caposkia wrote:

Anyway, it sounds like you have perfect reason to discuss Revelation and understanding that the conversation about Revelation is not going to convert you or I to each others following is a good ground to start from. 

If you'd like to, start another forum, or let me know and I'll start one, we can get on that. 

Also I'm developing a post for a new thread on Revelation which I should also have ready this weekend. I'll let you know when I post it.

____________________________________________________________
"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

 Cap,


In going through the book, I made some notes about several areas where I thought the author was off base. This is the first installment.

She assumes that atheists are at war with Christians. She may only mean those she calls "new atheists". Most of us don't give a damn about the views of Christians or any other kind of a believer, so long as they aren't developing plans to burn us at the stake or kick down our doors to see what we are doing out of their view. (Like Brian maybe I'm barbecuing kittens or instead having wild group sex). So she is pretty amazed that there doesn't seem to be a conspiracy of atheists plotting to execute them in a version of the Coliseum as food for lions. She says new atheists have no war plans or really any idea what to do if they actually succeed in ridding the world of belief. She somehow can't see that when we confront god-belief in the secular world, we do it to protect everyone's rights to be different. In our society, many things don't belong in the public sector, and god beliefs are way at the top of that list. Pretty much most of us go through life not even thinking about religious fanatics up until the point they stick a religious tract in our face or walk up and ask us if we have been saved. Or when one of them is offended by our apparent lack of their Christian morality for example. So it seems there isn't an overall generalized plan to rid the world of delusional believers. The author should be happy that we haven't organized efforts to eliminate their fantasies from the world. But she seems to think this is a weakness on our part. Here is where the issue develops. It seems that Christians in the US especially, think that interactions with other people must involve their beliefs in the god fantasy. I known your view on this already, but even you tread over the line. More on this later.

If you can say no to sex and no means no, just what is the deal when you tell one of these fanatics no that is somehow misunderstood? No means no. As in, no thanks I don't want your religious BS tract on how I'm going to burn in hell. Or no, I left the beliefs in imaginary friends behind when I stopped carrying around a blanket and sucking on my thumb. Why does it have to come with but you are going to your eternal damnation and it's needless because Jesus has died for you and me and the hicks in Patagonia. Maybe we need a law that prosecutes believers for illegal soliciting for proselytizing after they have been told no. She claims to be appalled and run from the likes of Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson but doesn't get how annoying even her ideas are to a non-believer. She claims to recognize that most of us that don't buy religious delusions would just like to be left alone. Again, that would be really great yet that isn't what actually happens.

In her discussion against "new atheists" she misses why we are snippy in our remarks to believers. She seems to lack the ability to comprehend just how irritating it is to hear the same BS story about how man is doomed to death for his sin against the god. That this god so loved us that he did a hocus pocus act and sent part of himself to die to save us from himself. After hearing this over and over it just strikes the unbeliever with the thought that the believer is lacking in mental capacity. This drives many atheists like what she calls new atheists to come back with analogies such as the FSM. Perhaps the believer needs to see just how irrational they sound is the motivation. The reaction of the believer as expected is they discredit the idea but never grasp the relationship that was attempted.

Perhaps one should consider exactly how much god belief is tossed at non-believers on a daily basis. The god fantasy comes to us in many ways. We see homeless on the street corners with signs saying God Bless. The money has God on it, no picture though as that would be idolatry.We swear in a new President and have to have prayers as part of it. Graduations have some sort of group prayer activities as do other supposed secular activities. Issues of controversy such as marriage, divorce, gays, stem cell research, clones, abortion, murder, pedophiles, and even education all have god beliefs injected as part of the discussion. As an atheist it's impossible to avoid the Christian belief because they use such beliefs in a means to propagate rules and laws for all. What if this happened to the Christian every day? How about a pledge that says one nation under Islam, or Yahweh, or Satan? Or a song how Buddha sheds his grace on thee from sea to shining sea? .

It is possible to discuss issues such as abortion without bringing up a god at all. One could be against abortion simply because it destroys intelligent life. If there is no such thing as an afterlife then any intelligent life (human, but not necessarily) is very valuable. The female carrying the life also has rights to consider. Societies determine the rules under which the right of one versus another is violated. Is it right for one person to die for another to live? That depends on the rules of the society. I have flexible morals apparently, which is why I'll be in the 8th level of Hell.


The stupid Bush policy regarding stem cell research is the epitome of ignorance for example. People got all up in arms over their use, yet these embryos could not survive in the world anyway. It's against the god's will. Since it was man that intervened and developed the embryos, the right time to bitch was before they were fertilized, not after. Next consider how evil clones are. Clones are different than twins exactly how? The clone would be essentially your twin. It would not be you any more than a twin born at the same time you were. Unless they have proof of the soul and can show a twin has only a half a soul. Too many people watched Arnold in the 6th Day apparently.

The author seems to think we have inadequately defined the enemy as well. Using an extremist such as Coulter, Robertson or Falwell is not to her liking. Yet we also criticize popes, Billy Graham, priests, and even ‘normal believers’ such as her. Consider her comment in her book regarding Dawkins who says there is minimal evidence Jesus claimed any divine status versus her statement that Jesus of Nazareth made it pretty clear why he thought he was here. She clearly missed the point. Is there a recording or vid of Jesus saying this? Did he actually write a book and leave copies, signed as Jesus the Son of God. No, he didn’t So she missed the point as do many theists that argue that Jesus said or did this or that. The claim being made is the writing by unknown writers describes true events by a guy that is supposedly the Son of God. Jesus never wrote even one word. Yeah, I know it was inspired by the god, but how do you know that?

I’ll have more comments on more of her book later as this post seems long enough already. Have fun with it.

 

____________________________________________________________
"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:

 Cap,


In going through the book, I made some notes about several areas where I thought the author was off base. This is the first installment.

She assumes that atheists are at war with Christians. She may only mean those she calls "new atheists". Most of us don't give a damn about the views of Christians or any other kind of a believer, so long as they aren't developing plans to burn us at the stake or kick down our doors to see what we are doing out of their view. (Like Brian maybe I'm barbecuing kittens or instead having wild group sex). So she is pretty amazed that there doesn't seem to be a conspiracy of atheists plotting to execute them in a version of the Coliseum as food for lions. She says new atheists have no war plans or really any idea what to do if they actually succeed in ridding the world of belief. She somehow can't see that when we confront god-belief in the secular world, we do it to protect everyone's rights to be different. In our society, many things don't belong in the public sector, and god beliefs are way at the top of that list. Pretty much most of us go through life not even thinking about religious fanatics up until the point they stick a religious tract in our face or walk up and ask us if we have been saved. Or when one of them is offended by our apparent lack of their Christian morality for example. So it seems there isn't an overall generalized plan to rid the world of delusional believers. The author should be happy that we haven't organized efforts to eliminate their fantasies from the world. But she seems to think this is a weakness on our part. Here is where the issue develops. It seems that Christians in the US especially, think that interactions with other people must involve their beliefs in the god fantasy. I known your view on this already, but even you tread over the line. More on this later.

If you can say no to sex and no means no, just what is the deal when you tell one of these fanatics no that is somehow misunderstood? No means no. As in, no thanks I don't want your religious BS tract on how I'm going to burn in hell. Or no, I left the beliefs in imaginary friends behind when I stopped carrying around a blanket and sucking on my thumb. Why does it have to come with but you are going to your eternal damnation and it's needless because Jesus has died for you and me and the hicks in Patagonia. Maybe we need a law that prosecutes believers for illegal soliciting for proselytizing after they have been told no. She claims to be appalled and run from the likes of Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson but doesn't get how annoying even her ideas are to a non-believer. She claims to recognize that most of us that don't buy religious delusions would just like to be left alone. Again, that would be really great yet that isn't what actually happens.

In her discussion against "new atheists" she misses why we are snippy in our remarks to believers. She seems to lack the ability to comprehend just how irritating it is to hear the same BS story about how man is doomed to death for his sin against the god. That this god so loved us that he did a hocus pocus act and sent part of himself to die to save us from himself. After hearing this over and over it just strikes the unbeliever with the thought that the believer is lacking in mental capacity. This drives many atheists like what she calls new atheists to come back with analogies such as the FSM. Perhaps the believer needs to see just how irrational they sound is the motivation. The reaction of the believer as expected is they discredit the idea but never grasp the relationship that was attempted.

Perhaps one should consider exactly how much god belief is tossed at non-believers on a daily basis. The god fantasy comes to us in many ways. We see homeless on the street corners with signs saying God Bless. The money has God on it, no picture though as that would be idolatry.We swear in a new President and have to have prayers as part of it. Graduations have some sort of group prayer activities as do other supposed secular activities. Issues of controversy such as marriage, divorce, gays, stem cell research, clones, abortion, murder, pedophiles, and even education all have god beliefs injected as part of the discussion. As an atheist it's impossible to avoid the Christian belief because they use such beliefs in a means to propagate rules and laws for all. What if this happened to the Christian every day? How about a pledge that says one nation under Islam, or Yahweh, or Satan? Or a song how Buddha sheds his grace on thee from sea to shining sea? .

It is possible to discuss issues such as abortion without bringing up a god at all. One could be against abortion simply because it destroys intelligent life. If there is no such thing as an afterlife then any intelligent life (human, but not necessarily) is very valuable. The female carrying the life also has rights to consider. Societies determine the rules under which the right of one versus another is violated. Is it right for one person to die for another to live? That depends on the rules of the society. I have flexible morals apparently, which is why I'll be in the 8th level of Hell.


The stupid Bush policy regarding stem cell research is the epitome of ignorance for example. People got all up in arms over their use, yet these embryos could not survive in the world anyway. It's against the god's will. Since it was man that intervened and developed the embryos, the right time to bitch was before they were fertilized, not after. Next consider how evil clones are. Clones are different than twins exactly how? The clone would be essentially your twin. It would not be you any more than a twin born at the same time you were. Unless they have proof of the soul and can show a twin has only a half a soul. Too many people watched Arnold in the 6th Day apparently.

The author seems to think we have inadequately defined the enemy as well. Using an extremist such as Coulter, Robertson or Falwell is not to her liking. Yet we also criticize popes, Billy Graham, priests, and even ‘normal believers’ such as her. Consider her comment in her book regarding Dawkins who says there is minimal evidence Jesus claimed any divine status versus her statement that Jesus of Nazareth made it pretty clear why he thought he was here. She clearly missed the point. Is there a recording or vid of Jesus saying this? Did he actually write a book and leave copies, signed as Jesus the Son of God. No, he didn’t So she missed the point as do many theists that argue that Jesus said or did this or that. The claim being made is the writing by unknown writers describes true events by a guy that is supposedly the Son of God. Jesus never wrote even one word. Yeah, I know it was inspired by the god, but how do you know that?

I’ll have more comments on more of her book later as this post seems long enough already. Have fun with it.

 

Athiests, Christians, Muslims, Republicans, Democrats, are all merely artificial labels. If an individual feels that they are on top, no matter how fasle that is, short term or long term, by virtue that nothing lasts forever, we still hold this underlying drive to be on top as a species.

If we get on top, we have more power, more access to resources, mor oportunity to spread our genes. The theist falsely atributs natural evolution to magical intitlement.

The difference between the theist and atheist, depending on individual, is that the atheist, or at least should be, empathetic to the common needs and emotions, good or bad, that all humans experiance.

Lets not shy away from the fact, as atheists, we are a threat to them, but only by their false perception that we are out to hurt them. I am quite sure conversely, that theists may feel they want to help us, and there inlies the common ground in that beyond labels the morality of wanting others to be as happy as you.

The only thing atheists want to do, or should want to do, is not be "all or nothing" via force of government, what we, as well as they, should understand that our differences should not be a point of war or physical harm, but one of introspection, debate and falsification.

 

We need to understand, as a species that bitching will always be part of us, be it about a family member, co-worker, nation, party or other religion. Empathy is not about demanding we all say nice things about each other, but in that we are all capable of the same range of emotions and actions, good or bad.

"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 wrote:Athiests,

Brian37 wrote:

Athiests, Christians, Muslims, Republicans, Democrats, are all merely artificial labels. If an individual feels that they are on top, no matter how fasle that is, short term or long term, by virtue that nothing lasts forever, we still hold this underlying drive to be on top as a species.

If we get on top, we have more power, more access to resources, mor oportunity to spread our genes. The theist falsely atributs natural evolution to magical intitlement.

The difference between the theist and atheist, depending on individual, is that the atheist, or at least should be, empathetic to the common needs and emotions, good or bad, that all humans experiance.

Lets not shy away from the fact, as atheists, we are a threat to them, but only by their false perception that we are out to hurt them. I am quite sure conversely, that theists may feel they want to help us, and there inlies the common ground in that beyond labels the morality of wanting others to be as happy as you.

The only thing atheists want to do, or should want to do, is not be "all or nothing" via force of government, what we, as well as they, should understand that our differences should not be a point of war or physical harm, but one of introspection, debate and falsification.

 

We need to understand, as a species that bitching will always be part of us, be it about a family member, co-worker, nation, party or other religion. Empathy is not about demanding we all say nice things about each other, but in that we are all capable of the same range of emotions and actions, good or bad.

Such idealism Brian. One would hope such would happen.  An atheist is simply one that does not believe in a god. Yes, it would be nice if we could all just live happily thereafter and be empathetic to one another. Yet, human nature will do what it does. Many will be considerate and kind should we atheists find ourselves on top. Others will not be so tolerant and will take advantage of the change in power. This is what has occurred with theists in control despite what their touchy feely beliefs indicate. Many believers do indeed feel a burning desire to help us while others would be just as happy to see us burn.  I for one, am all about individual liberty and rights. This does not mean all atheists feel that way. Consider Matt for example.

____________________________________________________________
"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:

Athiests, Christians, Muslims, Republicans, Democrats, are all merely artificial labels. If an individual feels that they are on top, no matter how fasle that is, short term or long term, by virtue that nothing lasts forever, we still hold this underlying drive to be on top as a species.

If we get on top, we have more power, more access to resources, mor oportunity to spread our genes. The theist falsely atributs natural evolution to magical intitlement.

The difference between the theist and atheist, depending on individual, is that the atheist, or at least should be, empathetic to the common needs and emotions, good or bad, that all humans experiance.

Lets not shy away from the fact, as atheists, we are a threat to them, but only by their false perception that we are out to hurt them. I am quite sure conversely, that theists may feel they want to help us, and there inlies the common ground in that beyond labels the morality of wanting others to be as happy as you.

The only thing atheists want to do, or should want to do, is not be "all or nothing" via force of government, what we, as well as they, should understand that our differences should not be a point of war or physical harm, but one of introspection, debate and falsification.

 

We need to understand, as a species that bitching will always be part of us, be it about a family member, co-worker, nation, party or other religion. Empathy is not about demanding we all say nice things about each other, but in that we are all capable of the same range of emotions and actions, good or bad.

Such idealism Brian. One would hope such would happen.  An atheist is simply one that does not believe in a god. Yes, it would be nice if we could all just live happily thereafter and be empathetic to one another. Yet, human nature will do what it does. Many will be considerate and kind should we atheists find ourselves on top. Others will not be so tolerant and will take advantage of the change in power. This is what has occurred with theists in control despite what their touchy feely beliefs indicate. Many believers do indeed feel a burning desire to help us while others would be just as happy to see us burn.  I for one, am all about individual liberty and rights. This does not mean all atheists feel that way. Consider Matt for example.

Again, I am not postulating a utopian homeostasis. No individual or group or nation will acceave that. But we as a species can, work on maximizing benifit while reducing the harm.

Absolute zero does not exist, not for them or us, and nature, as you correctly pointed out, will do what it does. I don't deny that.

"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 never

jcgadfly wrote:

 I never said anything about beating a slave for two days - way to strawman. If Jesus and Paul were making such radical changes (neither slave nor free), why not change the rules for the followers? Oh yeah, they didn't change the culture because they condoned it. Oops.

I wasn't implying you did.  The translation you used... it had a wording that I saw could have been taken that way.  Sorry for the confusion. 

jcgadfly wrote:

Chose to be there?

You mean like this?

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.  If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.  If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges.  He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. (Ex. 21:2-6)

yea, that goes into reference, but I was implying outside of scripture.  The history of those slaves.  It is understood that the Hebrew slaves from what I understand chose to be in the position of being bought.  It was ultimately hard times and it was a source of income for them and their family. 

Also, logically speaking, if a slave was a slave as we know them today, what would posess a slave to declare that they love their master and want to serve them for the rest of their lives?

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth wrote:Care to

Balkoth wrote:

Care to respond to my post?  That's what Brian was specifically replying to with his post.

To save you time: 

When you say God is beyond human perception, do you mean God is beyond human perception or not?

Saying "We can sense God is there...but we can't sense God's location" is saying that part of God is NOT beyond human perception.  So, is he beyond human perception or not?

I have been.  Step by step. 

Alright, to get to the strait and narrow.  yea, I know a simple strait forward answer is all you were looking for. 

Let's get focused back on what I had said originally then.

I said specifically that I cannot percieve his being.  That's completely different than the general question it has become.  That is whether we can perceve God or not.

God generally is not beyond human perception.  If he was, then how could we follow Him?

Key word here:  His being is beyond our perception.  In other words, what he is, where he is, his existance as a lifeforce (as we understand lifeforce to be)... though we understand he lives because of that general perception that we have of him.

is that a better answer to your post?


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

SmallChristian wrote:

caposkia wrote:

where would you expect Him to be?

In fantasy land; thanks for not answering my question.  And its him, not Him.

The point was to make you think in reference to what we're talking about.  You asked where he would be.  Your point of reference must be physical due to the fact that you from what I understand do not believe in the spiritual (I could be wrong with that assumption).

As far as a spiritual being goes, there is no specific physical location I can point you to as to His whereabouts because that's not how the spiritual works.  Fantasy stories might give you a different impression, but that's why they're fantasy.

Why does capitalizing His or Him bother you so much?  If it's only grammatical then I understand.  Sorry.  I can be OCD with things as well.  (in all seriousness) 

 

 


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:is that a better

Quote:
is that a better answer to your post?

Not entirely.  But I do appreciate that you're trying to explain your view.

Quote:
Key word here:  His being is beyond our perception.  In other words, what he is, where he is, his existance as a lifeforce (as we understand lifeforce to be)... though we understand he lives because of that general perception that we have of him.

So...

We cannot perceive what God is.

We cannot perceive where God is (though I suppose one could answer "everywhere" if you believe in an omnipresent God).

We cannot perceive God's "lifeforce" (frankly, I'm not sure what you mean by that, but since you're saying we couldn't perceive it regardless even if I understood what you meant it doesn't really matter in this context).

But we generally perceive God.  What, might I ask, are we perceiving of God, then?

More importantly: if we cannot perceive what God is, how do you know it is the "True Christian" God of the Bible?  I think you're saying you can perceive some supernatural presence, but why are you assuming it is there the "True Christian" God?

caposkia wrote:
God generally is not beyond human perception.  If he was, then how could we follow Him?

If God is generally not beyond human perception, why are so many people perceiving him differently, and why are many people not perceiving him at all?


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

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 Cap,


In going through the book, I made some notes about several areas where I thought the author was off base. This is the first installment.

sweet

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

She assumes that atheists are at war with Christians. She may only mean those she calls "new atheists". Most of us don't give a damn about the views of Christians or any other kind of a believer, so long as they aren't developing plans to burn us at the stake or kick down our doors to see what we are doing out of their view. (Like Brian maybe I'm barbecuing kittens or instead having wild group sex). So she is pretty amazed that there doesn't seem to be a conspiracy of atheists plotting to execute them in a version of the Coliseum as food for lions. She says new atheists have no war plans or really any idea what to do if they actually succeed in ridding the world of belief. She somehow can't see that when we confront god-belief in the secular world, we do it to protect everyone's rights to be different. In our society, many things don't belong in the public sector, and god beliefs are way at the top of that list. Pretty much most of us go through life not even thinking about religious fanatics up until the point they stick a religious tract in our face or walk up and ask us if we have been saved. Or when one of them is offended by our apparent lack of their Christian morality for example. So it seems there isn't an overall generalized plan to rid the world of delusional believers. The author should be happy that we haven't organized efforts to eliminate their fantasies from the world. But she seems to think this is a weakness on our part. Here is where the issue develops. It seems that Christians in the US especially, think that interactions with other people must involve their beliefs in the god fantasy. I known your view on this already, but even you tread over the line. More on this later.

It is important to note that she is specifically referencing the "new atheists" who are making it their life's work to attack the religious beliefs of the world and that it (from what I understood) doesn't apply to those who aren't in attack mode.

Her larger point was to show the general flaws in understanding or mistaken approaches to Christianity by the way that "Christians" in general present themselves.  Basically, a lot of claims toward Christianity don't hold water because its basis is in dispensationalism only.. (I'm not sure if she actually used that word)

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If you can say no to sex and no means no, just what is the deal when you tell one of these fanatics no that is somehow misunderstood? No means no. As in, no thanks I don't want your religious BS tract on how I'm going to burn in hell. Or no, I left the beliefs in imaginary friends behind when I stopped carrying around a blanket and sucking on my thumb. Why does it have to come with but you are going to your eternal damnation and it's needless because Jesus has died for you and me and the hicks in Patagonia. Maybe we need a law that prosecutes believers for illegal soliciting for proselytizing after they have been told no. She claims to be appalled and run from the likes of Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson but doesn't get how annoying even her ideas are to a non-believer. She claims to recognize that most of us that don't buy religious delusions would just like to be left alone. Again, that would be really great yet that isn't what actually happens.

It's also good to note as I had mentioned that her book was directed at Christians and not at the non-believer.  Therefore she need not understand how much you don't care because unless you were on this forum or a believer, you wouldn't be reading her book. 

As far as your "no means no".  That's exactly what she (and Christians like us) are getting at.  It's not how its' suppose to be and that's why Christianity is percieved as is.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In her discussion against "new atheists" she misses why we are snippy in our remarks to believers. She seems to lack the ability to comprehend just how irritating it is to hear the same BS story about how man is doomed to death for his sin against the god. That this god so loved us that he did a hocus pocus act and sent part of himself to die to save us from himself. After hearing this over and over it just strikes the unbeliever with the thought that the believer is lacking in mental capacity. This drives many atheists like what she calls new atheists to come back with analogies such as the FSM. Perhaps the believer needs to see just how irrational they sound is the motivation. The reaction of the believer as expected is they discredit the idea but never grasp the relationship that was attempted.

As I've said, it's the dispensationists that come at a non-believer with that approach.  When someone actually comes to you wanting to build a personal relationship with you who happens to be a Christian, then we'll talk.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Perhaps one should consider exactly how much god belief is tossed at non-believers on a daily basis. The god fantasy comes to us in many ways. We see homeless on the street corners with signs saying God Bless. The money has God on it, no picture though as that would be idolatry.We swear in a new President and have to have prayers as part of it. Graduations have some sort of group prayer activities as do other supposed secular activities. Issues of controversy such as marriage, divorce, gays, stem cell research, clones, abortion, murder, pedophiles, and even education all have god beliefs injected as part of the discussion. As an atheist it's impossible to avoid the Christian belief because they use such beliefs in a means to propagate rules and laws for all. What if this happened to the Christian every day? How about a pledge that says one nation under Islam, or Yahweh, or Satan? Or a song how Buddha sheds his grace on thee from sea to shining sea? .

uh... there are countries that say that.  and... uh... Christians are persecuted all over the world, sometimes to death for their belief.  So in other words, it does happen to the Christian every day, usually in a much more forceful way than Christians do to the non-believer.  Though I can't speak for every sect, nor do I feel God represents every sect, but I digress.

We have established too, just because someone prays near you doesn't mean you have to too.  Just as a Christian should tolerate the fact that you don't bow your head when they pray, so should the non-believer tolerate someone else praying. 

Everything else you listed off is politics.  Yes, we have our beliefs, but the fact that they have become legal issues in this country goes beyond Christianity.  (at least that's what I believe)

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It is possible to discuss issues such as abortion without bringing up a god at all. One could be against abortion simply because it destroys intelligent life. If there is no such thing as an afterlife then any intelligent life (human, but not necessarily) is very valuable. The female carrying the life also has rights to consider. Societies determine the rules under which the right of one versus another is violated. Is it right for one person to die for another to live? That depends on the rules of the society. I have flexible morals apparently, which is why I'll be in the 8th level of Hell.

...says the Baptist around the corner.

I agree with you about how it is possible to discuss any issue without bringing up God.  There are many reasons why a person will agree or disagree with any and all issues.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


The stupid Bush policy regarding stem cell research is the epitome of ignorance for example. People got all up in arms over their use, yet these embryos could not survive in the world anyway. It's against the god's will. Since it was man that intervened and developed the embryos, the right time to bitch was before they were fertilized, not after. Next consider how evil clones are. Clones are different than twins exactly how? The clone would be essentially your twin. It would not be you any more than a twin born at the same time you were. Unless they have proof of the soul and can show a twin has only a half a soul. Too many people watched Arnold in the 6th Day apparently.

you are right to include the exception.  If there is a soul... which brings us to the spirit topic again.

Though my issue with cloning doesn't even consider the fact that there's a soul.  All you're doing is manipulating DNA.  So the person might have the same physical and mental traits as the person they were cloned from... does that mean they're born without a soul? (assuming souls exist)  Was science so far advanced that by manipulating physical attributes they were also able to manipulate the persons soul, thus pissing God off???

c'mon people.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


The author seems to think we have inadequately defined the enemy as well. Using an extremist such as Coulter, Robertson or Falwell is not to her liking. Yet we also criticize popes, Billy Graham, priests, and even ‘normal believers’ such as her. Consider her comment in her book regarding Dawkins who says there is minimal evidence Jesus claimed any divine status versus her statement that Jesus of Nazareth made it pretty clear why he thought he was here. She clearly missed the point. Is there a recording or vid of Jesus saying this? Did he actually write a book and leave copies, signed as Jesus the Son of God. No, he didn’t So she missed the point as do many theists that argue that Jesus said or did this or that. The claim being made is the writing by unknown writers describes true events by a guy that is supposedly the Son of God. Jesus never wrote even one word. Yeah, I know it was inspired by the god, but how do you know that?

I’ll have more comments on more of her book later as this post seems long enough already. Have fun with it.

you asked if there was video or audio recordings of Jesus making the aforementioned claims.   If the technology was around, maybe, but being it that it was just a tad bit early, the next best thing had to be used.  Writing.  Granted, you see what the Bible says, but the Bible isn't the only book out there that holds record of Jesus.  Do some homeowork.

We understand it to be inspired by God just as you understand your sisters secret diary being inspired by your sister.  Let's even assume she had a friend scribe for her and that you found her diary in a location that wouldn't automatically suggest your sister put it there.  How would you still know it was inspired by her?  Just to put the synics aside, if you say you wouldn't know, then you must not have a sister, either that or you've never read her secret diary or any writings from her. 

 


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

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 Cap,


In going through the book, I made some notes about several areas where I thought the author was off base. This is the first installment.

sweet

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

She assumes that atheists are at war with Christians. She may only mean those she calls "new atheists". Most of us don't give a damn about the views of Christians or any other kind of a believer, so long as they aren't developing plans to burn us at the stake or kick down our doors to see what we are doing out of their view. (Like Brian maybe I'm barbecuing kittens or instead having wild group sex). So she is pretty amazed that there doesn't seem to be a conspiracy of atheists plotting to execute them in a version of the Coliseum as food for lions. She says new atheists have no war plans or really any idea what to do if they actually succeed in ridding the world of belief. She somehow can't see that when we confront god-belief in the secular world, we do it to protect everyone's rights to be different. In our society, many things don't belong in the public sector, and god beliefs are way at the top of that list. Pretty much most of us go through life not even thinking about religious fanatics up until the point they stick a religious tract in our face or walk up and ask us if we have been saved. Or when one of them is offended by our apparent lack of their Christian morality for example. So it seems there isn't an overall generalized plan to rid the world of delusional believers. The author should be happy that we haven't organized efforts to eliminate their fantasies from the world. But she seems to think this is a weakness on our part. Here is where the issue develops. It seems that Christians in the US especially, think that interactions with other people must involve their beliefs in the god fantasy. I known your view on this already, but even you tread over the line. More on this later.

It is important to note that she is specifically referencing the "new atheists" who are making it their life's work to attack the religious beliefs of the world and that it (from what I understood) doesn't apply to those who aren't in attack mode.

Her larger point was to show the general flaws in understanding or mistaken approaches to Christianity by the way that "Christians" in general present themselves.  Basically, a lot of claims toward Christianity don't hold water because its basis is in dispensationalism only.. (I'm not sure if she actually used that word)

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

If you can say no to sex and no means no, just what is the deal when you tell one of these fanatics no that is somehow misunderstood? No means no. As in, no thanks I don't want your religious BS tract on how I'm going to burn in hell. Or no, I left the beliefs in imaginary friends behind when I stopped carrying around a blanket and sucking on my thumb. Why does it have to come with but you are going to your eternal damnation and it's needless because Jesus has died for you and me and the hicks in Patagonia. Maybe we need a law that prosecutes believers for illegal soliciting for proselytizing after they have been told no. She claims to be appalled and run from the likes of Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson but doesn't get how annoying even her ideas are to a non-believer. She claims to recognize that most of us that don't buy religious delusions would just like to be left alone. Again, that would be really great yet that isn't what actually happens.

It's also good to note as I had mentioned that her book was directed at Christians and not at the non-believer.  Therefore she need not understand how much you don't care because unless you were on this forum or a believer, you wouldn't be reading her book. 

As far as your "no means no".  That's exactly what she (and Christians like us) are getting at.  It's not how its' suppose to be and that's why Christianity is percieved as is.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In her discussion against "new atheists" she misses why we are snippy in our remarks to believers. She seems to lack the ability to comprehend just how irritating it is to hear the same BS story about how man is doomed to death for his sin against the god. That this god so loved us that he did a hocus pocus act and sent part of himself to die to save us from himself. After hearing this over and over it just strikes the unbeliever with the thought that the believer is lacking in mental capacity. This drives many atheists like what she calls new atheists to come back with analogies such as the FSM. Perhaps the believer needs to see just how irrational they sound is the motivation. The reaction of the believer as expected is they discredit the idea but never grasp the relationship that was attempted.

As I've said, it's the dispensationists that come at a non-believer with that approach.  When someone actually comes to you wanting to build a personal relationship with you who happens to be a Christian, then we'll talk.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Perhaps one should consider exactly how much god belief is tossed at non-believers on a daily basis. The god fantasy comes to us in many ways. We see homeless on the street corners with signs saying God Bless. The money has God on it, no picture though as that would be idolatry.We swear in a new President and have to have prayers as part of it. Graduations have some sort of group prayer activities as do other supposed secular activities. Issues of controversy such as marriage, divorce, gays, stem cell research, clones, abortion, murder, pedophiles, and even education all have god beliefs injected as part of the discussion. As an atheist it's impossible to avoid the Christian belief because they use such beliefs in a means to propagate rules and laws for all. What if this happened to the Christian every day? How about a pledge that says one nation under Islam, or Yahweh, or Satan? Or a song how Buddha sheds his grace on thee from sea to shining sea? .

uh... there are countries that say that.  and... uh... Christians are persecuted all over the world, sometimes to death for their belief.  So in other words, it does happen to the Christian every day, usually in a much more forceful way than Christians do to the non-believer.  Though I can't speak for every sect, nor do I feel God represents every sect, but I digress.

We have established too, just because someone prays near you doesn't mean you have to too.  Just as a Christian should tolerate the fact that you don't bow your head when they pray, so should the non-believer tolerate someone else praying. 

Everything else you listed off is politics.  Yes, we have our beliefs, but the fact that they have become legal issues in this country goes beyond Christianity.  (at least that's what I believe)

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It is possible to discuss issues such as abortion without bringing up a god at all. One could be against abortion simply because it destroys intelligent life. If there is no such thing as an afterlife then any intelligent life (human, but not necessarily) is very valuable. The female carrying the life also has rights to consider. Societies determine the rules under which the right of one versus another is violated. Is it right for one person to die for another to live? That depends on the rules of the society. I have flexible morals apparently, which is why I'll be in the 8th level of Hell.

...says the Baptist around the corner.

I agree with you about how it is possible to discuss any issue without bringing up God.  There are many reasons why a person will agree or disagree with any and all issues.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


The stupid Bush policy regarding stem cell research is the epitome of ignorance for example. People got all up in arms over their use, yet these embryos could not survive in the world anyway. It's against the god's will. Since it was man that intervened and developed the embryos, the right time to bitch was before they were fertilized, not after. Next consider how evil clones are. Clones are different than twins exactly how? The clone would be essentially your twin. It would not be you any more than a twin born at the same time you were. Unless they have proof of the soul and can show a twin has only a half a soul. Too many people watched Arnold in the 6th Day apparently.

you are right to include the exception.  If there is a soul... which brings us to the spirit topic again.

Though my issue with cloning doesn't even consider the fact that there's a soul.  All you're doing is manipulating DNA.  So the person might have the same physical and mental traits as the person they were cloned from... does that mean they're born without a soul? (assuming souls exist)  Was science so far advanced that by manipulating physical attributes they were also able to manipulate the persons soul, thus pissing God off???

c'mon people.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


The author seems to think we have inadequately defined the enemy as well. Using an extremist such as Coulter, Robertson or Falwell is not to her liking. Yet we also criticize popes, Billy Graham, priests, and even ‘normal believers’ such as her. Consider her comment in her book regarding Dawkins who says there is minimal evidence Jesus claimed any divine status versus her statement that Jesus of Nazareth made it pretty clear why he thought he was here. She clearly missed the point. Is there a recording or vid of Jesus saying this? Did he actually write a book and leave copies, signed as Jesus the Son of God. No, he didn’t So she missed the point as do many theists that argue that Jesus said or did this or that. The claim being made is the writing by unknown writers describes true events by a guy that is supposedly the Son of God. Jesus never wrote even one word. Yeah, I know it was inspired by the god, but how do you know that?

I’ll have more comments on more of her book later as this post seems long enough already. Have fun with it.

you asked if there was video or audio recordings of Jesus making the aforementioned claims.   If the technology was around, maybe, but being it that it was just a tad bit early, the next best thing had to be used.  Writing.  Granted, you see what the Bible says, but the Bible isn't the only book out there that holds record of Jesus.  Do some homeowork.

We understand it to be inspired by God just as you understand your sisters secret diary being inspired by your sister.  Let's even assume she had a friend scribe for her and that you found her diary in a location that wouldn't automatically suggest your sister put it there.  How would you still know it was inspired by her?  Just to put the synics aside, if you say you wouldn't know, then you must not have a sister, either that or you've never read her secret diary or any writings from her. 

 

I have a brother named Gary. No one has ever known about him. He has no birth certificate, he has no adress, and when doctors took his blood sample they could not find any DNA. BTW, he inspired me to write this post. Since you've never met him, you cant prove he doesn't exist.

Oh, and did I mention he can fart a Lamborginni out of his ass?

"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