NationStates Jolt Archive

Why does pleasure suddenly enter into it?

That rather comes out of left field.

OK:

So he prefers criticizing people who try to make the world better and more peaceful?

OK:

So he prefers criticizing people who try to make the world better and more peaceful?
Preference is irrelevant, too, especially Upward Thrust's preference. He made a statement that people criticize cults, even those that promote "brotherly love" amongst all mankind. You are reading more into it than is there.

To re-word your question:
UpwardThrust, do you think that such people are incapable of overlooking the religious aspect of his writings and seeing the secular message which he spoke?

So you take pleasure in criticizing people who try to make the world better and more peaceful? Or are you insinuating that you are incapable of overlooking the religious aspect of his writings and see the secular message which he spoke?
What do you mean take pleasure? I question everything as a matter of principal

But yes I do question the intent the motive and the accuracy of just about any claim even if the supposed byproduct of their claims is peace (which in real life has not been the sole product of his teachings but I am sticking with your hypothetical for now)

Preference is irrelevant, too, especially Upward Thrust's preference. He made a statement that people criticize cults, even those that promote "brotherly love" amongst all mankind. You are reading more into it than is there.

To re-word your question:
UpwardThrust, do you think that such people are incapable of overlooking the religious aspect of his writings and seeing the secular message which he spoke?

Um, I don't know where you learned English, but 'we' is a first person term meaning Upward Thrust is part of the group criticizing. Thus I am entitled to ask whether he prefers or finds pleasure in the act which he admits to. So I will return to my original question, thank you very much.

Um, I don't know where you learned English, but 'we' is a first person term meaning Upward Thrust is part of the group criticizing. Thus I am entitled to ask whether he prefers or finds pleasure in the act which he admits to. So I will return to my original question, thank you very much.
Yes, but he used "we" specifically in response to your use of the word. He responded in the same vein, which is proper conversational technique.

What do you mean take pleasure? I question everything as a matter of principal

But yes I do question the intent the motive and the accuracy of just about any claim even if the supposed byproduct of their claims is peace (which in real life has not been the sole product of his teachings but I am sticking with your hypothetical for now)

If the realistic product of his teaching 2000 years later isn't what he preached, then why do you criticize him. Your target, which I'm sure is another one of your favorites, should be those who ignorantly misinterpret.

Another point of mine is that if an atheist would come around and begin to urge people to love their neighbors and forgive their debtors, then intelligent Christians should love him/her (Which I presume would be your thoughts). Idiotic Christians would be the ones saying that his/her message is incorrect because it doen't include God. I propose that the same should be true in reverse, that intelligent non-Christians (who would like to see peace and forgiveness) should be capable of saying Paul is a good man with a good idea regardless if its non-secular content.

Paul didn't participate in the Crusades, nor write about doing such, nor did he kill Jews, or write about such. Don't say it's his fault that idiots exist and misquote, misinterpret, and whatnot.

Yes, but he used "we" specifically in response to your use of the word. He responded in the same vein, which is proper conversational technique.

Not so much, I placed myself into a group, and he voluntarily placed himself into it also. If he wished to remain separate, he would have said "Yes you can... and you do." Which is proper English and proper conversation is nothing compared to proper English.

Preference is irrelevant, too, especially Upward Thrust's preference. He made a statement that people criticize cults, even those that promote "brotherly love" amongst all mankind. You are reading more into it than is there.

To re-word your question:
UpwardThrust, do you think that such people are incapable of overlooking the religious aspect of his writings and seeing the secular message which he spoke?
Yes but even in purely secular form I would still question the source not to mention the viability of some things mentioned

(in secular form you have less to question … only the ideas instead of more into the person making the claim when he claims divine inspiration as justification for holding those beliefs if that makes any sense)

Yes but even in purely secular form I would still question the source not to mention the viability of some things mentioned

(in secular form you have less to question … only the ideas instead of more into the person making the claim when he claims divine inspiration as justification for holding those beliefs if that makes any sense)

So you're saying there's a secular difference between ideas of the following two ideals.

1) We should love our neighbors as ourselves and forgive our debtors.

2) God says, "We should love our neighbors as ourselves and forgive our debtors."

If the realistic product of his teaching 2000 years later isn't what he preached, then why do you criticize him. Your target, which I'm sure is another one of your favorites, should be those who ignorantly misinterpret.

Another point of mine is that if an atheist would come around and begin to urge people to love their neighbors and forgive their debtors, then intelligent Christians should love him/her (Which I presume would be your thoughts). Idiotic Christians would be the ones saying that his/her message is incorrect because it doen't include God. I propose that the same should be true in reverse, that intelligent non-Christians (who would like to see peace and forgiveness) should be capable of saying Paul is a good man with a good idea regardless if its non-secular content.

Paul didn't participate in the Crusades, nor write about doing such, nor did he kill Jews, or write about such. Don't say it's his fault that idiots exist and misquote, misinterpret, and whatnot.


Again you associate pleasure with the phrase “favorites” (or at least that’s what I got out of it) I don’t know where you are coming from … it almost borders on ad-hominim

He had an alright non spectacular message that was alright (though I find Jesus’ teachings in of them to be better irregardless of his existence)

Is that what you want?

Me to say that he was (in the purely secular form) alright?

So you're saying there's a secular difference between ideas of the following two ideals.

1) We should love our neighbors as ourselves and forgive our debtors.

2) God says, "We should love our neighbors as ourselves and forgive our debtors."
The ideals are very similar but the motivations are vastly different

If you make the claim that the motivation for an ideal is god then we start to have to question god and the ideal and its viability and worth

If you leave god out we still have to question the motivation and ideal but at least it is possible (as unlike god it exists within the observable even if it is obscure)

So you're saying there's a secular difference between ideas of the following two ideals.

1) We should love our neighbors as ourselves and forgive our debtors.

2) God says, "We should love our neighbors as ourselves and forgive our debtors."I think the biggest secular difference comes when you compare

1) We should love our neighbours as ourselves and forgive our debtors.

2) We should love our neighbours as ourselves and forgive our debtors because God says so.

The second of those ideas implies that there is no inherent value to loving neighbours and forgiving debtors beyond God's instruction. There's the difference.

First point is the aforementioned post. Second, is yes, you are arguing 'ad hominem' against Paul; just because he is a Christian you are trying to lessen his message. Either that or you disagree to a degree with community and peace. I see no other option (which I may be wrong and please forgive me).

Not so much, I placed myself into a group, and he voluntarily placed himself into it also. If he wished to remain separate, he would have said "Yes you can... and you do." Which is proper English and proper conversation is nothing compared to proper English.
You used a generic “we” in asking if we can really question …

I responded in turn because you did not specify and used such a generic “we” I responded as you meant “humans” in general

The second of those ideas implies that there is no inherent value to loving neighbours and forgiving debtors beyond God's instruction. There's the difference.

This is only true if you disregard what Christians say about the will of God. Yes, some may not beleive in God and thus the will of God means nothing to them, but to Christians this point is well beyond just God saying to do it.

You used a generic “we” in asking if we can really question …

I responded in turn because you did not specify and used such a generic “we” I responded as you meant “humans” in general

Alright, I'm just a very proper writer who keeps the peronsality of words in mind. Sometimes, I assume everyone is that way and thus understand where I'm coming from.

First point is the aforementioned post. Second, is yes, you are arguing 'ad hominem' against Paul; just because he is a Christian you are trying to lessen his message. Either that or you disagree to a degree with community and peace. I see no other option (which I may be wrong and please forgive me).
And where am I trying to lessen his message because he is Christian? (specifically Christian)

First point is the aforementioned post. Second, is yes, you are arguing 'ad hominem' against Paul; just because he is a Christian you are trying to lessen his message. Either that or you disagree to a degree with community and peace. I see no other option (which I may be wrong and please forgive me).Couldn't one question Paul's motives? Couldn't one suggest that what Paul preaches isn't about serving the community but providing one's own salvation under a guise of self-giving? Couldn't one argue that taking Paul's word as divine mandate is no worse than taking Fred Phelps's word as divine mandate due to his humanity? Couldn't one note that the sole adoptation of Paul's interpretation of Jesus stunts true exploration of His message?

There are several reasons to which one might argue against Paul, yet in favour of Jesus and God.

And where am I trying to lessen his message because he is Christian? (specifically Christian)

ok here:




Or a loony that had a hand in starting a cult

However you wish to look at it :p

Here you make a backdoor reference to his religious affiliations.

Yes we can … and many have

here you reference criticizing (trying to invalidate) his message.

Yes but even in purely secular form I would still question the source not to mention the viability of some things mentioned

(in secular form you have less to question … only the ideas instead of more into the person making the claim when he claims divine inspiration as justification for holding those beliefs if that makes any sense)

and finally you are again showing that religious claims have greater chances of being wrong (thats trying to lessen) and thus people should challenge it more often.

Couldn't one question Paul's motives? Couldn't one suggest that what Paul preaches isn't about serving the community but providing one's own salvation under a guise of self-giving? Couldn't one argue that taking Paul's word as divine mandate is no worse than taking Fred Phelps's word as divine mandate due to his humanity? Couldn't one note that the sole adoptation of Paul's interpretation of Jesus stunts true exploration of His message?

There are several reasons to which one might argue against Paul, yet in favour of Jesus and God.

Did you not read my first few posts on this topic? apparently not.

My original argument before Upward Thrust came was that we must understand Paul's unique situation concerning his message. It may just be me, but that is pretty much what you just said except that I believe that he is arguing truth and you do not.

ok here:






Here you make a backdoor reference to his religious affiliations.



here you reference criticizing (trying to invalidate) his message.



and finally you are again showing that religious claims have greater chances of being wrong (thats trying to lessen) and thus people should challenge it more often.


One trying to point out how differing perceptions on his contributions and the effects of his teaching

Two
No I am stating he is not beyond question

No I am showing the DIFFICULTIES and in general the problems with using religion as motivation (both the problems using it as well as why it is not falsifiable which leads to problems with questioning it)


Sorry if you misinterpreted them

One trying to point out how differing perceptions on his contributions and the effects of his teaching

Two
No I am stating he is not beyond question

No I am showing the DIFFICULTIES and in general the problems with using religion as motivation (both the problems using it as well as why it is not falsifiable which leads to problems with questioning it)


Sorry if you misinterpreted them

Alright, though its easy to make the connection when you keep placing 'lets question Paul because we should question everyone' ideas right next to 'Well he is talking about this imaginary god' ideas. ;)

Peace ok.

And I say who cares who says it (Even Abraham Lincoln from Bill&Ted), but "BE EXCELLENT TO EACH OTHER"

Alright, though its easy to make the connection when you keep placing 'lets question Paul because we should question everyone' ideas right next to 'Well he is talking about this imaginary god' ideas. ;)

Peace ok.

And I say who cares who says it (Even Abraham Lincoln from Bill&Ted), but "BE EXCELLENT TO EACH OTHER"
Fair enough :)

My original argument before Upward Thrust came was that we must understand Paul's unique situation concerning his message. It may just be me, but that is pretty much what you just said except that I believe that he is arguing truth and you do not.Okay, fair enough. Though you do have to admit that, by and large, Christianity treats Paul with equal validity to the Gospels. *Points to Avalon as an example*

Okay, fair enough. Though you do have to admit that, by and large, Christianity treats Paul with equal validity to the Gospels. *Points to Avalon as an example*

Yea, but I don't. I believe he should be in the Bible due to his contribution to the understanding of the message to some remote groups, but to run around and say he's the authority and let's quote him all day long is wrong.

Also, we look to the works of Plato and Aristotle to study the information contained within, not the people. The philosophies could have been written by a couple of plumbers named Joe and Pablo and no one would care, because the work stands alone.

Fair enough.


Nobody would ask that you support it if you said you wished to learn from the philosophies of Jesus, but suggesting that he is God in the flesh and that it's been verified, you'll have to do better than only the works of his followers. In fact, the Church even rejected one of those Gospels as fallacious because it didn't adhere to the message they wanted to come across. When you put the evidence together you have little to show that he wasn't just made up. Now, I personally believe that he lived, died and lived again, but you've not shown anything that supports this assertion

The fact that (as I have said) the Gospels were written and distributed within the lifetime of those who had seen Jesus live, die and rise. The fact that the early church suvived so strongly proves that there had to be several hundrud eyewitnesses.

As far as Alexander the great, there is FAR more archeological evidence of the existence of Alexander the Great than there is of Jesus Christ even if you count the Gospels as verification of his existence.[/QUOTE]

The new testement Gospels have over 5000 contempary Greek manuscripts, which is the largest amount of manuscripts for any document in the ancient world. Next down comes the Illiad, which has 600 manuscripts.

The fact that (as I have said) the Gospels were written and distributed within the lifetime of those who had seen Jesus live, die and rise. The fact that the early church suvived so strongly proves that there had to be several hundrud eyewitnesses.

.
I have never seen this successfully shown … as far as I know it is more likely they were post 70 ad (without the logical fallacy of appealing to a miracle)
(Though G_N_I knows the text better then I)

I have never seen this successfully shown … as far as I know it is more likely they were post 70 ad (without the logical fallacy of appealing to a miracle)
(Though G_N_I knows the text better then I)

Very true. The only one still supported as being written by the named author is John who was said to have been blessed with a lifespan of 100 years. This is believed because there were stray references to communities of Christians believing the world was soon to end because John had died. These were written circa. 100 AD. I'll see if I can find references online cause my reference was from a book I had read a few years back concerning writings from 0-100 AD.


::EDIT::

For your sake, there is no proof that the referenced 'John' is the same as the John who wrote the gospel and/or the apostle John.

I must disagree with you.

Paul's writings have very divinely-inspired thought. His inspiration is just different than everyone before him. 20+ writers before him had been Jews writing to Jews. Paul understood God's messages very well and was more than inspired to write so people who didn't already have an understanding of Judaism would be capable of following Christ. There are still people out there whom the Pauline letters would hold many convictions, you just may not be one of them (I'm not so much either). Whereas Jeremiah begged God to give him the strength to be a prophet, Paul already had that and was asking for inspiration to make them understand. God gave him that and thus his work was inspired by God.

Oh, so he was inspired by God, but sometimes he just 'winged it', as you put it. Hmmmm... I didn't realize people could write divine works and at the same time just 'wing it'. Face it, we both agree that his work has value and should be available to people to read. But putting his work in the same category as the Gospels is fallacious at its core. Jesus came here to save us and it was exactly what he did. He didn't say, I'm here to be the savior but some of you just aren't going to be able to get there until another man who is not divine in nature comes along and edits my work.

As far as his production of a faith that at its core is peaceful and makes the world better, I would suggest exactly the opposite. Jesus created a religion that was peaceful and made the world better and Paulians incorporated into Jesus' work, the work of a man who reintroduced some of the laws of Leviticus and upon whose work people were able to bastardize Christianity and use it to an evil ends. Christians didn't fight in the crusades, Paulians did. It's not the Christian right trying to take away rights and using God as a justification for war, it's Paulians. In Christ's teachings, you'll not find a single support for war, but when Paul reintroduced Levitical Law, he reopened the old Testament as a source for excuses for some rather horrible acts. Paulians don't use 'turn the other cheek' for inspiration, they use 'an eye for an eye'. Prior to Paul's work being considered divine no one would have dared called themselves a Christian and considered it there divine duty to exact vengeance going directly against 'turn the other cheek'. But, hey, if Paul can contradict Jesus, why not other 'Christians', right?

The fact that (as I have said) the Gospels were written and distributed within the lifetime of those who had seen Jesus live, die and rise. The fact that the early church suvived so strongly proves that there had to be several hundrud eyewitnesses.

I can find far more than a hundred eyewitnesses who claim to have seen Elvis alive. I'm still pretty confident in the fact that Elvis is not, in fact, alive. I can also thousands of eye witnesses that have seen David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear and it was even televised across the world. I'm still pretty confident the Statue of Liberty was there the whole time. Eye witnesses aren't necessarily reliable witnesses. People can sometimes see one man shoot another and the charges don't stick without better and less refutable evidence (forensic).

Not to mention Christianity was not a very popular religion during the lifetimes of the people who could have bore witness to Christ. That in and of itself is suggestive of a problem. This is why most people request more archeological evidence than the testimony (writings) of people who are spreading the religion.

The new testement Gospels have over 5000 contempary Greek manuscripts, which is the largest amount of manuscripts for any document in the ancient world. Next down comes the Illiad, which has 600 manuscripts.

Yes, this proves the Gospels exist. I'm not sure that's what we were disputing. What is the archeological evidence for the exitence of the man named Jesus?

Did you not read my first few posts on this topic? apparently not.

My original argument before Upward Thrust came was that we must understand Paul's unique situation concerning his message. It may just be me, but that is pretty much what you just said except that I believe that he is arguing truth and you do not.

So if tomorrow, I analyze the Gospels and I write a bunch of letters in an effort to convert people to Christianity (Paulianity) and I inspire people to convert and I create a following a few thousand, will you convert? Will you suggest that my work be included in the Bible because it must be the will of the Lord for my work to continue? I don't care if Paul was right or wrong, he was a man whose words are now regularly considered on par with the words of Jesus to the point where some would claim that to reject the words of Paul is to not be a 'True Christian' and to me that is blasphemy. I don't blame Paul for this, I blame his followers.

Not so much, I placed myself into a group, and he voluntarily placed himself into it also. If he wished to remain separate, he would have said "Yes you can... and you do." Which is proper English and proper conversation is nothing compared to proper English.

Using 'we' is absolutely proper English. He engaged in both proper English and proper conversation. I think the problem is that he uses proper English and expects that you would be able to recognize this. Forgive him this error.

'Yes we can … and many have'

'Yes, humanity as a whole (of which I am a part) can ... and many (a group of which I may or may not be a part) have'

So if tomorrow, I analyze the Gospels and I write a bunch of letters in an effort to convert people to Christianity (Paulianity) and I inspire people to convert and I create a following a few thousand, will you convert? Will you suggest that my work be included in the Bible because it must be the will of the Lord for my work to continue? I don't care if Paul was right or wrong, he was a man whose words are now regularly considered on par with the words of Jesus to the point where some would claim that to reject the words of Paul is to not be a 'True Christian' and to me that is blasphemy. I don't blame Paul for this, I blame his followers.

Possibly, its a matter of whether or not you do a proper job. Now if you're preaching Christianity, I have nothing to convert to, I'm already there.

Using 'we' is absolutely proper English. He engaged in both proper English and proper conversation. I think the problem is that he uses proper English and expects that you would be able to recognize this. Forgive him this error.

'Yes we can … and many have'

'Yes, humanity as a whole (of which I am a part) can ... and many (a group of which I may or may not be a part) have'

What's your point? Proper English is that we always includes oneself. If one not not wish to include oneself then 2nd or 3rd person is needed. So clearly, he meant that he was part of the group because, as you claim, he was using proper English which was my point exactly. So I see no reason why you should claim I did not recognize this. Now if that's not what he meant, then he should rebuke his claim.

I would also like to point out the other inclusions in the Bible to which I object.

The scripture calls him an apostle and his work the Gospel. He also calls himself an Apostle in 1 Timothy 1.

Romans 1:1-4 1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Here our peaceful divine interpreter tells quite clearly that woman are not equal to men. He blames them for the fall of man and holds Adam blameless. -

1 Timothy 2:11-15 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Yep, Paul doesn't believe in judging others. No way anyone can get that from this -

1 Timothy 5:11-15 11As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. 14So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

Oh, and hey, go ahead and judge the church elders and rebuke them for their sins -

1 Timothy 5:17-20 17The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages." 19Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

And an endorsement of slavery -

1 Timothy 6:1-2 1All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.

And if we don't stand in judgement of anyone then who exactly is being rebuked? -

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Yep, can't see why anybody would object to the teachings of Paul? Nope. He was clearly divine. (Sarcasm intended).

Possibly, its a matter of whether or not you do a proper job. Now if you're preaching Christianity, I have nothing to convert to, I'm already there.Wasn't Christianity changed at a fundamental level by Paul's contribution? Original Sin, Aspiration for eternity, the spiritual Hell and Realm of Damnation, the disassociation with unbelievers and the subordination of the female form at least some part of what he brought to it that may not have existed prior to his letters

What's your point? Proper English is that we always includes oneself. If one not not wish to include oneself then 2nd or 3rd person is needed. So clearly, he meant that he was part of the group because, as you claim, he was using proper English which was my point exactly. So I see no reason why you should claim I did not recognize this. Now if that's not what he meant, then he should rebuke his claim.

The point is he included himself and yourself in the claim just as you included yourself and himself in the question. You said may(actually, you should have used may, since I assume you weren't asking are we capable of question) WE question him and he said, of course anyone (include you and I) may and some do question him. So clearly he did not include himself or exclude himself from the group of people who actually do it. You rebuked him for taking pleasure in activity that, at that point, he had not in any way suggested he takes part in. Then you chastised Willamena for your misunderstanding, when Willamena pointed this out. Now, you continue to make the same claim so it's not surprising that you don't understand that it was your error and not the error of Willamena OR UpwardThrust. But, by all means, keep defending and, thus, compounding your error.

Possibly, its a matter of whether or not you do a proper job. Now if you're preaching Christianity, I have nothing to convert to, I'm already there.

So you're actually saying that my words should be included in the Bible and put on par with the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (in telling the story of Jesus and quoting his word). That if I do so everything I've said here could be placed in that Bible including my statements about their being little or no archeological proof of Christ. Then 2000 years from people can errantly argue that I said Christ never existed and he is just an allegory about a perfect man to give people something to strive for. In other words, I totally disagree with you, because by including my words with the Gospels the original meaning and intent is lost. People are not left to explore the teachings of Christ within their own heart but instead to explore the teachings of Jocabia about Christ. Paul and I's teachings and words have no place in the Bible and should be excluded.

Here our peaceful divine interpreter tells quite clearly that woman are not equal to men. He blames them for the fall of man and holds Adam blameless.

1 Timothy 2:11-15 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety).

Christiainity has diffrent roles for men and women. As a matter of fact, God just after the fall instigated the battle of the sexes, and man would always be the victor

"Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" Genesis 3:16


1 Timothy 5:11-15 11As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. 14So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

Your now being intentionally stupid. "Bring judgement upon themselves" refers obviously to God's judgement, not that of humans.


Oh, and hey, go ahead and judge the church elders and rebuke them for their sins -

[INDENT]1 Timothy 5:17-20 17The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages." 19Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

We have been over this in our studies and my own personal bible notes. If you can obviously see that another Christian is sinning, you want to help them out of it. But you cant do that by ignoring it. However, like Jesus said, do not judge them if you yourself do the same thing. In other words dont be hypocritical


And an endorsement of slavery -

1 Timothy 6:1-2 1All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them..

This is not an endorcemnt of slavery. No where does it say that slavery itself is good. What it does say is that those who are slaves should work hard for their masters. But thats not an endorcement of slavery, any more than me saying that those in third world countries should continue to work hard despite their poverty is an endorcement of poverty. And Paul also called against slavery here

for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 1 Timothy 1:10


And if we don't stand in judgement of anyone then who exactly is being rebuked? -

[INDENT]16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


Rebuked if they are getting it wrong. If someone begins teaching something that clearly isnt from the Bible then rebuke them for it, is what is being said here.

God is Almighty.

I noticed you ignored the rest of the post. Typical. "I can't address that argument so I'll just ignore it". It's a debate tactic called dropping arguments and it doesn't show your side as very strong. I also noticed you ignored my post where I asked you to support your assertion that the Jesus that you and I worship has been emperically proven.

Im not sure what it is I am supposed to have droped seing as I havent quoted anyone there, but I will try to look later

So he was either contradicting himself or contradicting Jesus. He was either saying, judge yourself in that first passage and he doesn't judge HIMSELF in the second or he was saying the righteous have the right to judge whoever they want in the first passage, but no one but God judges them and that the righteous will sit in God's judgement in the second passage so they needn't be judge even themselves (which would make for a more consistant message).

Examine the phrase "my concience is clear, but that does not make me innocent". That of course is refering to salvation. Its rather like the message "not perfect just forgiven". He then talks about God's judgement. And God's judgement is the one that gives out salvation or doesn't. So there is perfect consistancy there

The point is he included himself and yourself in the claim just as you included yourself and himself in the question. You said may(actually, you should have used may, since I assume you weren't asking are we capable of question) WE question him and he said, of course anyone (include you and I) may and some do question him. So clearly he did not include himself or exclude himself from the group of people who actually do it. You rebuked him for taking pleasure in activity that, at that point, he had not in any way suggested he takes part in. Then you chastised Willamena for your misunderstanding, when Willamena pointed this out. Now, you continue to make the same claim so it's not surprising that you don't understand that it was your error and not the error of Willamena OR UpwardThrust. But, by all means, keep defending and, thus, compounding your error.
Good point.

Examine the phrase "my concience is clear, but that does not make me innocent". That of course is refering to salvation. Its rather like the message "not perfect just forgiven". He then talks about God's judgement. And God's judgement is the one that gives out salvation or doesn't. So there is perfect consistancy there


It could also mean "Im guilty, but its not bothering me in the slightest."

How can you not believe in God?

How can you not believe in God?


"Wont you help me Mr. Jesus? Wont you tell me, if you can, when you see this world we live in, do you still believe in man?"
-Black Sabbath.

"Wont you help me Mr. Jesus? Wont you tell me, if you can, when you see this world we live in, do you still believe in man?"
-Black Sabbath.
He was busy at the time?
I think Ozzy is Christian though.
He just pretends to worship the dark lord.

God is Almighty.
Almighty really isn't a good word. I'd suggest you use the more politically correct version, "God is as mighty as it is possible to be barring self-restraint, self-competition and contradicting semantics".

Almighty really isn't a good word. I'd suggest you use the more politically correct version, "God is as mighty as it is possible to be barring self-restraint, self-competition and contradicting semantics".
Politically Correct is ungodly.-_-

Politically Correct is ungodly.-_-
Saying God can beat God up in a fight is ridiculous, but it's what the term Almighty suggests.

Saying God can beat God up in a fight is ridiculous, but it's what the term Almighty suggests.
I disagree.

He was busy at the time?
I think Ozzy is Christian though.
He just pretends to worship the dark lord.


Ozzy doesnt even pretend to worship the dark lord.

You should check out the lyrics to "After Forever", on the album "Master of Reality".

(Or I can just post them for you, if you like)

You'll never look at that band the same way, I promise you.

Ozzy doesnt even pretend to worship the dark lord.

You should check out the lyrics to "After Forever", on the album "Master of Reality".

(Or I can just post them for you, if you like)

You'll never look at that band the same way, I promise you.
No but he gives the impression.
Probably to sell albums...

No but he gives the impression.
Probably to sell albums...
He does? Odd that. I never had the impression that he was anything but a deeply Christian idiot (not implying christians are idiots, just that he is).

No but he gives the impression.
Probably to sell albums...


"After Forever"

Have you ever thought about your soul - can it be saved?
Or perhaps you think that when you're dead you just stay in your grave
Is God just a thought within your head or is he a part of you?
Is Christ just a name that you read in a book when you were in school?

When you think about death do you lose your breath or do you think your cool?
Would you like to see the Pope on the end of a rope - do you think he's a fool?
Well I have seen the truth, yes I've seen the light and I've changed my ways
And I'll be prepared when you're lonely and scared at the end of our days

Could it be you're afraid of what your friends might say
If they knew you believe in God above?
They should realize before they criticize
that God is the only way to love

Is your mind so small that you have to fall
In with the pack wherever they run
Will you still sneer when death is near
And say they may as well worship the sun?

I think it was true it was people like you that crucified Christ
I think it is sad the opinion you had was the only one voiced
Will you be so sure when your day is near, say you don't believe?
You had the chance but you turned it down, now you can't retrieve

Perhaps you'll think before you say that God is dead and gone
Open your eyes, just realize that he's the one
The only one who can save you now from all this sin and hate
Or will you still jeer at all you hear? Yes! I think it's too late.

-Black Sabbath.


Hows that for "an evil satanic band" ?

Thanks. :cool:

If there were to be an Omnipotent being (All-powerful), as Christianity, Judaism, Islam and others claim, then how would this scenario be fufilled?

Can this Omnipotent being create a rock that is too heavy for himself to lift?

Yes - Then the omnipotence is invalid by its lack of ability to lift the rock.

No - Then the omnipotence is invalid by its lack of ability to create the rock.


There is no such thing as an Omnipotent being, just as the way you cannot divide by 0.

Thanks. :cool:


De Nada.

I should say though, that is the only song with an overtly religious theme to it, that Sabbath recorded with Ozzy.

The music is doomy and gloomy, and heavy, but more often than not, the lyrics usually have a postive undertheme.

The Beatles of Heavy Metal.

How can you not believe in God?
It can happen.

God is Almighty.
Nope Bruce is

Christiainity has diffrent roles for men and women. As a matter of fact, God just after the fall instigated the battle of the sexes, and man would always be the victor

"Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" Genesis 3:16

I reject that. I think anyone of sound mine rejects that man rules over woman. Jesus gave no indication that this was the case anymore.

Your now being intentionally stupid. "Bring judgement upon themselves" refers obviously to God's judgement, not that of humans.

First of all, flaming is against the rules on NS. And if you're going to call me stupid, spell "you're" correctly. Second, I was referring the the passage itself. It is OBVIOUSLY judgemental and even bigotted. He judges all young widows as not really being worthy.

We have been over this in our studies and my own personal bible notes. If you can obviously see that another Christian is sinning, you want to help them out of it. But you cant do that by ignoring it. However, like Jesus said, do not judge them if you yourself do the same thing. In other words dont be hypocritical

WRONG. Jesus said do not judge them if you yourself are a sinner. And we are all sinners. Jesus said quite clearly, DO NOT JUDGE. Teaching and rebuking is not the same thing. Teaching someone better or talking to them is quite different than standing in judgement of them and rebuking them. You should learn the difference.

This is not an endorcemnt of slavery. No where does it say that slavery itself is good. What it does say is that those who are slaves should work hard for their masters. But thats not an endorcement of slavery, any more than me saying that those in third world countries should continue to work hard despite their poverty is an endorcement of poverty. And Paul also called against slavery here

Yes, he only tells them to treat their masters with respect. No endorsement there. [/sarcasm] "Women, if you are being raped, you treat that rapist with respect. Don't you rebel or stand up for yourself, you dirty whore." I suppose that statement wouldn't be an endorsement of rape, would it? Ridiculous. There are none so blind as he who will not see.

for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 1 Timothy 1:10

Yes, he was contradictory. It's okay. He was only human. Which is why he doesn't belong in the Bible.

Rebuked if they are getting it wrong. If someone begins teaching something that clearly isnt from the Bible then rebuke them for it, is what is being said here.

And who decides if they are getting it wrong? You? Some other sinner? Someone else who may also be getting wrong? I guess Jesus was just kidding when he said, "do not judge". He probably didn't REALLY mean that.

Examine the phrase "my concience is clear, but that does not make me innocent". That of course is refering to salvation. Its rather like the message "not perfect just forgiven". He then talks about God's judgement. And God's judgement is the one that gives out salvation or doesn't. So there is perfect consistancy there

Since you missed it the first time I'll try again.

1 Corinthians 2:15-16
The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"
But we have the mind of Christ.

Now what this is talking about is judgements in your own life. God is the one who judges Christians, and they are not under anyone elses judgement. Meaning that in their actions they do not conform to the standards of the world, but to Jesus's. Now it doesnt make sense for him to have been talking about judging others because
A) It contridicts Jesus, which is not something a Christian does
B) It doesnt say others, or mention anything about other people, and about what they are doing.
C) It talks about the mind of Christ, meaning that in our minds we can judge what we are doing by his standards, and his standards were not to judge others in a hypocritical way. The reason that he has the right to judge us is that he is sinnless.

Ok, so here you say he is talking about judging himself and others judging only themselves. We don't believe this is what it means, but that's besides the point, since we're talking about your interpretation.

1 Corinthians 4:3-5
I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God

So either he was saying in the first passage that he judges himself and then contradicted it in the second passage (in the SAME LETTER). Or in the first passage he was talking about judging others (non-righteous) as we stated and the second passage was talking about how the righteous may only be judged by God and we, in fact, are not even to judge ourselves. So which is it? Did he contradict Jesus Christ or himself (in the SAME LETTER)? It seems like it's far more likely that he mistakingly contradicted Jesus Christ.

The contradiction is perfectly clear to anyone who is looking at this and analyzing it openly rather than trying to shoehorn it into their beliefs.

Perhaps you should read my post BEFORE responding to it.

Back to the point, I would LOVE for someone to show that the existence of Christ can be emperically verified, let alone his divine works.

Perhaps you should read my post. My point is that empirical evidence isn't truely possible for anything. The scientific method used to gather knowledge in today's world is a tainted system from the begginning. Tainted because it has to use mankind to do the thinking.

There are two problems as I noted before.

1. Mankind has limited knowledge.
2. Mankind has predispositions to certain beliefs (he's biased because of his emotions)

Because of this you have scientist fighting over every single scientific fact. You can find someone who disagrees on every issue. If you demand undeniable evidence for everything you believe in you wouldn't believe anything. (Even the Nehilist believes something "There is no truth!" Prove it lol)

Many people wish to deny the existance of Jesus or his actions. Yet they blissfully follow the history books which contain many facts with less "empirical evidence".

My point is our lives as human tends to deal in probabilities of truth not absolutes. We have to make desicions every day based on limited information and we do it with our own bias.

My point to you in the last post was...We can't do anything about this human paradigm (mankind's limited self) but we can try to do something about our bias. So when someone is presenting their evidence try not to approach it with such a closed mind. You hide behind this demand for absolute truth because you know it's an impossible demand. This gives you the freedom to do whatever you want. Anytime you don't like someones statements you just have to say "show me your empirical evidence". When they can't do it you can say "see I don't have to believe you!" The reality is you have your mind already made up because if you did this every time you wouldn't belive anything. So you do it only when you don't want to believe.

I'm not demanding anyone believe anything! It's your choice but hiding behind impossible demands so as to not believe something is cowardice. Approach each "truth" with an open mind and determine as best you can whether you belive it or not... when presented in the whole of the other universal truths you also believe. Challenge you universal truths as well! Constantly test yourself and your faith (whatever that is, I don't mean religion).

Also recognize that it's possible you are wrong. My father in law is a devout Buddhist, he isn't happy that his son in law and daughter are Christian. He tries to convert me every time I go there. I respect him and listen... honestly listen... to what he has to say. If my belief system can't stand up to the test it doesn't deserve my belief.

Lastly, rercognize that maybe some people have had a personal experience with God (or the spiritual world) in some way and may have information you've never experienced. I've met so many people that demand empirical evidnece for the existence of the spiritual world but here in Asia many people would laugh at this. They've experianced it first hand too often. Remember the first rule, you are a limited creature with limited knowledge, you haven't experianced the whole world yet.

Since you missed it the first time I'll try again.


The contradiction is perfectly clear to anyone who is looking at this and analyzing it openly rather than trying to shoehorn it into their beliefs.

As for this arguement, You'll notice the part about having the mind of Christ. Christians make judgements based of the mind of Christ. That's like a police officer saying I don't make the law I just enforce it. So with Christians, if you don't like the law you are being judged by go to God. It's his laws. So Christians are able to make judgements but it doesn't mean they themselves are the judge any more than a police officer is. And Christian's like police sometimes overstep their authority.

Anyhow, I think this arguement shows another problem in our critical thinking. Let's say I wasn't here to point out the consistency in this passage (assuming you understand and agree with my explaination for just a second) you could blissfully go about shouting your "truth" for the world. But add someone better at arugementation or someone who has more information to add and suddenly your arguement is gone. Does this mean your arguement is false? Not really. Maybe this new person doesn't have more information that would show the true inconsistancy! Lol it goes on... mankind is limited. Look deeper than hiding behind apparent problems here and there. Sometimes things that seem to look wrong are actually correct when looked at from the right stance. So stop standing firm and look at it from some different angles.

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)

Wow, how could I have missed this huge thread? I'll answer.

I don't believe in a particular god or gods because no god or gods seems to strike me as being a reasonable depiction of reality as I know it, as described by the mythologies and followers of said god or gods.

Wow, how could I have missed this huge thread? I'll answer.

I don't believe in a particular god or gods because no god or gods seems to strike me as being a reasonable depiction of reality as I know it, as described by the mythologies and followers of said god or gods.

Now here is an intelligent response (no sarcasm). They don't try to hide behind intellectual fallacies in order to not believe but give a clear response that it just doesn't work within their framework of "truths". To engage in a discussion we could talk about those truths that seem inconsistant with the belief in a god or gods.

Perhaps you should read my post. My point is that empirical evidence isn't truely possible for anything. The scientific method used to gather knowledge in today's world is a tainted system from the begginning. Tainted because it has to use mankind to do the thinking.

There are two problems as I noted before.

1. Mankind has limited knowledge.
2. Mankind has predispositions to certain beliefs (he's biased because of his emotions)

Because of this you have scientist fighting over every single scientific fact. You can find someone who disagrees on every issue. If you demand undeniable evidence for everything you believe in you wouldn't believe anything. (Even the Nehilist believes something "There is no truth!" Prove it lol)

Many people wish to deny the existance of Jesus or his actions. Yet they blissfully follow the history books which contain many facts with less "empirical evidence".

My point is our lives as human tends to deal in probabilities of truth not absolutes. We have to make desicions every day based on limited information and we do it with our own bias.

My point to you in the last post was...We can't do anything about this human paradigm (mankind's limited self) but we can try to do something about our bias. So when someone is presenting their evidence try not to approach it with such a closed mind. You hide behind this demand for absolute truth because you know it's an impossible demand. This gives you the freedom to do whatever you want. Anytime you don't like someones statements you just have to say "show me your empirical evidence". When they can't do it you can say "see I don't have to believe you!" The reality is you have your mind already made up because if you did this every time you wouldn't belive anything. So you do it only when you don't want to believe.

I'm not demanding anyone believe anything! It's your choice but hiding behind impossible demands so as to not believe something is cowardice. Approach each "truth" with an open mind and determine as best you can whether you belive it or not... when presented in the whole of the other universal truths you also believe. Challenge you universal truths as well! Constantly test yourself and your faith (whatever that is, I don't mean religion).

Also recognize that it's possible you are wrong. My father in law is a devout Buddhist, he isn't happy that his son in law and daughter are Christian. He tries to convert me every time I go there. I respect him and listen... honestly listen... to what he has to say. If my belief system can't stand up to the test it doesn't deserve my belief.

Lastly, rercognize that maybe some people have had a personal experience with God (or the spiritual world) in some way and may have information you've never experienced. I've met so many people that demand empirical evidnece for the existence of the spiritual world but here in Asia many people would laugh at this. They've experianced it first hand too often. Remember the first rule, you are a limited creature with limited knowledge, you haven't experianced the whole world yet.

Science uses the scientific method to determine what is real or possible. Its like a pyramid
From top to bottom

Scientific Law
Accepted Theory
Competing Theories
Ideas
Educated Guesses
unknown

God lies in the Unknown, with ghosts and other supernational stuff. It does'nt mean that it can't exist it just means there is no proof of it.

..

Originally Posted by Avalon II
1 Corinthians 2:15-16
The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"
But we have the mind of Christ.


1 Corinthians 4:3-5
I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God

So either he was saying in the first passage that he judges himself and then contradicted it in the second passage (in the SAME LETTER). Or in the first passage he was talking about judging others (non-righteous) as we stated and the second passage was talking about how the righteous may only be judged by God and we, in fact, are not even to judge ourselves. So which is it? Did he contradict Jesus Christ or himself (in the SAME LETTER)? It seems like it's far more likely that he mistakingly contradicted Jesus Christ.

The contradiction is perfectly clear to anyone who is looking at this and analyzing it openly rather than trying to shoehorn it into their beliefs.

In the first phrase:
The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment..

..says (to me), "No man is subject to any man's judgement."

In the secnd phrase"
It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts.

..says (to me), "No man is subject to any man's judgement."


Is this shoehorning? Yes. Is it also valid? Yes. Why? Because that is the way that I interpret it. Others may interpret it differently, and they do so with other motives than mine in mind.

My motive is to see in these sets of words the idea that the only valid judgement of a man is the "result" of that man (in history) as seen from as large a perspective as possible. The largest perspective possible is "god's view".

He who sees an (the!) obvious logical contradiction, as pointed out by Jocabia, has the motive of finding and trumpeting what "appear to be" linguistic logical contradictions so as to denigrate their "opponent". And their opponent is the concept of god in the abstract.

Science uses the scientific method to determine what is real or possible. Its like a pyramid
From top to bottom

Scientific Law
Accepted Theory
Competing Theories
Ideas
Educated Guesses
unknown

God lies in the Unknown, with ghosts and other supernational stuff. It does'nt mean that it can't exist it just means there is no proof of it.

Depends what you mean by "exist", doesn't it?

To me, god lies in the unknown, and in all the other "levels" as well, as god is the sum total of all.

I can't NOT point at god when I point at anything. Can you NOT point at this thing YOU call god?

(Meaning: Is "god" to you the "big guy in the sky", much as a "ghost" is that thing you can point at that makes the spooky noise from the closet?)

Science uses the scientific method to determine what is real or possible. Its like a pyramid
From top to bottom

Scientific Law
Accepted Theory
Competing Theories
Ideas
Educated Guesses
unknown

God lies in the Unknown, with ghosts and other supernational stuff. It does'nt mean that it can't exist it just means there is no proof of it.

Very good you are of course correct. However, my point to you is that Scientific law tends to be argued and changes over time. So if that is true ...than can we truely know any "scientific laws". Notice my arguement against that in the previous post. As for their being no proof of there being a god or gods or any spiritual world, I heartily disagree. There is no proof you accept, I agree.

Personally I'm not waiting until death to find out that Santa Claus isn't real this time. Theological reasoning only goes so far before it eventually becomes obsolete. However in that view I'm wondering if science or positivistic thinking is a lesser form of logic to something we can't even begin to imagine.

Whatever, my rambling is done. Good night everyone.

As for this arguement, You'll notice the part about having the mind of Christ. Christians make judgements based of the mind of Christ. That's like a police officer saying I don't make the law I just enforce it. So with Christians, if you don't like the law you are being judged by go to God. It's his laws. So Christians are able to make judgements but it doesn't mean they themselves are the judge any more than a police officer is. And Christian's like police sometimes overstep their authority.

Anyhow, I think this arguement shows another problem in our critical thinking. Let's say I wasn't here to point out the consistency in this passage (assuming you understand and agree with my explaination for just a second) you could blissfully go about shouting your "truth" for the world. But add someone better at arugementation or someone who has more information to add and suddenly your arguement is gone. Does this mean your arguement is false? Not really. Maybe this new person doesn't have more information that would show the true inconsistancy! Lol it goes on... mankind is limited. Look deeper than hiding behind apparent problems here and there. Sometimes things that seem to look wrong are actually correct when looked at from the right stance. So stop standing firm and look at it from some different angles.

I did look it from different angles, and when Christ said do not judge he didn't say don't act as 'the judge' he said you are not to judge anyone ever. He also said let he who is without sin throw the first stone. You are not to judge people under the law or to enforce it. Your argument is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

My argument is exactly what you said, people are fallible. Which is why no MAN is in a position to edit, amend or replace the teachings of Jesus Christ but Paul was specifically put on the same level as Jesus when his teachings were placed in the Bible. I've pointed out a dozen examples of why this is in error, not the least of which that he was not Jesus. Jesus' teachings were enough to save the people of his time, why would we need someone to add to or edit them? Is salvation not available to us through the teachings of Jesus Christ? I know the answers to these questions. Do you?

In the first phrase:
The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment..

..says (to me), "No man is subject to any man's judgement."

In the secnd phrase"
It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts.

..says (to me), "No man is subject to any man's judgement."


Is this shoehorning? Yes. Is it also valid? Yes. Why? Because that is the way that I interpret it. Others may interpret it differently, and they do so with other motives than mine in mind.

My motive is to see in these sets of words the idea that the only valid judgement of a man is the "result" of that man (in history) as seen from as large a perspective as possible. The largest perspective possible is "god's view".

He who sees an (the!) obvious logical contradiction, as pointed out by Jocabia, has the motive of finding and trumpeting what "appear to be" linguistic logical contradictions so as to denigrate their "opponent". And their opponent is the concept of god in the abstract.

Yes, his message is consistent if you leave out parts of it like you just did. He says "the spiritual man judges all things". What things are these spiritual men judging? One argument that has been said is he judges himself. The other argument that is made that he is saying that spiritual men are under the judgement of God and those who aren't are under the judgement of men. THe first argument is in contradiction to "I do not judge even myself" and the second is in contradiction to Jesus.

And your ad hominem is thoroughly amusing. I'm a Christian. I'm not arguing against the concept of God. I'm arguing against the concept of Paul having any divinity. And I understand. I'm a Christian. I listen to the teachings of Christ. I feel no need to justify the teachings of Paul because they are unnecessary. The teachings of Christ are the path to salvation. Now you can raise Paul up if you want, but I'm fairly certain of the effect of false idols. I choose not to be a Paulian.

Perhaps you should read my post. My point is that empirical evidence isn't truely possible for anything. The scientific method used to gather knowledge in today's world is a tainted system from the begginning. Tainted because it has to use mankind to do the thinking.

There are two problems as I noted before.

1. Mankind has limited knowledge.
2. Mankind has predispositions to certain beliefs (he's biased because of his emotions)

Because of this you have scientist fighting over every single scientific fact. You can find someone who disagrees on every issue. If you demand undeniable evidence for everything you believe in you wouldn't believe anything. (Even the Nehilist believes something "There is no truth!" Prove it lol)

Many people wish to deny the existance of Jesus or his actions. Yet they blissfully follow the history books which contain many facts with less "empirical evidence".

My point is our lives as human tends to deal in probabilities of truth not absolutes. We have to make desicions every day based on limited information and we do it with our own bias.

My point to you in the last post was...We can't do anything about this human paradigm (mankind's limited self) but we can try to do something about our bias. So when someone is presenting their evidence try not to approach it with such a closed mind. You hide behind this demand for absolute truth because you know it's an impossible demand. This gives you the freedom to do whatever you want. Anytime you don't like someones statements you just have to say "show me your empirical evidence". When they can't do it you can say "see I don't have to believe you!" The reality is you have your mind already made up because if you did this every time you wouldn't belive anything. So you do it only when you don't want to believe.

I'm not demanding anyone believe anything! It's your choice but hiding behind impossible demands so as to not believe something is cowardice. Approach each "truth" with an open mind and determine as best you can whether you belive it or not... when presented in the whole of the other universal truths you also believe. Challenge you universal truths as well! Constantly test yourself and your faith (whatever that is, I don't mean religion).

Also recognize that it's possible you are wrong. My father in law is a devout Buddhist, he isn't happy that his son in law and daughter are Christian. He tries to convert me every time I go there. I respect him and listen... honestly listen... to what he has to say. If my belief system can't stand up to the test it doesn't deserve my belief.

Lastly, rercognize that maybe some people have had a personal experience with God (or the spiritual world) in some way and may have information you've never experienced. I've met so many people that demand empirical evidnece for the existence of the spiritual world but here in Asia many people would laugh at this. They've experianced it first hand too often. Remember the first rule, you are a limited creature with limited knowledge, you haven't experianced the whole world yet.

This is amusing. One, he said substantial proof exists and I asked him to show. I didn't make any judgement as to the possibility of it. I ONLY said that I've not seen it done before.

In your previous post, you said specifically that I had asked for something I hadn't. This makes you in error.

As to this post, how is asking someone what they've seen that makes them believe the existence of Jesus can be proven in contradiction to what you're saying.

Finally, because we deal in probabilities does not mean that there is no way to measure those probabilities. If you and I are arguing about the direction a pencil will fall and I'm saying it will most likely fall towards the floor and you are saying it will most likely fall towards the ceiling one of us is arguing from an educated position and one of us is arguing from a position of ignorance or naivity. You are free to ignore evidence if you like. Quite welcome to in fact. However, we have a word for that and most reasonable people find the word offensive.

And once again you've proven that you've jumped into an argument in the middle without looking at the actual text of the argument which is available for all to see (ignoring evidence again). If you'd read it, you'd know that I believe in God and the divinity of Jesus, but I realize that my belief relies on faith. Suggesting it is knowledge is suggesting it does not require faith, which is, in fact, in contradiction to the Bible. But you don't realize that's the argument because you didn't read. So instead you've decided to make assumptions about who I am or what I believe when the evidence is available to you to the contrary.

See the unfortunate result of ignoring evidence is that it wastes a lot of time and, in an uncertain world, you are that much less likely to find the truth. I asked for evidence and this offended you. Evidence was available to you and chose not to read it and then judged from that position. Not the most convincing argument.

This is amusing. One, he said substantial proof exists and I asked him to show. I didn't make any judgement as to the possibility of it. I ONLY said that I've not seen it done before.

In your previous post, you said specifically that I had asked for something I hadn't. This makes you in error.

As to this post, how is asking someone what they've seen that makes them believe the existence of Jesus can be proven in contradiction to what you're saying.

Finally, because we deal in probabilities does not mean that there is no way to measure those probabilities. If you and I are arguing about the direction a pencil will fall and I'm saying it will most likely fall towards the floor and you are saying it will most likely fall towards the ceiling one of us is arguing from an educated position and one of us is arguing from a position of ignorance or naivity. You are free to ignore evidence if you like. Quite welcome to in fact. However, we have a word for that and most reasonable people find the word offensive.

And once again you've proven that you've jumped into an argument in the middle without looking at the actual text of the argument which is available for all to see (ignoring evidence again). If you'd read it, you'd know that I believe in God and the divinity of Jesus, but I realize that my belief relies on faith. Suggesting it is knowledge is suggesting it does not require faith, which is, in fact, in contradiction to the Bible. But you don't realize that's the argument because you didn't read. So instead you've decided to make assumptions about who I am or what I believe when the evidence is available to you to the contrary.

See the unfortunate result of ignoring evidence is that it wastes a lot of time and, in an uncertain world, you are that much less likely to find the truth. I asked for evidence and this offended you. Evidence was available to you and chose not to read it and then judged from that position. Not the most convincing argument.

Ok.

1. I'm not in the middle of your other discussion except for pointing out one arguement. That is you can't use "absolutes truths" to deny truth. I agree we should believe in probabilities. I never said otherwise. It's kind of the preponderance of evidence concept in law. Once the evidence piles up the truth becomes obvious but not absolute. Maybe we are in agreement, please let me know and we can end this part of the discussion.

2. If I mistook something you said it doesn't negate all my statements. However, if I did please be specific as to what and I will gladly apoligize.

3. You are wrong about one thing in this post. In Romans it states...

Chapter 1 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

So as you can see (I know you don't agree with Pauline epistles thats my next point) we can find God in creation. For a more logical arguement, how can the truths of the creator not be found in his creation?

4. Okay you don't want to believe Paul. I don't care. I didn't argue against you mearly argued my first point about methodology. But I would like to point out that ALL the scripture is written by followers of Christ. Also the old testament doesn't have any of his teachings. Are you saying literally only the words of Christ are divine and therefore the only infallible words? If so how do you know his words were written correctly? He didn't write them (Mind you I believe them, I'm mearly following you arguement- as I understand it- to it's logical conclusion).

5. Don't assume you know my beliefs. Except slightly in this post, I haven't really stated them. I'm mearly trying to confirm certain important basic concepts so further discussion isn't tainted by bad methodology.

6. Lastly, I didn't say christians should judge mankind. I said they should judge right and wrong based on God's words. They Pharisees were looking to stone her. Jesus told her go and sin no more. He judge her sin but not her punishment and expects the same from us. He didn't look at her and say "umm I don't know if it's right or wrong because I don't judge". You acuse me of not understanding but you don't take the time to try and understand what I'm saying. I don't care if you agree or not but don't misjudge my statements either.

Ok.

1. I'm not in the middle of your other discussion except for pointing out one arguement. That is you can't use "absolutes truths" to deny truth. I agree we should believe in probabilities. I never said otherwise. It's kind of the preponderance of evidence concept in law. Once the evidence piles up the truth becomes obvious but not absolute. Maybe we are in agreement, please let me know and we can end this part of the discussion.

Where did I ask for ABSOLUTE TRUTH? I asked for evidence (which I never received). You decided to jump in and tell me that I shouldn't have asked for ABSOLUTE TRUTH and I should have asked for evidence, which is exactly what I did. This was why I directed you to go back and reread my post. I don't believe mankind has access to ABSOLUTE TRUTH and never suggested that we did. You misunderstood a post because you took it of context. Just admit you misunderstood and we can absolutely end this part of the discussion.

2. If I mistook something you said it doesn't negate all my statements. However, if I did please be specific as to what and I will gladly apoligize.

See above.

3. You are wrong about one thing in this post. In Romans it states...

Chapter 1 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

So as you can see (I know you don't agree with Pauline epistles thats my next point) we can find God in creation. For a more logical arguement, how can the truths of the creator not be found in his creation?

Even if one accepts that God can be seen in nature (I do), this doesn't even remotely suggest that your concept or my concept of God is the correct one. Still comes down to faith.

4. Okay you don't want to believe Paul. I don't care. I didn't argue against you mearly argued my first point about methodology. But I would like to point out that ALL the scripture is written by followers of Christ. Also the old testament doesn't have any of his teachings. Are you saying literally only the words of Christ are divine and therefore the only infallible words? If so how do you know his words were written correctly? He didn't write them (Mind you I believe them, I'm mearly following you arguement- as I understand it- to it's logical conclusion).

I don't want to believe any MAN over the teachings of Christ. Paul accepted that the Gospels were correct and attempted to teach from them. If the Gospels were good enough before Paul, then they are good enough today. Now you could try to make the same argument about the Old and New Testaments, but it would be spurious. Jesus came to fulfill the law as laid out in the Old Testament and to replace it with his teachings as found in parts of the New Testament. Now unless you are arguing that Paul was the fulfillment of the law as laid out in the New Testament and replaced it with his teachings, then the two do not relate. If you do feel like Paul replaced the teachings of the Gospels then we are definitely NEVER going to agree.

Christ said that his Apostles were imbued with the ability to remember his teachings exactly and that those teachings could be passed down in the EXACT form he taught them in. Jesus is different from ANY prophet in that he was God in the flesh and the only infallible human to ever walk the earth. If you're Christian, you believe this. Paul agreed with this concept as well. Therefore any teachings that seek to amend, edit, update or replace the teachings of Christ are going to be dismissed. I have found contradictions between Christ and Paul and clearly Christ wins. Thus my reasoning for rejecting Paul. I have FAITH that his words were written correctlly. I have already admitted my faith. The reason I don't have to validate this to Paulians is because they also believe the words of Christ are infallible and in the correctness of the Gospels. I would not use the same arguments if I were arguing with an Athiest. The original poster was arguing with an Athiest and claiming the existence of sufficient evidence to prove the appearance of Christ on earth and to verify the miracles. I asked for that poster's evidence.

5. Don't assume you know my beliefs. Except slightly in this post, I haven't really stated them. I'm mearly trying to confirm certain important basic concepts so further discussion isn't tainted by bad methodology.

Unlike you, I did no such things. I made a comment about Paulians. It was a general statement mostly aimed at the original poster I was arguing with. You may or may not be a Paulian. You made a ad hominem attack that my logical and reasonable questions were an attempt to disprove God instead of what they actually were, an attempt to get the original poster to accept that it was an argument of faith.

6. Lastly, I didn't say christians should judge mankind. I said they should judge right and wrong based on God's words. They Pharisees were looking to stone her. Jesus told her go and sin no more. He judge her sin but not her punishment and expects the same from us. He didn't look at her and say "umm I don't know if it's right or wrong because I don't judge". You acuse me of not understanding but you don't take the time to try and understand what I'm saying. I don't care if you agree or not but don't misjudge my statements either.
WRONG. Jesus could judge sin because he had no sin. YOU can make no such claim. You can't point out that speck of dust in your neighbor's eye because of the plank in yours, but Jesus had no plank. He specifically directed us to not enforce the law on or judge others. There is a difference between the actions of Jesus and the directions he gave us. If you find scripture where Jesus said he was the son of God does that mean you can claim to be the son of God? Of course not. His direction to us on this particular point (about judgement) was direct and clear. DO NOT JUDGE.

I love that you suggest that I haven't taken the time to understand your arguments. Here is the difference between your arguments and my replies. I made a statement. You replied with something that had nothing to do with what I said. I pointed out your error. You compounded it by making assumptions about my beliefs while also adding some additional points. I addressed those additional points. Your reply FINALLY actually addresses the substance of my post rather than your suspicions about my personal beliefs. And now I'm again replying to the substance of your post. I have consistently talked about the text of your posts rather than talking about things I assume about you. You have consistently (well, until this past post) done the opposite. This is the source of our disagreement. Pointing out your error is not the same as not understanding your posts. If you'd like I'll quote myself and how you specifically missed those parts of the post.

I did not take the time to read every post in this thread it's huge! So since I misuderstood your earlier statement, I apologize. However, I think that since I did that you have been so offended you haven't listened to what I wrote.

I was mislead because I had thought the comments here were focused on the proofs of Christianity to Athiest. I didn't realize (do to not reading sooo many posts) that the conversation had gone off topic. I hope you can forgive my misunderstanding of your earlier position and listen to what I'm saying now.

"Jesus told her go and sin no more. He judge her sin but not her punishment and expects the same from us. He didn't look at her and say "umm I don't know if it's right or wrong because I don't judge".

I agree Jesus could have damned her to hell if he'd chosen he's God but he didn't because he was making a point to us. He was our prime example while on earth and thus tried to show us not what he could do but what we should. Now obviously there are times he did things we can't. You will note Jesus said he without sin cast the first stone at this point He could have but didn't. Trust me I never ever ever in my post linked the Idea of Jesus and Us being the same nor did I say what he COULD do. I said what he did and that was what he expects from us. So I could be wrong but I think there miscommunication on both sides here.

Anyhow the reason it was brought up was you were saying a passage in Corinthians was contradictory. My statement was maybe not clear.


It seems to me that the Corinthian passage is not contradictory. Paul is mearly saying that because we have the mind of Christ we can make rightous judgements (determine whats good whats evil) here on earth. The harlot passage with Jesus shows that we should judge someones actions but not pass a judgement. In other words yes her behavior is sin (judge) but I can't determine her sentence (judge) because I don't know her mind only God can. I think part of the reason sometimes the passages seem contradictory is due to the limitations of the English language. I could say in english and not contradict myself "I judge you but I won't judge you". I think this limitation is causing the confusion. Have you tried reading it in the original greek? That might help.

Anyhow, this is off topic. I would like to continue with the part of our discussion which is on topic.

The passage from Romans not only states that you can find God but even his invisible qualities (whatever you want to make of that is fine). The really interesting passage is the next part which states that because of this mankind is without excuse. So if I can't find salvation (not just "oooh nice some god exists!"), I would have an excuse ("Hey you never told me Jesus was the only way!"). Think of it this way to have an excuse you need to be missing the ability to do it or the information need to choose to do it. How can mankind be without excuse if the core ideas of salvation are missing from the universe (according to this passage)? Now I'm not really arguing this point. I getting to the point that I believe that one can (and I think this passage supports the idea) find the God of salvation just by exploring the truths of the universe (which reveals Him). Thats why I suggested CS Lewis' Mere Christianity, I think he does a good job of doing just this.

Again please except my apology for misunderstanding the one part of your statements. I'm truely sorry not just saying it.

WRONG. Jesus could judge sin because he had no sin. YOU can make no such claim. You can't point out that speck of dust in your neighbor's eye because of the plank in yours, but Jesus had no plank. He specifically directed us to not enforce the law on or judge others. There is a difference between the actions of Jesus and the directions he gave us. If you find scripture where Jesus said he was the son of God does that mean you can claim to be the son of God? Of course not. His direction to us on this particular point (about judgement) was direct and clear. DO NOT JUDGE.


Lets look at what he said

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

What he is saying is that if you criticise anything in anyone eles life you cannot be accused of the thing your are accusing the other of. In other words, dont be a hypocryite. We can see this from two verses. Firstly "take the plank out of your own eye" cant mean sin in general, as humans themselves cant remove sin. Only God can do that. If he is talking about specific sins then humans can work towards stopping individual problems in their lives, but its near impossible for humans to stop sinning at all. Also if Jesus were saying not to judge at all, he would not be telling us that we will be able to see the speck later when we have sorted out own plank out. Thirdly, the line "the measure you use, it will be measured to you" clearly refers to hypocracy, and not sin in general.

Yes, his message is consistent if you leave out parts of it like you just did. He says "the spiritual man judges all things". What things are these spiritual men judging? One argument that has been said is he judges himself. The other argument that is made that he is saying that spiritual men are under the judgement of God and those who aren't are under the judgement of men. THe first argument is in contradiction to "I do not judge even myself" and the second is in contradiction to Jesus.

Oh,.. OK.

As I said, my interpretation is an excellent example of what you
called "shoehorning", and admittedly so.

Since I don't know what "a spiritual man" is as defined by the speaker (Paul is
it?) I will have to make my own interpretation of that, which I choose to take
to mean "all men" (as I personally think spirituality is an inherent quality in all
human beings).

I also don't know what is meant by "judgement" as per the author, so I'll take
it to mean, in the case of "judges all things", to mean "all phenomena".

Now, I think the single word "judgement" is being used in these two passages
for two different things.

There is the "judgement" of men as to their "moral" quality. And there is
the "judgement" of non-moral-quality phenomena,.. aka "what happens in the
world".

My reading comes from my purposeful interpretation (shoehorning) of my
belief that: The moral quality of men can only be judged by god (the
perspective of history) while all other phenomena are to be judged by one's
common (?) sense.

Now,.. that doesn't mean that we can't act on the BEHAVIORS of men
(including ourselves)! So, while it's god's job to render "judgement" on men's
moral quality, it's men's (our) job to render action on men's behavior.


And your ad hominem is thoroughly amusing. I'm a Christian. I'm not arguing against the concept of God. I'm arguing against the concept of Paul having any divinity. And I understand. I'm a Christian. I listen to the teachings of Christ. I feel no need to justify the teachings of Paul because they are unnecessary. The teachings of Christ are the path to salvation. Now you can raise Paul up if you want, but I'm fairly certain of the effect of false idols. I choose not to be a Paulian.

I'm not really conversant (or particularly interested) in the concept of
divinity, as I think it's a thoroughly unnecessary and distracting concept.

I'm not really coming at you, per se, in ad hominem, though,.. I can see
where you might see it that way. :)

The bible, in all it's forms (source languages, translations of other languages,
interpretations of translations, etc), is inherently prone to being "interpreted"
in nearly ANY way imaginable for ANY purpose imaginable, simply because of
it's "vastness" and complexity.

Whenever I see someone quoting scripture, my immediate reaction is to look
to the motive of the interpretation that is being made, and not so much
WHAT is being quoted.

I have a funny feeling that you also, as a simple follower of the simple
message of christ, agree with me that it's ridiculously easy to quote
something from scripture to justify nearly anything.

So,.. the question then becomes, "Does the motive of the quoter agree with
my beliefs?"

If they don't, and the quoter exhibits no behavior that needs my "judgement"
and action, I'll leave him to his "displaying his BAD motives in the open so
that we may know who he is and take care" and not molest him.

If they don't, and the quoter EXHIBITS behavior that needs my "judgement"
and action, then I'll molest the hell out of him..!!

You'd probably agree to that..! :)

Lets look at what he said



What he is saying is that if you criticise anything in anyone eles life you cannot be accused of the thing your are accusing the other of. In other words, dont be a hypocryite. We can see this from two verses. Firstly "take the plank out of your own eye" cant mean sin in general, as humans themselves cant remove sin. Only God can do that. If he is talking about specific sins then humans can work towards stopping individual problems in their lives, but its near impossible for humans to stop sinning at all. Also if Jesus were saying not to judge at all, he would not be telling us that we will be able to see the speck later when we have sorted out own plank out. Thirdly, the line "the measure you use, it will be measured to you" clearly refers to hypocracy, and not sin in general.

Wow, way to miss the point altogether. First, he uses two different words for what is in your eye and what is in his. The point being that you aren't in a position to judge others, "Do not judge". It is not don't accuse others of something you are also guilty of. Second, the point is that there is always something we could be doing better and we should be cleaning up our own houses not the houses of others. If you are permitted to judge others for the things you don't yourself do we would spend all of our time worrying about the speck in other people's eyes while a plank (whether the same sin or a different sin) remains in our own. Thirdly, the line "the measure you use, it will be measured to you" clearly refers to JUDGEMENT, as he included IN THE SENTENCE after talking about judging not hypocracy.

I wonder how cocky one has to be to twist the words of a person they believe to be the son of God to their own agenda. You twisted "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Where in that sentence did Jesus mention hypocracy? You are familiar with English, yes? In English when we use a pronoun 'it', that pronoun refers to a noun that we have either referred to already 'judgment' or that is understood because of foreknowledge, e.g. 'he and I' when 'he' is standing right next to me within the view of the listener. People generally do not intentionally confuse issues by referring to a noun that has not been used yet with a pronoun.

I did not take the time to read every post in this thread it's huge! So since I misuderstood your earlier statement, I apologize. However, I think that since I did that you have been so offended you haven't listened to what I wrote.

I was mislead because I had thought the comments here were focused on the proofs of Christianity to Athiest. I didn't realize (do to not reading sooo many posts) that the conversation had gone off topic. I hope you can forgive my misunderstanding of your earlier position and listen to what I'm saying now.

"Jesus told her go and sin no more. He judge her sin but not her punishment and expects the same from us. He didn't look at her and say "umm I don't know if it's right or wrong because I don't judge".

I agree Jesus could have damned her to hell if he'd chosen he's God but he didn't because he was making a point to us. He was our prime example while on earth and thus tried to show us not what he could do but what we should. Now obviously there are times he did things we can't. You will note Jesus said he without sin cast the first stone at this point He could have but didn't. Trust me I never ever ever in my post linked the Idea of Jesus and Us being the same nor did I say what he COULD do. I said what he did and that was what he expects from us. So I could be wrong but I think there miscommunication on both sides here.

Anyhow the reason it was brought up was you were saying a passage in Corinthians was contradictory. My statement was maybe not clear.


It seems to me that the Corinthian passage is not contradictory. Paul is mearly saying that because we have the mind of Christ we can make rightous judgements (determine whats good whats evil) here on earth. The harlot passage with Jesus shows that we should judge someones actions but not pass a judgement. In other words yes her behavior is sin (judge) but I can't determine her sentence (judge) because I don't know her mind only God can. I think part of the reason sometimes the passages seem contradictory is due to the limitations of the English language. I could say in english and not contradict myself "I judge you but I won't judge you". I think this limitation is causing the confusion. Have you tried reading it in the original greek? That might help.

Anyhow, this is off topic. I would like to continue with the part of our discussion which is on topic.

The passage from Romans not only states that you can find God but even his invisible qualities (whatever you want to make of that is fine). The really interesting passage is the next part which states that because of this mankind is without excuse. So if I can't find salvation (not just "oooh nice some god exists!"), I would have an excuse ("Hey you never told me Jesus was the only way!"). Think of it this way to have an excuse you need to be missing the ability to do it or the information need to choose to do it. How can mankind be without excuse if the core ideas of salvation are missing from the universe (according to this passage)? Now I'm not really arguing this point. I getting to the point that I believe that one can (and I think this passage supports the idea) find the God of salvation just by exploring the truths of the universe (which reveals Him). Thats why I suggested CS Lewis' Mere Christianity, I think he does a good job of doing just this.

Again please except my apology for misunderstanding the one part of your statements. I'm truely sorry not just saying it.

I'll let the rest of this go as I have no issue with it (though I've already clearly stated that only one who already believes Lewis is correct would enjoy his work).

On the throwing stones and go and sin no more. I would agree that you could interpret it that way if it existed in a vacuum. Fortunately, we have much more text with which to work. First of all, he IS in a position to see her mind and he will be in position to judge, but he forgives sin which is what he did there. However, he also discourages sin, which he also did there.

Now as far as judging that sin, he gives a clear direction about doing so. It's simple really. "DO NOT JUDGE." I don't see how he could have ANY clearer. We should not judge a person's action. He made that perfectly clear.

Also, we are not damned to hell for sinning so he wouldn't damn her to hell as it would oppose his message. We are saved by accepting Christ. Our sin or lack of it has nothing to do with it since none of us are pure.

Oh,.. OK.

As I said, my interpretation is an excellent example of what you
called "shoehorning", and admittedly so.

Since I don't know what "a spiritual man" is as defined by the speaker (Paul is
it?) I will have to make my own interpretation of that, which I choose to take
to mean "all men" (as I personally think spirituality is an inherent quality in all
human beings).

I also don't know what is meant by "judgement" as per the author, so I'll take
it to mean, in the case of "judges all things", to mean "all phenomena".

Now, I think the single word "judgement" is being used in these two passages
for two different things.

There is the "judgement" of men as to their "moral" quality. And there is
the "judgement" of non-moral-quality phenomena,.. aka "what happens in the
world".

My reading comes from my purposeful interpretation (shoehorning) of my
belief that: The moral quality of men can only be judged by god (the
perspective of history) while all other phenomena are to be judged by one's
common (?) sense.

Now,.. that doesn't mean that we can't act on the BEHAVIORS of men
(including ourselves)! So, while it's god's job to render "judgement" on men's
moral quality, it's men's (our) job to render action on men's behavior.



I'm not really conversant (or particularly interested) in the concept of
divinity, as I think it's a thoroughly unnecessary and distracting concept.

I'm not really coming at you, per se, in ad hominem, though,.. I can see
where you might see it that way. :)

The bible, in all it's forms (source languages, translations of other languages,
interpretations of translations, etc), is inherently prone to being "interpreted"
in nearly ANY way imaginable for ANY purpose imaginable, simply because of
it's "vastness" and complexity.

Whenever I see someone quoting scripture, my immediate reaction is to look
to the motive of the interpretation that is being made, and not so much
WHAT is being quoted.

I have a funny feeling that you also, as a simple follower of the simple
message of christ, agree with me that it's ridiculously easy to quote
something from scripture to justify nearly anything.

So,.. the question then becomes, "Does the motive of the quoter agree with
my beliefs?"

If they don't, and the quoter exhibits no behavior that needs my "judgement"
and action, I'll leave him to his "displaying his BAD motives in the open so
that we may know who he is and take care" and not molest him.

If they don't, and the quoter EXHIBITS behavior that needs my "judgement"
and action, then I'll molest the hell out of him..!!

You'd probably agree to that..! :)

I don't agree to any of it. First, I will not SHOEHORN the message of Christ into my beliefs but instead build my beliefs upon the message of Christ. I do not change His message according to my agenda, something you've chosen to do. And I don't believe the message of Christ can be interpreted in any way imagineable. Once, the message of PAUL is removed the message of Christ is clear and consistent. "Worry about your sin and not the sins of others." "Treat others as you would have them treat you." "Spread the message by being an example rather than a marketer." People who misunderstand the words of Jesus are doing so through an intentional misunderstanding, in my opinion (and apparently yours). That misunderstanding stems from trying to SHOEHORN the words of Jesus and Paul together. I will never let the words of man cause me to amend the message of Jesus. I am very familiar with God's view on false idols.

I don't care what behavior you exhibit as none excapes the eye of God and he will decide how that behavior must be handled. I do care how your behavior affects others so my interference with your behavior will come when it begins to damage others. Otherwise, do what you do and our Lord will decide how to deal with it at the appropriate time.

I don't agree to any of it. First, I will not SHOEHORN the message of Christ into my beliefs but instead build my beliefs upon the message of Christ. I do not change His message according to my agenda, something you've chosen to do. And I don't believe the message of Christ can be interpreted in any way imagineable.
Interpretation is unavoidable for thinking, rational human beings. It is our process for understanding messages.

You interpret his word when you say:
Once, the message of PAUL is removed the message of Christ is clear and consistent. "Worry about your sin and not the sins of others." "Treat others as you would have them treat you." "Spread the message by being an example rather than a marketer."
That *is* interpretation.

People who misunderstand the words of Jesus are doing so through an intentional misunderstanding, in my opinion (and apparently yours). That misunderstanding stems from trying to SHOEHORN the words of Jesus and Paul together. I will never let the words of man cause me to amend the message of Jesus. I am very familiar with God's view on false idols.

I don't care what behavior you exhibit as none excapes the eye of God and he will decide how that behavior must be handled. I do care how your behavior affects others so my interference with your behavior will come when it begins to damage others. Otherwise, do what you do and our Lord will decide how to deal with it at the appropriate time.
You seem to have an irrational dislike of Paul that colours your thinking. It colours your interpretation of things. That's not a bad thing --it provides the rest of us with a non-Paulian stance to examine and compare to our own interpretation.

Interpretation is unavoidable for thinking, rational human beings. It is our process for understanding messages.

You interpret his word when you say:
Once, the message of PAUL is removed the message of Christ is clear and consistent. "Worry about your sin and not the sins of others." "Treat others as you would have them treat you." "Spread the message by being an example rather than a marketer."
That *is* interpretation.

I didn't say it isn't interpreted. I said it can't really be interpreted in any way imaginable. Generally, it's difficult to make the case for many current interpretations without quoting Paul. This is specifically what I find amazing. "I know it's not consistent with what Jesus said, but Paul said..."

You seem to have an irrational dislike of Paul that colours your thinking. It colours your interpretation of things. That's not a bad thing --it provides the rest of us with a non-Paulian stance to examine and compare to our own interpretation.

I don't dislike Paul on the face of things. I have a disdain for the fact that his interpretation of the Gospels (which unarguably brings back Levitical law) has been elevated to be an equal source to the Gospels themselves, not for him. My dislike for the interpretation the religious leader, Paul, made is that he incorporated aspects of Old Testament (Levitical law) that I believe cannot be found in the teachings of Christ. He specifically errs in his interpretations around judging the sins of others and treatment of others that I find to be in direct contradiction with the teachings of Christ. I don't have an irration dislike of Paul. I have a rational dislike. There is a significant difference. I don't dismiss everything that was ever said by Paul, however. I believe that some of the teachings of Paul show incredible insight and understanding.

EDIT: Along the same lines, I very much like GnI and I very often find post by GnI to be insightful and intelligent. However, if someone tried to tell me that the teachings of GnI are on the same level with the teachings of Christ or that GnI has the ability to edit the teachings of Christ, my reaction to the beliefs of Grave_n_Idleans would be equal to my reaction to the belief of Paulians (though probably less frequently seen due to the difference in popularity).

I don't agree to any of it. First, I will not SHOEHORN the message of Christ into my beliefs but instead build my beliefs upon the message of Christ. I do not change His message according to my agenda, something you've chosen to do. And I don't believe the message of Christ can be interpreted in any way imagineable. Once, the message of PAUL is removed the message of Christ is clear and consistent. "Worry about your sin and not the sins of others." "Treat others as you would have them treat you." "Spread the message by being an example rather than a marketer." People who misunderstand the words of Jesus are doing so through an intentional misunderstanding, in my opinion (and apparently yours). That misunderstanding stems from trying to SHOEHORN the words of Jesus and Paul together. I will never let the words of man cause me to amend the message of Jesus. I am very familiar with God's view on false idols.

That's fine. :) I applaud you in your ways..!

If you simply follow what you say are the "important messages" of christ,
then you don't have to "shoehorn" anything into anything, because your
beliefs are incapable of meaning anything but your actions based on them.

My point is that, because MY beliefs were formed outside the judeo-christian
tradition, and I choose to be a christian as I see "christian belief", my task is
to "fit", "shoehorn", "coerce" what I hear from more "traditional" christians
into my beliefs.

If the golden rule is your basic premise, which is my basic premise, then ANY
words of wisdom (whether from the bible or not) can be fitted into that belief
(system), if I find it a "good".

I'm very VERY glad that you can dismiss the nonsense that comes from
the "humanly motivated" mouths of men when they conflict with your simple
and humane beliefs.


I don't care what behavior you exhibit as none excapes the eye of God and he will decide how that behavior must be handled. I do care how your behavior affects others so my interference with your behavior will come when it begins to damage others. Otherwise, do what you do and our Lord will decide how to deal with it at the appropriate time.

I do care how others behave, if that behavior is "evil" to me. Therefore, to
continue to be a "good" person (in my own eyes using my simple "golden rule"
premise) I need to know what "evil" means to me.

I do. And I act, as god's tool, when "evil" behavior is exhibited.

God will judge the person for his evilness,.. I will act to quell the evil behavior.

Am I concerned that my definition of evil could include things that others
consider good? Of course, and that is why I have a tight definition of evil.

Do I care what anyone "judges" of my definition of evil, and that I choose to
act on my observing evil? No.

To allow evil to flourish... what is the simple requirement?


The golden rule, to me, is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you.


I would have them do unto an "evil" me, in ways that would stifle my evil
behavior.

..but leave the judgement of my evilness to god,.. because that is not their
business, and they couldn't do anything but strengthen my evilness by
assuming the job of god.

I don't dislike Paul on the face of things. I have a disdain for the fact that his interpretation of the Gospels (which unarguably brings back Levitical law) has been elevated to be an equal source to the Gospels themselves, not for him. My dislike for the interpretation the religious leader, Paul, made is that he incorporated aspects of Old Testament (Levitical law) that I believe cannot be found in the teachings of Christ. He specifically errs in his interpretations around judging the sins of others and treatment of others that I find to be in direct contradiction with the teachings of Christ. I don't have an irration dislike of Paul. I have a rational dislike. There is a significant difference. I don't dismiss everything that was ever said by Paul, however. I believe that some of the teachings of Paul show incredible insight and understanding.
I stand corrected.

I do care how others behave, if that behavior is "evil" to me. Therefore, to
continue to be a "good" person (in my own eyes using my simple "golden rule"
premise) I need to know what "evil" means to me.

I do. And I act, as god's tool, when "evil" behavior is exhibited.

God will judge the person for his evilness,.. I will act to quell the evil behavior.

Am I concerned that my definition of evil could include things that others
consider good? Of course, and that is why I have a tight definition of evil.

Do I care what anyone "judges" of my definition of evil, and that I choose to
act on my observing evil? No.

To allow evil to flourish... what is the simple requirement?


The golden rule, to me, is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you.


I would have them do unto an "evil" me, in ways that would stifle my evil
behavior.

..but leave the judgement of my evilness to god,.. because that is not their
business, and they couldn't do anything but strengthen my evilness by
assuming the job of god.

So if you decide that two loving parents adopting a child that would parentless otherwise is 'evil' because they are of the same sex then your belief should trump theirs why? If you and your significant other are adopting a parentless child and I decide it is 'evil' according to what you've just said I'm obligated to stop your 'evil'. I am under no such obligation. The only 'evil' behavior I am obligated to stop is behavior that does damage to others. Outside of that, 'evil' is between God and the evildoer.

What if I was directed by God to protect individual rights, like, say, potsmoking? In this example, God says to me that to prevent the intervention of the state into the private affairs of a person. Now, you decide that drug legalization is 'evil'. You admit the possibility that your judgement of 'evil' is flawed. Now, you with your flawed judgement, act on that flawed judgement to prevent something that, in fact, may well be divinely-inspired. Since you can't see into my head you can't really know. Now, you've committed an evil, in the ABSOLUTE sense, to prevent a subjective 'evil'.

Now, imagine the alternative. You allow people to make their own decisions as to what is right for them in their personal lives. God judges their actions appropriately according to their 'goodness' in an ABSOLUTE sense so that they quite literally are like children whose behavior has been judged by the Father, only the Father does so accurately and not in your human and flawed way.

In both cases, they get judged but, in one case, they are judged by one in a position to accurately judge their sins and, in another, they are judged by a flawed human who somehow believes that his/her view of 'right' is more accurate than this person's view of 'right' even though the actions of 'this person' would never affect the 'flawed human'. You are not in a position to accurately judge 'evil' behavior by your own admission and you are in even less of a position to quell said inaccurately-judged 'evil' behavior.

I am certain that I am a flawed human who is not in a position to limit the personal actions of any other flawed human based on my subjective view of right and wrong.

You twisted "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Where in that sentence did Jesus mention hypocracy?

That IS hypocracy he's talking about. Look at what hypocracy means

The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness

http://www.scripturestudies.com/Vol6/F5/f5_nt.html

Heres a further explination.

That IS hypocracy he's talking about. Look at what hypocracy means

The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness

http://www.scripturestudies.com/Vol6/F5/f5_nt.html

Heres a further explination.

Hmm, where did he say anything about the practice of professing beliefs, feelings or virtues that one does not hold or possess or of falseness. Your judgement in the context of what Jesus said could be entirely honest and even possibly be correct according to the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of what God wants and you would still be wrong in this judgement so long as there is a plank in your eye. He does not mention being a hypocrite until the second paragraph. When he said 'it' he was refering to judgement. Proof of this is that he used it earlier in the sentence. That you could miss this is beyond me. And nice job dropping all of my other points. However, you've been doing that since the beginning of the discussion, so why be surprised, right? Don't bother to support your erroneous assumptions. When I point out the fallacy, just let them drop. That'll help your argument.

"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it [judgement] will be measured to you."

Hmm, where did he say anything about the practice of professing beliefs, feelings or virtues that one does not hold or possess or of falseness. Your judgement in the context of what Jesus said could be entirely honest and even possibly be correct according to the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of what God wants and you would still be wrong in this judgement so long as there is a plank in your eye. He does not mention being a hypocrite until the second paragraph. When he said 'it' he was refering to judgement. Proof of this is that he used it earlier in the sentence. That you could miss this is beyond me. And nice job dropping all of my other points. However, you've been doing that since the beginning of the discussion, so why be surprised, right? Don't bother to support your erroneous assumptions. When I point out the fallacy, just let them drop. That'll help your argument.

"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it [judgement] will be measured to you."

To be fair you've droped plenty of my points, and I dont complain. Plus you have ignored the link. Repost when you have someting more than ad hommin to say.

Now, I'm not going to pretend that I read all 156 pages of lame, but what I have seen was...well, lame. :(

Not everyone, but many here have yet to read Montaigne's "Of the art of discussion." It could really benefit any discussion about a subject asking for serious conclusions rather than lameness.

Going into any "argument", you should not have in mind a specific outcome, striving to have been "right" all along. The entire point of discussion is to find truth, or rather to come as near as possible. Maybe seven others have already said this, but I didn't read it all, so I'd have missed it.

Observation: Most Christians are tricked into believing their religion, and they only vaguely (often subconsciously) know it.

Observation: Most Atheists are tricked into believing their religion, and almost none know it, not even as a semi-conscious or unconscious pull.

Observation: Neither side usually has even a marginally adequate understanding of either the theory of evolution or Christianity to make what most of us would classify as an informed decision on the topic (except both often know how to live out their beliefs).

ID is extremely difficult to prove (can't be at our level of science). The strongest scientific evidence that I've seen for it is astronomical study showing universal expansion (ie. the Big Bang theory) combined with the Law of Thermodynamics and other physics laws, especially those dealing with entropy. - Basically, the Big Bang concept looks good, until you look at pre-Big Bang, in which case you have serious problems involving time/causal relationships and/or entropy (thermodynamics). ID easily jumps these logical hoops with some light apologetics.

I was originally "tricked" into believing in Christianity, until I really started researching. (Don't bother with most radicals, read people from the other "camp" and people from your same camp that you don't share understandings with.) I've been an avid supporter of evolution ever since I got past the "Lol, they think we came from monkeys!!" stage. Several years of Evolution advocation as a Christian pass. That lasted until the better part of a year ago when I looked deeper into the research side of science. Nutshelled, "hard" science is quite soft. We don't know as much as the media/government wants us to think we know. Evolution has many flaws, especially timeframe. However, Evolution has the advantage of government sanction in both research and educational institutions. This fosters biased research, and does a good job, too.

Conclusion: ID is the only adequate explanation when looking at the major theories. Yes, it needs far, far, far more support to be "scientific" fact (much less theory, in this world culture), but since that's far from happening, expect to have to make an educated guess before you push up your daisies.

Please use the message feature if you have something you wish me to respond to personally (or you think is important that I see, because you care that I hear what you have to say), as I will likely not be able to find this topic amidst this foreign forum. :p

And never forget to have a nice day. :)

That IS hypocracy he's talking about. Look at what hypocracy means

The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness

http://www.scripturestudies.com/Vol6/F5/f5_nt.html

Heres a further explination.

Hey, what do you know? They can't defend this interpretation without using Paul. You know why? Because Jesus didn't say it.

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that `every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector" (Matt. 18:15-17).

They suggest the above passage advocates judgement but if you notice it says, "if your brother sins AGAINST YOU". Basically, it says, yes, you are allowed to protect yourself from the sins of others. If it was meant to advocate all judgement of sin, it would say, "If you brother sins, go and show him his fault." There would be no need for a qualifier. There is a need because judgement of his sin otherwise is inappropriate.

The rest of the link, I don't entirely disagree with. Let me know when you are without sin [the plank] and you are welcome to begin working on that speck of dust in the eyes of others. This is exactly comparable to when he said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Maybe we should make the argument that Jesus said there are those among us who are without sin. That's the equivalent of suggesting that his statement "first remove the plank from your own eye" suggests that we can put ourselves in a position of judgement. Notice he didn't say, "Do not judge unless you are not yourself guilty of this particular sin." He said, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." End of sentence.

Now, I'm not going to pretend that I read all 156 pages of lame, but what I have seen was...well, lame. :(

Not everyone, but many here have yet to read Montaigne's "Of the art of discussion." It could really benefit any discussion about a subject asking for serious conclusions rather than lameness.

Going into any "argument", you should not have in mind a specific outcome, striving to have been "right" all along. The entire point of discussion is to find truth, or rather to come as near as possible. Maybe seven others have already said this, but I didn't read it all, so I'd have missed it.

Observation: Most Christians are tricked into believing their religion, and they only vaguely (often subconsciously) know it.

Observation: Most Atheists are tricked into believing their religion, and almost none know it, not even as a semi-conscious or unconscious pull.

Observation: Neither side usually has even a marginally adequate understanding of either the theory of evolution or Christianity to make what most of us would classify as an informed decision on the topic (except both often know how to live out their beliefs).

ID is extremely difficult to prove (can't be at our level of science). The strongest scientific evidence that I've seen for it is astronomical study showing universal expansion (ie. the Big Bang theory) combined with the Law of Thermodynamics and other physics laws, especially those dealing with entropy. - Basically, the Big Bang concept looks good, until you look at pre-Big Bang, in which case you have serious problems involving time/causal relationships and/or entropy (thermodynamics). ID easily jumps these logical hoops with some light apologetics.

I was originally "tricked" into believing in Christianity, until I really started researching. (Don't bother with most radicals, read people from the other "camp" and people from your same camp that you don't share understandings with.) I've been an avid supporter of evolution ever since I got past the "Lol, they think we came from monkeys!!" stage. Several years of Evolution advocation as a Christian pass. That lasted until the better part of a year ago when I looked deeper into the research side of science. Nutshelled, "hard" science is quite soft. We don't know as much as the media/government wants us to think we know. Evolution has many flaws, especially timeframe. However, Evolution has the advantage of government sanction in both research and educational institutions. This fosters biased research, and does a good job, too.

Conclusion: ID is the only adequate explanation when looking at the major theories. Yes, it needs far, far, far more support to be "scientific" fact (much less theory, in this world culture), but since that's far from happening, expect to have to make an educated guess before you push up your daisies.

Please use the message feature if you have something you wish me to respond to personally (or you think is important that I see, because you care that I hear what you have to say), as I will likely not be able to find this topic amidst this foreign forum. :p

And never forget to have a nice day. :)

What a fitting name for this post. Since you won't read I won't bother to correct all of the clear and utter bs in your post.

Wow, way to miss the point altogether. First, he uses two different words for what is in your eye and what is in his. The point being that you aren't in a position to judge others, "Do not judge". It is not don't accuse others of something you are also guilty of.

The two diffrent words are there for obvious reasons. Dont criticise someone for say spending too much time with another man's wife on her own when you are actually sleeping with her. The point being, if you commit a sin in a major way, dont criticise others doing it in a minor way. Speck=small minor sin, plank large one.


Second, the point is that there is always something we could be doing better and we should be cleaning up our own houses not the houses of others. If you are permitted to judge others for the things you don't yourself do we would spend all of our time worrying about the speck in other people's eyes while a plank (whether the same sin or a different sin) remains in our own.

I agree we should sort out our own houses before others, but if we have got one sin out of our lives then we are entitled to help others who have a problem with that same sin. Help does not mean condem or be nasty about it, but point it out and help them. Notice how he uses the word "friend"


Thirdly, the line "the measure you use, it will be measured to you" clearly refers to JUDGEMENT, as he included IN THE SENTENCE after talking about judging not hypocracy.

This of course is a warning against hypocracy, because this is what hypocracy means. If I say "we should all remain celebate to marriage" and I then emphasise it to someone who has just lost their vaginity to a long time boy/girlfriend before marriage, yet I had slept with half of the girls in the college, then the measuring rod that I am using against this person, when used against me mesures unfavourabley. And that is what hypocracy is.


I wonder how cocky one has to be to twist the words of a person they believe to be the son of God to their own agenda. You twisted "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Where in that sentence did Jesus mention hypocracy? You are familiar with English, yes? In English when we use a pronoun 'it', that pronoun refers to a noun that we have either referred to already 'judgment' or that is understood because of foreknowledge, e.g. 'he and I' when 'he' is standing right next to me within the view of the listener. People generally do not intentionally confuse issues by referring to a noun that has not been used yet with a pronoun.

The only "It" in that sentence refers clearly to the mesauring rod. "and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you". I dont see why you cant see that.

What a fitting name for this post. Since you won't read I won't bother to correct all of the clear and utter bs in your post.

And you accuse me of droping points. You havent dealt with a single issue in his post! What was this we were talking about hypocracy a minute ago...

To be fair you've droped plenty of my points, and I dont complain. Plus you have ignored the link. Repost when you have someting more than ad hommin to say.

It's ad hominem and it's not an ad hominem when it's based on observed information, like the FACT that you've dropPed arguments. And I did respond to your link. I was in the process of responding to it when you wrote this. I just wanted to read the whole thing first. So I posted the rest seperately.

Ad Hominem - An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

I didn't reject any claim based on your character or some irrelevant fact. I pointed out that you were dropping arguments. Please use terms like this correctly in the future. I can even call you names (though it's against the rules here) and it's not an ad hominem unless I am using that name-calling to dismiss your claims. I addressed your points before pointing the flaw in your style.

However, your avoidance of addressing my points by claiming an ad hominem actually qualifies for the term. Thanks for giving and example to support my definition. Also, my reply to Random Junk is an ad hominem.

Now, I will repost to show you that I had "someting more than ad hommin to say."

Hmm, where did he say anything about the practice of professing beliefs, feelings or virtues that one does not hold or possess or of falseness. Your judgement in the context of what Jesus said could be entirely honest and even possibly be correct according to the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of what God wants and you would still be wrong in this judgement so long as there is a plank in your eye. He does not mention being a hypocrite until the second paragraph. When he said 'it' he was refering to judgement. Proof of this is that he used it earlier in the sentence. That you could miss this is beyond me.

Now, if you'd like to avoid replying to this, I'll understand. It's hard to argue against the text of the statement.

"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it [judgement] will be measured to you."

And you accuse me of droping points. You havent dealt with a single issue in his post! What was this we were talking about hypocracy a minute ago...

First, I didn't address it because it's off-topic. There is already a creation versus design thread. Second, he pointed out that he will not read it so I didn't bother.

Also, read below. I pointed out that my reply to him was an ad hominem.

is just stating the same things over again...

I'm an atheist...

Thinking that there is some mythological being out there is just ludicrous...

Sure, Jesus was a real guy. He was probably an awesome fellow... in his life.

But I for one have always been partial to science, and science says when people die, they don't come back... ever...

Religion is just a power struggle... the winners wrote the bible... it is loosely based on real events and good values that all humans should live by...

There are bad things you just obviously shouldn't do... and most of them are placed somewhere in the bible... so yes, it does instill some decency into today’s rather... rude society...

And I'm sure, like I said before, that Jesus did some really great things in his lifetime... that he probably helped a lot of people...

But people die... and that's it, you're done and you aren't coming back...

The bible was written to control the masses... over time it has been changed and manipulated to make people fearful of this oh-so-great man in the sky who will inevitably send you to hell, a fearful place of dark and doom. Right... that's the part that gets me...

The two diffrent words are there for obvious reasons. Dont criticise someone for say spending too much time with another man's wife on her own when you are actually sleeping with her. The point being, if you commit a sin in a major way, dont criticise others doing it in a minor way. Speck=small minor sin, plank large one.

Dust (dirt), plank (wood). In other words, they are not the same thing. In the size comparison, he was pointing out how ridiculous it is to judge the sins of others. It's like suggesting that the saying, "he how lives in glass houses should not throw stones" means that so long your house can withstand the damage by the stones then it's okay to throw stones (cast aspersions). The saying actually means that we all live in glass houses and thus it's silly to ever throw stones.

I agree we should sort out our own houses before others, but if we have got one sin out of our lives then we are entitled to help others who have a problem with that same sin. Help does not mean condem or be nasty about it, but point it out and help them. Notice how he uses the word "friend"

Helping is not judgement. I welcome the help of another to help me to be a better Christian. I will not accept the judgement of any save our Lord and His son.

This of course is a warning against hypocracy, because this is what hypocracy means. If I say "we should all remain celebate to marriage" and I then emphasise it to someone who has just lost their vaginity to a long time boy/girlfriend before marriage, yet I had slept with half of the girls in the college, then the measuring rod that I am using against this person, when used against me mesures unfavourabley. And that is what hypocracy is.

The only "It" in that sentence refers clearly to the mesauring rod. "and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you". I dont see why you cant see that.

Measure and measuring rod are not the same thing. Measure in that sentence refers to means. If I condemn you, I will be condemned. If I abuse you, I will be abused. It falls right in line with the Golden Rule.

Measure - a step planned or taken as a means to an end

The only "It" in that sentence refers clearly to the mesauring rod. "and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you". I dont see why you cant see that.

Also, make up your mind. Does the statement "and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you" refer to hypocracy as you said in a previous post or to being measured against the same stick by which you measure others? Clearly those two points are not the same. Consistency is a nice side effect of basing your arguments on the actual text's meaning. Try it and I'm sure you'll find an inconsistencies in your argument melt away.

So if you decide that two loving parents adopting a child that would parentless otherwise is 'evil' because they are of the same sex then your belief should trump theirs why? If you and your significant other are adopting a parentless child and I decide it is 'evil' according to what you've just said I'm obligated to stop your 'evil'. I am under no such obligation. The only 'evil' behavior I am obligated to stop is behavior that does damage to others. Outside of that, 'evil' is between God and the evildoer.

All your statements are correct. Fortunately, my definition of evil does not
see those things as evil.

The only reason for moral action is to supress evil. Your definition of what
you would act on as "evil behavior" hinges on what you mean by "does
damage to others'.

That is why I have a very tight definition of what constitutes evil.

And, of course, there are varying degrees of "evilness" in people's behavior. :)


What if I was directed by God to protect individual rights, like, say, potsmoking? In this example, God says to me that to prevent the intervention of the state into the private affairs of a person. Now, you decide that drug legalization is 'evil'. You admit the possibility that your judgement of 'evil' is flawed. Now, you with your flawed judgement, act on that flawed judgement to prevent something that, in fact, may well be divinely-inspired. Since you can't see into my head you can't really know. Now, you've committed an evil, in the ABSOLUTE sense, to prevent a subjective 'evil'.

God talks to you? God telling me to actually DO anything is impossible in my
belief system.

Your case only "works" if a "commandment from god" is possible. In the
scenario you describe, I have a point of view on potsmoking, and and point of
view on drug legalisation. If those viewpoints differ from yours, we are both
free to "battle it out" in whatever venue we wish.

I would choose the public opinion, and legislation venues.

You basically are trivializing the concept of "evil" with an example such as
this.


Now, imagine the alternative. You allow people to make their own decisions as to what is right for them in their personal lives. God judges their actions appropriately according to their 'goodness' in an ABSOLUTE sense so that they quite literally are like children whose behavior has been judged by the Father, only the Father does so accurately and not in your human and flawed way.

I do allow people to make decisions for themselves as to what is right for
them in their personal lives.

And when their personal life behavioral choices spills out into acts of evil,
then it is my duty to quell that evil.

Just as you would protect a child from a murderous maniac, I would do so as
well. Once again,.. belief in leaving moral judgement of people to god is not
an excuse for allowing evil to flourish by "leaving it to god" and not acting
against evil.


In both cases, they get judged but, in one case, they are judged by one in a position to accurately judge their sins and, in another, they are judged by a flawed human who somehow believes that his/her view of 'right' is more accurate than this person's view of 'right' even though the actions of 'this person' would never affect the 'flawed human'. You are not in a position to accurately judge 'evil' behavior by your own admission and you are in even less of a position to quell said inaccurately-judged 'evil' behavior.

Men may judge other men's behavior. Men may not judge other men's "souls".

It is not flawed judgement to, for example, protect innocents from murderous
maniacs.

I am in a perfect postion to judge the behavior of others. That is
what "community" is for. It is to establish "norms" that simplify human
interaction.

When those "norms" are violated, men must enforce them, or change them to
be more "humane".

That is what humanity is about.


I am certain that I am a flawed human who is not in a position to limit the personal actions of any other flawed human based on my subjective view of right and wrong.

But you are..!!

That is what Free Will is all about. It's not a matter of seeing the fact that
we are imperfect as an excuse for inaction.

It's a matter of all of us CHOOSING to be "right" in accord with our (present)
understanding of what is "good".

And part of that choice is to actively discourage evil.

If my acting on my principles turns out to be an evil, then I would expect to
be punished by men for my "bad deeds", HOPEFULLY learn WHY my actions
are bad and evil, and be allowed to repent and change my ways.

In either case, I expect god to judge me as a person, and men to judge my
behaviors.


I really don't think we disagree much, in principle. You just see anyone who
would actually SAY that they'd act on their own moral authority as a
potential despot.

I see people like that as the force that SUPRESSES despots.

All your statements are correct. Fortunately, my definition of evil does not
see those things as evil.

The only reason for moral action is to supress evil. Your definition of what
you would act on as "evil behavior" hinges on what you mean by "does
damage to others'.

That is why I have a very tight definition of what constitutes evil.

And, of course, there are varying degrees of "evilness" in people's behavior. :)



God talks to you? God telling me to actually DO anything is impossible in my
belief system.

Your case only "works" if a "commandment from god" is possible. In the
scenario you describe, I have a point of view on potsmoking, and and point of
view on drug legalisation. If those viewpoints differ from yours, we are both
free to "battle it out" in whatever venue we wish.

I would choose the public opinion, and legislation venues.

You basically are trivializing the concept of "evil" with an example such as
this.



I do allow people to make decisions for themselves as to what is right for
them in their personal lives.

And when their personal life behavioral choices spills out into acts of evil,
then it is my duty to quell that evil.

Just as you would protect a child from a murderous maniac, I would do so as
well. Once again,.. belief in leaving moral judgement of people to god is not
an excuse for allowing evil to flourish by "leaving it to god" and not acting
against evil.



Men may judge other men's behavior. Men may not judge other men's "souls".

It is not flawed judgement to, for example, protect innocents from murderous
maniacs.

I am in a perfect postion to judge the behavior of others. That is
what "community" is for. It is to establish "norms" that simplify human
interaction.

When those "norms" are violated, men must enforce them, or change them to
be more "humane".

That is what humanity is about.



But you are..!!

That is what Free Will is all about. It's not a matter of seeing the fact that
we are imperfect as an excuse for inaction.

It's a matter of all of us CHOOSING to be "right" in accord with our (present)
understanding of what is "good".

And part of that choice is to actively discourage evil.

If my acting on my principles turns out to be an evil, then I would expect to
be punished by men for my "bad deeds", HOPEFULLY learn WHY my actions
are bad and evil, and be allowed to repent and change my ways.

In either case, I expect god to judge me as a person, and men to judge my
behaviors.


I really don't think we disagree much, in principle. You just see anyone who
would actually SAY that they'd act on their own moral authority as a
potential despot.

I see people like that as the force that SUPRESSES despots.

If I stop a murderous maniac isn't not because the act is evil but because it violates others. I don't care if someone chooses to commit suicide and it's considered by God to be the most heinous act possible by God, Himself. I wouldn't stop the person. It's not my place. However, if they tried to kill my sister, I wouldn't consider if it was evil, I would stop the act because he has no right to violate my sister. Evil isn't a factor. You are suggesting that you would prevent people from hurting others because it is evil. I would stop it without an consideration for God's judgement on the act. If a person made a law that outlawed oral sex, I wouldn't care if God wrote in the Bible that oral sex is the worst evil one can commit. I would rail against it because it is not the position of the government to legislate sin, only to provent us from violating each other's rights and to protect us from the acts of other countries and natural disasters (as much as is possible).

Also, notice I said personal actions. The actions of the murderous maniac and despots are not personal, they are public and violate the rights of others. It was a clear distinction.

How shall I put this?

I am atheistic for a large number of reasons, none of which have to deal with the supernatural. I've seen plenty of weird **** in my time and am quite willing to accept that there's other stuff out there.

That said monotheism is a disgusting piece of tripe that seems to dominate everyone and turn them into ideological sheep, incapable of independent thought and vision. It makes slaves of everyone, and kills those who do not agree with it, rather like a viral infection because it eventually kills the host regardless.

That also said, one quick look around me dispells any notion that there's a single or even small number of deities. Too much random shite happens for there to be any single creature in control, a large pantheon might do it, but because of information that's come to light (figuratively) I highly doubt that there are any kind of gods at all, just creatures of various shades and detectability running around and being themselves (if you're wondering what that means, think about the visible spectrum...then think about the entire EM spectrum and see how little we can actually percieve with our own senses).

And since we're on the topic of why I don't believe in God (or Jehova/Yahwtf, Allah) I'm going to toss something else out. Statistics.

The INVENTOR of statistics HIMSELF made a detailed study to determine that god existed (and protected his flock) and guess what? He turned into an atheist at the end of it. The statistics proved that no matter who you were bad things happened to you equally, good things happen to you equally, and there's no corrolation bettween religion and outcome.

As for this WHOLE discussion on evil...think about this situation.

A mob beats up a group of people who are different from them because they believe these people are 'evil'. These people practice non-destructive acts amongst themselves and don't involve anyone else in them, but this mob just goes and decides they're 'evil' and that they should 'protect themselves' from this 'evil'. There's your free will right there, making a judgement and committing the only act of agression and destruction in the entire drama.

Sound like any groups we know? Hrm?

I'll let the rest of this go as I have no issue with it (though I've already clearly stated that only one who already believes Lewis is correct would enjoy his work).

On the throwing stones and go and sin no more. I would agree that you could interpret it that way if it existed in a vacuum. Fortunately, we have much more text with which to work. First of all, he IS in a position to see her mind and he will be in position to judge, but he forgives sin which is what he did there. However, he also discourages sin, which he also did there.

Now as far as judging that sin, he gives a clear direction about doing so. It's simple really. "DO NOT JUDGE." I don't see how he could have ANY clearer. We should not judge a person's action. He made that perfectly clear.

Also, we are not damned to hell for sinning so he wouldn't damn her to hell as it would oppose his message. We are saved by accepting Christ. Our sin or lack of it has nothing to do with it since none of us are pure.

As for Lewis, I was at university when I read it uncertain what I believed. I read this book at a time when I was searching for truth any truth. I also read the Koran etc etc. When I read Lewis it struck me. I'm not the only one, I've know others that had been athiest (I wasn't - I was just confused) that changed their life because of this book. He himself was an athiest and this was his logic to God. This is what changed his whole life. Often athiest use logical constructs to seperate themselves from their creator - for some this book helps to knock those walls down and start the relationship. I think your statement is true for you and maybe others in your limited expericence (no disrespect - remember I believe we all are limited) but not everyone.

And since we're on the topic of why I don't believe in God (or Jehova/Yahwtf, Allah) I'm going to toss something else out. Statistics.

The INVENTOR of statistics HIMSELF made a detailed study to determine that god existed (and protected his flock) and guess what? He turned into an atheist at the end of it. The statistics proved that no matter who you were bad things happened to you equally, good things happen to you equally, and there's no corrolation bettween religion and outcome.
Interesting. I hope he realised, in designing his experiment, that "good things happen to you" is not the point of any religion.

If I stop a murderous maniac isn't not because the act is evil but because it violates others.

..which is an evil to me (murderous maniac behavior)..


I don't care if someone chooses to commit suicide and it's considered by God to be the most heinous act possible by God, Himself. I wouldn't stop the person. It's not my place.

..which is not an evil to me (suicidal behavior)..


However, if they tried to kill my sister, I wouldn't consider if it was evil, I would stop the act because he has no right to violate my sister. Evil isn't a factor. You are suggesting that you would prevent people from hurting others because it is evil.

The ONLY reason to prevent anyone from doing ANYTHING is because their
behavior is evil. You simply have a different concept of "evil" than I do.


I would stop it without an consideration for God's judgement on the act.

My "judgement" and god's "judgement" are "acts" in entirely different realms.
The first is in the realm of "man", and the second is in the realm of 'god".

As I've said before, these are two entirely different "acts"
(these "judgements"). Man's perview is to judge men's behavior. God's
perview is to judge men's "souls".


If a person made a law that outlawed oral sex, I wouldn't care if God wrote in the Bible that oral sex is the worst evil one can commit. I would rail against it because it is not the position of the government to legislate sin, only to provent us from violating each other's rights and to protect us from the acts of other countries and natural disasters (as much as is possible).

In my opinion, god does not, and can not, make "laws" (prohibitions or
licenses) that affect men's behavior. That is not god's job. That is men's job.

A law prohibiting oral sex would be a codification of a societal norm. I would
see that law as nothing more than a silly attempt at making a "statement" by
some politician to garner votes,.. which it would do if such a prohibition were
indeed a societal norm.

But I wouldn't rail against it. The reason YOU rail against it is because YOU
see making such laws as an "evil" (to use my definition of evil), and take
morally inspired action to supress such an evil.

I wouldn't rail against it, by the way, because it is men's perview to prohibit
behavior based on nothing more than whim. But doing so (whimsical
prohibition) inevitably comes back to bite the whimsical. :)

God gives us two rights. To breathe, and to make our choices.

God establishes no other rights. It is men's place to codify standards of
behavior, regardless of how wise or unwise those standards are. It is
therefore only men who can enforce the rights they grant.

I'm not sure what you mean by sin, so I can't really comment on
the "legislation" of sin.


Also, notice I said personal actions. The actions of the murderous maniac and despots are not personal, they are public and violate the rights of others. It was a clear distinction.

The acts of the murderous maniac and despot ARE indeed personal..! They
themselves choose to perform those acts.

Those acts do indeed violate the rights of others, both god's and man's. If
they take away the right to choose and/or breathe, then they violate the
rights given by god.

If they take away the allowance of any behavior, then they violate the rights
given by man.

Also, make up your mind. Does the statement "and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you" refer to hypocracy as you said in a previous post or to being measured against the same stick by which you measure others? Clearly those two points are not the same.

YES THEY ARE. You clearly do not understand what hypocarcay means. It means that when you hold up your standards to others and they dont measure up too well, if you yourself are mesured by those same standards, you dont measure up well either and thus are not in a position to judge.


Dust (dirt), plank (wood). In other words, they are not the same thing. In the size comparison, he was pointing out how ridiculous it is to judge the sins of others.

Actually its speck and most likely refers to a dust particle created as a result of cutting wood with a saw (he was a carpinter). The size point was made because (as I have said) that its redicoulous to criticise the minor sin of one type in another when you yourself commit that same sin in a major way.


Measure and measuring rod are not the same thing. Measure in that sentence refers to means. If I condemn you, I will be condemned. If I abuse you, I will be abused. It falls right in line with the Golden Rule.

Measure - a step planned or taken as a means to an end.

Measure is also used as a unit of mesurement. An inch is a measure. What it means is that the mesuring rod used to mesure others by you will also be used to mesure you and then we'll see how you shape up.

..which is an evil to me (murderous maniac behavior)..



..which is not an evil to me (suicidal behavior)..



The ONLY reason to prevent anyone from doing ANYTHING is because their
behavior is evil. You simply have a different concept of "evil" than I do.



My "judgement" and god's "judgement" are "acts" in entirely different realms.
The first is in the realm of "man", and the second is in the realm of 'god".

As I've said before, these are two entirely different "acts"
(these "judgements"). Man's perview is to judge men's behavior. God's
perview is to judge men's "souls".



In my opinion, god does not, and can not, make "laws" (prohibitions or
licenses) that affect men's behavior. That is not god's job. That is men's job.

A law prohibiting oral sex would be a codification of a societal norm. I would
see that law as nothing more than a silly attempt at making a "statement" by
some politician to garner votes,.. which it would do if such a prohibition were
indeed a societal norm.

But I wouldn't rail against it. The reason YOU rail against it is because YOU
see making such laws as an "evil" (to use my definition of evil), and take
morally inspired action to supress such an evil.

I wouldn't rail against it, by the way, because it is men's perview to prohibit
behavior based on nothing more than whim. But doing so (whimsical
prohibition) inevitably comes back to bite the whimsical. :)

God gives us two rights. To breathe, and to make our choices.

God establishes no other rights. It is men's place to codify standards of
behavior, regardless of how wise or unwise those standards are. It is
therefore only men who can enforce the rights they grant.

I'm not sure what you mean by sin, so I can't really comment on
the "legislation" of sin.



The acts of the murderous maniac and despot ARE indeed personal..! They
themselves choose to perform those acts.

Those acts do indeed violate the rights of others, both god's and man's. If
they take away the right to choose and/or breathe, then they violate the
rights given by god.

If they take away the allowance of any behavior, then they violate the rights
given by man.

Sorry, I tried to have a discussion, but if you don't use commonly accepted uses of words, then it's a waste of time because we end up arguing semantics. Your use of these words does not match the definitions and we might as well just talk in tongues. I appreciate that you tried to have a discussion about this, but your definition of personal to not match the accepted definitions even in a fairly loose sense, and you don't even know what sin is.

YES THEY ARE. You clearly do not understand what hypocarcay means.
Neither do I (what a place for a typo!). ;)

How shall I put this?

I am atheistic for a large number of reasons, none of which have to deal with the supernatural. I've seen plenty of weird **** in my time and am quite willing to accept that there's other stuff out there.

That said monotheism is a disgusting piece of tripe that seems to dominate everyone and turn them into ideological sheep, incapable of independent thought and vision. It makes slaves of everyone, and kills those who do not agree with it, rather like a viral infection because it eventually kills the host regardless.

Then you don't understand what monotheism is for,.. or about. You look at
the evil behaviors of men, and assign them to something that the men who
performed them don't understand and don't actually practice themselves.

Men (humans) make slaves of men. Men allow themselves to become sheep.
Men kill off competing populations for gain. Men establish institutions that
eventually succumb to corruption and internal "viral infection".


That also said, one quick look around me dispells any notion that there's a single or even small number of deities. Too much random shite happens for there to be any single creature in control, a large pantheon might do it, but because of information that's come to light (figuratively) I highly doubt that there are any kind of gods at all, just creatures of various shades and detectability running around and being themselves (if you're wondering what that means, think about the visible spectrum...then think about the entire EM spectrum and see how little we can actually percieve with our own senses).

Where does this concept of "single creature" that is god?

A bit too much sci-fi bleed-over in your worldview?

You REALLY don't understand what god is about, do you? If you'd like to talk
about that,.. just holler! :)


And since we're on the topic of why I don't believe in God (or Jehova/Yahwtf, Allah) I'm going to toss something else out. Statistics.

The INVENTOR of statistics HIMSELF made a detailed study to determine that god existed (and protected his flock) and guess what? He turned into an atheist at the end of it. The statistics proved that no matter who you were bad things happened to you equally, good things happen to you equally, and there's no corrolation bettween religion and outcome.

Religion is not about "bribing the big guy in the sky to protect you."

Religion is about meaning, and effectiveness in the world. It is an attempt to
calm the mind by fitting perceptions into a meaningful framework (belief
system) so that the overwhelming "chaos" of those perceptions doesn't stop
the mind from doing what needs to be done to continue life.


As for this WHOLE discussion on evil...think about this situation.

A mob beats up a group of people who are different from them because they believe these people are 'evil'. These people practice non-destructive acts amongst themselves and don't involve anyone else in them, but this mob just goes and decides they're 'evil' and that they should 'protect themselves' from this 'evil'. There's your free will right there, making a judgement and committing the only act of agression and destruction in the entire drama.

Sound like any groups we know? Hrm?

Yes. It sounds like any human (or insect) society that ever existed. And what
is your "solution" to countering this proclivity?

I'm an atheist because I've never encountered anything that has convinced me that a God or Gods exist.

Have you even read the Bible? Your opinion of it couldn't be farther from the truth!

I love this question/ statement thing.
You don't need to read something to see its flaws - everything has them.

Religion is created by men - so I discount it.
But so is science, and I discount it also.

I tend to believe in nothing.

But if you want to believe in something I find illogical, go ahead. Just don't try to convert me.

Sorry, I tried to have a discussion, but if you don't use commonly accepted uses of words, then it's a waste of time because we end up arguing semantics. Your use of these words does not match the definitions and we might as well just talk in tongues. I appreciate that you tried to have a discussion about this, but your definition of personal to not match the accepted definitions even in a fairly loose sense, and you don't even know what sin is.

It's the mutual understanding of the definitions of the words we use that
ALLOW us to come to agreement in conversation.

In other words, if we don't mutually understand what a term means, we are
talking about different things,.. therefore we need to define the words we
use when there APPEARS to be an incongruity between my use and your use
of them.

This "defining terms" is the HEART of discussion, not a sidebar. It's in defining
terms that understanding comes.

If my use of terms is not your use, then THAT specifically is what we should
discuss. If everyone had perfect mutual understanding of everyone else's use
of terms, then the only thing to talk about would be motivations, because
the meanings of all the "things" and "concepts" would be perfectly understood.

I know what "sin" is to me. To me it means, "missing the mark."

Simple as that. All other interpretations are a matter of personal meaning-
assignment (investing).

To sin is to "not hit what you were aiming at". What is your definition?

I'm an atheist because I've never encountered anything that has convinced me that a God or Gods exist.

What would this "encountered anything" look like that would convince you? :)

PLEASE answer this question, because it is central to understanding why
atheists are atheists.

It's the mutual understanding of the definitions of the words we use that
ALLOW us to come to agreement in conversation.

In other words, if we don't mutually understand what a term means, we are
talking about different things,.. therefore we need to define the words we
use when there APPEARS to be an incongruity between my use and your use
of it.

This "defining terms" is the HEART of discussion, not a sidebar. It's in defining
terms that understanding comes.

If my use of terms is not your use, then THAT specifically is what we should
discuss. If everyone had perfect mutual understanding of everyone else's use
of terms, then the only thing to talk about would be motivations, because
the meanings of all the "things" and "concepts" would be perfectly understood.

I know what "sin" is to me. To me it means, "missing the mark."

Simple as that. All other interpretations are a matter of personal meaning-
assignment (investing).

To sin is to "not hit what you were aiming at". What is your definition?
I see sin as doing harm to others. You call it "evil". I don't believe in evil, specifically I don't believe that there is evil. Those who do harm to others would repent if they realised their mistake. Some just don't realise. It's easy to say they are not capable of realising their mistakes, and so never will change their ways. I don't buy it. There is something that will allow every person to redeem themselves.

I love this question/ statement thing.
You don't need to read something to see its flaws - everything has them.

Religion is created by men - so I discount it.
But so is science, and I discount it also.

I tend to believe in nothing.

But if you want to believe in something I find illogical, go ahead. Just don't try to convert me.

This is the true atheist mind in action. It's a wonder to behold.

He proclaims his use of logic (as he finds "something" illogical) while having no
base for that logic, as he believes in "nothing".

Is belief required for logic? Mustn't you believe your postulates, as least for a
while, until they are disproved by experience?

And this "suspended belief" is the very basis of both science and religion.
Science deals only with non-god stuff. Religion deals with only god-stuff. But
they both use the appropriate logic for their particular "areas of concern".

Also,.. to discount (that's an interesting choice of words, by the way!)
anything created by man as unworthy of belief is an EXCELLENT impulse that
the atheist (the "bad" ones) takes to an extreme and creates a world
of "nothingness", as exemplified in such statements as "I [tend to] believe in
nothing."

What would this "encountered anything" look like that would convince you? :)

PLEASE answer this question, because it is central to understanding why
atheists are atheists.

Don't know, because I've never really thought about to be honest. My atheism is a really small part of who I am and for most of my life I wasn't even aware I was an atheist. All I can say is, I don't beleive in God because I don't have a reason to.

What would this "encountered anything" look like that would convince you? :)

PLEASE answer this question, because it is central to understanding why
atheists are atheists.


pick any story in the bible where god makes contact with humans...

It's the mutual understanding of the definitions of the words we use that
ALLOW us to come to agreement in conversation.

In other words, if we don't mutually understand what a term means, we are
talking about different things,.. therefore we need to define the words we
use when there APPEARS to be an incongruity between my use and your use
of it.

This "defining terms" is the HEART of discussion, not a sidebar. It's in defining
terms that understanding comes.

And here I thought that someone wrote a book about words so I wouldn't have to redefine them in every discussion. What was his name? Websten? Debster? Websler? I know I'm close.

I say something and then you write a long diatribe to say the same thing with your new word. Not really interested in word games.

If my use of terms is not your use, then THAT specifically is what we should
discuss. If everyone had perfect mutual understanding of everyone else's use
of terms, then the only thing to talk about would be motivations, because
the meanings of all the "things" and "concepts" would be perfectly understood.

You are amending my proper use of these terms and, since I know that book I mentioned earlier is available online, I'm fairly certain you can use it to establish what I mean. My explanation to you should not be necessary.

I know what "sin" is to me. To me it means, "missing the mark."

My answer to that is in these quotes "Rumproast skellery shornerk." Now, "rumproast" means to me "I don't". "Shornerk" means the same as "making up the definition of words." "Skellery" means "believe in".

Simple as that. All other interpretations are a matter of personal meaning-
assignment (investing).

Vernoulli jumper cables.

To sin is to "not hit what you were aiming at". What is your definition?

Rumproast skellery shornerk. Rumproast skellery colostomybag.

EDIT: Yes, I'm being difficult. My brother does this all the time and I find it annoying. Why change the definition of a word when there are already words you can use? It shouldn't be necessary to define terms when their use is obvious in context. You're taking words I used, like personal, and changing its use even though your new use is not in line with the context of my point, as I demonstrated. By the way, I'm an atheist. Only, to me, atheist means A - the article 'a' - and theist - a person who believes in God. So I'm a person who believes in God and an atheist so you're earlier comment about atheist views was just silly. See, we could just do this all day. Now, you'll explain that this is not how you're using atheist and I'll explain that you should have been clearer and we will not really be discussing anything of import or value.

I see sin as doing harm to others.

That is certainly "A" sin, to anyone who is NOT trying to harm others. It's
NOT a sin to someone who IS trying to harm others, though.

It's also not the "only" sin (THE sin). That's my own definition, of course, but
I can only tell you what I understand of the words I use.


You call it "evil". I don't believe in evil, specifically I don't believe that there is evil.

Evil, to me, is making a choice that the evil-doer knows is wrong. To
bring "sin" into this definition,.. To do evil is to purposefully commit a sin. To
make a choice to miss your mark,.. a "mark" you know (believe) is a "good".


Those who do harm to others would repent if they realised their mistake. Some just don't realise.

That's the difference between a "sinner" and an "evil-doer". The sinner has
made a mistake and can "ask forgiveness" for their "miss". An evil-doer did
precisely what they CHOSE to do, and must choose actually come into
compliance with their own belief system.

Now,.. is "sinning" just "evil-doing lite"..? :) Yeah,.. basically. So what is the
differentiating factor? The amount of "wrongness" in the mind
(spirit/pesonality/etc) of the wrong-doer. The "miss distance" of the sin.


It's easy to say they are not capable of realising their mistakes, and so never will change their ways. I don't buy it. There is something that will allow every person to redeem themselves.

Absolutely. But it may require a meeting with god to bring about the
necessary shock to the system to affect that change.

Some people simply WILL NOT accept a thing until they "experience" it.

Interesting. I hope he realised, in designing his experiment, that "good things happen to you" is not the point of any religion.

If I could be permitted to elaborate, the point of any religion is to be able to appreciate the good things that happen and overcome the bad things that happen. If one were to look at the great religious figures in the world, horrible things happened to them for persuing their faith.What makes them great religious figures though is that they were able to rise above their difficulties.


I'm an atheist because I've never encountered anything that has convinced me that a God or Gods exist.
What would this "encountered anything" look like that would convince you?:)

PLEASE answer this question, because it is central to understanding why
atheists are atheists.
The question cannot be answered . People are atheists because not only do they not believe in God or Gods, they do not even have a concept of God or Gods. It would be like asking someone who has never studied calculus if they believe that the Laplace transform exists.

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
What would this "encountered anything" look like that would convince you?

PLEASE answer this question, because it is central to understanding why
atheists are atheists.

Don't know, because I've never really thought about to be honest. My atheism is a really small part of who I am and for most of my life I wasn't even aware I was an atheist. All I can say is, I don't beleive in God because I don't have a reason to.

So you're an atheist by default. :) That is a great thing for you..!

I truly mean that. It shows you have better things to do than waste
ludicrous amounts of time on the fine points of "how to calm my self to deal
with the world".

(( 98% of the time the discussion, even with one's self, degenerates into
a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" quality. ))

And that's what religion is for. I commend anyone who can deal effectively
with the world without resorting to having to rectify the utter impossibilities
of what the rest of us call "normal religion".

I don't like "normal religion", by which I mean any complexification of the
concept of "the universe is understandable and is essentially a benign place
where their is a reason for all occurences, if I merely make the choice to
observe it".

That's why I profess my own religion. I call it a form of christianity, because I
can as there's no one to stop me (not that they could!) and because I like
the (potential for) simplicity and (simplistic) iconography.

pick any story in the bible where god makes contact with humans...

What about a tale from the Compendium of Xuatlicoti..? Or from the Verses of Kahikoluapi'o..?

Would that do..?



My point here is that humans, therefore "god", has been around for a lot
longer than the existence of "the bible", and there are other cultures
with "godly" traditions that differ from the judeo-christian.

How do you know you HAVEN'T been "visited" by god from some other
traditional framework, and you blew it off as a "rainstorm"?

I personally think you probably have,.. as I *KNOW* I have. :)

That's the difference between a "sinner" and an "evil-doer". The sinner has
made a mistake and can "ask forgiveness" for their "miss". An evil-doer did
precisely what they CHOSE to do, and must choose actually come into
compliance with their own belief system.

Now,.. is "sinning" just "evil-doing lite"..? :) Yeah,.. basically. So what is the
differentiating factor? The amount of "wrongness" in the mind
(spirit/pesonality/etc) of the wrong-doer. The "miss distance" of the sin.
For years, I have been asking people to define "evil" and have rarely found a satisfactory one.

I like yours a lot. It makes more sense than most.

Even the person who does what they choose to do because they believe in it, even a biggie, has "made a mistake" in my view. Their actions need to be corrected, their beliefs need to be broadened. Everyone can learn from their mistakes.

What about a tale from the Compendium of Xuatlicoti..? Or from the Verses of Kahikoluapi'o..?

Would that do..?



My point here is that humans, therefore "god", has been around for a lot
longer than the existence of "the bible", and there are other cultures
with "godly" traditions that differ from the judeo-christian.

How do you know you HAVEN'T been "visited" by god from some other
traditional framework, and you blew it off as a "rainstorm"?

I personally think you probably have,.. as I *KNOW* I have. :)

i said that because most people on this board argue the existance of god from a christian perspective. if a god wanted to inform me about its existance im sure it would know how to do it in a way that i understood. if a god couldnt do that then that god is an idiot...

I don't care what behavior you exhibit as none excapes the eye of God and he will decide how that behavior must be handled. I do care how your behavior affects others so my interference with your behavior will come when it begins to damage others. Otherwise, do what you do and our Lord will decide how to deal with it at the appropriate time.

I do care how others behave, if that behavior is "evil" to me.

See, now here you make it sound as if you disagree with me. Later you give an indication that when you say evil you mean the actions of people that damage others. However, because you chose to replace words that are easily understood in context and replace them with words that have only your personal definition (that you at that point hadn't given), an argument about semantics results when really the problem is in your style of communication. The purpose of communication is to make yourself understood, not to choose any word you feel like particularly when they make the point harder to extract.

As a result my reply is:

I am certain that I am a flawed human who is not in a position to limit the personal actions of any other flawed human based on my subjective view of right and wrong.

To which your reply is:

I do allow people to make decisions for themselves as to what is right for them in their personal lives.

And when their personal life behavioral choices spills out into acts of evil,
then it is my duty to quell that evil.

Just as you would protect a child from a murderous maniac, I would do so as well. Once again,.. belief in leaving moral judgement of people to god is not an excuse for allowing evil to flourish by "leaving it to god" and not acting against evil.

Again, seems like we're arguing even though I've already clearly stated that I don't care about the behavior of others or whether it's 'evil' unless it damages/violates other people.

So I reply:

If I stop a murderous maniac isn't not because the act is evil but because it violates others... Also, notice I said personal actions. The actions of the murderous maniac and despots are not personal, they are public and violate the rights of others. It was a clear distinction.

Then I find out that we are again arguing because I said I would not interfere in the personal lives of others and you said you would. However, in my statement, it is obvious that personal lives does not include the things I subject other people to, like murdering them. In your statement it's not obvious, so your claim about stopping murderous maniacs seems to come out of left field.

And so on...

So either get a feeling for context and common use or I'm not really interested in continuing the discussion.

Orginally Posted by Willamena
Interesting. I hope he realised, in designing his experiment, that "good things happen to you" is not the point of any religion.
If I could be permitted to elaborate, the point of any religion is to be able to appreciate the good things that happen and overcome the bad things that happen.
I like that wording, yes, as it places the onus back on the person to "appreciate good" and "overcome bad". When things "happen to you" they come from outside; when you appreciate and overcome, that comes from inside.

If one were to look at the great religious figures in the world, horrible things happened to them for persuing their faith.What makes them great religious figures though is that they were able to rise above their difficulties.
People did bad things to them for pursuing their beliefs. The bad things didn't "just happen."

i said that because most people on this board argue the existance of god from a christian perspective. if a god wanted to inform me about its existance im sure it would know how to do it in a way that i understood. if a god couldnt do that then that god is an idiot...
God is an idiot because you can't be informed? :)

In-form = formed from within

I like that wording, yes, as it places the onus back on the person to "appreciate good" and "overcome bad". When things "happen to you" they come from outside; when you appreciate and overcome, that comes from inside.


People did bad things to them for pursuing their beliefs. The bad things didn't "just happen."

Excellent point. It's not like every time someone tries to pursue their faith they get caught up in a tornado or a flood. I think it's an important distinction to note that when specific peoples were targetted for harm it was other people that caused this targetting.

God is an idiot because you can't be informed? :)

In-form = formed from within

god is an idiot because it cant inform me on its presence in a way that i understand...

i keep getting the 'what would it take for you to beleive in god' question. my answer is always that god could inform me on its existance if it wanted to. if god really is god, then it would know how to convince me of its existance. if god cant do that then it is an idiot. :)

perhaps god does exist, but doesnt let us know. thats possible but is hard comprehend. why would god not let us know of its existance? (i think ive debated that question a few times with you willamena ;) )

God is an idiot because you can't be informed? :)

In-form = formed from within

I hope you mean this as a way to explain your point and not the actual meaning of the word or formation of the word.

It was actually formed much the same ensure was formed.

En- to make/to give (old french aseurer then Anglo-french enseurer) and sure came from the same root so it meant basically the same thing. So ensure means "to make sure"/"To give sureness".

Inform was formed from middle French enformer in much the same way.

So it's closer to Inform = to give and the original meaning of former. So it's something like to make known or (it can also mean to give material form to, but obviously you're not using it that way).

The point being it has little or nothing to do with 'within' unless you intentionally put that restriction on it.

And here I thought that someone wrote a book about words so I wouldn't have to redefine them in every discussion. What was his name? Websten? Debster? Websler? I know I'm close.

I say something and then you write a long diatribe to say the same thing with your new word. Not really interested in word games.

You are amending my proper use of these terms and, since I know that book I mentioned earlier is available online, I'm fairly certain you can use it to establish what I mean. My explanation to you should not be necessary.

My answer to that is in these quotes "Rumproast skellery shornerk." Now, "rumproast" means to me "I don't". "Shornerk" means the same as "making up the definition of words." "Skellery" means "believe in".

Vernoulli jumper cables.

Rumproast skellery shornerk. Rumproast skellery colostomybag.

If you're not interested in word games, why are you engaged in this forum,
where we do nothing BUT word games? That's what conversation means.


EDIT: Yes, I'm being difficult. My brother does this all the time and I find it annoying. Why change the definition of a word when there are already words you can use?

I'm not changing the meaning of words. I'm telling you MY "more specific" meaning of those words.

You used the word "annoying" above. That can mean many things int he particular. If I was interested in that line of discussion, I might ask you what "annoying" means to you in your usage above.

Conversation is about finding "common ground", or mutual understanding. I can't really understand you,and you can't understand me if I don't know what you REALLY (specifically) mean by what you say.


It shouldn't be necessary to define terms when their use is obvious in context.

Who decides what is the real meaning of a word IS in an "obvious in context"?

The "shade of difference" in meaning is what we're talking about. We may
hold differing contexts. We may have entirely different views of that a word
means. The way that we understand each other is by asking questions about
what the other means by their words, and using words as we ouselves
understand them.

The dictionary is a good start,.. but between any two people the meaning of
words can vary tremendously,.. and VERY interestingly.


You're taking words I used, like personal, and changing its use even though your new use is not in line with the context of my point, as I demonstrated.

If my use a word causes you to see that we're not using the same meaning
for the same word, then perhaps we should discuss why that is?

Once again,.. that is the POINT of conversation/discussion. To understand
each other.


By the way, I'm an atheist. Only, to me, atheist means A - the article 'a' - and theist - a person who believes in God. So I'm a person who believes in God and an atheist so you're earlier comment about atheist views was just silly.

And your "a theist" explanation of your views tells me quite a lot!

..and it gives us something to talk about. For example:

Why is it important to you to see my views about atheists as "silly"?


See, we could just do this all day. Now, you'll explain that this is not how you're using atheist and I'll explain that you should have been clearer and we will not really be discussing anything of import or value.

But it IS of import an value, if you want to talk about that.

Conversation and discussion are not about laying out explicitly every little
thing you want to say. It about the interchange between two people.

If one person wants nothing more than to exhibit themselves and their ideas,
with no regard for the other, then it's not conversation.

For years, I have been asking people to define "evil" and have rarely found a satisfactory one.

I like yours a lot. It makes more sense than most.

Even the person who does what they choose to do because they believe in it, even a biggie, has "made a mistake" in my view. Their actions need to be corrected, their beliefs need to be broadened. Everyone can learn from their mistakes.

What does "mistake" mean..!!? Can you FORCE a person to change? No. It
simply doesn't work that way.

The "mistake" is between the person and "god".

How about this situation: Take a true sociopath, who completely, honestly
and "religiously" believes that senseless murder for the fun of it is good.

His "mark" is to murder for fun. Is it a "sin", under my definition, for him to
murder for fun, as that's PRECISELY what he's "aiming at"..?

My answer, no. Under his belief system, he's perfectly conforming to
his "good". Therefore, no sin. As as there's no sin, there's nothing to correct.

But is he evil? To himself, if he's perfectly conforming to his beliefs, he is NOT
in the least evil.

Is he evil to me. Yes. Why? Because his behavior is a "miss" in my belief
system, and therefore a sin. He is also making a choice to do as he does, so
is being a willful sinner,.. which to me means "evil".

To his "god" he is neither sinner nor evil-doer, and therefore not subject to
any judgement of punishment.

To my "god" he is both, and will be judged (by [my] god) as evil and subject
to punishment.

Do I care that his god won't punish him? No. Why? Because it's not my place
(job) to worry about ANY god's actions. It's my place to "judge" only in the
realm of men, and leave god's (any god's) job to them.

In the realm of men, he is a criminal and subject to the judgement of men's
laws, and the punishment that men decide.

People did bad things to them for pursuing their beliefs. The bad things didn't "just happen."
Agreed, but to a point. "Things" happen not because of a chain of causality, but more like an incomprehensible web of causality. By stating that "people did bad things to them for persuing their beliefs", the implication is that they are the cause that caused people to do bad things to them. Without taking into account all the influences of the people doing bad things, which can include everything that exists, one cannot determine the precise cause.

This is why I say bad things happen, because I do not have the understanding necessary to comprehend why they happen.

Originally Posted by Jocabia
I don't care what behavior you exhibit as none excapes the eye of God and he will decide how that behavior must be handled. I do care how your behavior affects others so my interference with your behavior will come when it begins to damage others. Otherwise, do what you do and our Lord will decide how to deal with it at the appropriate time.


Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
I do care how others behave, if that behavior is "evil" to me.

See, now here you make it sound as if you disagree with me. Later you give an indication that when you say evil you mean the actions of people that damage others. However, because you chose to replace words that are easily understood in context and replace them with words that have only your personal definition (that you at that point hadn't given), an argument about semantics results when really the problem is in your style of communication. The purpose of communication is to make yourself understood, not to choose any word you feel like particularly when they make the point harder to extract.

The point of communication is to make youself more and more understood,
and the way to accomplish that is to continually refine the definitions of the
words we mutually use.


As a result my reply is:


Originally Posted by Jocabia
I am certain that I am a flawed human who is not in a position to limit the personal actions of any other flawed human based on my subjective view of right and wrong.

To which your reply is:


Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
I do allow people to make decisions for themselves as to what is right for them in their personal lives.

And when their personal life behavioral choices spills out into acts of evil,
then it is my duty to quell that evil.

Just as you would protect a child from a murderous maniac, I would do so as well. Once again,.. belief in leaving moral judgement of people to god is not an excuse for allowing evil to flourish by "leaving it to god" and not acting against evil.

Again, seems like we're arguing even though I've already clearly stated that I don't care about the behavior of others or whether it's 'evil' unless it damages/violates other people.

I don't argue. I state my underdstandings of things. I'm simply elaborating on
your very interesting and thought provoking statements, as it applies to how
I see things.


So I reply:


Originally Posted by Jocabia
If I stop a murderous maniac isn't not because the act is evil but because it violates others... Also, notice I said personal actions. The actions of the murderous maniac and despots are not personal, they are public and violate the rights of others. It was a clear distinction.

Then I find out that we are again arguing because I said I would not interfere in the personal lives of others and you said you would. However, in my statement, it is obvious that personal lives does not include the things I subject other people to, like murdering them. In your statement it's not obvious, so your claim about stopping murderous maniacs seems to come out of left field.

I don't see this as arguing. I'm merely clarifying (elaborating with the intent
of further discovery) what I mean by "personal lives" in this context, and how
there seems to be some difference between your definition and mine.


And so on...

So either get a feeling for context and common use or I'm not really interested in continuing the discussion.

You are perfectly free to converse with anyone you like,.. but let me ask you
this...

Is it of value to you to converse (communicate) with (potentially) wise
people who may not speak your language or with your facility in your spoken
language?

I'm not saying I'm particularly wise, by the way.

I'm just interested in finding out if you consider those who communicate in
different ways than yourself (be it language or "style") as unworthy of
learning from?

Then you don't understand what monotheism is for,.. or about. You look at
the evil behaviors of men, and assign them to something that the men who
performed them don't understand and don't actually practice themselves.

Men (humans) make slaves of men. Men allow themselves to become sheep.
Men kill off competing populations for gain. Men establish institutions that
eventually succumb to corruption and internal "viral infection".

And who are the most famous and great persecutors? Spanish Inquisition? Salem Witch-Trials? Well...anything the Baptists have been doing recently, not to mention groups like the KKK...



Where does this concept of "single creature" that is god?

A bit too much sci-fi bleed-over in your worldview?

You REALLY don't understand what god is about, do you? If you'd like to talk
about that,.. just holler! :)

As I've already looked at what you consider "god"...

Tell me, electricity was once science fiction, heavier than air craft were once science fiction, radio, television, circuit-boards, travel faster than 30 miles per hour...

Some things we can't do, like shrinking people, we in the (somewhat) scientific community have accepted this and goals like immortality are far off, perhaps, but nano-technology, genetic engineering and other technologies are slowly comming together to make what was once considered the era of FANTASY possible.

"Any Technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who do not understand it."

So when you need someone to fix your "magic" VRC, feel free to ask and we'll discuss it. :cool:

Religion is not about "bribing the big guy in the sky to protect you."

Religion is about meaning, and effectiveness in the world. It is an attempt to
calm the mind by fitting perceptions into a meaningful framework (belief
system) so that the overwhelming "chaos" of those perceptions doesn't stop
the mind from doing what needs to be done to continue life.

So then what's this "praying" stuff I've heard of?

Yes. It sounds like any human (or insect) society that ever existed. And what is your "solution" to countering this proclivity?

You really wanna know? Sure?

Freedom of information, assurance of factuality of said information and freedom from coercion by groups or indivuduals on how to interpret it. Admittedly you'll be swamped initially but just start methodically going through it and understanding the intricacies and, most of all, the chaos of it, and realise that everything, not matter how small or big, feels pain, pleasure, fear, courage, hate and love, just that they way they do is different.

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
What about a tale from the Compendium of Xuatlicoti..? Or from the Verses of Kahikoluapi'o..?

Would that do..?

My point here is that humans, therefore "god", has been around for a lot
longer than the existence of "the bible", and there are other cultures
with "godly" traditions that differ from the judeo-christian.

How do you know you HAVEN'T been "visited" by god from some other
traditional framework, and you blew it off as a "rainstorm"?

I personally think you probably have,.. as I *KNOW* I have.

i said that because most people on this board argue the existance of god from a christian perspective. if a god wanted to inform me about its existance im sure it would know how to do it in a way that i understood. if a god couldnt do that then that god is an idiot...

"if a god wanted to inform me about its existance im sure it would know how to do it in a way that i understood. if a god couldnt do that then that god is an idiot..."

Why?

You seem to presuppose that god is a "creature" who could be capable of
being an idiot.

You seem to believe that god, to prove himself to you, must be some form
of "creature" who would know to cater to your capabilities.

You seem to think that a god must be some version of the "big guy in the
sky".

This is why the question, "What would proof of god look like to you?", is so
informative. It shows your biases.

Now,.. what if god is not a creature at all? What would proof of god's
existence look like then?

"if a god wanted to inform me about its existance im sure it would know how to do it in a way that i understood. if a god couldnt do that then that god is an idiot..."

Why?

You seem to presuppose that god is a "creature" who could be capable of
being an idiot.

You seem to believe that god, to prove himself to you, must be some form
of "creature" who would know to cater to your capabilities.

You seem to think that a god must be some version of the "big guy in the
sky".

This is why the question, "What would proof of god look like to you?", is so
informative. It shows your biases.

Now,.. what if god is not a creature at all? What would proof of god's
existence look like then?

i wouldnt know. i guess god cant show me...

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talbania
I'm an atheist because I've never encountered anything that has convinced me that a God or Gods exist.


What would this "encountered anything" look like that would convince you?

PLEASE answer this question, because it is central to understanding why
atheists are atheists.

...

The question cannot be answered . People are atheists because not only do they not believe in God or Gods, they do not even have a concept of God or Gods. It would be like asking someone who has never studied calculus if they believe that the Laplace transform exists.

But the Laplace Transform DOES exist..!!

The question, "What would this 'encountered anything' look like that would
convince you?", can easily be answered, if they had stated that "god must
prove himself to me!", becuase it presupposes that the possibility exists that
they COULD be convinced if the right proof presented itself.

If there's no possiblility of this proof happening, then the request for proof
was a disingenuous statement.

The concept of god exists, whether you are an athiest or not, because
otherwise the word would not exist.

I wold call someone who said, "God must prove he exists to me in a way
intelligible to me!", is actually an agnostic,.. not an atheist.

god is an idiot because it cant inform me on its presence in a way that i understand...

i keep getting the 'what would it take for you to beleive in god' question. my answer is always that god could inform me on its existance if it wanted to. if god really is god, then it would know how to convince me of its existance. if god cant do that then it is an idiot. :)

perhaps god does exist, but doesnt let us know. thats possible but is hard comprehend. why would god not let us know of its existance? (i think ive debated that question a few times with you willamena ;) )

Perhaps god DOES inform you of his existence, and you fail to understand?

Here's my thought: God reveals himself (put no weight in the pronouns,
please) to those who need him.

If you don't need him, then that is god's informing you that he's there when
you do need him.

In any case,.. it's senseless to try to command god to do anything, such
as "reveal yourself if you want my belief!"

That makes god, and any close passersby, laugh and snicker.

TBH, I consider myself to be an atheist, not in the sense that that God does not exist, but in the sense that it is not necessary for God to exist. As far as being able to reconcile my beliefs with others, I have come to view the concept of God as an anthropomorphic representation of an all-encompassing law of existence. God is just a way of compartmentalizing ideas.

For example, you could say that you believe in gravity and decide to call gravity "Bob". Now when a person walks off the edge of a roof and falls to the ground, your interpretation of the event could be " Bob's will caused you to fall off the roof." Now if the person who fell went on to say "That's silly! There is no Bob! It was a simple act of gravity that caused me to fall!" are they agreeing or disagreeing with you?

Asking someone who asserts that they have no concept of God to give you a definition of God is like asking someone to accept a wager that you can get them to engage in gambling.

Perhaps god DOES inform you of his existence, and you fail to understand?

Here's my thought: God reveals himself (put no weight in the pronouns,
please) to those who need him.

If you don't need him, then that is god's informing you that he's there when
you do need him.

In any case,.. it's senseless to try to command god to do anything, such
as "reveal yourself if you want my belief!"

That makes god, and any close passersby, laugh and snicker.

if god tries to inform me of its existance and i dont understand, its a poor effort from god. its not my fault that god cant prove its existance...

what if god smote half the world, you ask him why, god says, because i felt like it. what would you think then? do you demand/want your god to be just? loving?

so god will laugh and snicker at my confusion? thanks god for making things clear for me to figure out.../sarcasm

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
Then you don't understand what monotheism is for,.. or about. You look at
the evil behaviors of men, and assign them to something that the men who
performed them don't understand and don't actually practice themselves.

Men (humans) make slaves of men. Men allow themselves to become sheep.
Men kill off competing populations for gain. Men establish institutions that
eventually succumb to corruption and internal "viral infection".

And who are the most famous and great persecutors? Spanish Inquisition? Salem Witch-Trials? Well...anything the Baptists have been doing recently, not to mention groups like the KKK...

In this culture, yes. They are the most famous.

But what have you to say to the fact that it's a characteristic that is human-
being wide, and has nothing inherently do do with monotheism per se?


Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
Where does this concept of "single creature" that is god?

A bit too much sci-fi bleed-over in your worldview?

You REALLY don't understand what god is about, do you? If you'd like to talk
about that,.. just holler!

As I've already looked at what you consider "god"...[/quote]

You don't know what I consider "god", so you'd have to find out more of what
I mean by god to make that statement.

What do you consider "god"?


Tell me, electricity was once science fiction, heavier than air craft were once science fiction, radio, television, circuit-boards, travel faster than 30 miles per hour...

Some things we can't do, like shrinking people, we in the (somewhat) scientific community have accepted this and goals like immortality are far off, perhaps, but nano-technology, genetic engineering and other technologies are slowly comming together to make what was once considered the era of FANTASY possible.

"Any Technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who do not understand it."

So when you need someone to fix your "magic" VRC, feel free to ask and we'll discuss it.

"Magic" has nothing to do with god. Even if a big hand from the sky reached
into the little petri (sic?) dish we call earth, the creator of everything would
still be as he/it is.




Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
Religion is not about "bribing the big guy in the sky to protect you."

Religion is about meaning, and effectiveness in the world. It is an attempt to
calm the mind by fitting perceptions into a meaningful framework (belief
system) so that the overwhelming "chaos" of those perceptions doesn't stop
the mind from doing what needs to be done to continue life.

So then what's this "praying" stuff I've heard of?

I don't know what you've heard about it. You tell me your understanding of
it, and I'll tell you mine. :)

Here's a teaser: Praying is about realization of reality and calming the mind
for future action, even if that action is nothing more than contemplation.



Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
Yes. It sounds like any human (or insect) society that ever existed. And what is your "solution" to countering this proclivity?

You really wanna know? Sure?

Freedom of information, assurance of factuality of said information and freedom from coercion by groups or indivuduals on how to interpret it. Admittedly you'll be swamped initially but just start methodically going through it and understanding the intricacies and, most of all, the chaos of it, and realise that everything, not matter how small or big, feels pain, pleasure, fear, courage, hate and love, just that they way they do is different.

Very good..!!

I like it..! That "solution" I would call, "appreciating the wonders of creation in
all it's forms".

Cool. I'm very happy we have a basic agreement..!! :)

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
"if a god wanted to inform me about its existance im sure it would know how to do it in a way that i understood. if a god couldnt do that then that god is an idiot..."

Why?

You seem to presuppose that god is a "creature" who could be capable of
being an idiot.

You seem to believe that god, to prove himself to you, must be some form
of "creature" who would know to cater to your capabilities.

You seem to think that a god must be some version of the "big guy in the
sky".

This is why the question, "What would proof of god look like to you?", is so
informative. It shows your biases.

Now,.. what if god is not a creature at all? What would proof of god's
existence look like then?

i wouldnt know. i guess god cant show me...

Apparently not. But then,.. how is it that god has shown me he exists, and
not you? How is that possible?

It's possible because I have a very low burden of proof for the existence of
god. The essential existence of god, to me, is the simple fact that I'm
fortunate enough to be able to percieve reality, and that my belief that the
world is an understandable and generous place regardless of my troubles,
because any moment of being alive is more valuable to "me" than an eternity
of non-being, and that I find comfort and the ability to act in that comfort.

And this comforting I call "being with god".

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
Perhaps god DOES inform you of his existence, and you fail to understand?

Here's my thought: God reveals himself (put no weight in the pronouns,
please) to those who need him.

If you don't need him, then that is god's informing you that he's there when
you do need him.

In any case,.. it's senseless to try to command god to do anything, such
as "reveal yourself if you want my belief!"

That makes god, and any close passersby, laugh and snicker.

if god tries to inform me of its existance and i dont understand, its a poor effort from god. its not my fault that god cant prove its existance...

That assumes that that is god's job. I contend that it isn't.


what if god smote half the world, you ask him why, god says, because i felt like it. what would you think then? do you demand/want your god to be just? loving?

To me, god is incapable of doing that, as that is not god's job. Not only does
god NOT smite things, people or otherwise, he can't tell me his reasoning.
Because god does not reason.

What would YOU think if god did this? How would you feel if god proved
himself to you in this way, and you suddenly realized that not only IS there a
god, but he is your worst nightmare?


so god will laugh and snicker at my confusion? thanks god for making things clear for me to figure out.../sarcasm

It's not god's job to cater to you, or anyone.

It's god's job to be god. Period.

It's your job, and everyone's job, to be you. I've found that being observant
and making tools to help me survive in the world is a good thing.

And god is one of those tools.

or perhaps you were swayed by your emotions to follow something that is only in your mind...

The matrix has you...... :rolleyes:

Edit: Whoa time warp.

Apparently not. But then,.. how is it that god ahs shown me he exists, and
not you? How is that possible?

It's possible because I have a very low burden of proof for the existence of
god. The essential existence of god, to me, is the simple fact that I'm
fortunate enough to be able to percieve reality, and that my belief that the
world is an understandable and generous place regardless of my troubles,
because any moment of being alive is more valuable to "me" than an eternity
of non-being, and that I find comfort and the ability to act in that comfort.

And this comforting I call "being with god".

or perhaps you were swayed by your emotions to follow something that is only in your mind...

didnt like those movies...

(thats about the 4th time today thats happened) strange...
The first one was good, the second one had the kickass twins in it and that was good enough for me, and the third one sucked.

The matrix has you...... :rolleyes:

Edit: Whoa time warp.

didnt like those movies...

(thats about the 4th time today thats happened) strange...

What the hell thats the second time in the same thread that has happened.

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
Apparently not. But then,.. how is it that god ahs shown me he exists, and
not you? How is that possible?

It's possible because I have a very low burden of proof for the existence of
god. The essential existence of god, to me, is the simple fact that I'm
fortunate enough to be able to percieve reality, and that my belief that the
world is an understandable and generous place regardless of my troubles,
because any moment of being alive is more valuable to "me" than an eternity
of non-being, and that I find comfort and the ability to act in that comfort.

And this comforting I call "being with god".

or perhaps you were swayed by your emotions to follow something that is only in your mind...

I no more "follow" god, than I "follow" a sharp knife.

They are both tools, that I use as appropriate to their respective functions.

Do you think that all believers in god are somehow brainwashed?

Do you think that all users of knives are somehow brainwashed?

Do you understand my thinking?

I do not believe in "the big guy in the sky". I do not believe in putting any
physicality to god. I do not believe the function of god is anything more than
as a concept to focus on as a tool for survival.

My question to you is: Why are you so hostile toward people who have found
a tool that you apparently haven't found, or don't need?

What the hell thats the second time in the same thread that has happened.

I hate it when that happens!

<gotta find a phone, gotta find a phone,.. pull me Trinity!!>

I hate it when that happens!

<gotta find a phone, gotta find a phone,.. pull me Trinity!!>

It reminds me of a time in highschool when someone realized that a bunch of candy bars in a snack machine had past their experation date. Someone showed one of the matinence guys who was in charge of dealing with them but the guy said no we had read the date wrong and told us the right way to read it. Only problem was that the way he said to read it would have meant that the bar was made two days after the day we told him. So in essence the candy bars were from the future. :eek:

I no more "follow" god, than I "follow" a sharp knife.

They are both tools, that I use as appropriate to their respective functions.

Do you think that all believers in god are somehow brainwashed?

Do you think that all users of knives are somehow brainwashed?

Do you understand my thinking?

I do not believe in "the big guy in the sky". I do not believe in putting any
physicality to god. I do not believe the function of god is anything more than
as a concept to focus on as a tool for survival.

My question to you is: Why are you so hostile toward people who have found
a tool that you apparently haven't found, or don't need?

no i do not understand your thinking. and no, i am not hostile toward "believers." wait, wait, your confusing the heck out of me...

you put no function to god except for survival? you mean that god is just a crutch to get through the world? something to look up to when covered in mud? it seems you just want to beleive in god because its comforting...

Do not question anyone's faith. It is highly offensively.

I'm sorry, but no Christian that I know has 'blind' faith. I have no doubt in my mind that she's thought long and hard about her faith in God, and I'm quite sure it's waivered at some points (I know mine has), but no doubt she's taken a good look at what is presented to her physically and spirtiually. You have no authority to call anyone's faith 'blind'.

I find this post quite ironic.

It reminds me of a time in highschool when someone realized that a bunch of candy bars in a snack machine had past their experation date. Someone showed one of the matinence guys who was in charge of dealing with them but the guy said no we had read the date wrong and told us the right way to read it. Only problem was that the way he said to read it would have meant that the bar was made two days after the day we told him. So in essence the candy bars were from the future. :eek:

Candybars from the future..!!

Oooo,.. now there's a high-concept for a major motion picture right there..!!

I'll get right on writing that..!!

Thanks for the $23,000,000 idea there, chief..!! :D

<Starring Billy Bob Thornton, or Ashley Judd? Waddaya think..!?>

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
I no more "follow" god, than I "follow" a sharp knife.

They are both tools, that I use as appropriate to their respective functions.

Do you think that all believers in god are somehow brainwashed?

Do you think that all users of knives are somehow brainwashed?

Do you understand my thinking?

I do not believe in "the big guy in the sky". I do not believe in putting any
physicality to god. I do not believe the function of god is anything more than
as a concept to focus on as a tool for survival.

My question to you is: Why are you so hostile toward people who have found
a tool that you apparently haven't found, or don't need?

no i do not understand your thinking. and no, i am not hostile toward "believers." wait, wait, your confusing the heck out of me...

you put no function to god except for survival? you mean that god is just a crutch to get through the world? something to look up to when covered in mud? it seems you just want to beleive in god because its comforting...

That is correct. God serves no purpose other than to comfort me, and that
aids in my survival.

Of course, this begs the question of what I mean by "comfort".

But I don't see this as any more of a "crutch" than having a good sharp knife
in the wilderness.

They're both VERY useful tools.

Do you consider the clothes you wear a "crutch"?

What is the function of god to you?

Candybars from the future..!!

Oooo,.. now there's a high-concept for a major motion picture right there..!!

I'll get right on writing that..!!

Thanks for the $23,000,000 idea there, chief..!! :D

<Starring Billy Bob Thornton, or Ashley Judd? Waddaya think..!?>

But you forget that I have the ghost of Johnny Cochran as my lawyer. I can't lose :p

I'm an atheist because I've never encountered anything that has convinced me that a God or Gods exist.

Not only have I not experianced anything that led me to belive in God, but it is just somthing... an instinct maybe? somthing that says that religeon cannot be right...


In todays society, God is like the defult setting...

Nearly everyone belives in a higher power...

but why?

as a young child, you are taught to belive, but WHY... why should you when in fact nothing has been proven to you... people should let their kids decided for themselves... little kids should not have to go to church just because their parents belive in God...

Atheism should be societys "defult" setting on the grounds that you shouldn't belive something untill you can prove it... if I told you right now the sky was lavender, you wouldn't belive it, because everyone says the sky is blue, and I can't prove the sky is lavender...

no honestly, unless you have died, gone to 'heaven" and came back, then you have no grounds to stand on in saying there is some supirior being...

Do not question anyone's faith. It is highly offensively.

I'm sorry, but no Christian that I know has 'blind' faith. I have no doubt in my mind that she's thought long and hard about her faith in God, and I'm quite sure it's waivered at some points (I know mine has), but no doubt she's taken a good look at what is presented to her physically and spirtiually. You have no authority to call anyone's faith 'blind'.

ha!

wow


okay, where to start?

firstly, I belive you were also questioning faith in this case... or lack of faith shall I say

secondly, I know many people who live grand lives where I know they have never questioned their faith and therefore, I would call it 'blind faith'

and I also know people who live perfectly terrible lives and have also not qestioned their faith...

but isn't part of belivein GOD beliving in him when you have no evidance of him? Beliveing in him no matter what evidence is brought against him? Yes, and therefore, don't you all have some amount of blind faith?

I don't believe my religion sounds ridiculous at all. I just find it funny when kids reach that age where they have this personal vendetta against Christianity and believe they are enlightened and the rest of the world is full of neanderthalic sheep. I give it a year or two before his common sense is restored.

Even though this is from the first page (and I saw this thread just five-seven minutes ago, I agree.)

Neo Rogolia is right that Athiests do believe (I only believe some Athiests do this) that they are enlightened and that they are better and smarter than all the people who practice/belong to a particular religion. Although I am not criticizing or generalizing or even being stereotypical, I am just expressing what I think how some Athiests act.

For example, I find it strongly rude to ask people about their religion, but some Atheists would just plainly ask you, "Why do you believe in God?" (Atleast it happend it me) and start lecturing their beliefs.

Truthfully, I don't need to be rehabilitated. And when I don't accept their idea's, then they just start to criticize on my beliefs saying how their more practical in not believing in God while the people who do believe in God aren't.

But I do have one word of advice to people who try to rehabilitate the Athiests -

An Athiest is an Athiest, just respect it.

Not only have I not experianced anything that led me to belive in God, but it is just somthing... an instinct maybe? somthing that says that religeon cannot be right...


In todays society, God is like the defult setting...

Nearly everyone belives in a higher power...

but why?

as a young child, you are taught to belive, but WHY... why should you when in fact nothing has been proven to you... people should let their kids decided for themselves... little kids should not have to go to church just because their parents belive in God...

Atheism should be societys "defult" setting on the grounds that you shouldn't belive something untill you can prove it... if I told you right now the sky was lavender, you wouldn't belive it, because everyone says the sky is blue, and I can't prove the sky is lavender...

no honestly, unless you have died, gone to 'heaven" and came back, then you have no grounds to stand on in saying there is some supirior being...

Well, just respect people's beliefs. And like you say, mostly everyone in the World beliefs in a Higher Power, but why?

Maybe it's an instinct?

Just like your instinct saying religion cannot be right, most of the World's population probably has an instinct that there is a Higher Power.

Athiests just question that instinct.

But you forget that I have the ghost of Johnny Cochran as my lawyer. I can't lose :p

Damn..!!

<..Frantically erases "candybar" and substitues "tampon".. Yeah,.. that should do it..!!>

Not only have I not experianced anything that led me to belive in God, but it is just somthing... an instinct maybe? somthing that says that religeon cannot be right...


In todays society, God is like the defult setting...

Nearly everyone belives in a higher power...

but why?

as a young child, you are taught to belive, but WHY... why should you when in fact nothing has been proven to you... people should let their kids decided for themselves... little kids should not have to go to church just because their parents belive in God...

Atheism should be societys "defult" setting on the grounds that you shouldn't belive something untill you can prove it... if I told you right now the sky was lavender, you wouldn't belive it, because everyone says the sky is blue, and I can't prove the sky is lavender...

no honestly, unless you have died, gone to 'heaven" and came back, then you have no grounds to stand on in saying there is some supirior being...

That's interesting, because I'm just the opposite. I came to "god" only very
recently (and I'm an OLD old dude..!!).

But, my "religion" looks much more like atheisim than anything I've seen from
any organized group.

In fact, my only difference with atheism, is that I don't need proof of the
existence of god to believe in him (once again, don't get hung up on the
pronouns!).

And I differ with "normal religions" in that I don't believe in any creature-ness
of god in any way. He is not "superior", "divine", or "supernatural" in any way.

He is only god. The ineffable comforter.

And little kids aren't capable of "deciding for themselves" anything regarding
religion. The social aspects of religion are, by definition, community based,
and are imposed on all members of that community by way of custom and
continuity.

When a child grows to the age of reason, and it's possible for the kid to "buck
out" and "leave the fold", as it were, then they do if they want, and if the
society allows it.

Atheism as default would de-tradition any society that this happened in. That
would be an interesting experiment.

I think what would happen in such a case, is that some other "religions"
would take the place of the "old religions", and the entire structure would
recreate itself. This would be because human societies need the
cohesiveness that religion provides. It provides a common working vocabulary
of concepts to discuss and think about for the "betterment" of the
community.

So,... what religion would you replace religion with?

...But I do have one word of advice to people who try to rehabilitate the Athiests -

An Athiest is an Athiest, just respect it.

Heck yeah..!!

It would be nice if we could each not roll our eyes back in our heads when
talking to each other about religion.

I love talking about religion, to atheist and non-atheists alike.

I don't say my ideas are anythng but "my ideas", and I'm always very
interested in how people see the world,.. and part of that is their belief
system, and a mjor part of that is their religion.

Maybe I'm just strange, but I like finding out about people. I have a funny
feeling nearly EVERYONE here likes finding out about people, actually..!

:)

god is an idiot because it cant inform me on its presence in a way that i understand...

i keep getting the 'what would it take for you to beleive in god' question. my answer is always that god could inform me on its existance if it wanted to.
That's incorrect, then. God has no wants.

if god really is god, then it would know how to convince me of its existance. if god cant do that then it is an idiot. :)
How does a buttefly inform you of its existence?

perhaps god does exist, but doesnt let us know. thats possible but is hard comprehend. why would god not let us know of its existance? (i think ive debated that question a few times with you willamena ;) )
I know. :)

I think those people are closest to the mark who say that it doesn't take someone talking to you (it doesn't come from without), but rather, it takes you listening (it comes from within).

What does "mistake" mean..!!? Can you FORCE a person to change? No. It
simply doesn't work that way.
No, can't force them to change.

The "mistake" is between the person and "god".

How about this situation: Take a true sociopath, who completely, honestly
and "religiously" believes that senseless murder for the fun of it is good.

*snip*
I hate when people hold up extreme and rare abberations as an example. ;)

This sociopathic person (and I actually know a person who thinks of himself as such, though he's a very nice young man) has made a mistake. As you say, his belief and consequential action (his take on things) is a miss in my belief system.

Agreed, but to a point. "Things" happen not because of a chain of causality, but more like an incomprehensible web of causality. By stating that "people did bad things to them for persuing their beliefs", the implication is that they are the cause that caused people to do bad things to them. Without taking into account all the influences of the people doing bad things, which can include everything that exists, one cannot determine the precise cause.

This is why I say bad things happen, because I do not have the understanding necessary to comprehend why they happen.
Well, if we are going to get into determinism, then I think I'll bow out. I've had this head-butting session too often, lately.

My take on this "web of causality" is that it cannot be held responsible for the actions people choose to make.

If you're not interested in word games, why are you engaged in this forum, where we do nothing BUT word games? That's what conversation means.

I suppose to someone who makes up words (like your brand-new definition of conversation), this is true. See, I'm a bit of a silly person. I thought that a conversation was an exchange of ideas using a common language. Words are defined by a dictionary and the context they are used. This is why I didn't have to phone up the author when I read the book, "On Writing Well", to find out what the hell he was trying to say.

I'm not changing the meaning of words. I'm telling you MY "more specific" meaning of those words.

You used the word "annoying" above. That can mean many things int he particular. If I was interested in that line of discussion, I might ask you what "annoying" means to you in your usage above.

Conversation is about finding "common ground", or mutual understanding. I can't really understand you,and you can't understand me if I don't know what you REALLY (specifically) mean by what you say.

If you need to further define the words in other than the context of the conversation, then perhaps the difficulty is not with the gap in the language but instead with your understanding of it. It's not to suggest that some words couldn't be more narrowly defined but it certainly shouldn't be a regular necessity to define your terms in conversation.

Who decides what is the real meaning of a word IS in an "obvious in context"?

The "shade of difference" in meaning is what we're talking about. We may
hold differing contexts. We may have entirely different views of that a word
means. The way that we understand each other is by asking questions about
what the other means by their words, and using words as we ouselves
understand them.

The dictionary is a good start,.. but between any two people the meaning of
words can vary tremendously,.. and VERY interestingly.

Yes, like someone who thinks that going around murdering people falls under one's personal life. I don't find it interesting. I find it unnecessary. In the US in particular, there has been an ever increasing trend (now associated with PC but starting way before) of not saying what we mean and it dillutes the language. I don't adhere to this ridiculous practice. I will never to say to a panel of congressmen, "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is." I will never tell somone that's been fire that they've been downsized, much like I will never tell someone who's been hired that they've been supersized. I will never call a tax increase, a reduction of the tax refund. I will never to the disabled as differently-abled. I won't call genocide, population control. Ok, the last one was a joke in poor taste.

If my use a word causes you to see that we're not using the same meaning
for the same word, then perhaps we should discuss why that is?

Once again,.. that is the POINT of conversation/discussion. To understand
each other.

Yes, which is why it's necessary to all use the same definitions of words instead of made-up definitions, to allow us to focus on the topic instead of constantly devolving into a discussion of language (Dempublicents1 would love you). I mean, hell let's all just make up new words. It would equally effective. Bippity boppity boo! (I'd explain what bippity boppity boo means, but I'd have to use more words and you know how confusing those crazy words can be.)

I would prefer to discuss the topic rather than your particular reasons for deciding that personal actions can include stabbing someone repeatedly.

And your "a theist" explanation of your views tells me quite a lot!

..and it gives us something to talk about. For example:

Why is it important to you to see my views about atheists as "silly"?

I don't. Are you actually being serious? All I can say is WOW! I was pointing out that changing the meaning of a word and then appearing to argue with you because you didn't use my made-up word doesn't make any sense. You appear to have missed that. Perhaps, I should have made up the definition of a couple of words in my example. That may have made it clearer.

But it IS of import an value, if you want to talk about that.

Conversation and discussion are not about laying out explicitly every little
thing you want to say. It about the interchange between two people.

If one person wants nothing more than to exhibit themselves and their ideas, with no regard for the other, then it's not conversation.

You're right which is why it's so important that you communicate using common language so that you BOTH understand each other. That's why we decided to come up with a common langauge ten thousand years ago. Because nobody knew what I meant when I said ugh unless we all agreed upon a common meaning. Fortunately, some brilliant minds decided to put those agreed upon meanings in a book that is available to all so they we don't have to agree upon some new meaning when we converse. Most people would agree this saves time, but I would hazard a guess that it's because they believe actually communicating is more important to them than being argumentative or discussing the meaning of terms.

That's incorrect, then. God has no wants.

how does one come up that conclusion though? if we dont have a hard concept of god how can we understand its thinking?


How does a buttefly inform you of its existence?


i can see it, i can touch it, ect. butterflys are apart of this world we live in. if i want to see/find a butterfly, i can walk to the park and sit down in the grass.


I know. :)

I think those people are closest to the mark who say that it doesn't take someone talking to you (it doesn't come from without), but rather, it takes you listening (it comes from within).

if it comes from within then there are no guidlines. there would be no mistakes either. the same realization by two people may be understood in two completely different ways. this idea makes me think that no matter how hard one tries, we will always be lost in our thinking and will never find the truth...

i can see it, i cant touch it, ect. butterflys are apart of this world we live in. if i want to see/find a butterfly, i can walk to the park and sit down in the grass.
So ... if you were sitting in this beautiful park by yourself, and you were blind ... is the butterfly an idiot for not informing you of its existence? Or could you open up the world of your imagination, through the faint whisper of gossamer wings, and imagine what a butterfly looks like?

Knowing god comes from our side of the relationship, not from god's. We are all "blind" until we "see" (get it).

how does one come up that conclusion though? if we dont have a hard concept of god how can we understand its thinking?

if it comes from within then there are no guidlines. there would be no mistakes either. the same realization by two people may be understood in two completely different ways. this idea makes me think that no matter how hard one tries, we will always be lost in our thinking and will never find the truth...
I came to the conclusions I hold through a number of paths. I could launch into a long discussion of my philosophies, but I think it simplest to say I assume a few things about the world that seem to hold up under any circumstances, like...
- god, like nature, is an unthinking thing; it has no intent, no want, no need, no reason... it just is.
- religion is the relationship we choose to form with god. God is a blank slate upon which we write using the power of imagination. This is why god has so many faces, in so many religions. Knowing god is a unique understanding for each person, as we are all unique people.
- there are always mistakes. We correct them and move on; that's learning.

There are guidelines, we call them myths, though most people tend to trivialize them or confuse them with the modern definition of myth-as-falsehood, myth-as-lie. The old myths are a tool of religion. I highly recommend the study of myth for those seeking answers about god, because the purpose of myths is to help you find the answers from within.

Re the "truth", whether you find or not would depend on what truth you seeking.

So ... if you were sitting in this beautiful park by yourself, and you were blind ... is the butterfly an idiot for not informing you of its existence? Or could you open up the world of your imagination, through the faint whisper of gossamer wings, and imagine what a butterfly looks like?

Knowing god comes from our side of the relationship, not from god's. We are all "blind" until we "see" (get it).

I love this explanation. I actually closed my eyes and tried to imagine hearing a butterfly's wings (they sound like a computer apparently).

no i do not understand your thinking. and no, i am not hostile toward "believers." wait, wait, your confusing the heck out of me...

you put no function to god except for survival? you mean that god is just a crutch to get through the world? something to look up to when covered in mud? it seems you just want to beleive in god because its comforting...
A crutch (tool) is only a crutch (tool) if you use it as such. If you don't use it, or use the tool for some other purpose, then it is something else (a hammer, for instance).

I love this explanation. I actually closed my eyes and tried to imagine hearing a butterfly's wings (they sound like a computer apparently).
Haha! :)

.....

It's possible because I have a very low burden of proof for the existence of
god. The essential existence of god, to me, is the simple fact that I'm
fortunate enough to be able to percieve reality, and that my belief that the
world is an understandable and generous place regardless of my troubles,
because any moment of being alive is more valuable to "me" than an eternity
of non-being, and that I find comfort and the ability to act in that comfort.

And this comforting I call "being with god".
This is a nice conception of God. Kudos.

So ... if you were sitting in this beautiful park by yourself, and you were blind ... is the butterfly an idiot for not informing you of its existence? Or could you open up the world of your imagination, through the faint whisper of gossamer wings, and imagine what a butterfly looks like?

Knowing god comes from our side of the relationship, not from god's. We are all "blind" until we "see" (get it).

good explination.

what would trigger me to imagine anything about the butterfly? i wouldnt know it existed unless something from it influenced me to make a reaction. whether it was the sound of the wings or if one brushed the hairs on my hand. if the butterfly did nothing to influence my senses about its existance, then i could not use my imagination to figure anything about it...


I came to the conclusions I hold through a number of paths. I could launch into a long discussion of my philosophies, but I think it simplest to say I assume a few things about the world that seem to hold up under any circumstances, like...
- god, like nature, is an unthinking thing; it has no intent, no want, no need, no reason... it just is.


hmm. this description of god is not pleasing at all. a god that didnt care, has no emotion, no understanding, no love, no desire, no comunication. (just asking, is your idea of god one of a creator? as to say, that god is what created the universe, humanity ect?) if so, then what compelled this type of god do such a thing to create. what pleasure would it have gained? how could a god such as this ever create?


- religion is the relationship we choose to form with god. God is a blank slate upon which we write using the power of imagination. This is why god has so many faces, in so many religions. Knowing god is a unique understanding for each person, as we are all unique people.
- there are always mistakes. We correct them and move on; that's learning.

i dont think this is knowing god. its seems to be more like making god. instead of trying to find whats real, one is trying to make god into what one desires...


There are guidelines, we call them myths, though most people tend to trivialize them or confuse them with the modern definition of myth-as-falsehood, myth-as-lie. The old myths are a tool of religion. I highly recommend the study of myth for those seeking answers about god, because the purpose of myths is to help you find the answers from within.

Re the "truth", whether you find or not would depend on what truth you seeking.

they dont seem like guidlines. more like somthing derived from the imagination of other humans. without some sort of structure a building cant stand. how could god exist when its nothing but a whisper from the mouths of people? (im still thinking but ill post this for now)

good explination.

what would trigger me to imagine anything about the butterfly? i wouldnt know it existed unless something from it influenced me to make a reaction. whether it was the sound of the wings or if one brushed the hairs on my hand. if the butterfly did nothing to influence my senses about its existance, then i could not use my imagination to figure anything about it...
For me, it was an immense feeling, one of joy and love. It stretched beyond my senses, further than I could imagine. I don't have words for it, and I certainly don't claim it as "true" for everyone, in any sense. But this is the image painted on my slate.

hmm. this description of god is not pleasing at all. a god that didnt care, has no emotion, no understanding, no love, no desire, no comunication.
A god of any of those things would be a god of crutches, no? But one's image of god can be all of those things and more.

(just asking, is your idea of god one of a creator? as to say, that god is what created the universe, humanity ect?) if so, then what compelled this type of god do such a thing to create. what pleasure would it have gained? how could a god such as this ever create?
Yes, my image of god is of a creator, amongst other things, in the sense of creation going on around us each and every moment of existence. Creation in changing states (hot to cold), creation in growth and death, creation in wave patterns, ceation in thought and feeling, creation in decision.

I don't believe in the supernatural in the sense most people use the word (ghosts, demons, etc), as something apart from the natural material world that intrudes upon it from time to time.

i dont think this is knowing god. its seems to be more like making god. instead of trying to find whats real, one is trying to make god into what one desires...
It's only making god if you believe that what you imagine somehow becomes real. If you keep to that clear understanding that what you paint upon the blank slate is your end of the relationship, then what you paint becomes a symbol for what is.

they dont seem like guidlines. more like somthing derived from the imagination of other humans. without some sort of structure a building cant stand. how could god exist when its nothing but a whisper from the mouths of people? (im still thinking but ill post this for now)
They are marvelous guidelines. And there is a structure of sorts. I'll start a new thread about myths this weekend.

In the meantime, my work week is done. :)

In the first phrase:
The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment..

..says (to me), "No man is subject to any man's judgement."

In the secnd phrase"
It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts.

..says (to me), "No man is subject to any man's judgement."


Is this shoehorning? Yes. Is it also valid? Yes. Why? Because that is the way that I interpret it. Others may interpret it differently, and they do so with other motives than mine in mind.


Yes. Like only looking at what is written... and not trying to bend it to conform to a pre-determined belief of what it SHOULD mean...

I don't want to believe any MAN over the teachings of Christ. Paul accepted that the Gospels were correct and attempted to teach from them. If the Gospels were good enough before Paul, then they are good enough today.

Exactly.

I didn't say it isn't interpreted. I said it can't really be interpreted in any way imaginable. Generally, it's difficult to make the case for many current interpretations without quoting Paul. This is specifically what I find amazing. "I know it's not consistent with what Jesus said, but Paul said..."



I don't dislike Paul on the face of things. I have a disdain for the fact that his interpretation of the Gospels (which unarguably brings back Levitical law) has been elevated to be an equal source to the Gospels themselves, not for him. My dislike for the interpretation the religious leader, Paul, made is that he incorporated aspects of Old Testament (Levitical law) that I believe cannot be found in the teachings of Christ. He specifically errs in his interpretations around judging the sins of others and treatment of others that I find to be in direct contradiction with the teachings of Christ. I don't have an irration dislike of Paul. I have a rational dislike. There is a significant difference. I don't dismiss everything that was ever said by Paul, however. I believe that some of the teachings of Paul show incredible insight and understanding.

EDIT: Along the same lines, I very much like GnI and I very often find post by GnI to be insightful and intelligent. However, if someone tried to tell me that the teachings of GnI are on the same level with the teachings of Christ or that GnI has the ability to edit the teachings of Christ, my reaction to the beliefs of Grave_n_Idleans would be equal to my reaction to the belief of Paulians (though probably less frequently seen due to the difference in popularity).

Why, thank you. :) I take it as a compliment.

I agree about Paul... I think he detracts from the message, rather than adding to it. I think he colours a black-and-white approach with his own ideas, many of which I consider contradictory to the 'original' message.

I don't 'dislike' Paul... I just don't consider him more than a commentator.

What would this "encountered anything" look like that would convince you? :)

PLEASE answer this question, because it is central to understanding why
atheists are atheists.

Atheists are atheists for the same reason that Christians are Christians, just in reverse.

The Christian sees 'something', at some point, that allows him (or her) to accept the possibility that there might be some galactic space spook behind it all.

The Atheist has yet to see anything that allows him (or her) to make such a leap.

Atheist totally rules.
The Re release of Unquestionable Presence is chock full of bonus tracks. I cant wait till Elements is out again.

Perhaps god DOES inform you of his existence, and you fail to understand?


And, if a teacher cannot get even so much as his name through to the student, who is really at fault?

And, if a man who MAKES an Artificial Intelligence cannot explain that concept to his AI project, who is really at fault?

Not only have I not experianced anything that led me to belive in God, but it is just somthing... an instinct maybe? somthing that says that religeon cannot be right...


In todays society, God is like the defult setting...

Nearly everyone belives in a higher power...

but why?

as a young child, you are taught to belive, but WHY... why should you when in fact nothing has been proven to you... people should let their kids decided for themselves... little kids should not have to go to church just because their parents belive in God...

Atheism should be societys "defult" setting on the grounds that you shouldn't belive something untill you can prove it... if I told you right now the sky was lavender, you wouldn't belive it, because everyone says the sky is blue, and I can't prove the sky is lavender...

no honestly, unless you have died, gone to 'heaven" and came back, then you have no grounds to stand on in saying there is some supirior being...

Actually, Atheism IS the default setting. It's like 'nature' versus 'nurture', however.

You are 'born' as an atheist. You do not know. You do not believe. It isn't until you are exposed to the possibility of god... and to the specfics of a GIVEN god, that you might start to become a believer.

Ever notice that children raised as Christians are likely to be either Christians or Athiest/Agnostic? They don't spontaneously convert to Islam or Judaism, until they are exposed to something about that faith.

The same, obviously, happens in reverse.... the Muslim rarely spontaneously becomes a Christian, without SOME form of intervention.


And - for me, that is pretty much the strongest evidence AGAINST any gods being 'real'... the fact that people accept the gods they are raised to accept, and don't acquire religion through 'divine intervention'.

For me - that'd be enough. If millions of people, all over the world, spontaneously discovered the SAME god, without (earthly) prompting of any kind, I'd think that a pretty good evidence.

So ... if you were sitting in this beautiful park by yourself, and you were blind ... is the butterfly an idiot for not informing you of its existence? Or could you open up the world of your imagination, through the faint whisper of gossamer wings, and imagine what a butterfly looks like?


No. The problem is, you are assuming and asserting that the butterfly is real.

I am the blind man in the park.

I hear the "faint whisper of gossamer wings" (nice poetic imagery), and envision something that looks kind of like an elephant made of balloons... and it is breathing fire, because it is unhappy.

You hear the "faint whisper of gossamer wings", and you imagine a bug-thing, with big wings that bounces around from flower to flower.

Unless ONE of us has 'vision' (something that the other cannot have), both images are equally valid, until some OTHER proof arrives.

And therein lies the rub, does it not? There IS no evidence that allows us to know (for certain) WHAT a 'butterfly' is, in our butterfly-laden allegory.

And - while you STATE at the beginning of your premise that there IS a butterfly (and we have to share an understanding of what a 'butterfly' is to even understand THAT) - the allegorical BASIS is nowhere near so certain.

Well, if we are going to get into determinism, then I think I'll bow out. I've had this head-butting session too often, lately.

My take on this "web of causality" is that it cannot be held responsible for the actions people choose to make.

Oh I agree with you. The whole point of determining responsibility is to determine who is going to take action. If someone is hit by a car and the car drives off, you could say that the driver should be held responsible, but since they took off and have no intention to take responsibility, it's up to the person that was hit to take responsibility for the situation and seek medical help.

Ultimately, everyone is responsible for everything that happens to them. To assign responsibility to someone or something that can't, or is unwilling, to take action only serves to render people powerless to do anything about their situation.

Even though this is from the first page (and I saw this thread just five-seven minutes ago, I agree.)

Neo Rogolia is right that Athiests do believe (I only believe some Athiests do this) that they are enlightened and that they are better and smarter than all the people who practice/belong to a particular religion. Although I am not criticizing or generalizing or even being stereotypical, I am just expressing what I think how some Athiests act.

For example, I find it strongly rude to ask people about their religion, but some Atheists would just plainly ask you, "Why do you believe in God?" (Atleast it happend it me) and start lecturing their beliefs.

Truthfully, I don't need to be rehabilitated. And when I don't accept their idea's, then they just start to criticize on my beliefs saying how their more practical in not believing in God while the people who do believe in God aren't.

But I do have one word of advice to people who try to rehabilitate the Athiests -

An Athiest is an Athiest, just respect it.

I find it just as rude when I tell them that I'm an atheist and they start about "Why don't you believe in God?", Pascal's Wager, read the bible (Would just solidify an Atheist's beliefs I'd think) etc.

You'd probably find it hard to not feel smarter or annoyed when someone believes the equivalent to me of an invisible pink unicorn. Plus there's all the religious figure "sightings" everywhere, (There's indentions that looks like a female gorilla from Planet of the Apes with an extremely tiny crown on her head in my glasses case, is that put there by a higher power?) people opposing science because of religion, etc.

Just doesn't make for a good image, sorry.

I find it just as rude when I tell them that I'm an atheist and they start about "Why don't you believe in God?", Pascal's Wager, read the bible (Would just solidify an Atheist's beliefs I'd think) etc.

You'd probably find it hard to not feel smarter or annoyed when someone believes the equivalent to me of an invisible pink unicorn. Plus there's all the religious figure "sightings" everywhere, (There's indentions that looks like a female gorilla from Planet of the Apes with an extremely tiny crown on her head in my glasses case, is that put there by a higher power?) people opposing science because of religion, etc.

Just doesn't make for a good image, sorry.

I think a better question to ask an atheist is "What do you believe in?" Religions are models for reality, not reality itself. Any model subjected to enough scrutiny will be shown to be flawed because in order for a model to accurately represent reality, it would have to be as complicated as reality itself.

What to believe is often not much of an issue. Why to believe is where the divisions take place.

No. The problem is, you are assuming and asserting that the butterfly is real.
No; actually, what I am doing is making an example of something Secluded Islands believes/knows is real. My point was not the analogy of reality in terms of god, but one of where to assign idiocy. ;)

I am the blind man in the park.

I hear the "faint whisper of gossamer wings" (nice poetic imagery), and envision something that looks kind of like an elephant made of balloons... and it is breathing fire, because it is unhappy.

You hear the "faint whisper of gossamer wings", and you imagine a bug-thing, with big wings that bounces around from flower to flower.

Unless ONE of us has 'vision' (something that the other cannot have), both images are equally valid, until some OTHER proof arrives.

And therein lies the rub, does it not? There IS no evidence that allows us to know (for certain) WHAT a 'butterfly' is, in our butterfly-laden allegory.

And - while you STATE at the beginning of your premise that there IS a butterfly (and we have to share an understanding of what a 'butterfly' is to even understand THAT) - the allegorical BASIS is nowhere near so certain.
The true nature of the thing is irelevant, especially when you're takling about god, a supernatural thing. We make our relationships with the symbols (images) we hold of god; it's always been this way. That is the relationship that matters. That is why I could never be a Christian.

And, if a teacher cannot get even so much as his name through to the student, who is really at fault?

And, if a man who MAKES an Artificial Intelligence cannot explain that concept to his AI project, who is really at fault?
Everyone (human) has an imagination. With this tool, everyone has the capacity to know god through their image of god.

The symbol stands in place of the thing it represents. We become "as god" when we become the symbol, when we step into its shoes (this is the method of myth). We come to God through Christ, by becoming the Christ through kindness, compassion and suffering, without losing sight of the fact that Christ is our image of god. We come to Mary or Demeter through motherhood. We come to Bachus or Dionysos through self-sacrifice and inhibition. This is the proper use of the "delusion" of god --it is not a falsehood or deceit, anymore than the myth was in those times.

turn on cnn and watch the shit that is happing in the world.


my mom was religious but then she got MS.

The curruption of the church.(sleeping with kids)

the cancer in kids

my friends dad a very nice person gets diabeties

religions saying they get into heaven and other go to hell.

Televangelists making money off religion.

New Orleans post-katrina.


are just some of the reasons why.

Everyone (human) has an imagination. With this tool, everyone has the capacity to know god through their image of god.

The symbol stands in place of the thing it represents. We become "as god" when we become the symbol, when we step into its shoes (this is the method of myth). We come to God through Christ, by becoming the Christ through kindness, compassion and suffering, without losing sight of the fact that Christ is our image of god. We come to Mary or Demeter through motherhood. We come to Bachus or Dionysos through self-sacrifice and inhibition. This is the proper use of the "delusion" of god --it is not a falsehood or deceit, anymore than the myth was in those times.

i dont see how imagination in this way makes a symbol for god. when we imagine things we warp reality into something else completely. being forced to use our imaginations to find god still seems like inventing god entirely...( im going to re-read your posts )

turn on cnn and watch the shit that is happing in the world.


my mom was religious but then she got MS.
All the better reason to have religion: to overcome obstacles. My housemate was suffering from polyneuopathy but instead of bemoaning her fate, she determined that there was a lesson to be learned here and deepened her faith. Eventually, through her efforts of lots and lots of daimoku, she wound up getting the necessary tests to determine that she was suffering from mercury poisoning and started undergoing chelation therapy to take care of it. Not only is she able to walk around without a walker now, she is a much happier, more confident person because of her experience. Religion doesn't determine what happens to you. Religion determines what course you can take to deal with it.

The curruption of the church.(sleeping with kids)

Well, these are other matters entirely. It's a matter of understanding what I would like to think is "the law of media coverage" which can be summed up by stating that the amount of media coverage a story gets is inversely proportional to the frequency with which it occurs in the world. Plane crash - lots of media coverage because they don't happen all that often. Car crash - happens all the time so no media coverage. Priests molesting children - not too many, so lots of coverage. Parents, friends, and relatives molesting children - happens so frequently that it doesn't even appear as a blip on the media radar.

the cancer in kids

my friends dad a very nice person gets diabeties
See quote 1

religions saying they get into heaven and other go to hell.

I think that's more the fault of the interpretation of a religion rather than the religion itself. If you look at John 3:16, it says "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." nowhere in there does it say that someone who does not believe shall burn in hell. For that matter, nowhere in there does it say that whoever doesn't believe shall not have eternal life. There's just that implication and people run with it.

Televangelists making money off religion.

Everyone's gotta make a living. Televangelists are televangelists because they provide a service that people consider valuable. It may not be valuable to you, but there are enough people that consider it valuable enough to contribute to it.

New Orleans post-katrina.

If I can understand the motivation for posting this, I would say that it is for the same reason as quote #1, so I will use reply #1 as the answer.

i dont see how imagination in this way makes a symbol for god. when we imagine things we warp reality into something else completely. being forced to use our imaginations to find god still seems like inventing god entirely...( im going to re-read your posts )
? Imagination has no effect on reality at all. It can't. The things it produces are unreal.

? Imagination has no effect on reality at all. It can't. The things it produces are unreal.
Reality is one of those words that should be used in quotations. Considering an individual's "reality" is constructed from illusions, imagination has a very powerful impact.

Reality is one of those words that should be used in quotations. Considering an individual's "reality" is constructed from illusions, imagination has a very powerful impact.
Yes, it is "as if" reality. So using imagination to create a symbol of god is not "inventing god", it is "inventing" an image of god. Invoking is a better word, someone used it earlier.

I hope this does not cause frustration, but illusions are how people interact with reality. What something "is" and what something "represents" is irrelevant to how one interacts with it. For all practical purposes, illusions are reality.

I hope this does not cause frustration, but illusions are how people interact with reality. What something "is" and what something "represents" is irrelevant to how one interacts with it. For all practical purposes, illusions are reality.
We are talking about imaginings. Like, if I ask you imagine the aforementioned butterfly. It is not an illusion of reality, unless you mistake it for such. Unless you mistake it for reality.

We are talking about imaginings. Like, if I ask you imagine the aforementioned butterfly. It is not an illusion of reality, unless you mistake it for such. Unless you mistake it for reality.

Ok, I'm imagining the butterfly. In order to do this, I am taking all of my experiences with butterflies, combining them with what I think a butterfly should look like and forming an image. I would say that God is imagined the same way. The problem in saying that "God does not exist" is that it invalidates a way of looking at things. How things are and how one imagines them to be are two different things. One can assert reality exists. Fine. One can assert supernatural beings exist. That's fine too. It's when one tries to correlate the two that problems come in. Theists insist that supernatural beings created reality and atheists insist that reality created supernatural beings. About the only thing people can agree on is that reality does exist. How it got there does not change its nature.

Ok, I'm imagining the butterfly. In order to do this, I am taking all of my experiences with butterflies, combining them with what I think a butterfly should look like and forming an image. I would say that God is imagined the same way. The problem in saying that "God does not exist" is that it invalidates a way of looking at things. How things are and how one imagines them to be are two different things. One can assert reality exists. Fine. One can assert supernatural beings exist. That's fine too. It's when one tries to correlate the two that problems come in. Theists insist that supernatural beings created reality and atheists insist that reality created supernatural beings. About the only thing people can agree on is that reality does exist. How it got there does not change its nature.
I am not saying, "God does not exist." To say I imagine an image of god is not to say god does not exist. I am saying, "Whether or not god exists, this image of god is what I interact with, what I have a relationship with. It is what matters to me."

The "supernatural beings creating reality" that theists assert is metaphorical, unless one mistakes it for reality. It's a process called "concretization" that takes an "as if real" thing and considers it to be real. That is the illusion of god, in my opinion.

[QUOTE]All the better reason to have religion: to overcome obstacles. My housemate was suffering from polyneuopathy but instead of bemoaning her fate, she determined that there was a lesson to be learned here and deepened her faith. Eventually, through her efforts of lots and lots of daimoku, she wound up getting the necessary tests to determine that she was suffering from mercury poisoning and started undergoing chelation therapy to take care of it. Not only is she able to walk around without a walker now, she is a much happier, more confident person because of her experience. Religion doesn't determine what happens to you. Religion determines what course you can take to deal with it.


I am glad your housemate is better...but youd think with my mom, religious already that and donating to lupus,cancer and other mental and physical handicaps foundations...my mom would not be god's play thing and he would go after someone more evil.


Well, these are other matters entirely. It's a matter of understanding what I would like to think is "the law of media coverage" which can be summed up by stating that the amount of media coverage a story gets is inversely proportional to the frequency with which it occurs in the world. Plane crash - lots of media coverage because they don't happen all that often. Car crash - happens all the time so no media coverage. Priests molesting children - not too many, so lots of coverage. Parents, friends, and relatives molesting children - happens so frequently that it doesn't even appear as a blip on the media radar.

wether it is covered a little or alot does not effect the situation.Also the fact that these church officials were moved by the pope to different locations in the vatican empire so as to avoid a linch mob by angry people.And i dont think any priests got charged with anything in a court of law.

Ohhh and car crashes happen all the time as well as rapes and molestations..just watch local news chanels not only national news networks(fox,cnn,abc,cbs,nbc,msnbc etc......)



I think that's more the fault of the interpretation of a religion rather than the religion itself. If you look at John 3:16, it says "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." nowhere in there does it say that someone who does not believe shall burn in hell. For that matter, nowhere in there does it say that whoever doesn't believe shall not have eternal life. There's just that implication and people run with it.

that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life

not all religions believe everything in the good book,maybe i mis-stated it but people like me dont get eternal life.Only people who believe the religion in which there is "john 3:16"

Everyone's gotta make a living. Televangelists are televangelists because they provide a service that people consider valuable. It may not be valuable to you, but there are enough people that consider it valuable enough to contribute to it.

If I can understand the motivation for posting this, I would say that it is for the same reason as quote #1, so I will use reply #1 as the answer.

Fine....i still dont respect televangeists at all....or how they go about doing their "mission."

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)

I dont bother with Athiests in their views. Let em be as they wish is my motto. As long as not hurting anyone else. But in the end if they are right, they are merely maggot food. If they are wrong they get satans special welcome home party of pins in the eyes, schorching flesh, etc.... :)

If we religious types are wrong, we are merely maggot food. But before then, we are simply gone...

Athiests of all religious sectors make no sense, they thrive only on causing disharmony.... all will die, why strive so hard to rob people of their beliefe that something better will come after this hell those of us not born with a silver spoon in our mouths experience have to suffer, unless you thrive on bringing your fellow human down ?

To be honest, I personally see no difference between saying you are Athiest and saying you are a satanist. You work towards the same goal after all.

...And the award for the biggest, and most blatantly wrong post of 2005, goes to:


To be honest, I personally see no difference between saying you are Athiest and saying you are a satanist. You work towards the same goal after all.


Congratulations!!

Speech!
Speech!!

I dont bother with Athiests in their views. Let em be as they wish is my motto. As long as not hurting anyone else. But in the end if they are right, they are merely maggot food. If they are wrong they get satans special welcome home party of pins in the eyes, schorching flesh, etc.... :)

If we religious types are wrong, we are merely maggot food. But before then, we are simply gone...

Athiests of all religious sectors make no sense, they thrive only on causing disharmony.... all will die, why strive so hard to rob people of their beliefe that something better will come after this hell those of us not born with a silver spoon in our mouths experience have to suffer, unless you thrive on bringing your fellow human down ?

To be honest, I personally see no difference between saying you are Athiest and saying you are a satanist. You work towards the same goal after all.

If I'm wrong then thats my problem to deal with, doesn't efect you.

If you're wrong, vice versa

I agree that Athiesm has as many idiots preaching how stupid the "other side" is as christianity or any other religion. And to be honest, those in the athiest group tend to offend me more than the rest. Perhaps its them making a bad name for me, or perhaps its just the fact that they seem like bigger idiots to me, dunno. But no, I don't go around telling people who practice a religion they're wrong and stupid. Actually I've grown to usually avoid that conversation at all in most cases. And no, I definately am not among the wealthy golden boy elite. I work my ass off for everything I get, I just don't believe theres some end goal after all of this.

And if you really think Atheism and Satanism are the same thing, do a little more research on both. Satanism is as fictitious to me as Christianity, and oddly enough, I can find about the same amount of logical things I agree with in both the satanic bible as the christian bible. But for the most part, they both seem no different than reading a book on greek mythology to me, aside from the cartoon like "moral of this story".

No; actually, what I am doing is making an example of something Secluded Islands believes/knows is real. My point was not the analogy of reality in terms of god, but one of where to assign idiocy. ;)


The true nature of the thing is irelevant, especially when you're takling about god, a supernatural thing. We make our relationships with the symbols (images) we hold of god; it's always been this way. That is the relationship that matters. That is why I could never be a Christian.

The true nature of things is irrelevent to belief, but makes a very big difference when belief in a thing is used to force changes on others. Christians in the West (and others, elsewhere) attempt to shape the realities of ALL, because of their interpretation of belief. They claim that their perception is unarguably the 'true nature of the thing'... and THAT is the problem.

Individually, you are right. We do all make our own relationships with our own symbols. Unfortunately, your butterfly (or my bubble-elephant) is often assumed to have a real place in the universe... to 'matter' to other people.

Like the Christian that tells me I am going to burn in some artifact-inferno, just because I don't buy his/her particular brand of repackaging mythology.

i dont see how imagination in this way makes a symbol for god. when we imagine things we warp reality into something else completely. being forced to use our imaginations to find god still seems like inventing god entirely...( im going to re-read your posts )

And yet, isn't that what god is?

Myself, I don't know... but Willamena's postulation is at least as good as anything I ever heard from a pulpit or apologist codex.

And yet, isn't that what god is?

Myself, I don't know... but Willamena's postulation is at least as good as anything I ever heard from a pulpit or apologist codex.

I agree with you there. her position is better than most ive heard anywhere...

I agree with you there. his position is better than most ive heard anywhere...
Three things:

One: Willamena is a she. :) (Don't worry, she doesn't usually get offended).

Two: Yes, I have learned a lot from Willamena, she is most wise.

Three: Excellent signature. You killed my father. Prepare to die. :)

Three things:

One: Willamena is a she. :) (Don't worry, she doesn't usually get offended).

Two: Yes, I have learned a lot from Willamena, she is most wise.

Three: Excellent signature. You killed my father. Prepare to die. :)

1- forgive me Willamena, corrections have been made :)

2- yes, very

3- great movie :)

1- forgive me Willamena, corrections have been made :)

2- yes, very

3- great movie :)

See. It IS possible to find agreements on Nationstates. :)

Originally Posted by Willamena
My take on this "web of causality" is that it cannot be held responsible for the actions people choose to make.
Oh I agree with you. The whole point of determining responsibility is to determine who is going to take action. If someone is hit by a car and the car drives off, you could say that the driver should be held responsible, but since they took off and have no intention to take responsibility, it's up to the person that was hit to take responsibility for the situation and seek medical help.

Ultimately, everyone is responsible for everything that happens to them. To assign responsibility to someone or something that can't, or is unwilling, to take action only serves to render people powerless to do anything about their situation.
I am not talking about taking responsible actions to amend the situation, I am talking about being responsible for the accident. The victim is not responsible for the accident, unless he did something to cause the driver to deliberately run him over, and even then not wholly responsible.

But, and this is my claim above, in the case I have stated, the "web of causality" cannot lay blame for the driver's actions on cirumstance. Regardless of his reasons, in this extended scenario he chose to run the other fellow over.

Ultimately everyone is responsible for things that they wilfully do. They are only (partly) responsible for things happening to them where those things are consequences of things that they have done.

I agree with you there. her position is better than most ive heard anywhere...
It's Mythology 101. ;) Okay, maybe 201.

I can recommend some books if you'd like.

I can recommend some books if you'd like.

that would be great... ;)

Athiests of all religious sectors make no sense, they thrive only on causing disharmony.... all will die, why strive so hard to rob people of their beliefe that something better will come after this hell those of us not born with a silver spoon in our mouths experience have to suffer, unless you thrive on bringing your fellow human down ?

To be honest, I personally see no difference between saying you are Athiest and saying you are a satanist. You work towards the same goal after all.

You could equally claim:

Christians of all religious sectors make no sense, they thrive only on causing disharmony... all will die, why strive so hard to convince people that the vast majority of them are going to burn in hellfire, serving only to add to the depression caused by the suffering of this world, while simultaneously looking down on them with a smug (and probably mistaken) sense of personal superiority- remember, one of the things that Jesus (according to the Gospels) hated most was hypocricy.

That would be a rather harsh claim to make, and one which is only true of a minority of Christians, but it's equally valid.

As for Satanism, read the Book of Job. The earliest portrayals of Satan show him as something akin to Yahweh's black ops guy- the guy responsible for doing all the stuff that Yahweh doesn't want to directly attribute to himself. That makes Satanism rather pointless, since it's essentially Judaeo-Christianity one step removed, but it's got nothing to do with Atheism.

You could equally claim:

Christians of all religious sectors make no sense, they thrive only on causing disharmony... all will die, why strive so hard to convince people that the vast majority of them are going to burn in hellfire, serving only to add to the depression caused by the suffering of this world, while simultaneously looking down on them with a smug (and probably mistaken) sense of personal superiority- remember, one of the things that Jesus (according to the Gospels) hated most was hypocricy.

That would be a rather harsh claim to make, and one which is only true of a minority of Christians, but it's equally valid.

As for Satanism, read the Book of Job. The earliest portrayals of Satan show him as something akin to Yahweh's black ops guy- the guy responsible for doing all the stuff that Yahweh doesn't want to directly attribute to himself. That makes Satanism rather pointless, since it's essentially Judaeo-Christianity one step removed, but it's got nothing to do with Atheism.

Indeed, HaSatan is the adversary of MAN, not of 'god'. Hence, in the book of Job, he is given a task to do by 'god', and given limitations he is not allowed to exceed. HaSatan has to ask permission, each time, to increase the level of testing.

The common view was akin to a court-room. Humans were 'tried', with HaSatan as the prosecution.

Judeo-Christian thinking didn't start attributing this godlike ability and desire thing to HaSatan until the Apepi/Seth mythology of Egypt became intertwined with it.

Why, thank you. :) I take it as a compliment.

I agree about Paul... I think he detracts from the message, rather than adding to it. I think he colours a black-and-white approach with his own ideas, many of which I consider contradictory to the 'original' message.

I don't 'dislike' Paul... I just don't consider him more than a commentator.

Exactly, and I read him much like I read your comments, as the comments who has spent a LOT of time considering the text, but taking them on an individual basis for their merits in accordance with what I've read and learned.

All the better reason to have religion: to overcome obstacles. My housemate was suffering from polyneuopathy but instead of bemoaning her fate, she determined that there was a lesson to be learned here and deepened her faith. Eventually, through her efforts of lots and lots of daimoku, she wound up getting the necessary tests to determine that she was suffering from mercury poisoning and started undergoing chelation therapy to take care of it. Not only is she able to walk around without a walker now, she is a much happier, more confident person because of her experience. Religion doesn't determine what happens to you. Religion determines what course you can take to deal with it.


Well, these are other matters entirely. It's a matter of understanding what I would like to think is "the law of media coverage" which can be summed up by stating that the amount of media coverage a story gets is inversely proportional to the frequency with which it occurs in the world. Plane crash - lots of media coverage because they don't happen all that often. Car crash - happens all the time so no media coverage. Priests molesting children - not too many, so lots of coverage. Parents, friends, and relatives molesting children - happens so frequently that it doesn't even appear as a blip on the media radar.


See quote 1


I think that's more the fault of the interpretation of a religion rather than the religion itself. If you look at John 3:16, it says "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." nowhere in there does it say that someone who does not believe shall burn in hell. For that matter, nowhere in there does it say that whoever doesn't believe shall not have eternal life. There's just that implication and people run with it.

Everyone's gotta make a living. Televangelists are televangelists because they provide a service that people consider valuable. It may not be valuable to you, but there are enough people that consider it valuable enough to contribute to it.

If I can understand the motivation for posting this, I would say that it is for the same reason as quote #1, so I will use reply #1 as the answer.

I disagree. My religion is not a crutch. I don't rely on the strength of the Lord to overcome the obstacles in my life, I rely on the strength the Lord gave me. He gave you the same strength whether you recognize it or not. I have never chosen religion as a path because it makes my life easier and I think it's a terrible reason to find religion. I believe it to be true and this is quite simply my reason for adhering to my beliefs. Any other reason, in my opinion is not really belief.

"Why do you believe in God?"
"Because believing gives me strength to overcome obstacles in my life"
"So what you're saying is trick yourself to make yourself stronger. Nice."

The only true reason for believing something, in my not so humble opinion, is because the evidence (I do not mean emperical or verifiable evidence in this instance) you've observed suggests its true. Otherwise, it's simply a uneducated guess and, in some cases, worse than an uneducated guess, since there is certainly evidence that could suggest otherwise.

I disagree. My religion is not a crutch. I don't rely on the strength of the Lord to overcome the obstacles in my life, I rely on the strength the Lord gave me. He gave you the same strength whether you recognize it or not. I have never chosen religion as a path because it makes my life easier and I think it's a terrible reason to find religion. I believe it to be true and this is quite simply my reason for adhering to my beliefs. Any other reason, in my opinion is not really belief.

"Why do you believe in God?"
"Because believing gives me strength to overcome obstacles in my life"
"So what you're saying is trick yourself to make yourself stronger. Nice."

The only true reason for believing something, in my not so humble opinion, is because the evidence (I do not mean emperical or verifiable evidence in this instance) you've observed suggests its true. Otherwise, it's simply a uneducated guess and, in some cases, worse than an uneducated guess, since there is certainly evidence that could suggest otherwise.


Well, for the record, I consider myself to be a Buddhist, which makes me both an atheist and religious at the same time. It's not about making life easier. In some cases, life has become more difficult. It's about being able to live up to one's potential. People do have the capacity to do remarkable things, but unless they have the opportunity to do so, it will be very difficult to believe. That's why I am grateful for my difficulties. If anything, difficulties are an expedient means to develop one's faith. This goes along with the saying "earthly desires lead to enlightenment". I have known lots of people to start on their path for the worst reasons, but in the end, they gain much more than they bargained for.

Had I not discovered Buddhism, I would simply be another atheist that had no spiritual direction. Nowadays, I can sit down and even read the Bible and gain understanding from it. However, I am not bound by the "do it because I said so" mentality. Through faith, study, and practice, I discover that it's reasonable to do something, simply because it is the right thing to do.

As far as "actual proof" of my beliefs go, it's something that I experience every day.

that would be great... ;)
First and foremost I always recommend the book Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image as it traces the images applied to the feminine divinity throughout the Mediterranean area. It draws together ideas from a number of sources into a coherent picture of ancient myth, and has a wealth of references to other sources.

Any of the books of Joseph Campbell are a staple for the student of mythology, and the idea of images of god is actually expanding on the work of Carl Jung in books like Aion. Owen Barfield's Saving the Appearances talks about participation in the myth.

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
What does "mistake" mean..!!? Can you FORCE a person to change? No. It
simply doesn't work that way.

No, can't force them to change.

Yup. Nope. You can't.



Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
The "mistake" is between the person and "god".

How about this situation: Take a true sociopath, who completely, honestly
and "religiously" believes that senseless murder for the fun of it is good.

*snip*

I hate when people hold up extreme and rare abberations as an example. ;)

This sociopathic person (and I actually know a person who thinks of himself as such, though he's a very nice young man) has made a mistake. As you say, his belief and consequential action (his take on things) is a miss in my belief system.

I know. I always have to go to the "reductio ad absurdum" (my latin sucks so
please forgive the mangling) case, to test the boundaries.

OK. But does your (known) sociopath consider his actions as "a miss"..?

First and foremost I always recommend the book Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image as it traces the images applied to the feminine divinity throughout the Mediterranean area. It draws together ideas from a number of sources into a coherent picture of ancient myth, and has a wealth of references to other sources.

Any of the books of Joseph Campbell are a staple for the student of mythology, and the idea of images of god is actually expanding on the work of Carl Jung in books like Aion. Owen Barfield's Saving the Appearances talks about participation in the myth.

thanks Willamena, ive marked them down. ill pick them up next trip to barnes and noble...

OK. But does your (known) sociopath consider his actions as "a miss"..?
He does, and it causes him some distress.

I think we all have a need to be "normal".

I suppose to someone who makes up words (like your brand-new definition of conversation), this is true. See, I'm a bit of a silly person. I thought that a conversation was an exchange of ideas using a common language. Words are defined by a dictionary and the context they are used. This is why I didn't have to phone up the author when I read the book, "On Writing Well", to find out what the hell he was trying to say.

What does "blue" mean? It rather depends on the context, doesn't it?

If the crux of WHY we are discussing something that concerns our mutual
understanding of "blue", we might want to spend some time on coming to a
common understanding of the word, as it applies to our discussion. No?


If you need to further define the words in other than the context of the conversation, then perhaps the difficulty is not with the gap in the language but instead with your understanding of it. It's not to suggest that some words couldn't be more narrowly defined but it certainly shouldn't be a regular necessity to define your terms in conversation.

If there IS a question about the specific definition of a word, or phrase,
during conversation by either party, then that question should be answered
before moving on. To not do so leaves great gaps of ambiguity that will
subvert the understanding of future conversation.


Yes, like someone who thinks that going around murdering people falls under one's personal life. I don't find it interesting. I find it unnecessary. In the US in particular, there has been an ever increasing trend (now associated with PC but starting way before) of not saying what we mean and it dillutes the language. I don't adhere to this ridiculous practice. I will never to say to a panel of congressmen, "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is." I will never tell somone that's been fire that they've been downsized, much like I will never tell someone who's been hired that they've been supersized. I will never call a tax increase, a reduction of the tax refund. I will never to the disabled as differently-abled. I won't call genocide, population control. Ok, the last one was a joke in poor taste.

In the "murder is a part of one's personal life" case, can you see how I might
say that?

To explain: Murder is a personal act (at least if you do it personally). All acts
a person does are a personal choice to do, therefore murder is a part of
one's "personal life" as a "personal act".

Whether you AGREE with my explanation (definition) is your choice, and
doesn't really matter to me. What I want is for you to understand is WHAT I
MEAN,. not for you to AGREE with me.


Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
If my use a word causes you to see that we're not using the same meaning
for the same word, then perhaps we should discuss why that is?

Once again,.. that is the POINT of conversation/discussion. To understand
each other.

Yes, which is why it's necessary to all use the same definitions of words instead of made-up definitions, to allow us to focus on the topic instead of constantly devolving into a discussion of language (Dempublicents1 would love you). I mean, hell let's all just make up new words. It would equally effective. Bippity boppity boo! (I'd explain what bippity boppity boo means, but I'd have to use more words and you know how confusing those crazy words can be.)

I would prefer to discuss the topic rather than your particular reasons for deciding that personal actions can include stabbing someone repeatedly.

If you can find a way to discuss ANY topic with no ambiguity in word usage
between two people, I salute you.


Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
And your "a theist" explanation of your views tells me quite a lot!

..and it gives us something to talk about. For example:

Why is it important to you to see my views about atheists as "silly"?

I don't. Are you actually being serious? All I can say is WOW! I was pointing out that changing the meaning of a word and then appearing to argue with you because you didn't use my made-up word doesn't make any sense. You appear to have missed that. Perhaps, I should have made up the definition of a couple of words in my example. That may have made it clearer.

That would have elicited more questions, certainly. :)


Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
But it IS of import an value, if you want to talk about that.

Conversation and discussion are not about laying out explicitly every little
thing you want to say. It about the interchange between two people.

If one person wants nothing more than to exhibit themselves and their ideas, with no regard for the other, then it's not conversation.

You're right which is why it's so important that you communicate using common language so that you BOTH understand each other. That's why we decided to come up with a common langauge ten thousand years ago. Because nobody knew what I meant when I said ugh unless we all agreed upon a common meaning. Fortunately, some brilliant minds decided to put those agreed upon meanings in a book that is available to all so they we don't have to agree upon some new meaning when we converse. Most people would agree this saves time, but I would hazard a guess that it's because they believe actually communicating is more important to them than being argumentative or discussing the meaning of terms.

I agree entirely. And the only way to find out if we ARE using the same
language (and meanings) is to state what we mean in the way that WE each
understand it, and ask questions about any differences in meaning that seem
to present themselves in conversation.

You do know of the concept of "approximation"? Every definition has a range
of meanings, depending on context, custom, and individual variation.

The "books of language" have many alternate manings for the same sounds,
and spellings. Once again,.. it's usually better to discuss the matter at hand
with words that hold the same meaning to either side,.. and when the "same
word" seems to have different meanings for the conversational parties,
establishing what is "really" meant is a good idea.

If you simply don't want to understand what your conversation partner
means, because it's "too hard and they should KNOW what I mean!", then
may you have fun in your conversational travels. :)

Now,.. what were we actually talking about, again..!?

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
OK. But does your (known) sociopath consider his actions as "a miss"..?


He does, and it causes him some distress.

I think we all have a need to be "normal".

Oh..!

Well, he's not a true sociopath then, though possibly very close to one. If he
DOES consider his actions a miss, then his "god" WILL punish him, as his god
has no choice but to do what ALL gods do, which is their (singular) job,..
which is to judge men's "souls".

But does YOUR god judge his "soul"? Actually,.. yes,.. he does,... but is it any
of YOUR concern? No,.. because god's job is not your concern.

But what IS your job, as a human being? To judge men's behavior. And just
as god's inherent and inescapable job is to judge men's souls, yours is to
judge men's behavior.

Originally Posted by Willamena
That's incorrect, then. God has no wants.

how does one come up that conclusion though? if we dont have a hard concept of god how can we understand its thinking?

I do have a hard concept of god. And god does not think. He ( DON'T GET
HUNG UP ON THE PRONOUNS!!!) has no need to think.

God is NOT a creature.


How does a buttefly inform you of its existence?

i can see it, i can touch it, ect. butterflys are apart of this world we live in. if i want to see/find a butterfly, i can walk to the park and sit down in the grass.

I see god everywhere. Literally. God is not PART of anything. God IS.


I know.

I think those people are closest to the mark who say that it doesn't take someone talking to you (it doesn't come from without), but rather, it takes you listening (it comes from within).

if it comes from within then there are no guidlines. there would be no mistakes either. the same realization by two people may be understood in two completely different ways. this idea makes me think that no matter how hard one tries, we will always be lost in our thinking and will never find the truth...

If you are "trying hard", what are you trying to DO, and what does it mean to
do so "hard"?

You seem to say you are trying to "find the truth". The truth of what?

If there IS a question about the specific definition of a word, or phrase,
during conversation by either party, then that question should be answered
before moving on. To not do so leaves great gaps of ambiguity that will
subvert the understanding of future conversation.



In the "murder is a part of one's personal life" case, can you see how I might
say that?

To explain: Murder is a personal act (at least if you do it personally). All acts
a person does are a personal choice to do, therefore murder is a part of
one's "personal life" as a "personal act".

Whether you AGREE with my explanation (definition) is your choice, and
doesn't really matter to me. What I want is for you to understand is WHAT I
MEAN,. not for you to AGREE with me.



If you can find a way to discuss ANY topic with no ambiguity in word usage
between two people, I salute you.



That would have elicited more questions, certainly. :)



I agree entirely. And the only way to find out if we ARE using the same
language (and meanings) is to state what we mean in the way that WE each
understand it, and ask questions about any differences in meaning that seem
to present themselves in conversation.

You do know of the concept of "approximation"? Every definition has a range
of meanings, depending on context, custom, and individual variation.

The "books of language" have many alternate manings for the same sounds,
and spellings. Once again,.. it's usually better to discuss the matter at hand
with words that hold the same meaning to either side,.. and when the "same
word" seems to have different meanings for the conversational parties,
establishing what is "really" meant is a good idea.

If you simply don't want to understand what your conversation partner
means, because it's "too hard and they should KNOW what I mean!", then
may you have fun in your conversational travels. :)

Now,.. what were we actually talking about, again..!?

If you simply don't want to use context to understand meanings like you do with books, newspapers, theses, public debates, etc. then may you have fun with your conversational travels. Personally, I have found little difficulty understanding what a book, paper, article, etc. written in the same language I speak meant. Somehow I managed to do this without discussing the meaning of their terms with the authors. I wonder if that's because there is already a mutually agreed upon set of terms in a book called a dictionary. Perhaps that's it.

I came to the conclusions I hold through a number of paths. I could launch into a long discussion of my philosophies, but I think it simplest to say I assume a few things about the world that seem to hold up under any circumstances, like...
- god, like nature, is an unthinking thing; it has no intent, no want, no need, no reason... it just is.


hmm. this description of god is not pleasing at all. a god that didnt care, has no emotion, no understanding, no love, no desire, no comunication. (just asking, is your idea of god one of a creator? as to say, that god is what created the universe, humanity ect?) if so, then what compelled this type of god do such a thing to create. what pleasure would it have gained? how could a god such as this ever create?



Your need for a "creature god", a god who is a creature, simply disqualifies
you from understanding my god. Period. :)

At this point, your word for god and mine are simply one sound with two
meanings.

May you enjoy, or do whatever you will, with your word "god". :)

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
What would this "encountered anything" look like that would convince you?

PLEASE answer this question, because it is central to understanding why
atheists are atheists.

Atheists are atheists for the same reason that Christians are Christians, just in reverse.

The Christian sees 'something', at some point, that allows him (or her) to accept the possibility that there might be some galactic space spook behind it all.

The Atheist has yet to see anything that allows him (or her) to make such a leap.

I don't see any galactic space spook. Just god. :)

But,.. I did "experience" something that lead me to god..! And that something
was the realization that it was better to be able to act than to not act, and
that which makes it easier for me to act (the choose, to "cross") I call god.

Creatures (creations) are easily banished if they do not bite, and no god
bites.

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
Perhaps god DOES inform you of his existence, and you fail to understand?

And, if a teacher cannot get even so much as his name through to the
student, who is really at fault?

God is not a teacher. God's job is to be adored, and his creations learned
from. The "teachers" are his creations, not himself.


And, if a man who MAKES an Artificial Intelligence cannot explain that concept to his AI project, who is really at fault?

Not quite suer what you mean by that?

Care to explain further? :)

Actually, Atheism IS the default setting. It's like 'nature' versus 'nurture', however.

You are 'born' as an atheist. You do not know. You do not believe. It isn't until you are exposed to the possibility of god... and to the specfics of a GIVEN god, that you might start to become a believer.

Ever notice that children raised as Christians are likely to be either Christians or Athiest/Agnostic? They don't spontaneously convert to Islam or Judaism, until they are exposed to something about that faith.

The same, obviously, happens in reverse.... the Muslim rarely spontaneously becomes a Christian, without SOME form of intervention.


And - for me, that is pretty much the strongest evidence AGAINST any gods being 'real'... the fact that people accept the gods they are raised to accept, and don't acquire religion through 'divine intervention'.

For me - that'd be enough. If millions of people, all over the world, spontaneously discovered the SAME god, without (earthly) prompting of any kind, I'd think that a pretty good evidence.

All children have a sense of wonder at the world.

That joy, and the fact that they don't run in panic at the natural world
naturally unless through learned experience, is god "taking care" of children.

That is the true god. We all have this inherent god from before birth until
death. That is the true god. And the world over, this god is worshipped
spontaneously and continually, until interfered with by society.

The metaphors that are imposed for various social reasons, and called god,
are not god, but an interpretation of god. They point to various aspects of
god-stuff, but the only actual pointer to god is the feeling of wonder and
confort at really be ing in the world, and knowing it as a child does.

This conception of god, of course, doesn't give us much to talk about if you
think god is some "big goofball in the sky who likes to punish and smite and
stuff".

Oh..!

Well, he's not a true sociopath then, though possibly very close to one. If he
DOES consider his actions a miss, then his "god" WILL punish him, as his god
has no choice but to do what ALL gods do, which is their (singular) job,..
which is to judge men's "souls".

But does YOUR god judge his "soul"? Actually,.. yes,.. he does,... but is it any
of YOUR concern? No,.. because god's job is not your concern.

But what IS your job, as a human being? To judge men's behavior. And just
as god's inherent and inescapable job is to judge men's souls, yours is to
judge men's behavior.
"My" god does not judge people at all. "My" god is my image of god. I might invoke some aspect of judge in my image of god, if I'm feeling hurt or trod upon, but I don't think that's happened yet, and I don't anticipate it happening. It's not me.

I won't deny that some of us have the job of judging, and I thoroughly enjoy watching such people on the big screen, munching on my popcorn. My job is just to munch popcorn.

turn on cnn and watch the shit that is happing in the world.


my mom was religious but then she got MS.

The curruption of the church.(sleeping with kids)

the cancer in kids

my friends dad a very nice person gets diabeties

religions saying they get into heaven and other go to hell.

Televangelists making money off religion.

New Orleans post-katrina.


are just some of the reasons why.

Do you wish to talk about any of these things, Morvonia?

1. How many people have actually changed their minds because of anything said on this thread?

2. How many people think they can actually change anybody's minds by responding to this thread?

3. How many people here are just angry about one thing that got said by another, and now are trying to extract some form of retribution?

The only way we'll ever get anywhere is if we stop arguing, and start :fluffle:

As smart as you're trying to look, the person who you're trying to convince thinks you're an idiot.

Your need for a "creature god", a god who is a creature, simply disqualifies
you from understanding my god. Period. :)
Sure, now....

The only way we'll ever get anywhere is if we stop arguing, and start :fluffle:
Good thing no one is arguing. We're just discussing our varying ideas.

Originally Posted by Willamena
Everyone (human) has an imagination. With this tool, everyone has the capacity to know god through their image of god.

The symbol stands in place of the thing it represents. We become "as god" when we become the symbol, when we step into its shoes (this is the method of myth). We come to God through Christ, by becoming the Christ through kindness, compassion and suffering, without losing sight of the fact that Christ is our image of god. We come to Mary or Demeter through motherhood. We come to Bachus or Dionysos through self-sacrifice and inhibition. This is the proper use of the "delusion" of god --it is not a falsehood or deceit, anymore than the myth was in those times.

i dont see how imagination in this way makes a symbol for god. when we imagine things we warp reality into something else completely. being forced to use our imaginations to find god still seems like inventing god entirely...( im going to re-read your posts )

What is the meeting point of invention/creation and discovery?

When one discovers a natural law, which is not a thing in itself but a "concept" that informs (causes the creation of) things, have you not also invented/created something that is of use to you,.. as a tool..?

God, to me, is this kind of tool.

The true nature of things is irrelevent to belief, but makes a very big difference when belief in a thing is used to force changes on others. Christians in the West (and others, elsewhere) attempt to shape the realities of ALL, because of their interpretation of belief. They claim that their perception is unarguably the 'true nature of the thing'... and THAT is the problem.

..and this merely points out how a tool can be misused. Using the sharp knife
for murder does not invalidate the sharp knife as a good tool. It simply makes
it a good tool for a bad purpose.


Individually, you are right. We do all make our own relationships with our own symbols. Unfortunately, your butterfly (or my bubble-elephant) is often assumed to have a real place in the universe... to 'matter' to other people.

Like the Christian that tells me I am going to burn in some artifact-inferno, just because I don't buy his/her particular brand of repackaging mythology.

Such a person (this christian of yours) should be severly queried about the
location of said "inferno", by what means you will be taken there, and what it
is that is going to actually "burn" in such a place..!

I'd really like to know where this place is? Most people just point "down",
but "down" just doesn't do it for me..!! :)

The true nature of things is irrelevent to belief, but makes a very big difference when belief in a thing is used to force changes on others. Christians in the West (and others, elsewhere) attempt to shape the realities of ALL, because of their interpretation of belief. They claim that their perception is unarguably the 'true nature of the thing'... and THAT is the problem.

Individually, you are right. We do all make our own relationships with our own symbols. Unfortunately, your butterfly (or my bubble-elephant) is often assumed to have a real place in the universe... to 'matter' to other people.

Like the Christian that tells me I am going to burn in some artifact-inferno, just because I don't buy his/her particular brand of repackaging mythology.
I agree.

There's a process, when you're sitting in a movie theatre munching on your popcorn, called "suspension of disbelief." In order to thoroughly enjoy the movie, you have to be able to suspend all disbelief and forget, for a little while, that you are sitting in a movie theatre watching a two-dimensional screen. You "lose yourself in the story." The mistaking of myth for real is not inherently a bad thing (in fact, can be a very useful ability) as long as you can voluntarily step out of that mode at any time. Like most things, it's how it is used by some humans that is bad.

..and this merely points out... *snip*
Hey, we chose the same post to reply to!

Sinchronisity abounds. :)

Indeed, HaSatan is the adversary of MAN, not of 'god'. Hence, in the book of Job, he is given a task to do by 'god', and given limitations he is not allowed to exceed. HaSatan has to ask permission, each time, to increase the level of testing.

The common view was akin to a court-room. Humans were 'tried', with HaSatan as the prosecution.

Judeo-Christian thinking didn't start attributing this godlike ability and desire thing to HaSatan until the Apepi/Seth mythology of Egypt became intertwined with it.

There's only one god. That's rather a definitional requirement of monotheism,
and in my particular definition, of theism as well.

(( The reason is, for me, that there can only BE one god, just as there can
only be one "inside" of a thing. ))

Your HaSatan sounds like a marvelous story device..! What is the obverse
equivalent? Is there an anti-HaSatan, who acts as "defense counsel"..?

If you simply don't want to use context to understand meanings like you do with books, newspapers, theses, public debates, etc. then may you have fun with your conversational travels. Personally, I have found little difficulty understanding what a book, paper, article, etc. written in the same language I speak meant. Somehow I managed to do this without discussing the meaning of their terms with the authors. I wonder if that's because there is already a mutually agreed upon set of terms in a book called a dictionary. Perhaps that's it.

A book you read is a statement. You read it with the intention of "reading it",
not "asking questions of it",.. though it may raise questions that you can
follow-up on by querying the author, or discussing with other sources.

The point of a conversation, as opposed to a "reading", is to have a flowing
interchange with another person in (quasi-) real time.

The tools of conversation are statement, questioning, and answering.

I prefer to use the appropriate tools in the appropriate venue of
communication to get what I want from the experience, which is
understanding of others minds.

If you have no need to explore what other people mean by what they say,
and simply know others minds by the words they use without further
inquisition into their subtleties of meaning, then I congratulate you..!

..though, in actuallity,.. I would pity such an uninquisitive mind.

Now,.. either get back to the subject (which I've utterly forgotten between
us) and/or enjoy the fora in your own way. :)

YES THEY ARE. You clearly do not understand what hypocarcay means. It means that when you hold up your standards to others and they dont measure up too well, if you yourself are mesured by those same standards, you dont measure up well either and thus are not in a position to judge.



Actually its speck and most likely refers to a dust particle created as a result of cutting wood with a saw (he was a carpinter). The size point was made because (as I have said) that its redicoulous to criticise the minor sin of one type in another when you yourself commit that same sin in a major way.



Measure is also used as a unit of mesurement. An inch is a measure. What it means is that the mesuring rod used to mesure others by you will also be used to mesure you and then we'll see how you shape up.

Wow, talking about bending the words to mean what you want them to mean. Like I said, you keep worshipping Paul and I'll keep worshipping Jesus and we will each see how that works out.

The way you say measure is used does not make sense in context. Also, it would not be hypocracy if I measured you and I by the same standards and judged that you and I both do not measure up. It doesn't matter though. I don't judge you by any standards as I was directed not to by the words of Jesus Christ. There is only one who has the right and ability to judge your actions against the true and objective rules of our lord and I'm not him and neither are you.

You are really trying to excuse your acts of judgement and more power to you. However, I choose to follow the clear direction by Jesus to not judge. Jesus was a clear speaker. The only way you can argue this point is if you amend his teachings with the teachings of Paul. I refuse to do so. You do as you see fit.

Well, for the record, I consider myself to be a Buddhist, which makes me both an atheist and religious at the same time. It's not about making life easier. In some cases, life has become more difficult. It's about being able to live up to one's potential. People do have the capacity to do remarkable things, but unless they have the opportunity to do so, it will be very difficult to believe. That's why I am grateful for my difficulties. If anything, difficulties are an expedient means to develop one's faith. This goes along with the saying "earthly desires lead to enlightenment". I have known lots of people to start on their path for the worst reasons, but in the end, they gain much more than they bargained for.

Excellent..!! God does not throw complications/bad-stuff in our way. God's
creations do.

And those trials are best surmounted by recognizing that any of god's
creations can be "manipulated" by other of god's creations, if only we pay
attention to reality, and don't let ourselves get "stuck" blaming that which is
utterly blameless.

Cursing god, and not doing the one thing that god deserves, which is only
the price of wonder, is nothing more than the knife wielder turning the knife
on himself.


Had I not discovered Buddhism, I would simply be another atheist that had no spiritual direction. Nowadays, I can sit down and even read the Bible and gain understanding from it. However, I am not bound by the "do it because I said so" mentality. Through faith, study, and practice, I discover that it's reasonable to do something, simply because it is the right thing to do.

As far as "actual proof" of my beliefs go, it's something that I experience every day.

There are those who would ask what your "proof" consists of.

I'm not one of them. :) Hae ae ae ae....

A book you read is a statement. You read it with the intention of "reading it",
not "asking questions of it",.. though it may raise questions that you can
follow-up on by querying the author, or discussing with other sources.

The point of a conversation, as opposed to a "reading", is to have a flowing
interchange with another person in (quasi-) real time.

The tools of conversation are statement, questioning, and answering.

I prefer to use the appropriate tools in the appropriate venue of
communication to get what I want from the experience, which is
understanding of others minds.

If you have no need to explore what other people mean by what they say,
and simply know others minds by the words they use without further
inquisition into their subtleties of meaning, then I congratulate you..!

..though, in actuallity,.. I would pity such an uninquisitive mind.

Now,.. either get back to the subject (which I've utterly forgotten between
us) and/or enjoy the fora in your own way. :)

It's a little sad that you think the only way to be inquisitive is to be argumentive around terminology. In a conversation, we communicate in the same way we do in books. In books I have no need to question the meaning because it is made available to me through proper use of language. In a conversation, the same is true. Instead of further exploring the language, I further explore the topic at hand. I spend more addressing the topic while you waste time arguing about semantics (though in this case you've wasted both of ours). Now, which of us is to be pitied for inability to explore the actual topic?

Why are people atheist, sorry don't know if this question has been asked.

"My" god does not judge people at all. "My" god is my image of god. I might invoke some aspect of judge in my image of god, if I'm feeling hurt or trod upon, but I don't think that's happened yet, and I don't anticipate it happening. It's not me.

I won't deny that some of us have the job of judging, and I thoroughly enjoy watching such people on the big screen, munching on my popcorn. My job is just to munch popcorn.

:)

When you find someone's behavior "bad", you judge them.

When you find someone's belief's "bad", your god judges them.

You can not help judging people's behavior and beliefs. How you choose to
act on how you judge these characteristics is "your choice [your 'cross']", and is a description of your beliefs, and your god.

But,.. you are more than a spectator of your life. You are the prime player,
and the audience in judgement (your "critic") is your god.

Why are people atheist, sorry don't know if this question has been asked.

Because I a)was never brought up in a religious household, and was even genuinely surprised that there are places that have more believers than non-believers, when I first found that out, and b) I believe that I am in control of my own life, with no external influences past or present, and c) I believe it to be illogical.

And yes, that question has been asked.

Why are people atheist, sorry don't know if this question has been asked.

Because religion is the easy way out.

It's a little sad that you think the only way to be inquisitive is to be argumentive around terminology. In a conversation, we communicate in the same way we do in books. In books I have no need to question the meaning because it is made available to me through proper use of language. In a conversation, the same is true. Instead of further exploring the language, I further explore the topic at hand. I spend more addressing the topic while you waste time arguing about semantics (though in this case you've wasted both of ours). Now, which of us is to be pitied for inability to explore the actual topic?

And you infer "agrumentativeness" where there is none.

I don't argue. As per: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=argue

I state my understanding of what we are discussing. I have no interest in
persuading you (or anyone) in any way at all. I'm merely making my opinion
known to you on the subject at hand.

I'm not now being "argumentative". I'm attempting to get you to understand
my opinion as to, for example, why conversation and "reading" are not the
same in how I (at any rate) practice them.

Reading is NOT a conversation, and I do each differently.

If you do each of them the same way,.. I bid you much enjoyment in your
reading and conversation. Period. :D