Brian37 vs manofmanynames

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 vs manofmanynames

manofmanynames,

You say you are unafraid of confrontation. GREAT! I wish more theists would take your attitude insted of falsely equating blasphemy and criticism to hate.

NOW, lets get on with it.

1. Define your god.

Then we will start from there.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So the Bible

jcgadfly wrote:

So the Bible stories and the God the describe being created by human beings is less plausible than there being a real invisible friend who knocked up a teenager so he could come into the world via a miracle working Jesus?

Ah, you should learn this distinction. We're not talking about the truth of a claim the text is making, but rather what claims the text is making. 

i.e does the story of tortoise and the hair make a claim that turtles talk. This is independent of if we believe turtles talk or not.

 

 

 

 


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:So if

Brian37 wrote:

So if Scientology manages good marketing, and 5,000 years from now it becomes the most popular religion, despite the fact it was started by fans of L. Ron Hubbard, a science fiction writer, we must take into account the people who started it and the culture who buys that crap?

If we writing a history of scientology, or interpreting the data for how it spread, sure it would be pretty good idea to take into account the people who started it and the culture who buys into that crap.

Quote:
Ok, if something is valid merely because a culture has bought it for a period of time, then Christianity still has 1,000 years to go before it overtakes the belief in the Egyptian sun god. And by proxy of popular belief Galileo was rightfully put under house arrest for telling the truth.

It's good time for a facepalm. 

Quote:
You have spent this entire thread dodging.

Judging that I already said why I believe, I don't know how I could be accused of dodging.

Maybe you can write a whole post defending this, showcasing all my dodges throughout the entire thread.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
manofmanynames wrote:Brian37

manofmanynames wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

WTF does this have to do with credibly demonstrating that a being with no brain, DNA or body, exists?

I think I see where the problem lies, you decided to start another thread, based on me saying that I believe in God, and I was led to believe thats what you wanted to discuss, why I believe.

But it seem the goal post have changed, and rather than discussing why I myself belief, you want me to convince you to believe in a God. I have not once said, or done anything to lead you to the assumption that I was going to demonstrate to you that God exists, to get you to believe by providing you a sample of god in petree dish. 

So I don't know what you want me to do for you there buddy, or why you feel I should be doing that for you? Did I say or do anything to lead you to assume i was?

 

 

If your goal was not to "convince" me, or anyone else here for that mater, then why are you here?

If it is merely to say that you believe, take a number. Lots of people claim lots of things.

"I can fart a Lamborghini out of my ass" I just made a claim.

Why do I believe that? Because Lamborghinis are real and cars are real and I like Lamborghinis, so therefor merely liking that claim is good enough evidence.

Claims are like sphincters, everyone has one. But we all know what sphincters produce.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


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

manofmanynames wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So the Bible stories and the God the describe being created by human beings is less plausible than there being a real invisible friend who knocked up a teenager so he could come into the world via a miracle working Jesus?

Ah, you should learn this distinction. We're not talking about the truth of a claim the text is making, but rather what claims the text is making. 

i.e does the story of tortoise and the hair make a claim that turtles talk. This is independent of if we believe turtles talk or not.

 

 

 

 

I thought we were comparing the plausibility and reasonableness of two beliefs.

A sane one and yours. Smiling

"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: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:I have not once said,

Quote:
I have not once said, or done anything to lead you to the assumption that I was going to demonstrate to you that God exists, to get you to believe by providing you a sample of god in petree dish.

BINGO!

Isn't it funny that a biology teacher in Japan, or China or America can all teach the same process of miosis, but when it comes to their pet whims about who did it, they are all over the map?

Of course you cant produce God in a petree dish anymore than you could produce Thor's DNA in a petree dish anymore than you could use the Hubble Space Teliscope to find Allah.

It never occurs to you that there is no magical being needed to explain natural processes.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
manofmanynames

manofmanynames wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"... so i have no desire to sugar coat anything for you because of this. And I have no problem explaining why certain scriptures advocated death for picking up sticks on the sabbath, or the slaying of countless people, woman and children. And you won't find me sugar coating it one bit. But rather than making a total clown of yourself, presenting this caricature of what you assume would be my answers to such question, ......perhaps you should actually trying asking those question to me, to see what i really have to say.

 

  I for one would very much like to hear what you really have to say.   I don't know what my chances are at this point since you apparently have deemed me unworthy of reply but it never hurts to ask.

   One of my all-time favorites is the spectacularly gory accounts of God's wrath found in Hebrews 13:16.

   "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God.    They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." 

  Care to enlighten the forum with your insight ?

Thank you.

 


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
It's so easy!  All the good

It's so easy!  All the good parts are God and all the bad parts are from the people of the time it was written!

Shame on you for thinking God's true book would exclude such immoral actions!


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FreeHugMachine wrote:It's so

FreeHugMachine wrote:

It's so easy!  All the good parts are God and all the bad parts are from the people of the time it was written!

Shame on you for thinking God's true book would exclude such immoral actions!

  Well, if he chooses to reply I will enjoy the extreme sense of irony that we atheists, with our non-theistic and therefore inferior moral persective, will be getting a lesson from a godly theist as to why genocide is actually okay...you know, as long as the butchery is performed in the proper "godly" context.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FreeHugMachine wrote:

It's so easy!  All the good parts are God and all the bad parts are from the people of the time it was written!

Shame on you for thinking God's true book would exclude such immoral actions!

  Well, if he chooses to reply I will enjoy the extreme sense of irony that we atheists, with our non-theistic and therefore inferior moral persective, will be getting a lesson from a godly theist as to why genocide is actually okay...you know, as long as the butchery is performed in the proper "godly" context.

In comic relief in media the greatest laughs are had by the pratfalls of the charactures who proclaim" I know what I am doing".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 I for one would very much like to hear what you really have to say.   I don't know what my chances are at this point since you apparently have deemed me unworthy of reply but it never hurts to ask.

   One of my all-time favorites is the spectacularly gory accounts of God's wrath found in Hebrews 13:16.

You mean Hosea 13:16, not Hebrews. 

The entire book of Hosea, is Hosea's call to repentence for Israel, that the eventual capture and destruction of Samaria by the Assyrains, and God's inaction in it, is because of their wickedness:

"Sow for yourselves justice, reap the fruit of piety; Break up for yourselves a new field, for it is time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain down justice upon you."

But you have cultivated wickedness, reaped perversity, and eaten the fruit of falsehood. Because you have trusted in your chariots, and in your many warriors,
5 Turmoil shall break out among your tribes and all your fortresses shall be ravaged As Salman ravaged Beth-arbel in time of war, smashing mothers and their children (Hosea 10)."

Hosea sees this suffering and misery as call to renewal, that if Israel returns to God, rather than living in idolatory and wickedness, God will heal them. Because in their suffering they'll turn to God and he will answer them, as the closing of Hosea goes:

Return, O Israel, to the LORD, your God; you have collapsed through your guilt.

Take with you words, and return to the LORD; Say to him, "Forgive all iniquity, and receive what is good, that we may render as offerings the bullocks from our stalls.


Assyria will not save us, nor shall we have horses to mount; We shall say no more, 'Our god,' to the work of our hands; for in you the orphan finds compassion."

I will heal their defection, I will love them freely; for my wrath is turned away from them.


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
FreeHugMachine wrote:It's so

FreeHugMachine wrote:

It's so easy!  All the good parts are God and all the bad parts are from the people of the time it was written!

Shame on you for thinking God's true book would exclude such immoral actions!

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Well, if he chooses to reply I will enjoy the extreme sense of irony that we atheists, with our non-theistic and therefore inferior moral perspective, will be getting a lesson from a godly theist as to why genocide is actually okay...you know, as long as the butchery is performed in the proper "godly" context.

I don't get way nearly every atheist post in this thread is so filled with projection. There's an entire post on here somewhere where some atheist ask a question, and then goes on at length answering it himself, with what he projects my answer would be. In fact based on these imaginary responses, he decided to call me a dishonest coward. I couldn't decide if I should have chuckled or been offended. 

There's definitely some serous persecution complex going on. Prozac nation seems to feel that I think of him as having an inferior moral perspective because he's an atheist. FreeHugMachine responds that I'm going to claim something along the line of all the good parts are Gods, and all the bad parts are from the people of the time it was written.

Seriously, dudes what's wrong with you all? At least make these accusations based on something I said. If I respond with a response that implies that non-believers moral perspective are inferior to believers, by all means jump on it. If claim something along the lines of the good parts are God, and bad parts are from the people of the time it was written, jump on that too.

But when I haven't said anything at all, haven't even had a moment to respond to the question Prozac proposed, just shut up. I mean you don't have too, but you guys are beginning to sound like a bunch of whiny babies, more obsessed with religion out of your foaming dislike for it, than most theist. I'm sure many of you have had a bad experience with theism growing up, perhaps you've been molested by a priest, but you don't need to take your hurt out of every theist that comes walking through the door. 

I'm sure it's like a drug you can't ween yourself off, but quit the projection. And if you want this site, as well as yourselves to be taken seriously, it would probably be a good idea. 

 

 


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
I was merely kidding.  I

I was merely kidding.  I wasn't saying that was what you think, just poking fun.  If you don't tell us what you believe it will be hard to debate it.


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
FreeHugMachine wrote:If you

FreeHugMachine wrote:

If you don't tell us what you believe it will be hard to debate it.

I already have, a few times actually, and most explicitly in post 58

 


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
I already have, a few times

Momn wrote:

I already have, a few times actually, and most explicitly in post 58

 

You said that you are a Christian and believe in Jesus, but when people have then sated what comes with the package (virgin birth, resurrection) you say you don't believe in them.  That of course leads people to question what you actually believe.

What do you think made Jesus divine?  How do you think he proved his divinity to you?

I can't accept that he was a perfect embodiement of love. Perhaps he was a great guy if he existed, but by reading the Bible it does not lead me to think he was the best humanity has to offer.  If you drop the miracles and supernaturalism, why should you think he is God?


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

manofmanynames wrote:

 

If someone wanted to argue why they feel that Jesus was not the messiah, they are more than welcome to have that debate with me, and in the end,  we may agree to disagree, but very few people are going to pull out the invalid card, or accuse my interpretation of being unreasonable. Provocative sure, unreasonable? i think not.

Ok, your interpretation is as reasonable as any other Christian I have met. My point being it wasn't reasonable to the greatest majority of the Jewish people and if you have studied Jesus probably not to him either. He isn't telling people to leave Judaism for a new way, he in fact told them in many ways to continue. Paul is the one that departed from the ways as evidenced by the confrontation with James in Jerusalem. But you and every other person is fully entitled to view these stories in any light you'd like. You do have lots of company but numbers don't mean anything more that many interpret as you do. See how well that has worked with a flat earth view, Earth is the center of the Universe etc.

manofmanynames wrote:

I do know that Jesus is a hard sell, a messiah that defied expectations, the Jews expected Bar Kocheba type figures, not a poor carpenter, who hung out with the poor, and the publicans. They may have expected a king with a crown of gold, with an army that would make even the Chinese blush; they didn't expect one that scorned the use of violence, and preached love your enemies. They expected a messiah in rage towards their oppressors, that  would murder each and every one of them, as they themselves desired, not one to submit himself freely to the roman cross.

Perhaps you should study what the Jews expected in a little more detail. If not for the basis in mythology & fantasy, I'd be a Jew long before I'd buy into Christianity today. I however just can't get past the Sci-Fi that goes into the development of any god.  There's quite enough of Sci-Fi in the OT to discredit all of it. As to the Jewish views you don't have exactly down what the Jews expect. What they expected was in summary:

A great political leader. Not Jesus.

A great military leader. Not Jesus.

A charismatic leader. Jesus was.

Well versed in Jewish Law. Jesus was.

A great Judge. Unclear if Jesus was or not due to his comment when he said, man who made me a judge or divider over you?

A human being. Not part god, not a demi-god but only a man. Not Jesus as claimed by Christians.

What does the messiah do?

He institutes the Kingdom of God on Earth. Not Jesus, though I have heard the argument that is what he did by being crucified and resurrected, it's not what they had in mind.

All nations will recognize God as the only true god. Didn't happen with Jesus.

All violence will cease. All sin will end. Did not happen with Jesus.

There is a lot more involved and it's not simply a warrior king that reunites Israel, I suggest you study Judaism a little more before you make such claims.

manofmanynames wrote:

So sure, Jesus Christ is one hell of a subversive messiah, and the kingdom, that one glimpses at a table where bread is broken with the poor, the whore, and the publican, is no less subversive than its King. But I find it glorious, and beautiful just as much. No other person would I ever raise as my king, lord, and God, no other kingdom could I ever desire than his. The Jews may still wait on their Bar Kocheba, but they'll be disappointed and eventually amazed.  

Jesus may have been far more subversive than even that, perhaps a Zealot rebelling against Rome which is far more likely than the pretty fable concocted in the Gospels if he was in fact a real historical figure. Rome certainly had cause to execute the rebel that is described attacking the Jewish Temple which also served as the Jewish financial center and central bank.

I'm personally not interested in a king or any kind of dictator as envisioned in most Christian accounts. 

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

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


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:He isn't telling

Quote:
He isn't telling people to leave Judaism for a new way, he in fact told them in many ways to continue. Paul is the one that departed from the ways as evidenced by the confrontation with James in Jerusalem. But you and every other person is fully entitled to view these stories in any light you'd like. 

I'm assuming you meant Peter?

The division between Paul and Peter and eventual Judaism and Christianity divide, was over the Gentile being brought into the fold, and Jewish Christian requiring them to adhere to "badges of covenant membership", enforcing circumcision, and dietary laws in order to participate in the Lord's Supper. Paul disagreed with this view, though he took no issue with individuals practicing these badges, he did take issue with making them a requisite for participating in the Eucharist. Paul didn't tell anyone to leave Judaism, he just scolded the division and the exacting of the badges in Jewish Christian community. Now the question would be if Jesus himself would have took Peter's side, or Paul's side? 

We know Jesus on a few occasions scorned the pharisees for being exacting of rituals of the law, like not working on the sabbath, we know he went off on them for making a fuss out of the disciples not washing their hands before dinner. Jesus didn't take issue with the practice itself, just like Paul didn't, but he did take issue with the enforcing of them being a point of division. So it seems fairly clear for those of us outside of the situation, where Jesus would have stood on the issue. Would the Jesus who broke bread with the poor, the prostitute, and the publican, refuse to break bread because the gentiles weren't circumcised? I think not. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Ok, your interpretation is as reasonable as any other Christian I have met. My point being it wasn't reasonable to the greatest majority of the Jewish people

Well, messianic ambitions and expectations have continually changed in Judaism, when it comes to reform Judaism it does away with a single messiah all together: 

 

"They believe such time will be the result of human efforts attikkun olam (repair of the world) through working on social justice, not from one man alone.

"Choice is the underlying reason the Reform Movement gave up the need for and belief in a single messiah who would one day bring judgment, and perhaps salvation, to the world. The fact that God imbues us with free choice mitigates the need for a messianic figure."[12] "
I find this tradition to be the most aligned with the beliefs of the Gospel writers, though Jesus is the light the source of the hope and commitment, its his followers, his laborers who bear his image that bring salvation to the world. 

 

Quote:
You do have lots of company but numbers don't mean anything more that many interpret as you do.

You claim that numbers don't mean anything, and I agree, but then you try and argue that Jesus was not the messiah because most Jews don't agree with it. If numbers don't mean nothing, than it doesn't matter that most Jews don't accept Jesus as the messiah. 

Quote:
A great political leader. Not Jesus.

A great military leader. Not Jesus.

I feel that Rev. King, was a far greater political and "military" leader than Patton. 

Creative nonviolence, as revealed in the sermon on the mount, I find to be a far greater weapon against evil and oppression than guns and bombs. Speaking truth to power, calling to the presence of sin and the need for it's chastisement as was the perspective of the black insurgency during civil rights, to me is ultimate expression of political power. 

A great political and military leader? I think Jesus "is"-- is being the important word. 

Quote:
A great Judge. Unclear if Jesus was or not due to his comment when he said, man who made me a judge or divider over you?

Yea, Jesus tells that to a dude who asked him to settle a dispute with his brother over inheritance money. He saw it a trite issue for him to judge, but after he tells the man this,  he turns to the crowd, and says: "Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one's life does not consist of possessions." The man got his judgment, it may not have been what he wanted to hear, but he got it all right. 

Quote:
A human being. Not part god, not a demi-god but only a man.

Well, when ever you dealing with messiah concept, especially one being developed over time with a person. You're going to face all sorts of issues with the God messiah divide. It may not be an issue that Jews have to deal with now, because there are not long running messiah claimant for which such questions need pondering for.

If you claim the messiah is the possessors of God's ultimate soverientity how do you distinguish God's rule for the Messiahs? Either the messiah replaces God as Sovereign, they both have independent reigns, or their reigns are equal, and Jesus becomes God. And that has been the position of Paul who claims Christ was equal to God, and the early church. The notion of messiah and the notion of God walk a very thin line, that when questions arise on how to distinguish the two, it gets quite blurred. 

Quote:
He institutes the Kingdom of God on Earth. Not Jesus, though I have heard the argument that is what he did by being crucified and resurrected, it's not what they had in mind.

Well, what did they have in mind? What does the kingdom resemble? As I previously wrote Jesus already gave a glimpse of that Kingdom is, by a table of bread broken with the poor, the prostitute, and publican, a kingdom partially realized, but eventually fully realized. After the partial triumph of the civil rights movement, Rev. King claimed to see a glimpse of the Kingdom of God as well, as "I have seen the promise land". That's the vision of Christ's Kingdom of God, where "kingdom" doesn't mean a physical place, but Reign--the "Reign of God" made manifest. 

Quote:
All nations will recognize God as the only true god. Didn't happen with Jesus.

All violence will cease. All sin will end. Did not happen with Jesus.

Didn't happen doesn't mean that eventually doesn't happen. That's the christian belief right? That eventually God's Reign is fulfilled, and all will know who the true God is, and violence is no more. 

Quote:
There is a lot more involved and it's not simply a warrior king that reunites Israel, I suggest you study Judaism a little more before you make such claims.

At the time of Jesus those hailed popularly as the messiah where warrior kings like Bar Kocheba, the failure of such messiahs led the jews to rethink their messianic ambitions. But the early Jewish ambitions were not as creative as today's traditions are. At the time of Jesus much of messianic ambitions were simply a desire to end Roman oppression. 

Quote:
the pretty fable concocted in the Gospels if he was in fact a real historical figure.

I'm not sure when the gospels became a "pretty" fable, a gruesome death as the finale is not an easy pill to swallow. And  a figure telling his followers to scorn the pursuit of material possession, claims that its difficult for the rich to enter into the kingdom of heaven, to untie yourself from family, and pick up a cross, is not a candy coated person to follow follow either.

If you're looking for a pretty fable, the Gospels is not a place to go, you should instead, try secular humanism. 

Quote:
I'm personally not interested in a king or any kind of dictator as envisioned in most Christian accounts. 

Well, keep believing your the master of your own destiny, and you'll figure out that you don't get too far. 


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

manofmanynames,

You say you are unafraid of confrontation. GREAT! I wish more theists would take your attitude insted of falsely equating blasphemy and criticism to hate.

NOW, lets get on with it.

1. Define your god.

Then we will start from there.

Doesn't work that way, son.
Prove your claim. THAT'S the ONLY place it starts.

OYE!


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
manofmanynames

manofmanynames wrote:

 

Quote:
But there are a few problems with this method.  

1.) It's dishonest. 

2.) It's cowardly.  

Just quit while you're a head. You devoted a whole page to totally bogus and baseless assumptions about me. And then formulated this imagery conclusion, that I'm dishonest and cowardly. If anyone is a coward, and dishonest it's you. You want to take your gripes about being hurt when you were a small little theist out on anyone and anything that claims to be a theist, even if you have to imagine offenses. 

Do you really want more of this tongue lashing and shit? or do actually have something of substance to bring to the table. 

 

jesus told me not to be a quitter.  See it turns out jesus sounds and looks an awful lot like a reflection of my own ego..   Who would have ever guessed ?

MOMN wrote: 

Quote:
You devoted a whole page to totally bogus and baseless assumptions about me.

As did you about me....atheists/agnostics in general, etc...  But no matter.  There is one huge difference however... here it comes.  I (as most atheist/agnostics) hold no particular ideology.  Nor do I market any type of ideology (religious or otherwise) or try to coerce anyone into accepting those beliefs I do possess.  If I had an ideology to promote I sincerely hope that I would not resort to senseless violence and bigotry to assert such an ideology as the history of christianity has demonstrated so aptly.

Now as a follower of christian ideology you derive your belief system from the bible.  I've read it.  You take the bible quite seriously...not part of it but all of it..(your own words).  But you, like so many theists who come here, don't want to answer for the absurdity or the unconscionable nature found within its pages.  You try to hide behind a veil of anonymity.  You don't know my beliefs you rant and cleverly avoid having to define them by offering as little as possible as to what they are).

As a christian you are commanded to go into all the world and preach the gospel and make disciples of all the nations, etc..but YOU are not trying to win souls (I'm sure you feel you're answering honestly in the case of my soul, since you don't like me or most other atheists I'm sure, but that hardly absolves you from answering to god's commandment).

The bible states that human life on earth began with one man and one woman in a garden along w/ a chit-chatting snake.  You have a ready made rationalization for this one...Remember the tortoise and the hare story ?  Only one problem.  The tortoise and the hare was never marketed to the masses as truth, and certainly not the ONLY TRUTH as "THE BOOK" and the garden of Eden story has been.

You owe your beliefs to the bible yet you want to pretend that you are not  bound to its words or bound to the horrible atrocities that have been carried out in its pages and by those using the holy book for inspiration.

But you are.

Quote:
If anyone is a coward, and dishonest it's you. You want to take your gripes about being hurt when you were a small little theist out on anyone and anything that claims to be a theist, even if you have to imagine offenses. 

"Small little theist"?  What is that?  A midget evangelist?

Your response lacks description of either "cowardice" or "dishonesty".  I have no idea what it describes actually.

Quote:

Do you really want more of this tongue lashing and shit? or do actually have something of substance to bring to the table. 

What the fuck is that?  Are you 15 ?

Pointing out your dishonesty and cowardice is the greatest substance I can see forthcoming in this thread until you decide to answer up for your bible and define in more complete terms what exactly it is that you believe and why you believe it.

   

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
treat2 wrote:Brian37

treat2 wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

manofmanynames,

You say you are unafraid of confrontation. GREAT! I wish more theists would take your attitude insted of falsely equating blasphemy and criticism to hate.

NOW, lets get on with it.

1. Define your god.

Then we will start from there.

Doesn't work that way, son. Prove your claim. THAT'S the ONLY place it starts. OYE!

I am not your "son" boy. I am 42 fyi.

And it DOES work that way. Go look up "fallacy of  Pascal's Wager" and Bentrand Russell's "Teapot".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
manofmanynames

manofmanynames wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:


 I for one would very much like to hear what you really have to say.   I don't know what my chances are at this point since you apparently have deemed me unworthy of reply but it never hurts to ask.

   One of my all-time favorites is the spectacularly gory accounts of God's wrath found in Hebrews 13:16.

You mean Hosea 13:16, not Hebrews. 

The entire book of Hosea, is Hosea's call to repentence for Israel, that the eventual capture and destruction of Samaria by the Assyrains, and God's inaction in it, is because of their wickedness:

"Sow for yourselves justice, reap the fruit of piety; Break up for yourselves a new field, for it is time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain down justice upon you."

But you have cultivated wickedness, reaped perversity, and eaten the fruit of falsehood. Because you have trusted in your chariots, and in your many warriors,
5 Turmoil shall break out among your tribes and all your fortresses shall be ravaged As Salman ravaged Beth-arbel in time of war, smashing mothers and their children (Hosea 10)."

Hosea sees this suffering and misery as call to renewal, that if Israel returns to God, rather than living in idolatory and wickedness, God will heal them. Because in their suffering they'll turn to God and he will answer them, as the closing of Hosea goes:

Return, O Israel, to the LORD, your God; you have collapsed through your guilt.

Take with you words, and return to the LORD; Say to him, "Forgive all iniquity, and receive what is good, that we may render as offerings the bullocks from our stalls.


Assyria will not save us, nor shall we have horses to mount; We shall say no more, 'Our god,' to the work of our hands; for in you the orphan finds compassion."

I will heal their defection, I will love them freely; for my wrath is turned away from them.

\

  Thank's for not "sugar coating" it, lol.   And, yes....I already gathered that the entire blood-soaked episode was meant as punishment from God.  I assumed that much just from reading verse 16.   

   In Rwanda the Hutus punished the Tutsis with similar "divinely inspired" methods of killing.  Perhaps if the Hutus had claimed that God was simply using them as instuments of his justice they could have avoided charges of genocide and crimes against humanity.


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Thank's for not "sugar coating" it, lol.   And, yes....I already gathered that the entire blood-soaked episode was meant as punishment from God.  I assumed that much just from reading verse 16.   

   In Rwanda the Hutus punished the Tutsis with similar "divinely inspired" methods of killing.  Perhaps if the Hutus had claimed that God was simply using them as instruments of his justice they could have avoided charges of genocide and crimes against humanity.

As any objective person reading the text would realize. The text is Hosea's reflection on suffering, that's not something sugarcoated my fellow dimwits, that's stating the obvious. 

Well buddy here it doesn't work that way, Since Hosea is not speaking about what happens to Assyrians but whats to happen to the Jews. And its not God sanctioning it, but God not preventing it. 

To put it in a modern context: "Is America doesn't turn from it's wicked ways, exploiting the poor in other countries, pillaging the land of the Arabs, cheating them, and suffering their people, they will retaliate and take thousands of lives, and God won't do anything about it, he won't be with us, until we turn from our ways, back to him."

Hosea is not writing to the Assyrians, he is writing to the Hebrews, his people, that actually went through that suffering.

And no the entire blood-soaked episode wasn't meant as a punishment from God, but a call to renewal, and hope. Much of the Bible are these writers reflection on suffering, whats the role of it, if a divine hand is over us, why does he permit it? Where is he when these people are about to murder us, and kill our children brutally? 

I used to date a girl who was raped twice when she was a child by two different men, and though she wasn't a christian (she was sikh) she still believed in God. I wasn't a believer then and I couldn't get how she could believe in a God capable of stopping this, but didn't? I was troubled by the thought, and I had asked her one day, how she could believe in God after what had happened to her. She was trembling, she didn't know the answer, she assumed perhaps it was punishment for something, or something she was suppose to learn from it. But I understood right there why she believed, it was that if she surrendered a belief in God, accepted that there was no meaning in the world, that the act only speaks of the depravity of human existence, of hopelessness, she would have sunk into the misery of it all. Her belief in God, was on very shaky ground, quite fragile, ripe for an disbeliever to take the source of her only comfort, but I wasn't evil enough to do that, so I stopped asking.

The prophet Hosea is writing in the condition of the Assyrians taking over Israel, and ripping Samaria to pieces, what can anyone let alone Hosea, say to preserve hope for his Hebrew community? What sense can he makes out of the suffering that's taking place in his midst with the Jewish belief in a life of meaning and purpose. How were they ever to have hope after this? How were they ever to deny that's there no meaning at all, and accept as the pagans that shit happens, we live, we die, and some of us die miserably, our children get murdered, for no reason. But the prophets role is to preserve hope, and faith in the God of purpose and meaning, rather than to allow his community to sink into despair. 

Hosea proclaims in violent language of their situation, that if Israel turns from it's wickedness, and returns back to God, after they have abandoned him for Baal, and no longer live their lives cheating people and trampling the poor, but justly, God will renew them, he says to them,  don't lose hope oh people, God's righteousness and love will pervade, we just must have faith in him.

The writing of much of the Bible are in the same sort of predicament, in the Psalms often time the writer questions God's absence, he was told that war and suffering where punishments from God, yet his people were not living wickedly, they've been devoted to the God of Israel, and living by his ways, and yet they were suffering by the Babylonians, and the Psalmist ask where is God in all of this, and ask if he's fallen asleep on them.

In the Psalms the writer is not willing to accept the Hosea response. His people were living right, loyal to God, and they were still suffering, if not God's wrath than why? Is he dead? 

" Our hearts have not turned back, nor have our steps strayed from your path.

4 Yet you have left us crushed, desolate in a place of jackals; you have covered us with darkness.

If we had forgotten the name of our God, stretched out our hands to another god,

Would not God have discovered this, God who knows the secrets of the heart?

For you we are slain all the day long, considered only as sheep to be slaughtered.

Awake! Why do you sleep, O Lord? Rise up! Do not reject us forever!

Why do you hide your face; why forget our pain and misery? (Psalms 44)"

The Job question, is the prevailing question of much of the Bible. Why are we suffering? This Psalms closes without an answer, just with a plea for God to wake up.

The writers of the Bible don't all have the same answer to this question, as we see in the Psalms the answers the Hosea like have given is questioned, but the Psalmist provides no new response, he leaves the question open. Many years later the Gospel writers witnessing the suffering of their people by the Romans, the countless lives of the poor that were being dashed to the ground, often cheated by their own people, a religious establishment that has gotten rich by being puppets of the Roman Empire, pick up that question as well, and respond with an image far different that all before it, the image of Christ crucified, a God who suffers with us. 

If you find cotton candy in this, you let me know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote: And its not God

Quote:
And its not God sanctioning it, but God not preventing it.

But nothing happens unless god wants it to, so it doesn't matter if he did it himself, the fact he didn't step in says he wanted it to happen. He is all powerful so there is nothing stopping him ever, from stepping in.

I also find this use of logic abhorrent in the case of this claimed magical being when Kaylee Anthony gets butchered and dumped in a garbage bag while this daddy in the sky who could have intervened, chose not to. What possibly could be a good reason for God to watch a child get chopped up like a side of beef and dumped like garbage?

Sure he didn't do it himself, but he also did nothing to stop it either, "Sorry kid. But don't worry, after you get stabbed and choked to death you get to hang out with me". What kind of fucked up logic is that?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FreeHugMachine wrote:It's so

FreeHugMachine wrote:

It's so easy!  All the good parts are God and all the bad parts are from the people of the time it was written!

Shame on you for thinking God's true book would exclude such immoral actions!

If this OP wants to claim an "all powerful" GOD then there can be no limits set on this claim by virtue of using the word "all" SO such a claimed being would also have to have the ability to be immoral, otherwise the word "all" is contradicted by the limit of claiming that he cant be immoral. By definition it would have to have the power to be immoral.

Now what I got from a Jew in response once was, "He said he wouldn't do that".

I am not talking about what someone says, I am talking strictly about how one defines the powers they claim their god has.

By definition alone for a deity(any god claim of any label in history) to be "all powerful" it must have no limits and be capable of both good and bad, otherwise the utterance of "cant" sets a contradictory limit on the word "all".

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: But nothing

Brian37 wrote:
 But nothing happens unless god wants it to, so it doesn't matter if he did it himself, the fact he didn't step in says he wanted it to happen. He is all powerful so there is nothing stopping him ever, from stepping in.

No, just because we allow things to happen when we have the ability to stop it, doesn't equate to us wanting it to happen. I could jump in front of a train, and risk my life to save someone else, and I don't, that doesn't mean that I wanted that person to die. If you see a poor man, whose terribly hungry and just keep walking, ignoring him, doesn't mean that you wanted that poor man to  die. You could be totally indifferent to if he dies or lives, and not do anything. There could be a multitude of reasons why we don't intervene, that doesn't mean we wanted the acts we didn't intervene in to happen

Quote:
I also find this use of logic abhorrent in the case of this claimed magical being when Kaylee Anthony gets butchered and dumped in a garbage bag while this daddy in the sky who could have intervened, chose not to. What possibly could be a good reason for God to watch a child get chopped up like a side of beef and dumped like garbage?

Because an intervening God in acts of human evil only places a bandage on a gaping wound. If the concern of such a God is the nature of the actor, if he loves both victim and victimizer, he seeks renewal brought on by love, love made evident by human beings. If God gave a world to us, and granted us our moral freedom, only in a world with consequence can such freedom ever be realized. 

 

 

 

 


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

manofmanynames wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
 But nothing happens unless god wants it to, so it doesn't matter if he did it himself, the fact he didn't step in says he wanted it to happen. He is all powerful so there is nothing stopping him ever, from stepping in.

No, just because we allow things to happen when we have the ability to stop it, doesn't equate to us wanting it to happen. I could jump in front of a train, and risk my life to save someone else, and I don't, that doesn't mean that I wanted that person to die. If you see a poor man, whose terribly hungry and just keep walking, ignoring him, doesn't mean that you wanted that poor man to  die. You could be totally indifferent to if he dies or lives, and not do anything. There could be a multitude of reasons why we don't intervene, that doesn't mean we wanted the acts we didn't intervene in to happen

Quote:
I also find this use of logic abhorrent in the case of this claimed magical being when Kaylee Anthony gets butchered and dumped in a garbage bag while this daddy in the sky who could have intervened, chose not to. What possibly could be a good reason for God to watch a child get chopped up like a side of beef and dumped like garbage?

Because an intervening God in acts of human evil only places a bandage on a gaping wound. If the concern of such a God is the nature of the actor, if he loves both victim and victimizer, he seeks renewal brought on by love, love made evident by human beings. If God gave a world to us, and granted us our moral freedom, only in a world with consequence can such freedom ever be realized. 

 

 

 

 

Isn't that a complete disregarding of the book that claims to be the word of your God (Jeremiah 29:11)? It seems like it all depends on God's definitions of "prosper" and "harm".

"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


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle wrote:As did

AmericanIdle wrote:

As did you about me...

Apparently you didn't get the point. If you don't like baseless assumptions being made about you, you probably shouldn't be making them about me.

Quote:
Now as a follower of christian ideology you derive your belief system from the bible.  

No, I didn't derive my belief system from the bible. I derived my belief system, my worldview just like all of us do, by the questions we have in life. I spent a great deal of my life trying to make sense of things, if I should accept them as totally senseless or not, when I first encountered the Gospels, I found a text where the writers wondered the same questions as mine, if not far deeper than mines ever could be. And their response to those questions, I accepted as my answer as well. I accepted Jesus Christ as ultimate meaning of human existence, the answer to the troubling question of my life, not the Bible. 

The Bible is the body of thoughts that led to the answer found in Christ, of men pondering the same questions often with different responses, and often questioning the answer of the writers before them. 

We derive a belief system from the conditions we're exposed to in life, from the questions our life raises, and we accept the worldview that we feel best takes those questions into consideration, and answers them. If we feel a particular worldview didn't or no longer does, we reject that belief system all together, and find a new one. 

Quote:
But you, like so many theists who come here, don't want to answer for the absurdity or the unconscionable nature found within its pages.  You try to hide behind a veil of anonymity.

Oh please, here you are again. You could have easily quoted something of mine to showcase, where I hide behind a veil? but instead here you are again pulling it out your ass. Just because when you were a theist, you had an idiotic an absurd reading of the bible, doesn't mean we all do. When you have something that I've actually said, a response that I've actually given the shows that I've been hiding behind a veil present it, if you can't, than trying being honest for a change, and admit you're just shooting blind accusations at me, and apologize.  Let's see who the real dishonest coward is here.

Quote:
You don't know my beliefs you rant and cleverly avoid having to define them by offering as little as possible as to what they are.

I don't cleverly avoid anything, I presented exactly why I believe already. People were more than welcome to plod and dig in deeper into my responses. I admitted that I didn't come to belief because I found God under a lab light, or petree dish, and some how the village atheist assumed I was suppose to give them just that. That's not avoidance, it's admitting that I don't have that, nor do I have a desire to have it either.

Quote:
As a christian you are commanded to go into all the world and preach the gospel and make disciples of all the nations, etc..but YOU are not trying to win souls (I'm sure you feel you're answering honestly in the case of my soul, since you don't like me or most other atheists I'm sure, but that hardly absolves you from answering to god's commandment).

Well, don't take my offense at your response, as me not liking you as a person. I don't dislike atheist, I have no reason too, they've never done anything to me, that's for sure. I dislike when people call me dishonest, and a coward, regardless if the person accusing me of this was a close friend, a theist, or an atheist. So let's not get that persecution complex of yours going there. 

And, no as i already said, I'm not trying to win souls such yours or every other atheist on this forum, who have no desire to be won anyway. Jesus told his disciples to brush their shoes and move on, not to pressure those who have no desire to accept their beliefs. I profess what I believe, and why I believe, people can do whatever they want with that. 

Secondly, even though I'm a theist, i don't present myself as an example for theism. I'm not even baptized, I accept the theistic beliefs, but have a hard time committing to it, and often times i give in to my rage, and indifference, even when I don't desire to be that way. 

Quote:
The tortoise and the hare was never marketed to the masses as truth, and certainly not the ONLY TRUTH as "THE BOOK" and the garden of Eden story has been.

Actually the tortoise and hare were always marketed to the masses as "truth", just like the Garden story professes truth, just that the truth claim is not scientific one, or one about the stories be taking literal, they market philosophical truths, or moral truths. When i heard the T and H story as a kid, I knew my teacher desired her students to accept the truth about striving hard, and not giving up, or being complacent.

With the rise of the scientific age a number of Christians decided to compete with the scientific awe at the time, and recast their stories as confessing science as well. This doesn't mean the truth of those narratives, what the writers of the time were saying, was the truth the fundamentalist attempted to take away from it.

Here, let's get off our high horses for once, and engage in actually reading the text. Read the Garden story, interpret it, tell me what the story is saying, what the meaning of it is. What truths the writer seems to be confessing. 

I mean if the ancient Hebrews were trying to present the creation account as literal account of what happened, they must have been dumb as fuck to put it side by side, next to an account that redescribes the events quite differently.

I definetlly have a sound understanding of the GoE story means, and what truth is being presented there. All you have to do is use the little head of yours, read it, as you would any other narrative, and tell us what you think it means. Can you do that little buddy? 

Quote:
You owe your beliefs to the bible yet you want to pretend that you are not  bound to its words or bound to the horrible atrocities that have been carried out in its pages and by those using the holy book for inspiration.

I don't owe my beliefs to the bible, you believe I do, because perhaps you did. I owe my beliefs to Jesus Christ. If I was left only with the gospel text all my life, I would have believed regardless, if i was ignorant of all the text before it.

Quote:
What the fuck is that?  Are you 15 ?

When you decided to act like a child, in capable of having an adult conversation, where your own passionate gripes about your experience with theism, foam in every sentence, sure I'm going to treat you like a 15 year old, since it seems thats exactly the way you want to be treated. If you want to be treated like an adult, in your next response behave like one, and I'll treat you with the same degree of respect as well. The balls in your court buddy.

You accuse me of not liking atheist, perhaps you should think more about who doesn't like who.

Quote:
Pointing out your dishonesty and cowardice is the greatest substance I can see forthcoming in this thread until you decide to answer up for your bible and define in more complete terms what exactly it is that you believe and why you believe it.

Turn to post 58, if you take issue with it, you point out exactly why, and I'll respond. 


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Isn't that a

jcgadfly wrote:

Isn't that a complete disregarding of the book that claims to be the word of your God (Jeremiah 29:11)? It seems like it all depends on God's definitions of "prosper" and "harm".

I've grown tired of these one sentence responses, where the poster wants me to read into them what exactly they're implying, and in your case, get all butt hurt, when I misinterpret them. When you can produce a more detailed, and articulate response, let me know. 


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Momn do you believe in

Momn do you believe in Heaven and Hell?

I'm just curious because you said you don't derive your beliefs from the Bible.  So you just believe in Jesus?  Again I ask what makes Jesus divine to you?

You get your beliefs from Jesus Christ, who I assume is the one talked about IN the Bible.  So do you toss out the rest of the Bible except Jesus?  (that would sorta go with my joke - Good parts = God, ignore everything else)

If you don't care about saving atheists then why are you here?  Why don't you follow all the teachings of Christ?

I'm just probing to figure out exactly what you are saying here?

My biggest qualm is that even if it was accepted that Jesus was a fantabulous person of his era, what raises him to divinity for you?


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
FreeHugMachine wrote:Momn do

FreeHugMachine wrote:

Momn do you believe in Heaven and Hell?

Yep.

Quote:
Again I ask what makes Jesus divine to you?

Because I find him to be the way the truth and the life, if i found you to be the way the truth and the life, I'd profess you as God too.

Quote:
So do you toss out the rest of the Bible except Jesus?  (that would sorta go with my joke - Good parts = God, ignore everything else)

As I said previously, the Biblical writers for the most part are reflecting on the role of suffering and meaning, none of them claim to be definitive in these claims, it's why if you read the bible you see all sorts of back and forth, one writer believes that suffering is God's wrath, another ponders how is it god's wrath when we've been living justly. The writers don't leave the questions closed, and make an open and shut case. In the tradition of Judaism you see all sorts of free interpretations of their text, re-examining, and imagining them in all sorts of creative ways. When you do get to the Gospels you do get definitive claims, that messiah has come, and he declares the definitive sovereignty of God, what he has to say is final, what he declares about the nature of God is ultimately true. God has finally revealed himself, not hidden behind a bush, not as the the elusive, the ungraspable, but to be felt in the wounds of human hands, in the incarnate form of Christ.

So the Bible is not discarded, it's the development of this eventual proclamation. The history that led to it, the questions that eventually manifested the answer.

Quote:
If you don't care about saving atheists then why are you here?

To ponder ideas, to kill time, to reevaluate my own thoughts, to refine the way i articulate them. 

Quote:
Why don't you follow all the teachings of Christ?

Many of us may desire to be more moral, to love more, to care for our fellow human beings more, than we currently due. But it's easier said than done, we constrained by all sorts of commitments, and desires. Doesn't mean that I don't strive, even if I have failed to currently achieve the end result.

Quote:
My biggest qualm is that even if it was accepted that Jesus was a fantabulous person of his era, what raises him to divinity for you?

Even Dawkins, considers Jesus to be fantablous person, but it's entirely one thing to say Jesus was a great guy, and another to say he's the source of one's empowerment, see in him the entire meaning of one's life, to perceive as our Lord, and Savior, as the way the truth and the life. This is why I call Jesus God.

 

 


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Ok, do you believe that

Ok, do you believe that anyone who doesn't believe in God or accept Jesus as his savior goes to Hell?  How do you think you could cope with the knowledge of good (by our standards) people living eternally in punishment while you 'enjoy' the bliss of heaven?  I can't see a way around that unless you 'forget' of these people, but that doesn't seem like a good answer since our memories are what make us, us.

Since you never met Jesus, I assume, how do you justify the stories about him being truth and not other religions?  I understand you want to say it embodies "x" for you, but seeing that man is known for its poetry and fiction... what brings you to actually think you are right?

I argue that one can practice the teachings of a Jesus-like person and not believe in the supernatural, what justifies the supernatural to you?  What exactly is "the truth and the life" to you?  Do you think it is impossible for someone to preach morality unless they are divine?


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

manofmanynames wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Isn't that a complete disregarding of the book that claims to be the word of your God (Jeremiah 29:11)? It seems like it all depends on God's definitions of "prosper" and "harm".

I've grown tired of these one sentence responses, where the poster wants me to read into them what exactly they're implying, and in your case, get all butt hurt, when I misinterpret them. When you can produce a more detailed, and articulate response, let me know. 

I see you're too afraid to read your Bible - let me help.

Jeremiah 29:11 says "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

Did God just mean that for Israel and the "God has a plan for your life" people are lying?

or

Are people dying from diseases God gave them part of his plan and this verse is a lie from God?

od

Is there another option?

 

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


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

manofmanynames wrote:

Quote:
He isn't telling people to leave Judaism for a new way, he in fact told them in many ways to continue. Paul is the one that departed from the ways as evidenced by the confrontation with James in Jerusalem. But you and every other person is fully entitled to view these stories in any light you'd like. 

I'm assuming you meant Peter?

 

No, if I meant Peter I would have said Peter my 30+ years of religious study made me at least aware of the main characters.

In Acts 15:13-30 circa 51 CE,  the leader of the Jerusalem Church, James not Peter  gave a sentence as well as instructions in the dispute regarding Paul's teaching that Gentiles did not need to follow all of the laws that pertain to Jews but those as set forth originally as the Noahide laws, see v. 29. This was no different than the rules for God fearing Gentiles had ever been, with the sole difference being that these Gentiles also saw Jesus as the messiah as well. This however did not grant these God-fearers the complete salvation as the Jews shall receive. James however did not claim the Jews were freed from the Law as Paul may have incorrectly assumed.

Further, in Acts 21:18-26 circa 60 CE, Paul goes before James again charged with teaching Jews they do not need to circumcise their children nor to follow after the customs, v.21. Paul was backed against the wall at this point and was made aware by James of the thousands of Jews that were zealous for the Law that knew he had been teaching otherwise and that he was present in Jerusalem. Paul shows his subservience to James by agreeing to take converts through the purification ceremonies at the Temple thus indicating he agreed with the principles as declared by James the leader of the Church.

As to why James was the leader of the Church not the Catholic rock of Peter one sees that in the Book of Thomas they were to go to James after his death. In Josephus, James the Just is called the brother of Jesus. In further tradition, the cousin of Jesus, Simon son of Cleopas is the leader following the death of James. This is in line with the heriditary aspects of traditional leadership in Jewish families. In Acts James is the one passing sentence and leading the group, not Peter.

All of which reminds me of RRS poster Mark, aka I am God as You, who would have probably have responded to you with a YouTube video such as this one from Peter, Paul, and Mary, Blowin' in the wind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t4g_1VoGw4

 

 

manofmanynames wrote:

The division between Paul and Peter and eventual Judaism and Christianity divide, was over the Gentile being brought into the fold, and Jewish Christian requiring them to adhere to "badges of covenant membership", enforcing circumcision, and dietary laws in order to participate in the Lord's Supper. Paul disagreed with this view, though he took no issue with individuals practicing these badges, he did take issue with making them a requisite for participating in the Eucharist. Paul didn't tell anyone to leave Judaism, he just scolded the division and the exacting of the badges in Jewish Christian community. Now the question would be if Jesus himself would have took Peter's side, or Paul's side? 

Paul had dissension with James, with Peter, and with Barnabas. Paul does not discuss the sentence passed in Acts 15 in his own defense of his actions in Galatians 2:6-10. Perhaps Paul may have had a problem in understanding direction as he seemed to be in contention with several church fathers as well with his original partner Barnabas. The contention between Paul and Barnabas was so sharp they departed from one another permanently, Acts 15:36-41. 

You go right ahead and defend my namesake Paul all you like, but his exploits indicate he was worthy of the title many gave him of Paul the deceiver.

manofmanynames wrote:

We know Jesus on a few occasions scorned the pharisees for being exacting of rituals of the law, like not working on the sabbath, we know he went off on them for making a fuss out of the disciples not washing their hands before dinner. Jesus didn't take issue with the practice itself, just like Paul didn't, but he did take issue with the enforcing of them being a point of division. So it seems fairly clear for those of us outside of the situation, where Jesus would have stood on the issue. Would the Jesus who broke bread with the poor, the prostitute, and the publican, refuse to break bread because the gentiles weren't circumcised? I think not.

We aren't talking about breaking bread as in the Peter and Paul one sided story, at least that was not my original intent, but rather Paul's insistence on propagating his new rules in contrast to directives by the leader of the Church upon at least the 2 occasions that were documented in Acts. Even Peter was shown to have eaten with Gentiles as you well know but there is no defense of Paul's claimed issue with Peter by outside observers or Peter himself. That Paul had already shown disregard of directives is very evident and he certainly had contentions with other Apostles as documented. Taking Paul's side as the truth of the situation is like hearing only the charges by the prosecution in a court and determining the party is guilty. Go right ahead.

manofmanynames wrote:
 

Quote:
You do have lots of company but numbers don't mean anything more that many interpret as you do.

You claim that numbers don't mean anything, and I agree, but then you try and argue that Jesus was not the messiah because most Jews don't agree with it. If numbers don't mean nothing, than it doesn't matter that most Jews don't accept Jesus as the messiah.

Good point. 

Jesus was not what was generally considered by the originators of the base religion from which yours morphed to be the moshiach or drawn on its template. He that creates a myth can set the rules for the belief in the myth. Christian's mythology and legend only has in common the God Yahweh combined with their own complete new way of interpretation. There are a great many places where there is such dissent not just over the messiah.  Muslims too have taken far different roads in their creative concoctions of interpretation and Sci-Fi.

manofmanynames wrote:

Quote:
A great political leader. Not Jesus.

A great military leader. Not Jesus.

I feel that Rev. King, was a far greater political and "military" leader than Patton.

Many people were far better political leaders than Patton.

manofmanynames wrote:

Creative nonviolence, as revealed in the sermon on the mount, I find to be a far greater weapon against evil and oppression than guns and bombs. Speaking truth to power, calling to the presence of sin and the need for it's chastisement as was the perspective of the black insurgency during civil rights, to me is ultimate expression of political power. 

A great political and military leader? I think Jesus "is"-- is being the important word.

And non-violence to achieve purposeful redirection of insanity is a great idea, one that I have been solidly behind. I believe in tolerance and coexistence.

Again in Marks memory, I am God as You, he would have posted something like this in response from Melanie - Peace will Come:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac68DdMmZc4

 

manofmanynames wrote:

Quote:
A human being. Not part god, not a demi-god but only a man.

Well, when ever you dealing with messiah concept, especially one being developed over time with a person. You're going to face all sorts of issues with the God messiah divide. It may not be an issue that Jews have to deal with now, because there are not long running messiah claimant for which such questions need pondering for.

If you claim the messiah is the possessors of God's ultimate soverientity how do you distinguish God's rule for the Messiahs? Either the messiah replaces God as Sovereign, they both have independent reigns, or their reigns are equal, and Jesus becomes God. And that has been the position of Paul who claims Christ was equal to God, and the early church. The notion of messiah and the notion of God walk a very thin line, that when questions arise on how to distinguish the two, it gets quite blurred.

I'm not a Jewish proselytizer, so you will have to research all this on your own. Start with the links I posted or take a class in theology at a Jesuit University like I did to learn more about all religions.

manofmanynames wrote:

Quote:
He institutes the Kingdom of God on Earth. Not Jesus, though I have heard the argument that is what he did by being crucified and resurrected, it's not what they had in mind.

Well, what did they have in mind? What does the kingdom resemble? As I previously wrote Jesus already gave a glimpse of that Kingdom is, by a table of bread broken with the poor, the prostitute, and publican, a kingdom partially realized, but eventually fully realized. After the partial triumph of the civil rights movement, Rev. King claimed to see a glimpse of the Kingdom of God as well, as "I have seen the promise land". That's the vision of Christ's Kingdom of God, where "kingdom" doesn't mean a physical place, but Reign--the "Reign of God" made manifest.

Again, you seem intelligent I'm only suggesting that you need to further research Judaism before making the assertion you did about interpreting Jewish created scriptures. Since I'm not proselytizing for Judaism you will have to do so on your own.

manofmanynames wrote:
 

Quote:
All nations will recognize God as the only true god. Didn't happen with Jesus.

All violence will cease. All sin will end. Did not happen with Jesus.

Didn't happen doesn't mean that eventually doesn't happen. That's the christian belief right? That eventually God's Reign is fulfilled, and all will know who the true God is, and violence is no more.

I wouldn't hold my breath. 

manofmanynames wrote:

Quote:
There is a lot more involved and it's not simply a warrior king that reunites Israel, I suggest you study Judaism a little more before you make such claims.

At the time of Jesus those hailed popularly as the messiah where warrior kings like Bar Kocheba, the failure of such messiahs led the jews to rethink their messianic ambitions. But the early Jewish ambitions were not as creative as today's traditions are. At the time of Jesus much of messianic ambitions were simply a desire to end Roman oppression.

Kocheba was about 100 years later. There were others, some even cited in the NT. An insane Jesus, the son of Ananias was caught and released by the Romans circa 62 CE, he's not mentioned as king material.

manofmanynames wrote:

Quote:
the pretty fable concocted in the Gospels if he was in fact a real historical figure.

I'm not sure when the gospels became a "pretty" fable, a gruesome death as the finale is not an easy pill to swallow. And  a figure telling his followers to scorn the pursuit of material possession, claims that its difficult for the rich to enter into the kingdom of heaven, to untie yourself from family, and pick up a cross, is not a candy coated person to follow follow either.

There are multiple events when Jesus does fun things, makes booze, heals people, saves whores from being stoned. In the end of the fable as in Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty, though Jesus has been executed for crimes against Rome, he is resurrected and flies home to his sky daddy. So, any fable that ends with the main character living Happily Ever After, is a "pretty fable."

manofmanynames wrote:

Quote:
I'm personally not interested in a king or any kind of dictator as envisioned in most Christian accounts. 

Well, keep believing your the master of your own destiny, and you'll figure out that you don't get too far. 

You get to be a servant in the temple serving God day and night, have fun with that.

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

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
manofmanynames wrote:Brian37

manofmanynames wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
 But nothing happens unless god wants it to, so it doesn't matter if he did it himself, the fact he didn't step in says he wanted it to happen. He is all powerful so there is nothing stopping him ever, from stepping in.

No, just because we allow things to happen when we have the ability to stop it, doesn't equate to us wanting it to happen. I could jump in front of a train, and risk my life to save someone else, and I don't, that doesn't mean that I wanted that person to die. If you see a poor man, whose terribly hungry and just keep walking, ignoring him, doesn't mean that you wanted that poor man to  die. You could be totally indifferent to if he dies or lives, and not do anything. There could be a multitude of reasons why we don't intervene, that doesn't mean we wanted the acts we didn't intervene in to happen

Quote:
I also find this use of logic abhorrent in the case of this claimed magical being when Kaylee Anthony gets butchered and dumped in a garbage bag while this daddy in the sky who could have intervened, chose not to. What possibly could be a good reason for God to watch a child get chopped up like a side of beef and dumped like garbage?

Because an intervening God in acts of human evil only places a bandage on a gaping wound. If the concern of such a God is the nature of the actor, if he loves both victim and victimizer, he seeks renewal brought on by love, love made evident by human beings. If God gave a world to us, and granted us our moral freedom, only in a world with consequence can such freedom ever be realized. 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
No, just because we allow things to happen when we have the ability to stop it, doesn't equate to us wanting it to happen.

DUH, should I call that into CNN?

So if God doesn't want children to be rapped and slaughtered, why does he allow it to happen? Mind you, I don't believe in your fictional being, but merely expressing the flaw in your use of logic to come to that conclusion.

What could a 4 or 5 year old possibly do for an all powerful God to say, "Sorry kid, I am sitting this one out while you get analy rapped and have your throat slit". If we are to assume such a being exists for argument's sake only.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Paul had dissension with James, with Peter, and with Barnabas. Paul does not discuss the sentence passed in Acts 15 in his own defense of his actions in Galatians 2:6-10. Perhaps Paul may have had a problem in understanding direction as he seemed to be in contention with several church fathers as well with his original partner Barnabas. The contention between Paul and Barnabas was so sharp they departed from one another permanently, Acts 15:36-41. 

You go right ahead and defend my namesake Paul all you like, but his exploits indicate he was worthy of the title many gave him of Paul the deceiver.

As you can see even in Acts, the dispute is not over if Jesus would have supported James view, or Peter's view in the observes of the badges of convenient membership. Peter nor James use Jesus as support of their views, but rather they seem to be under pressure from the zealously of the Jewish Christians observance of the law. Paul writes in epistles he doesn't take issue with the law, but the enforcing of the badges of the law on the gentiles be a point of division, as a requirement for salvation:  "Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved (Acts 15:1)." Now, its not even that Peter, and James agreed with this statement, it seems from Acts their reluctance to take a visible stand, indicates they were only speaking out of pressure from the Zealous Jewish Christian, not that they supported this view, but chose to support them to avoid conflict.

Paul also concedes in the Epistles if these badges are going to be such an issue for the these Jewish Christians, than the gentile Christians should consider doing it so it doesn't became a hindrance for the Jewish Christians. In acts he request one of his disciples Timothy to get circumcised, to avoid such conflict. Paul claims that "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.", it may just as well be that Peter and James agreed with this, but to keep the tension down among Zealous Jews, who have been raised with giving such importance to the badges of the law, they bowed to the pressure.

I have a tattoo, I don't see nothing wrong with having it, but if I attend my mothers church I'll make sure i wear a long sleeve shirt to conceal it. It's not that I'm ashamed of having it, but because I know many of the older individuals there would be offended by it, rather than having it being a hindrance for them in church, I rather just wear long sleeves. My mother herself doesn't feel there's anything wrong with it, but she would also bow to such pressure and suggest that I wear long sleeves as well.

Reading from Acts, and the Epistles this is what seems to be going on between here as well.

When gentiles began becoming the dominant members of the Christian sect, the less and less circumcision and adhering to the badges of the law came to be.

Quote:
Jesus was not what was generally considered by the originators of the base religion from which yours morphed to be the moshiach or drawn on its template. He that creates a myth can set the rules for the belief in the myth. Christian's mythology and legend only has in common the God Yahweh combined with their own complete new way of interpretation.

Well, that's your opinion. Messianic ambitions in the OT are scattered thoughts, it's not easy sort of separation from what are messianic prophecies and what are not. They're ultimately varying interpretations of what the role and resemblance of this messiah is to be. Zionist have a separate view from the reform tradition, and etc.. There is no definitive picture of what the messiah would be like, it seems that even those who prophecy of the messiah seem to only glimpse the notion, and not have a concrete picture of what that meant. Would prophets, like Micah, Isaiah, Amos who spoke of the end of violence, and blood shed, justice and liberation for the poor, the turning of swords into plowshares, would they have been revolted by the image of the poor man's messiah, Jesus? I doubt it. Even today, even though the Jews don't believe Jesus was the messiah, many do reserve a certain respect and fondness of him, like Dawkins does, in his Atheist for Jesus article.

In the end there is no definitive template for what the messiah is to be, there have been scattered beliefs on what the messiah is to be. Some Jews felt Jesus fulfilled that role, and that's how Christianity came to be. 

Quote:
I'm not a Jewish proselytizer, so you will have to research all this on your own. Start with the links I posted or take a class in theology at a Jesuit University like I did to learn more about all religions.

I don't think I need to talk with modern day Jews to discuss the Bible, a text that I have before me on my own, to draw my own conclusions from. I also have the ability to learn of the history, the thoughts that surrounded these text as well. Whether modern day Jews interpret it differently than me is not the point, its not a necessity to depend on their ideas to interpret the material. Just like for me to understand the meaning of the parables, and meaning of the Jesus of the Gospels, I don't have to rely on the church traditions, and interpretations to do so. My interpretations are to be judged independently of what others think, based on how well I take into account various factors into that interpretation.

Do I need to turn to modern day Jews, to understand the notion of Messiah is a claim that draws a blurry line between the Sovereignty of God and Him? Not at all. 

Quote:

Again, you seem intelligent I'm only suggesting that you need to further research Judaism before making the assertion you did about interpreting Jewish created scriptures. Since I'm not proselytizing for Judaism you will have to do so on your own.

Well, I could talk to anybody about interpreting scripture, the Jews don't have absolute authority on what it has to say, judging even in Judaism there are varying interpretations of what it all means. I don't see any reason to believe the modern day Jew is any more valid of an interpreter of the text than I am. 

Quote:
I wouldn't hold my breath.

Well, I'm sure if i was a disbeliever I would hold that view too.

Quote:
Kocheba was about 100 years later. There were others, some even cited in the NT. An insane Jesus, the son of Ananias was caught and released by the Romans circa 62 CE, he's not mentioned as king material.

I used Kocheba as a template of what the popular expectations at the time were for the Messiah figure. Kocheba though arriving sometime after Jesus, was still the most praised wannabe messiah claimant at the time, till he was killed at least. 

Quote:
There are multiple events when Jesus does fun things, makes booze, heals people, saves whores from being stoned. In the end of the fable as in Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty, though Jesus has been executed for crimes against Rome, he is resurrected and flies home to his sky daddy. So, any fable that ends with the main character living Happily Ever After, is a "pretty fable."

It's haunting story to believe. The rest of the characters are left still under the toils of Roman oppression, that only gets worse and nastier as time went on. The moral leaves everyone at the foot of a brutal cross, the emblem of human depravity and misery, with the initial instinct to flee, but the demand is to carry it,  and what lies beyond it is not certain, for those who attempt to take the story to heart, it requires faith to believe. Either they ultimely die and suffer for their love for others, and find that it was an utterly meaningless pursuit, for which the wheel of history turned and crushed, or their faith is realized in an unimaginable transformation of the depravity that led them there. 

It may be a glorious tale of hope for the believer, but it could also be a terrible and haunting tale for those who lose belief after the first nail. i tend to walk a line in the middle somewhere, haunted and in awe. 

Quote:

You get to be a servant in the temple serving God day and night, have fun with that.

I have no qualms at all about being a servant to Love for all the days of my life. 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
manofmanynames

manofmanynames wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Thank's for not "sugar coating" it, lol.   And, yes....I already gathered that the entire blood-soaked episode was meant as punishment from God.  I assumed that much just from reading verse 16.   

   In Rwanda the Hutus punished the Tutsis with similar "divinely inspired" methods of killing.  Perhaps if the Hutus had claimed that God was simply using them as instruments of his justice they could have avoided charges of genocide and crimes against humanity.

As any objective person reading the text would realize. The text is Hosea's reflection on suffering, that's not something sugarcoated my fellow dimwits, that's stating the obvious. 

Well buddy here it doesn't work that way, Since Hosea is not speaking about what happens to Assyrians but whats to happen to the Jews. And its not God sanctioning it, but God not preventing it. 

To put it in a modern context: "Is America doesn't turn from it's wicked ways, exploiting the poor in other countries, pillaging the land of the Arabs, cheating them, and suffering their people, they will retaliate and take thousands of lives, and God won't do anything about it, he won't be with us, until we turn from our ways, back to him."

Hosea is not writing to the Assyrians, he is writing to the Hebrews, his people, that actually went through that suffering.

And no the entire blood-soaked episode wasn't meant as a punishment from God, but a call to renewal, and hope. Much of the Bible are these writers reflection on suffering, whats the role of it, if a divine hand is over us, why does he permit it? Where is he when these people are about to murder us, and kill our children brutally? 

I used to date a girl who was raped twice when she was a child by two different men, and though she wasn't a christian (she was sikh) she still believed in God. I wasn't a believer then and I couldn't get how she could believe in a God capable of stopping this, but didn't? I was troubled by the thought, and I had asked her one day, how she could believe in God after what had happened to her. She was trembling, she didn't know the answer, she assumed perhaps it was punishment for something, or something she was suppose to learn from it. But I understood right there why she believed, it was that if she surrendered a belief in God, accepted that there was no meaning in the world, that the act only speaks of the depravity of human existence, of hopelessness, she would have sunk into the misery of it all. Her belief in God, was on very shaky ground, quite fragile, ripe for an disbeliever to take the source of her only comfort, but I wasn't evil enough to do that, so I stopped asking.

The prophet Hosea is writing in the condition of the Assyrians taking over Israel, and ripping Samaria to pieces, what can anyone let alone Hosea, say to preserve hope for his Hebrew community? What sense can he makes out of the suffering that's taking place in his midst with the Jewish belief in a life of meaning and purpose. How were they ever to have hope after this? How were they ever to deny that's there no meaning at all, and accept as the pagans that shit happens, we live, we die, and some of us die miserably, our children get murdered, for no reason. But the prophets role is to preserve hope, and faith in the God of purpose and meaning, rather than to allow his community to sink into despair. 

Hosea proclaims in violent language of their situation, that if Israel turns from it's wickedness, and returns back to God, after they have abandoned him for Baal, and no longer live their lives cheating people and trampling the poor, but justly, God will renew them, he says to them,  don't lose hope oh people, God's righteousness and love will pervade, we just must have faith in him.

The writing of much of the Bible are in the same sort of predicament, in the Psalms often time the writer questions God's absence, he was told that war and suffering where punishments from God, yet his people were not living wickedly, they've been devoted to the God of Israel, and living by his ways, and yet they were suffering by the Babylonians, and the Psalmist ask where is God in all of this, and ask if he's fallen asleep on them.

In the Psalms the writer is not willing to accept the Hosea response. His people were living right, loyal to God, and they were still suffering, if not God's wrath than why? Is he dead? 

" Our hearts have not turned back, nor have our steps strayed from your path.

4 Yet you have left us crushed, desolate in a place of jackals; you have covered us with darkness.

If we had forgotten the name of our God, stretched out our hands to another god,

Would not God have discovered this, God who knows the secrets of the heart?

For you we are slain all the day long, considered only as sheep to be slaughtered.

Awake! Why do you sleep, O Lord? Rise up! Do not reject us forever!

Why do you hide your face; why forget our pain and misery? (Psalms 44)"

The Job question, is the prevailing question of much of the Bible. Why are we suffering? This Psalms closes without an answer, just with a plea for God to wake up.

The writers of the Bible don't all have the same answer to this question, as we see in the Psalms the answers the Hosea like have given is questioned, but the Psalmist provides no new response, he leaves the question open. Many years later the Gospel writers witnessing the suffering of their people by the Romans, the countless lives of the poor that were being dashed to the ground, often cheated by their own people, a religious establishment that has gotten rich by being puppets of the Roman Empire, pick up that question as well, and respond with an image far different that all before it, the image of Christ crucified, a God who suffers with us. 

If you find cotton candy in this, you let me know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Thank you, but I already knew who the players were in this scenario.  I also own a Bible.  Concordances are freely available. I am a former Christian.

   I know that I'm just a "dim wit" but despite the flowery sermon in your post I am still unclear whether you regard this passage as metaphorical to symbolize suffering or whether there were actually Assyrians who were going about and ripping apart pregnant Samarian women ? 

  Feel free to continue flinging your godly contempt at me if you find it uplifting but you have an incredible talent for obfuscation.

ps, you refered to me as prozac nation, may I now refer to you as manofmanygames ?


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:What could a 4

Brian37 wrote:

What could a 4 or 5 year old possibly do for an all powerful God to say, "Sorry kid, I am sitting this one out while you get analy rapped and have your throat slit". If we are to assume such a being exists for argument's sake only.

Well, we're not talking about a single act are we, we're talking about  a God who supernaturally intervenes continually in acts of human evil. If that was the desire of God he would not have created a world with creatures with moral freedom. Such a world is not even the desire of human beings. If I had the choice of Adam, to live in world devoid of this freedom, of bread falling from the sky, rather than out of my toils, would I have desired to stay in this cotton candy world, or this one? I would have ate the fruit too.

Imagine if scientist were capable of creating another world, and developed a drug that would impair our moral senses, so that we could no longer commit bad and evil acts. We could no longer harm people, or treat them unfairly, we were no longer capable of lying, or fighting, our freedom to do these things have been completely lost. How many here would sign up to be a part of that world? 

Having moral freedom is god's greater good, even if the consequence for this is that man will sometimes do evil.

What we he have, is a means and ends arguments.

Though God may desire for us to longer commit evil as an end, he does not desire this by the means of depriving us of our moral freedom.

 

 


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:   I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   I know that I'm just a "dim wit"

My apologies, though meant it endearingly (like if i were to say numnuts) for accusing me of sugar coating for stating the obvious. 

Quote:
but despite the flowery sermon in your post I am still unclear whether you regard this passage as metaphorical to symbolize suffering or whether there were actually Assyrians who were going about and ripping apart pregnant Samarian women ?

At the time of Hosea the Assyrians had literally captured Israel, and destroyed Samaria, and I have no doubt that they were vicious about it.

Quote:
ps, you refered to me as prozac nation, may I now refer to you as manofmanygames ?

Hahaha for real? DId I really refer to you as prozac nation? I often poke fun of peoples names, but I need to go back and read my post, because i definitely didn't do it to you, at least not intentionally. 

*okay i just went back and saw the post. I did refer to you as prozac nation. But it was an honest mistake dude, i think I only briefly glanced at your screen name before, and assumed it was prozac nation. My bad.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
manofmanynames

manofmanynames wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   I know that I'm just a "dim wit"

My apologies, though meant it endearingly (like if i were to say numnuts) for accusing me of sugar coating for stating the obvious. 

Quote:
but despite the flowery sermon in your post I am still unclear whether you regard this passage as metaphorical to symbolize suffering or whether there were actually Assyrians who were going about and ripping apart pregnant Samarian women ?

At the time of Hosea the Assyrians had literally captured Israel, and destroyed Samaria, and I have no doubt that they were vicious about it.

Quote:
ps, you refered to me as prozac nation, may I now refer to you as manofmanygames ?

Hahaha for real? DId I really refer to you as prozac nation? I often poke fun of peoples names, but I need to go back and read my post, because i definitely didn't do it to you, at least not intentionally. 

*okay i just went back and saw the post. I did refer to you as prozac nation. But it was an honest mistake dude, i think I only briefly glanced at your screen name before, and assumed it was prozac nation. My bad.

  That's cool.  I thought it was kind of funny. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
manofmanynames wrote:neptewn

manofmanynames wrote:

neptewn wrote:

Love is one of those concepts that people like to elevate by applying supernatural characteristics to it. I believe this is why you chose it as an example. Your point was Love is a vague concept and differs at the individual level or some such. My point is that is only true, when those individuals choose to elevate it's meaning to supernatural proportions.

I understand what you were trying to achieve, all I'm saying is that this example of love will face the same challenges as the example of god. Both require some measure of faith to allow for a belief beyond a natural explanation.

Actually i wasn't trying to set you up, or achieve something by my question, I was just trying to understand what your getting at. When you say elevate the meaning of love, do you mean elevate it beyond it's scientific meaning? If I were to say Jesus Christ is an exemplar of perfect love, does that in and of it self mean that i am attributing a supernatural quality to him? 

So there is nothing super natural about Jesus? I agree there isn't even if you could prove he actually lived.

I can find morals in Plato's Apology, but that doesn't make Zeus a real god. I can find morals in Star Wars but that doesn't mean that Yoda or the "Force" is real.

You simply like the stories in the bible, so what?

"Paul said this" "Paul said that" does not constitute any kind of being with no body or brain living "out there, somewhere and everywhere".

Muslims quote the Koran too, yet you don't believe in Allah because they say "Muhammed said".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


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

manofmanynames wrote:

As you can see even in Acts, the dispute is not over if Jesus would have supported James view, or Peter's view in the observes of the badges of convenient membership. Peter nor James use Jesus as support of their views, but rather they seem to be under pressure from the zealously of the Jewish Christians observance of the law..

~ rip~

I have a tattoo, I don't see nothing wrong with having it, but if I attend my mothers church I'll make sure i wear a long sleeve shirt to conceal it. It's not that I'm ashamed of having it, but because I know many of the older individuals there would be offended by it, rather than having it being a hindrance for them in church, I rather just wear long sleeves. My mother herself doesn't feel there's anything wrong with it, but she would also bow to such pressure and suggest that I wear long sleeves as well.

Reading from Acts, and the Epistles this is what seems to be going on between here as well.

When gentiles began becoming the dominant members of the Christian sect, the less and less circumcision and adhering to the badges of the law came to be.

1-Clearly we have differing interpretations and opinions that shall not be easily swayed by the other. I understand your view which is a mainstream take by Christians regarding the interactions of the individuals involved in these encounters. I take the view that James, aka James the Just was also "zealous" for the law as described in extra-biblical texts. This is not supportive of the position which you suggest. It casts somewhat of a differing light upon the encounter. That you see it otherwise is indicative of the beliefs you hold in Christianity I don't.

2-My mother remained a Christian until her death and was aware of my disbelief. I didn't go out of my way to antagonize her and she respected my views. She had been a Lutheran school teacher prior to her involvement in psychiatry and saw to it I had a very thorough education in religion as well as involvement. I later became a Catholic when I married to keep peace and studied their views and teachings for a number of years. One should respect their parents but not be enslaved to their views after one has the ability to determine ones own destiny in life.

3-When Gentiles became the dominant part of Christians many Jews were in rebellion, hiding, and eventually became called the killers of God. It made sense to dispense with the marks of a Jew which they clearly did. Even the later written Gospels show a bias against the Jews going from Mark to Matthew or John one sees considerable difference including contempt in the writing.

manofmanynames wrote:

Quote:
Jesus was not what was generally considered by the originators of the base religion from which yours morphed to be the moshiach or drawn on its template. He that creates a myth can set the rules for the belief in the myth. Christian's mythology and legend only has in common the God Yahweh combined with their own complete new way of interpretation.

Well, that's your opinion. Messianic ambitions in the OT are scattered thoughts, it's not easy sort of separation from what are messianic prophecies and what are not. They're ultimately varying interpretations of what the role and resemblance of this messiah is to be. Zionist have a separate view from the reform tradition, and etc.. There is no definitive picture of what the messiah would be like, it seems that even those who prophecy of the messiah seem to only glimpse the notion, and not have a concrete picture of what that meant. Would prophets, like Micah, Isaiah, Amos who spoke of the end of violence, and blood shed, justice and liberation for the poor, the turning of swords into plowshares, would they have been revolted by the image of the poor man's messiah, Jesus? I doubt it. Even today, even though the Jews don't believe Jesus was the messiah, many do reserve a certain respect and fondness of him, like Dawkins does, in his Atheist for Jesus article.

In the end there is no definitive template for what the messiah is to be, there have been scattered beliefs on what the messiah is to be. Some Jews felt Jesus fulfilled that role, and that's how Christianity came to be.

Again we will never come to an agreement in our consideration and interpretations. You view these scriptures from a very enthralled Christian believer's perspective while I do so from a position outside. Having studied as a Christian I'm certainly aware of the perspective but also I take into account what Jews have said regarding their beliefs. I have also done considerable study as a non-believer and cannot come to your opinion. 

manofmanynames wrote:

Quote:
I'm not a Jewish proselytizer, so you will have to research all this on your own. Start with the links I posted or take a class in theology at a Jesuit University like I did to learn more about all religions.

I don't think I need to talk with modern day Jews to discuss the Bible, a text that I have before me on my own, to draw my own conclusions from. I also have the ability to learn of the history, the thoughts that surrounded these text as well. Whether modern day Jews interpret it differently than me is not the point, its not a necessity to depend on their ideas to interpret the material. Just like for me to understand the meaning of the parables, and meaning of the Jesus of the Gospels, I don't have to rely on the church traditions, and interpretations to do so. My interpretations are to be judged independently of what others think, based on how well I take into account various factors into that interpretation.

In some ways you act like George Bush who was unwilling to discuss issues with the perceived enemies of the US. If one does not study the positions and views of opposing ideas you will never understand the intent and original purposes. 

I'm not telling you to study theology from the views of only the Jews but to do so more objectively. I went to a Jesuit University, which is run by the Jesuits a sect of the Roman Catholic Church not Jewish where I obtained a masters degree in finance and accounting, not theology. I did however take courses in theology. 

manofmanynames wrote:

Quote:

Again, you seem intelligent I'm only suggesting that you need to further research Judaism before making the assertion you did about interpreting Jewish created scriptures. Since I'm not proselytizing for Judaism you will have to do so on your own.

Well, I could talk to anybody about interpreting scripture, the Jews don't have absolute authority on what it has to say, judging even in Judaism there are varying interpretations of what it all means. I don't see any reason to believe the modern day Jew is any more valid of an interpreter of the text than I am.

That you are on this forum indicates that you are open to discussing ideas and views which is a good thing. I completely support discussion and coexistence and my suggestion is only that you become more versed in that which you critic, no more. How you do so is clearly your choice.

manofmanynames wrote:

It's haunting story to believe. The rest of the characters are left still under the toils of Roman oppression, that only gets worse and nastier as time went on. The moral leaves everyone at the foot of a brutal cross, the emblem of human depravity and misery, with the initial instinct to flee, but the demand is to carry it,  and what lies beyond it is not certain, for those who attempt to take the story to heart, it requires faith to believe. Either they ultimely die and suffer for their love for others, and find that it was an utterly meaningless pursuit, for which the wheel of history turned and crushed, or their faith is realized in an unimaginable transformation of the depravity that led them there. 

It may be a glorious tale of hope for the believer, but it could also be a terrible and haunting tale for those who lose belief after the first nail. i tend to walk a line in the middle somewhere, haunted and in awe.

Your comments tell me that you still are mortified regarding the events and possibilities you consider in Christianity and carry with you some uncertainty and doubts. This may be only in the way you have expressed your self especially in the area in bold type. It could just be me seeing parts of your weakness in faith which from my point of view is hopeful. 

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

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


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1-Clearly we have differing interpretations and opinions that shall not be easily swayed by the other. I understand your view which is a mainstream take by Christians regarding the interactions of the individuals involved in these encounters. I take the view that James, aka James the Just was also "zealous" for the law as described in extra-biblical texts.

I have no issue accepting that James was "zealous" for the law, but I don't see the support for that view within the biblical text. Now I'm not well versed on this issue to say I stand on solid ground with it, and if you can present an even somewhat persuasive case, I'm sure you'd see that I'd judge it fairly. I'm not familiar with extra-biblical texts you're referring to so perhaps u could present snips of its relevant parts?

Quote:
This is not supportive of the position which you suggest. It casts somewhat of a differing light upon the encounter. That you see it otherwise is indicative of the beliefs you hold in Christianity I don't.

It's not because of me being Christian that I don't believe James was jealous, i mean if he was so be it. I'm just persuaded by the Acts account, and the Epistle account with Peter, to think otherwise. You really haven't presented anything at all, to argue you differently. 

Quote:
One should respect their parents but not be enslaved to their views after one has the ability to determine ones own destiny in life.

Well, I share this view with you. My parents are pentecostal Christians, and it was rather easy not sharing those views with them as I grew up, it was neither a point of animosity either. I've been a man without a church, a preacher, left only to explore his questions on his own, with his books, and thinkers, that got me here today.

Quote:
When Gentiles became the dominant part of Christians many Jews were in rebellion, hiding, and eventually became called the killers of God. It made sense to dispense with the marks of a Jew which they clearly did. Even the later written Gospels show a bias against the Jews going from Mark to Matthew or John one sees considerable difference including contempt in the writing.

So in your view Jesus was actually zealous about the law, like the Pharisees I'm guessing, and the gospels writers just concealed this fact, by making him far more liberal about this than he really was? Are their any other portraits of Jesus that present him as such?

I think one thing people miss when they accuse the Gospels of holding contempt for Jews, is that it's long been a hallmark of Judaism, in regards to the biblical text atleast, to be self contemptuous. Much of what the prophets have to say about their people, make the stuff the gospels say seem like coddling. Isaiah calls his people whores, even worse than whores, because whores at least put out for money. This is hallmark feature of all their prophetic text. 

I think the reason for the uproar over what the Gospels do, is the history of violence directed towards the Jews, and a degree of sensitivity to read back into the text anti-semintism to say the least, when its not really there. I don't believe the reason why some parts of the gospels paint a harsh picture of Jews, like the pharisees and stuff, is the result of writers contempt for Judaism, it's just been the way that Jewish prophetic text have been written. 

And i don't get how you believe the Gospels dispensed the marks of Judaism? Jesus is clearly a Jew in all the text, eats with the Jews, goes to the pharisees house to eat dinner, tells his followers to be respectful towards them, even when they should be weary of following their example. Is often called a rabbi. So what sort of marks here have been removed?

Quote:
Again we will never come to an agreement in our consideration and interpretations. You view these scriptures from a very enthralled Christian believer's perspective while I do so from a position outside. Having studied as a Christian I'm certainly aware of the perspective but also I take into account what Jews have said regarding their beliefs. I have also done considerable study as a non-believer and cannot come to your opinion.

None of us can read the text from the outside. We all bring our biases to the table. Just because a person is an atheist, doesn't mean that he posseses a sense of objectivity in his analysis of biblical text. The only sense of objectivity we can hope for is in admitting our biases, and trying to be aware of them the best we can. Do i have a bias in interpreting the messianic prophecies regarding Jesus? Sure I do, because I believe Jesus is the messiah. But I'm still capable of hearing and understanding opinions that differ from my own. I even hold a ready ability to concede when a person makes a rather reasonable point, even if i don't hold that point with him. 

I think when Jews interpret the suffering servant passage to be about Israel, that it's a reasonable view to hold, even though I disagree with it. 

But this doesn't mean I'm an impenetrable wall, unwilling to sit and reason. 

Quote:
In some ways you act like George Bush who was unwilling to discuss issues with the perceived enemies of the US. If one does not study the positions and views of opposing ideas you will never understand the intent and original purposes.

That's not what i was implying. I love talking religion with anybody, preferably people who know a little something about it. What i took an issue with, is what I thought to be a suggestion by you that my interpretations are invalid unless I talked with other Jews. I might have jumped the gun here. When i heard you the first time, I was reminded of one of Rook Hawkins tactics to weasel out of having to defend his views. He would give you a long list of books, claiming that the individual had to read all of them, to debate him, or for him to take them seriously. 

All i was saying is the validity of my interpretation are not dependent on my contact with modern Jews, but this is not to say that such a dialog might not help my understanding of the text, but  just that I'm not dependent on them though. 

Quote:
I'm not telling you to study theology from the views of only the Jews but to do so more objectively. I went to a Jesuit University, which is run by the Jesuits a sect of the Roman Catholic Church not Jewish where I obtained a masters degree in finance and accounting, not theology. I did however take courses in theology.

Well, i study religion from every which way perspective i could possibly have the time to consume. The last book i read was humanist Psychoanalyst Erich Fromm, Psychoanalysis and Religion, and prior to that was atheist Ernst Bloch, "Atheism in Christianity" (though i didn't make it through the whole thing). The last course i took on religion was the history of the New Testament, and the writer of the text book was Bart Ehrman. I try and have a full bodied view of religion, from a scientific perspective, the perspective of various theist, and the perspective of unbelievers too. So I'm hardly someone you would call closed minded on the subject, I would like to think I'm rather informed on the subject, definitely more so than someone like Dawkins.

Quote:
Your comments tell me that you still are mortified regarding the events and possibilities you consider in Christianity and carry with you some uncertainty and doubts. This may be only in the way you have expressed your self especially in the area in bold type. It could just be me seeing parts of your weakness in faith which from my point of view is hopeful. 

Well, i should say as Dostoevsky would put it "I'm a child of doubt". And I refuse to be any other way. And yet my Christianity has gone from something quite minimal in my initial adult age embrace of it, to something quite orthodox. And this has always been something shocking to me. Of all the things, I've been witness to in my life, as critical, and as skeptical as I am, I should be the last person to believe, but here I am a believer, who has only grown stronger in his commitment to his faith as time goes on.

But I'm not looking for a point in my life were I surrender my doubt, because it wasn't for doubt my beliefs would never be refined. I don't want to believe dewey eyed in anything. i don't want to be like some atheist, and theist, and only understand the other perspective from it's weakest case. If I were to settle for Dawkins, Dennet, and company Atheism would be nothing but a childish joke (my experiences forum atheist haven't been much better). I want to know the other side at it's most profound, because only then can I know that I wasn't cooed into belief.  i want to know the gospels from the perspective of if there was no resurrection of the crucified Christ, and from the perspective of if there was. One side holds atheism at it's must persuasive, and the other side holds faith at it's most profound. 

But don't assume my faith is weak, or even weakening. As time goes on, I find myself being more and more drawn to the Gospels, that I feel soon I'm going to enroll in the seminary, depending on what else happens, and commit myself to my faith entirely, all other pursuits even marriage, and what else has grown rather vain in comparison to that. 

I'm a deeply committed believer, far more than most theist, I retain my doubts, only because i refused to be dewey eyed about it. 

One of my favorite quotes of Dostoevksy describes me quite well:

"...a child of disbelief and doubt...and will remain so until the grave. How much terrible torture this thirst for faith has cost me and costs me even now, which is all the stronger in my soul the more arguments I find against it." 

 


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
manofmanynames

manofmanynames wrote:

Quote:
 

Apparently you didn't get the point. If you don't like baseless assumptions being made about you, you probably shouldn't be making them about me.

Well, one of us didn't get the point.  You know almost nothing about me to base any assumptions on.  You on the other hand are a christian.  The source of christian belief is the bible.  In a christian bookstore you will find many authors.  Find just one who hasn't used the bible as their inspiration in some way or developed a personal belief system that was contrary to it.  I'll wait..........

Like it or not...when one patterns their life in accord with the beliefs of a single book, much can be said and assumed about them.  You don't like this because it limits you.  Too damn bad.  It's the choice you made.  Deal with it.  Which brings me to my next point.

Quote:
 No, I didn't derive my belief system from the bible. I derived my belief system, my worldview just like all of us do, by the questions we have in life
 

I won't argue the odds of you lying to either this forum or to yourself.  So, let's skip that.

1.)  You believe in jesus christ.

Explain to me how you arrived at this belief system without using the bible as a source.

Quote:

Actually the tortoise and hare were always marketed to the masses as "truth", just like the Garden story professes truth, just that the truth claim is not scientific one, or one about the stories be taking literal, they market philosophical truths, or moral truths. When i heard the T and H story as a kid, I knew my teacher desired her students to accept the truth about striving hard, and not giving up, or being complacent.

Show me where the tortoise and hare story were marketed as literal truth and stop trying to pretend the Garden of Eden Story hasn't been sold for over a thousand years as the "literal" truth.  The only problem with selling it as literal today is that science and the logic of man has rendered it absurd.  Which hardly seems to stop a hearty portion of the theistic world today.

Quote:

I mean if the ancient Hebrews were trying to present the creation account as literal account of what happened, they must have been dumb as fuck to put it side by side, next to an account that redescribes the events quite differently.

Let's see... is that two animals of every kind or is it 7?   Incidentally, this would have earned you a burning at the stake about 600 yrs ago from your fellow followers of christ... Good Times ! You mean like dumb as fuck like the Sumerians?...the Egyptians?..the myriad of Native American cultures?  Creations stories are a part of the culture of pretty much every civilization.  Anyway, dumb as fuck or ripping off the beliefs of prior civilizations ?  Tough one to call.

 So you personally don't take the garden of eden story literally.  Thanks so much for not believing the so obviously unbelievable.

Quote:

I definetlly have a sound understanding of the GoE story means, and what truth is being presented there. All you have to do is use the little head of yours, read it, as you would any other narrative, and tell us what you think it means. Can you do that little buddy? 

You bet Skipper, although I'm not convinced you even have a sound understanding of the word "definitely". 

But I'm all about the fun, so here goes.

A healthy variety of animals roam the earth.  Over the course of millions of years one of them develops a higher mental capacity and now this animal no longer wishes to define themselves w/ the animal label.  It's the most horrible label they can think of, because they now define themselves as "human".  So what changed?

During this considerable time period these "humans" developed something that separated them from the animals.  A time binding cerebral concept that led to something called "consciousness".  Certainly a higher consciousness anyway and it was a taste of the sweet fruit of knowledge.  Now  this ability to bind time gave them knowledge far above the quadripeds.  It was indeed a blessing but at the same time it also became a horrible curse because now, unlike the animals, it was clear what lay in store for the human....old age, sickness and eventual death.  This led to extreme anxiety for the human who wanted to avoid the sickness thing and was terrified of death.

If only there were someone who could help suppress this horrible anxiety and deliver them from what surely awaited them.  Why they'd do just about anything for someone who could do that.

Can I get an Amen?   Say, where's that offering plate anyway ?

Quote:
I don't owe my beliefs to the bible, you believe I do, because perhaps you did. I owe my beliefs to Jesus Christ.

See above..Explain how you obtained beliefs of "jesus christ" without using the bible as a source.. 

Quote:

What the fuck is that?  Are you 15 ?

 

When you decided to act like a child, in capable of having an adult conversation, where your own passionate gripes about your experience with theism, foam in every sentence, sure I'm going to treat you like a 15 year old, since it seems thats exactly the way you want to be treated. If you want to be treated like an adult, in your next response behave like one, and I'll treat you with the same degree of respect as well. The balls in your court buddy.

Objection.   Argumentative....Speculative....pointless and I'm going to have to deduct two points for the overused tennis metaphor.

So following this ...uh logic...if you don't like the responses you're getting from me will we continue to regress (like the curious case of Benjamin Butthole) into yet earlier stages of development?

If you start throwing out poo-poo and ca-ca, I'm going to have to jot a distress e-mail to one of our fine moderators.  

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
...Does anyone remember that

...Does anyone remember that part in the Bible, where God looks at Soddam & then at Gomorrah, and sees people having fun... and so then he decides to kill everybody with fire & rocks? And then after he's done he transmutes a girl into salt for turning away from the carnage?

Or that part when he tells soldiers that their rules of engagement are to kill everything that moves unless it's a hot virgin, in which case, "Go go gadget rape!"

Or that part when he kills everything on Earth because I guess that's the best way of correcting problems?

 

It's pretty explicit in the Bible that it's God doing all of these things. Perhaps MoMN would like to explain how these stories provide a framework for moral virtue?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle wrote:I won't

AmericanIdle wrote:

I won't argue the odds of you lying to either this forum or to yourself.  So, let's skip that.

1.)  You believe in jesus christ.

Explain to me how you arrived at this belief system without using the bible as a source. 

You really are a dishonest coward, by cutting out the portion of my response where this was explained.

Here troll, read this from my previous post, slowly if you need to:

Quote:
I derived my belief system, my worldview just like all of us do, by the questions we have in life. I spent a great deal of my life trying to make sense of things, if I should accept them as totally senseless or not, when I first encountered the Gospels, I found a text where the writers wondered the same questions as mine, if not far deeper than mines ever could be. And their response to those questions, I accepted as my answer as well. I accepted Jesus Christ as ultimate meaning of human existence, the answer to the troubling question of my life, not the Bible. [...]

And oh crap then what did I also say:

Quote:
I don't owe my beliefs to the bible, you believe I do, because perhaps you did. I owe my beliefs to Jesus Christ. If I was left only with the gospel text all my life, I would have believed regardless, if i was ignorant of all the text before it.

The Bible is 66 books, the Gospels are only 4, I didn't derive my beliefs by reading all 66 books of the Bible, just the Gospels. And i explicitly said this, as everyone can see from the above portions of my previous post.

Please explain to us how you missed this, and if you didn't miss it, how you interpreted it to make your assumption. I'm not responding to the rest of your post, because I know how cowards like you work, you'd ignore confronting your lie when its called to attention, and respond to only the other portions of the post. But I'm not letting you get  away that easily, I want to call you out, and make you apologize, or have you looking like a dishonest coward to everyone here. 

So what happened there little buddy? Let me tell you what happened. You may be an idiot, but I don't believe you were that dumb to miss me saying this in two different areas of my post. The fact that you quoted a portion of one of these paragraphs and excluded the rest, leads to the conclusion that you did this intentionally. You wanted to lie to the forum, by making up an allegation you knew was false. 

With your foaming atheism, you decided to lie to everyone and claim that I developed my belief in Jesus Christ without the Gospel texts. Either that or your foaming atheism left you so deluded that you only could see in my post what you wanted to believe was there. 

Seriously do you find your arguments that weak that you had to lie?

I'm not responding to your post, until you apologize for suggesting I was lying, and for you deceivingly covering up the portions of my response where I explicitly made known that my belief in Jesus Christ came from the Gospel text. (I seriously doubt you did that unintentionally.)

Let's see if your cowardly ass can do that. 

After that, I'll respond to the rest of your wretched post. 

And just for fun:

manofmanynames wrote:

Actually the tortoise and hare were always marketed to the masses as "truth", just like the Garden story professes truth, just that the truth claim is not scientific one, or one about the stories be taking literal, they market philosophical truths, or moral truths.

americanidiot wrote:
 Show me where the tortoise and hare story were marketed as literal truth...

Here's another display of your stupendous intelligence. After i write that the ToH was not marketed as literal truth, but as philosophical, and moral truths, what did you ask?

FACEPALM


consider yourself owned.

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:"...a child of

Quote:
"...a child of disbelief and doubt...and will remain so until the grave. How much terrible torture this thirst for faith has cost me and costs me even now, which is all the stronger in my soul the more arguments I find against it."

You value willful credulity just like this person. This "thirst for faith" is nothing more than "no matter how they try to show me that Santa isn't real, I will defy them and believe it anyway, even if I am wrong".

Certainly a child's mentality but  not one of disbelief and doubt.

There is one thing right about theis quote.  Faith does have a cost. It costs you the truth at the expense of myth.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You value

Brian37 wrote:

You value willful credulity just like this person. This "thirst for faith" is nothing more than "no matter how they try to show me that Santa isn't real, I will defy them and believe it anyway, even if I am wrong".

First off, for me, and Dostoevsky, there are no "they". Profound thinking atheist are a rarity. i suggest your read Dostoevsky, "The Brothers Karamazov" a work praised as the greatest work of literature by believers, and unbelievers alike, from Einstien, to Neitzche, to Freud. The Brothers Karamazov" is far greater work in the God debate than anything Hitchens (another praiser of Dostoevsky) could ever muster. If you'd like to see atheism at it's best, at it's post persuaive you should hear it from Dostoevsky. The TbK doesn't give you simple characters but profound players, with serous doubts, the disbeliever who remains a disbeliever to the end, and his brother a believer who remains a believer to the end as well.

The populor atheism, that you would like to spread around is just plain dumb, it barely has a clue, and is trapped in its own delusional conceptions about religion and god. There's an idiot over here who keeps running around with the belief that scientific curiosity is an inherent biologocial one, and assumes that Garden story arose out a pre-modern Darwineque curisoity, a notion that modern anthropology that studies these things, would laugh at. Yet he holds on to his dumb beliefs, all must insanely, unwilling to give them up, because he's so caught up by his passions. You got to be joking, if you think these are giants in the intellectual arena. They wouldn't know how to reason, if it hit them on the head.

But it's good thing that there are disbelievers and arguments for atheism far more reflective, deep, and profound, modern atheist philosophers like John Gray seem to hold such a position, but he sure ain;t trying to win converts, and he find evangelical atheism, humanism, just to be cheap immitations of the religions they so despise. 

So far in this discussion, you haven't even attempted to show me why my God beliefs are wrong, or false or whatever else have you, all you've done is asked me for God in a test tube, over and over again, not to diminish the value of my belief, but only for me to present you with reasons, that are not my own, for you to believe. 

When I was an atheist, I had plenty of reasons for why I didn't believe, I just didn't have many reasons for why others needed to disbelieve. Now as a theist, I have plenty of reasons for why I believe, I just don't have many reasons to convince you to believe, particulary when you desire signs and wonders, that were never the reason for my belief to begin with.

 


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

manofmanynames wrote:

 

Brian37 wrote:

You value willful credulity just like this person. This "thirst for faith" is nothing more than "no matter how they try to show me that Santa isn't real, I will defy them and believe it anyway, even if I am wrong".

First off, for me, and Dostoevsky, there are no "they". Profound thinking atheist are a rarity. i suggest your read Dostoevsky, "The Brothers Karamazov" a work praised as the greatest work of literature by believers, and unbelievers alike, from Einstien, to Neitzche, to Freud. The Brothers Karamazov" is far greater work in the God debate than anything Hitchens (another praiser of Dostoevsky) could ever muster. If you'd like to see atheism at it's best, at it's post persuaive you should hear it from Dostoevsky. The TbK doesn't give you simple characters but profound players, with serous doubts, the disbeliever who remains a disbeliever to the end, and his brother a believer who remains a believer to the end as well.

The populor atheism, that you would like to spread around is just plain dumb, it barely has a clue, and is trapped in its own delusional conceptions about religion and god. There's an idiot over here who keeps running around with the belief that scientific curiosity is an inherent biologocial one, and assumes that Garden story arose out a pre-modern Darwineque curisoity, a notion that modern anthropology that studies these things, would laugh at. Yet he holds on to his dumb beliefs, all must insanely, unwilling to give them up, because he's so caught up by his passions. You got to be joking, if you think these are giants in the intellectual arena. They wouldn't know how to reason, if it hit them on the head.

But it's good thing that there are disbelievers and arguments for atheism far more reflective, deep, and profound, modern atheist philosophers like John Gray seem to hold such a position, but he sure ain;t trying to win converts, and he find evangelical atheism, humanism, just to be cheap immitations of the religions they so despise. 

So far in this discussion, you haven't even attempted to show me why my God beliefs are wrong, or false or whatever else have you, all you've done is asked me for God in a test tube, over and over again, not to diminish the value of my belief, but only for me to present you with reasons, that are not my own, for you to believe. 

When I was an atheist, I had plenty of reasons for why I didn't believe, I just didn't have many reasons for why others needed to disbelieve. Now as a theist, I have plenty of reasons for why I believe, I just don't have many reasons to convince you to believe, particulary when you desire signs and wonders, that were never the reason for my belief to begin with.

 

 

Looks to me like you've been asked to define your God and the best you've come up with is a renaming (Jesus Christ). You've claimed that this Jesus is the son of God but you don't hold to the sections of the Bible that define him as such. You claim he's not a human contruct even though the only evidence you have for that conclusion is a book written by humans.

You say you have plenty of reasons why you believe and yet you've failed to name one. You claim that humans ascribe value to God and have yet to answer why a God who has to have his value given to him by humans is necessary.

So, why do you ascribe value to Jesus as God?

I don't necessarily think your belief is wrong - it's just a wasted step - if humans ascribe value to the gods - doesn't that make humans more than their gods?

 

"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


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
             'ma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'

manofmanynames wrote:

 

 

AmericanIdle wrote:

I won't argue the odds of you lying to either this forum or to yourself.  So, let's skip that.

1.)  You believe in jesus christ.

Explain to me how you arrived at this belief system without using the bible as a source. 

You really are a dishonest coward, by cutting out the portion of my response where this was explained.

Here troll, read this from my previous post, slowly if you need to:

Quote:
I derived my belief system, my worldview just like all of us do, by the questions we have in life. I spent a great deal of my life trying to make sense of things, if I should accept them as totally senseless or not, when I first encountered the Gospels, I found a text where the writers wondered the same questions as mine, if not far deeper than mines ever could be. And their response to those questions, I accepted as my answer as well. I accepted Jesus Christ as ultimate meaning of human existence, the answer to the troubling question of my life, not the Bible. [...]

And oh crap then what did I also say:

Quote:
I don't owe my beliefs to the bible, you believe I do, because perhaps you did. I owe my beliefs to Jesus Christ. If I was left only with the gospel text all my life, I would have believed regardless, if i was ignorant of all the text before it.

The Bible is 66 books, the Gospels are only 4, I didn't derive my beliefs by reading all 66 books of the Bible, just the Gospels. And i explicitly said this, as everyone can see from the above portions of my previous post.

Please explain to us how you missed this, and if you didn't miss it, how you interpreted it to make your assumption. I'm not responding to the rest of your post, because I know how cowards like you work, you'd ignore confronting your lie when its called to attention, and respond to only the other portions of the post. But I'm not letting you get  away that easily, I want to call you out, and make you apologize, or have you looking like a dishonest coward to everyone here. 

So what happened there little buddy? Let me tell you what happened. You may be an idiot, but I don't believe you were that dumb to miss me saying this in two different areas of my post. The fact that you quoted a portion of one of these paragraphs and excluded the rest, leads to the conclusion that you did this intentionally. You wanted to lie to the forum, by making up an allegation you knew was false. 

With your foaming atheism, you decided to lie to everyone and claim that I developed my belief in Jesus Christ without the Gospel texts. Either that or your foaming atheism left you so deluded that you only could see in my post what you wanted to believe was there. 

Seriously do you find your arguments that weak that you had to lie?

I'm not responding to your post, until you apologize for suggesting I was lying, and for you deceivingly covering up the portions of my response where I explicitly made known that my belief in Jesus Christ came from the Gospel text. (I seriously doubt you did that unintentionally.)

Let's see if your cowardly ass can do that. 

After that, I'll respond to the rest of your wretched post. 

And just for fun:

 

 

consider yourself owned.

 

 

 

Anger and incoherence are poor substitutes for a calm rational response.  Simply explain w/ some sort of a "you misunderstand me" response.  That's what fully functioning adults do.  No "little buddy" required.

I'll ignore the correlation between the clear points I'm making and the degree of anger you seem to display in response to these.

Quote:
   If I was left only with the gospel text all my life, I would have believed regardless, if i was ignorant of all the text before it.

 

The Bible is 66 books, the Gospels are only 4, I didn't derive my beliefs by reading all 66 books of the Bible, just the Gospels. And i explicitly said this, as everyone can see from the above portions of my previous post.

 

So you acknowledge that your beliefs did come from the bible, but apparently you'll only take responsibility for 4 of the 62 books

Are the 62 remaining books derived from god ?

Is this the same god that inspired the gospels ?

Quote:
The fact that you quoted a portion of one of these paragraphs and excluded the rest, leads to the conclusion that you did this intentionally. You wanted to lie to the forum, by making up an allegation you knew was false.
and then this:

 

Quote:
as everyone can see from the above portions of my previous post.
   If "everyone can see" how did I lie ?  You just disproved your own accusation.

 

Quote:
   

I'm not responding to your post, until you apologize for suggesting I was lying, and for you deceivingly covering up the portions of my response where I explicitly made known that my belief in Jesus Christ came from the Gospel text. (I seriously doubt you did that unintentionally.)

I think you were going for "deceptively" here but at any rate, all your posts are here in their entirety.  Everyone knows what has and hasnt been written.

These "I know you are but what am I" responses are nothing more than grasping at straws.   

My contention has been that you are a liar and a coward.  This only becomes more apparent with each post.

I don't give a rat's ass whether you respond to my posts or not.  Everyone knows you're full of crap.  Thanks for an accurate portrayal of the perfect love of jesus.                                                                                                                                           

 

[


 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


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

manofmanynames wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1-Clearly we have differing interpretations and opinions that shall not be easily swayed by the other. I understand your view which is a mainstream take by Christians regarding the interactions of the individuals involved in these encounters. I take the view that James, aka James the Just was also "zealous" for the law as described in extra-biblical texts.

I have no issue accepting that James was "zealous" for the law, but I don't see the support for that view within the biblical text. Now I'm not well versed on this issue to say I stand on solid ground with it, and if you can present an even somewhat persuasive case, I'm sure you'd see that I'd judge it fairly. I'm not familiar with extra-biblical texts you're referring to so perhaps u could present snips of its relevant parts?

See Hegesippus who says this about James:

    Concerning the martyrdom of James, the brother of the Lord, from Book V.1

James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor,2 nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place:3 for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people-so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel's, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people. Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias,4 which signifies in Greek Defence of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him. 

- found at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html

A book by Robert Eisenman called Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians (2004) available as new and used from Amazon and maybe in most university libraries details James as likely the 'righteous teacher' considering him to be zealous though not an extremist Zealot necessarily. 

see: Amazon here

As well as an older book of his James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the early Secrets of Christianity & the Dead Sea Scrolls (1998)

There is also a 2 part article exceeding 150 pages which can be found at Sage Journals on line. Access is by subscription and usually costs $20 per day for limited access but through April 30, 2009 they are allowing free access. The article is called James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives in Past and Present Scholarship. Part 1 and Part 2.

After you sign up for free access just type James in the search box. 

The link to their site is: http://online.sagepub.com/

I currently can't locate my copies of these books as I recently moved all of my books, research and papers to my son's house in Denver. I travel a lot in the southeast and southwest US and I'm cost reducing by sharing a house in Orlando and staying with my son in Denver. Currently I'm in Denver and I will look for these books so I can quote you the relative parts though it may take me a few days to find them.

manofmanynames wrote:

Quote:
When Gentiles became the dominant part of Christians many Jews were in rebellion, hiding, and eventually became called the killers of God. It made sense to dispense with the marks of a Jew which they clearly did. Even the later written Gospels show a bias against the Jews going from Mark to Matthew or John one sees considerable difference including contempt in the writing.

So in your view Jesus was actually zealous about the law, like the Pharisees I'm guessing, and the gospels writers just concealed this fact, by making him far more liberal about this than he really was? Are their any other portraits of Jesus that present him as such?

A long time ago, in college I was told to read the problem, so should you before you make comments.

I'll repeat what I said above in greater detail: 

Gentiles became the dominant part of Christianity  between the 1st rebellion of the Jews (approx 66-70) and the second rebellion of the Jews (130-135). Many Jews were hiding in places obscure or were outright rebelling against the Romans in open conflict. Those that were Jewish Christians were also in the conflict, sometimes from both the Romans and the rebelling Jews. To many Gentiles, especially following the 2nd rebellion, Jews became known as killers of their God; for specifics read the works by the early church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. These Gentiles did not take upon themselves the obvious marks of the Jews such as circumcision because it related to those that were rebelling against Rome at first and then to those that killed their god later.

I did not mention Jesus in the above statement only early Christians.

manofmanynames wrote:

I think one thing people miss when they accuse the Gospels of holding contempt for Jews, is that it's long been a hallmark of Judaism, in regards to the biblical text at least, to be self contemptuous. Much of what the prophets have to say about their people, make the stuff the gospels say seem like coddling. Isaiah calls his people whores, even worse than whores, because whores at least put out for money. This is hallmark feature of all their prophetic text. 

I think the reason for the uproar over what the Gospels do, is the history of violence directed towards the Jews, and a degree of sensitivity to read back into the text anti-semintism to say the least, when its not really there. I don't believe the reason why some parts of the gospels paint a harsh picture of Jews, like the pharisees and stuff, is the result of writers contempt for Judaism, it's just been the way that Jewish prophetic text have been written. 

And i don't get how you believe the Gospels dispensed the marks of Judaism? Jesus is clearly a Jew in all the text, eats with the Jews, goes to the pharisees house to eat dinner, tells his followers to be respectful towards them, even when they should be weary of following their example. Is often called a rabbi. So what sort of marks here have been removed?

I did not say that Jesus dispensed with the Mark of the Jews, read the problem.

In a short reply such that we aren't discussing every single instance of how Jews gradually were held in contempt we'll consider the story of the great commandment in Mark 12:28-34. The person asking Jesus what is the first commandment of all is a scribe, In the end Jesus tells him he is not far from the Kingdom of God nicely. In Matthew 22:34-40 it's a lawyer who was one of the Pharisees and he did so tempting him or testing. There are no comments from Jesus about the worthiness of this man. In Luke 10:25-37 again it's a lawyer who is testing him. Jesus then tells the Good Samaritan Parable. In the end, it's go and do likewise. Same basic story, different takes with one showing Jesus giving the scribe positive comments and the others either negative or neutral.  There are other instances of greater impact where scribes become simply Jews and put forth in contempt or simply said in a nasty way, which I'll have to look up if you don't remember. An instance of plotting against Jesus for example after he is doing works on the Sabbath comes to mind.

manofmanynames wrote:

Quote:
Again we will never come to an agreement in our consideration and interpretations. You view these scriptures from a very enthralled Christian believer's perspective while I do so from a position outside. Having studied as a Christian I'm certainly aware of the perspective but also I take into account what Jews have said regarding their beliefs. I have also done considerable study as a non-believer and cannot come to your opinion.

None of us can read the text from the outside. We all bring our biases to the table. Just because a person is an atheist, doesn't mean that he posseses a sense of objectivity in his analysis of biblical text. The only sense of objectivity we can hope for is in admitting our biases, and trying to be aware of them the best we can. Do i have a bias in interpreting the messianic prophecies regarding Jesus? Sure I do, because I believe Jesus is the messiah. But I'm still capable of hearing and understanding opinions that differ from my own. I even hold a ready ability to concede when a person makes a rather reasonable point, even if i don't hold that point with him.

My original bias was as yours is now  believer and over the years I had to learn to consider religious concepts in a detached manner. 

manofmanynames wrote:

I think when Jews interpret the suffering servant passage to be about Israel, that it's a reasonable view to hold, even though I disagree with it. 

But this doesn't mean I'm an impenetrable wall, unwilling to sit and reason.

I would agree with the Jewish view. I'd also suggest you read Isaiah in the Hebrew version of the bible, JPS 1917 edition to contrast the differences to either your Protestant versions or the Catholic Douay-Rheims which ever you use.

manofmanynames wrote:

Quote:
In some ways you act like George Bush who was unwilling to discuss issues with the perceived enemies of the US. If one does not study the positions and views of opposing ideas you will never understand the intent and original purposes.

That's not what i was implying. I love talking religion with anybody, preferably people who know a little something about it. What i took an issue with, is what I thought to be a suggestion by you that my interpretations are invalid unless I talked with other Jews. I might have jumped the gun here. When i heard you the first time, I was reminded of one of Rook Hawkins tactics to weasel out of having to defend his views. He would give you a long list of books, claiming that the individual had to read all of them, to debate him, or for him to take them seriously. 

All i was saying is the validity of my interpretation are not dependent on my contact with modern Jews, but this is not to say that such a dialog might not help my understanding of the text, but  just that I'm not dependent on them though.

I will always defend my views. I may not agree with you or others but I don't weasel. My point is to consider all points of view especially in light of the disparate differences. If I think you are missing a point or could gain understanding from a different angle I may suggest areas to consider, That's all. People are free to ignore my suggestions and to do so without any repercussions, swear words or derision.

manofmanynames wrote:

Quote:
I'm not telling you to study theology from the views of only the Jews but to do so more objectively. I went to a Jesuit University, which is run by the Jesuits a sect of the Roman Catholic Church not Jewish where I obtained a masters degree in finance and accounting, not theology. I did however take courses in theology.

Well, i study religion from every which way perspective i could possibly have the time to consume. The last book i read was humanist Psychoanalyst Erich Fromm, Psychoanalysis and Religion, and prior to that was atheist Ernst Bloch, "Atheism in Christianity" (though i didn't make it through the whole thing). The last course i took on religion was the history of the New Testament, and the writer of the text book was Bart Ehrman. I try and have a full bodied view of religion, from a scientific perspective, the perspective of various theist, and the perspective of unbelievers too. So I'm hardly someone you would call closed minded on the subject, I would like to think I'm rather informed on the subject, definitely more so than someone like Dawkins.

I have like several other atheists on this site never read Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, or Hitchens. They began writing after I had already become a non-believer and I saw no reason to read their works. I came to disbelief from the study of history, archeology, mythology, ancient civilizations, science, religion, theology, the Bible in multiple versions, and research.

manofmanynames wrote:

But I'm not looking for a point in my life were I surrender my doubt, because it wasn't for doubt my beliefs would never be refined. I don't want to believe dewey eyed in anything. i don't want to be like some atheist, and theist, and only understand the other perspective from it's weakest case. If I were to settle for Dawkins, Dennet, and company Atheism would be nothing but a childish joke (my experiences forum atheist haven't been much better). I want to know the other side at it's most profound, because only then can I know that I wasn't cooed into belief.  i want to know the gospels from the perspective of if there was no resurrection of the crucified Christ, and from the perspective of if there was. One side holds atheism at it's must persuasive, and the other side holds faith at it's most profound. 

But don't assume my faith is weak, or even weakening. As time goes on, I find myself being more and more drawn to the Gospels, that I feel soon I'm going to enroll in the seminary, depending on what else happens, and commit myself to my faith entirely, all other pursuits even marriage, and what else has grown rather vain in comparison to that. 

I'm a deeply committed believer, far more than most theist, I retain my doubts, only because i refused to be dewey eyed about it. 

One of my favorite quotes of Dostoevksy describes me quite well:

"...a child of disbelief and doubt...and will remain so until the grave. How much terrible torture this thirst for faith has cost me and costs me even now, which is all the stronger in my soul the more arguments I find against it."  

OK. I see you are a deeply committed believer which is fine. I'm a non-believer because I find all god-beliefs to be based in the land of imagination and wishful thinking trying to make a case for "Is that all there Is?" Or why are we here and not accepting what is before your eyes. Your choice. That's why cars come in different colors because people find them to be appealing for one reason or another.

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

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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 ...wow, this thread has

 ...wow, this thread has really picked up steam. Very intense exchanges going back and forth.  I enjoy reading the point, counterpoint.  It's like watching two fighters beat the crap out of each other in a good boxing match.  It's almost....fun ?