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. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

If the viewpoint requires death for those who think differently from you (the Abrahamic religions for sure are full of this and possibly some of the others as well) can that religion be morally correct?

I'm guessing this goes into the acceptance or denail of Jesus Christ and not just that someone might think differently than me.  This said because there is nothing to back up the claim that someone thinking differently than me deserves death.

It comes down to what Jesus did for mankind and why he did it and why we need his sacrifice in the first place... which goes into the severety of sin and whether it's right to kill a murderer or let them rot in jail. 

We can also discuss the verse that mentions you cannot be held accountable for what you do not know... not what you don't accept mind you, but what you do not know. 

Quote:
It comes down to what Jesus did for mankind

So if I say, "Cap, look at me, I am slitting my wrist for you". Would you call that love or narscistic masochism?

What do I owe your alleged being when I had no choice of being born? I don't owe your god, or any for that matter, shit.

Giving is done freely without expectation. Morality is not, "I tortured myself for you.....look at me". That is a sign of insecurity and abuse.

The soldiers of WW2  who died saving Europe from fascism, who wont magically come back from the dead, are real and really moral. Your fictional god character is a self serving prick who only cares about people kissing his ass.

I find the entire concept of spending my life just to kiss someone's ass not only absurd, but a complete waste of a life.

"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: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Not quite: all these different groups are equally convinced that they are right, but since logically they cannot all be right, it proves that such religious conviction that one has the REAL 'truth' simply cannot be a reliable indicator of truth, no matter how personally convinced you may be.

which is why I'm not defending my faith with the personal conviction card.  It's a weak defense anyway, useless to even pull.

BobSpence1 wrote:

IOW, Brian is simply pointing out that since they cannot ALL be right, it entirely reasonable to suggest that all of them are probably wrong, and that such beliefs have a common origin in human psychology, not in the reality of any supernatural entity.

Hahaha!!.... haha....hahahaha..... brhem... excuse me.  Sorry

So... lemme get this conclusion strait... I'll use generic terms so as not to single out a specific belief or conviction:

1.  Simply pointing out that they (religions, governments, branches of science etc.) cannot all be right (because of course they may disagree with each other on a few or many topics) makes it ENTIRELY REASONABLE to even suggest that every one of them are PROBABLY (most likely in other words) wrong...

HAHA!!!

This means that science as well must be wrong be it that scientists have many times disagreed with each other.... wait... let's go a little further out on this one because obviously individual scientists may disagree, but that doesn't mean science disagrees with itself..

Ok, different views of science have theories in general that disagree with each other, but they're all scientific theories and are agreed upon by the world of scientists and science buffs to be considered science.  Therefore, according to the statement you made above... it is entirely reasonable to suggest that every part of science is probably wrong!!  This would have to still hold regardless of the convicting proof we have as a human race and the convictions people have about those proofs in order for your statement about religions to be credible. 

 

 

Typical tactic, since the atheist as pulled the curtian aside exposing the myth all you can do is divert the subject of your claim by attacking science.

The funny thing is you think your god is special to the world. The reality is that it is only special to your individual brain because you merely like the idea of having a super hero. Your claims are not special to us and we treat them like any other superstition.

Now, when you can get your godsperm in a petri dish and have it AMA peer reiviewed, then you will have something to show the entire world, not just atheists. Good luck with that. You'll find you have as much evidence for your god as Muslims do for theirs and as much as the Ancient Egyptians had in thinking the sun was a god.

Attack 1+1 all you want, all gods, including yours, are merely a product of your imagination. I hope you wise up someday and figure out what we already know.

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Not quite: all these different groups are equally convinced that they are right, but since logically they cannot all be right, it proves that such religious conviction that one has the REAL 'truth' simply cannot be a reliable indicator of truth, no matter how personally convinced you may be.

which is why I'm not defending my faith with the personal conviction card.  It's a weak defense anyway, useless to even pull.

BobSpence1 wrote:

IOW, Brian is simply pointing out that since they cannot ALL be right, it entirely reasonable to suggest that all of them are probably wrong, and that such beliefs have a common origin in human psychology, not in the reality of any supernatural entity.

Hahaha!!.... haha....hahahaha..... brhem... excuse me.  Sorry

So... lemme get this conclusion strait... I'll use generic terms so as not to single out a specific belief or conviction:

1.  Simply pointing out that they (religions, governments, branches of science etc.) cannot all be right (because of course they may disagree with each other on a few or many topics) makes it ENTIRELY REASONABLE to even suggest that every one of them are PROBABLY (most likely in other words) wrong...

HAHA!!!

This means that science as well must be wrong be it that scientists have many times disagreed with each other.... wait... let's go a little further out on this one because obviously individual scientists may disagree, but that doesn't mean science disagrees with itself..

Ok, different views of science have theories in general that disagree with each other, but they're all scientific theories and are agreed upon by the world of scientists and science buffs to be considered science.  Therefore, according to the statement you made above... it is entirely reasonable to suggest that every part of science is probably wrong!!  This would have to still hold regardless of the convicting proof we have as a human race and the convictions people have about those proofs in order for your statement about religions to be credible.  

It is the nature of the justifications for each of the conflicting positions which needs to be considered. When confronted with such a situation, you need to look a bit more deeply at what is going on.

If none of the parties can point to objectively and independently verifiable data, and can't even agree on how to go about verifying and interpreting it, or even what would count as evidence, then 'none of the above' is at least as likely as likely as any of the options put forward.

In the case of religion, where purely internal subjective experiences are given as much or greater weight than any external evidence, then the inability to agree on fundamental aspects of the 'theories' does point to the strong probability that the whole approach to reality, eg, religious faith-based systems, is fundamentally misconceived.

Something analogous does happen within science, and it requires what has been called a 'paradigm shift' to resolve. One rather important difference is that science specifically allows for this situation, so such an impasse does not have to threaten the whole enterprise of science itself - it drives researchers and theorists to explore ever more 'wild' ideas, to re-examine ever more fundamental principles, and so far we have been able to overcome most such road-blocks.

EDIT: Once we find a 'chink' in the wall, a hint that one of these wild ideas may have hit on somethingm then we can start getting more rigorous, devising tests, what other clues to look for, to start nailing it down if at all possible. NOTE: until any left-field idea can be backed up by evidence, it is not accepted.

Unlike in areas not applying the scientific method, where the the overwhelming desire for some 'answer' has people actually running with the first idea that feels like it 'might' be true. "Test it? Hah, no need for that, we 'know' its true", it feels right, or "how dare you question my diveine revelation?", "God gave me the answer personally", etc.

[end EDIT].

The massive progress that science has made overall is a reasonable justification for continuing on this path. Another point to remember with science is that all theories are explicitly recognized to be tentative, provisional, to some degree.

Fields like economics, politics, social policy, etc, fall somewhere in between the extreme subjectivity of faith and the external verification approach of science.

To repeat, if the level of disagreement is very high, especially where each side regards their core concepts as unchallengeable, it really does suggest that the whole approach needs to be re-thought. The longer the impasse continues, the greater the justification for wiping the slate clean and trying something different.

In the case of faith versus evidence, 'supernaturalism' versus 'naturalism', the case is overwhelming, IMHO, that as an approach to understanding reality, religious faith and invoking the supernatural has a proud record of millennia of confusion and conflict to point to...

 

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

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

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

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:In the case of faith

Quote:
In the case of faith versus evidence, 'supernaturalism' versus 'naturalism', the case is overwhelming, IMHO, that as an approach to understanding reality, religious faith and invoking the supernatural has a proud record of millennia of confusion and conflict to point to...

"Confusion and conflict" are it's only good points. It is exacly what is needed for the brain to accept such a mind scam. If you convince yourself their is no slight of hand(mind) you become capable of fooling yourself into buying any absurdity that comes down the pike.

 

"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
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 Unlike Christianity ( which traditionally asserts itself to be the final arbiter of reality and truth concerning both the natural and supernatural ) the various branches of science are self-correcting in their knowledge.....new information modifies present viewpoints or eliminates them altogether ....more importantly, scientific viewpoints are not based upon the dogma of infallibility.  There is no such thing as a doctrine of inerrancy among researchers. Science make no proclamations that at a future date could not come under complete revision.

Taking into consideration for a moment that God is real (or assuming the fact for those of you who wish to ignore the point by arguing His existance), The Christian God would not need to correct Himself.  It is understood that he knows enough not to make mistakes in his doctern the first time. 

I don't need a whole "full of himself" or "pompus" debate coming from this either. It's just a general understanding of the Christian God.  Basically nullifies the above point.

Taking it from a scientific standpoint, sure, nothing is safe from complete revision.  So far (and this forum and others I've been in have gone on for quite a while), nothing I've seen has suggested such a revision to the true following.  

Maybe modifying terms or adding a more scientific approach to some aspects wouldn't hurt.  It could clarify for many the "myth" barrier.  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
 

   In contrast I don't believe God has authored any new books of the Bible.  Has he issued any new commandments lately ? 

Depends on what you mean by "new".  The NEW Testiment isn't named such for publicity.  In the grand scheme of things, yea, he's authored "new" books and Jesus is the completion of the Law.  Why fix something that's not broken?

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
 

Has he made any attempt lately to correct himself ? 

Does he need to?

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

The Bible is allegedly complete. 

Unless of course your read the part that talks about the scroll that will be opened explaining a new "chapter" in the Law or a part three to the Trillogy if you will.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

No new knowledge to be gained or even, conceivably, divine mistakes to be corrected.  Conceptually speaking, Christianity always asserts infallibility and therefore has no need of correction.

You bring up the mistakes to be corrected again.  What mistakes are you referring to?  If you're talking about mistakes people have made, then that's really our job to correct, not God's right?

Actually, CHRISTIANS are told by scripture to always challenge your own understanding.  Therefore, it would make sense that a true follower would welcome a challenge to their point of view.  Your "asserting infallibility" must be refering to the dispensationalists.  Please don't confuse the two.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Unlike the scientific realm, religious principles remain static and immutable.    Theoretically speaking, Christianity never says "Oops, what d'ya know, God was completely wrong about ...."

You're right about religion.  This is why I hate religion. It's separatism.  Ask any follower who is willing to be completely honest with you and they'll most likely tell you that they have challenged God in many things.  Many of them will also tell you that they had later concluded that they were in the wrong, not God. 

btw, I wish you'd finish that sentence.  I'm dying to know what inside information you have on God.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  In spite of your comparison to religion, science, in any of it's disciplines, is never finished making discoveries, correcting mistakes or simply examining new data.

Actually... neither are followers of Christ.  A true follower is constantly looking for new insight or new information.  We love geologists and historians who try to dig up the past. 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Lastly, doctrinal disagreements among the hundreds of opposing sects of Christianity certainly undermine their credibility and absolutely entail more significance when compared to scientific disputes.  Virtually all claim ( Protestant vs Catholic for starters ? ) that their incompatible viewpoints are sanctioned by a God "who is not the author of confusion" and whose indwelling Holy Spirit  supposedly avails them of His Divine insights.  Although he may have good intentions it appears God has some issues with quality control.

You just pointed out 2 sects of Christianity that have a lot of dispensationalism within their walls.  They tend to contradict themselves a lot. 

From your post, I'm starting to wonder whether the mistakes you're soon going to present are really God's or just religion. 


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

HisWillness wrote:

Slow down, there. Notice Bob said "not in the reality of any supernatural entity".

Bob's not saying that because everyone in the whole world has a conviction, and they could be conflicting, that everyone is probably wrong.

No, Bob's saying that everyone's version of a supernatural entity is conflicting, and so they're all probably wrong.

Bob only included people positing entities that couldn't be defined coherently. In science, we get to define things coherently all the time, and then test them. In theological discussions, you can go on an on for hours without realizing you've been begging the question the whole time.

I know what he was saying.  The same debate can go on with scientific topics that haven't enough information to prove.  The easy way out there is to say "we don't have enough information yet".  The same claim is said about religions in general.  "God did it"  Same magnitude of "cop-out"  except that "God did it" leaves no room for future study.  Both settle the score for the time being until the topic is brought up again. 

Basically put.  Everything that's not understood to be true to a person is probably wrong until otherwise proven to the standards of the recipiant. 

It's a state of mind, not a logical conclusion.


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

Brian37 wrote:

 

Quote:
It comes down to what Jesus did for mankind

So if I say, "Cap, look at me, I am slitting my wrist for you". Would you call that love or narscistic masochism?

Why would you be slitting your wrist for me? 

I get your point, but I understand why Jesus died for me.  I don't understand why you'd slit your wrist for me.  If you thought I like to drink blood, I assure you, it was cranberry juice.

Brian37 wrote:

What do I owe your alleged being when I had no choice of being born? I don't owe your god, or any for that matter, shit.

No one said you owe God anything... Jesus gave his life for you to give you the choice of being with God if you wanted to.  This isn't the Mafia. 

Are you telling me that you'd remember your choice if you had one before being born?

Brian37 wrote:

Giving is done freely without expectation. Morality is not, "I tortured myself for you.....look at me". That is a sign of insecurity and abuse.

If you're referencing to Jesus, you'd need to take it in context.  I don't believe you read any of it after all, because if you did, you'd notice he didn't do it to himself and he actually asked God to not let it happen.

Brian37 wrote:

The soldiers of WW2  who died saving Europe from fascism, who wont magically come back from the dead, are real and really moral. Your fictional god character is a self serving prick who only cares about people kissing his ass.

yea, I agree.  Someone who would die for me definitely doesn't care about me.  You I think are getting dispenationalism mixed up again.

Brian37 wrote:

I find the entire concept of spending my life just to kiss someone's ass not only absurd, but a complete waste of a life.

If that's what you think it's about or that it's that way at all, then you definitely need to look over your research again.  You missed something big. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The hypothetical entity

The hypothetical entity being referred to as 'God' is defined as the sort of entity which would never make mistakes, of course.

However, when we are talking about human knowledge, it is manifestly capable of being mistaken and requiring correction. There are things which we are unlikely to know anything about with any provable certainty, and that has to include knowledge of the actual existence and attributes of 'God'.

There is no way any category of knowledge, especially anything relating to what we might call the 'ultimate nature of existence' whether that be the 'ultimate' origin of matter/energy, or the existence of supreme beings or 'higher powers', can bypass the fallibility and finite capabilities of our minds/brains.

So all the problems of refining knowledge that science specifically addresses, apply even more to ideas of the existence and nature of God/Jesus/Yahweh etc, and other related ideas. 

One can speculate that a God of some sort would not make mistakes, but we can never actually know that, that would be claiming to know something intrinsically beyond our abilities to reason about.

 

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

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

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

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


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

Brian37 wrote:

Typical tactic, since the atheist as pulled the curtian aside exposing the myth all you can do is divert the subject of your claim by attacking science.

I use a simple comparison and you see it as attacking science.... Interesting.

Brian37 wrote:

The funny thing is you think your god is special to the world. The reality is that it is only special to your individual brain because you merely like the idea of having a super hero. Your claims are not special to us and we treat them like any other superstition.

The funny thing is, no matter how many times we go through this, you still don't understand that I'm welcoming your skepticism. 

Another funny thing... you have so many convicting claims... yet you back them up very little.  Occasionally you've actually backed yourself up, other than that, it's been air.  You know you would be all over me if I used that tactic, why do you think you're any different?  Is it because you think you know the truth???  I guess that'd be a good excuse... I mean it works for religious people, right?

Brian37 wrote:

Now, when you can get your godsperm in a petri dish and have it AMA peer reiviewed, then you will have something to show the entire world, not just atheists. Good luck with that. You'll find you have as much evidence for your god as Muslims do for theirs and as much as the Ancient Egyptians had in thinking the sun was a god.

you don't listen/read much do you? either that or you're quite forgetful.

Brian37 wrote:

Attack 1+1 all you want, all gods, including yours, are merely a product of your imagination. I hope you wise up someday and figure out what we already know.

Please show me your research.  I've been waiting almost 1000 posts on this forum alone for it.

 

 

Just for the record, the above statement did not apply to those of you who have presented something for me to look at. There are many on here who have actually given me some information to look at.  I have talked about all of it.  If I missed something I apologise and please remind me what it was so I can look at it. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:"Confusion and

Brian37 wrote:

"Confusion and conflict" are it's only good points. It is exacly what is needed for the brain to accept such a mind scam. If you convince yourself their is no slight of hand(mind) you become capable of fooling yourself into buying any absurdity that comes down the pike.

From the "godsperm" claims you bring to the table among many others, I'd say it worked for you. 

now try getting away from religion and do some legitimate research.

 


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

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is the nature of the justifications for each of the conflicting positions which needs to be considered. When confronted with such a situation, you need to look a bit more deeply at what is going on.

precisely

BobSpence1 wrote:

If none of the parties can point to objectively and independently verifiable data, and can't even agree on how to go about verifying and interpreting it, or even what would count as evidence, then 'none of the above' is at least as likely as likely as any of the options put forward.

sure

BobSpence1 wrote:

In the case of religion, where purely internal subjective experiences are given as much or greater weight than any external evidence, then the inability to agree on fundamental aspects of the 'theories' does point to the strong probability that the whole approach to reality, eg, religious faith-based systems, is fundamentally misconceived.

This is where I think it falls apart.  In my experience external evidences are usually the initial approach to leading people to the internal experiences; God. 

The inability for "religions" to agree on fundamental aspects is beyond logical research, it's just one group thinking they're more right than another.  If it were a scientific approach (which I wish a lot of religions would get the balls to do), at best, the jury could be out for a while on some aspects, but there would not be disagreement. 

It's apparently misconceptions that lead you to believe your statement to be true.  This is how dispensationalism works. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Something analogous does happen within science, and it requires what has been called a 'paradigm shift' to resolve. One rather important difference is that science specifically allows for this situation, so such an impasse does not have to threaten the whole enterprise of science itself - it drives researchers and theorists to explore ever more 'wild' ideas, to re-examine ever more fundamental principles, and so far we have been able to overcome most such road-blocks.

Except for the big ones of course.  Though through the years, Christians have been able to do the same thing.  The issue with religions in general is (unlike Christianity) most of them out there suggest hostility toward an apposing view.  Some to the extreme of killing the other.  That right there should set warning bells off in anyone's head. 

A true follower will not only welcome an apposing view, but will take into consideration everything that is said to keep themselves in check with what they understand to be true. 

Many people will look at scientific advancements in the past 100 years and say, "wow, we've come along way." Despite the fact that within the past 100 years, a much better understanding of the following of Christ due to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a more educated eye, and advances in science and geology, everyone seems to think it hasn't changed.... that is, outside of the following.  Inside, the traditions may have been held onto, but the understanding is much clearer. 

This is why the number of Christianity sects has pretty much quadrupled in the past 100 years.  The ones who were willing to take a new look at the following were shunned by the ones who were afraid of change.  Thus division came. 

There's much more to it than that of course, but it's the jist of it. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

EDIT: Once we find a 'chink' in the wall, a hint that one of these wild ideas may have hit on somethingm then we can start getting more rigorous, devising tests, what other clues to look for, to start nailing it down if at all possible. NOTE: until any left-field idea can be backed up by evidence, it is not accepted.

I agree.  This goes back to what an individual will accept as evidence and how far they're willing to go to "test" the understandings. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Unlike in areas not applying the scientific method, where the the overwhelming desire for some 'answer' has people actually running with the first idea that feels like it 'might' be true. "Test it? Hah, no need for that, we 'know' its true", it feels right, or "how dare you question my diveine revelation?", "God gave me the answer personally", etc.

I think my responses above can apply to this as well. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

To repeat, if the level of disagreement is very high, especially where each side regards their core concepts as unchallengeable, it really does suggest that the whole approach needs to be re-thought. The longer the impasse continues, the greater the justification for wiping the slate clean and trying something different.

We as the followers of Christ could not agree with you more.

Basically, the whole teaching has been lost.  It's why so many people on here think they have a strong case against faith in Christ.

BobSpence1 wrote:

In the case of faith versus evidence, 'supernaturalism' versus 'naturalism', the case is overwhelming, IMHO, that as an approach to understanding reality, religious faith and invoking the supernatural has a proud record of millennia of confusion and conflict to point to...

Sure it has, which is why I agreed with your previous statement.  There are many of us followers out there that honestly agree that things need to be revamped.  Tell that to the sects though...  They're happy, so why change? 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I get your point, but

Quote:
I get your point, but I understand why Jesus died for me.  I don't understand why you'd slit your wrist for me.

My point is that you act as if Jesus is in Nam with you and jumps on a granade for you.

WRONG! Jesus's daddy made all of us" according to you" put us here without our concent, and then slit his wrist(body) to save us from the enternal damnation he would subject us to for not  kissing his ass.

Your God/Jesus character claim acts like a jilted lover who stalks when rebuffed, "I did it all for you".

NO ONE ASKED HIM TO and we shouldn't be punished for something we had no say in.

Love is not contingent on loyalty. Love is knowing freedom is letting go.

The "God" concept is not about letting go, it is about dictating for "look at me" "worship me" reasons.

Narcissism is only excusable in a baby. In religion, narcissism  is deadly.

 

 

"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: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"Confusion and conflict" are it's only good points. It is exacly what is needed for the brain to accept such a mind scam. If you convince yourself their is no slight of hand(mind) you become capable of fooling yourself into buying any absurdity that comes down the pike.

From the "godsperm" claims you bring to the table among many others, I'd say it worked for you. 

now try getting away from religion and do some legitimate research.

 

I'm sorry, how silly of me to ask an all powerful being to produce sperm, it's not like he could pop a man out of dirt or get a bush to talk.

Funny how parlor tricks seem to be out of the realm  of an "all powerful" being.

I guess all one has to do to be a fertility doctor is pass the CASPER exam.

"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: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The funny thing is, no

Quote:
The funny thing is, no matter how many times we go through this, you still don't understand that I'm welcoming your skepticism.

No you are not. You consider me, like I do you, "A CHEW TOY". Which is fine with me.

Both you and I think the other got it wrong. Difference is that just like every other claimant of super hero's in the sky, you have the same amount of evidence as they do.

"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:My point is

Brian37 wrote:

My point is that you act as if Jesus is in Nam with you and jumps on a granade for you.

ok

Brian37 wrote:

WRONG! Jesus's daddy made all of us" according to you" put us here without our concent, and then slit his wrist(body) to save us from the enternal damnation he would subject us to for not  kissing his ass.

Answer me this.  If you did not exist, how would you concent to life? Then again, if you actually have a choice before you're born, how do you know you didn't agree to it? Do you remember?

Brian37 wrote:

Your God/Jesus character claim acts like a jilted lover who stalks when rebuffed, "I did it all for you".

NO ONE ASKED HIM TO and we shouldn't be punished for something we had no say in.

Funny you should mention that.  Literally!  According to the Bible, we are not punished for something we had no say in.  All "sin" as coined, is a personal choice each one of us has made through life.  You had every say in whether you "sinned" or not.

by the way, if you're upset about living, blame your parents, not God.  They're the ones that chose to have you... or if they didn't choose to have you, then they chose the actions that caused you to be. 

Brian37 wrote:

Love is not contingent on loyalty. Love is knowing freedom is letting go.

I couldn't have said it better myself.  I might hold onto that explanation if you don't mind. 

Though understand, to add to it, with love comes a loyalty to the one you love because you want them to be happy.   You can't desert someone and claim you truly love them.

Brian37 wrote:

The "God" concept is not about letting go, it is about dictating for "look at me" "worship me" reasons.

says you, now try to do some research.

Brian37 wrote:

Narcissism is only excusable in a baby. In religion, narcissism  is deadly.

I don't like religion

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I'm sorry,

Brian37 wrote:

 

I'm sorry, how silly of me to ask an all powerful being to produce sperm, it's not like he could pop a man out of dirt or get a bush to talk.

Funny how parlor tricks seem to be out of the realm  of an "all powerful" being.

I guess all one has to do to be a fertility doctor is pass the CASPER exam.


 

You really have not read the Bible.  I'm convinced of it now.  It actually talks about your so called "parlor tricks" and why Jesus refused to do them as well!!! 

How 'bout that.  Amazing that those excuses have been used way back in Biblical times as well. 


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

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
The funny thing is, no matter how many times we go through this, you still don't understand that I'm welcoming your skepticism.

No you are not. You consider me, like I do you, "A CHEW TOY". Which is fine with me.

Both you and I think the other got it wrong. Difference is that just like every other claimant of super hero's in the sky, you have the same amount of evidence as they do.

er... you haven't stuck on a topic long enough to even consider presenting evidence for it. 

I have even tried to get you to stick to a point, but it was futile.  When you want to get serious about discussing something specific, then we can talk about evidences. 

The biggest hurtle is to actually agree on a source.  For a moment a while back I think "Scientific Method" was going to be considered until people started realizing that might require some "personal experimentation!!!" dun dun dun....


Di66en6ion
Di66en6ion's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Your God/Jesus character claim acts like a jilted lover who stalks when rebuffed, "I did it all for you".

NO ONE ASKED HIM TO and we shouldn't be punished for something we had no say in.

Funny you should mention that.  Literally!  According to the Bible, we are not punished for something we had no say in.  All "sin" as coined, is a personal choice each one of us has made through life.  You had every say in whether you "sinned" or not.

by the way, if you're upset about living, blame your parents, not God.  They're the ones that chose to have you... or if they didn't choose to have you, then they chose the actions that caused you to be.

 

And the problem stems from this imo. Give a concise definition of what sin is besides just a choice. We all know you're just dancing around when you just mention it as being a choice, we know you have specific actions/choices in mind when you say that. Christians love to spout out this rhetoric as if choices are simply black and white when it's so painfully obvious in life that they're not. It seems like most theists believe actions are so simple to analyze on the surface. I suspect that this is why there is such strong resistance to things like evolution, it challenges their narcissistic illusion of self-control/intellect/free-will with the idea of instincts that are out of their control. 

 

I heard something like this not too long ago:

An Christian walks up to an old man and asks him if he's accepted Jesus as his lord and savior.

The old man had no idea what he's talking about and asked him why he had to do so.

The Christian said that he had to make a choice of being with god or going to hell.

The old man then asks "what happens to people who did not know of your Jesus and God, do they go to hell?"

The Christian replies "no, they don't"

The old man asks "then why did you tell me?"

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
The funny thing is, no matter how many times we go through this, you still don't understand that I'm welcoming your skepticism.

No you are not. You consider me, like I do you, "A CHEW TOY". Which is fine with me.

Both you and I think the other got it wrong. Difference is that just like every other claimant of super hero's in the sky, you have the same amount of evidence as they do.

er... you haven't stuck on a topic long enough to even consider presenting evidence for it. 

I have even tried to get you to stick to a point, but it was futile.  When you want to get serious about discussing something specific, then we can talk about evidences. 

The biggest hurtle is to actually agree on a source.  For a moment a while back I think "Scientific Method" was going to be considered until people started realizing that might require some "personal experimentation!!!" dun dun dun....

I see no need to pay attention to distractions when YOU much less any other believer of any other label, lack credible evidence for invisible superbrains floating in the stars.

I am sure you have peer reviewed evidence for "god neurons". I am sure you have as much evidence for your version of "god neurons" as any Muslim or Jew or Scientologist.

Cap, it is all in your head and you merely like the idea of having a super hero protect you. If you can accept that it's all in the Muslim's head as far as claims of Allah, then why is it you still insist that you are immune to the same flaw in logic they use, which you recognize?

I still have hope for you Cap. Nearly 1,000 posts and you keep banging your head against a wall. You'll feel a lot better when you stop doing it.

Disembodied brains are pure fantasy. They are when others claim them, and they are when you claim them.

 

 

"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
Di66en6ion wrote:And the

Di66en6ion wrote:

And the problem stems from this imo. Give a concise definition of what sin is besides just a choice.

Any action that breaks the laws written in the Bible.   

I think I can see where this might stem, remember, you only asked for a concise definition.

Di66en6ion wrote:

We all know you're just dancing around when you just mention it as being a choice, we know you have specific actions/choices in mind when you say that.

....ok.....

Di66en6ion wrote:

Christians love to spout out this rhetoric as if choices are simply black and white when it's so painfully obvious in life that they're not.

Really!  Ok.  Let's keep focused on the fact that the "choices" we're talking about here are actions.  Tell me those actions one does that is not a choice and please explain your understanding. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

It seems like most theists believe actions are so simple to analyze on the surface. I suspect that this is why there is such strong resistance to things like evolution, it challenges their narcissistic illusion of self-control/intellect/free-will with the idea of instincts that are out of their control. 

and yet, anyone who studies the Bible closely can see that evolution is supported.

Interesting conclusion however.

Di66en6ion wrote:

I heard something like this not too long ago:

An Christian walks up to an old man and asks him if he's accepted Jesus as his lord and savior.

The old man had no idea what he's talking about and asked him why he had to do so.

The Christian said that he had to make a choice of being with god or going to hell.

The old man then asks "what happens to people who did not know of your Jesus and God, do they go to hell?"

The Christian replies "no, they don't"

The old man asks "then why did you tell me?"

*sigh* dispensationalism at its best


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Di66en6ion

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

And the problem stems from this imo. Give a concise definition of what sin is besides just a choice.

Any action that breaks the laws written in the Bible.   

I think I can see where this might stem, remember, you only asked for a concise definition.

Di66en6ion wrote:

We all know you're just dancing around when you just mention it as being a choice, we know you have specific actions/choices in mind when you say that.

....ok.....

Di66en6ion wrote:

Christians love to spout out this rhetoric as if choices are simply black and white when it's so painfully obvious in life that they're not.

Really!  Ok.  Let's keep focused on the fact that the "choices" we're talking about here are actions.  Tell me those actions one does that is not a choice and please explain your understanding. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

It seems like most theists believe actions are so simple to analyze on the surface. I suspect that this is why there is such strong resistance to things like evolution, it challenges their narcissistic illusion of self-control/intellect/free-will with the idea of instincts that are out of their control. 

and yet, anyone who studies the Bible closely can see that evolution is supported.

Interesting conclusion however.

Di66en6ion wrote:

I heard something like this not too long ago:

An Christian walks up to an old man and asks him if he's accepted Jesus as his lord and savior.

The old man had no idea what he's talking about and asked him why he had to do so.

The Christian said that he had to make a choice of being with god or going to hell.

The old man then asks "what happens to people who did not know of your Jesus and God, do they go to hell?"

The Christian replies "no, they don't"

The old man asks "then why did you tell me?"

*sigh* dispensationalism at its best

1. Then God sins by your definition.

2. What part of special creation supports evolution?

3. The great commision is dispensationalism? When did that dispensation where the commands of your god no longer apply begin?

"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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I see no need

Brian37 wrote:

I see no need to pay attention to distractions when YOU much less any other believer of any other label, lack credible evidence for invisible superbrains floating in the stars.

ugh... I'm getting dizzy on your merrry-go-round Brian

Brian37 wrote:

I am sure you have peer reviewed evidence for "god neurons". I am sure you have as much evidence for your version of "god neurons" as any Muslim or Jew or Scientologist.

Sure, though the question is will YOU accept the evidence? 

Are you actually still looking for a physical body of God?

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, it is all in your head and you merely like the idea of having a super hero protect you. If you can accept that it's all in the Muslim's head as far as claims of Allah, then why is it you still insist that you are immune to the same flaw in logic they use, which you recognize?

I've explained a few times in forums that you've been a part of... I think even this one why I feel they're flawed along with others. 

Brain, it's all in your head, you mearly fear the idea of having a power greater than yourself in control of life as you know it.

Now that we've strolled the "assumptions" road.... again.... are you willing to stick to something so we can actually discuss?

Brian37 wrote:

I still have hope for you Cap. Nearly 1,000 posts and you keep banging your head against a wall. You'll feel a lot better when you stop doing it.

Disembodied brains are pure fantasy. They are when others claim them, and they are when you claim them.

If I held my breath for you to present me your research, I'd be dead.  Looking back on all of our conversations, you cannot claim the same about me. 

What are you so afraid of... or angry at... or stuck on that you cannot even stick to a topic long enough to debate the evidences? 

 

 


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

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I see no need to pay attention to distractions when YOU much less any other believer of any other label, lack credible evidence for invisible superbrains floating in the stars.

ugh... I'm getting dizzy on your merrry-go-round Brian

Brian37 wrote:

I am sure you have peer reviewed evidence for "god neurons". I am sure you have as much evidence for your version of "god neurons" as any Muslim or Jew or Scientologist.

Sure, though the question is will YOU accept the evidence? 

Are you actually still looking for a physical body of God?

Brian37 wrote:

Cap, it is all in your head and you merely like the idea of having a super hero protect you. If you can accept that it's all in the Muslim's head as far as claims of Allah, then why is it you still insist that you are immune to the same flaw in logic they use, which you recognize?

I've explained a few times in forums that you've been a part of... I think even this one why I feel they're flawed along with others. 

Brain, it's all in your head, you mearly fear the idea of having a power greater than yourself in control of life as you know it.

Now that we've strolled the "assumptions" road.... again.... are you willing to stick to something so we can actually discuss?

Brian37 wrote:

I still have hope for you Cap. Nearly 1,000 posts and you keep banging your head against a wall. You'll feel a lot better when you stop doing it.

Disembodied brains are pure fantasy. They are when others claim them, and they are when you claim them.

If I held my breath for you to present me your research, I'd be dead.  Looking back on all of our conversations, you cannot claim the same about me. 

What are you so afraid of... or angry at... or stuck on that you cannot even stick to a topic long enough to debate the evidences? 

 

 

1. Getting dizzy? Or just can't provide what you claim you and other Christians claim you have?

2. Are you saying your God never had a physical body? Who was the Jesus you respect so highly?

3. It can be said of you that you need a higher power to control your life so you have no responsinility for anything you do. Why worry about treating people properly when you can be scum and ask forgiveness?

"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


Di66en6ion
Di66en6ion's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Di66en6ion

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

And the problem stems from this imo. Give a concise definition of what sin is besides just a choice.

Any action that breaks the laws written in the Bible.   

I think I can see where this might stem, remember, you only asked for a concise definition.

Ok, then list all of those laws and lets examine how nearly all of them are completely outdated or irrational. Lets see your context for interpretation for every single one of these "laws". Lets see how many of them your god breaks. 

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Christians love to spout out this rhetoric as if choices are simply black and white when it's so painfully obvious in life that they're not.

Really!  Ok.  Let's keep focused on the fact that the "choices" we're talking about here are actions.  Tell me those actions one does that is not a choice and please explain your understanding.

My point was along the lines of making choices that are made in favor of dogma over rational and healthy choices. As I said, choices that have to be made can be extremely complicated and no law is going to remove the context for which every single decision is made. Anyone can think of a situation where killing someone would be necessary, the obvious subjectivity shows through in any apologetic argument. 

Also, there are many, many actions (even ones you think you're conscious of) you do every day that you have no choice in consciously. It's because of this reason that it sickens me when I hear dipshits say things like "being gay is a choice".

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

It seems like most theists believe actions are so simple to analyze on the surface. I suspect that this is why there is such strong resistance to things like evolution, it challenges their narcissistic illusion of self-control/intellect/free-will with the idea of instincts that are out of their control. 

and yet, anyone who studies the Bible closely can see that evolution is supported.

Interesting conclusion however.

By all means, demonstrate your interpretation that over half of the country's Christians would denounce. Please point to the "evidence" that you could have only interpreted AFTER science had already established it. Oh hey, guess what, I can do the EXACT SAME THING WITH ANY BOOK EVER WRITTEN.

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

I heard something like this not too long ago:

An Christian walks up to an old man and asks him if he's accepted Jesus as his lord and savior.

The old man had no idea what he's talking about and asked him why he had to do so.

The Christian said that he had to make a choice of being with god or going to hell.

The old man then asks "what happens to people who did not know of your Jesus and God, do they go to hell?"

The Christian replies "no, they don't"

The old man asks "then why did you tell me?"

*sigh* dispensationalism at its best

I was just trying to highlight the mental traps religions and cult leaders typically use. You have something wrong with you and we have the answer; now that I've told you, you have to make a choice or you can't be in our happy-group. It simply has to create conflict where there is none and then come in and say it can fix it, it's a powerplay on anyone who buys into it; not only on social-economic status but emotional as well, the fear-survival aspect. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Di66en6ion wrote:caposkia

Di66en6ion wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

And the problem stems from this imo. Give a concise definition of what sin is besides just a choice.

Any action that breaks the laws written in the Bible.   

I think I can see where this might stem, remember, you only asked for a concise definition.

Ok, then list all of those laws and lets examine how nearly all of them are completely outdated or irrational. Lets see your context for interpretation for every single one of these "laws". Lets see how many of them your god breaks. 

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Christians love to spout out this rhetoric as if choices are simply black and white when it's so painfully obvious in life that they're not.

Really!  Ok.  Let's keep focused on the fact that the "choices" we're talking about here are actions.  Tell me those actions one does that is not a choice and please explain your understanding.

My point was along the lines of making choices that are made in favor of dogma over rational and healthy choices. As I said, choices that have to be made can be extremely complicated and no law is going to remove the context for which every single decision is made. Anyone can think of a situation where killing someone would be necessary, the obvious subjectivity shows through in any apologetic argument. 

Also, there are many, many actions (even ones you think you're conscious of) you do every day that you have no choice in consciously. It's because of this reason that it sickens me when I hear dipshits say things like "being gay is a choice".

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

It seems like most theists believe actions are so simple to analyze on the surface. I suspect that this is why there is such strong resistance to things like evolution, it challenges their narcissistic illusion of self-control/intellect/free-will with the idea of instincts that are out of their control. 

and yet, anyone who studies the Bible closely can see that evolution is supported.

Interesting conclusion however.

By all means, demonstrate your interpretation that over half of the country's Christians would denounce. Please point to the "evidence" that you could have only interpreted AFTER science had already established it. Oh hey, guess what, I can do the EXACT SAME THING WITH ANY BOOK EVER WRITTEN.

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

I heard something like this not too long ago:

An Christian walks up to an old man and asks him if he's accepted Jesus as his lord and savior.

The old man had no idea what he's talking about and asked him why he had to do so.

The Christian said that he had to make a choice of being with god or going to hell.

The old man then asks "what happens to people who did not know of your Jesus and God, do they go to hell?"

The Christian replies "no, they don't"

The old man asks "then why did you tell me?"

*sigh* dispensationalism at its best

I was just trying to highlight the mental traps religions and cult leaders typically use. You have something wrong with you and we have the answer; now that I've told you, you have to make a choice or you can't be in our happy-group. It simply has to create conflict where there is none and then come in and say it can fix it, it's a powerplay on anyone who buys into it; not only on social-economic status but emotional as well, the fear-survival aspect. 

Cap doesn't understand this.  You and I do, that is why we are atheists. We don't need to make up fictional sky daddy, or buy one someone else is selling to live life. Cap also fails to understand that humans were making this same mental error long before the Hebrews.

The god(s) of Abraham are especially insidious because the character is written as a God who resorts to fear and bribery, much like a parent does with a child.

Better morality comes from doing something, not out of fear or promise of reward, but because doing right is it's own reward, regardless of who might be watching. (Since there is no magic sky daddy) that leaves me to do what is right without being told to do so.

The concept of a super camera in the sky recording my every move is silly, but is A real concept employed by fascist states like Iran and North Korea.

These fascist states operate much like the God of Abraham. They are happy with you as long as you know your place and follow their rules, but the punishment for dissent is revenge and torture.

 

"Holy" laws are nothing but arbitrary gang symbols to protect "honor" and power. The books of all three religions do not depict secular pluralism,  and the God of Abraham character is not an elected power nor is advise and consent part of his makeup.

The westernized pluralistic governments are a complete departure away from "holy book" writings.

We don't "submit" in the west to laws blindly, we consult, debate and consent to laws and when we don't like them, we change them, and we have the power to even remove "by vote" a leader whom we think has done a bad job.

Now, if we are to presume for argument's sake only, that this God really was real, and compassionate and moral, then it should be subject to direct questioning and power removal by vote.

Cap will dodge this too, because making such an immoral concept seem moral is an art to theists.

 

"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
jcadfly wrote:1. Getting

jcadfly wrote:

1. Getting dizzy? Or just can't provide what you claim you and other Christians claim you have?

As I've said to Brian, I've presented much more evidence than he has.  Though if he's looking for physical DNA or sperm or some other physical attribute that is the body of God, then I guess he'll never know Him. 

BTW, what do we claim to have that we can't provide?  Be specific.

jcadfly wrote:

2. Are you saying your God never had a physical body? Who was the Jesus you respect so highly?

He was the Son of God. 

I also never said anything about whether God had a physical body, the issue is Brian wants me to show him some DNA or have God cum in a cup for me so I can show him God exists.   He refuses to take the information given to him and use it logically.  (being referenced specifically is that God is a spiritual being)

He concludes that because God isn't physical and walking around with us, God does not exist.   For a God that he has been told is spiritual, that is not rational thinking.  

jcadfly wrote:

3. It can be said of you that you need a higher power to control your life so you have no responsinility for anything you do. Why worry about treating people properly when you can be scum and ask forgiveness?

It doesn't work that way.  I can't claim to follow Christ and then not follow Him... (well, ok I guess I can claim to, but then I'm not really following Him if I treat people like scum am I)  To follow in Christ's footsteps is to try to live as Christ did or to follow Jesus' example.  

The Bible speaks of repentance.  To repent of something is to turn away from it.  The catholics tend not to teach that. 

By definition, going to confession, saying your list of prayers, or even just asking for God's forgiveness for something, then going out and doing that exact thing again is not repentance and therefore you have not repented and have not honestly sought forgiveness. 

Just to aleviate confusion, I, nor any other person has the ability to judge whether someone is truly repenting of an act or not. 

Unlike the worldly Christians, repentence can take days, weeks, or years, not just a "God forgive me" and then you're free to live life as you please.   It's a process. 


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

caposkia wrote:

jcadfly wrote:

1. Getting dizzy? Or just can't provide what you claim you and other Christians claim you have?

As I've said to Brian, I've presented much more evidence than he has.  Though if he's looking for physical DNA or sperm or some other physical attribute that is the body of God, then I guess he'll never know Him. 

BTW, what do we claim to have that we can't provide?  Be specific.

jcadfly wrote:

2. Are you saying your God never had a physical body? Who was the Jesus you respect so highly?

He was the Son of God. 

I also never said anything about whether God had a physical body, the issue is Brian wants me to show him some DNA or have God cum in a cup for me so I can show him God exists.   He refuses to take the information given to him and use it logically.  (being referenced specifically is that God is a spiritual being)

He concludes that because God isn't physical and walking around with us, God does not exist.   For a God that he has been told is spiritual, that is not rational thinking.  

jcadfly wrote:

3. It can be said of you that you need a higher power to control your life so you have no responsinility for anything you do. Why worry about treating people properly when you can be scum and ask forgiveness?

It doesn't work that way.  I can't claim to follow Christ and then not follow Him... (well, ok I guess I can claim to, but then I'm not really following Him if I treat people like scum am I)  To follow in Christ's footsteps is to try to live as Christ did or to follow Jesus' example.  

The Bible speaks of repentance.  To repent of something is to turn away from it.  The catholics tend not to teach that. 

By definition, going to confession, saying your list of prayers, or even just asking for God's forgiveness for something, then going out and doing that exact thing again is not repentance and therefore you have not repented and have not honestly sought forgiveness. 

Just to aleviate confusion, I, nor any other person has the ability to judge whether someone is truly repenting of an act or not. 

Unlike the worldly Christians, repentence can take days, weeks, or years, not just a "God forgive me" and then you're free to live life as you please.   It's a process. 

1. If you had physical evidence Brian wouldn't keep bringing it up. I don't really want to see God spooge in a cup but things from people who wrote about Jesus while he was alive would be cool. Got any?

2. Just the son of God? You admit you're a polytheist? Good on you for honesty.

2a. While I have you thinking onthis - isn't the Holy Spirit redundant? If John 4:24 is correct, God the father is a spirit to begin with. Why the addition?

3. That's what forgiveness is for. If you do something you shouldn't, all you have to do is tell God you're sorry and that you promise not to do it again (until the next time it benefits you - you don't tell God that part but he suppoedly knows and doesn't care - he keeps forgiving). It's a "Get out of Hell free" card.

The Bible indeed speaks of repentance. It also speaks of restitution where possible. Unfortunately, God doesn't seem to take that seriously anymore. He seems more willing to settle for penance frpm the Catholics and a promise to try really really hard from other Christians.

4. What does one do when the prayer of repentance is answered with "No"?

"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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Di66en6ion wrote:Ok, then

Di66en6ion wrote:

Ok, then list all of those laws and lets examine how nearly all of them are completely outdated or irrational. Lets see your context for interpretation for every single one of these "laws". Lets see how many of them your god breaks. 

Ok.  Let's see where this goes.

1.  You shall have no other gods before me.

     Assuming God is real, that's a logical request.  He is your creator.  Just as any good parent would be heartbroken and upset if you picked someone else as your parent while they were completely capable of caring for you, so would God. 

2. Do not make idols.

Kind of goes with the god thing.  In other words, it implies idols that take the place of God.

3.  You shall not take God's name in vain. 

Ok, if you said bad things about your parents or used their names in a derogatory manner, would they be ok with that?

So, I'm sure those are all outdated due to the fact that uh... those people were illinformed of science and therefore believed that God was real and today we know through science he is not... right???

Though as i said, assuming God is real, those are relevent.

Let's move on.

4.  You shall not murder. 

Oh wait!!! one that God broke right!!! no, sorry, there's nothing there that says you can't destroy what you yourself have created. 

Strangely too, I feel this one still applies today.

5. You shall not commit adultery. 

Speaks for itself, if you feel that's ok, then I feel sorry for the one you marry. 

Still applies today.

6. You shall not steal.

Unless you're playing baseball, I see this one as still relevent and pretty self explanatory.

7.  You shall not bare false witness against your neighbor.

Again, if you're ok with lying about what your neighbor has done, I hope you have good neighbors... for your own sake. 

still applies.

8.  You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor. 

This isn't just wanting something that you can go out and buy yourself.  What is understood here is the following definiton of covet:

to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property.

I'd say that still applies.

9.  Honor your father and mother.

Just basically the respect issue.  For those of you who have parent issues, it doesn't say anywhere that you have to like them.  Just respect the fact that they're your parents.  It can be a hard thing for some.

It's just as relevent now as it was then. 

10.  Remember the Sabbath day.

Doesn't apply now...right?...  Do you work 7 days a week?  I mean a full 8-10 hour day 7 days in the week. 

Some may, most don't.  Those who do don't do it consistently without burning out.  It's a simple science of the human ability.  One can only handle so much before needing rest.

Also, it gives people time to spend with God and family.  That's what I understand to be a big point in that.  though I don't believe it's sinning if you don't observe it.  I would question your relationship with God be it that you really wouldn't have any time for Him. 

It'll be interesting to hear your explanation of how they're all first of all outdated, second, how you can justify judgement on God and explain how he broke any of those. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

My point was along the lines of making choices that are made in favor of dogma over rational and healthy choices. As I said, choices that have to be made can be extremely complicated and no law is going to remove the context for which every single decision is made. Anyone can think of a situation where killing someone would be necessary, the obvious subjectivity shows through in any apologetic argument. 

If you're refering to Christianity at all, it must be dispensationalism and not a real following of Christ.

The defintion of murder is:

the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

Therefore, any justified killing is not understood and was not understood to be murder. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

Also, there are many, many actions (even ones you think you're conscious of) you do every day that you have no choice in consciously. It's because of this reason that it sickens me when I hear dipshits say things like "being gay is a choice".

I guess it depends on what they're refering to when they say "being gay is a choice."  That's quite vague.  If you have feelings toward the same sex, but have not acted upon them sexually, did you sin? 

Di66en6ion wrote:

By all means, demonstrate your interpretation that over half of the country's Christians would denounce. Please point to the "evidence" that you could have only interpreted AFTER science had already established it. Oh hey, guess what, I can do the EXACT SAME THING WITH ANY BOOK EVER WRITTEN.

ooh testy are we.  ok, give me an example of a book that had information in it that was not yet understood, but later understood and thus later interpreted and clarified through new findings. 

I ask only because I'm not sure if we're on the same page and I want to see your idea of interpretation. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

I was just trying to highlight the mental traps religions and cult leaders typically use. You have something wrong with you and we have the answer; now that I've told you, you have to make a choice or you can't be in our happy-group. It simply has to create conflict where there is none and then come in and say it can fix it, it's a powerplay on anyone who buys into it; not only on social-economic status but emotional as well, the fear-survival aspect. 

If you had been following any of my other forums... and maybe a bit of this one... I can't remember, you'd know that I hate religion precisely because of what you explained. 

It's funny how religion and "many of the Christians in our country" support that way of life and yet the Bible denounces it.  Jesus specifically talks about unity and not separation.  All religion is good for is separation. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cap doesn't

Brian37 wrote:

Cap doesn't understand this.  You and I do, that is why we are atheists. We don't need to make up fictional sky daddy, or buy one someone else is selling to live life. Cap also fails to understand that humans were making this same mental error long before the Hebrews.

hmmmm

Brian37 wrote:

The god(s) of Abraham are especially insidious because the character is written as a God who resorts to fear and bribery, much like a parent does with a child.

mmhmmmh

Brian37 wrote:

Better morality comes from doing something, not out of fear or promise of reward, but because doing right is it's own reward, regardless of who might be watching. (Since there is no magic sky daddy) that leaves me to do what is right without being told to do so.

I'm not told to do so either... what's my excuse.  You do seem to know more about me than I do.

Brian37 wrote:

The concept of a super camera in the sky recording my every move is silly, but is A real concept employed by fascist states like Iran and North Korea.

AHAHH!!! it's a government conspiracy!!!!...er... wait... what of separation of church and state?  Bah, it gives the government power right!?

Brian37 wrote:

These fascist states operate much like the God of Abraham. They are happy with you as long as you know your place and follow their rules, but the punishment for dissent is revenge and torture.

Unless you live after Jesus' time.

Brian37 wrote:

"Holy" laws are nothing but arbitrary gang symbols to protect "honor" and power. The books of all three religions do not depict secular pluralism,  and the God of Abraham character is not an elected power nor is advise and consent part of his makeup.

God wears makeup!!!! dude! 

Brian37 wrote:

The westernized pluralistic governments are a complete departure away from "holy book" writings.

Westernization doth pluralization.

Brian37 wrote:

We don't "submit" in the west to laws blindly, we consult, debate and consent to laws and when we don't like them, we change them, and we have the power to even remove "by vote" a leader whom we think has done a bad job.

mmm. indeed, because we the people have created this government, which leaves us in control of this government.

Brian37 wrote:

Now, if we are to presume for argument's sake only, that this God really was real, and compassionate and moral, then it should be subject to direct questioning and power removal by vote.

direct questioning is welcomed.  Can't have the power to vote Him out because we didn't create Him, he created us.  No matter how hard you try, you can't "vote" your parents out of being your parents.  They may not care for you, you may never talk to them, but they're still your parents because they concieved you.

Brian37 wrote:

Cap will dodge this too, because making such an immoral concept seem moral is an art to theists.

yes, because not only have I always dodged questions and critisizms, but you Brian have never done that.  and I mean never!  How could we even consider such a thought! (sarcasm intended)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. If you had

jcgadfly wrote:

1. If you had physical evidence Brian wouldn't keep bringing it up. I don't really want to see God spooge in a cup but things from people who wrote about Jesus while he was alive would be cool. Got any?

Do you need it written specifically while Jesus was alive, or from people who were alive when Jesus was? 

Documents and information about Julias Cesar was written somewhere around 1000 years after his death, and yet no one questions his existence. 

jcgadfly wrote:

2. Just the son of God? You admit you're a polytheist? Good on you for honesty.

Are you saying Jesus was another god?  Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

jcgadfly wrote:

2a. While I have you thinking onthis - isn't the Holy Spirit redundant? If John 4:24 is correct, God the father is a spirit to begin with. Why the addition?

Thinking on what??? anyway

When was the Holy Spirit added?  My understanding, it was always there and in cooperation with the Father and the Son.  The point is they're 3 separate beings.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. That's what forgiveness is for. If you do something you shouldn't, all you have to do is tell God you're sorry and that you promise not to do it again (until the next time it benefits you - you don't tell God that part but he suppoedly knows and doesn't care - he keeps forgiving). It's a "Get out of Hell free" card.

That's again dispensationalism and is not Biblical. 

If you feel it is, please reference to where you'd be refering.

jcgadfly wrote:

The Bible indeed speaks of repentance. It also speaks of restitution where possible. Unfortunately, God doesn't seem to take that seriously anymore. He seems more willing to settle for penance frpm the Catholics and a promise to try really really hard from other Christians.

is it God that doesn't take that seriously anymore, or us as human beings?

jcgadfly wrote:

4. What does one do when the prayer of repentance is answered with "No"?

Change their underwear I guess.

I think usually the answer would be no until you really have repented. 


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. If you had physical evidence Brian wouldn't keep bringing it up. I don't really want to see God spooge in a cup but things from people who wrote about Jesus while he was alive would be cool. Got any?

Do you need it written specifically while Jesus was alive, or from people who were alive when Jesus was? 

Documents and information about Julias Cesar was written somewhere around 1000 years after his death, and yet no one questions his existence. 

jcgadfly wrote:

2. Just the son of God? You admit you're a polytheist? Good on you for honesty.

Are you saying Jesus was another god?  Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

jcgadfly wrote:

2a. While I have you thinking onthis - isn't the Holy Spirit redundant? If John 4:24 is correct, God the father is a spirit to begin with. Why the addition?

Thinking on what??? anyway

When was the Holy Spirit added?  My understanding, it was always there and in cooperation with the Father and the Son.  The point is they're 3 separate beings.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. That's what forgiveness is for. If you do something you shouldn't, all you have to do is tell God you're sorry and that you promise not to do it again (until the next time it benefits you - you don't tell God that part but he suppoedly knows and doesn't care - he keeps forgiving). It's a "Get out of Hell free" card.

That's again dispensationalism and is not Biblical. 

If you feel it is, please reference to where you'd be refering.

jcgadfly wrote:

The Bible indeed speaks of repentance. It also speaks of restitution where possible. Unfortunately, God doesn't seem to take that seriously anymore. He seems more willing to settle for penance frpm the Catholics and a promise to try really really hard from other Christians.

is it God that doesn't take that seriously anymore, or us as human beings?

jcgadfly wrote:

4. What does one do when the prayer of repentance is answered with "No"?

Change their underwear I guess.

I think usually the answer would be no until you really have repented. 

1. The point of contemporary evidence is that it be written while the subject was living. That's why the gospels don't work. Paul's stuff was closest but even that isn't contemporary. The problem with your statement on Julius Caesar is that we have things written by Caesar. Got any writings by Jesus?

2. You downgraded Jesus to a being less than God, not me.

2a. Having God (who is spirit) and the Holy spirit listed as separate beings just seems inefficeint, that's all.

3.. Then it seems that God is doing extra-Biblical things because this seems to be the crux of modern Christianity. the Ot God seemed to take it seriously, Jesus said "Go and sin no more" - does no longer sinning (because you were caught) actually count as repentance or is there something more? It sounds like a person spouting the nonsense that an alcoholic can stop being an alcoholic by simply not drinking.

4. So someone has to already be forgiven by God and have Jesus in their heart before they can ask for it? Or is a prayer of forgiveness different from a prayer of repentance?

"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: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"Confusion and conflict" are it's only good points. It is exacly what is needed for the brain to accept such a mind scam. If you convince yourself their is no slight of hand(mind) you become capable of fooling yourself into buying any absurdity that comes down the pike.

From the "godsperm" claims you bring to the table among many others, I'd say it worked for you. 

now try getting away from religion and do some legitimate research.

 

I am not the one bringing religion up. I am simply responding to your naked assertions.  YOU started this thread. YOU are the one who believes in a disembodied being with no physical brain. You are in good company with all the other cheerleaders of invisible friends in the sky. I am simply saying "bullshit" to all of you, not just your label.

You are simply frustrated that it cannot be observed like a REAL brain in an autopsy. Not my problem. You are in the same boat as any other myth lover.

"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: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The concept of

Brian37 wrote:

The concept of a super camera in the sky recording my every move is silly, but is A real concept employed by fascist states like Iran and North Korea.

Quote:
AHAHH!!! it's a government conspiracy!!!!...er... wait... what of separation of church and state?  Bah, it gives the government power right!?

RIGHT,  dipwad, humans in civilized western secular governments don't dictate to each other.

BUT, since your "god" you claim is real, is an OMNI god, unless you want to backpedal  from that position, would see and record and judge every move I make from every nanosecond. If that is not a tyrant, I don't know what is.

George Carlin described the God character best, "This is not the sign of an all loving God, this is a pissed off office temp".

According to you, what will happen to me when I die not believing? ACCORDING TO YOU?

 

 

 

 

"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


Di66en6ion
Di66en6ion's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Di66en6ion

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Ok, then list all of those laws and lets examine how nearly all of them are completely outdated or irrational. Lets see your context for interpretation for every single one of these "laws". Lets see how many of them your god breaks. 

Ok.  Let's see where this goes.

1.  You shall have no other gods before me.

     Assuming God is real, that's a logical request.  He is your creator.  Just as any good parent would be heartbroken and upset if you picked someone else as your parent while they were completely capable of caring for you, so would God. 

2. Do not make idols.

Kind of goes with the god thing.  In other words, it implies idols that take the place of God.

3.  You shall not take God's name in vain. 

Ok, if you said bad things about your parents or used their names in a derogatory manner, would they be ok with that?

So, I'm sure those are all outdated due to the fact that uh... those people were illinformed of science and therefore believed that God was real and today we know through science he is not... right???

Though as i said, assuming God is real, those are relevent.

Let's move on.

4.  You shall not murder. 

Oh wait!!! one that God broke right!!! no, sorry, there's nothing there that says you can't destroy what you yourself have created. 

Strangely too, I feel this one still applies today.

5. You shall not commit adultery. 

Speaks for itself, if you feel that's ok, then I feel sorry for the one you marry. 

Still applies today.

6. You shall not steal.

Unless you're playing baseball, I see this one as still relevent and pretty self explanatory.

7.  You shall not bare false witness against your neighbor.

Again, if you're ok with lying about what your neighbor has done, I hope you have good neighbors... for your own sake. 

still applies.

8.  You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor. 

This isn't just wanting something that you can go out and buy yourself.  What is understood here is the following definiton of covet:

to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property.

I'd say that still applies.

9.  Honor your father and mother.

Just basically the respect issue.  For those of you who have parent issues, it doesn't say anywhere that you have to like them.  Just respect the fact that they're your parents.  It can be a hard thing for some.

It's just as relevent now as it was then. 

10.  Remember the Sabbath day.

Doesn't apply now...right?...  Do you work 7 days a week?  I mean a full 8-10 hour day 7 days in the week. 

Some may, most don't.  Those who do don't do it consistently without burning out.  It's a simple science of the human ability.  One can only handle so much before needing rest.

Also, it gives people time to spend with God and family.  That's what I understand to be a big point in that.  though I don't believe it's sinning if you don't observe it.  I would question your relationship with God be it that you really wouldn't have any time for Him. 

It'll be interesting to hear your explanation of how they're all first of all outdated, second, how you can justify judgement on God and explain how he broke any of those.

 

I'll ignore the fact that a lot of these had been stated long before biblical times.

1 & 2: So your god has the mentality of a teenager? He leaves you a son who suicides by cop and a book written by other men but can't seem to love you enough to let you do what you want to do? Your god makes demands that are completely counterintuitive to his supposedly loving nature. Isn't this passage implicitly stating that there are in fact other gods out there? It would be easy to make the equivocation to idols but that's an entirely seperate commandment. Which two conclusions is one to take? That your biblical god is not actually the only one true god or that this book was created (by man) as an idol in of itself to gain political power? Which one is much more likely to be true? There's also no specifics behind what's defined as an Idol; If I went by what the dictionary said everyone on this planet would be breaking that commandment 24/7.

3: Uh, nice strawman I guess but once again this expresses another paradox. Is god perfect or is he human? Are we made in his image mentally as well as physically? Has your god not made it past the 'sticks and stones' phase of his childhood yet? How can such a supposedly advanced being take issue with a few ignorant words from a mere human? Oh wait... maybe this was written in a book in an age where everyone thought witches could cast spells on others...

4 is addressed later.

5: I ultimately feel sorry for anyone who thinks marriage will secure their relationship in a world where people can physically do whatever they want regardless of what laws say. If someone's going to cheat on their lover before marriage they'll do it after too. No amount of praying will help, sorry. 

6: Culturally relevant. Is stealing to survive pertinent? What about stealing from those that do wrong or withhold vast amounts through legal means just to spite others? The law says it's wrong so you must have to starve if you want to get into heaven. 

7: What's considered false seems relative to a lot of people. What about bearing false witness in order to get someone out of trouble (or trouble that they didn't do in the first place but have no evidence for for that matter)? What about bearing false witness under the impression of misleading evidence? All boils down to those pesky culturally relative laws.

8: You can buy anything in this country with enough money. To "desire wrongfully" is once again relative. How are desires wrong? Only if they interfere with those laws right? Those social contracts created by men right? Rights of others? Slavery was legal in this country less than 150 years ago. Why did those rights change? People defended slavery with biblical passages...

9: Respect is earned, not automatically granted because someone birthed you. When do you lose respect for someone? Would you still respect your father if he killed your mother or vice versa? Respect with respect to what? Respect their ideas, emotional states, way of life? Can/should a parent's hate or blatently false ideas be respected? Am I simply supposed to respect my mother and father's genes which created me or the day they conceived me? Respect means nothing without a referent; 'parent', 'father', 'mother' has many meanings.

10: So you're making the Sabbath out to be any arbitrary day of the week? There are many jobs that require some people to work weeks at a time while alternating to some weeks of straight vacation inbetween. The whole points is that this is dogmatic, the bible says it's a holy day so then everyone must honor it without question. It's outdated with respect to society.

 

I could tell you that your god broke some of these in one form or another or how they're internally inconsistant with traditional characteristics applied to god but you'd simply throw out apologetics. In fact you already have, "there's nothing there that says you can't destroy what you yourself have created.", your god created the laws so he can break them when he sees fit without rebuke, what a perfect excuse that exempts you from questioning your own beliefs. Oh hey this is starting to sound familiar...

 

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

My point was along the lines of making choices that are made in favor of dogma over rational and healthy choices. As I said, choices that have to be made can be extremely complicated and no law is going to remove the context for which every single decision is made. Anyone can think of a situation where killing someone would be necessary, the obvious subjectivity shows through in any apologetic argument. 

If you're refering to Christianity at all, it must be dispensationalism and not a real following of Christ.

The defintion of murder is:

the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

Therefore, any justified killing is not understood and was not understood to be murder.

And you have simply proven my point, the "teachings" of the bible are completely relative to society, no universal truths to be found. Killing people in wartime is ok right? Every war ever fought, for any reason? I can just go make it into law in another country that it's ok to shoot someone who's birth date is all prime numbers, alrighty then. This isn't even a strawman because you just said "conditions specifically covered in law". What was understood to be murder when the bible was written by culturally ignorant bafoons isn't the same as what is understood to be murder today.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Also, there are many, many actions (even ones you think you're conscious of) you do every day that you have no choice in consciously. It's because of this reason that it sickens me when I hear dipshits say things like "being gay is a choice".

I guess it depends on what they're refering to when they say "being gay is a choice."  That's quite vague.  If you have feelings toward the same sex, but have not acted upon them sexually, did you sin?

 

Depends who (which religious sect) you ask about that. When I said gay in that context I meant the lifestyle of course, the sexual attraction two of the same sex share with eachother. Is it a sin, in your eyes, for two women or two men to have sexual intercourse of some kind? Is it only alright for heterosexual couples to have sex because it produces offspring? What about vestigial hetero couples who are infertile? Hell, what about hermaphrodites? What about the fact that homosexual behaviour is observed in all social species?

 

Why should people be at fault for things they cannot possibly control without having chunks of their brain removed?

 

caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

By all means, demonstrate your interpretation that over half of the country's Christians would denounce. Please point to the "evidence" that you could have only interpreted AFTER science had already established it. Oh hey, guess what, I can do the EXACT SAME THING WITH ANY BOOK EVER WRITTEN.

ooh testy are we.  ok, give me an example of a book that had information in it that was not yet understood, but later understood and thus later interpreted and clarified through new findings. 

I ask only because I'm not sure if we're on the same page and I want to see your idea of interpretation.

 

Your version of "understood" garners no facts, no new information, no predictions with respect to science. That in of itself proves that it was never in there to begin with. Meet my friend confirmation bias.

An easy and widespread example was an article put out years ago where they analyized Moby Dick enough until they found the prediction of the assasination of world leaders/prime minister. Fact: If you want to find something hard enough, you'll find it, no matter what. A story full of metaphors and allegory is even moreso easy to manipulate.

 

 

Culture changes, you do mental jumprope to make it fit with society and say it was there all along. End of story.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. The point

jcgadfly wrote:

1. The point of contemporary evidence is that it be written while the subject was living. That's why the gospels don't work. Paul's stuff was closest but even that isn't contemporary. The problem with your statement on Julius Caesar is that we have things written by Caesar. Got any writings by Jesus?

It was all said by Jesus and recorded much sooner than that of Caesar.  For all we know, the originals of the NT could have been written as he spoke, but be it that the "copies" we have end up being after his death, we don't have as you would say "contemporaries"; and yet they are from the people who witnessed Him while he was alive.  Therefore, the accounts are understood to be accurate. 

jcgadfly wrote:

2. You downgraded Jesus to a being less than God, not me.

Did I now?!  Please quote me on this.  I would also like the quote where I said Jesus was another god too. 

You can't dictate your own conclusions, then claim I said it. 

I think we need to first define the word "god" before jumping to conclusions that I'm a hipocrite and you're a Jehovah's Witness.

jcgadfly wrote:

2a. Having God (who is spirit) and the Holy spirit listed as separate beings just seems inefficeint, that's all.

If they really are, then how is it inefficient?

jcgadfly wrote:

3.. Then it seems that God is doing extra-Biblical things because this seems to be the crux of modern Christianity. the Ot God seemed to take it seriously, Jesus said "Go and sin no more" - does no longer sinning (because you were caught) actually count as repentance or is there something more? It sounds like a person spouting the nonsense that an alcoholic can stop being an alcoholic by simply not drinking.

Your comparison is true.  Once a sinner, always labeled a sinner.  Just like once a murderer always a murderer according to the law. You may get a life sentence no matter how much you vow in your heart to never kill again.  That's why it is said that Jesus died for everyone, not just the select that decide they can't stop sinning. 

if the alcoholic stops drinking, though they're still an alcoholic by label, are they still drinking? 

jcgadfly wrote:

4. So someone has to already be forgiven by God and have Jesus in their heart before they can ask for it? Or is a prayer of forgiveness different from a prayer of repentance?

Dispensationalism really makes it much more complicated than it is.  Basically your confusion derives from it.

You are already forgiven by God for everything through Jesus Christ.  All you have to do is accept the deity of Christ (the understanding that Jesus has the power to take away the sins of the world) and accept the fact that he did it for you.  The prayer is really just telling God of your decision, though of course he already knows.   It's for the sake of building that relationship really.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I am not the

Brian37 wrote:

I am not the one bringing religion up. I am simply responding to your naked assertions. 

your method is religion.  The expectations you have are religous for you.  You could never accept another understanding.

Brian37 wrote:

YOU started this thread. YOU are the one who believes in a disembodied being with no physical brain. You are in good company with all the other cheerleaders of invisible friends in the sky. I am simply saying "bullshit" to all of you, not just your label.

I understand that, but you do it with the poorest of defense.  If you're going to call bull on it, show something for your assertions.

Brian37 wrote:

You are simply frustrated that it cannot be observed like a REAL brain in an autopsy. Not my problem. You are in the same boat as any other myth lover.

I have no frustration here.  I have to admit, I've been amused by your redundancy without support. 

If i was frustrated with what you claim, why would I still believe it?


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. The point of contemporary evidence is that it be written while the subject was living. That's why the gospels don't work. Paul's stuff was closest but even that isn't contemporary. The problem with your statement on Julius Caesar is that we have things written by Caesar. Got any writings by Jesus?

It was all said by Jesus and recorded much sooner than that of Caesar.  For all we know, the originals of the NT could have been written as he spoke, but be it that the "copies" we have end up being after his death, we don't have as you would say "contemporaries"; and yet they are from the people who witnessed Him while he was alive.  Therefore, the accounts are understood to be accurate. 

jcgadfly wrote:

2. You downgraded Jesus to a being less than God, not me.

Did I now?!  Please quote me on this.  I would also like the quote where I said Jesus was another god too. 

You can't dictate your own conclusions, then claim I said it. 

I think we need to first define the word "god" before jumping to conclusions that I'm a hipocrite and you're a Jehovah's Witness.

jcgadfly wrote:

2a. Having God (who is spirit) and the Holy spirit listed as separate beings just seems inefficeint, that's all.

If they really are, then how is it inefficient?

jcgadfly wrote:

3.. Then it seems that God is doing extra-Biblical things because this seems to be the crux of modern Christianity. the Ot God seemed to take it seriously, Jesus said "Go and sin no more" - does no longer sinning (because you were caught) actually count as repentance or is there something more? It sounds like a person spouting the nonsense that an alcoholic can stop being an alcoholic by simply not drinking.

Your comparison is true.  Once a sinner, always labeled a sinner.  Just like once a murderer always a murderer according to the law. You may get a life sentence no matter how much you vow in your heart to never kill again.  That's why it is said that Jesus died for everyone, not just the select that decide they can't stop sinning. 

if the alcoholic stops drinking, though they're still an alcoholic by label, are they still drinking? 

jcgadfly wrote:

4. So someone has to already be forgiven by God and have Jesus in their heart before they can ask for it? Or is a prayer of forgiveness different from a prayer of repentance?

Dispensationalism really makes it much more complicated than it is.  Basically your confusion derives from it.

You are already forgiven by God for everything through Jesus Christ.  All you have to do is accept the deity of Christ (the understanding that Jesus has the power to take away the sins of the world) and accept the fact that he did it for you.  The prayer is really just telling God of your decision, though of course he already knows.   It's for the sake of building that relationship really.

1. What proof are you claiming for your naked assertion? The only evidence that exists for what Jesus said was was first written 40 years after he died - do you have any contemporary evidence that was written from the time Jeus was alive  (give or take 20 years)?

2. You said Jesus was the son of God. By definition he can't also be God. I am the son of my father but I am not my father.

2a. It just seems weird to list a special being separately as the "Holy Spirit" if all of them are spirits. Then again, as you are a polytheist, I can understand why this doesn't bother you. Why does Christianity masquerade as a monotheistc religion?

3. So one does not need to be forgiven? One can simply stop sinning and believe in Jesus' death and resurrection and be OK in God's book? You're being inconsistent.

4. Supposedly, the sinner's prayer (prayed by one who asserts a belief in what the Bible says about God and Jesus) is the one prayer that God is to give a positive response to. Do you think god gave me no response intentionally?

"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


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

Brian37 wrote:

RIGHT,  dipwad, humans in civilized western secular governments don't dictate to each other.

naw, they just yell at each other and make minimal progress Eye-wink

Brian37 wrote:

BUT, since your "god" you claim is real, is an OMNI god, unless you want to backpedal  from that position, would see and record and judge every move I make from every nanosecond. If that is not a tyrant, I don't know what is.

So you're saying you've lived a terrible life...  How many people have you killed?

Brian37 wrote:

George Carlin described the God character best, "This is not the sign of an all loving God, this is a pissed off office temp".

That's what the dispensationalists want you to believe

Brian37 wrote:

According to you, what will happen to me when I die not believing? ACCORDING TO YOU?

a couple things to consider here.  First, are you not believing because you just never understood it, or are you refusing to believe/follow?

In my research, though I'm still foggy on what may actually happen, (though I don't believe anyone can say for sure), I differ greatly than many of Christiandom.

It could be that I did not grow in the faith because of a religion,  I don't know. 

Due to many writings in the Bible, I don't actually believe that people go directly to heaven or hell when they die. 

I also have some differing theories about hell and what it really is.

One of the reasons I don't believe that people are in a particular spiritual location when they die is because in Kings, a spirit in Christ is "risen" from the dead via a sorcerer.  If in fact that persons spirit was raised and was present with those people, it doesn't make sense to me that they were "yanked out of heaven" because a sorcerer said so. 

It is also said in many different areas of the Bible that when people die, they're either resting or went to sleep.  Besides the fact that there is some translational discrepencies in meaning in certain situations, the idea of the believers in the Bible was that they were asleep.  Not alive sleep, which is implied in the writing.. See (Matthew 27:52 for example)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Di66en6ion wrote:I'll ignore

Di66en6ion wrote:

I'll ignore the fact that a lot of these had been stated long before biblical times.

What would be considered "Biblical Times"?  The Bible and the books thereof were written much much later.

Di66en6ion wrote:

1 & 2: So your god has the mentality of a teenager? He leaves you a son who suicides by cop and a book written by other men but can't seem to love you enough to let you do what you want to do?

Just like I guess your parents can't seem to love you enough to let you screw up your life and the lives of those around you.

Where by the way in the Bible does it say you don't have the free will to "do what you want to do."?

Di66en6ion wrote:

Your god makes demands that are completely counterintuitive to his supposedly loving nature. Isn't this passage implicitly stating that there are in fact other gods out there? It would be easy to make the equivocation to idols but that's an entirely seperate commandment.

"god" is defined as any entity or being that is of higher power than you.  Therefore, of course it's implied that there are other god's out there... unless you feel you are all powerful.

Di66en6ion wrote:

 

Which two conclusions is one to take? That your biblical god is not actually the only one true god or that this book was created (by man) as an idol in of itself to gain political power? Which one is much more likely to be true?

What is your basis for each conclusion?

Di66en6ion wrote:

There's also no specifics behind what's defined as an Idol; If I went by what the dictionary said everyone on this planet would be breaking that commandment 24/7.

an "idol" as written in scripture is understood to be something you worship or something you want to base your life on.

Di66en6ion wrote:

3: Uh, nice strawman I guess but once again this expresses another paradox. Is god perfect or is he human? Are we made in his image mentally as well as physically? Has your god not made it past the 'sticks and stones' phase of his childhood yet? How can such a supposedly advanced being take issue with a few ignorant words from a mere human? Oh wait... maybe this was written in a book in an age where everyone thought witches could cast spells on others...

Have parents (in general) gotten past that stage? yet most will not allow their children to badmouth them.  What's the difference here?

When it comes down to it, to blaspheme God's name, you'd first have to know him, then have enough hatred and anger toward him in your heart to take his name in vain.   It's what's in your heart that counts, not just words. 

It kind of goes along the lines of, be slow to anger.

Di66en6ion wrote:

5: I ultimately feel sorry for anyone who thinks marriage will secure their relationship in a world where people can physically do whatever they want regardless of what laws say. If someone's going to cheat on their lover before marriage they'll do it after too. No amount of praying will help, sorry. 

This coming from the one that claims God won't let you do whatever you want.  It's apparent that you can.  Doesn't mean it's right.

It's a guideline for life.  Obviously even to you, adultery is not ok.  Just because the law is written doesn't mean everyone's going to follow it.  right?

Di66en6ion wrote:

6: Culturally relevant. Is stealing to survive pertinent? What about stealing from those that do wrong or withhold vast amounts through legal means just to spite others? The law says it's wrong so you must have to starve if you want to get into heaven. 

Implying that you need more than Jesus Christ to "get into heaven".  Hypocrite!

Do you know you're stealing from someone who doesn't need it?  Are you sure what you're stealing you can't possibly live without?  You may have easy answers to those, but think about the average joe. 

If you steal to survive in this country and get caught... is it ok or do you still go to jail? 

Also, steal from those who do wrong or withold vast amounts...  It's ok to do it because they did it... right?  That's very childish if you ask me. 

If you steal from someone who has also done wrong, are you showing them that you're better than they?  Are you showing them that you can get your way by better means?

Di66en6ion wrote:

7: What's considered false seems relative to a lot of people. What about bearing false witness in order to get someone out of trouble (or trouble that they didn't do in the first place but have no evidence for for that matter)? What about bearing false witness under the impression of misleading evidence? All boils down to those pesky culturally relative laws.

Sounds to me that its' pretty clear to you.  In order to "bear false witness" you'd have to know you are doing it. 

have you ever heard those cases where people have done so to "rescue an innocent" and in turn got caught and destroyed any defense that person had? 

Usually if there's lacking evidence of the innocence of a person who really is, there's just as much lack of evidence on the other side. 

It doesn't seem relative to me according to how you worded it above.  It seems to me from what you wrote that it's clear as day to anyone.  Did I misunderstand you?

Di66en6ion wrote:

8: You can buy anything in this country with enough money.

which as I said then would not apply to this law

Di66en6ion wrote:

To "desire wrongfully" is once again relative. How are desires wrong?

See definition in previous post between us.  in the later part of the definition where it says "without regard".  Those are the key words

Di66en6ion wrote:

Only if they interfere with those laws right? Those social contracts created by men right? Rights of others? Slavery was legal in this country less than 150 years ago. Why did those rights change? People defended slavery with biblical passages...

Right, but if you were anything of a Biblical scholar, it would have been clear as day how off our country was on that.  Though if you spoke up at the time, you'd have probably been shot.

The slaves of the Bible "that were considered ok to have" were first of all willfully there.  They were also not imprisoned, but were free to leave anytime.  They were chastised for doing wrong, but not for running away.  They were also told to leave after a period of time, to which in response they could say no, I want to stay or chose to go on their own at some point. 

Doesn't sound a bit like the slaves of our past.

Di66en6ion wrote:

9: Respect is earned, not automatically granted because someone birthed you. When do you lose respect for someone? Would you still respect your father if he killed your mother or vice versa? Respect with respect to what? Respect their ideas, emotional states, way of life? Can/should a parent's hate or blatently false ideas be respected? Am I simply supposed to respect my mother and father's genes which created me or the day they conceived me? Respect means nothing without a referent; 'parent', 'father', 'mother' has many meanings.

You are right to say respect is earned and for them to see respect from you, they'd have to earn it. 

It comes down to the fact that you exist because they allowed it.  If they didn't want you to exist, you would not exist from them.  It's just simply a reverence for the fact that they are your parents, they are the reason you are alive.  Nothing more. 

Don't get this mistaken with those who accidentally get pregnant.  They still chose to let you live. 

The Bible explicitly states in many areas that you should respect another and then quickly adds assuming they're respecting you (very paraphrased obviously). 

Parents have expectations toward their children written in the Bible too.  Your implications go beyond the specific laws that were mentioned and into further teachings within the scriptures. 

Just like "do not murder"  You question justly killing someone.  It never said do not kill and other parts of the Bible talk about the difference. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

10: So you're making the Sabbath out to be any arbitrary day of the week? There are many jobs that require some people to work weeks at a time while alternating to some weeks of straight vacation inbetween. The whole points is that this is dogmatic, the bible says it's a holy day so then everyone must honor it without question. It's outdated with respect to society.

and yet the majority of society still has one. 

The week was designed from this idea.  It's why it's 7 days.  It's understood even medically that at least 1 day a week to rest is the healthiest way to live. 

It shows you the best way to do it.  Doesn't mean again everyone follows it.

Di66en6ion wrote:

I could tell you that your god broke some of these in one form or another or how they're internally inconsistant with traditional characteristics applied to god but you'd simply throw out apologetics. In fact you already have, "there's nothing there that says you can't destroy what you yourself have created.", your god created the laws so he can break them when he sees fit without rebuke, what a perfect excuse that exempts you from questioning your own beliefs. Oh hey this is starting to sound familiar...

I would love you to.

The quote you quoted me on was in reference to God killing people specifically. 

Not that I can see that he broke any, but he created the laws for us, not himself.  God is not of this world, therefore, why would he need to follow laws made for this world?

Di66en6ion wrote:

And you have simply proven my point, the "teachings" of the bible are completely relative to society, no universal truths to be found.

Strange to hear you say that and yet every society in the world that has learned of the scriptures has at least understood them if not as a whole, individually.  This implying that the truths may in fact be universal. 

They may not be embraced, but they are understood.  The more you write, the more it seems you prove my point, that it's very clear unless you want to add contingencies which then those are covered elsewhere in the Bible.

Di66en6ion wrote:

Killing people in wartime is ok right?

eh, not in my book, but the jury's still out on that universally.

Di66en6ion wrote:
 

Every war ever fought, for any reason?

assuming then that every war fought for any reason was right?

Di66en6ion wrote:

I can just go make it into law in another country that it's ok to shoot someone who's birth date is all prime numbers, alrighty then. This isn't even a strawman because you just said "conditions specifically covered in law". What was understood to be murder when the bible was written by culturally ignorant bafoons isn't the same as what is understood to be murder today.

really?!  Please explain the differences

Di66en6ion wrote:

 Depends who (which religious sect) you ask about that.

Ah, and that's where the breakdown in clarity and unity come in.

Di66en6ion wrote:

When I said gay in that context I meant the lifestyle of course, the sexual attraction two of the same sex share with eachother. Is it a sin, in your eyes, for two women or two men to have sexual intercourse of some kind?

In my understanding, God created sex in a specific manner.  There's a reason why women don't have penis' and men do.  It's wrong to me because that's not how God designed it. 

Just like any designer who created something for a specific job and then witnesses others abusing it or using it in some way they'd see as wrong.  Do they not have a right to be upset about it?

Just to clarify however, I don't hate gays or lesbians.  I have friends who are homosexual.  They know where I stand on it and respect that and I still respect them for who they are and I still respect them as my friends. 

Hate toward any group is a sect invention and is not Biblical. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

 

Is it only alright for heterosexual couples to have sex because it produces offspring? What about vestigial hetero couples who are infertile? Hell, what about hermaphrodites? What about the fact that homosexual behaviour is observed in all social species?

murder, theft, rape, physical abuse, etc.  All behaviour that is observed in all social species.   Does that make it all ok? 

It's not only ok for heterosexual couples because it produces offspring.  The catholics might say that, but I believe birth control is ok to use. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

 

Why should people be at fault for things they cannot possibly control without having chunks of their brain removed?

It's the actions, not the feelings that are taken into account from what I understand. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

Your version of "understood" garners no facts, no new information, no predictions with respect to science. That in of itself proves that it was never in there to begin with. Meet my friend confirmation bias.

So... then you have nothing to back yourself up on this...

Di66en6ion wrote:

An easy and widespread example was an article put out years ago where they analyized Moby Dick enough until they found the prediction of the assasination of world leaders/prime minister. Fact: If you want to find something hard enough, you'll find it, no matter what. A story full of metaphors and allegory is even moreso easy to manipulate.

Of course it is.  How do you think there are so many different denominations of Christianity in the world.  So many people were convinced they had it right that they forgot to actually look at their findings.

Forget analyzing, all you have to do is take it in context and 90% of it is quite clear.

Di66en6ion wrote:

Culture changes, you do mental jumprope to make it fit with society and say it was there all along. End of story.

Sure, as much as you come up with excuses to make sure it doesn't fit.

Look, it's obvious the only defense you had for any of it went beyond the text that was in question. 

e.g. "sure, that makes sense on the basic level" (which is all that was presented), "but what about if this happens"

ok, if you really want to discuss the ins and outs of each law, it's really not that complicated.  Pick something specific and we can go from there. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. What proof

jcgadfly wrote:

1. What proof are you claiming for your naked assertion? The only evidence that exists for what Jesus said was was first written 40 years after he died - do you have any contemporary evidence that was written from the time Jeus was alive  (give or take 20 years)?

wait... you're allowing 20 years, but not 40?  What is the basis for your boundaries?

As far as I'm aware, there isn't, however, it's still written from people who personally witnessed Jesus while he said and did those things.  Though they didn't necessarily know each other directly nor were they alway in the same spot, somehow, their stories are congruent.  What makes you doubt their vailidity?

jcgadfly wrote:

2. You said Jesus was the son of God. By definition he can't also be God. I am the son of my father but I am not my father.

precisely, he's not also God. 

This gets into understanding who God the father is and the relationship between Him, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit and how it's possible for them to work as they do. 

If you want to discuss it, i'm willing, but I wouldn't expect you to accept it unless you were to accept the existance of God and understand how you can accept Jesus Christ as your savior.

The reason why I say this is because to explain the relationship would not coenside with humanistic standards.  If you can't accept God as real, how can you accept anything beyond human standards?

jcgadfly wrote:

2a. It just seems weird to list a special being separately as the "Holy Spirit" if all of them are spirits. Then again, as you are a polytheist, I can understand why this doesn't bother you. Why does Christianity masquerade as a monotheistc religion?

Adonai is God, the only, the one.  There is no other Almighty God.  This goes further into that explanation I don't expect you to grasp, but though they share the being of God, they are separate persons that work in full cooperation.  God is still the head or the top of the hierarchy. 

jcgadfly wrote:

3. So one does not need to be forgiven? One can simply stop sinning and believe in Jesus' death and resurrection and be OK in God's book? You're being inconsistent.

no, I'm not.  I just might not be explaining it right.

It's not to just believe in it, but to accept the fact that his death and resurrection was for you and that through that you are forgiven. 

Simply, you are already forgiven.  It's like someone taking the hit for you in a trial.  If you don't accept the gift they've tried to give you and refuse to let them stand in your place, then you will be charged guilty, but if you accept it and let them take your place, you're a free man.  That's simply it. 

You just have to first know that they're doing it for you, then accept it.  Let them take your place and walk free.  

jcgadfly wrote:

4. Supposedly, the sinner's prayer (prayed by one who asserts a belief in what the Bible says about God and Jesus) is the one prayer that God is to give a positive response to. Do you think god gave me no response intentionally?

"the sinners prayer" does not "get you on God's good side".  That's also religious sects talking.

I dont' care what anyone tells you, research it yourself.  It's nothing more than Jesus Chirst.  If you can do what I said for #3, that's it!  I suggest once you believe and accept that gift that you build on that relationship with God through prayer and meditation, but it's not what saves you. 

Whoever told you it's the one prayer that God is to give a positive response to was trying to sell you something.  Show me that one in scripture please. 


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:It was all

caposkia wrote:
It was all said by Jesus

... as told in fan fiction written decades later by people in different countries, who heard about it AFTER the game of telephone had been played across culture/language/class barriers for decades.

caposkia wrote:
and recorded much sooner than that of Caesar.

As Julius Ceasar wrote stuff himself and Jesus wrote nothing, this is just plain false.

caposkia wrote:
For all we know, the originals of the NT could have been written as he spoke

For all the evidence to support this, Joseph Smith may really have read the Book of Mormon of real gold plates.

caposkia wrote:
but be it that the "copies" we have end up being after his death

We don't have "copies", we have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies... of fan fiction.

caposkia wrote:
we don't have as you would say "contemporaries"; and yet they are from the people who witnessed Him while he was alive.

No. What we have are anonymous pieces of religious propaganda, written decades after the "fact", who claim there were witnesses. Even if that claim was remotely true, you still have no contemporary accounts.

caposkia wrote:
Therefore, the accounts are understood to be accurate.

The only way they are accurate is in describing the theological understanding of their anonymous authors, aka religious fan fiction. As historical accounts or biographies, they are as accurate as they are reliable; not at all.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:caposkia wrote:It

KSMB wrote:

caposkia wrote:
It was all said by Jesus

... as told in fan fiction written decades later by people in different countries, who heard about it AFTER the game of telephone had been played across culture/language/class barriers for decades.

caposkia wrote:
and recorded much sooner than that of Caesar.

As Julius Ceasar wrote stuff himself and Jesus wrote nothing, this is just plain false.

caposkia wrote:
For all we know, the originals of the NT could have been written as he spoke

For all the evidence to support this, Joseph Smith may really have read the Book of Mormon of real gold plates.

caposkia wrote:
but be it that the "copies" we have end up being after his death

We don't have "copies", we have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies... of fan fiction.

caposkia wrote:
we don't have as you would say "contemporaries"; and yet they are from the people who witnessed Him while he was alive.

No. What we have are anonymous pieces of religious propaganda, written decades after the "fact", who claim there were witnesses. Even if that claim was remotely true, you still have no contemporary accounts.

caposkia wrote:
Therefore, the accounts are understood to be accurate.

The only way they are accurate is in describing the theological understanding of their anonymous authors, aka religious fan fiction. As historical accounts or biographies, they are as accurate as they are reliable; not at all.

Stop being such a party pooper. Look, super beings with no brain or body exist, and Jesus was the vessel to tell his fans that god/he was born without two sets of DNA and survived 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


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. What proof are you claiming for your naked assertion? The only evidence that exists for what Jesus said was was first written 40 years after he died - do you have any contemporary evidence that was written from the time Jeus was alive  (give or take 20 years)?

wait... you're allowing 20 years, but not 40?  What is the basis for your boundaries?

As far as I'm aware, there isn't, however, it's still written from people who personally witnessed Jesus while he said and did those things.  Though they didn't necessarily know each other directly nor were they alway in the same spot, somehow, their stories are congruent.  What makes you doubt their vailidity?

jcgadfly wrote:

2. You said Jesus was the son of God. By definition he can't also be God. I am the son of my father but I am not my father.

precisely, he's not also God. 

This gets into understanding who God the father is and the relationship between Him, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit and how it's possible for them to work as they do. 

If you want to discuss it, i'm willing, but I wouldn't expect you to accept it unless you were to accept the existance of God and understand how you can accept Jesus Christ as your savior.

The reason why I say this is because to explain the relationship would not coenside with humanistic standards.  If you can't accept God as real, how can you accept anything beyond human standards?

jcgadfly wrote:

2a. It just seems weird to list a special being separately as the "Holy Spirit" if all of them are spirits. Then again, as you are a polytheist, I can understand why this doesn't bother you. Why does Christianity masquerade as a monotheistc religion?

Adonai is God, the only, the one.  There is no other Almighty God.  This goes further into that explanation I don't expect you to grasp, but though they share the being of God, they are separate persons that work in full cooperation.  God is still the head or the top of the hierarchy. 

jcgadfly wrote:

3. So one does not need to be forgiven? One can simply stop sinning and believe in Jesus' death and resurrection and be OK in God's book? You're being inconsistent.

no, I'm not.  I just might not be explaining it right.

It's not to just believe in it, but to accept the fact that his death and resurrection was for you and that through that you are forgiven. 

Simply, you are already forgiven.  It's like someone taking the hit for you in a trial.  If you don't accept the gift they've tried to give you and refuse to let them stand in your place, then you will be charged guilty, but if you accept it and let them take your place, you're a free man.  That's simply it. 

You just have to first know that they're doing it for you, then accept it.  Let them take your place and walk free.  

jcgadfly wrote:

4. Supposedly, the sinner's prayer (prayed by one who asserts a belief in what the Bible says about God and Jesus) is the one prayer that God is to give a positive response to. Do you think god gave me no response intentionally?

"the sinners prayer" does not "get you on God's good side".  That's also religious sects talking.

I dont' care what anyone tells you, research it yourself.  It's nothing more than Jesus Chirst.  If you can do what I said for #3, that's it!  I suggest once you believe and accept that gift that you build on that relationship with God through prayer and meditation, but it's not what saves you. 

Whoever told you it's the one prayer that God is to give a positive response to was trying to sell you something.  Show me that one in scripture please. 

1. If I remember correctly the scholars accept 20 years. I'm not a scholar so I'd prefer to have something written by someone while Jesus was living. After 40 pears, a generation has passed so the memories are further gone (assuming you accept that the gospels were written by the people named in their titles - I don't)

2. So Jesus isn't God but you venerate him as a God anyway? That makes you a poly theist. If you don't venrate hkm as a God why are we discussing him as a means of redemption?

2a. You do know that Adonai is plural, right? Just like Elohim.

3. I wish people would stop calling it a gift. Jesus sacrifice nothing and his deal has the major condition of needing to continually kiss his tail for eternity. Oh wait... that's the reward, isn't it?

4. . Isn't the prayer a formal acknowledgement of your point 3? Or is this your way of telling me that you know what was in my head and heart?

"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: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
This is why I like to cut

This is why I like to cut through the convoluted crap of all religions.

History aside, claimed characters aside, the believer(incert label here) wants you to buy the claim of a being with no body or brain that floats around in the stars and has the ability to intervien in our lives, somehow.

Caposkia is no different than Rayback(Muslim). They both assert a being with no body or brain "somewhere" made of "something" and "nothing" at the same time with the magical ability to intervien in our lives with the ultimate goal of kissing it's ass for eternity.

Thats all this amounts to in the end and that is why I cut to the chase. This crap is nothing but a distraction from their end goal.

What we are trying to point out to them is that even at it's core, the "God/god/ supernatural" concept is absurd and vacuuous with no merit. It is simply projecting human imagination on it's own ego searching for non-existant utopias.

Caposkia, it is all in your head and nothing but wishful thinking. It is when you do it, no matter how much spin you convince yourself with. It is no different when a Muslim does it, and was no different when the ancient Egyptians falsely believed that the sun was a thinking being. You simply have a different delusion you want to protect because your own ego wont allow you to consider that you are wrong.

Super beings with no body or brain or DNA are claims of pure fiction, by any name. Your claim is no more special or real than any mythological absurdity than any other by any label. I only hope someday you wake up.

"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
KSMB wrote:... as told in

KSMB wrote:

... as told in fan fiction written decades later by people in different countries, who heard about it AFTER the game of telephone had been played across culture/language/class barriers for decades.

...or handwritten maybe 40 years give or take a few after the death and resurrection of Jesus by the people who were alive during Jesus' life on Earth and also there to witness much of everything they wrote down..  You need to do some history research.

KSMB wrote:

As Julius Ceasar wrote stuff himself and Jesus wrote nothing, this is just plain false.

So then you're saying all accounts of every historical person not written by the person themselves is false, especially if you can't find anything written by the person themselves at all....

ok Gotcha. 

There is debate on whether Ceasar wrote much of what is claimed to be his writings.  I don't doubt it, but at the same time, the stuff written much later about the life of Ceasar and who he was... well... no one seems to doubt it even though Ceasar never validated most of it in his own writings.... must be false still... right?

KSMB wrote:

\For all the evidence to support this, Joseph Smith may really have read the Book of Mormon of real gold plates.

we know it was written by people who were there, since when were eye-witness accounts doubted in today's world? 

KSMB wrote:

We don't have "copies", we have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies... of fan fiction.

We're pretty sure we have at least 2nd or 3rd copies.   Though regardless all the "copies of copies" that we have are "copied" more explicitly verbatum than any other historical documents on record. 

1.  Why take so much care on "fan fiction"

2.  Doesn't leave much room for "telephone" mistakes through the copies. 

3.  There are literally 1000's of copies in the records.  All of them almost identical.  Meaning pretty much completely word-for-word the same.  Little if any variation through cultures, languages and years. 

KSMB wrote:

No. What we have are anonymous pieces of religious propaganda, written decades after the "fact", who claim there were witnesses. Even if that claim was remotely true, you still have no contemporary accounts.

So then you have evidence that they weren't actually there... Please provide it for me.  I'd like to take a look at it if you don't mind.

Can't be anonymous if we know the authors.

KSMB wrote:

The only way they are accurate is in describing the theological understanding of their anonymous authors, aka religious fan fiction. As historical accounts or biographies, they are as accurate as they are reliable; not at all.

Again I'll ask for your research.  Show me how they are less accurate than any other historical document.... and I mean documents close to as old as they.

I'm willing to at least take a look at your research. 


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

caposkia wrote:

KSMB wrote:

... as told in fan fiction written decades later by people in different countries, who heard about it AFTER the game of telephone had been played across culture/language/class barriers for decades.

...or handwritten maybe 40 years give or take a few after the death and resurrection of Jesus by the people who were alive during Jesus' life on Earth and also there to witness much of everything they wrote down..  You need to do some history research.

KSMB wrote:

As Julius Ceasar wrote stuff himself and Jesus wrote nothing, this is just plain false.

So then you're saying all accounts of every historical person not written by the person themselves is false, especially if you can't find anything written by the person themselves at all....

ok Gotcha. 

There is debate on whether Ceasar wrote much of what is claimed to be his writings.  I don't doubt it, but at the same time, the stuff written much later about the life of Ceasar and who he was... well... no one seems to doubt it even though Ceasar never validated most of it in his own writings.... must be false still... right?

KSMB wrote:

\For all the evidence to support this, Joseph Smith may really have read the Book of Mormon of real gold plates.

we know it was written by people who were there, since when were eye-witness accounts doubted in today's world? 

KSMB wrote:

We don't have "copies", we have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies... of fan fiction.

We're pretty sure we have at least 2nd or 3rd copies.   Though regardless all the "copies of copies" that we have are "copied" more explicitly verbatum than any other historical documents on record. 

1.  Why take so much care on "fan fiction"

2.  Doesn't leave much room for "telephone" mistakes through the copies. 

3.  There are literally 1000's of copies in the records.  All of them almost identical.  Meaning pretty much completely word-for-word the same.  Little if any variation through cultures, languages and years. 

KSMB wrote:

No. What we have are anonymous pieces of religious propaganda, written decades after the "fact", who claim there were witnesses. Even if that claim was remotely true, you still have no contemporary accounts.

So then you have evidence that they weren't actually there... Please provide it for me.  I'd like to take a look at it if you don't mind.

Can't be anonymous if we know the authors.

KSMB wrote:

The only way they are accurate is in describing the theological understanding of their anonymous authors, aka religious fan fiction. As historical accounts or biographies, they are as accurate as they are reliable; not at all.

Again I'll ask for your research.  Show me how they are less accurate than any other historical document.... and I mean documents close to as old as they.

I'm willing to at least take a look at your research. 

1. You sure you want to take that view? That makes Mark the only true witness of Jesus' life and ministry - Matthew and Luke lifted out large chunks of Mark and placed in thier gospels (often verbatim).

2. And on your side, cap, you have writings from people (we don't know who wrote the Gospels nor do we know those writers were eye-witnesses) 40+ years after the fact who had an agenda to sell (to build a religion baswed on belief in Jesus as Christ).

3. Actually, that could be more of a problem for you - the scribes copied them verbatim - including the notes from earlier translators that they or others incorporated into the text.

4. See 2 - your protestations are against scholarship.

5. Why are you asking for accuracy from a sales manual?

"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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. If I

jcgadfly wrote:

1. If I remember correctly the scholars accept 20 years. I'm not a scholar so I'd prefer to have something written by someone while Jesus was living. After 40 pears, a generation has passed so the memories are further gone (assuming you accept that the gospels were written by the people named in their titles - I don't)

Extensive research and study has been done to verify the authorship of each book.  Why do you doubt the authorship?

jcgadfly wrote:

2. So Jesus isn't God but you venerate him as a God anyway? That makes you a poly theist. If you don't venrate hkm as a God why are we discussing him as a means of redemption?

Obviously you are going to need a bit of the explanation into the understanding of who the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are. 

He is understood to be the Son of God....

This is the hard part to grasp for someone who doesn't know God. He is understood to be equal to God, but a separate person. 

Simply put, there is a perfect cooperation between the father and the son. 

If you read the gospels, it says that "God the father sent His son...", which means it wasn't Jesus' decision, but God's,  though Jesus had a choice to say no due to the equality and cooperation between the two.  We see this by Jesus' prayer in the garden before he was arrested, praying to God , "father, if you are willing to remove this cup from me, yet not my will, but yours be done." (Luke 22:42)  Showing he made a choice again to follow God's plan.  Also showing that they are two separate personalities.  He sent Him to fulfill the Old Testiment law by being the redeeming sacrifice for all humankind.  Jesus, being equal to God has the power to shed his blood for all people everywhere. 

The simple point being, God sent Jesus so that he could take on our "iniquities" as one translation puts it.  Through that ultimate sacrifice, all God is looking for is people who want to build a relationship with Him first by trusting the free gift that has been given through Jesus Christ and accepting it, then following Jesus' example in your life. 

jcgadfly wrote:

2a. You do know that Adonai is plural, right? Just like Elohim.

Yes I do.  It represents the 3-in-1.  I believe it was explained above.  If not, let me know what seems unclear to you. 

jcgadfly wrote:

3. I wish people would stop calling it a gift. Jesus sacrifice nothing and his deal has the major condition of needing to continually kiss his tail for eternity. Oh wait... that's the reward, isn't it?

The gift is knowing we can have eternal life with the Almighty God.   The gift is our choice to accept him or deny him.  We only have to accept the truth of Jesus.   After accepting that, the life you live is a show of honor, respect and dignity with moral standards... which you may already have a lot of, but understanding that God is real, you are living as a representative.  It's not that we kiss his butt, it's that we honor him because he loves us so much. 

The sacrifice made was that Jesus came down from heaven, (understood to be as good as you can imagine), from a place of high stature, to a lowly human form.  Probably born into one of the poorest of circumstances as well, being born in a barn and all.  He then not only died, but went through extensive suffering and pain so that we may have redemption through him. 

jcgadfly wrote:

4. . Isn't the prayer a formal acknowledgement of your point 3? Or is this your way of telling me that you know what was in my head and heart?

There are no specific words that will redeem you.  The prayer is a formal acknowledgement of what you would have already done in your heart if you were to pray for the redemption through Jesus Christ. 

 


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:KSMB

caposkia wrote:
KSMB wrote:

... as told in fan fiction written decades later by people in different countries, who heard about it AFTER the game of telephone had been played across culture/language/class barriers for decades.

...or handwritten maybe 40 years give or take a few after the death and resurrection of Jesus by the people who were alive during Jesus' life on Earth and also there to witness much of everything they wrote down..  You need to do some history research.

Oh the irony, you telling someone else to do research. I will attribute such irony from you to be an expression of your blistering ignorance. And by blistering, I mean that I get blisters in my eyes from reading it.

In a word, no. Neither you nor I know who wrote the gospels, they are anonymous. Stop parroting tradition and do some damn research yourself.

caposkia wrote:

KSMB wrote:

As Julius Ceasar wrote stuff himself and Jesus wrote nothing, this is just plain false.

So then you're saying all accounts of every historical person not written by the person themselves is false, especially if you can't find anything written by the person themselves at all....

ok Gotcha.

Only someone with a complete lack of logical thinking would jump to such an extreme conclusion from what I wrote. My statement is the most straight forward way of dispelling the retarded notion that Julius Ceasar and Jesus have equal amounts of actual historical evidence going for them.

 

caposkia wrote:
There is debate on whether Ceasar wrote much of what is claimed to be his writings.  I don't doubt it, but at the same time, the stuff written much later about the life of Ceasar and who he was... well... no one seems to doubt it even though Ceasar never validated most of it in his own writings.... must be false still... right?

Oh wait *gasp*, you mean that people sometimes fabricate writings in names of famous people?! I had no idea!! Thank you for showing me the truth, the light and the way!

I mean, it's not like it's well known that such forgeries in the names of Paul, John and Peter made it into the new testament or anything...

caposkia wrote:
KSMB wrote:

For all the evidence to support this, Joseph Smith may really have read the Book of Mormon of real gold plates.

we know it was written by people who were there, since when were eye-witness accounts doubted in today's world?

Such bullshit, we know nothing of the sort. But feel free to actually substantiate the claim. Remember, parroting traditions does not count as "history research". Even if your supposed eye witnesses had written something, of course their stories must stand up to scrutiny. You really mean you just take people's word for that the stuff they claim is true? If that is the case, I have a bridge in China I want to sell to you. I saw it with my own eyes!

caposkia wrote:
KSMB wrote:

We don't have "copies", we have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies... of fan fiction.

We're pretty sure we have at least 2nd or 3rd copies.   Though regardless all the "copies of copies" that we have are "copied" more explicitly verbatum than any other historical documents on record. 

1.  Why take so much care on "fan fiction"

2.  Doesn't leave much room for "telephone" mistakes through the copies. 

3.  There are literally 1000's of copies in the records.  All of them almost identical.  Meaning pretty much completely word-for-word the same.  Little if any variation through cultures, languages and years.

Oh please, give me a fucking break. How do you know you have 2nd or 3rd copies, and what are those copies? Enlighten me, I really want to know. Also, "explicitly verbatim" is what it means to copy something, was that supposed to impress me?

1. They believe it is the word of god, which is why they bother at all.

2. The telephone game was played before the authors wrote down the oral tradition that reached them. I already said as much, didn't you get that?

3. Thousands of copies huh? If you mean fragments, then you're right for once. Though the vast majority comes from the late middle ages, almost none from the first centuries. As for the rest of your claim here, I will quote Bart Ehrman from Misquoting Jesus: "There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament." (p 90). You should read that book, which is explicitly on this subject. Turns out, the scribes were actually human and thus made lots of mistakes. You confidence in the purity of the preserved text is vastly overstated. Vastly.

But that doesn't matter. Even if we had the actual original of any gospel, how does that prove anything? Would having the original of Beowulf prove that Beowulf really fought a dragon?

caposkia wrote:
KSMB wrote:

No. What we have are anonymous pieces of religious propaganda, written decades after the "fact", who claim there were witnesses. Even if that claim was remotely true, you still have no contemporary accounts.

So then you have evidence that they weren't actually there... Please provide it for me.  I'd like to take a look at it if you don't mind.

Can't be anonymous if we know the authors.

Are you serious? You are the one who have to establish that these fantastic stories actually took place. I'm the skeptic, I point out that your case for that is absolutely pathetic. Just as pathetic as you keep repeating you know the authors. You don't.

caposkia wrote:
KSMB wrote:

The only way they are accurate is in describing the theological understanding of their anonymous authors, aka religious fan fiction. As historical accounts or biographies, they are as accurate as they are reliable; not at all.

Again I'll ask for your research.  Show me how they are less accurate than any other historical document.... and I mean documents close to as old as they.

I'm willing to at least take a look at your research.

My research? I am summarizing well known biblical scholarship for your benefit. Have you even heard of textual criticism? It has been known since the 19th century that the traditionally attributed authors of the gospels are not the authors, that the gospels are not historical accounts but instead religious propaganda pieces, written so that you will believe in Jesus as Christ. Pick up a college textbook on the new testament! Educate yourself!

Of course, the reverse is true. If you can show me that the traditionally attributed authors really did write the gospels, and that they are historical accounts, then I will change my mind. Show me your "research". (Prediction: All I will get is more parroting of baseless traditions.)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia, magical super

Caposkia, magical super brains with no DNA, or body, are merely a product of human emagination. 

Arguing over the authors or places or people DOES NOT constitutute invisible magical super brains existing. Allah is invisable and imaterial too, but you aren't a Muslim because Muslims claim that the Koran is the true word of their claimed god.

CAPOSKIA, you have nothing. You have as much evidence for your disembodied, invisible magical super brain as any other god claim of any religion in human history.

Again, you merely bought the idea because it appealed to you at some point, and then because of that strong emotion, you wallow in mental gymnastics because the thought of being wrong is scary to you.

 

 

"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


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

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. If I remember correctly the scholars accept 20 years. I'm not a scholar so I'd prefer to have something written by someone while Jesus was living. After 40 pears, a generation has passed so the memories are further gone (assuming you accept that the gospels were written by the people named in their titles - I don't)

Extensive research and study has been done to verify the authorship of each book.  Why do you doubt the authorship?

jcgadfly wrote:

2. So Jesus isn't God but you venerate him as a God anyway? That makes you a poly theist. If you don't venrate hkm as a God why are we discussing him as a means of redemption?

Obviously you are going to need a bit of the explanation into the understanding of who the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are. 

He is understood to be the Son of God....

This is the hard part to grasp for someone who doesn't know God. He is understood to be equal to God, but a separate person. 

Simply put, there is a perfect cooperation between the father and the son. 

If you read the gospels, it says that "God the father sent His son...", which means it wasn't Jesus' decision, but God's,  though Jesus had a choice to say no due to the equality and cooperation between the two.  We see this by Jesus' prayer in the garden before he was arrested, praying to God , "father, if you are willing to remove this cup from me, yet not my will, but yours be done." (Luke 22:42)  Showing he made a choice again to follow God's plan.  Also showing that they are two separate personalities.  He sent Him to fulfill the Old Testiment law by being the redeeming sacrifice for all humankind.  Jesus, being equal to God has the power to shed his blood for all people everywhere. 

The simple point being, God sent Jesus so that he could take on our "iniquities" as one translation puts it.  Through that ultimate sacrifice, all God is looking for is people who want to build a relationship with Him first by trusting the free gift that has been given through Jesus Christ and accepting it, then following Jesus' example in your life. 

jcgadfly wrote:

2a. You do know that Adonai is plural, right? Just like Elohim.

Yes I do.  It represents the 3-in-1.  I believe it was explained above.  If not, let me know what seems unclear to you. 

jcgadfly wrote:

3. I wish people would stop calling it a gift. Jesus sacrifice nothing and his deal has the major condition of needing to continually kiss his tail for eternity. Oh wait... that's the reward, isn't it?

The gift is knowing we can have eternal life with the Almighty God.   The gift is our choice to accept him or deny him.  We only have to accept the truth of Jesus.   After accepting that, the life you live is a show of honor, respect and dignity with moral standards... which you may already have a lot of, but understanding that God is real, you are living as a representative.  It's not that we kiss his butt, it's that we honor him because he loves us so much. 

The sacrifice made was that Jesus came down from heaven, (understood to be as good as you can imagine), from a place of high stature, to a lowly human form.  Probably born into one of the poorest of circumstances as well, being born in a barn and all.  He then not only died, but went through extensive suffering and pain so that we may have redemption through him. 

jcgadfly wrote:

4. . Isn't the prayer a formal acknowledgement of your point 3? Or is this your way of telling me that you know what was in my head and heart?

There are no specific words that will redeem you.  The prayer is a formal acknowledgement of what you would have already done in your heart if you were to pray for the redemption through Jesus Christ. 

 

1. JP Holding and traditional ascription is not "extensive research". There's no evidence for Matthew's authorship of the gospel, dispute for evidence that John the Apostle wrote his gospel, no one's sure which Mark wrote the gospel of Mark, and Luke was probably more closely connected to Paul than he was with Jesus.

2. So Jesus is equal to God and subordinate to God? Someone needs to get their stories straight and I don't think it's me.

2a. You realize, you contradicted your point 2, yes?

3. Nothing you wrote shows Jesus' sacrifice to be a gift of unconditional love - It sounds more like "Kissing Hank's Ass". If I got the deal Jesus did, I'd have been beging the Romans to crucify me.

4. so, once again, the work has to be done BEFORE you ask for the work to be done? Interesting. If I have to clean up before Jesus and God will accept me, why suck up to them for acceptance? I'm the one who did the work. (according to you)

"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