The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail
Offline 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:For Christianity, Jesus is the idea. The basics will come once you can accept that possibility."POOF, GOD DID IT"
Yea, I think I got the basics, and that is a pretty crappy starting point.
wait... haven't I seen you before???! yea! you were on the Staples commercial weren't you! Yea!!! *click* "now that was easy".
hah! that was awesome!!! uh... can I have your autograph?
- Login to post comments
Offline I'd like to contribute more than humor to this topic, but I don't feel like reading 16 pages of what would likely consist largely of unsubstantiated claims and completely one sided pwnage.
nah, I'll give you a breif summary. It's simply 16 pages of me arguing with people about how they've been ignoring the topic of the forum...
I'm past that now. Now I'm just humoring the masses until I get a serious post as a few have done by now.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cap is using a typical diversion tactic by trying to sneak us into the bible by trying, all be it badly, to convince us that spirits exist.
Diversion tactics again! wow. I give you credit man. You can find diversions where none exist, yet you can't find God... hmmm
Everything that I said had no intentions of diversions. Your lack of focus on the topic has been a good diversion indeed. I'm guessing you have a bit of ADD.
- Login to post comments
Offline I recall posting in this topic before I lost access to the net months ago. But I don't want to scan through 15+ pages for a response to my last post unless someone feels I didn't respond to any responses to my last post. So, if there's something I didn't respond to, let me know, and I'll go ahead and look through those pages. PM me or post in this topic. I'll keep an eye out in this topic for the next 48 hours. After that, I've more than had my fill of it.
naw, you didn't miss much, it's just 15 pages of mostly nonsense. If you have something worth while to talk about, I'm open to it at this point.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cap, you are so close to being an atheist it makes my dick itch!
uh... are you sure she was a virgin?
You have this knee jerk reaction that if an atheist rejects superstition that somehow they cant comprehend emotion and that we claim that we are all unemotional robots.
uh... yea. That's what i said....
If DNA only applies to physical beings then it cannot be applied to claims of Osirus or Vishnu.
Since science cannot be applied to supernatural claims, then I can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass, unless you think magic can naturally explain that claim?
magic can uh.. naturally explain something huh...
let's stay on the spiritual.
As far as your Lamborghini theory, many Biblical happenings have been tied to real natural happenings as an explanation. They just happened in an ironically appropriate sequence and amazing timing. e.g. parting of the red sea.
So instead of something that wouldn't logically happen without fairly effectively killing you in the process, why not try to start saving up for it? Ya just might get that Lamborghini after all.
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:Cap is using a typical diversion tactic by trying to sneak us into the bible by trying, all be it badly, to convince us that spirits exist.
Diversion tactics again! wow. I give you credit man. You can find diversions where none exist, yet you can't find God... hmmm
Everything that I said had no intentions of diversions. Your lack of focus on the topic has been a good diversion indeed. I'm guessing you have a bit of ADD.
Do spirits exist and where is your peer reviewed evidence. "Oprah/WWE/FAUX NEWS/ Jerry Springer count as much as AL JaZeer and "Weekly World News".
Fighting over what god is right is like fighting over whether Luke Sky Walker is real vs Captain Kirk.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline I recall posting in this topic before I lost access to the net months ago. But I don't want to scan through 15+ pages for a response to my last post unless someone feels I didn't respond to any responses to my last post. So, if there's something I didn't respond to, let me know, and I'll go ahead and look through those pages. PM me or post in this topic. I'll keep an eye out in this topic for the next 48 hours. After that, I've more than had my fill of it.
I just double checked. As far as I can tell, there was nothing you needed to respond to and no reponse to your last post. Page 9 if your curious. At this point, anything relevent and worth talking about. Otherwise, IT's been fun.
- Login to post comments
Offline Lets cut throught the bullshit Cap.
The bottom line is that since you cannot sell the idea of magic or superstition you have to back peddle by claiming words don't mean what they mean,
I could give a shit less if your personal Mickey Mouse hero(or so claimed) were a product of your personal imagination, or a spin off of prior superstitions.
Here is what you don't want to face. Ghosts do not exist. The claimed gods of Thor or or Vishnu or Yahwey are in the same category as Xena Warrior Princess, or Batman.
It feels good taking a shit, but unlike most, I don't dwell on it by making up magical stories, and certainly don't think that process is deserving of an Academy Award. Every human should be a billion air if the sole criteria were claims.
My "shit" exists because of my intestinal process, and would not care less if I claimed that Hidie Clume were going to fuck me tomorrow.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:As many interpret the stories of the Bible writers in many ways it is extremely difficult to base one's foundation on the thinly supported stories in the Bible. That there is contrary information especially in the creation, exodus, invasion of Canaan, Palestine in general, observable science as compared to the ancient writers of the Bible is more than enough to question the validity of every piece of information contained within.
I've probably heard some of those "contradictions". Maybe not all. So far, everything that I've heard has been either taken out of context, or if actually well researched which I assume you have done, it was concluded only based on lack of information from the Bible.
I have noted that upon occasion you take exception to general views perpetrated by believers. In other cases you accept some of what I would consider to be poorly supported interpretations from ancient times. Perhaps upon further research you might grasp why atheists are so critical of such acceptance.
A serious question: Are you well versed in the Biblical languages as well.. e.g. Ancient Hebrew and Coyne' Greek?
My second language is Spanish and I didn't have the patience at the time to learn others.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:As to your claim there is just as much research supported by history, archeology and natural occurrences you are certainly welcome to provide such proof or links to it. Perhaps this would make an excellent new topic on your part.
See my "science Vs. Religion" forum. If it hasn't been brought up in there, let me know the topic.
OK.
In my research, that seem to be the case too. My conclusion however isn't that God's not real, it's that people are not real. (not in the literal sense for those of you who don't get a metaphor) Most people don't understand what they're following. or many times why...
I certainly agree that many people are completely clueless why they follow certain beliefs.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I don't quite grasp what you are saying in the part I set in bold type.
I think I ran 2 sentences together there. My apolgies. When I said I never had a question that couldn't be explained, I was simply squashing the "God did it" excuse people are coming up with. Granted I don't know everything.
To claim God did it, you have to have coherent reasoning behind that claim. Can't just say it becasue you don't know.
The other part, I accept the idea that for many things, we just "don't know yet." That again is not any defense against God. The acceptance of God only better clarifies your acceptance of not knowing everything.
You know what position we take, why add a god to explain anything at all as it just increases or moves the problem.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:By the same logic you use to accept the Bible myths such as Genesis' creation the Sumerian version is just as acceptable and is several thousand years older. Explain why it shouldn't be held to be the original version and the Genesis account a derived version.
Be it that I'm not familiar with the Sumerian version, it very well could be. Many people will thump the Bible and say nothing outside of that book can be right. My take is the Bible wasn't put together as a book until... I think it was somewhere around 1204.... not sure.... Anyway, though the specific "Genesis" account from that perspective is taken from the oldest manuscripts archeology can find, it doesn't mean another perspective of the same story's not out there.
This of course assuming the stories can be paralleled. I again am not familiar with it.
I can't dismiss anything I haven't researched myself.
This would be a good area for you to research as it might help you see your beliefs in a new light. If so, you might get a glimpse of why we consider the Bible to be based on legends and myths and very thin on actual history.
You can find much on ancient Iraq and the Sumerians at the following on-line site, called etcsl. see here. It is but a place to start, your local book store should also have a good selection in the ancient history section.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I don't know why you believe. You see the same stories that I do which I consider myths. Even if considered as allegories, then you have to explain why. As I told you, the beliefs fail from the beginning of Gen 1:1 and only get more tipsy as more is built on top. If the foundation is poor the whole structure fails. The God of Abe foundation isn't even on a good sand foundation.
I guess then we'd have to go into a discussion of how the story fails.
Exactly.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I do understand your position as a Christian believer. You base much on the understanding of the NT and the supposed words of Jesus. As I told you earlier for Jesus to have relevance Judaism must be originally based on a real true foundation. The claims in the NT are only perceptions, claims, and beliefs documented by those who concluded that Jesus was the messiah. Many stories exist throughout history claiming supernatural events as real. The problem is the information comes without proof it even occurred in the real world. A book written today about Harry Potter could be found in 2000 years after we successfully destroy life as we know it and send it back to the stone age. Eventually man could rediscover it's past and people might conclude Harry's adventures were real.
True about the Harry Potter example, however, the information in those books may be irrelevant to today, whereas Biblical writings and knowlege can be used in everyday life.
now I'm waiting for the erronius out-of-context claims about how we should force people into slavery and beat our wives... It's ok, I'm expecting it. (not necessarily from you. I think you're smarter than that)
In your research, you must have come across the Jesus Character as actually existing in history. The question then comes down to whether he actually did all the Bible claims he did or not.
There are so many fun things one can find in ancient writings. In ancient Sumeria, see Code of Hammurabi for example, "if a physcian make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off."
As to a real Jesus in history you are obviously aware there is sketchy evidence on this possibility. It may be there was such a person or may not. I am not convinced either way.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Look how easily you dismiss the Mayans.
If you want we can start a forum and start at the beginning of the Bible and go chapter by chapter discussing how each part has proof or is mythical. This could take about 2 years and have thousands of posts. I personally have already done this over about 10 years while researching as I strove to understand.
that would be fun. You've seriously caught my interest. We might not want to set a goal to run through the whole Bible, but focus on a chapter, then if we feel like continuing, pick another. Chronicles can get quite boring.
Sure, where would you like to start? At the beginning? I have actually analyzed both Chronicles and Kings in my research efforts. After a while it gets to be like this: King ABCD lived 20 years and did evil in the sight of the lord and he died. He had xyz sons who also were evil in the sight of the lord. It can be boring but if you look real hard there are some interesting details to be found.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:If someone has stacked blocks together as a 4 year old or dug in the dirt to play they have the realization that engineering is possible.
As to Christianity, the idea is first off there is such a thing as a God at all and he cared so much that he sent his son Jesus to save us. Jesus is not the idea but part of the complexity. The part you miss is the god concept must first be shown as basic understanding. When Christians present the Jesus concept as the idea first it is much like taking an advanced circuit analysis class with no understanding of basic electricity. They shown Jesus as the solution but rarely explain why any solution is even required beyond to save you from your sins. If you don't believe, the concept of sin is meaningless as is the solution, Jesus.
I completely agree with you. You're right. I think that's why I haven't put Jesus as my topic for discussion.
From a Christian perspective though, it's not just a god, it's The God who cared so much for the world, that he sent his son to die so that we may live... Why did he do that and who is this supposed God? Ah, now that is the question.
I guess from my perspective, it's kind of the trailer teaser for a movie. It'll show you the best parts to peak your attention. So you go view it to see what it's all about.
I know with this crowd, presenting Jesus isn't going to work, so I haven't. I've presented the idea of a spiritual world. It doesn't even have to do with any specific following, just an idea of spirits.
As I've mentioned to you, most people who "follow" don't understand why they do or what it's all about... at least so much as to be a teacher of the art. It's like taking a first year student and asking him to teach an advanced Engineering course. The students won't get the information they need.
What they're suppose to do is introduce you to the idea. if you're interested enough in it, then they're supposed to take you to someone who can answer all your questions. A legitimate pastor or reverend should be able to do that. If they don't even know why they're in it, then they shouldn't be out there telling you about it in the first place.
As I have been corrupted by engineering principles as well as finance and religious training I generally use a technique of analysis by trying to follow a path logically through an idea. The financial training causes me to look for audit trails while engineering results in dissecting and understanding how the pieces fit together. This helped to shape me as a skeptic and eventually an atheist. I discovered that those who should know about beliefs didn't and those that claim to know conveniently overlook areas of questionable basis. I have yet to meet a believer who has basis in the real world that can present what I would consider to be an adequate audit trail with logical construct. I understand their position of a spiritual world yet some basis must exist for such a position for it to be more than hopeful conjecture. As of yet that is all I have seen presented.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
- Login to post comments
Offline Cap,
This is the 3rd installment on the book beginning with the chapter "All Faithful aren't Fools"
She discusses the 'bright' view of the world that all people are either atheists or faith talking Neanderthals. She says Dawkins and others are only willing to see the dark side of the countless varieties of religion. Instead of considering each and weighing their mixed record and arguing that overall the world would be better off without religion we dismiss them out of hand. She says for these secularists religion represents a black & white bogeyman and warns that we should be careful lest an imaginary god comes out suddenly and scares the living bejesus out of us. She is obviously playing to her religious audience here. She claims that 'new atheists' depict all Christians as bumbling idiots like Roger Corman movies. Dawkins she explained used the Edgardo Mortara abduction by Catholics to show how evil the church was by kidnapping a Jew from a loving family to force him to be raised as Catholic. This event as well as others such as the Spanish Inquisition should serve as a warning to evangelists on how not to interpret the gospel of Matthew that commands to preach to all nations. These stories also show what dangers can occur when a theocracy is in place. When religious leaders dismiss violence done in the name of God with, sorry we won't do that again she says the entire Christian community should rise up against the perpetrators and go after them with gusto. The thing is we don't have to look very far to find many events and actions by believers that are truly evil and corrupt. Since the god is the judge not man this has been used both ways over history. As for example during the Crusades when they took the position that God could sort out those they killed. It's a rare occasion when the believers are so liberal that they allow disparate views to be observed when they are in control. This more than anything is what Dawkins and most of us try to get across to believers and Becky doesn't seem to get it.
She has such high standards yet we both know this is not what has occurred in the past and continues to be done today. I know many condemn Phelps for his pickets at military funerals but I wonder what if they were gay activists’ funerals. What of the violence done over abortion? The author's intent is to get it across to the believers that actions of violence in the name of the god only show that the believers doing so are not what she considers a true Christian. She says both sides are to blame for atrocities done throughout the years. She says atheists see no connection to the violence in the 20th century while the believers conveniently claim Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were enemies of religion and have no connection to them. She says, "this conveniently forgets the Crusades, the Inquisition, and much else." Perhaps they both have commonality in that these states were controlled in one case by despots that were only out to promote themselves, wait a second that's true of both. In the case of the Church, the despots called popes were in control of the beliefs which were propagated to insure adherence to their direct rule. All actions were done in what was considered to be God's will. Hence St Ambrose and St. Augustine determined that torture and force were in line with God's command. I would assume Garrison would see these 2 as evil persons or maybe only misdirected. It is however their interpretations that were used in justifying murder and mayhem in the name of Jesus the Lamb of God on occasions such as Crusades and Inquisition. John Chyrsodom another wonderful individual incited crowds in his services such that they would leave and kill Jews and burn synagogues. Lest we forget the wonderful actions of King David. He showed how being either his friend or ally was likely to shorten one's life span on many occasions. As to Stalin and Hitler I see little to differentiate either from Innocent II or Julius the soldier pope. Julius did more of his own killing personally than they did however. I however am aware of your take on individual Christians when they depart from the way of belief into areas not exactly per the teaching of Jesus. Becky too sees it your way as she says the believers stood by doing little during the holocaust, Bosnia, and Rwanda for example. She also is against the giving of Bibles instead of food and help as several mainline Christian charities seem to do such as after the tsunami.
She next examines how New Atheists use the fringe elements of Christianity to smear all believers. As for example the New Destiny’s Hell House or Fred Phelps who pickets funerals of US servicemen. Then there’s Coulter and Robertson with the extremist views going as far as claiming John Edwards is a fag or 9/11 was caused by decadent America falling away from God.She doesn't seem to understand that 'new atheism' smears Christianity in general for the purpose of causing believers to rethink their positions. She gets the point that believers don't speak up when extremist Christians perpetrate atrocities yet she herself has sat by mute. Unlike her, atheists can be judgmental and not wait for God to pass his judgment on others. When the believers fail to rein in the fanatics they should expect to be held accountable as a perceived member of the class. Many of us are tolerant of believers provided they grasp where the lines are drawn. When believers decide to impose their ideas on others and violate personal liberties (at least in the US where supposedly we have such) it results in much more ammo to be fired at them. It seems that many haven't grasped what freedom of religion actually means which is why atheists are so vocal in attacking believers.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
- Login to post comments
Offline HisWillness wrote:What am I asking the mathematician? The numerical values and odds of what in DNA?
That could go in a lot of directions... it's why I left it so general.
er... let's see.. uh... odds of repetition or successful reproduction. numerical values of information within one strand. Compare that to the combined numberical odds of a certain group of strands reproducing to work together and reproducing successfully. The effect of such a strand grouping in behavior, outward appearance, etc. Historocity of such a strand and likelyhood of it forming from its former self into what it is today and what it could form into, etc. Stuff like that.
Those are some ideas of direction. I'm generally trying to focus on the numerical value of information. Quantity and quality.
Have you read deludedgod's treatment of the subject? Life is chemistry. The activity of being a living creature is an aggregate of chemical reactions that happen all the time. In that context, the odds of life arising are pretty good, given the behaviour of carbon, and its prevalence in our environment. Add to that energy inputs like the sun, and the chemical reactions that make up life are pretty likely. Especially given a few billion years to play out.
I'm not on the cutting edge of abiogenesis, but several types of initial conditions have been simulated with environments that are hypothesized to be the initial conditions of life, and the basic building blocks of life have been produced in those conditions. If that's the case, then several existing conditions could have produced the building blocks of life, and given time, life itself results from a causal chain of chemical reactions. The odds are quite high, given the variety of reactions available in nature. Life could have started any number of ways, and continues by virtue of the behaviour of chemistry. We are an extension of the behaviour of chemistry.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Lets cut throught the bullshit Cap.
The bottom line is that since you cannot sell the idea of magic or superstition you have to back peddle by claiming words don't mean what they mean,
I could give a shit less if your personal Mickey Mouse hero(or so claimed) were a product of your personal imagination, or a spin off of prior superstitions.
Here is what you don't want to face. Ghosts do not exist. The claimed gods of Thor or or Vishnu or Yahwey are in the same category as Xena Warrior Princess, or Batman.
It feels good taking a shit, but unlike most, I don't dwell on it by making up magical stories, and certainly don't think that process is deserving of an Academy Award. Every human should be a billion air if the sole criteria were claims.
My "shit" exists because of my intestinal process, and would not care less if I claimed that Hidie Clume were going to fuck me tomorrow.
Or could it be that you're afraid to face the idea that you might not be in control....
The above claim holds as much water as your statement.
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:Lets cut throught the bullshit Cap.
The bottom line is that since you cannot sell the idea of magic or superstition you have to back peddle by claiming words don't mean what they mean,
I could give a shit less if your personal Mickey Mouse hero(or so claimed) were a product of your personal imagination, or a spin off of prior superstitions.
Here is what you don't want to face. Ghosts do not exist. The claimed gods of Thor or or Vishnu or Yahwey are in the same category as Xena Warrior Princess, or Batman.
It feels good taking a shit, but unlike most, I don't dwell on it by making up magical stories, and certainly don't think that process is deserving of an Academy Award. Every human should be a billion air if the sole criteria were claims.
My "shit" exists because of my intestinal process, and would not care less if I claimed that Hidie Clume were going to fuck me tomorrow.
Or could it be that you're afraid to face the idea that you might not be in control....
The above claim holds as much water as your statement.
Nobody is in control, every single human born will eventually die. Nor do I have control over all 6 billion people.
Atoms decay, that is nature. People die, and that too is nature. No magical fantastical claims of super heros vs super villians to state the obvious.
Of course I don't have control, but that does not mean their is a magica Luke Skywaker "force" "controling anything or that disimbodied beings knock up girls, or that you'll get 72 virgins in an after life. BTW, in case you didn't know, positive and negitive charges in the atmosphere cause lighting, and not Thor.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline I have noted that upon occasion you take exception to general views perpetrated by believers. In other cases you accept some of what I would consider to be poorly supported interpretations from ancient times. Perhaps upon further research you might grasp why atheists are so critical of such acceptance.
I think I do understand why atheists are so critical. Probably for the same reason I am.
You know what position we take, why add a god to explain anything at all as it just increases or moves the problem.
precisely
This would be a good area for you to research as it might help you see your beliefs in a new light. If so, you might get a glimpse of why we consider the Bible to be based on legends and myths and very thin on actual history.
You can find much on ancient Iraq and the Sumerians at the following on-line site, called etcsl. see here. It is but a place to start, your local book store should also have a good selection in the ancient history section.
I'll look into it
There are so many fun things one can find in ancient writings. In ancient Sumeria, see Code of Hammurabi for example, "if a physcian make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off."
As to a real Jesus in history you are obviously aware there is sketchy evidence on this possibility. It may be there was such a person or may not. I am not convinced either way.
As for the Code of Hammurabi, it seems to me that if a physician made a large incision in a patient that ends up killing him, or cuts out someone's eye by trying to remove a tumor, then they probably shouldn't have been working as a surgeon anyway. To cut off their hands would prevent them from hurting or killing someone else.
I'm not defending the story, just critiquing it.
Sure, where would you like to start? At the beginning? I have actually analyzed both Chronicles and Kings in my research efforts. After a while it gets to be like this: King ABCD lived 20 years and did evil in the sight of the lord and he died. He had xyz sons who also were evil in the sight of the lord. It can be boring but if you look real hard there are some interesting details to be found.
Oh I know. I've read through Chronicles. There are some interesting facts amidst the pages. It's boring as a readthrough for my ADHD mind.
As I have been corrupted by engineering principles as well as finance and religious training I generally use a technique of analysis by trying to follow a path logically through an idea. The financial training causes me to look for audit trails while engineering results in dissecting and understanding how the pieces fit together. This helped to shape me as a skeptic and eventually an atheist. I discovered that those who should know about beliefs didn't and those that claim to know conveniently overlook areas of questionable basis. I have yet to meet a believer who has basis in the real world that can present what I would consider to be an adequate audit trail with logical construct. I understand their position of a spiritual world yet some basis must exist for such a position for it to be more than hopeful conjecture. As of yet that is all I have seen presented.
Understood. I guess I'd question the source you're expecting a believer to present you with? Is it physical?
What would an "audit trail with logical construct" presentation need to entail for you to consider its evidence?
Obviously I'm going to try my best to explain to you the reason why I believe in the best way I am able to. Yes, faith plays a part in it, though you must understand that it's not blind, but has basis.
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:Lets cut throught the bullshit Cap.
The bottom line is that since you cannot sell the idea of magic or superstition you have to back peddle by claiming words don't mean what they mean,
I could give a shit less if your personal Mickey Mouse hero(or so claimed) were a product of your personal imagination, or a spin off of prior superstitions.
Here is what you don't want to face. Ghosts do not exist. The claimed gods of Thor or or Vishnu or Yahwey are in the same category as Xena Warrior Princess, or Batman.
It feels good taking a shit, but unlike most, I don't dwell on it by making up magical stories, and certainly don't think that process is deserving of an Academy Award. Every human should be a billion air if the sole criteria were claims.
My "shit" exists because of my intestinal process, and would not care less if I claimed that Hidie Clume were going to fuck me tomorrow.
Or could it be that you're afraid to face the idea that you might not be in control....
The above claim holds as much water as your statement.
Cap,
Could your own fear lie in the fact that you don't wish to accept resposibility for your actions and need "God's will" to absolve you?
It seems the Christians are afraid of control and want God to take over the things they can do themselves.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline Cap,
This is the 3rd installment on the book beginning with the chapter "All Faithful aren't Fools"....
In response to your third installment, I'll just make a breif statement and see if it progresses. It generally seems that you agree with her point of view. Understand that though bigger examples are used, it comes down to what "freedom of religion" is about and how you're not suppose to force it upon others, even just by voice.
- Login to post comments
Offline Have you read deludedgod's treatment of the subject? Life is chemistry. The activity of being a living creature is an aggregate of chemical reactions that happen all the time. In that context, the odds of life arising are pretty good, given the behaviour of carbon, and its prevalence in our environment. Add to that energy inputs like the sun, and the chemical reactions that make up life are pretty likely. Especially given a few billion years to play out.
I'm not on the cutting edge of abiogenesis, but several types of initial conditions have been simulated with environments that are hypothesized to be the initial conditions of life, and the basic building blocks of life have been produced in those conditions. If that's the case, then several existing conditions could have produced the building blocks of life, and given time, life itself results from a causal chain of chemical reactions. The odds are quite high, given the variety of reactions available in nature. Life could have started any number of ways, and continues by virtue of the behaviour of chemistry. We are an extension of the behaviour of chemistry.
I don't think I've read that. You seem to take in assumption that the environment was ideal for all kinds of life to exist. Did you consider those odds as well? It all had to come into play. Then the odds of life as single celled organisms becoming intelligent enough to understand self and purpose.
- Login to post comments
Offline Nobody is in control, every single human born will eventually die. Nor do I have control over all 6 billion people.
Atoms decay, that is nature. People die, and that too is nature. No magical fantastical claims of super heros vs super villians to state the obvious.
Of course I don't have control, but that does not mean their is a magica Luke Skywaker "force" "controling anything or that disimbodied beings knock up girls, or that you'll get 72 virgins in an after life. BTW, in case you didn't know, positive and negitive charges in the atmosphere cause lighting, and not Thor.
I'm glad you see my point. Try using actual support next time. 
- Login to post comments
Offline Cap,
Could your own fear lie in the fact that you don't wish to accept resposibility for your actions and need "God's will" to absolve you?
It seems the Christians are afraid of control and want God to take over the things they can do themselves.
no
Again, it's really the opposite. To accept that God is real is to accept a greater responsibilty for our own actions.
It's ironic. I haven't expressed this on here yet, but I laugh when people tell me I'm living a fantasy because the fantasy is to say there is no God. That way there's no accountability for your actions unless a law is broken. Even then, you're "technically" not accountable unless you get caught. With God, all of your actions, whether against your town/state/countries law or not, you are still held accountable for.
- Login to post comments
Offline You seem to take in assumption that the environment was ideal for all kinds of life to exist.
No, no, and no. Certain conditions that existed on earth (and could exist on any similar planet) brought chemical bonds that naturally occur together in greater number. That's the hypothesis. Is it possible? Yes, says geology. Is it probable? Yes, say the scientists who simulated those conditions. Amino acids spontaneously organizing by chemical bonds (okay, I'm oversimplifying, but if you won't read deludedgod's treatment, I have to be brief) is reproduced without much effort. Carbon just happens to act that way.
Did you consider those odds as well? It all had to come into play.
And it did. The fact that the earth was probably just like the way we reproduce it in the laboratory gives us a "probably" to the odds that life started that way.
Then the odds of life as single celled organisms becoming intelligent enough to understand self and purpose.
I'm not sure we understand ourselves or why we insist on purpose, so it's possible that we haven't become intelligent enough.
[edit] That didn't really answer your question. This does:
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Cap,
Could your own fear lie in the fact that you don't wish to accept resposibility for your actions and need "God's will" to absolve you?
It seems the Christians are afraid of control and want God to take over the things they can do themselves.
no
Again, it's really the opposite. To accept that God is real is to accept a greater responsibilty for our own actions.
It's ironic. I haven't expressed this on here yet, but I laugh when people tell me I'm living a fantasy because the fantasy is to say there is no God. That way there's no accountability for your actions unless a law is broken. Even then, you're "technically" not accountable unless you get caught. With God, all of your actions, whether against your town/state/countries law or not, you are still held accountable for.
Not really.
You have the threat of God sending you to hell unless you ask forgiveness of your sins. Forgiveness absolves you from responsibilty until you sin again - ask for forgiveness again and you're free (lather, rinse, repeat).
How is that accepting responsibility?
In the secular world we have things like not wanting to harm society, law enforcement and prison to keep the majority of people from doing such things. You can ask for forgiveness and be accepted but you will still do time for your actions. None of this "You asked for forgiveness? Why then, you're free to go!" that comes from Yahweh.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline I think I do understand why atheists are so critical. Probably for the same reason I am.
No you don't understand.
You ARE as critical as we are to as many beliefs, with the exception that we are critical of one more than you are.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:There are so many fun things one can find in ancient writings. In ancient Sumeria, see Code of Hammurabi for example, "if a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off."
As to a real Jesus in history you are obviously aware there is sketchy evidence on this possibility. It may be there was such a person or may not. I am not convinced either way.
As for the Code of Hammurabi, it seems to me that if a physician made a large incision in a patient that ends up killing him, or cuts out someone's eye by trying to remove a tumor, then they probably shouldn't have been working as a surgeon anyway. To cut off their hands would prevent them from hurting or killing someone else.
I'm not defending the story, just critiquing it.
My point here was there were many strange ways ancient people dealt with issues. Cutting off hands, killing the builder of a house if it fell down and killed the occupants and more. In light of some of Hammurabi much of the archaic ideas of justice in the OT are similarly strange to us. The problem being no one advocates implementing Hammurabi's laws such as cutting off a surgeon's hands when they screw up yet many do suggest implementation of the OT's equally bizarre methods.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:As I have been corrupted by engineering principles as well as finance and religious training I generally use a technique of analysis by trying to follow a path logically through an idea. The financial training causes me to look for audit trails while engineering results in dissecting and understanding how the pieces fit together. This helped to shape me as a skeptic and eventually an atheist. I discovered that those who should know about beliefs didn't and those that claim to know conveniently overlook areas of questionable basis. I have yet to meet a believer who has basis in the real world that can present what I would consider to be an adequate audit trail with logical construct. I understand their position of a spiritual world yet some basis must exist for such a position for it to be more than hopeful conjecture. As of yet that is all I have seen presented.
Understood. I guess I'd question the source you're expecting a believer to present you with? Is it physical?
What would an "audit trail with logical construct" presentation need to entail for you to consider its evidence?
Obviously I'm going to try my best to explain to you the reason why I believe in the best way I am able to. Yes, faith plays a part in it, though you must understand that it's not blind, but has basis.
If a human can perceive something even with tools whether electronic or mathematical it is physical.
Are you at all familiar with finance or accounting audits?
One must be able to follow the path through the presentation and understand where all of the information originated and why. Justification is required when departing from generally accepted procedures. This does not mean such justification will be accepted, only that it was the basis for the method utilized.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
- Login to post comments
Offline No, no, and no. Certain conditions that existed on earth (and could exist on any similar planet) brought chemical bonds that naturally occur together in greater number. That's the hypothesis. Is it possible? Yes, says geology. Is it probable? Yes, say the scientists who simulated those conditions. Amino acids spontaneously organizing by chemical bonds (okay, I'm oversimplifying, but if you won't read deludedgod's treatment, I have to be brief) is reproduced without much effort. Carbon just happens to act that way.
caposkia wrote:Did you consider those odds as well? It all had to come into play.And it did. The fact that the earth was probably just like the way we reproduce it in the laboratory gives us a "probably" to the odds that life started that way.
Here in lies the problem. The issue is not that the earth has been found to have the "right chemical bonds" to create life from nothing. It's more about the appropriate ingredients first of all being there in the right combination to begin with, then being there in the right quantity to create and sustain that life.
You yourself state that this "could exist on any other planet" yet we haven't found another planet with similar size and distance from its sun to have such a setup. Any planet for that matter. What are the odds of us finding a planet to have the perfect ingredients to start life such as Earth did? To figure that out, you'd need to take the odds of each individual Chemical being present on each planet. combine that with the odds of each Chemical having the right quantity and location on the planet as well as the right size to create the right atmospheric conditions on that planet and the right distance from a star so as to not freeze or fry the newly formable lifeforms. When you take all of that into consideration, what are those odds?
P.S. If you understand the combination and quantity, of course it's easy to reproduce it. The question is can those conditions reproduce themselves without the setup of a scientist in a lab? Probably, but what are the odds?
- Login to post comments
Offline You have the threat of God sending you to hell unless you ask forgiveness of your sins. Forgiveness absolves you from responsibilty until you sin again - ask for forgiveness again and you're free (lather, rinse, repeat).
How is that accepting responsibility?
well no... that's what dispensationalists want you to believe. The choice is yours. It's either you want to be with God or you don't. Hell isn't what legalistic churches make it out to be. God isn't "hanging sinners over hellfire". Simply put, Hell cannot be explained as anything more than "separation from God".
The Catholics make you want to believe that you're free to do whatever you want as long as you keep going to confession and saying those prayers over and over again.
The reality of it is you need to accept responsibility for your actions before you can accept what Christ did for you. If you can't accept responsibility for your actions, then it's basically saying you don't need Jesus and therefore have no reason to follow him.
Not to sound like an evangelist, but the truth of the following of Christ is, in order to accept what Jesus did for you in your heart and follow him, you have to admit that you sin. You also have to admit that you sin so much that you yourself could not make up for it by any means. That was his whole purpose. There could be no amount of fine you could pay to repay for your sin or work that you could do. Many people can't handle that kind of responsibility. Could you?
In the secular world we have things like not wanting to harm society, law enforcement and prison to keep the majority of people from doing such things. You can ask for forgiveness and be accepted but you will still do time for your actions. None of this "You asked for forgiveness? Why then, you're free to go!" that comes from Yahweh.
That's the difference, the teaching is Jesus took your sin upon himself.
to compare. It's like your brother took the hit for you. You went out there and killed someone, but your brother confessed for you and said he did it. Therefore, you're scott free and your brother went to jail. He did that because he loved you more than anything else, including his own freedom.
Someone still "went to jail" on your behalf. Justice was still served, it's just that someone else who loved you beyond anything else took your place. All he wants from you in return, is to follow his example and tell others that he can and did do the same for them.
I know that sounded very preachy... but did that answer your question? At least as to why in the Christian belief?
- Login to post comments
I realize what 5000 was referencing. I suggested that instead there were about 270 million ways of supposedly knowing god in the US, one for each alleged Christian.
As many interpret the stories of the Bible writers in many ways it is extremely difficult to base one's foundation on the thinly supported stories in the Bible. That there is contrary information especially in the creation, exodus, invasion of Canaan, Palestine in general, observable science as compared to the ancient writers of the Bible is more than enough to question the validity of every piece of information contained within.
In one little paragraph posted on an Internet forum it is virtually impossible to convey the amount of time and research that I have done. I have spent many years doing so as both a believer and a non-believer. I have 30 some versions of Bibles, dozens of history books, access to libraries at several Jesuit Universities as I have a graduate degree from one and I have spent countless hours there. In addition I have reams of links, downloads, articles and have written hundreds of pages documenting my research. Just how is it you'd like me to convey the amount of time that I have put into looking? Just how would you like this documented to show you how well researched my position is?
As to your claim there is just as much research supported by history, archeology and natural occurrences you are certainly welcome to provide such proof or links to it. Perhaps this would make an excellent new topic on your part.
I have many questions that can't be explained, so since you apparently don't does that mean you have all the answers? Or is your answer God did it when you don't know?
I don't quite grasp what you are saying in the part I set in bold type.
By the same logic you use to accept the Bible myths such as Genesis' creation the Sumerian version is just as acceptable and is several thousand years older. Explain why it shouldn't be held to be the original version and the Genesis account a derived version.
I do understand your position as a Christian believer. You base much on the understanding of the NT and the supposed words of Jesus. As I told you earlier for Jesus to have relevance Judaism must be originally based on a real true foundation. The claims in the NT are only perceptions, claims, and beliefs documented by those who concluded that Jesus was the messiah. Many stories exist throughout history claiming supernatural events as real. The problem is the information comes without proof it even occurred in the real world. A book written today about Harry Potter could be found in 2000 years after we successfully destroy life as we know it and send it back to the stone age. Eventually man could rediscover it's past and people might conclude Harry's adventures were real.
Look how easily you dismiss the Mayans.
If you want we can start a forum and start at the beginning of the Bible and go chapter by chapter discussing how each part has proof or is mythical. This could take about 2 years and have thousands of posts. I personally have already done this over about 10 years while researching as I strove to understand.
If someone has stacked blocks together as a 4 year old or dug in the dirt to play they have the realization that engineering is possible.
As to Christianity, the idea is first off there is such a thing as a God at all and he cared so much that he sent his son Jesus to save us. Jesus is not the idea but part of the complexity. The part you miss is the god concept must first be shown as basic understanding. When Christians present the Jesus concept as the idea first it is much like taking an advanced circuit analysis class with no understanding of basic electricity. They shown Jesus as the solution but rarely explain why any solution is even required beyond to save you from your sins. If you don't believe, the concept of sin is meaningless as is the solution, Jesus.
____________________________________________________________
"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.
"POOF, GOD DID IT"
Yea, I think I got the basics, and that is a pretty crappy starting point.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
That reminds me of the episode of the The Simpsons in which the schools were required to teach creation. All of the answers on Lisa's test were "God did it." I lol so hard when they make religious jokes. I've noticed it a lot in that genre, i.e. The Simpsons, Futurama, and Family Guy. I guess it's more socially acceptable when cartoon people say it...
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
I'd like to contribute more than humor to this topic, but I don't feel like reading 16 pages of what would likely consist largely of unsubstantiated claims and completely one sided pwnage.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Cap is using a typical diversion tactic by trying to sneak us into the bible by trying, all be it badly, to convince us that spirits exist.
My point to Cap is that Occham's Razor takes care of this problem as well as god claims quite simply.
If you want to believe in those things so badly, your brain can delude itself with intense feelings that can cause yout o see what you want to see. It is a false placebo. Once Cap realizes this cap will stop seeing "spirits".
It is an in their heads.
16 pages, that is right. It is a tag team effort to save Cap's brain from itself. The deconstructionists take on the word by word detail, while I attack the arguments from a simple "attack the poof logic".
I hold out hope for Cap because very few if any theist sticks arround in a thread, much less the site, without at least learning something new. Cap, if anything is learning that we are not pushovers.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
That could go in a lot of directions... it's why I left it so general.
er... let's see.. uh... odds of repetition or successful reproduction. numerical values of information within one strand. Compare that to the combined numberical odds of a certain group of strands reproducing to work together and reproducing successfully. The effect of such a strand grouping in behavior, outward appearance, etc. Historocity of such a strand and likelyhood of it forming from its former self into what it is today and what it could form into, etc. Stuff like that.
Those are some ideas of direction. I'm generally trying to focus on the numerical value of information. Quantity and quality.
I recall posting in this topic before I lost access to the net months ago. But I don't want to scan through 15+ pages for a response to my last post unless someone feels I didn't respond to any responses to my last post. So, if there's something I didn't respond to, let me know, and I'll go ahead and look through those pages. PM me or post in this topic. I'll keep an eye out in this topic for the next 48 hours. After that, I've more than had my fill of it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Damn! That means my gas free plane won't work!!!!! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
bbrhemm... excuse me. Sorry about that.
The problem with spirit DNA and the reason why I know you won't accept it is because just by the specific thing you're looking for, you're looking for something physical.
I think we can both agree that DNA is what makes up PHYSICAL BEINGS and therefore should logically not be applied to spiritual beings. However, even if there was such a thing, I'd show it to you, you'd tell me it's smoke and mirrors.
Cap, you are so close to being an atheist it makes my dick itch!
You have this knee jerk reaction that if an atheist rejects superstition that somehow they cant comprehend emotion and that we claim that we are all unemotional robots.
If DNA only applies to physical beings then it cannot be applied to claims of Osirus or Vishnu.
Since science cannot be applied to supernatural claims, then I can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass, unless you think magic can naturally explain that claim?
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
ah, sorry. I was tired when I replied to that. didn't click with me.
I've probably heard some of those "contradictions". Maybe not all. So far, everything that I've heard has been either taken out of context, or if actually well researched which I assume you have done, it was concluded only based on lack of information from the Bible.
well then, maybe you could answer many questions I've had as well! That's awesome you're so well versed.
A serious question: Are you well versed in the Biblical languages as well.. e.g. Ancient Hebrew and Coyne' Greek?
See my "science Vs. Religion" forum. If it hasn't been brought up in there, let me know the topic.
In my research, that seem to be the case too. My conclusion however isn't that God's not real, it's that people are not real. (not in the literal sense for those of you who don't get a metaphor) Most people don't understand what they're following. or many times why...
Niether.
I think I ran 2 sentences together there. My apolgies. When I said I never had a question that couldn't be explained, I was simply squashing the "God did it" excuse people are coming up with. Granted I don't know everything.
To claim God did it, you have to have coherent reasoning behind that claim. Can't just say it becasue you don't know.
The other part, I accept the idea that for many things, we just "don't know yet." That again is not any defense against God. The acceptance of God only better clarifies your acceptance of not knowing everything.
Be it that I'm not familiar with the Sumerian version, it very well could be. Many people will thump the Bible and say nothing outside of that book can be right. My take is the Bible wasn't put together as a book until... I think it was somewhere around 1204.... not sure.... Anyway, though the specific "Genesis" account from that perspective is taken from the oldest manuscripts archeology can find, it doesn't mean another perspective of the same story's not out there.
This of course assuming the stories can be paralleled. I again am not familiar with it.
I can't dismiss anything I haven't researched myself.
I guess then we'd have to go into a discussion of how the story fails.
True about the Harry Potter example, however, the information in those books may be irrelevent to today, whereas Biblical writings and knowlege can be used in everyday life.
now I'm waiting for the erronius out-of-context claims about how we should force people into slavery and beat our wives... It's ok, I'm expecting it. (not necessarily from you. I think you're smarter than that)
In your research, you must have come across the Jesus Character as actually existing in history. The question then comes down to whether he actually did all the Bible claims he did or not.
depending on how you compare it. So far, my comparisons have shown more validity in the Bible than any other following.
Let's think logically for a moment. If my belief was based so blatently on nothing substantial, then the debates wouldn't even need to take place. There would be no arguement to whether God existed or not.
Not that I support the "creationist" movement, but there's a reason why creationism is called a theory just as evolution is.
that would be fun. You've seriously caught my interest. We might not want to set a goal to run through the whole Bible, but focus on a chapter, then if we feel like continuing, pick another. Chronicles can get quite boring.
I completely agree with you. You're right. I think that's why I haven't put Jesus as my topic for discussion.
From a Christian perspective though, it's not just a god, it's The God who cared so much for the world, that he sent his son to die so that we may live... Why did he do that and who is this supposed God? Ah, now that is the question.
I guess from my perspective, it's kind of the trailer teaser for a movie. It'll show you the best parts to peak your attention. So you go view it to see what it's all about.
I know with this crowd, presenting Jesus isn't going to work, so I haven't. I've presented the idea of a spiritual world. It doesn't even have to do with any specific following, just an idea of spirits.
As I've mentioned to you, most people who "follow" don't understand why they do or what it's all about... at least so much as to be a teacher of the art. It's like taking a first year student and asking him to teach an advanced Engineering course. The students won't get the information they need.
What they're suppose to do is introduce you to the idea. if you're interested enough in it, then they're supposed to take you to someone who can answer all your questions. A legitimate pastor or reverend should be able to do that. If they don't even know why they're in it, then they shouldn't be out there telling you about it in the first place.